Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1999
Seventh Edition
Seismology Committee
Structural Engineers Association of California
Preface
Copyright
Editor
1999
Publisher
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
555 University Avenue, Suite 126
Sacramento, California 95825-6510
Telephone: 916-427-3647
Fax: 916-568-0677
E-mail: seaoc@aol.com
Web address: www.seaint.org
The Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) is a professional association of four member organizations representing the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in
keeping with SEAOCs stated mission to advance the
structural engineering profession; to provide the public
with structures of dependable performance through the application of state of the art structural engineering principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional
structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard
mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage
research; to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to
maintain the honor and dignity of the profession.
Print History
First Edition, 1959
First Edition with Commentary, 1960
First Edition Revised, 1963
Second Edition without Commentary, 1966
Second Edition with Commentary, 1967
Second Edition with Commentary and Addendum, 1968
Third Edition with Commentary, 1973
Fourth Edition with Partial Commentary, 1974
Commentary for Fourth Edition, 1975
Fourth Edition Revised, 1980
Fifth Edition with Tentative Commentary, 1988
Fifth Edition Revised with Commentary, 1990
Sixth Edition with Commentary, 1996
Seventh Edition with Commentary, 1999
Disclaimer
Neither SEAOC, nor its member organization, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed
to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the
use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication.
Special Thanks
Special thanks to Degenkolb Engineers of San Francisco
for generously providing the AutoCAD support that made
most of graphics in this volume possible.
ii
September 1999
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
Changes in this Edition of the Blue Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii
Chapter 1
General Requirements for
Design and Construction of
Earthquake-Resistive Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
101
102
103
104
105
September 1999
iii
Table of Contents
105.6
Horizontal Distribution of Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
105.7
Horizontal Torsional Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
105.8
Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
105.9
Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
105.10
Story Drift Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
105.11
Vertical Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106
UBC 1631 Dynamic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.2
Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.3
Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.4
Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
106.5
Response Spectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
106.6
Time-History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
107
UBC 1632 Lateral Force on Elements of Structures,
Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported
by Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
107.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
107.2
Design for Total Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
107.3
Specifying Lateral Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
107.4
Relative Motion of Equipment Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
107.5
Alternative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
108
UBC 1633 Detailed Systems Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .18
108.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
108.2
Structural Framing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
109
UBC 1634
Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.2
Lateral Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.3
Rigid Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.4
Tanks With Supported Bottoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
109.5
Other Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
110
UBC 1635 Earthquake Recording Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . .23
111
UBC 1636 Site Categorization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
111.1
UBC 1636.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
111.2
UBC 1636.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
112
UBC 3400 Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
112.1
UBC 3401 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
112.2
UBC 3402 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
112.3
UBC 3403 Additions, Alterations, or Repairs . . . . . . . . . .25
112.4
UBC 3040 Moved Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
112.5
UBC 3405 Change In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
113149 Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
150
UBC 1654 Appendix Chapter 16, Division IV
Earthquake Regulations for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . .27
151
UBC 1655 Definitions for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . .27
152
UBC 1656 Symbols and Notations for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
153
UBC 1657 Criteria Selection for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
153.1
Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
153.2
Stability of the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
153.3
Occupancy Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
iv
September 1999
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Table of Contents
153.4
Configuration Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
153.5
Selection of Lateral Response Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
UBC 1658 Static Lateral Response Procedure for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
154.1
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
154.2
Deformation Characteristics of the Isolation System . . . . . . 31
154.3
Minimum Lateral Displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
154.4
Minimum Lateral Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
154.5
Vertical Distribution of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
154.6
Drift Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
UBC 1659 Dynamic Lateral Response Procedure for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.1
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.2
Isolation System and Structural Elements at or
Below the Isolation Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.3
Structural Elements Above the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . 33
155.4
Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
155.5
Mathematical Model for Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . 34
155.6
Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
155.7
Design Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
155.8
Drift Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
UBC 1660 Lateral Load on Elements of Structures
and Nonstructural Components Supported by
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
156.1
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
156.2
Forces and Displacements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
UBC 1661 Detailed Systems Requirements for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
157.1
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
157.2
Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
157.3
Structural System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
UBC 1662 Nonbuilding Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . 37
UBC 1663 Foundations of Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . 37
UBC 1664 Design and Construction Review for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
160.1
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
160.2
Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
UBC 1665 Required Tests of Isolation System for
Seismic-Isolated Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
161.1
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
161.2
Prototype Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
161.3
Determination of Force-Deflection Characteristics. . . . . . . . 39
161.4
System Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
161.5
Design Properties of the Isolation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 2
Structural Tests and Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
201
202
General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
202.1
Special Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
202.2
Special Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
September 1999
Table of Contents
202.3
202.4
202.5
202.6
Chapter 3
Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
301
302
Chapter 4
Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
401
402
Chapter 5
Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
501
502
Chapter 6
Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
601
602
vi
September 1999
602.2
602.3
602.4
Table of Contents
Chapter 7
Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
701
702
General
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Recommended Modifications to the 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
702.1
UBC Division IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
702.2
Modifications to AISC-Seismic 97Part I, LRFD. . . . . . . . . 73
702.3
Modification to UBC Division V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
702.4
Modification to AISC-Seismic 97, Part III-ASD. . . . . . . . . . . 75
Chapter 8
Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
801
802
General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
802.1
Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms in
Seismic Zones 3 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Chapter 9
Other Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
901
902
903
General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Other Sheathing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Commentary
CHAPTER 1
C102
C103
C104
General
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C101.1
Scope and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C101.2
Minimum Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C101.3
Seismic and Wind Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C101.4
Continuous Load Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C101.5
Basis for Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C101.6
Computer Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C101.7 UBC 1612 Combinations of Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
UBC 1627 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
UBC 1628 Symbols and Notations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
UBC 1629 Criteria Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C104.1
UBC 1629.1 Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C104.2
Occupancy Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
September 1999
vii
Table of Contents
C104.3
Soil Profile Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
C104.4
Site Seismic Hazard Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
C104.5
Configuration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
C104.6
Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
C104.7
Height Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
C104.8
Selection of Lateral Force Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
C104.9
System Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
C104.10 Alternative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
C105 UBC 1630 Minimum Design Lateral Forces and
Related Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
C105.1
Earthquake Loads and Modeling Requirements. . . . . . . . .101
C105.2
Static Force Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
C105.3
Determination of Seismic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
C105.4
Combinations of Structural Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.5
Vertical Distribution of Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.6
Horizontal Distribution of Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.7
Horizontal Torsional Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
C105.8
Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
C105.9
Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
C105.10 Story Drift Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
C105.11 Vertical Component of Seismic Forces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
C106 UBC 1631 Dynamic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
C106.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
C106.2
Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
C106.3
Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
C106.4
Description of Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
C106.5
Response Spectrum Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
C106.6
Time-History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
C107 UBC 1632 Lateral Force on Elements of Structures,
Nonstructural Components, and Equipment Supported
by Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
C107.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
C107.2
UBC 1632.2 Design for Total Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . .128
C107.3 Specifying Lateral Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
C107.4
Relative Motion of Equipment Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . .130
C107.5
UBC 1632.5 Alternative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
C107.6
Additional Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
C108 UBC 1633 Detailed Systems Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . .131
C108.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
C108.2
Structural Framing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
C109 UBC 1634 Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
C109.1
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
C109.2
Lateral Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C109.3
Rigid Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C109.4
No Commentary provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C109.5
Other Nonbuilding Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
C110-C111 Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
C112 UBC 3400 Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
C113C149 Reserved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
viii
September 1999
Table of Contents
C150
September 1999
ix
Table of Contents
Chapter 2
Structural Tests and Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
C201
C202
Chapter 3
Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
C301
C302
Chapter 4
Reinforced Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
C401 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C401.1 Comparison to Upcoming ACI Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402 Recommended Modifications to 1997 UBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.1
Definitions of n and v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.2
Welded Splices and Mechanically
Connected Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.3
Flexural Members of Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
C402.4
Frame Members Subjected to Bending and Axial Loads . .184
C402.5
Strong-Column/Weak-Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
C402.6
Column Lap Splice Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C402.7
Lap Splices and Reinforcement Development
for Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C402.8
Shear Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C402.9
Reinforcement Ratio for Walls and Diaphragms. . . . . . . . .186
C402.10 Interaction of Wall Sections and Flanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
C402.11 Boundary Zone Requirements by Strain Calculation . . . . .187
C402.12 Wall Areas Where Special Boundary Zone Detailing
is Not Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
C402.13 Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beam Detailing . . . . . . . .188
C403 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
C403.1
UBC 1909.2.3 Load Combinations Including
Earthquake Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
C403.2
UBC 1909.3.4 and UBC 1921.2.3 Strength Reduction
Factors, f, as Applied to Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
C403.3
UBC 1921.2.4.2 Lightweight Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
C403.4
UBC 1921.2.5 Reinforcement in Members Resisting
Earthquake Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
C404 Flexural Members of Frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
C404.1
UBC 1921.3.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
C404.2
UBC 1921.3.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . .190
x
September 1999
Table of Contents
C404.3
C405
C406
C407
C408
C409
Chapter 5
Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C501
C502
Chapter 6
Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
C601
C602
September 1999
xi
Table of Contents
C603
C604
C605
C606
C602.2
General Design Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
C602.3
Design of Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
C602.4
Strength Design of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213
UBC 2105 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
General Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C604.1
UBC 2106.1.12.4 Special Provisions for Seismic
Zones 3 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
C604.2
UBC 2106.2.14 Placement of Embedded Anchor Bolts .214
C604.3
Working Stress Design and Strength Design
Requirements for Reinforced Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
Working Stress Design of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
Strength Design of Masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
C606.1
UBC 2108.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
C606.2
UBC 2108.1.2 Quality Assurance Provisions . . . . . . . . .215
C606.3
UBC 2108.1.4 Design Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
Chapter 7
Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
C701
C702
General
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
Recommended Modifications to the 1997 UBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
C702.1
UBC Division IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
C702.2
Modifications to AISC-Seismic 97 Part I, LRFD . . . . . . . . .221
C702.3
Modification to UBC Division V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
C702.4
Modification to AISC-Seismic 97, Part III-ASD . . . . . . . . . .226
C703 Moment Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
C703.1
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
C703.2
Through-Thickness (T-T) Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227
C703.3
K-Area Brittleness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228
C703.4
Strength Deterioration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
C703.5
Strong-Column/ Weak-Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
C703.6
Interpretation and Acceptance of Test Results . . . . . . . . . .230
C703.7
Parent Metal Material Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230
C703.8
Effects of Significantly Overstrength Material and
Variation of Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
C703.9
Panel Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
C703.10 Continuity Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233
C703.11 Lateral Bracing of Moment Frame Connections
That Move the Plastic Hinge Away From the Column . . . .233
C703.12 Quality Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234
C703.13 Appropriate Redundancy "rho" Factors for Steel Frames. .235
C704.1 Braced Frame Requirements SCBF and OCBF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235
C704.1
AISC 13.1/UBC 2213.9.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235
C704.2
AISC 13.2a/UBC 2213.9.2.1 Slenderness of
Bracing Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
C704.3
AISC 13.2c/UBC 2213.9.2.2 Lateral Force Distribution . . .237
xii
September 1999
Table of Contents
Chapter 8
Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
C801
C802
C803
C804
C805
Chapter 9
Other Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
C901
C902
C903
C904
C905
C906
C907
September 1999
xiii
Table of Contents
Appendices
Appendix A
Seismic Zone Coefficient
and Near Source Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Appendix B
Soil Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Appendix C
Development of the R Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Appendix D
Dynamic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Appendix E
Deformation Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Appendix F
Engineering Implications of the
1994 Northridge Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Appendix G
Conceptual Framework for
Performance-Based Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Appendix H
Tentative Guidelines for
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Appendix I
Tentative Guidelines for
Performance-Based Seismic Engineering . . . . . . . 361
Part A Strength Design Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .367
Part B Force-Displacement Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .389
xiv
September 1999
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 104-1
Table 104-2
Table 104-3
Table 104-4
Table 104-5
Table 104-6
Table 104-7
Table 104-8
Table 104-9
Table 104-10
Table 104-11
Table 104-12
Table 104-13
Table 152-1
Table 152-2
Table 152-3
Table 152-4
Table 152-5
Table 702-1
Table 702-2
Table 802-1
Table C104-1
Table C104-2
Table C104-3
LRFD Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
ASD Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Maximum Diaphragm Dimension Ratios (UBC Table 23-II-G) . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Pre-Northridge Earthquake Records Close to Fault Rupture . . . . . . . . . . . 158
1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (Sites <= 15 km of Fault Rupture) . . 159
Equations for Determining Near-Source Factors Na and Nv . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Table C154-1
Table C155-1
Table C606-1
Table AppA-1
Table AppA-2
Table AppD-1
Table AppF-1
Table AppG-1
Table AppG-2
September 1999
41
41
42
43
43
44
46
51
52
54
54
xv
List of Tables
Table AppG-3
Table AppG-4
Table AppG-5
Table AppG-6
Table AppH-1
Table AppH-2
Table AppIA-1
Table AppIA-2
xvi
329
329
330
331
345
345
377
378
380
381
382
384
385
406
406
407
408
409
410
411
432
432
September 1999
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 104-1
Figure 104-2
Figure C104-1
Figure C104-3
Figure C104-4
Figure C104-5
Figure C104-6
Figure C104-7
Figure C105-1
163
164
165
166
Figure C105-2
Figure C105-3
Figure C107-1
Figure C107-2
167
167
168
Figure C108-1
Figure C109-1
Figure C109-2
Figure C151-1
Figure C151-2
Figure C151-3
Figure C402-2
Figure C402-3
Figure C402-4
Figure C407-1
Figure C407-2
Figure C407-3
Figure C407-4
Figure C606-1
Figure C702-1
Figure C704-1
Figure C704-2
Figure C704-3
Figure C704-5
Figure C704-4
Figure C104-2
September 1999
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
205
206
220
248
248
249
249
250
250
xvii
List of Figures
Figure C704-6
Figure C804-1
Figure C804-2
Figure C804-3
Figure C804-4
Figure AppC-1
Figure AppD-1
250
264
265
265
265
284
290
Figure AppE-1
Figure AppE-2
Figure AppF-1
Figure AppF-2
Figure AppF-3
Figure AppG-1
Figure AppG-2
Figure AppG-3
Figure AppCH-1
Figure AppCH-2
Figure AppCH-3
Figure AppCH-4
Figure AppCH-5
Figure AppCH-6
Figure AppCH-7
Figure AppCH-8
Figure AppCH-9
Figure AppIA-1
Figure AppIA-2
297
297
315
315
316
332
333
334
356
357
357
357
358
358
358
359
359
386
Figure AppIA-3
Figure AppIB-1
Figure AppIB-2
Figure AppIB-3
Figure AppIB-4
Figure AppIB-5
Figure AppIB-6a
387
388
412
413
414
415
416
417
Figure AppIB-6b
Figure AppIB-6c
Figure AppIB-6d
Figure AppIB-6e
Figure AppIB-6f
xviii
September 1999
List of Figures
Figure AppIB-6g
Figure AppIB-6h
Figure AppIB-6i
Figure AppIB-6j
Figure AppIB-7
Figure AppIB-8
Figure AppIB-9
Figure AppI-Att1-1
Figure AppI-Att1-2
Figure AppI-Att2-1
Figure AppI-Att2-2
September 1999
427
428
429
434
434
435
437
xix
List of Figures
xx
September 1999
Preface
Preface
This 1999 edition of the Blue Book uses the same format as the 1996 edition. However, this edition reflects and
comments upon the 1997 UBC seismic provisions and related documents, not exclusively the UBC, as has been the
case in past editions. Requirements and Commentary for
passive damping systems and performance based seismic
engineering are also presented.
1997 UBC
Reference Document
With the exception of Chapter 7 the 1999 Blue Book references only the 1997 UBC. Chapter 7, Steel, references
AISC-Seismic 97.
Format
Chapter 1
General Requirements
Chapter 16
Structural Loads
Chapter 1 150-161
Chapter 16
Chapter 2
Chapter 17
Chapter 3
Foundations
Chapter 18
Chapter 4
Concrete
Chapter 19
Concrete
Chapter 5
Aluminum
Chapter 20
Lightweight Metals
Chapter 6
Masonry
Chapter 21
Masonry
Chapter 7
Steel
Chapter 22
Steel
Chapter 8
Wood
Chapter 23
Wood
Chapter 9
Other Materials
September 1999
xxi
Preface
The 1999 edition is numbered to make it easier to refer between the 1997 UBC and the Blue Book. The corresponding UBC section number is given at the beginning of
subsections.
Chapter 1 - General Requirements
xxii
September 1999
September 1999
Preface
xxiii
Preface
xxiv
24. Steel
Chapter 7 contains significant changes in the
Requirements and substantial discussion in an
extensive Commentary. Main features include:
n
Recommendation to adopt AISCs 1997 edition of
the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings (AISC-Seismic 97) with additional
SEAOC Requirements. AISC-Seismic 97
incorporates ongoing development of LRFD
seismic design and much of the current knowledge
on design and quality assurance following
intensive research and testing during recent years.
n
Significant discussion in the Commentary on
many of the issues associated with moment frames
and AISC-Seismic 97-related provisions. The
discussion includes those issues still unresolved
following the well-reported damage to moment
frame buildings.
n
Important design considerations in the
Commentary on braced frames, eccentric braced
frames and truss moment frames following much
research and development in recent years.
25. Other Materials
Chapter 9 has been expanded and general
Requirements for the use of new materials (other
materials) in seismic force resisting systems have
been added.
September 1999
Preface
Acknowledgments
The changes in this 1999 edition of the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary reflect the work of
the 1995-96 through 1998-99 SEAOC Seismology Committees. Members of these committees are listed below. This
1999 edition of the Recommendations has built upon the work of all the SEAOC Seismology Committees over a 40-year
period. A list of all past and present members of the Committee is included.
The actual task of developing the 1999 Recommendations was performed by the 1999 Blue Book Committee. Members of the Blue Book Committee who contributed substantial work on the document are listed below.
September 1999
xxv
Preface
September 1999
September 1999
Preface
*Chair
xxvii
Preface
Reference to
1997 UBC
The following sections of
the 1997 UBC are referenced in this edition of the
Blue Book.
1997 UBC
1612.2
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
C601.1
1626
101
1627
102
1628
103
1629
104
1629.1
C104.1
1630
105
1630.8.2.1
C804.9
1631
106
1631.2.8
C108.2.8
1632
107
1632.2
C107.2
1632.5
C107.5
1633
108
1633.2.6
C804.8
1633.2.8.1
C108.2.8.1
1634
109
1635
110
1636
111
1636.1
111.1
1636.2
111.2
1652
C152
1654
150
1655
151
1656
152
1657
153
1658
154
1659
155
1660
156
1661
157
1662
158
1663
159
1664
160
1665
161
xxviii
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
1997 UBC
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
1997 UBC
1700
201-202
1921.4.2.2
402.5.1
1921.7
C408
1701
C804.10
1921.4.2.2
402.5.2
1921.7.2.1
C408.1.1
1701.5
202.1,2,3
1921.4.2.3
C402.5.1
1921.7.2.2
C408.1.2
1702
202.3,
C804.11
1921.4.3.2
402.6
1921.7.3.1
C408.2.1
1921.4.3.2
C402.6
1921.7.3.2
C408.1.3
1921.4.3.2
C405.3
1921.7.3.3
C408.2.2
1921.4.4.1
C405.4.1
1929.2-3
C407.1.1
1921.4.4.4
C405.4.2
2002.2
502.1
1921.4.4.5
C405.4.3
2003.3
502.2
1921.4.4.7
C405.4.4
2004.2
502.3.1
1921.4.5.1
C405.5
2004.3
502.3.2
1921.5.1
C406.1
2004.5
502.3.3
1921.5.1.4
C406.1.1
2007
502.4
1921.5.4.1
C406.2
2009.6
502.5
1921.6
C407.1
2011.1
502.6
1921.6
C407.1.1
2012.1
502.7
1921.6.10.1
C407.7.1
2102.2
602.1
1921.6.10.2
C407.7.2
2106.1.12.4
1921.6.10.3
C407.7.3
602.2,
C604.1
1921.6.10.4
402.13,
C407.7.4
2106.2.14
C604.2
1997 UBC
1703
202.2
1705
202.4
1706
202.6
1707
202.6
1805
302.1
1806.6
C804.12
1809.1
302.1
1809.5.1
C302.2.1
1809.5.2.4
302.2.2
1809.5.3
302.2.3
1809.6
302.2.4
1909.2.3
C403.1
1909.3.4.1
402.8.2
1921.0
402.1
1921.2.3
C403.2
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
1921.2.4.2
C403.3
2107.1.7
C605.1
1921.2.5
C403.4
1921.6.13
C407.8
2107.2.12
602.3.2
1921.2.6
C402.2
1921.6.2.2
C407.2.1
2107.2.2
1921.2.6.1
402.2
1921.6.2.4
1921.2.6.1
402.2.1
402.7,
C407.2.2
602.3.1,
602.3.3,
C605.2
402.8.1
C606.1
402.2.2
1921.6.3
2108.1
1921.2.6.2
2108.1.4
C606.3
1921.2.6.4
402.2.4
402.8.2,
C402.8,
C407.3
C606.2
402.2.3
1921.6.3
2108.1.2
1921.2.6.3
2108.2.1.2
C606.3.1.2.1
1921.3.1
402.3
1921.6.5
C407.3
2108.2.2
C606.3.2.2
1921.3.1
C402.3
1921.6.5.5
2108.2.2.6
1921.3.1
C404.1
402.9,
C402.9,
C407.4
602.4.1,
C606.3.2.3
1921.3.2
C404.2
1921.6.6
C407.5
2108.2.2.7
1921.3.2.3
C404.3
604.2.2.7,
C604.4.2
1921.6.6.1
C407.5.1
1921.3.3
C404.4
2108.2.3
C606.3.2
1921.6.6.2
402.10
2108.2.3.1
C606.3.2.1
2108.2.3.3
C606.3.2.2, 3
2108.2.3.6.2
C606.3.2.4
2108.2.3.7
C606.3.2.5
1921.3.3
C404.5
1921.6.6.2
C407.5.2
1921.3.4.1
C404.6
1921.6.6.3
C407.5.3
1921.4.1
402.4.1
1921.6.6.4
C407.5.4
1921.4.1
C405.1
1921.6.6.5
1921.4.1.1
C405.1.1
402.11.1-3,
C407.5.5
1921.4.2
C405.2
1921.4.2.1
C402.5.1
1921.6.6.6
402.12,
C407.5.6
1921.6.7.3
C407.6
2108.2.3.8
C606.3.2.6
2108.2.5
C606.3.4
2108.2.6
C606.3.5
2108.2.6.1
C606.3.5.1
September 1999
Preface
1997 UBC
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
1997 UBC
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
2108.2.6.2.5
C606.3.5.2
3405
112.5
2108.2.6.2.6
C606.3.5.3
Division IV
702.1
2108.2.6.2.7
C606.3.5.4
Division V
702.3
2108.2.6.2.8
C606.3.5.5
Table 23-II-2
C803.3
2108.2.6.2.9
C606.3.5.6
Table 23-II-G
802.2
2108.8.2.4
C606.3.3
Table 23-II-G
C803.2
2210
702.2.1
2212
702.4.1
2213
702.4.2
2213.8
C704.12
Table 23-IVC-2
C804.7
Reference to
AISC-Seismic 97
The following sections of
the AISC-Seismic 97 are
referenced in this edition
of the Blue Book.
AISC
Part I, Glossary
Part I, 1
702.2.2
Part I, 10
702.2.9,
702.2.17
C704.1
C704.2
2213.9.2.2
C704.3
2213.9.2.3
C704.4
2213.9.2.4
C704.5
2213.9.3.1
C704.6
2213.9.3.2
C704.7
2213.9.3.3
C704.8
2213.9.4.1
C704.9
2213.9.4.2
C704.10
2213.9.4.5
C704.11
Part I,
13.3c-d
2213.10.1
C705.1
2213.10.12
C705.6
2213.10.13
C705.7
Part I, 13.5
C704.11
2213.10.18
C705.5
Part I, 14
C704.12
2213.10.2
C705.2
Part I, 14.3
C704.12.2
2213.10.4
C705.3
Part I, 14e
C704.12.1
2213.10.5
C705.4
Part I, 15.1
C705.1
2214
702.4.2
Part I, 15.2
C705.2,3,4,5
2302
C804.1
Part I, 15.4
C705.6
2315
C804.2
2315.5.3
802.1,
C804.3
Part I, 15.6
2315.5.4
802.1.2
C803.1
C804.6
3040
112.4
3400
112
3401
112.1
3402
112.2
3403
112.3
xxix
Part I, S5.5
702.2.15
Part I, S6.3
702.2.16
Part III-ASD
702.4
702.2.3
2213.9.2.1
2320.1
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
1999
SEAOC
Blue Book
2213.9.1
2318.3.1
AISC
C704.3
C705.7
Part I, 16
702.2.12
Part I, 2
702.2.4
Part I, 4.1
702.2.5
Part I, 6.1
702.2.6
Part I, 7.3b
702.2.7
Part I, 9.2a
702.2.8
Part I, S10
702.2.17
Part I, S2
702.2.13
Part I, S3
702.2.14
September 1999
Preface
xxx
September 1999
Requirements
Requirements
101
CHAPTER 1
101
101.1
The purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss
of life, not to limit damage or maintain function.
101.6
Computer Calculations
Structures and portions thereof shall, as a minimum, be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic
ground motions as provided in this division.
101.3
101.6.3
101.2
The basis for seismic design shall be stated on the structural drawings. As a minimum, the statement shall include:
1. A statement of the governing edition of the building
code.
2. Total base shear coefficient used for seismic design.
3. Description of the lateral force resisting system, as
defined in these Requirements.
September 1999
UBC 1612
Loads
101.7.1
General.
Combinations of
101.7.2 Requirements
101.7.2
101.7.2.1
Eqn. 101-1
Eqn. 101-2
Eqn. 101-3
Eqn. 101-4
Eqn. 101-5
Eqn. 101-6
where:
f1
f2
=
=
Exceptions:
1. Factored load combinations for concrete per UBC
1909.2 where load combinations do not include
seismic forces.
2. Where other factored load combinations are
specifically required by the provisions of these
Requirements.
101.7.2.2
Where F, H, P, or T are
to be considered in design, each applicable load shall be
added to the above combinations factored as follows:
1.3F, 1.6H, 1.2P, and 1.2T.
101.7.3
Other Loads.
101.7.3.1 Basic Load Combinations. Where allowable stress design (working stress design) is used,
structures and all portions thereof shall resist the most critical effects resulting from the following combinations of
loads:
Eqn. 101-7
D + L + (Lr or S)
Eqn. 101-8
D + (W or E/1.4)
Eqn. 101-9
0.90D E/1.4
D + 0.75 [L + (Lr or S) + (W or E/1.4)]
Eqn. 101-10
Eqn. 101-11
Eqn. 101-12
D + L + (W or E/1.4)
Eqn. 101-13
D + L + W + S/2
Eqn. 101-14
D + L + S + W/2
Eqn. 101-15
D + L + S + E/1.4
Eqn. 101-16
0.9D E/1.4
Eqn. 101-16a
Exceptions:
1. Crane hook loads need not be combined with roof
live loads or with more than three-fourths of the
snow load or one-half of the wind load.
2. Design snow loads of 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) or less
need not be combined with seismic loads. Where
design snow loads exceed 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) the
design snow load shall be included with seismic
loads, but may be reduced up to 75 percent where
consideration of siting, configuration and load
duration warrant when approved by the building
official.
Special Seismic Load Combinations. For
101.7.4
both Allowable Stress Design and Strength Design, the
following special load combinations for seismic design
shall be used as specifically required by Chapter 1 or by
Chapters 3 through 8:
Eqn. 101-17
0.9D 1.0 Em
Eqn. 101-18
September 1999
where:
f1
102
September 1999
Requirements
102
102 Requirements
Space Frame. A three-dimensional structural system, without bearing walls, composed of members interconnected so as to function as a complete self-contained
unit with or without the aid of horizontal diaphragms or
floor bracing systems.
Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF). A
steel-braced frame designed in conformance with the Requirements of Chapter 7, Structural Steel.
Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF). A moment-resisting frame specially detailed to provide ductile
behavior and comply with the requirements given in Chapter 4 or 7.
Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF). A moment-resisting frame specially detailed to provide ductile
behavior and comply with the Requirements given in
Chapter 7, Structural Steel.
Story. The space between levels. Story x is the story
below level x.
Story Drift. The lateral displacement of one level
relative to the level above or below.
Story Drift Ratio.
story height.
Structure. An assemblage of framing members designed to support gravity loads and resist lateral forces.
Structures may be categorized as building structures or
nonbuilding structures.
Subdiaphragm. A portion of a larger wood diaphragm designed to anchor and transfer local forces to primary diaphragm struts and the main diaphragm.
September 1999
103
UBC 1628
Notations
Requirements
Symbols and
The following symbols and notations apply to the provisions of this section:
AB =
Ac =
Ae =
Ax =
ap =
Ca =
Ct =
Cv =
103
Na =
Nv =
PI =
RoRd
De =
Rd =
di
Ro =
Rp =
E, Eh, Em, Ev =
105.1.
Fpx =
Ft =
SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, SF = Soil Profile Types as set forth in
Table 104-2.
fi
su =
Ip =
lw =
September 1999
VE =
104 Requirements
VM =
vs =
Vx =
W =
wpx =
E =
S =
M =
MT=
o =
104
104.1
The procedures and the limitations for the design of structures shall be determined considering seismic zoning, site
characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and height in accordance with this section. Structures
shall be designed with adequate strength to withstand the
lateral displacements induced by the design basis ground
motion, considering the inelastic response of the structure,
and the inherent redundancy, overstrength and ductility of
the lateral force resisting system.
The minimum design strength shall be based on the
design seismic forces determined in accordance with the
static lateral force procedure of Section 105 except as
modified by Section 106.5.4. Where strength design is
used, the load combinations of Section 101.7.2 shall apply.
Where allowable stress design is used, the load combinations of Section 101.7.3 shall apply. Allowable stress design may be used to evaluate sliding or overturning at the
soil-structure interface regardless of the design approach
used in the design of the structure provided load combinations of Section 101.7.3 are utilized. One and two family
dwellings in Seismic Zone 1 need not conform to the provisions of this section.
104.2
Occupancy Categories
SC, SD, SE are defined in Table 104-2 and Soil Profile Type
SF is defined as soils requiring site-specific evaluation as
follows:
1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under
seismic loading such as liquefiable soils, quick and
highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented
soils.
September 1999
Seismic hazard characteristics for the site shall be established based on the seismic zone and proximity of the site
to active seismic sources, site soil profile characteristics
and the structure's importance factor.
104.4.1
104.4.2
104.5
Configuration Requirements
104.5.1
General.
Requirements
104.4
104.5.2
104.5.3
Irregular Structures
Structural Systems
104.6.1
General. Structural systems shall be classified as one of the types listed in Table 104-6 and defined
in this subsection.
104.6.2
104.6.5
Dual System.
following features:
September 1999
104.6.6 Requirements
104.6.7
A struc-
Height Limits
104.8.1
Dynamic. The dynamic lateral force procedure of Section 106 shall be used for all other structures,
including the following:
1. Structures 240 feet (73 152 mm) or more in height
except as permitted by Section 104.8.3, Item 1.
2. Structures having a stiffness, weight, or geometric
vertical irregularity of Type 1, 2, or 3 as defined in
Table 104-4 or structures having irregular features not
described in Tables 104-4 or 104-5 except as
permitted by Section 105.4.2.
3. Structures over five stories or 65 feet (19 812 mm)) in
height in Seismic Zone 3 and 4 not having the same
structural system throughout their height except as
permitted by Section 105.4.2.
4. Structures, regular or irregular, located on Soil Profile
Type SF that have a period greater than 0.7 second.
The analysis shall include the effects of soils at the site
and shall conform to Section 106.2, Item 4.
104.9
System Limitations
104.9.1
Exception:
September 1999
Requirements 104.9.2
Undefined Structural Systems. For undefined structural systems not listed in Table 104-6, the coefficients Ro and Rd shall be substantiated by approved
cyclic test data and analyses. The following items shall be
addressed when establishing Ro and Rd:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Em = oEh
where:
E
Eh =
Em =
Ev =
o =
104.10
Alternative Procedures
104.10.1
General.
Alternative lateral force procedures using rational analyses based on well established
principles of mechanics may be used in lieu of those prescribed in these provisions.
104.10.2
105
105.1
105.1.1
Earthquake Loads. Structures shall be designed for ground motion producing structural response
and seismic forces in any horizontal direction. The following earthquake loads shall be used in the load combinations set forth in Section 101.7:
E = Eh + Ev
September 1999
Eqn. 105-1
Eqn. 105-2
20
= 2 ---------------------r max A B
Eqn. 105-3
for SI:
6.1
= 2 ---------------------r max A B
except that shall not be taken as less than 1.0 and need
not be greater than 1.5.
where:
AB =
105.1.2 Requirements
The ground motion producing lateral response and design seismic forces may be assumed to act nonconcurrently in the direction of each principal axis of the structure,
except as required by Section 106.6 and Section 108.1.
10
Seismic dead load, W, is the total dead load and applicable portions of other loads listed below.
1. In storage and warehouse occupancies, a minimum of
25 percent of the floor live load shall be applicable.
2. Where a partition load is used in the floor design, a
load of not less than 10 pounds per square foot (psf)
(0.48 kN/m2) shall be included.
3. Design snow loads of 30 pounds per square foot (psf)
(1.44 kN/m2) or less need not be included. Where
design snow loads exceed 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) the
design snow load shall be included, but may be
reduced up to 75 percent where considerations of
siting, configuration and load duration warrant when
approved by the building official.
4. Total weight of permanent equipment shall be
included.
Modeling Requirements. The mathemati105.1.2
cal model of the physical structure shall include all elements of the lateral force resisting system. The model shall
also include the stiffness and strength of elements significant to the distribution of forces and shall represent the
spatial distribution of the mass and stiffness of the structure. In addition, the model shall comply with the following:
1. Stiffness properties of reinforced concrete and
masonry elements shall consider the effects of cracked
sections.
2. For steel moment frame systems, the contribution of
panel zone deformations to overall story drift shall be
included.
105.1.3
105.2
105.2.1
September 1999
Requirements 105.2.2
Cv
V = ------------------ W
( R I )T
Eqn. 105-4
R = Rd Ro
Eqn. 105-5
where:
The total design base shear need not exceed the following:
2.5C a
V = -------------- W
(R I)
Eqn. 105-6
The total design base shear shall not be less than the
following:
Eqn. 105-7a
V = 0.11C a IW
Eqn. 105-8
where:
Ct = 0.035 (0.0853) for steel moment-resisting
frames.
Ct = 0.030 (0.0731) for reinforced concrete
moment-resisting frames and eccentrically
braced frames.
Ct = 0.020 (0.0488) for all other buildings.
Alternatively, the value of Ct for structures with
concrete or masonry shear walls may be taken
as 0.1 A c (For SI: 0.0743 A c for A c in m2).
The value of A c shall be determined from the
following formula:
A c = A e [ 0.2 + ( D e h n ) ]
2
Eqn. 105-9
September 1999
n
n
2
T = 2 w i i g f i i
i= 1
i=1
Eqn. 105-10
0.8ZN v
V = ----------------- W
(R I)
T = Ct ( hn )
V = 0.8C a W
Eqn. 105-11
F x = 0.8C a w x
Eqn. 105-12
11
105.3 Requirements
105.3.1
Determination of o .
Eqn. 105-13
105.4
Combinations of Structural
Systems
105.4.1
General.
105.4.2
12
105.4.3
In
Seismic Zones 3 and 4 where a structure has a bearing wall
system in only one direction, the value of R used for design
in the orthogonal direction shall not be greater than that
used for the bearing wall system.
Combinations Along Different Axes.
V = Ft + Fi
i=1
Eqn. 105-14
The concentrated force Ft at the top, which is in addition to Fn, shall be determined from the formula:
F t = 0.07TV
Eqn. 105-15
September 1999
Requirements
shall be distributed over the height of the structure, including Level n, according to the formula:
( V F t )w x h x
F x = ------------------------------n
wi hi
Eqn. 105-16
i=1
At each level designated as x, the force Fx shall be applied over the area of the building in accordance with the
mass distribution at that level. Structural displacements
and design seismic forces shall be calculated as the effect
of forces Fx and Ft applied at the appropriate levels above
the base.
105.6
The design story shear Vx, in any story is the sum of the
forces Ft and Fx above that story. Vx shall be distributed to
the various elements of the vertical lateral force resisting
system in proportion to their rigidities, considering the rigidity of the diaphragm. See Section 108.2.4 for rigid elements that are not intended to be part of the lateral force
resisting systems.
Where diaphragms are not flexible, the mass at each
level shall be assumed to be displaced from the calculated
center of mass in each direction a distance equal to 5 percent of the building dimension at that level perpendicular
to the direction of the force under consideration. The effect
of this displacement on the story shear distribution shall be
considered. Where forces are applied concurrently in two
orthogonal directions, the required 5 percent displacement
of the center of mass should be applied for only one of the
orthogonal directions at a time.
Diaphragms shall be considered flexible for the purposes of distribution of story shear and torsional moment
when the maximum lateral deformation of the diaphragms
is more than two times the average story drift of the associated story. This may be determined by comparing the
computed midpoint in-plane deflection of the diaphragm
itself under lateral load with the story drift of adjoining
vertical resisting elements under equivalent tributary lateral load.
105.7
September 1999
105.6
design lateral forces at levels above that story and the vertical resisting elements in that story plus an accidental torsion.
The accidental torsional moment shall be determined
by assuming the mass is displaced as required by Section
105.6.
Where torsional irregularity exists, as defined in Table
104-5, the effects shall be accounted for by increasing the
accidental torsion at each level by an amplification factor
Ax, determined from the following formula:
Ax =
max
---------------1.2 avg
Eqn. 105-17
where:
avg = the average of the displacements at the extreme
points of the structure at Level x.
max = the maximum displacement at Level x.
The value of Ax need not exceed 3.0.
105.8
Overturning
105.8.2.1 General. Where any portion of the lateral load resisting system is discontinuous, such as for vertical irregularity Type 4 in Table 104-4 or plan irregularity
Type 4 in Table 104-5, concrete, masonry, steel, and wood
elements supporting such discontinuous systems shall
have the design strength to resist the special seismic load
combinations of Section 101.7.4.
Exceptions:
1. The quantity Em in Section 101.7.4 need not
exceed the maximum force that can be transferred
to the element by the lateral force resisting system.
13
105.8.2.2 Requirements
porting discontinuous systems shall meet the following detailing or member limitations:
1. Reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry elements
designed primarily as axial load members shall
comply with UBC 1921.4.4.5.
2. Reinforced concrete elements designed primarily as
flexural members and supporting other than lightframe wood shear wall systems or light-frame steel
and wood structural panel shear wall systems shall
comply with UBC 1921.3.2 and 1921.3.3. Strength
computations for portions of slabs designed as
supporting elements shall include only those portions
of the slab that comply with the requirements of these
UBC sections.
3. Masonry elements designed primarily as axial load
carrying members shall comply with UBC
2106.1.12.4, Item 1, and UBC 2108.2.6.2.6.
4. Masonry elements designed primarily as flexural
members shall comply with UBC 2108.2.6.2.5.
5. Steel elements designed primarily as flexural
members or trusses shall have bracing for both top and
bottom beam flanges or chords at the location of the
support of the discontinuous system and shall comply
with AISC Seismic 97 Part I, Section 9.4b
6. Horizontal bracing that transfers forces between
horizontally offset vertical lateral force resisting
elements shall be designed using the special seismic
load combinations of Section 101.7.4.
7. Wood elements designed primarily as flexural
members shall be provided with lateral bracing or
solid blocking at each end of the element and at the
connection locations(s) of the discontinuous system.
105.8.3
14
105.9
Drift
M = 0.7R s
Eqn. 105-18
105.10.1
Story drifts shall be computed using the maximum inelastic response displacement, M.
Calculated story drift using M, shall not exceed 0.025 times the story height for structures having a
fundamental period of less than 0.7 second. For structures
having a fundamental period of 0.7 seconds or greater, the
calculated story drift shall not exceed 0.020 times the story
height.
105.10.2
Exceptions:
1. These drift limits may be exceeded when it is
demonstrated that greater drift can be tolerated by
both structural elements and nonstructural
elements that could affect life safety. The drift
used in this assessment shall be based upon the
maximum inelastic response displacement M.
September 1999
105.11
Requirements 105.10.3
2.
3.
4.
Vertical Component
106
106.1
General
Ground Motion
5.
106.3
Mathematical Model
A mathematical model of the physical structure shall represent the spatial distribution of the mass and stiffness of
the structure to an extent that is adequate for the calculation of the significant features of its dynamic response. A
three-dimensional model shall be used for the dynamic
analysis of structures with highly irregular plan configurations such as those having a plan irregularity defined in
Table 104-5 and having a rigid or semi-rigid diaphragm.
The stiffness properties used in the analysis and general
mathematical modeling shall be in accordance with Section 105.1.2.
106.4
106.4.1
106.4.2 Requirements
total structural response. Peak modal responses are calculated using the ordinates of the appropriate response spectrum curve that correspond to the modal periods.
Maximum modal contributions are combined in a statistical manner to obtain an approximate total structural response.
Time-History Analysis. An analysis of the
106.4.2
dynamic response of a structure at each increment of time
when the base is subjected to a specific ground motion
time history.
106.5
106.5.1
tion shall be in accordance with Section 106.2. The corresponding response parameters, including forces, moments
and displacements, shall be denoted as Elastic Response
Parameters. Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced
in accordance with Section 106.5.4.
106.5.2
Reduction of Elastic Response Parameters for Design. Elastic Response Parameters may be
reduced for purposes of design in accordance with the following Items 1, 2 and 3 with the limitation that in no case
shall the Elastic Response Parameters be reduced such that
the corresponding design base shear is less than the Elastic
Response Base Shear divided by the value of R.
1. For all regular structures where the ground motion
representation complies with Section 106.2, Item 1,
Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced such
that the corresponding design base shear is not less
than 90 percent of the base shear determined in
accordance with Section 105.2.
2. For all regular structures where the ground motion
representation complies with Section 106.2, Item 2,
Elastic Response Parameters may be reduced such
that the corresponding design base shear is not less
16
106.5.6
The analysis shall account for torsional effects, including accidental torsional effects as prescribed in Section 105.7. Where three-dimensional models
are used for analysis, effects of accidental torsion shall be
accounted for by appropriate adjustments in the model
such as adjustment of mass locations, or by equivalent
static procedures such as provided in Section 105.6.
Torsion.
106.6
Time-History Analysis
September 1999
For each pair of horizontal ground motion components, the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of
the 5-percent-damped site specific spectrum of the scaled
horizontal components shall be constructed. The motions
shall be scaled such that the average value of the SRSS
spectra does not fall below 1.4 times the 5-percent-damped
spectrum of the design basis earthquake for periods from
0.2T seconds to 1.5T seconds. Each pair of time histories
shall be applied simultaneously to the model considering
torsional effects, as prescribed in Section 105.6.
The parameter of interest shall be calculated for each
time-history analysis. If three time-history analyses are
performed, then the maximum response of the parameter
of interest shall be used for design. If seven or more
time-history analyses are performed, then the average value of the response parameter of interest may be used for
design, as prescribed in Section 105.6.
Elastic Time-History Analysis. Elastic
106.6.2
time history shall conform to Sections 106.1, 106.2, 106.3,
106.5.2, 106.5.4, 106.5.5, 106.5.6, 106.5.7 and 106.6.1.
Response parameters from elastic time-history analysis
shall be denoted as Elastic Response Parameters. All elements shall be designed using strength design. Elastic Response Parameters may be scaled in accordance with
Section 106.5.4.
106.6.3
September 1999
Requirements 106.6.2
107
107.1
General
The total design lateral seismic force, Fp, shall be determined from the following formula:
F p = 4.0C a I p W p
Eqn. 107-1
Eqn. 107-2
17
107.3 Requirements
107.5
where:
hx =
hr =
ap =
A value for ap shall be selected from Table 104-7. Alternatively, this factor may be determined based on the dynamic properties or empirical data of the component and
the structure that supports it. The value shall not be taken
less than 1.0.
Rp is the component response modification factor that
shall be taken from Table 104-7, except that Rp for anchorages shall equal 1.5 for shallow expansion anchor bolts,
shallow chemical anchors, or shallow cast-in-place anchors. Shallow anchors are those with an embedment
length-to-diameter ratio of less than 8. Where anchorage is
constructed of nonductile materials or by use of adhesive,
Rp shall equal 1.0.
The design lateral forces determined using
Equation 107-1 or 107-2 shall be distributed in proportion
to the mass distribution of the element or component.
Forces determined using Equation 107-1 or 107-2
shall be used to design members and connections that
transfer these forces to the seismic resisting systems.
Members and connection design shall use the load combinations and factors specified in Section 101.7. The reliability/redundancy factor, , may be taken equal to 1.0.
For applicable forces and component response modification factors in connectors for exterior panels and diaphragms, refer to Sections 108.2.4, 108.2.8 and 108.2.9.
Forces shall be applied in the horizontal direction that results in the most critical loadings for design.
107.3
18
Alternative Designs
108
108.1
General
All structural framing systems shall comply with the requirements of Section 104. Only the elements of the designated seismic force resisting system shall be used to
resist design seismic forces. The individual components
shall be designed to resist the prescribed design seismic
forces acting on them. The components shall also comply
with the specific requirements for the material contained
in Chapters 4 through 9. In addition such framing systems
and components shall comply with the detailed system design requirements contained in Section 108.
All building components in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4
shall be designed to resist the effects of the seismic forces
prescribed herein and the effects of gravity loadings from
dead, floor live and snow loads.
Consideration shall be given to design for uplift effects caused by seismic loads.
In Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4, provision shall be made
for the effects of earthquake forces acting in a direction
other than the principal axes in each of the following circumstances:
The structure has plan irregularity Type 5 as given in
Table 104-5.
The structure has plan irregularity Type 1 as given in
Table 104-5 for both major axes.
A column of a structure forms part of two or more intersecting lateral force resisting systems.
Exception: If the axial load in the column due to
seismic forces acting in either direction is less than 20
September 1999
108.2.1
108.2.2
For elements not part of the lateral force resisting system, the forces induced by the expected deformation may
be considered as ultimate or factored forces. When computing the forces induced by expected deformations, the
restraining effect of adjoining rigid structural and nonstructural elements shall be considered and a rational value
of member and restraint stiffness shall be used. Inelastic
deformations of members and connections may be consid-
September 1999
Requirements
108.2
ered in the evaluation, provided the assumed calculated capacities are consistent with member and connection design
and detailing.
For concrete and masonry elements that are part of the
lateral force resisting system, the assumed flexural and
shear stiffness properties shall not exceed one-half of the
gross Section properties unless a rational cracked-Section
analysis is performed. Additional deformations that may
result from foundation flexibility and diaphragm deflections shall be considered. For concrete elements not part of
the lateral force resisting system, see UBC 1921.7.
108.2.4.1
resisting frames and shear walls may be enclosed by or adjoined by more rigid elements provided it can be shown
that the participation or failure of the more rigid elements
will not impair the vertical and lateral load-resisting ability
of the gravity load and lateral force resisting systems. The
effects of adjoining rigid elements shall be considered
when assessing whether a structure shall be designated
regular or irregular in Section 104.5.1.
108.2.4.2 Exterior Elements. Exterior nonbearing, nonshear wall panels or elements that are attached to
or enclose the exterior shall be designed to resist the forces
per Equation 107-1 or 107-2 and shall accommodate
movements of the structure based on M and temperature
changes. Such elements shall be supported by means of
cast-in-place concrete or by mechanical connections and
fasteners in accordance with the following provisions:
1. Connections and panel joints shall allow for a relative
movement between stories of not less than two times
the story drift caused by wind, the calculated story
drift based on M or 1/2 inch (13 mm), whichever is
greater.
2. Connections to permit movement in the plane of the
panel for story drift shall be sliding connections using
slotted or oversize holes, connections that permit
movement by bending of steel, or other connections
providing equivalent sliding and ductility capacity.
3. Bodies of connections shall have sufficient ductility
and rotation capacity to preclude fracture of the
concrete or brittle failures at or near welds.
4. The body of the connection shall be designed for the
force determined by Equation 107-2, where Rp=3.0
and ap=1.0.
19
108.2.5 Requirements
apply in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 where flexible diaphragms, as defined in Section 105.6, provide lateral support for the walls.
1. Elements of the wall anchorage system shall be
designed for the forces specified in Section 107 where
Rp=3.0 and ap=1.5.
2.
3.
4.
quired by design to be part of the lateral force resisting system shall conform to the following:
1. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4 they shall be special
moment-resisting frames.
2. In Seismic Zone 2 they shall, as a minimum, be
intermediate moment-resisting frames.
108.2.8
chored to all floors and roofs that provide out-of-plane lateral support of the wall. The anchorage shall provide a
20
5.
108.2.9
Diaphragms
September 1999
Requirements 108.2.10
F px
F t + Fi
i=x
-w
= ------------------------px
n
wi
Eqn. 108-1
i=x
September 1999
MT =
( M1 ) + ( M2 )
Eqn. 108-2
21
109 Requirements
109
UBC 1634
Nonbuilding Structures
109.1
General
22
109.2
Lateral Force
Rigid Structures
Rigid structures (those with period T less than 0.06 second), and their anchorages, shall be designed for the lateral
force obtained from Equation 109-1.
V = 0.7 Ca IW
Eqn. 109-1
The force V shall be distributed according to the distribution of mass and shall be assumed to act in any horizontal
direction.
109.4
September 1999
Requirements
less than those determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 105 with the following additions and exceptions:
1. The factors Ro and Rd (and R and o ) shall be as set
forth in Table 104-8. The total design base shear
determined in accordance with Section 105.2 shall not
be less than the following:
Eqn. 109-2a
V = 0.56C a IW
111.2
UBC 1636.2
SA
SB
SC
Very dense soil and soft rock with 1,200 ft./sec. <
vs 2,500 ft./sec. (360 m/s < vs 760 m/s) or
with either N > 50 or su 2,000 psf (100 kPa).
SD
SE
SF
Eqn. 109-2b
110
UBC 1635
Earthquake
Recording Instrumentation
For earthquake recording instrumentations, see UBC Appendix Chapter 16, Division II.
111
UBC 1636
Site
Categorization Procedure
111.1
UBC 1636.1
Scope
September 1999
Definitions
110
UBC 1636.2.1
tion 111-1:
23
111.2.2 Requirements
sui =
di
i=1
vs = ---------------n
d
-----iv
i = 1 si
Eqn. 111-1
111.2.4
vsi =
111.2.5
111.2.2
i=1
N = --------------n
d
-----i
N
i=1 i
ds
N CH = -------------n
di
----i = 1 Ni
Eqn. 111-2
Eqn. 111-3
ds =
Ni =
111.2.3
Eqn. 111-4
where:
dc =
24
UBC 1636.3.5
where:
di
and SE.
i= 1
di
UBC 1636.2.4
where:
di
UBC 1636.3.6
The shear wave velocity for rock, Soil Profile Type SB,
shall be either measured on site or estimated by a geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist or seismologist for
competent rock with moderate fracturing and weathering.
Softer and more highly fractured and weathered rock shall
be either be measured on site for shear wave velocity or
classified as Soil Profile Type SC.
The hard rock, Soil Profile Type SA, category shall be
supported by shear wave velocity measurements either on
site or on profiles of the same rock type in the same formation with an equal or greater degree of weathering and
fracturing. Where hard rock conditions are known to be
continuous to a depth of 100 ft. (30 480 mm), surficial
shear wave velocity measurements may be extrapolated to
assess vs. The rock categories, Soil Profile Type SA and SB
shall not be used if there is more than 10 ft. (3048 mm) of
soil between the rock surface and the bottom of the spread
footing or mat foundation.
The definitions presented herein shall apply to the upper 100 ft. (30 480 mm) of the site profile. Profiles containing distinctly different soil layers shall be subdivided
into those layers designated by a number from 1 to n at the
bottom where there are a total of n distinct layers in the upper 100 ft. (30 480 mm). The symbol i then refers to any
one of the layers between 1 and n.
September 1999
Requirements
112
UBC 3400
Existing Structures
112.1
UBC 3401
General
All buildings and structures, both existing and new, and all
parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary
condition. All devices or safeguards that are required by
this code shall be maintained in conformance with the
code edition under which they were installed. The owner
or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the
maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine
compliance with this subsection, the building official may
cause a structure to be reinspected.
112.3
112.3.1
112.3.2
Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any of these
Requirements, nor shall such additions or alterations cause
the existing building or structure to become unsafe. An unsafe condition shall be deemed to have been created if an
addition or alteration will cause the existing building or
structure to:
1. Become structurally unsafe or overloaded.
September 1999
112
Repairs to Buildings and Structures Damaged by Earthquake. Repair criteria for structural and
25
112.3.3.1 Requirements
and the suspension system of suspended ceilings are damaged, the damaged light fixtures and suspension systems
shall be repaired to fully comply with these Requirements
and UBC Standard 25-2.
26
112.3.5
Glass Replacement. The installation or replacement of glass shall be as required for new installations.
112.4
UBC 3040
Moved Buildings
Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with these Recommendations for new
buildings or structures.
112.5
UBC 3405
Change In Use
September 1999
Requirements
113149 Reserved
150
UBC 1654
Appendix Chapter 16,
Division IV
Earthquake Regulations for
Seismic-Isolated Structures
151
Defined in
150
152
The symbols and notations of Section 103 of these Recommendations and the following apply to the Requirements
of Sections 150 through 161:
Isolation System. The collection of structural elements, which includes all individual isolator units, all
September 1999
27
152 Requirements
BD =
BM =
CAD=
CAM=
CVD=
CVM=
DD =
DD =
DM =
DM=
DTD=
DTM=
28
EM = Total energy dissipated, in kip-inches (kNmm), of all units of the isolation system during a
full cycle of response at the maximum
displacement, DM.
e
F- =
F+ =
F +D
max
+
FD
min
September 1999
F D max =
F D min =
+
F M max
F +M
September 1999
Requirements
152
keff =
kDmax=
kMmax=
kDmin =
kMmin =
29
153 Requirements
MM =
Na =
Nv =
RI =
TD =
TM =
Vb =
Vs =
W =
eff =
30
D =
M =
+ =
- =
153
153.1
The procedures and limitations for the design of seismic-isolated structures shall be determined considering
zoning, site characteristics, vertical acceleration, cracked
section properties of concrete and masonry members, occupancy, configuration, structural system, and height in
accordance with Section 104, except as noted below.
153.2
Occupancy Categories
Configuration Requirements
Each structure shall be designated as being regular or irregular on the basis of the structural configuration above
the isolation system in accordance with Section 104.5.
153.5
153.5.1
153.5.2
September 1999
September 1999
Requirements 153.5.3
154
154.1
General
154.2.1
Minimum lateral earthquake design displacements and forces on seismic-isolated structures shall be
based on the deformation characteristics of the isolation
system.
154.2.2
The deformation characteristics of the isolation system shall explicitly include the effects of the wind
restraint system if such a system is used to meet the design
Requirements of this document.
154.2.3
The deformation characteristics of the isolation system shall be based on properly substantiated tests
performed in accordance with Section 161.
154.3
154.3.1
Design Displacement. The isolation system shall be designed and constructed to withstand minimum lateral earthquake displacements that act in the
direction of each of the main horizontal axes of the structure in accordance with Equation 154-1.
DD
g
-------- C T
4 2 VD D
= --------------------------------BD
Eqn. 154-1
154.3.2
structure at the design displacement, TD, shall be determined using the deformational characteristics of the isolation system in accordance with Equation 154-2.
31
154.3.3 Requirements
W
T D = 2 ----------------k Dmin g
Eqn. 154-2
154.3.3
DM
g
-------- C T
2 VM M
4
= --------------------------------BM
Eqn. 154-3
154.3.4
structure at the maximum displacement, TM, shall be determined using the deformational characteristics of the isolation system in accordance with Equation 154-4.
W
T M = 2 -----------------k Mmin g
Eqn. 154-5
12e
D TM = D M 1 + y ---------------2
2
b +d
Eqn. 154-6
Eqn. 154-7
154.4.2
Eqn. 154-8
12e
D TD = D D 1 + y ---------------2
2
b +d
154.4.1
Eqn. 154-4
32
154.4
Total force shall be distributed over the height of the structure above the isolation interface in accordance with the
equation:
Vs wx hx
F x = ------------------n
Eqn. 154-9
wi hi
i=1
At each level designated as x, the force Fx shall be applied over the area of the building in accordance with the
mass distribution at that level. Stresses in each structural
element shall be calculated as the effect of force, Fx, applied at the appropriate levels above the base.
September 1999
154.6
Requirements
Drift Limits
155.3
155
155.1
As required by Section 153, every seismic-isolated structure, or portion thereof, shall be designed and constructed
to resist earthquake displacements and forces, as specified
in this section and the applicable Requirements of Section
106.
155.2
155.2.1
155.2.2
The total maximum displacement of the isolation system shall not be taken as less than 80 percent of
DTM as specified by Section 154.3.5.
155.2.3
155.2.4
DD
= ---------------------------T 2
1 + ------
T D
DM
DM = ---------------------------2
T
1 + -------
T M
Eqn. 155-1
Eqn. 155-2
September 1999
154.6
Ground Motion
155.4.1
Design Spectra.
Properly substantiated,
site-specific spectra are required for design of all structures with an isolated period, TM, greater than 3.0 seconds,
or located on a soil type profile of SE or SF, or located
within 10 km of an active fault or located in Seismic Zone
1, 2A or 2B. Structures that do not require site-specific
spectra and for which site-specific spectra have not been
calculated shall be designed using spectra based on
Figure 104-2.
A design spectrum shall be constructed for the design
basis earthquake. This design spectrum shall not be taken
as less than the response spectrum given in Figure 104-2,
where Ca shall be equal to CAD and Cv shall be equal
to CVD.
Exception: If a site-specific spectrum is calculated
for the design basis earthquake, then the design
spectrum may be taken as less than 100 percent, but
not less than 80 percent of the response spectrum
given in Figure 104-2, where Ca shall be equal to CAD
and Cv shall be equal to CVD.
A design spectrum shall be constructed for the maximum capable earthquake. This design spectrum shall not
33
155.4.2 Requirements
155.5
34
Isolated Structure
155.5.3.1
The maximum displacement of each floor and the total design displacement
and total maximum displacement across the isolation system shall be calculated using a model of the isolated structure that incorporates the force-deflection characteristics
of nonlinear elements of the isolation system and the lateral force resisting system.
Displacement.
Lateral force resisting systems with nonlinear elements include, but are not limited to, irregular structural
systems designed for a lateral force less than Vs as prescribed by Equation 154-8 and the limits specified by Section 154.4.3, and regular structural systems designed for a
lateral force less than 80 percent of Vs.
155.5.3.2 Forces and Displacements in Key
Elements. Design forces and displacements in key ele-
ments of the lateral force resisting system may be calculated using a linear elastic model of the isolated structure,
provided:
1. Pseudo-elastic properties assumed for nonlinear
isolation system components are based on the
maximum effective stiffness of the isolation system.
2. All key elements of the lateral force resisting system
are linear.
155.6
155.6.1
155.6.2
Input Earthquake. The design basis earthquake shall be used to calculate the total design displacement of the isolation system and the lateral forces and
displacements of the isolated structure. The maximum capable earthquake shall be used to calculate the total maximum displacement of the isolation system.
155.6.3
September 1999
Requirements 155.6.4
155.6.4
Time-History Analysis
155.7.1
tem, foundation, and all structural elements below the isolation interface shall be designed using all of the
appropriate requirements for a nonisolated structure and
the forces obtained from the dynamic analysis.
155.7.2
155.8
Drift Limits
Maximum interstory drift corresponding to the design lateral force, including displacement due to vertical deformation of the isolation system, shall not exceed the following
limits:
1. The maximum interstory drift ratio of the structure
above the isolation system, calculated by response
spectrum analysis, shall not exceed 0.015/RI.
156
156.1
General
Parts or portions of an isolated structure, permanent nonstructural components and attachments to them, and the attachments for permanent equipment supported by a
structure shall be designed to resist seismic forces and displacements as prescribed by this section and the applicable
Requirements of Section 107.
156.2
156.2.1
System.
September 1999
Interface.
35
156.2.2 Requirements
157
157.1
General
The isolation system and the structural system shall comply with the Requirements of Section 108 and the material
Requirements of Chapters 2 through 6. In addition, the isolation system shall comply with the detailed system requirements of this section and the structural system shall
comply with the detailed system requirements of this section and the applicable portions of Section 108.
157.2
Isolation System
Seismic-isolated structures
shall resist design wind loads at all levels above the isolation interface in accordance with the general wind design
requirements. At the isolation interface, a wind restraint
system shall be provided to limit lateral displacement in
the isolation system to a value equal to that required between floors of the structure above the isolation interface.
Wind Forces.
September 1999
Requirements 157.2.6
157.3
157.3.1
Horizontal Distribution of Force. A horizontal diaphragm or other structural elements shall provide continuity above the isolation interface and shall have
adequate strength and ductility to transmit forces (due to
nonuniform ground motion) from one part of the building
to another.
157.3.2
Local uplift of individual elements is permitted, provided the resulting deflections do not cause overstress or
instability of the isolator units or other building elements.
158
157.2.8
September 1999
Structural System
Building Separations. Minimum separations between the isolated building and surrounding retaining walls or other fixed obstructions shall not be less than
the total maximum displacement.
159
Foundations of seismic-isolated structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Requirements of Chapter 3 of these Recommendations using
design forces calculated in accordance with either Section
154 or Section 155.
160
160.1
General
37
160.2 Requirements
Isolation System
161
161.1
161.1.1
161.1.2
161.1.3
The tests specified in Section 161 are for establishing and validating the design properties of the isolation system, and shall not be considered as satisfying the
manufacturing quality control tests of Section 157.2.9.
161.2
Prototype Tests
38
161.2.3
Sequence and Cycles. The following sequence of tests shall be performed for the prescribed number of cycles at a vertical load equal to the average
D + 0.5L on all isolator units of a common type and size:
1. Twenty fully reversed cycles of loading at a lateral
force corresponding to the design wind force.
2. Three fully reversed cycles of loading at each of the
following increments of displacement: 0.2DD, 0.5DD,
1.0DD, and 1.0DM.
September 1999
Requirements 161.2.5
procedures as the prototype isolator unit that has been previously tested using the specified sequence of tests.
161.3
161.2.5
Isolator units that carry vertical load shall be statically tested for the maximum and minimum vertical load
at the total maximum displacement. In these tests, the
combined vertical loads of 1.2D + 1.0L +|E|max shall be
taken as the maximum vertical force, and the combined
vertical load of 0.8D |E|min shall be taken as the minimum vertical force on any one isolator unit of a common
type and size. The vertical load on an individual isolator
unit shall include the load increment due to earthquake
overturning, |E|max and |E|min, and shall be based on peak
response due to the maximum capable earthquake.
Load.
161.2.7
September 1999
Determination of Force-Deflection
Characteristics
161.3.1
The force-deflection characteristics of the isolation system shall be based on the cyclic load tests of isolator prototypes specified in Section 161.2.3.
161.3.2
As required the effective stiffness of an isolator unit, keff, shall be calculated for each cycle of loading
by Equation 161-1.
F + F
k eff = -----------------+ -
Eqn. 161-1
Eqn. 161-2
placements of and .
161.4
System Adequacy
Performance of the test specimens shall be assessed as adequate if the following conditions are satisfied:
161.4.1
The force-deflection plots of all tests specified in Section 161.2 have a positive incremental
force-carrying capacity.
161.4.2
For each increment of test displacement specified in Section 161.2.3 Item 2, and for each vertical load
case specified in Section 161.2.3:
1. There is no greater than a plus or minus 10 percent
difference between the effective stiffness at each of
the three cycles of testing and the average value of
effective stiffness for each test specimen.
2. There is no greater than a plus or minus 10 percent
difference in the average value of effective stiffness of
the two test specimens of a common type and size of
the isolator unit over the required three cycles of
testing.
161.4.3
161.4.4 Requirements
All specimens of vertical load-carrying elements of the isolation system remain stable at the total
maximum displacement for static load, as prescribed in
Section 161.2.6.
161.5
161.5.1
k Dmax
k Dmin
_
+ F D max
max
= -------------------------------------------------------------2D D
F D+
_
F D+ min + FD min
= -----------------------------------------------------------2D D
Eqn. 161-3
Eqn. 161-4
k Mmax
_
+ F M max
= --------------------------------------------------------------2D D
Eqn. 161-5
k Mmin
_
+ F M min
= ------------------------------------------------------------2D D
Eqn. 161-6
F M+
max
min
ED
1
- ------------------------ D = ----2
2 k
Dmax D D
Eqn. 161-7
In Equation 161-7, the total energy dissipated in the isolation system per cycle of design displacement response,
E D , shall be taken as the sum of the energy dissipated
per cycle in all isolator units measured at test displace+
ments and , that are equal in magnitude to the design displacement DD.
At the maximum displacement, the effective damping
of the isolation system, M , shall be based on the cyclic
tests of Section 161.2.3 and calculated by Equation 161-8:
EM
1
- ------------------------- M = ----2
2 k
Mmax D M
Eqn. 161-8
In Equation 161-8, the total energy dissipated in the isolation system per cycle of response, EM, shall be taken as the
sum of the energy dissipated per cycle in all isolator units
+
At the maximum displacement, the maximum and minimum effective stiffness of the isolation system, kMmax and
kMmin, shall be based on the cyclic tests of Section 161.2.3
and calculated by Equations 161-5 and 161-6.
F M+
161.5.2
For isolator units that are found by the tests of Sections 161.2.3 through 161.2.5 to have force-deflection
characteristics that vary with vertical load, rate of loading,
or bilateral load, respectively, the values of kDmax and kMmax shall be increased and the values of kDmin and kMmin
shall be decreased, as necessary, to bound the effects of
measured variation in effective stiffness.
40
September 1999
2A
2B
0.075
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.40
Note: The zone shall be determined from the seismic zone map in Figure 104-1 or UBC Figure 16-2.
Soil Profile
Name/Generic
Description
SA
Hard rock
> 5,000
(1500)
SB
Rock
2,500 to 5,000
(760 to 1500)
SC
1,200 to 2,500
(360 to 760)
> 50
> 2,000
(100)
SD
600 to 1,200
(180 to 360)
15 to 50
1,000 to 2,000
(50 to 100)
SE1
< 15
SF
1.Soil Profile Type SE also includes any soil profile with more than 10 ft (3048 mm) of soft clay defined as a soil with a
plasticity index, PI > 20, wmc 40 percent and su < 500 psf (25 kPa). The plasticity index, PI, the moisture content,
wmc, shall be determined in accordance with approved national standards.
September 1999
41
Seismic
Importance
Factor Ip 1
Table 104-3.
1.25
1.50
1.25
1.50
III. Special Occupancy Structures 2,3 Group A, Divisions 1, 2 and 2.1 Occupancies. Buildings housing
Group E, Divisions 1 and 3 occupancies with a capacity greater than
300 students. Buildings housing Group B Occupancies used for college or adult education with a capacity greater than 500 students.
Group I, Divisions 1 and 2 occupancies with 50 or more resident incapacitated patients, but not included in Category I.
1.00
1.00
IV. Standard Occupancy Structures 3 All structures housing occupancies or having functions not listed in
Categories I, II, or III, and Group U Occupancy towers.
1.00
1.00
V. Miscellaneous
1.00
1.00
Occupancy Category
Occupancy or Function of Structure
I.
Essential Facilities 2
1.
2.
3.
42
Group U occupancies
The limitation of Ip for panel connections in Section 108.2.4 shall be 1.0 for the entire connector.
Structural observation requirements are given in Chapter 2. Special review of the design and construction of structures classified
as Occupancy Categories I, II, and III is required in Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4. See Section 201.
For anchorage of machinery and equipment required for life safety systems, the value of IP shall be taken as 1.5.
September 1999
Reference Section
104.8.4, Item 2
104.8.4, Item 2
104.8.4, Item 2
105.8
104.9.1
Reference Section
2. Reentrant corners
Section 108.2.10, Items 6 and 7
Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force-resisting system contain reentrant
corners, where both projections of the structure beyond a reentrant corner are greater than
15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the given direction.
3. Diaphragm discontinuity
Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness, including those having
cutout or open areas greater than 50 percent of the gross enclosed area of the diaphragm,
or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness of more than 50 percent from one story to the
next.
4. Out-of-plane offsets
Discontinuities in a lateral force path, such as out-of-plane offsets of the vertical elements.
Section 105.8;
5. Nonparallel systems
The vertical lateral load-resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the major
orthogonal axes of the lateral force-resisting system.
Section 108.1
September 1999
43
Rd
Ro
2.2
2.5
65
5.5
2.8
1.8
2.5
65
4.5
2.8
1.8
2.5
160
4.5
2.8
1.8
2.5
160
4.5
2.8
1.4
2.0
65
2.8
2.2
R
(RdRo)
o
(1.1 Ro)
2. Shear walls
a. Concrete
b. Masonry
3. Light steel-framed bearing walls with
tension-only bracing
4. Braced frames where bracing carries
gravity load
a. Steel
b. Concrete3
c. Heavy timber
2. Building Frame System
2.2
2.0
160
4.4
2.2
1.4
2.0
2.8
2.2
1.4
2.0
65
2.8
2.2
2.8
2.5
240
7.0
2.8
2.6
2.5
65
6.5
2.8
2.0
2.5
65
5.0
2.8
a. Concrete
2.2
2.5
240
5.5
2.8
b. Masonry
2.2
2.5
160
5.5
2.8
2.2
3. Shear walls
2.8
2.0
160
5.6
b. Concrete3
c. Heavy timber
2.8
2.0
5.6
2.2
2.8
2.0
65
5.6
2.2
3.2
2.0
240
6.4
2.2
3.4
2.5
N.L.
8.5
2.8
3.4
2.5
N.L.
8.5
2.8
2.6
2.5
160
6.5
2.8
2.2
2.5
5.5
2.8
1.8
2.5
160
4.5
2.8
1.4
2.5
3.5
2.8
2.6
2.5
240
6.5
2.8
44
September 1999
Rd
Ro
3.4
2.5
N.L.
8.5
2.8
1.7
2.5
160
4.2
2.8
2.6
2.5
160
6.5
2.8
2.2
2.5
160
5.5
2.8
1.7
2.5
160
4.2
2.8
1.7
2.5
4.2
2.8
2.4
2.5
160
6.0
2.8
3.4
2.5
N.L.
8.5
2.8
1.7
2.5
160
4.2
2.8
R
(RdRo)
o
(1.1 Ro)
2. Steel EBF
2.6
2.5
N.L.
6.5
2.8
1.7
2.5
160
4.2
2.8
2.6
2.5
6.5
2.8
1.7
2.5
4.2
2.8
3.0
2.5
N.L.
7.5
2.8
1.7
2.5
160
4.2
2.8
5. Cantilevered Column
Building Systems
1.2
1.8
357
2.2
2.0
6. Shear Wall-Frame
Interaction Systems
1. Concrete8
2.2
2.5
160
5.5
2.8
7. Undefined Systems
N.L. = no limit
1. See Section 105.4 for combination of structural systems.
2. Basic structural systems are defined in Section 104.6
3. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.
4. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 3 and 4, except as permitted in Section 109.2.
5. Ordinary moment-resisting frames in Seismic Zone 1 meeting the requirements of UBC 2211.6 may
use an R value of 8.
6. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. See Section 108.2.7.
7. Total height of the building including cantilevered columns.
8. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 2A, 2B, 3, and 4.
9. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4 steel OMRFs are permitted as follows:
a. Where the near source factor Na, equals one, structures are permitted to a height of 35 ft. For single story buildings
where the moment joints of field connections are constructed of bolted end plates and the dead load of the roof does
not exceed 15 psf. the height is permitted to be increased to 60 ft.
b. Where the near source factor Na, is greater than one, structures are permitted to a height of 35 feet where the dead
weight of the floors, walls and roof do not exceed 15 psf.
c. The height limit of 160 feet for non-building structures is permitted to be used if the beam-to-column joint inelastic
rotational capacity requirement is taken as 0.03 radians.
September 1999
45
Footnote
Number
ap
Rp
2.5
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
4.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3, 6, 7, 8
1.0
3.0
4, 5, 9
1.0
3.0
i. Partitions.
1.0
3.0
1. Elements of Structures
a. Walls including the following:
2. Nonstructural Components
a. Exterior and interior ornamentations and
appendages
b. Chimneys, stacks and trussed towers supported on
or projecting above the roof
46
September 1999
Table 104-7. (Continued) Horizontal Force Factors, ap and Rp (UBC Table 16-O)
Elements of Structures and
Nonstructural Components and Equipment1
Footnote
Number
ap
Rp
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
3.0
17, 18
1.0
3.0
19
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
1.5
3. Equipment
4. Other Components
1.
2.
See Section 102 for definitions of flexible components and rigid components.
See Section 108.2.4 and 108.2.8 for concrete and masonry walls and Section 107.2 for
connections for panel connectors for panels.
3. Applies to Seismic Zones Nos. 2, 3, and 4 only.
4. Ground supported steel storage racks may be designed using the provisions of Section 109.
UBC Chapter 22, Division VI may be used for design provided seismic design forces are equal
to or greater than those specified in Sections 107.2 or 109.2, as appropriate.
5. Only attachments, anchorages, or restraints need be designed.
6. Ceiling weight shall include all light fixtures and other equipment or partitions that are
laterally supported by the ceiling. For purposes of determining the seismic force, a ceiling
weight of not less than 4 pounds per square foot (19.5 kh/m2) shall be used.
7. Ceilings constructed of lath and plaster or gypsum board screw or nail attached to suspended
members that support a ceiling at one level extending from wall to wall need not be analyzed
provided the walls are not over 50 feet (15 m) apart.
8. Light fixtures and mechanical services installed in metal suspension systems for acoustical tile
and lay-in panel ceilings shall be independently supported from the structure above as
specified in UBC Standard 25-2, Part III.
9. Wp for access floor systems shall be the dead load of the access floor system plus 25 percent of
the floor live load plus a 10 psf (0.5 kPa) partition load allowance.
10. Equipment includes, but is not limited to, boilers, chillers, heat exchangers, pumps,
air-handling units, cooling towers, control panels, motors, switchgear, transformers, and life
safety equipment. It shall include major conduit, ducting, and piping which services such
machinery and equipment and fire sprinkler systems. See Section 107.2 for additional
requirements for determining ap for nonrigid or flexibly mounted equipment.
September 1999
47
11. Seismic restraints may be omitted from piping and duct supports if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
11.1 Lateral motion of the piping or duct will not cause damaging impact with other systems.
11.2 The piping or duct is made of ductile material with ductile connections.
11.3 Lateral motion of the piping or duct does not cause impact of fragile appurtenances (e.g.
sprinkler heads) with any other equipment, piping, or structural member.
11.4 Lateral motion of the piping or duct does not cause loss of system vertical support.
11.5 Rod-hung supports of less than 12 inches (30 mm) in length have top connections that
cannot develop moments.
11.6 Support members cantilevered up from the floor are checked for stability.
12. Seismic restraints may be omitted from electrical raceways such as cable trays, conduit, and
bus ducts if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
12.1 Lateral motion of the raceway will not cause damaging impact with other systems.
12.2 Lateral motion of the raceway does not cause loss of system vertical support.
12.3 Rod-hung supports of less than 12 inches (30 mm) in length have top connections that
cannot develop moments.
12.4 Support members cantilevered up from the floor are checked for stability.
13. Piping, ducts, and electrical raceways that span between different buildings or structural
systems, and which must be functional following an earthquake, shall be sufficiently flexible
to withstand relative motion of support points assuming out-of-phase motions.
14. Vibration isolators supporting equipment shall be designed for lateral loads or restrained from
displacing laterally by other means. Restraint shall also be provided which limits vertical
displacement, such that lateral restraints do not become disengaged. ap and Rp for equipment
supported on vibration isolators shall be taken as 2.5 and 1.5, respectively, except that if the
isolation mounting frame is supported by shallow or expansion anchors and the isolation
system nominal air gap is greater than 1.25 inches, the design force for the anchors calculated
by Equation 107-2 shall be additionally multiplied by a factor of 2.0 to account for impact
effects.
15. Equipment anchorage shall not be designed such that lateral loads are resisted by gravity
friction (e.g., friction clips).
16. Expansion anchors which are required to resist seismic loads in tension shall not be used where
operational vibrating loads are present.
17. Movement of components within electrical cabinets, rack- and skid-mounted equipment, and
portions of skid-mounted electromechanical equipment that may cause damage to other
components by displacing, shall be restricted by attachment to anchored equipment or support
frames.
18. Batteries on racks shall be restrained against movement in all directions due to earthquake
forces.
19. Seismic restraints may include straps, chains, bolts, barriers, or other mechanisms that prevent
sliding, falling, and breach of containment of flammable and toxic materials. Friction forces
may not be used to resist lateral loads in these restraints unless positive uplift restraint is
provided which ensures that the friction forces act continuously.
48
September 1999
Table 104-8.
Rd
Ro
(RdRo)
o
(1.1 Ro)
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
3.6
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.9
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.9
2.0
5.
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.0
6. Cooling towers.
2.0
1.8
3.6
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.9
2.0
8. Storage racks.
2.0
1.8
3.6
2.0
2.0
1.8
3.6
2.0
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.9
2.0
Z=0.075
Z = 0.15
Z = 0.2
Z = 0.3
Z = 0.4
SA
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.24
0.32Na
SB
0.08
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.40Na
SC
0.09
0.18
0.24
0.33
0.40Na
SD
0.12
0.22
0.28
0.36
0.44Na
SE
0.19
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.36Na
SF
See Footnote 1
September 1999
49
Soil Profile
Type
Z=0.075
Z = 0.15
Z = 0.2
Z = 0.3
Z = 0.4
SA
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.24
0.32Nv
SB
0.08
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.40Nv
SC
0.13
0.25
0.32
0.45
0.56Nv
SD
0.18
0.32
0.40
0.54
0.64Nv
SE
0.26
0.50
0.64
0.84
0.96Nv
SF
See Footnote 1
2 km
5 km
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10 km
1. The near-source factor may be based on the linear interpolation of values for
distances other than those shown in the table.
2. The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established
based on approved geotechnical data (e.g. most recent mapping of active faults by the
United States Geological Survey or the California Division of Mines and Geology).
3. The closest distance to seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance
between the site and the area described by the vertical projection of the source on the
surface (i.e., surface projection of fault plane). The surface projection need not
include portions of the source at depths of 10 km, or greater. The largest value of the
near-source factor considering all sources shall be used for design.
50
September 1999
Table 104-12.
Seismic Source
Type
2 km
5 km
10 km
15 km
2.0
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. The near-source factor may be based on the linear interpolation of values for distances
other than those shown in the table.
2. The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established based
on approved geotechnical data (e.g. most recent mapping of active faults by the United
States Geological Survey or the California Division of Mines and Geology).
3. The closest distance to seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance between the
site and the area described by the vertical projection of the source on the surface (i.e.,
surface projection of fault plane). The surface projection need not include portions of the
source at depths of 10 km, or greater. The largest value of the near-source factor
considering all sources shall be used for design.
Table 104-13.
Seismic
Source Type1
September 1999
Maximum Moment
Magnitude, M
Slip Rate, SR
(mm/year)
M 7.0
SR
M 7.0
SR < 5
M < 7.0
SR
1.
2.
Seismic Source
Description
M 6.5
>2
SR < 2
M< 6.5
SR 2
51
Basic Structural
System 2
A. Bearing Wall
B. Building Frame
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
C. Moment
Resisting Frame
1.
2.
3.
4.
b. Concrete
c. Heavy timber
Steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF)
Light framed walls with shear panels
a. Wood structural panel walls for structures
three stories or fewer
b. All other light framed walls
Shear walls
a. Concrete
b. Masonry
Ordinary braced frames
a. Steel
2.0
65
2.0
65
2.0
160
2.0
160
1.6
65
1.6
1.6
160
1.6
2.0
65
240
2.0
65
2.0
65
2.0
240
2.0
160
1.6
160
b. Concrete3
c. Heavy timber
Special concentrically braced frames
a. Steel
Special moment resisting frame (SMRF)
a. Steel
b. Concrete
Masonry moment resisting wall frames
(MMRWF)
Concrete intermediate moment resisting frames
(IMRF)4
Ordinary moment resisting frames (OMRF)
1.6
1.6
65
2.0
240
2.0
2.0
2.0
NL
NL
160
2.0
a. Steel5
2.0
160
b. Concrete6
5. Special truss moment frames of steel (STMF)
52
RI
2.0
2.0
240
September 1999
Basic Structural
System 7
D. Dual System
RI
2.0
2.0
2.0
NL
160
160
2.0
2.0
160
160
2.0
2.0
160
2.0
2.0
NL
160
2.0
NL
2.0
160
2.0
2.0
2.0
NL
2.0
1.4
160
358
2.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
September 1999
53
Maximum Capable
Earthquake Response
Coefficient, MM
0.075
2.67
0.15
2.0
0.20
1.75
0.30
1.50
0.40
1.25
0.50
1.20
BD or BM Factor
0.8
1.0
10
1.2
20
1.5
30
1.7
40
1.9
50
2.0
1.
2.
54
September 1999
MM ZNa = 0.075
MM ZNa = 0.15
MM ZNa = 0.20
MM ZNa = 0.30
SA
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.24
0.8MMZNa
SB
0.08
0.15
0.20
0.30
1.0MMZNa
SC
0.09
0.18
0.24
0.33
1.0MMZNa
SD
0.12
0.22
0.28
0.36
1.1MMZNa
SE
0.19
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.9MMZNa
SF
1.
0.40
See footnote 2
Linear interpolation may be used to determine the value of CAM for values of MMZNa for other than those shown
in the table.
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients for soil.
2.
MM ZNv = 0.075
MM ZNv = 0.15
MM ZNv = 0.20
MM ZNv = 0.30
MM ZNv = 0.40
SA
0.06
0.12
0.16
0.24
0.8MM ZNv
SB
0.08
0.15
0.20
0.30
1.0MM ZNv
SC
0.13
0.25
0.32
0.45
1.4MM ZNv
SD
0.18
0.32
0.40
0.54
1.6MM ZNv
SE
0.26
0.50
0.64
0.84
2.4MM ZNv
SF
1.
2.
September 1999
See footnote
Linear interpolation may be used to determine the value of CVM for values of MMZNv for other than those shown
in the table.
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine
seismic coefficients for soil.
55
Figure 104-1.
56
September 1999
Requirements
Figure 104-2.
September 1999
Figure 104-2
57
58
September 1999
Requirements
201
CHAPTER 2
General Requirements
202
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC requirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Committee. These items may or may not be adopted into future
editions of the UBC.
202.1
Special Inspections
202.1.1
202.1.2
September 1999
59
202.1.3.6 Requirements
202.1.3.6 Mechanical and Electrical Components. Periodic special inspection required during instal-
Special Testing
September 1999
5. Seismic Isolation Systems, Passive Energy Dissipation Systems. Testing and inspection of seismic isolators and passive energy dissipation devices shall be
as follows:
a. All prototype and production phase testing of
isolators shall be performed in accordance with
the provisions of Sections 157 and 160 and all
isolator testing shall be witnessed and reported by
a qualified, independent inspector.
b. All prototype and production phase testing of
passive energy dissipation devices shall be
performed in accordance with the provisions of
Appendix H, Section H8.6 and H10, and all such
testing shall be witnessed and reported by a
qualified, independent inspector.
c. Periodic inspection and maintenance of seismic
isolators shall be performed based on the
Requirements of Section 157.2.8.
d. Periodic inspection and maintenance of passive
energy dissipating devices shall be performed
based on the requirements of Appendix H,
Section H8.5.
202.3
Structural Observation
Structural observation shall be provided by the design engineer(s) of record or their authorized representatives.
Structural observation shall consist of site visits at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to observe
construction in progress and review testing and inspection
reports for general compliance with the construction documents relating to the structural work and the nonstructural components and equipment anchorage. Observed
deficiencies shall be reported in writing to the owners representative, special inspector, contractor, and building official. A report to the same parties shall be made at the
completion of the structural work and the nonstructural
components and equipment anchorage regarding the observations that have been made.
202.4
Design Review
September 1999
Requirements
202.3
Peer Review
Quality Assurance
61
202.6.1 Requirements
62
Special Inspection and Testing. The building owner shall employ an approved special inspector to
observe construction of all designated seismic systems in
accordance with the requirements of UBC 1701.5 and
1703.
September 1999
Requirements
301
CHAPTER 3
Foundations
301
General Requirements
302
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC requirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Committee.
302.1
Modify:
September 1999
302.2
302.2.1
Eqn. 302-1
302.2.3 Requirements
6. Where batter piles are subject to forces from earthquake ground motions, they shall be fixed to the grade
beam or pile cap. Batter piles and their connection
shall be capable of resisting forces from the load combinations of Section 101.7.4.
7. Load factors for reinforced concrete design shall conform with Section 101.7.2.
302.2.3
Pile-Soil-Structure Interaction
64
1. Grade beams shall be designed as beams in accordance with UBC 1921.3 and 1921.4. When grade
beams have the capacity to resist the forces from the
load combinations in Section 101.7.4, they need not
conform to UBC 1921.3 and 1921.4.
2. Design of anchorage of piles into the pile cap shall
consider combined effect of uplift forces and fixity to
the pile cap. Anchorage shall develop a minimum of
25 percent of the allowable tensile value of the pile.
For piles required to resist uplift forces or provide rotational restraint, anchorage into the pile cap shall be
capable of developing, at a minimum, the lesser of the
following:
a. The tensile strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement in a concrete pile or the tensile
strength of a steel pile.
b. 1.3 times the pile uplift capacity in the soil.
3. Where the vertical lateral force resisting elements are
columns, the grade beam or pile cap flexural strengths
shall exceed the column flexural strength by a factor
of 1.3. Column longitudinal reinforcing bar hooks in
the grade beam or pile cap shall be oriented such that
the bend induces compression into the joints.
4. The distance from the face of the pile away from the
cap or grade beam edges shall not be less than 9
inches.
5. The stiffness of the pile cap shall be considered as
rigid when the span-to-depth ratio does not exceed 2.
Pile cap flexibility and nonuniform distribution of reactions on piles shall be considered for greater ratios.
September 1999
Requirements
401
CHAPTER 4
Reinforced Concrete
401
General Requirements
Design and construction of structural concrete components that are subject to seismically induced forces or deformations shall conform to the requirements of the 1997
UBC, except as modified by the Requirements of this
chapter.
402
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC requirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Committee. These items may or may not be adopted into future
editions of the IBC (International Building Code).
402.1
Definitions of h and v
h =
v =
Modify defini-
402.2
Modify:
UBC 1921.2.6.1
To read as follows:
402.2.3
UBC 1921.2.6.3. Welded splices in reinforcement resisting earthquake-induced forces shall conform to 1912.14.3.3 and shall not be used within a distance
equal to twice the member depth from the column or beam
face or from sections where yielding of the reinforcement
is likely to occur as a result of inelastic lateral displacements.
402.2.4
402.3
402.2.1
September 1999
65
402.4 Requirements
402.4
402.4.1
Modify:
read as follows:
UBC 1921.4.1
Scope.
To
402.8
The requirements of UBC 1921.4 apply to frame members that resist earthquake-induced forces, and either 1)
have a factored axial force exceeding ( A g f c 10 ); or 2)
are vertical members that resist gravity loads by axial compression. These frame members shall also satisfy the following conditions:
402.5
402.5.1
402.5.2
402.6
Modify:
To read as follows:
Replace:
UBC 1921.6.2.4.
To read as follows.
66
2. Development of vertical reinforcement into the foundation or other supporting member shall conform to
UBC 1912.12.1.
Shear Demand
402.8.1
Modify:
To read as follows:
UBC 1921.6.3
Design Forces.
Modify: UBC 1909.3.4.1. Strength Reduction Factor for Shear. Add Exception paragraph at
Delete:
UBC 1921.6.5.5.
402.10
Modify:
UBC 1921.6.6.2
To read as follows:
Connected or intersecting wall sections shall be considered as integral units with the strength of flanges,
boundary members, and webs evaluated on the basis of
compatible interaction between these elements. The effect of wall openings shall be considered. For the moment strength of I-, L-, C-, or T-shaped or similar
September 1999
Requirements
402.11.1
s =
402.11
402.11.2
402.13
P 'u =
Modify:
UBC 1921.6.10.4
t =
y =
402.11.3
402.12
To read as follows:
Add:
Add new section after:
To read as follows:
UBC 1921.6.6.6
September 1999
67
402.13 Requirements
68
September 1999
Requirements
501
CHAPTER 5
Aluminum
501
502
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
502.1
Modify:
UBC 2002.2
Members.
Welded Structural
502.3.2
Replace: UBC 2004.3 Dissimilar Materials. Where aluminum alloy parts are in contact with dissimilar metals, other than stainless, aluminized, or
galvanized steel, or are in contact with absorbent building
materials likely to be continuously or intermittently wet,
the faying surfaces shall be painted or mechanically separated by corrosion-neutral materials in accordance with
Division II.
502.3.3
Replace: UBC 2004.5 Welding. Aluminum parts shall be welded with an inert gas-shielded arc or
resistance welding process. No welding process that requires a welding flux shall be used. Filler alloys complying with the requirements of Division II shall be used.
Refer to AWS D1.2 for welding standards and procedures.
following:
502.4
502.2
Replace:
UBC 2003.3
502.3
502.3.1
September 1999
Design
Design shall be in accordance with Division I and the following Requirements. Structural aluminum shall meet the
requirements of UBC 1612.3 for load combinations using
allowable stress design (ASD) and UBC 1630 or 1631.
Structural aluminum shall also adhere to all requirements
for drift as defined in UBC 1630.9 and 1630.10. Curtain
walls, storefronts, skylights, and other exterior and interior
elements composed of aluminum members shall conform
to the allowable stress requirements of UBC 1612.3 and
1632.2 and the deformation requirements of UBC
1633.2.4.
502.5
Modify:
Webs.
lowing:
Only that part of a stiffener cross-section that lies outside
the fillet of the flange angle shall be considered as effective in bearing. Bearing stiffeners shall not be joggled
(stiffeners shall not be notched into the parent material nor
69
502.6 Requirements
Fabrication
Welded Construction
70
September 1999
Requirements
601
CHAPTER 6
Reinforced Masonry
601
General Requirements
The design and construction of reinforced masonry components that resist seismic forces shall conform to the requirements of the 1997 edition of the UBC, except as
modified by the Requirements of this chapter.
602
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC requirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Committee. These items may or may not be adopted into future
editions of the UBC.
602.1
602.4
602.4.1
0.13d b f y
l de = ---------------------K f m
For SI:
602.2
where:
(8-12)
where:
Standards of Quality
(8-13)
l de
1.56d b f y
= ---------------------K f m
db =
fy
f m =
602.3
602.3.1
Delete:
602.3.2
602.3.3
Reinforcement.
September 1999
ld
71
602.4.2 Requirements
(8-14)
where:
ld
lde =
db
fy
l de
0.16d b f y
= ---------------------K f m
l de
1.95d b f y
= ----------------------K f m
(8-13a)
For SI:
where:
fm =
ld
lde =
72
September 1999
Requirements 701
C HAPTER 7
Steel
701
General
702
Recommended Modifications
to the 1997 UBC
UBC Division IV
Replace:
With:
702.2
Modifications to
AISC-Seismic 97Part I, LRFD
702.2.3.1
The rotation represented by the plastic chord rotation angle calculated as the plastic deflection of the beam or girder, at the center of its span divided by the distance between
the center of the beam span and the centerline of the panel
zone of the beam column connection.
Reduced Beam Section. A reduction in cross section over a discrete length that promotes a zone of inelasticity in the member.
702.2.1
September 1999
73
702.2.3.2 Requirements
Intermediate
702.2.4
Modify: AISC Part I, 2 Referenced
Specifications Codes and Standards
74
Modify: AISC Part 1, 12.3 Nominal Strength of Special Segment Members. In the fully yielded state, the
special segment shall develop vertical nominal shear
strength through the nominal flexural strength of the chord
members and through the nominal axial tensile and compressive strengths of the diagonal web members. Where
web diagonals are provided, the top and bottom chord
members in the special segment shall be made of identical
sections and shall provide at lease 25 percent of the required vertical shear strength in the fully yielded state. In
Vierendeel special segments, the required shear and flexural strength shall not exceed the corresponding design
strengths of chords and web verticals. The required axial
strength in the chord members shall not exceed 0.45 times
F y A g , where = 0.9.
Diagonal members in any panel of the special segment
shall be made of identical sections and shall have kL/r less
than 1000 F y. The required strength of a diagonal
member in axial compression shall not exceed cP nc. The
required strength of a diagonal member in axial tension
shall not exceed tP nt. The end connection of the diagonal
web members in the special segment shall have a design
strength that is at least equal to the expected nominal axial
September 1999
Requirements 702.2.12
tensile strength of the web member, R y Fy A g. In the direction that analysis indicates the web diagonal will buckle,
the design flexural strength of the connection shall be
equal to or greater than the expected nominal flexural
strength 1.1R y Mp of the brace about the critical buckling
axis.
paragraph:
702.2.12 Modify: AISC Part I, 15.4b Link-to-Column Connections. Add the following to the end of the
following:
Material
September 1999
Replace:
With:
75
702.4 Requirements
702.4
Table702-1.
LRFD Terminology
1997 UBC
AISC-Seismic 97
Design earthquake
Em
Em
o Q E
Table702-2.
76
ASD Terminology
1997 UBC
AISC-Seismic 97
Design earthquake
Em
Em
o Q E
September 1999
Requirements
801
CHAPTER 8
Wood
801
General Requirements
802
802.1
802.1.1
Modify:
follows:
Wood shear walls shall not be used to resist seismic forces
in concrete or masonry buildings over one story in height.
Exception: Wood shear walls shall be permitted to
be used to resist seismic forces from concrete or masonry walls in buildings two stories in height provided
that, in addition to the requirements of UBC 2315.2,
Exception 2, the allowable shear in all such shear
walls is limited to 50 percent of that otherwise permitted.
802.1.2
Vertical
Diaphragms
Max. Height/
Width Ratios
Diagonal sheathing,
conventional
3:1
1:11
Diagonal sheathing,
special
4:1
2:12
4:1
2:12
4:1
____3
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
Items listed below are modifications to the 1997 UBC requirements, as approved by the SEAOC Seismology Committee. These items may or may not be adopted into future
editions of the International Building Code (IBC).
Panels.
802.2
Material
1.
2.
3.
September 1999
77
78
September 1999
Requirements
901
CHAPTER 9
Other Materials
901
General Requirements
902
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
None.
903
Materials that have had structural properties established may be designed by either the allowable stress or
strength methods. Conventional structural analysis and design methods may be used. For assemblies to be designed
by strength methods, all components shall have had ultimate strength values established, or the entire assembly
shall have been tested for ultimate strength properties.
September 1999
79
903 Requirements
80
September 1999
Commentary
Commentary
C101
CHAPTER 1
General
C101.1
September 1999
83
C101.2 Commentary
84
September 1999
While providing a continuous load path is an obvious design requirement for acceptable structural performance,
experience shows that this fundamental requirement is often overlooked, leading to significant damage and collapse. Because it is one of the most fundamental
considerations in seismic design, this requirement is stated
at the beginning of these Requirements to emphasize its
importance. Detailed Requirements for selecting, or identifying and designing this load path are given in the relevant design and material sections.
C101.5
This Requirement for clearly stating the basis for the structure's seismic design has two main objectives:
1. Ensure that the engineer has fully identified the particular lateral force resisting system and its appropriate
design levels.
2. Allow the design basis to be fully identified for the
purpose of future modifications and changes in the
structure.
C101.6
Computer Calculations
September 1999
Commentary C101.4
C101.6.3
C101.6.4
C101.7
C101.7.1
General. The fundamental change from allowable stress design to strength basis is reflected in the
load combinations given in Section 101.7.2.1. These are
the basic factored load combinations that are intended for
strength design or load and resistance factor design; and
they are consistent with both ASCE-7 and the 1997
NEHRP Provisions. To accommodate the preferences of
engineers who wish to continue to work using the allowable stress basis, load combinations are given in Subsection 101.7.3 for allowable stress design.
85
C101.7.2 Commentary
Load Combinations Using Strength Design or Load and Resistance Factor Design. The load
based on completely different philosophies and specifically are not intended to be equivalent to each other. The
basic set of load combinations (ASCE 7-93) are based on
the premise that the design strength resulting from the al-
86
typically permitted for all the load combinations that include wind or earthquake loads. However, this one-third
increase should not be applied to the allowable shear values in the 1997 UBC Tables 23-II-H, 23-II-I-1, and 23-III-2 since these values have already been increased for
short-time wind or earthquake load. Also, the one-third increase should not be used concurrently with a permitted
load duration factor CD for wood design. Neither should
the general one-third increase be applied to allowable soil
pressures that have already been increased for short-time
wind or earthquake loads as permitted by UBC 1809.2.
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C101.7.4
C102
Base. Older editions of the SEAOC Blue Book permitted the first complete floor at grade to be considered as
the base for the structure. The reasoning behind this was
quite directmost buildings have the first floor at grade.
For buildings having basements, even though grade was
considerably below the first floor, the rigid nature of the
basement structure produced a dynamic setback at the
first floor for the longer period structure above. The basement story had very little effect on the period of vibration
of the total building. The first floor base was used for the
purpose of computing a building period T from which the
previous C coefficient and ultimately the base shear V
were computed. Little guidance was given on the application of this shear load as applied to the base, but most engineers provided for a path of sufficient strength to transfer
this base shear between the structure and the soil.
The first floor is still the base for the majority of buildings. However, it is now mandatory to consider the mechanism by which earthquake forces are transmitted from the
soil into the building. The interface at which this is accomplished is now considered the base. Depending on the type
of building under discussion, it may not be unusual to consider a rigid basement floor slab or the bottoms of building
footings as the base.
The selection of a base for a building on a sloping site
presents special problems. Usually, very rigid structural
elements should be utilized below the highest contact with
the site to equalize the stiffness distribution in the building
plan, thereby minimizing torsion.
Bearing Wall System. This class of structural systems includes those that were known as the box system in
previous versions of the SEAOC Blue Book. See the details in Requirements Section 104.6.2.
Boundary Element. The function of this element is
to resist significant tension and compression actions in
shear walls and diaphragms.
Collector.
drag strut.
C103 Commentary
design of horizontal bracing need not conform to requirements under UBC 2211.9, except for the transfer of seismic forces from in-plane discontinuous lateral force
resisting elements.
C103
C104
Strength. Also known as the capacity or the capability to resist loads when evaluated using the strength
design basis for reinforced concrete or the equivalent of
this basis for other materials. It may be considered as the
essential yield or inelastic threshold of an element.
88
No Commentary provided.
UBC 1629.1
For strength design of the foundation footing elements, the soil pressures resulting from the ASD loads (D,
L and E/1.4) in Section 101.7.3 may be load factored as
per Section 101.7.2 for the evaluation of the strength design load actions on the foundation element sections.
C104.2
Occupancy Categories
In earlier editions of these Requirements, special occupancy consideration was given for only those essential facilities now considered as Occupancy Category I: where
the I-factor increased lateral design forces by 50 percent.
Two additional categories are now included: hazardous facilities (Category II) and special occupancy structures (Category III). These categories are defined in Table
104-3 (see Requirements). All three categories require
special review, inspection, and construction observation
(Requirements are provided in Chapter 2). Category I and
II facilities have 25 percent increased lateral force requirements, through an I factor of 1.25 and an Ip=1.5, while Category III facilities have I=1.0 and Ip=1.0.
It was judged that an increased force factor of 25 percent for structures in Categories I and II, coupled with special design and construction review/inspection/
observation, should provide the same level of overall seis-
September 1999
mic performance that was intended by the former 50 percent increase in load. In the judgment of SEAOC, the
details of design and construction often dominate seismic
performance. Therefore, increasing these aspects for essential facilities can improve performance more effectively than relying solely on increased design force levels to
achieve this end. The higher Ip used for elements, equipment, and components reflects lower redundancy, damping, and ductility in these items relative to the structure.
When describing Category I, II, or III facilities, recall
that the Requirements are intended as minimum requirements only. Additional levels of protection may be obtained by providing additional energy dissipation capacity,
increasing lateral system stiffness, providing redundancy
in lateral force resisting systems, special detailing for damage control, construction quality assurance, and by increasing design force levels (see Commentary Section
C105.2.1 on Importance Factor I).
C104.3
September 1999
Commentary C104.3
89
C104.4 Commentary
90
average shear wave velocity, vs, in accordance with Equation 111-1; the average SPT value, N, for the site as a
whole in accordance with Equation 111-2; or the average
SPT, Nch, for the cohesionless layers in accordance with
Equation 111-3 and the average undrained shear strength,
su, in accordance with Equation 111-4. (Note that these
equations average the reciprocal of the value, since the
travel time through the soil is more directly related to the
site response and amplification than to the shear wave velocity itself.) Select the appropriate Soil Profile Type from
Table 104-2.
See Appendix B and the 1997 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings for
further discussion.
C104.4
September 1999
Configuration Requirements
C104.5.1
Commentaries to earlier editions of these Requirements and to ATC 3-06 have described undesirable con-
September 1999
Commentary C104.4.2
91
C104.5.3 Commentary
Irregular Structures. Vertical and plan irregularities can result in loads and deformations significantly different from those assumed by equivalent static
procedures; those distributions of mass, stiffness, or
strength that result in earthquake forces and/or deformations over the height of the structure, which are significantly different from linearly varying distributions, are
designated as vertical irregularities. Those plan or diaphragm characteristics that result in significant amounts of
torsional response, diaphragm deformations, or diaphragm
stress concentrations are designated as plan irregularities.
Structural Systems
September 1999
building systems to provide energy dissipation in the inelastic range (see structural system factor R in Commentary Section C105.2.1 and in Appendix C). Ro indicates the
ratio of expected strength of the system to the force necessary to cause the first yield. Rd and Ro values for structures
other than buildings are given in Table 104-8 in Requirements.
In any structural system, it is preferable that the individual lateral force resisting elements be located on separate vertical planes for each direction of loading. It is
important that adequate resistance to torsion be provided
both by the strength and arrangement of these elements in
the plan of the structure.
R is the product of Rd and Ro. The particular requirements necessary to qualify for a given structural system
type and its corresponding R value follow.
C104.6.2
September 1999
Commentary C104.6.2
Building Frame System. This system consists of a vertical load-carrying space frame with lateral
load resistance provided by braced frames or nonbearing
shear walls. This definition does not require that absolutely all the vertical load be carried by the vertical loadcarrying frame (see Commentary Section C104.6.1,
above, relative to the presence of minor load-bearing
walls).
While there is no requirement to provide lateral resistance in the vertical load framing, it is strongly recommended that nominal moment resistance be incorporated
into the vertical load frame design. In structural steel, this
might be in the form of nominal moment-resisting beam
flange and/or web connections to the columns. In reinforced concrete, the nominal moment resistance inherent
in cast-in-place concrete may be considered sufficient to
qualify for this system, while most types of precast concrete systems would not. In reinforced concrete, continuity
and full development and anchorage of longitudinal steel,
93
C104.6.4 Commentary
C104.6.5
Dual System.
following features:
C104.6.5.1 The vertical load-carrying space frame
shall be substantially complete. Special details are required according to the R value and seismic zone.
C104.6.5.2 and C104.6.5.3 The shear walls or
braced frames and moment-resisting frames of the lateral
force resisting system shall comply with both of the following criteria:
1. The frame and shear walls or braced frames shall resist the total required lateral force in accordance with
relative rigidities considering the interaction of the
walls and frames as a single system. This analysis
shall be made in accordance with the principles of
structural mechanics that consider the relative rigidities of the elements and torsion effects in the system.
Deformations imposed on members of the frame by
the interaction with the shear wall or braced frame
shall be considered in this analysis. In previous editions of these Requirements, shear walls or braced
frames were required to be designed for 100 percent of
the required lateral force. This was a simple rule that
permitted design without the necessity of evaluating
the interaction effects with the moment-resisting
94
September 1999
C104.6.9
September 1999
Commentary C104.6.7
For those portions of the space frame that are not part
of the designated lateral force resisting system, the deformation compatibility Requirements of Section 108.2.4
must be complied with. Also, if the materials, type, or configuration of these portions of the space frame are such that
brittle failure and/or collapse could occur if the inelastic
displacements were to exceed the factored values prescribed by Section 108.2.4, then extra reinforcing details
should be provided to prevent brittle failure, or the amount
of inelastic displacement must be controlled by extra stiffness and strength in the designated lateral force resisting
system. See related Commentary Sections C108.2.4,
C408, and Appendix E.
95
C104.7 Commentary
C104.7
Height Limits
Building codes have long prescribed height limits, principally for purposes of fire protection. A single 160-foot
level height limit was imposed on many systems for seismic protection by previous editions of these Requirements. In this edition, the limits of some systems were
reduced and others were raised. In general, special moment-resisting frame systems have no height limits as they
have had in the past. Dual systems have either a 160-foot
limit, or no limit, depending on the combination considered.
2.
3.
4.
Many systems where lower limits have been prescribed are of materials where the practice of the industry
has been, in general, to limit height approximately to the
values provided.
C104.8
96
5.
6.
7.
feet, stories having lateral resistance less than 65 percent of the story above are prohibited (Section
104.9.1).
Discontinuous lateral force resisting systems, such as
discontinuous shear walls, require special design of
supporting columns (Section 105.8.2).
The higher mode overturning effect represented by the
quantity Ft may be omitted at the soil interface for regular structures. It may not be omitted for irregular
structures (Section 105.8.3 and UBC 1809.4).
Plan irregularity Type 1 in Table 104-5 represents a
torsional irregularity that occurs when the center of
mass has a large eccentricity relative to the lateral
force resisting elements. This irregularity carries a
penalty of increased accidental torsion, in which an
amplified accidental eccentricity must be used in design (Equation 105-17).
More stringent stress limits are required for connections of diaphragms to vertical elements and to drag
members when plan irregularities exist (Section
108.2.10).
Concurrent application of earthquake forces in two orthogonal directions is required when torsional irregularity Type 1 of Table 104-5 exists in both principal
horizontal directions. There is a similar Requirement
for application of earthquake forces in two orthogonal
directions when the structure has plan irregularity
Type 5 in Table 104-5. This latter type of irregularity
exists when the vertical elements are neither parallel
to, nor symmetric about, a set of principal horizontal
orthogonal axes (Section 108.1).
The prescribed base shear may be reduced by 10 percent for regular structures when a dynamic analysis is
performed. This reduction is not permitted for structures with irregular features (Section 106.5.4).
C104.8.1
September 1999
should still recognize the significance of the effects of irregularity and take appropriate measures to ensure performance consistent with the objectives of this document.
C104.8.2
Static Procedure
Dynamic Procedure
Item 1. Dynamic analysis is required for tall structures over 240 feet in height in order to determine the possible effects of higher mode response on the force
distribution and deformations.
Items 2 and 3. Dynamic analysis is required because the cited irregularities invalidate the assumptions
applicable for equivalent static force analysis.
September 1999
Commentary C104.8.2
Item 4. In September 1985, Mexico City was shaken by a great earthquake centered some 400 kilometers to
the southwest. The shaking experienced in Mexico City
during this event varied markedly with subsurface soil
conditions. This shaking was most intense within a region
underlain by an ancient lakebed comprised of soft clay deposits. The recorded ground motions within this lakebed
region had peak accelerations that were only moderately
strong (0.17g); however, these motions lasted nearly 2
minutes and exhibited nearly harmonic behavior with a period of about 2 seconds. As a result, the spectral amplitudes in this period range for motions recorded on the lake
bed were much larger (by factors of 15 to 20) than the corresponding spectral amplitudes for motions recorded on
rock sites at comparable epicentral distances [Bertero,
1986].
Because of this, the most significant damage was confined to the lakebed region and occurred in buildings that
were 5 to 15 stories in height with small-strain natural periods of about 0.8-1.0 seconds. When these buildings began to crack and yield during the shaking, their natural
period began to lengthen. As this lengthening period approached the dominant period of the lakebed motions (approximately 2 seconds), the structural response intensified
as it entered into resonance with these ground motions.
The long duration of the nearly harmonic ground motions
provided ample time for development of resonance conditions, resulting in many cycles of intense shaking of the
buildings. This, in turn, led to a progressive increase in
building damage and to eventual collapse in many cases.
It is important to recognize that the volcanic origin,
mineralogy, and extremely high water content (100-500
percent) of the lakebed clay deposits are unique to the
Mexico City area. These factors have contributed to the essentially linear and lightly damped nature of the lakebed's
earthquake motions and to their extremely large amplification characteristics. In addition, the location of the lakebed
soil deposits in a basin of rock-like material contributed to
the usually high long-period amplifications that were observed [Singh, 1988; Dobry and Vucetic, 1987].
The geologic characteristics of the Mexico City lakebed deposits are not typical of most Type SF sites in California. Therefore, it is unlikely that Type SF California
sites would exhibit ground response characteristics comparable to those observed in Mexico City. Nevertheless,
because of the limited understanding of the behavior of
soft clay (Type SF) sites in a strong motion environment,
there is concern about the possible occurrence of extensive
damage to structures located on such clay deposits due to
97
C104.8.5 Commentary
General Commentary on Methods of Analysis and Related Structural Models (refers to Requirements Sections 104.8 and 106.3). Since the writing of
needed for any purpose, it can also serve for all required
loading conditions, including seismic loading in each principal direction, other selected directions, and for orthogonal effects.
C104.9
System Limitations
A three-dimensional model is appropriate for the analysis of torsional effects (actual plus accidental), diaphragm deformability, and systems having nonrectangular
plan configurations. When the three-dimensional model is
98
September 1999
An investigation of both the elastic and inelastic deformation demands in the system and in the individual elements should be made at the level of maximum ground
motion. This should include consideration of the possible
differences between the response of the all elastic model
and the response of the inelastic structure. It is suggested
that the story and structure yield mechanisms of the structure be determined as a part of this investigation. Some
guidelines are given in Seismic Design Guidelines for Essential Buildings [U.S. Army, 1986; ATC-40, 1997].
Use of any new system proposed for regions of strong
seismicity presents special concerns. It is not sufficient to
show only strength capability at an appropriate design level. There must also be special details for the inelastic behavior of the system, along with a verification of stability
at deformations corresponding to the maximum expected
ground motion. Additionally, there must be provisions for
redundancies, or backup systems, to provide for extra unknown deformations due to uncertainties in structural response and ground motion. For example, for the defined
systems: the Requirements specify that special concrete
columns must be designed not to have yield hinges and
shear failures; concrete shear walls require special boundary elements when highly stressed; steel bracing requires
special strength for connections and protection against
fracture and excess inelastic buckling. In other words,
there must always be something to support vertical loads
even when maximum expected deformations are exceeded. The details used in new systems should be carefully assessed to ensure they provide an equivalent level of
performance to that of defined systems.
Exaggerated forms of the defined systems may require
use of a reduced R value along with special details for the
particular configurations of elements and their connections. Examples include, but are not limited to, special moment-resisting frames reduced down to a few separated,
single bay bents; shear walls, usually either of tilt-up concrete or plywood-stud construction, where large openings
September 1999
Commentary C104.9.2
create a virtual rigid frame configuration; moment-resisting or special moment-resisting steel frames where all or
most columns in a story are weaker in flexure than the
beam elements. In these examples, either the redundancy
of the system has been significantly reduced, or the location and mode of inelastic energy dissipation is changed
from that considered in the related system as defined in
these Requirements.
C104.9.3
Irregular Features.
Discussion of specific
99
C104.9.3.4 Commentary
If the structure is irregular in plan only, then it is assumed that the equivalent static force method that includes
the accidental eccentricity in mass center locations, will
provide a reasonable upper bound on the force distribution
and deformations due to torsional mode effects. However,
in the case of extreme or unusual configurations, it is advisable to perform a dynamic analysis on a three-dimensional model of the structure.
When the structure has both plan and vertical irregularity, then a three-dimensional model is necessary for the
dynamic analysis in order to best evaluate the force distribution and deformations due to the three-dimensional
mode combinations for a given direction of seismic input.
C104.9.3.4
Figure
C104-5i shows a severe irregularity in force transfer that
would not be identified by a stiffness or deflection analysis. Under the deformation response due to major seismic
ground motion, the axial load demand on the exterior column may be much higher than that resulting from specified design loads, and this has necessitated the extra design
Requirements in Section 105.7.2.
Irregular Force Transfers.
September 1999
C105
C105.1
September 1999
Commentary C104.10
equivalent story forces are based on simplifying assumptions for mode shapes and modal participation. For the
equivalent lateral force procedure, it is assumed that the
story drift ratios and masses are reasonably uniform over
the height of the building, and that the governing modes of
vibration are primarily translational, not torsional.
Earthquake Loads. The earthquake load,
105.1.1
E, is defined as a function of both horizontal, Eh, and vertical, Ev, components of the ground motion. The horizontal
component of the earthquake load is further multiplied by
the redundancy factor to account for redundancy in each
buildings lateral bracing elements.
101
C105.1.1.1 Commentary
Reliability/Redundancy Factor
Redundancy is a characteristic of
structures in which multiple paths of resistance to loads are
provided. The advantages of incorporating redundancy in
a structure have long been recognized, especially when the
structure is subjected to loads that cause inelastic deformations. A structure with multiple load paths is less susceptible to problems caused by design and/or construction
errors. Well distributed inelastic action in a structure will
likely result in the gradual formation of a structural mechanism and will help to control inelastic deformations and
the effects of strength degradation. The early development
of the K factor (the predecessor of the R factor) assumed much more redundancy than present designs are
providing.
(Equation 105-3).
Past earthquakes have shown repeatedly that redundant structures perform better than structures with few lateral load resisting elements. The Northridge event was no
exception, as findings by the SAC joint venture have indicated. Recently, however, economic pressures have encouraged engineers and owners to limit the number of
lateral load resisting elements in structures. In an effort to
reverse this trend, the redundancy factor was developed to
increase the seismic design loads for structures in which a
large percentage of the total lateral load is resisted by a
small number of elements. This is intended to encourage
engineers to design redundant structures. It will also reduce the magnitude of the inelastic response and therefore
the ductility demand of structures with few lateral load resisting elements.
The maximum value of the redundancy factor need
not be taken as greater than 1.5. However it is strongly recommended that the calculated value of be as small as
practical. Where is calculated to be greater than 1.5, inelastic response capacities, quality control for both design
and construction, and careful detailing of the structure
should receive special consideration.
102
September 1999
Commentary C105.1.1.2
103
C105.1.1.3 Commentary
104
Modeling Requirements. The mathematical model of the physical structure used should include all
elements of the lateral force resisting system. The stiffness
and strength of elements that significantly affect the distribution of forces should also be included. The model will
need to adequately represent the spatial distribution of the
mass and stiffness of the structure.
For concrete and masonry buildings, the present Provisions have also added the requirements that the stiffness
properties of the elements consider the effects of cracked
sections.
In previous editions of the Blue Book, the stiffness
modeling requirements were not explicitly stated. As a result, some engineers were using gross stiffness properties
while others were using effective stiffness.
It is widely known that the effective stiffnesses of
structural components are typically considerably less than
the gross-section properties. The actual stiffness for a given component will depend on several factors including,
but not limited to, deformation and anticipated stress levels, whether element is a flexure-dominated or shear-dominated element, and the axial load on the element.
For steel moment frame systems, the present Provisions require that the contribution of panel zone deformations to overall story drift be considered. It is now widely
acknowledged that the deformation experienced within the
joint contributes to frame deflection and interstory drift.
Story drift associated with the shearing deformation,
which takes place in the panel zone, is difficult to quantify
analytically, especially when the elastic limit of the panel
zone is approached or exceeded because shear stresses are
not uniformly distributed across the panel zone.
Panel zone deformation is also affected by the size of
the column, axial loads, and the amount of imposed moment. Column panel zones are often reinforced with doubler plates to reduce shearing stresses and strains.
Consequently, behavior within the panel zone is often presumed to be elastic and based on that, analytical procedures have been developed that are believed to predict
behavior to an acceptable degree of accuracy.
C105.1.3 P-delta Effects. The P-delta Requirements
remain unchanged from previous editions of the Blue
Book. The drift ratio value of 0.02I/RdRo serves to define
the threshold of deformation beyond which there may be
significant P-delta effects. Further analysis is necessary to
determine if the actual combination of vertical load and
lateral deformation is cause for concern. The P-delta effects in a given story are due to the horizontal offset or ec-
September 1999
Commentary C105.2
Eqn. C105-1
Vx =
hsx =
C105.2
where:
above level x
An acceptable P-delta analysis, when required, is as follows:
1. Compute for each story the P-delta amplification factor, ad = /(1 - ). This factor accounts for the multiplier effect due to the initial story drift, leading to
another increment of drift, which would lead to yet another increment, etc. Thus, both the effective shear in
the story and the computed eccentricity would be augmented by a factor 1 + + 2 + 3..., which is 1/(1 - )
or (1 + ad).
2. Multiply the story shear Vx in each story by the factor
(1 + ad) for that story and recompute the story shears,
overturning moments, and other seismic force effects
corresponding to these augmented story shears. Note
that the portion of the augmented shear due to the
P-delta effect on columns that are not part of the lateral load resisting system should be transferred by diaphragm action to the lateral load resisting system.
September 1999
C105.2.1
105
C105.2.1 Commentary
For a given fundamental period T, the base shear equations 105-4 and 105-6 provide values that are equal to the
fundamental mode ordinate of the acceleration response
spectrum (Cv / T and 2.5Ca respectively) given in Figure
104-2 times the total structure weight W, divided by R.
While only the fundamental mode period is employed, the
additional response due to higher modes of vibration is
represented and approximated by use of the total weight,
W. Equations AppD-8 and AppD-9 in Appendix D illustrate that the first or fundamental mode base shear is the effective mass of the first mode times the first mode spectral
ordinate Sa. This effective mass is on the order of 0.7 times
the total mass, W/g. Therefore the use of the total W in the
base shear equations is intended to provide an upperbound value of the combined mode (SRSS or CQC) base
shear response.
For the types of soil conditions existing in California,
the use of total W, along with the appropriate Cv and Ca
values, and the long period plateau Equations 105-7a and
105-7b, the use of the 1/T version of base shear Equation
105-4 provides reasonable parity with that of the previous
Blue Book Requirements that used the 1/T2/3 relation to
represent the multi-mode response.
Equations 105-4 and 105-6 contain the following variables: Ca and Cv are the seismic response coefficients and
are discussed in Commentary Section C104.4.3. W is the
effective dead weight of the structure as defined in Requirements Section 105.1.1. R is the reduction factor used
to reduce the dynamic force level that would exist if the
structure remained elastic to a design force level that includes the effect of ductility and overstrength. This force
level is now at the strength level, rather that the working
stress level as it was in previous editions of the Blue Book.
This R is compatible with the R used in the 1997 NEHRP
provisions.
The Seismology Committee felt that in order to better
quantify the R factor for future systems and the review of
the R factor for present systems, it would be appropriate to
break R into its separate components Ro and Rd. Ro represents the overstrength portion of the R factor. This overstrength is partially material-dependent and partially
system-dependent. Since design levels are based on first
yield of the highest stressed element of the system, the
maximum force level that the system can resist after the
formation of successive hinges, bracing yield, or shear
wall yield or cracking will be somewhat higher than the
initial yield value.
106
September 1999
Commentary C105.2.2
Critical elements required for the stability and integrity of the structure, such as columns under discontinuous
shear walls or bracing systems and other elements in irregular force transfer paths, must have the strength capacity to
resist the total yield mechanism force unless the yield capacity of adjacent elements is less than this level. The 0
factor is therefore applied to the design of elements and
connections whose yield or failure could result in local or
general collapse (see Section 105.8.2 for discontinuous
columns; Section 104.9.1 for weak stories; Section 108.2.6
for collector elements; and Chapter 7 for related steel column, bracing, and connection requirements).
The load combinations and capacity requirements involving the 0 factored seismic loads apply only to the
specified structural elements and their connections to the
adjoining elements. The adjoining elements need not be
designed for the forces due to these factored loads. It is intended by these Requirements that forces resulting from
load combinations involving the 0 factored seismic
loads may be resisted on a strength basis.
C105.2.2
Structure Period
Moment Resisting Frame Systems. The use of total height hn was judged to be more appropriate than the
number of stories N, as used in the frame period equation
given in earlier editions of these Requirements. Many
building configurations tend to have considerable variations in story heights, therefore the number of stories is not
a good indicator of period. Where ATC 3-06 originally
gave values of Ct equal to 0.035 and 0.025 for steel and
concrete frames, respectively, these Requirements give
0.035 and 0.030. The data upon which the ATC 3-06 values were based were reexamined for concrete frames and
the 0.030 value judged to be more appropriate
The values for Ct given in these Requirements are intended to be reasonable lower bound (not mean) values for
structures designed according to the Requirements given
herein. Recent surveys and studies of the particular buildings that provided the period data for the ATC 3-06 equations [Bertero et al., 1988] have shown that these original
equations, even with the modified Ct for concrete, provide
predictions that are about 80 to 90 percent of the lower
107
C105.2.2.1 Commentary
108
Eqn. C105-1
During the development of approximate period formulas for the ATC 3-06 project, the measured periods of a
number of buildings were obtained. These measured periods were used to establish the revised equation for moment-resisting frames in ATC 3-06 and for these
Requirements and the 1988 UBC. There was a proposal
made during the development of ATC 3-06 to substitute
Ls, the length of the longest element of the vertical resisting system, for D in Formula 1-3A in editions of these Requirements prior to 1990. This obviously does not account
for the stiffness contribution of all of the other vertical resisting elements in the system.
The stiffness of a shear wall is inversely related to the
deformation of the wall, and the deformation consists of
shear and flexural contributions. The shear deformation is
governed by the wall area, D t. The flexural deformation
is governed by the moment of inertia of the wall.
Equation 105-9 in these Requirements for shear wall
structures was developed using some simplifying assumptions. The impetus for this effort resulted from the difficulties encountered in the trial design effort for the ATC 3-06
document. In regions where wind loads should be larger
than seismic design loads, reasonable calculated estimates
of the true period of the structures (as governed by wind
design) were several times larger than the periods given by
the approximate equation. The approximated (short) period values gave seismic design loads erroneously in excess
of the wind load requirements. By the same token, Formula 1-3A, as set forth in editions of these Requirements prior
to the 1990 edition, can in some cases overestimate the calculated period of a shear wall structure. Hence, this formuSeptember 1999
C105.2.3
Simplified Base Shear. In the sixty or seventy years since the first base shear equation, V=CW, was
developed, an enormous amount has been learned about
earthquakes and their impact on real structures. As a con-
September 1999
Commentary C105.2.2.2
109
C105.3 Commentary
need to identify any specific system and R value. It is important to note that the simplified equation in this edition
of the Blue Book is different than that found in the 1997
UBC. The equation found in the 1997 UBC was a compromise developed with building officials at the September
1996 Annual Business Meeting of ICBO in St. Paul, Minnesota. It is not as conservative as the approach found in
these Requirements.
C105.3
C105.3.1
Determination of 0 .
In Equation 105-13,
0 =1.1 Ro yields overstrength values ranging from about
2.2 to 3.5, depending on the value of Ro. Ro is defined in
Requirements Section 105.3.2. The difference between Ro
110
September 1999
In both cases, the analysis must confirm that the yielding elements of the structure can sustain the inelastic deformations needed to attain the maximum inelastic
response displacement, M . Otherwise, the lateral
strength computed is not valid. In other words, the lateral
strength, VM, must be consistent with the deformational
capacity of each yielding element.
C105.4
Combinations of Structural
Systems
C105.4.1 Vertical Combinations. The provision requiring the smallest R is intended to prevent mixed systems that may have concentrations of inelastic behavior in
the lower stories. This type of behavior results from putting a stiff shear wall system, Rd=1.8 or 2.2, on top of a
SMRF system, Rd=3.4 (e.g., Olive View hospital). Note
that this concentration of inelastic behavior can also result
from using a bearing wall, Rd=1.8, or a braced frame,
Rd=2.2, structural system on top of a steel OMRF with an
Rd=1.8.
C105.5
September 1999
Commentary C105.4
C105.6
Consideration should be given in the modeling of structures where vertical resisting elements are tall enough to
have significant flexural deformations. The rigidity of
these elements can be substantially different from rigidities calculated by the simple story-by-story method. Also,
considerable differences in the distribution of shears can
occur when the diaphragm deformations have been considered, compared to results obtained for fully rigid diaphragms.
The location and distribution of all of the weights required to be considered for earthquake motion response
cannot be determined with complete certainty. The Requirement for displacement of the mass at each level was
introduced to account for this condition, along with others
listed in Commentary Section C105.7 below.
Where orthogonal forces are applied simultaneously,
such as in time history analysis, the required 5 percent displacement of the center of mass should be applied for only
one of the orthogonal forces at a time. An analysis where
the 5 percent displacement is applied for both orthogonal
directions concurrently would result in a double application of the torsional effect of accidental eccentricity and
would not be consistent with the original intent for the use
of accidental eccentricity.
C105.7
111
C105.7 Commentary
112
September 1999
ments with the higher IDRs. The center of rigidity for the
inelastically deformed elements will therefore shift farther
to the right and inelastic torsional deformation demands
will be increased on the flexible left side elements. In order
to mitigate this progressive inelastic unscrewing of the
story resisting elements, it is necessary to base the design
strength for the stiffer right side elements on shear loads
that are reduced by the torsional shears.
C105.8
Overturning
C105.9
Drift
In the 1996 edition of the Blue Book, structural displacements or drifts are computed using working stress level
lateral forces. These displacements may be denoted as
W . In these Requirements, lateral forces are specified
at the strength level, and the corresponding displacements
are denoted as s . When a structure responds to the design
basis ground motion, it will experience forces larger than
both the working stress and strength level design forces,
and will thus likely respond in the inelastic range. The corresponding displacements, denoted as M , will be several
times larger than either W or s . This amplified displacement, M , is estimated as 0.7R o R d s .
Wherever the Requirements call for the use or consideration of seismic building drifts, the displacements used
or considered must be the drift, M , that would occur durSeptember 1999
Commentary C105.8
C105.9.1
C105.9.2
Background. Nearly 30 years ago, Newmark postulated that the maximum inelastic response displacement (or the inelastic drift) could be reasonably
predicted as the drift of an elastic structure (or the elastic
drift) subjected to the same ground motion. Referring to
Figure C105-2, this would suggest that the inelastic displacement may be approximated by the displacement E
113
C105.10 Commentary
The story drift limits of 0.020 and 0.025 times the story
height, combined with the 0.70 factor in Equation 105-18,
provide approximately equal stiffness for buildings designed to previous versions of these Provisions, and are
114
September 1999
C106
This section provides minimum Requirements, limitations, and guidelines for performing dynamic analyses. It
is not intended to be a complete coverage and should not
be used as a how-to manual for the performance of dynamic analysis. The engineer should consult appropriate
references on dynamic analysis for detailed procedures
[e.g., Clough and Penzien, 1975; Chopra, 1980; U.S.
Army, 1986; Biggs, 1964; SEAOSC, 1977].
C106.1
General
Commentary C105.11
C106.2 Commentary
result in a larger base shear, it is evident that structural displacements due to the maximum expected earthquake will
be well into the inelastic range. With the controls on structural irregularity given in these Requirements, it is assumed that the displacements in the inelastic structure can
be estimated by an appropriate factor times the displacement response of the elastic structure. Therefore, linear
elastic analysis may be used for member design forces at
load levels below yield, and for member displacements for
loads beyond yield. The energy dissipation capability of
the structure to sustain these inelastic displacements will
be a function of the type of structural system selected from
Table 104-6 and the details used by the engineer to accomplish this design. The details and concepts used by the engineer are the critical elements in seismic resistant designs
and must be so recognized.
The guidelines of this section provide the engineer
with a method for dealing with structures that have characteristics that may violate the assumptions inherent in use of
the static approach of Section 105. Regular and symmetric
structures generally exhibit much more favorable and predictable seismic response characteristics than do irregular
structures; therefore, the use of regular structures is encouraged and irregular structures should be avoided whenever possible.
Implementation of dynamic lateral force procedures
involves:
1. Identification of appropriate ground motion representations for use as input to the analysis.
2. Development of an elastic mathematical model of the
structure that represents its important geometric, stiffness, inertial, and damping characteristics.
3. Computation of the models dynamic response to the
seismic input motions, using response spectrum or
time-history methods and established structural analysis computer programs.
4. Careful interpretation and application of the results of
the analysis.
C106.2
Ground Motion
116
In order to be more representative of response spectrum shapes in the longer period ranges, the 1/T portion of
the spectrum should have a transition to a constant displacement relation proportional to 1/T 2 at the displacement transition period. For sites not located in near-source
zones, this period is about 4 seconds. Within near-source
zones, this period may be considerably greater than 4 seconds. However, because of the scaling Requirements of
Section 106.5.4, this modification would not have any significant effect on design forces, and is therefore left for
consideration in future revisions of these Requirements.
Items 2 and 3. Site-Specific Response Spectra
and Time Histories. The use of site-specific response
spectra and time histories are mentioned to allow the engineer to make use of these tools when it is desirable or necessary to go beyond the standard spectrum, or where a
September 1999
specific spectrum is required for an SF site. For further discussion, see Appendix B.
The representations of site-specific ground motion
should be reflective of all the parameterssuch as earthquake source, source-site travel path, (i.e., directivity, topography, basins, etc.), and local soil conditionsthat
influence the ground shaking at a site.
The individual site-specific time histories used should
be selected to best represent the regional and local geologic conditions at the site. If the time histories have spectra
with significant valleys at periods important to the structure's response, the Requirements of Section 106.2 Item 3
require that the composite spectra from the selected time
histories should approximate the site-specific spectra developed in accordance with Section 106.2 Item 2. Recognizing that no recorded time-history will match the entire
site-specific response spectrum, it is particularly important
to select an ensemble of recorded or synthetic motions that
best represent the conditions of earthquake source, travel
path, and local geologic conditions that exist at the site.
The scaling of selected time histories should attempt to
provide a match with the site-specific spectrum at the significant periods of the structure. The time variation of recorded earthquake motions typically exhibits an initial
rise, a central segment of strong shaking, and a decaying
tail. The duration of each of these segments is dependent
on the nature of the faulting and surrounding geologic conditions. The engineer should recognize this fact and should
therefore select site-specific time histories whose time
variation is reasonably consistent with the time variation
of actual ground motions that have been recorded under
comparable geologic conditions.
Commentary C106.2
See
Commentary Section C104.8.4, Item 4 for a discussion of
the particular site response effects that require special
analysis.
Item 4.
Resonance occurs:
1. When the building's elastic period is close to, but
slightly less than, that of the predominant period of the
ground shaking.
2. As the building's response becomes inelastic, its period lengthens and coincides with a predominant period of the ground shaking.
3. When the duration of the ground shaking at this period
is sufficiently long to allow the development of the
amplified building motions that will occur when the
building and ground motion periods approach coincidence.
The response of the building is amplified by these resonance conditions, and the resulting increases in the building's earthquake-induced forces and deformations must be
considered in its design. The building's amplified response
under resonant conditions may be conservatively approximated by using a constant level acceleration response
spectrum equal to 100 percent of the maximum acceleration ordinate of the site-specific design spectrum for a
damping ratio of 5 percent. The damping ratio is held at 5
percent because any reduced response effects due to the increased damping in the inelastic structure are already included in the R factor used in Section 106.5.4 to convert
the all-elastic response to the design force level. The maximum constant level may be taken from a smoothed average representation of the site-specific acceleration
response spectrum.
It is likely that the representation of the SF ground motion will have unique characteristics that differ significantly from those represented by the spectrum shape of Figure
104-2. Division of the resulting base shear by R is consistent with the design philosophy for inelastic design. The
result is a design that exhibits a reasonably uniform pattern
of inelastic demand throughout the structure. However, the
minimum design value required by Section 106.5.4 must
be met.
Item 5. Vertical Ground Motion. Statistical analyses of ground motion records at distances greater than
about 10 kilometers from the seismic source have shown
that it is generally reasonable for design purposes to use a
vertical component of ground motion whose peak amplitude is two-thirds of the peak amplitude of the horizontal
motion. However, for sites located close to active faults,
September 1999
117
C106.3 Commentary
Mathematical Model
A mathematical model is an idealized, simplified representation of a complex building structure to facilitate computation of the structure's response for design purposes.
Modeling is an art in which the most important characteristics of the structure are synthesized into a mathematical
representation for computation of the dynamic response.
Regular structures can usually be adequately represented
with a one- or two-dimensional model, where accidental
torsion is included with additional hand calculation.
Very complex, irregularly framed structures, or those with
large eccentricities between centers of mass and resistance, will require a three-dimensional analysis. Only an
outline of some of the elements of modeling will be discussed in this Commentary [Clough and Penzien, 1975;
Chopra, 1980; U.S. Army, 1986; Biggs, 1964, SEAOSC,
1977; Wilson and Button, 1982].
There is a series of key assumptions that are common
to most analysis models: the structure is assumed to be linearly elastic; small deformation theory applies; structural
mass is commonly lumped at a few selected joints or
nodes; and energy dissipation (damping) is assumed to be
viscous or velocity proportional.
C106.3.1
118
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C106.3.2
For convenience, damping is generally stated as a percentage of critical damping or as a ratio of damping to critical
damping; hence the term damping ratio. The response
spectrum shape given in these Requirements is based on
damping that is 5 percent of critical damping; other spectra
that may be used should also have this 5 percent damping
value. Damping in time-history analysis should not exceed
5 percent, unless a higher value can be substantiated by
data.
C106.4
No Commentary.
Combining Modes. Each required response quantity, such as the peak member forces and displacements, element forces and deformations, or the story
shears and drifts shall be evaluated for each significant
mode and these individual mode response quantities may
be combined to evaluate the total structural response according to the modal combination procedures described in
this section of the Commentary. The same method of
modal combination should be used for each response
quantity. It must be noted that in modal analysis, when the
individual modal force quantities are combined, the related structural components are no longer in equilibrium.
119
C106.5.4 Commentary
This result occurs because the individual modal maximums do not all occur at the same time. Equilibrium and
the consistency of displacements with forces can be
checked only on an individual mode basis [Wilson et al.,
1981; Der Kiureghian, 1981; Wilson and Button, 1982;
Biggs, 1964; U.S. NRC, 1976]. See also Appendix D.
Methods such as square-root-sum-of-the-squares
(SRSS) and Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) (see
Appendix D), used to combine the effects of the several
modes, are approximate and account for the fact that all
modal maximums do not occur at the same time. There is
no assurance that either method will produce conservative
results; however, under the proper conditions, each method will produce results of acceptable accuracy.
The adequacy of the SRSS method depends on the ratio of the modal periods and the modal damping ratios.
This method will be acceptable when the modal damping
ratios are no greater than 5 percent, and the ratio of the periods of any higher mode to any lower mode is 0.75 or less.
For larger damping ratios or larger modal period ratios
(approaching 1.0), modal coupling effects may become
important. Such effects are not accounted for in the SRSS
method, but are incorporated when the CQC method is
used. The CQC method (described in Appendix D) is a
general and theoretically well-based modal combination
method that reduces to the SRSS method when the modal
periods are well spaced and the modal damping ratios are
small. Thus, the CQC method will always be an acceptable
modal combination method. The damping ratio employed
in the CQC evaluation should correspond to that used for
the response spectrum input.
Modal combinations present several important problems in the interpretation of results. First, all computed
terms are positive. Second, the value associated with each
term may correspond to a different point in time. Thus
member and joint equilibrium cannot be checked; moments, shears, and deformations at points between the
nodes in the model cannot be directly calculated. The engineer needs to consider these conditions when using the
terms, and should assign signs to the individual terms to
ensure that the results are conservative. An examination of
individual modes may be useful in those assessments.
Where it is necessary to know if a column is in single or
double curvature, the predominant mode of response may
be used to determine this condition.
C106.5.4
Reduction of Elastic Response Parameters for Design. The earthquake force levels of Section
September 1999
the more accurate representation of ground motion as provided by a site-specific spectrum the reduced base shear
may be 80 percent of the base shear required by Section
105.2. The lower limits on this reduced base shear become
0.8(77) = 62 percent and 0.8(71) = 57 percent of the Method A base shear value for the corresponding seismic zones.
Item 3. Irregular structures regardless of ground
motion representation. The extra uncertainty in the re-
Torsion. The occurrence of significant torsional motions can lead to increased loads in the building's
lateral force resisting system and is therefore an important
seismic design consideration. Such torsional motions can
be strongly coupled with the building's lateral motions if
September 1999
Commentary C106.5.5
large eccentricities exist between the centers of story resistance and the centers of floor mass, and if the natural frequencies of the building's normal modes are closely
spaced [Der Kiureghian, 1981; Kan and Chopra, 1977].
For such conditions, a three-dimensional model should be
used to conduct the dynamic analysis (as discussed in
Commentary Section C106.3) and the CQC approach is
recommended for combining the maximum modal responses (see Commentary Section C106.5.3 and Appendix
D, Part 3).
Accidental torsional effects prescribed in Section
105.6 are also required for the dynamic analysis procedures. Torsional motions can occur in a building even if its
centers of mass and resistance are coincident and the natural frequencies of its predominant modes of vibration are
well spaced. Such torsional motions, termed accidental
torsion, can arise from several factors not typically considered in the dynamic analysis of buildings, such as:
1. Spatial variations of horizontal input motions.
2. Rotational components of the ground motions.
3. Effects of nonstructural elements (e.g., partitions,
stairs, etc.) on the building's stiffness and inertial characteristics.
4. Actual distribution of dead and live loads.
5. Uncertainties in defining the building's material properties for the dynamic analysis.
To account for such effects, torsional moments due to
accidental torsion can be computed using the static procedures given in Section 105.6, and then distributed to the
various members of the building's lateral force resisting
system to obtain the corresponding member forces. This
distribution can be accomplished by either an equivalent
static load method or a dynamic analysis method. In the
static method, the accidental torsional moments at each
level may be calculated as the product of the equivalent
static force from Section 105.5 times the 5 percent eccentricity specified in Section 105.6. The resulting moments
are applied as pure couple loadings, all of the same sense,
at their corresponding levels. The effects of these couple
loads are then added, a positive increase, to the results of
the dynamic analysis that have been reduced according to
the Requirements of Section 106.5.4.
For the dynamic method and nonflexible diaphragms,
it is required to displace the mass in the dynamic model to
alternate sides of the calculated center of mass and use a
three-dimensional analysis to calculate the effects directly.
Where forces are applied concurrently in two orthogonal
directions, the required 5 percent displacement of the cen-
121
C106.5.7 Commentary
ter of mass should be applied for only one of the orthogonal directions at a time. For highly eccentric structures,
care should be taken to ensure the critical location of this
mass displacement to obtain the highest load effect.
C106.5.7 Dual Systems. The dual system Requirements presented in this section are, by reference, the same
as those described in Section 104.6.5. The determination
of base shear for the dual system is for the combined system. Section 104.6.5, Item 2 requires a special moment-resisting frame capable of resisting at least 25 percent of the
total base shear, in effect providing a backup capacity.
There is no theoretical justification to perform a response
spectrum analysis on the frame by itself, since it is fully
connected to the shear walls or bracing elements. Consequently, permission is given to the engineer to perform a
static analysis of the frame to ensure it is capable of carrying the specified base shear.
C106.6
Time-History Analysis
Elastic Time-History Analysis. The earthquake ground motion time histories as required in Section
106.2 are for a ground motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. These time-histories
must have response spectra that approximate the corresponding site-specific response spectrum. Therefore, most
of the requirements of the elastic response spectrum analysis in Section 106.5 are directly applicable for the dynamic analysis. Of particular note is the limitation on the
reduction in the elastic response parameters from Requirements Section 106.5.4, which recognizes the theoretical
and economic benefits to be obtained from a dynamic
analysis. However, the limitations in Requirements Section 106.5.4 serve as a design barrier that places a limit on
the magnitude of the economic benefits. The 80, 90, and
100 percent limits in Section 106.5.4, Items 1, 2, and 3 are
122
The
nonlinear response of the structure incorporates energy
dissipation from inelastic material behavior and load redistribution from nonlinear element force versus deformation
behavior. Special care must be taken to ensure that the deformations, including material strains and curvatures, of
the elements do not exceed their capacities and thus lead
to element failure that will compromise system performance.
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis.
The same limitations are placed on the inelastic response displacements of the structure as are placed on the
displacements from the elastic analysis methods. This limitation has received considerable discussion because even
if the nonlinear analysis demonstrates that larger displacements can be accommodated, it cannot be used to provide
economic benefits to the design (see Section C105.10).
Design review is required for a nonlinear time-history
analysis because of the many assumptions that must be
made in the development of the structural model. The improved modeling of structural elements for nonlinear and
inelastic performance requires in most cases many more
structural modeling parameters where values are based on
recent research and professional experience. Design review is also required because the nonlinear analysis methods are often very complex and require education and
training for their correct usage special. These complex
methods are also subject to human errors in input preparation and output data processing.
The design review shall include several important
parts, and the first is the site-specific earthquake spectra
and ground motion time histories. These time-histories are
expected to incorporate, where appropriate, any vertical
and near-field considerations at the specific site. They are
expected to include as a minimum the three time histories
required in Section 106.6.1.
Maximum benefits from structural review are attained
when the review starts early in the design process. Consequently, a review of the preliminary design of the lateral
force resisting system is required to ensure that the design
review starts early in the design process.
A review of the final design of the lateral force resisting system is required to ensure quality control. Also required is a review of all supporting analyses. This requires
that the review encompass each page of the calculations,
including all computer input and output. This requirement
September 1999
C107
Section C107 provides new design Requirements for miscellaneous elements of structures, nonstructural components, and equipment supported by structures. Included are
requirements for the items themselves, requirements for
the means by which such items are attached to the supporting structure, and special requirements for items that could
be defined as safety related.
The following definitions are provided here to better
distinguish the various categories of items covered by this
section. They apply only to the discussions of Section
C107.
Elements. Miscellaneous assemblies or portions of
structures having a structural function related to the structure and include but are not limited to:
1. Walls, including parapets, exterior walls, and interior
bearing and nonbearing walls.
2. Penthouses, except where framed by an extension of
the structural frame.
3. Prefabricated structural elements other than walls.
Components. Permanent assemblies not having a
structural function and include but are not limited to:
1. Exterior and interior ornamentation and appendages.
2. Chimneys, stacks, and towers.
3. Signs and billboards.
4. Storage racks, cabinets, and book shelves, including
contents, over 6 feet tall.
5. Suspended ceilings and light fixtures.
September 1999
Commentary C107
C107.1 Commentary
equipment supported on vibration isolation devices or other flexible supports shall be considered flexible. For complex equipment, evaluation of the vibratory characteristics
may be difficult. However, if the equipment can be reasonably modeled or tested, the fundamental mode of vibration
may be characterized as that mode that has the greatest
mass participation.
C107.1
General
This section applies to items such as elements, components, and equipment attached to structures whose dynamic behavior does not substantially alter the structure's
response. The design lateral force coefficients for items attached to structures are generally higher than the force coefficients used for the structure's design. There are four
basic reasons to provide higher lateral force coefficients
for attached items:
1. Absolute accelerations acting on items supported by
the structure above ground level are generally greater
than at ground level.
2. Additional amplified response can occur within items
unless they themselves are quite rigid.
3. The items themselves, except when manufactured
from and supported by ductile materials, may lack the
redundancy or energy absorption properties that allow
the rational reduction of force levels used for design of
the items.
4. Attachment failures should be minimized.
Requirements Section 107 is focused on the design of
attachments that transfer from a supported item to the seismic resisting system of the structure. Diaphragms are now
considered as part of the structural system and are no longer covered by this section (see Requirements Section
108.2.9). The design of exterior elements also includes deformation Requirements as outlined in Section 108.2.4.
The design of nonbuilding structures is now considered in
Section 109.
C107.1.1
124
Friction.
mit the overturning forces, and the supports and foundations (especially edge portions) in the friction load path
must be designed to resist the apportioned seismic shear
transferred by friction.
It is not the intent of Requirements Section 107 to prohibit unrestrained components and equipment. Unrestrained components and equipment may be permitted,
particularly temporary and moveable items, such as heavy
furnishings, provided that the safety of occupants and the
public will not be compromised. Items with low ratios of
height-to-base width or length that are inherently stable
against overturning may be unrestrained. In such cases,
lateral movement may be limited by friction forces based
on gravity forces with reductions due to vertical earthquake accelerations, as considered appropriate by the design engineer. Also, mechanical equipment, such as heat
exchangers, in which one end is fixed and the other is free
to thermally expand is also allowed to consider reductions
considering friction as appropriate (see also Section
C109.5.1). The maximum lateral movement of components and equipment that may occur under maximum expected ground motions should be estimated and
incorporated into the design of utility connections, seismic
restraints, and space shall be provided to accommodate
component or equipment movement.
C107.1.2 Equipment Design. This provision requires that for some equipment, not only the attachments,
but also the equipment itself must be designed to resist
seismic forces. This provision states that nonrigid equipment, for which structural failure of the lateral force resisting system... would cause a life hazard, must also be
designed to resist lateral forces. Although the goal of all
seismic design is to minimize hazards to life, these Requirements intend that a special category of concern be defined where the perceived hazard is greater than normal.
Several complex interrelated considerations are raised by
this new requirement that seismic design must sometimes
extend to the equipment itself, and not be limited to attachments. These considerations, which include equipment
function, scope of covered equipment, rugged equipment,
and responsibility, are discussed in Section C107.1.3
through C107.1.8, below.
C107.1.3 Equipment Support Design. It is intended
that Requirements Section 107 address equipment supports that transfer seismic forces from the equipment
through attachments to the seismic resisting system of the
structure. Equipment supports, even when supplied by the
manufacturer, should be designed in accordance with
these Requirements. Equipment supports may include
equipment appurtenances that are compact or integrally
September 1999
One special category is where loss of structural integrity causes a loss in physical connectivity or restraint under
seismic motions, resulting in a direct life hazard. An example is where the entire item or a part of the item breaks off
and falls, topples, slides, or otherwise moves, posing a
threat to occupants, or blocks a means of egress or an exitway. In these cases, the use of bumpers, braces, guys, or
gapped restraints may protect the occupant, even if the
item itself is damaged.
The second situation is where the failure of equipment
to perform a required function could cause a more indirect
life hazard. Such equipment could be defined as special
safety-related. Examples include fire protection piping or
a standby power system in a hospital. Another example is
a vessel or piping that contains sufficient quantities of
highly toxic or explosive substances such that a release
would be hazardous to building occupants or the general
public. Emergency equipment should be located where
there is the least likelihood of damage due to an earthquake. Such equipment should be located at or below
ground level, and where it can be easily maintained to ensure its operation during an emergency. Judgment may
also suggest a more conservative design than would otherwise be required by these Requirements, related in some
manner to the perceived hazard. A list of substances considered acutely hazardous (highly toxic or explosive) by
the State of California is provided in Appendix C of Guidance for the Preparation of a Risk Management and Prevention Program [OES, 1989].
It is intended that the Requirements of Section 107 apply to the design of both of the above categories of equipment. However, these Requirements only explicitly
address structural integrity (connectivity and containment
of contents) and stability. Equipment function (operability), although obviously important, is not specifically addressed. Although function is not explicitly addressed, it
may be concluded on the basis of past earthquake experi-
September 1999
Commentary C107.1.4
ence that if structural integrity (connectivity and containment) and stability are maintained, function (operability)
after an earthquake is probable for most types of equipment, although by no means assured. Also, these Requirements are not intended to ensure that mechanical joints in
equipment providing containment, such as flanged joints,
will remain leak-tight in an earthquake. It is assumed that
future editions of these Requirements will include provisions that more directly address function and operation of
safety-related equipment.
C107.1.5 Scope of Covered Equipment. It is not intended that all equipment, or that all parts of equipment, be
designed for seismic forces. For example, it is not the intent of these Requirements to require the seismic design of
shafts, buckets, cranks, pistons, plungers, impellers, rotors, stators, bearings, switches, gears, nonpressure retaining casings and castings, or similar items. Determination
of whether the Requirements of Section 107 should be applied to the seismic design of a specific piece of nonrigid
equipment will sometimes be complex, and even unclear.
Judgment will be required if the intent of these Requirements is to be fulfilled. The following discussion may
serve as guidance.
Rugged Equipment. Some equipment consists of complex assemblies of mechanical and electrical
parts that typically are manufactured in an industrial process that produces similar or identical items. Such equipment may include manufacturer's catalog items and is
often designed by empirical (trial and error) means for
functional and transportation loads. A characteristic of this
equipment is that it may be inherently rugged. Rugged, as
125
C107.1.7 Commentary
Attributes. Equipment covered by Requirements Section 107 may be divided into two general groups. One
group consisting of assemblies of simpler shapes and
forms for which national codes and standards often exist
for their analysis or qualification for seismic motions. The
second group consists of complex mechanical and electrical assemblies whose primary function is a mechanical or
electrical process for which national codes and standards
may not exist. In the design and analysis of both groups of
equipment, the concepts of rigidity and ruggedness can often assist the seismic designer of equipment in determining the necessity for analysis and, given that analysis is
necessary, the extent and methods by which seismic ade-
126
Large field-erected
boilers
September 1999
Commentary C107.1.8
Equipment List C107-2. Equipment that may not be subject to seismic amplification because it is rigid
Heat exchangers
Vertical pumps
Heaters
Distribution panels
Evaporators
Battery chargers
Instrumentation cabinets
Condensers
Piping
Tubing
Electrical conduit
Plumbing
Note: Piping and cable trays that are supported on the ground
using flexible cantilever supports have a history of
performing poorly during seismic events; amplified forces
should be considered in the design of these supports.
Valves
Horizontal pumps
Engines
Pneumatic operators
Motors
Hydraulic operators
Generators
Motor operators
Turbines
Batteries
Chillers
Inverters
Note: Some complex equipment, such as valves and valve
operators, turbines and generators, pumps and motors, may
be functionally connected by mechanical links not capable
of transferring the seismic loads or accommodating the
seismic displacements, and may require special design
considerations such as a common rigid support or skid.
Typically, on new construction, the lead design professional on a project will negotiate or otherwise determine, in conjunction with the design professional
responsible for the functional design of the equipment,
how such seismic design of covered equipment will be
performed, which design professional will have responsibility for its performance, and whether on a contractual or
fee basis. These Requirements do not deal with these issues.
For equipment installed at some time after completion
of construction, the original project team may no longer be
available. Thus, the owner, manufacturer, or mechanical
contractor may need to obtain assistance in determining
the need to apply these Requirements.
Recent postearthquake surveys have revealed poor
quality control with respect to attaching equipment to
September 1999
127
C107.2 Commentary
New equations are recommended for determining the design seismic force Fp for elements, components, and
equipment are dependent on:
n
Weight of the system or component, Wp
n
Component amplification factor, ap
n
Horizontal acceleration of the structure for the design
ground motion at the point of component attachment
to the structure, the component importance factor, Ip
n
Component response modification factor, Rp
128
Eqn. 107-1
apCa Ip
hx
F p = ----------------- 1 + 3 ----- W p
Rp
h r
Eqn. 107-2
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C107.2.1
C107.2.3 Commentary
The required anchorage forces, however, are significantly higher when common shallow expansion anchors
are used. This issue is being studied by BSSC Committee
TS-8 and may be modified in the near future.
C107.2.3 Exterior Walls or Wall Panels.
For exterior
walls or wall panels that have points of attachment at two
or more different elevations, the loading normal to the wall
may be determined as follows. For the vertical span of a
wall between two successive attachment elevations hx and
hx+1, evaluate the seismic force coefficients Fp /Wp at each
of the two points, observing the minimum and maximum
limits, and compute the average of the two values. The average seismic coefficient times the unit weight of the wall
provides the distributed load for the span between the
given attachment points, and it should extend to the top of
any wall parapet above the roof attachment point at hr.
For a single-story exterior wall, the seismic force coefficient at the base is 0.7Ca Ip, and at the roof is 1.33CaIp.
An average value of 1.02Ca Ip applies to the unit weight of
the wall for the distributed load over the entire wall.
Cantilever parapets that are part of a continuous element should be separately checked for the required parapet
forces at the parapet centroid.
C107.2.4
C107.2.5
For the
purpose of these Requirements, chemical anchors are defined as post-installed metal fasteners, which are inserted
into holes in concrete or masonry and held in place by an
epoxy, resins, or other chemicals. Adhesive anchorages
are defined as plates glued to surfaces such as computer
access floor base plates.
The reduced Rp values, 1.5 for shallow embedment (post installed and cast) anchors, and 1.0 for adhesive anchors are intended to account for poor anchor
performance observed after the Northridge earthquake.
Anchors.
UBC 1632.5
Alternative Designs
September 1999
Commentary C107.6
Examples of national standards for design and physical qualification include, but are not limited to:
1. American Water Works Association, Standard D100
for Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage, ANSI/
AWWA D100-84 and D100a-89.
2. American Petroleum Institute, Welded Steel Tanks for
Oil Storage, API Standard 650, 9th Edition, 1993.
3. American Concrete Institute, Recommended Practice
for the Design and Construction of Concrete Bins, Silos and Bunkers for Storage of Granular Materials,
ACI-313R-1977 (Revised 1983).
4. Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors' National
Association, Guidelines for Seismic Restraints of Mechanical and Plumbing Systems, 1992.
5. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE
Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of
Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating
Stations, IEEE Std. 344- 1987.
6. National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 1996.
7. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME
A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators,
1993.
8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME
B31, Code for Pressure Piping, including addenda
through 1993.
C108
C108.1
General
C107.6
Additional Comments
The seismic demands imposed on equipment are a function of the ground shaking, the supporting structure, the
equipment attachment, and the equipment. Determination
of these demands is complex and requires a dialogue between equipment designer/manufacturer and structural engineer. In the nuclear power industry, seismic demands on
equipment are determined by a complex dynamic analysis
of the structure that results in floor spectra. These
floor spectra then become part of the procedure to develop equipment in typical structures. Hence, a more simplified procedure is used herein where the demand is
determined more or less independently of the structural
characteristics. This simplified method is more easily understood and implemented by design professionals responsible for equipment design, e.g., mechanical and electrical
engineers and architects.
This Commentary should be referenced in any procurement specifications. Use of common definitions as set
September 1999
Detailing and material requirements are at least as important as those for force and displacement. For a given lateral
force-resisting system, the level of the design forces is
based on the inelastic deformation capability of that system. In order to provide this capability, it is necessary that
the corresponding Requirements of this section are satisfied; failure to follow these Requirements invalidates the
force formulas. Failure to follow all the provisions of these
Requirements for any element can result in a brittle link in
the structure and thereby compromise the stability of the
entire structure, possibly resulting in collapse or excessive
damage.
C108.1.1
Floor live loads and snow loads must be assumed to act concurrently with the seismic forces specified, since they are likely to be acting on members during
the earthquake. The seismic load combinations set forth in
Section 101.7 include these effects. Roof live loads and
design wind loads are not expected to be significant during
the expected earthquake, and they are not considered to act
concurrently with the seismic loads.
Forces.
131
C108.1.2 Commentary
C108.1.2 Orthogonal Effects. These Requirements
are intended to cover those loading conditions where different directional loadings could overstress members of
the lateral force resisting system. This can occur where
there is torsional irregularity, a nonparallel structural system, or where a given member (usually a corner column)
is a part of intersecting lateral force resisting systems. Of
special concern are structures with plan irregularities that
can cause the structure to deform in a direction perpendicular to the direction of input ground motion, and structures
that do not have orthogonal lateral force resisting systems
such as triangular shaped portions of buildings. The word
orthogonal is used, since any horizontal loading can be
represented by two orthogonal components, one of which
can be chosen to be parallel to the principal axis of the
structure.
C108.1.2.1 The exception recognizes that the error
resulting from ignoring the orthogonal effects is acceptably small if the axial load in the column due to seismic
forces is small; using the Requirements in Section 108.1,
0.20 x Fax.3 = 0.06 x Fa corresponds to the maximum error that could occur. For strength design of reinforced concrete, this exception may be applied when the
load-factored axial load due to seismic forces is less than
20 percent of the column axial strength.
The use of the SRSS methodology for combining orthogonal load effects is most likely to be implemented by
computer. Here the squared values of effects in each of the
two orthogonal directions are added and the square root of
the sum is obtained. Note that for the case of modal response spectrum analysis, the effects from each orthogonal direction are the SRSS (or CQC) values of the
individual modal response values. Because the SRSS
methodology loses the signs of the terms, use of its results
require great care, since knowledge about member equilibrium has been suppressed.
132
Where forces are applied concurrently in two orthogonal directions, the 5 percent displacement of the center of
mass as required by Section 105.6 should be applied for
only one of the orthogonal directions at a time.
Both approaches for considering orthogonal effects
are approximations. They were developed with consideration of results for a square building.
C108.2
C108.2.1
No Commentary provided.
C108.2.2
the component has the energy absorption capability required for the system having the highest applicable value
for R. Since the design requirements set upper limits on R,
a system can be designed with a few elements that have
more capacity than others. Care must be exercised to ensure that elements of individual lateral force resisting systems do not become incompatible by adopting a smaller R
for a preponderance of elements. For example, if the end
members of a two-bay frame have lower R values due to
their participation in other systems, then the other elements of the frame should be designed to the lower R value
to preserve acceptable behavior of the frame system.
C108.2.3
Connections. In some geographical regions, particularly those with low seismicity, a practice
has evolved that leaves the design and detailing of connections to the fabricator or constructor (notwithstanding its
criticism by the American Society of Civil Engineers).
This practice is absolutely prohibited by this provision.
Connection failures have been a common cause of severe
damage and collapse in structures during past earthquakes.
It is essential that the engineer design the connections and
present the detailed requirements on the construction documents. Also, it is recommended that there be a thorough
detailed review of the related connection details of manufactured elements when these are used within the structural system.
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C108.2.4.1
C108.2.7 Commentary
It is required that collector elements and their connections be designed to have the strength to resist o times
the specified seismic design forces. The purpose is to ensure that inelastic energy dissipation occurs in the ductile
lateral force resisting elements (frames, braces, walls)
rather than in the collectors and connections.
C108.2.7 Concrete Frames. Previous editions of
these Requirements required that concrete frames in regions of strong seismicity have special details to resist lateral loads. This Requirement has certainly been justified
by damage to concrete frames experienced in the 1967 Caracas, Venezuela, 1971 San Fernando, 1985 Mexico City,
and other subsequent earthquakes. Adequate details are
now available for moderate seismic loading, Zone 2, and
are given for intermediate moment-resisting frames in
Chapter 19 of the 1997 UBC.
C108.2.8
merous wall anchorage failures in tilt-up and similar buildings in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the wall
anchorage design provisions of the UBC were significantly revised, beginning with the 1996 Supplement. The current Requirements are intended to provide parity with the
1996 Supplement, but are expressed in the context of
strength design. Elements of the wall anchorage system
are required to be designed with ap=1.5 and Rp=3.0. For
elements at the roof level of a structure, this corresponds
to Fp=2.0 Ca IpWp.
Note that these Requirements apply only to the anchorage of walls to flexible diaphragms. The walls themselves should be designed according to Section 108.2.4.2
with ap and Rp according to Table 16-O.
The acceleration level implicit in the design is intended to represent the maximum expected roof accelerations
of approximately 3 to 4 times the short-period ground acceleration Ca. These amplifications have been directly
measured in instrumented buildings and have been confirmed by analyses [Celebi et al., 1989; Bouwkamp, et al.,
1991; Harris et al., 1997].
134
When double-sided connectors are used to avoid anchor eccentricity, the anchor bolts for each side are likely
to have a spacing that would result in overlapping pullout
cones in the concrete. This condition must be considered
in the calculation of the anchor resistance.
Masonry Elements. The masonry elements of the
wall anchorage system similarly consist of the embedment
of the strap or bolt in the wall. Where tabulated workingstress design is used for the embedment in masonry, the
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C108.2.8.1
135
C108.2.9 Commentary
136
September 1999
1. The span is usually very short relative to depth; therefore, plane sections are not likely to remain plane,
contrary to the usual assumption in the analysis of
bending.
2. Web shear stresses and deflections due to shear are
relatively more significant than stresses and deflections due to flexural action.
3. The diaphragm's components (flange, web, and connection devices) often are made of different materials.
The flanges may be the walls normal to the direction
of loading of the diaphragm, and the flange forces at
the midspan of the diaphragm would be progressively
diminished by the reduction in bending moment toward the diaphragm ends. It is intended that the chord
or boundary members that resist these flange forces
be located near the vicinity of the plane of the diaphragm.
4. Relative and absolute deflections under prescribed lateral loading are often important design limitations.
Diaphragms may be designed and constructed of
many different materials: concrete, gypsum, metal, wood,
combinations of materials, and other tested and approved
proprietary systems. They may have flat, inclined, curved,
warped, or folded configurations and may have openings.
The diaphragm may function as a very stiff element, a
very flexible element or somewhere between, depending
upon its physical properties and those of the vertical resisting system. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the diaphragm deflection relative to the deflections of the
associated vertical resisting elements. Likewise, a knowledge of absolute deflections of diaphragms is necessary to
achieve drift control and thereby reduce damage potential.
Item 1 Deflections. Concrete diaphragm deflections (both shear and flexural) may be determined by the
usual mechanics of materials analyses that include all the
elastic properties of the diaphragm and chord. Deflections
for diaphragms of metal, wood, composite materials and
proprietary items are generally established by empirical
formulas determined by tests and analytical studies. The
empirical formulas account for connection distortion, connection pattern, vertical load span, and other properties
that contribute to the overall diaphragm flexibility and that
cannot be confidently predicted by a normal analytical approach.
September 1999
Commentary C108.2.9
Diaphragm Forces.
137
C108.2.9 Commentary
138
September 1999
Overturning effects must be carried into the foundations and the structural elements of the foundation should
have the strength to develop either the capacity of the supported elements or the maximum forces that would occur
in the fully yielded structural system. (See Commentary to
Chapter 3 for further discussion of the foundation and related soil conditions.)
C108.2.11 Building Separations. Building separation is the distance between two adjoining buildings, or
parts of the same building, with or without frangible closures. Its purpose is to permit adjoining buildings, or parts,
to respond to earthquake ground motion independently.
The effects of building impacts (or pounding) have been
observed in all recent major and moderate earthquakes.
September 1999
Commentary C108.2.10
pounding are detailed to retain vertical load-carrying capability if they are damaged.
C109
C109.1
General
139
C109.1.2 Commentary
Alternatively, a response spectrum analysis that includes consideration of the actual ground motion anticipated at the site may be used. The definition of the actual
ground motion at the site may be taken as the site spectrum shape in Figure 104-2 or a site-specific spectrum having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Note that the Figure 104-2 spectrum shape is for a
5 percent damping factor.
In general, the R values assigned to nonbuilding structures are less than those assigned to buildings. This is because buildings tend to have structural redundancy due to
multiple bays and frame lines and contain nonstructural
and nonconsidered resisting elements that effectively provide greater damping and strength during strong ground
motion response. Hence, nonbuilding structures generally
have lower lateral force resisting capacities than buildings.
The assumed lower capacity level inherent in the values of
Table 104-8, however, should not be taken for granted.
The structural engineer, therefore, must evaluate the seismic response characteristics of the specific structure to determine if a more conservative R value is appropriate for
design.
The vertical distribution of the lateral seismic forces
may be determined by the static or dynamic lateral force
procedures. Some nonbuilding structures are distinctly
different than building structures. Consequently, determination of vertical force distribution may become very difficult. In such cases, computer methods may be the only
alternative available to obtain a realistic force distribution.
Such analyses will also identify critical areas where ductility demand may be concentrated, and it is essential that adequate ductility be provided at these locations. These
reasons led to the exception in Requirements Section
109.5, which require irregular nonbuilding structures in
Occupancy Categories I and II to be analyzed using dynamic analysis procedures, regardless of their height.
C109.1.2 Criteria. The design lateral forces for nonbuilding structures are specified at a strength level, consistent with the Requirements for building structures. Like
building structures, these earthquake loads may also be
used with allowable stress design in accordance with the
load combinations of Section 101.7.3.
140
The mass of the operating contents can be substantial for many types of nonbuilding
structures, and can be the major contributor to seismic
loads. It is necessary, therefore, that the operating contents
be considered in addition to the dead load. The mass, type,
and location of contents may vary in time. The locations
and masses used for design should be that distribution,
from among those possible, that is most critical for the specific structure. This is to ensure that seismic performance
is satisfactory for all operational use conditions of the
structure.
Weight W.
C109.1.4
C109.1.5
Drift limitations for building structures serve to control both P-delta effects and nonstrucDrift.
September 1999
Lateral Force
Nonbuilding structures that are similar to building structures should be designed using the appropriate R values of
Table 104-6. The rationale for the exception regarding the
use of intermediate moment-resisting frames may be explained as follows: the size of nonbuilding frame structures often is not governed by traditional loadings. Rather,
their size may be controlled by the footprint of the equipment they support, vibration limitations, or other operational considerations. In many cases, the resulting
building-like nonbuilding structures are much stronger
than required. Therefore, their ductility demand is generally much lower than a corresponding building structure.
For this reason, these Requirements allow the use of intermediate moment-resisting frames (IMRF) in certain applications in Zones 3 and 4, provided that R=2.6
(corresponding to low ductility demand during severe
earthquake ground motion) is used for design.
C109.3
Rigid Structures
Rigid structures do not amplify the earthquake ground motions, and the response accelerations are nearly the same as
the ground accelerations. The coefficient of 0.7 specified
for the rigid structures in Equation 109-1 thus corresponds
to an R factor of 1.5, (if the spectral acceleration is taken
as the peak ground acceleration), implying that rigid structures have some inherent overstrength, ductility, and a capacity to absorb energy. This is reasonable considering the
expected strength of rigid structures under seismic conditions. The widely used and codified standard details in the
steel and concrete structures have shown inelastic deformation capability in excess of the demand.
September 1999
Commentary C109.2
C109.4
No Commentary provided.
C109.5
In the design of tanks, the lateral force V may be distributed according to the distribution of the mass. Alternatively, the effect of sloshing on mass distribution can be
considered by assuming that part of the mass of the contents moves in unison with the motion of the tank, and part
is assumed to move with its own frequency of vibration.
This sloshing method tends to reduce the calculated lateral
loads and overturning movements [U.S. AEC, 1963].
Tanks with supported bottoms founded at or below
grade can be designed to resist the seismic forces as calculated in accordance with Requirements Section 109.3 or by
any other approved method. All tanks with supported bottoms should be anchored to the foundation, and tanks with
a height-to-diameter ratio greater than 1.5 will normally
need anchor bolts to resist overturning. Often large diameter tanks need to be anchored to prevent local lifting and
dropping of the wall, which can cause the deformation
known as the elephant foot buckling. A method for determining the forces to be resisted can be found in API
[1988]. The anchors need not be designed for shear forces
that result from the seismic motion. The shear resistance to
seismic lateral load on large tanks not subject to walking
may be considered to be provided by the frictional resistance of the base course against the foundation, provided
that the integrity of the tank and its attached piping will not
be adversely damaged as a result of sliding. Piping and
other appurtenances should be attached to the tank with
sufficient flexibility to prevent unacceptable damage to the
tank or attached appurtenance as a result of seismic induced movement such as ovaling, sliding, and/or uplift.
A horizontal tank should be anchored to at least one of
the piers. If anchorage is provided at only one end, it
would be appropriate to take credit for friction at the pier
at the free end in determining the overturning and shear
forces on the pier where anchorage is provided. Similarly,
the free end should also be evaluated for shear and overturning effects due to friction.
141
C109.5.2 Commentary
142
September 1999
Commentary C109.5.5
than 25 percent of that of the supporting structure be properly analyzed considering the dynamic interaction.
Methods for calculating the lateral load V for each of
these cases are shown in Figures C109-1 and C109-2. In
the fourth case, R may alternatively be computed using the
formula:
R s K s D 2s + R e K e D 2e
R = ------------------------------------------------K s D 2s + K e D 2e
Eqn. C109-1
Eqn. C109-2
C109.5.5
The design of free standing (i.e., not supported by another structure that filters the seismic accelerations) storage racks per Requirements Section 109 is appropriate for
the typical configuration of selective, drive-in, and cantilever racks if W is determined by including at least twothirds of the rated capacity in the base shear computation.
This is an increase with respect to previous versions of
these Requirements, reflecting the relatively poor performance of some racks in recent earthquakes. In addition,
As an acceptable alternative to the use of the Requirements of Section 109.5, storage racks can be designed using UBC 2222 et seq., Div. X, subject to the restriction
that the value of Cv /RT not be less that 0.7Ca in UBC formula 30-4 and 2.5/R taken equal to 0.70 in UBC formula
30-5. The standard allows for the design of racks that are
interconnected such that there are a minimum of four columns in any direction on each column line using a reduced
load of 50 percent of the rack-rated capacity. In order to
September 1999
143
C109.5.6 Commentary
C110-C111 Reserved
The engineer should be cognizant of the fact that storage racks are easily reconfigured, which may result in configurations substantially different than those intended by
the engineer. The engineer should also recognize that a
typical owner may not be sophisticated enough to accurately estimate the loads to which the racks may be subjected. Some conservatism in design loads may be
appropriate.
Ductile response for vertical vessels is achieved through inelastic stretching of the
anchor bolts. In order to ensure that ductile response is
achieved by way of anchor bolt stretching, the anchor bolts
should be designed so that the concrete embedment is substantially stronger than the forces required to stretch the
bolt. A procedure such as described in Appendix B of ACI
349 [ACI, 1985] may be used to design anchor bolt embedments to ensure full bolt capacity and a ductile failure
mode. The bolt lengths and patterns should be designed so
that the total energy of bolt stretching beyond yield under
seismic and other forces is consistent with the energy absorption level needed to achieve the specified level of ductility for the overall structure. The integrity of the bolts
should be checked for deformations at least 0 times
those developed under design forces.
C109.5.7
Vertical Vessels.
144
C112
When federal assistance is available, federal regulations require that repair requirements be adopted and in
place prior to the beginning of work so that the assistance
will apply to the developed criteria. If the requirements are
not put in place in a timely fashion, federal assistance provided will be limited to simply restoring the building to its
pre-event condition. Repairs to this level simply leave the
building vulnerable to repeat damage from future events.
The criteria contained in these Requirements are
based on a memorandum of understanding between the
California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed shortly after the Northridge earthquake. By this
memorandum, FEMA agreed to fund repairs to public
buildings to this level, as a minimum, unless the jurisdiction had adopted by ordinance other standards for repair.
In many cases, jurisdictions accepted this criteria and
eliminated the need to pass specific repair ordinances.
Available guidelines for building evaluation, repair, and
retrofit include:
n
Earthquake Evaluation and Design for Retrofit of
Existing State-Owned Buildings, California
Building Code, Division III-R, Sacramento,
California, 1997.
n
NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 273, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC, 1998.
n
Uniform Code for Building Conservation, UCBC,
International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, California, 1994.
n
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings, ATC-40. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California, 1997.
September 1999
Commentary C150
C113C149 Reserved
C150
C150.1
The revisions in the seismic isolated structures design regulations section of the Blue Book (corresponding to the
1997 UBC, Appendix Chapter 16, Division IV) generally
fall under two broad categories, with some exceptions explained below. These two major categories are:
1. Revisions to integrate and make the section consistent
with the main body of regulations in these Provisions
with respect to the strength design changes. These include new concepts such as redundancy and revised
concepts such as the split R factor, new soil factors,
etc.
2. Revisions to clarify and amplify the existing regulations with respect to terminology and symbols as well
as more precise and clearer wording of some sections.
Specific changes include:
Sections 151 Definitions and Section 152
Symbols and Notations. Definitions and new notation
have been added to clearly define and delineate the parameters that pertain to the two distinct levels of design ground
motion, i.e., the design basis earthquake (DBE) and the
maximum capable earthquake (MCE).
Section 154.3
The static procedure formulas for the calculation of isolated structure displacements now reflect the new seismic coefficients, CVD and CVM, as well as the explicit
formulation for the factor 10 in the old formula.
Section 154.4 Minimum Lateral Forces. The
new superstructure design base shear formula is based on
the original premise that the superstructure is expected to
remain essentially elastic under the design basis earthquake forces. As such, Rd=1.0. However, the Seismology
Committee decided to be somewhat conservative in applying the overstrength factor to this formula, hence the 0.8
factor in the denominator. This also provides a significant
degree of consistency in the base shear forces calculated
by the old formula using Rwi factors and the new formula
using RI=0.8Ro.
September 1999
This important requirement has been reworded for clarity, particularly with respect to the earthquake load (overturning
forces) to be used in the maximum load combination.
Section 157.2.6
Section 157.2.8
Submission of a statement of compliance with the independent review Requirements of this section has been added in order to provide an enforcement mechanism for such
a review process early enough in the project implementation process so as to make the design review process a
meaningful and valuable tool for the project participants
an the building official.
Section 161 Required Tests of the Isolation
System. Testing Requirements have been reworded in
145
150.2 Commentary
Table 152-2 Maximum Capable Earthquake Response Coefficient, Mm. Mm has now been defined for
seismic zones other than 3 and 4. It is expected that the ratio between the MCE and DBE will be much larger for
these areas of relatively low seismicity. This is reflected in
the higher Mm values for Seismic Zones 1 and 2A.
C150.2
Introduction
General
Recognizing the need for a document that would represent a consensus opinion of all sections of SEAOC, the
Seismology Committee formed the Ad Hoc Base Isolation
Subcommittee in early 1988 to synthesize a single seismic
isolation design document from existing material. Accordingly, representatives of the Northern, Southern, and Cen-
146
September 1999
C151
Definitions for
Seismic-Isolated Structures
C151.1
Isolation System/Interface
September 1999
Commentary C151
Typically, isolation systems are nonlinear and the effective stiffness of the isolation system is displacement- and/
or velocity-dependent. Idealized force-deflection relationships for seismic isolators are shown in Figure C151-2.
Note that the maximum and minimum forces do not necessarily correspond to the maximum and minimum displacements, respectively, contrary to the assumptions
currently made in these Requirements.
The effective stiffness keff of a seismic isolator is calculated using the forces in the isolator at the maximum and
minimum displacements (Equation C151-1).
F+ F k eff = ------------------+ -
Eqn. C151-1
For isolators whose properties are independent of velocity, the forces in the isolator at the maximum and minimum displacements will generally be maximum and
minimum forces, respectively. For isolators whose properties exhibit velocity dependence, the forces in the isolator
at the maximum and minimum displacements will generally be less than the maximum and minimum forces, respectively. These Requirements assume that maximum
and minimum forces in an isolator are realized at maximum and minimum displacements, respectively. For most
types of isolator, this assumption is reasonable.
For the purpose of design, energy dissipation is characterized as equivalent viscous damping.
Equation C151-2 defines the equivalent viscous damping
( eff ) for a single isolator; this equation is correct for true
viscoelastic behavior but is only an approximation for hysteretic behavior. In this equation, ELoop is the area enclosed by the force-displacement loop of a single isolator
+
C152 Commentary
The effective stiffness (keff) of the isolator is calculated using Equation C151-1.
E Loop
2
- -------------------------------------- eff = -
+
- 2
k eff ( + )
C152
Eqn. C151-2
The definitions of design displacement, total design displacement, and total maximum displacement, are depicted
in Figure C151-3.
C153
C153.1
No Commentary provided.
C153.2
Occupancy Categories
Configuration Requirements
Each structure shall be designated as either regular or irregular on the basis of the type of structural framing above
the isolation system.
C153.5
148
C154
C154.1
No Commentary provided.
C154.2
Deformational Characteristics of
the Isolation System
September 1999
Commentary C154.3
The spectral shape is inversely proportional to the period. The 5 percent damped spectral ordinate is obtained as
Cv/T at a period of T second. The base shear is calculated
at the isolated period, TD, assuming 100 percent of the
building mass participates in the isolated mode. The
5 percent damped base shear is reduced by a damping factor, B, to reflect the effective damping, , in the isolation
system, resulting in a base shear of:
C VD
V I = -------------- W I
BD TD
Eqn. C154-1
g
-------- C T
2
2 gC
T
W
2 VD D
T
VD
I
D
D
-----4
= --------------------- --------- = -------------------------------- 2 W I B D T D 4 2
BD
Eqn. C154-2
September 1999
Hall, 1982]. As shown in Table C154-1, the damping factor for values of exceeding 20 percent include a slight
(i.e., conservative) reduction with respect to the spectral
amplification factors of Newmark and Hall [1982]. Caution should be exercised in using values of exceeding 20
percent of critical if the isolators exhibit true viscous
damping. In this instance, the viscous damping forces
should be calculated and appropriately added to the hysteretic forces in the isolation system.
C154.3.2
Isolated Structure Period. Maximum displacement, DM is calculated similarly using the coefficient
Eqn. C154-3
12e
D TD = D D 1 + y ---------------2
b + d2
Eqn. C154-4
149
C154.3.4 Commentary
C154.4
The total
maximum displacement, DTM, is calculated in a similar
manner to the calculation of DTD..
C154.4.1
150
C154.5
The vertical distribution of the seismic base shear is similar to that used for fixed-base buildings, namely, a distribution that approximates the first mode shape of the
fixed-base building. This distribution conservatively approximates the inertia force distributions measured from
time-history analyses.
C154.6
Drift Limits
C155
C155.1
General
The restrictions placed on the use of the static lateral response procedures (Section 153.5.1) effectively require
dynamic analysis for most isolated structures. However,
lower bound limits on design displacements and design
forces are specified in Requirements Section 155 as a percentage of the values prescribed by the static procedure.
These lower bound limits on key design parameters ensure
consistency in the design of isolated structures and serve
as a safety net against gross underdesign. Table C155-1
provides a summary of the lower bound limits on dynamic
analysis specified by these Requirements.
C155.2
September 1999
No Commentary provided.
C155.4
Ground Motion
Arbitrary scaling of ground motion records in amplitude or frequency so as to achieve specified spectral ordinates should be avoided. Ground motion pairs that: 1) are
consistent with magnitude and source characteristics of the
design (or maximum capable) earthquake, and 2) require
minimal amplitude and frequency scaling, should be used
for analysis and design.
September 1999
Commentary C155.3
C155.5
C155.5.1
Three-dimensional elastic models of isolated buildings are commonly used for response spectrum analysis.
The model of the superstructure should include all significant structural members in the building frame and accurately account for their stiffness and mass for both static
and response spectrum analysis. The isolators are modeled
as linear springs with stiffness equal to the effective stiffness, requiring an a priori estimate of the likely displacement in the isolators.
Another common procedure used for the design of
isolated buildings using time-history analysis assumes
nonlinear isolators and a linear elastic superstructure. The
procedure is appropriate for buildings in which the superstructure is assumed to undergo none to minimal inelastic
response. The recent development of analysis software
packages that include three-dimensional elastic modeling
of the superstructure and three-dimensional nonlinear
modeling of the isolators has made the analysis of such
structures simpler and more efficient.
Another procedure involves the development of a
complete three-dimensional nonlinear model of the building. This level of effort is computationally intensive and
likely rarely justified. This procedure should probably be
used only for isolated buildings in which the superstructure is likely to experience substantial inelastic response,
an assumption at odds with the stated performance goals
for seismic-isolated buildings.
C155.6
Response Spectrum Analysis. The isolated building should be represented by a three-dimensional, linear elastic structural model. The isolators should
be represented by linear springs with stiffness keff. (The
calculation of keff may require multiple iterations, as keff
will be a function of the target displacement.) The first
151
C155.6.4 Commentary
mode damping ratio should be set equal to for the isolation system. The reader is referred to Kelly [1993] for additional information.
C155.6.4
Time-History Analysis. Time-history analysis shall be performed with at least three matched pairs of
horizontal time-history components, as defined in Requirements Section 155.4.2. Parameters of interest should
be calculated for each time-history analysis pair. The parameters of interest should include member forces, connection forces, interstory drift, isolator displacements, and
overturning forces.
C156
C157
Much of the analysis and design work may be completed with this substantially reduced set of parameters.
Once the analysis and design effort is near completion, the
final design(s) may be analyzed using the unreduced set of
parameters if deemed necessary.
Fire Resistance. It is expected that, in general, the fire resistance of isolators (particularly those isolators that carry gravity loads), be equivalent to those
structural elements to which they are connected. As such,
an isolator in a column or supporting a column would need
to have the same fire resistance as that required for the columns of the building. However, in some situations, the isolators may be fully enclosed within areas protected by
adequate fire barriers, with little or no chance of combustion occurring or spreading within that area. In such cases,
jurisdictional agencies have been known to waive the need
for fire resistance requirements for the isolator or isolator
assembly.
C155.7
C157.2.4
To reduce the computational effort, preliminary analysis may be undertaken to identify: 1) the most disadvantageous location of the mass eccentricity, 2) the critical
matched pair of ground motion records, and 3) the critical
orientation of the matched pair identified in Item 2, above.
C155.7.1
Section C154.4.1.
C155.7.2
System.
152
No Commentary provided.
C157.2.5 Displacement Restraint. The use of a displacement restraint system is not encouraged by these Requirements. Should a displacement restraint system be
implemented, explicit analysis of the isolated building accounting for the displacement restraint system is mandated
for earthquake demand based on the MCE.
September 1999
C157.2.7
No Commentary provided.
C157.2.8
C157.2.9
September 1999
Commentary C157.2.6
C161
C161.1
General
Prototype Tests
C161.2.1
No Commentary provided.
C161.2.2
Record. For each cycle of test the force-deflection behavior of the prototype test specimen must be
recorded so that the data can be used to determine whether
the isolation system complies with both these Requirements and the specification prepared by the engineer of
record. The engineer of record and the independent review
team (see Requirements Section 160) should review all
raw data from the prototype tests.
153
C161.2.5 Commentary
scale units should be established and verified prior to finalizing the testing program.
C161.3
C161.2.5
If the
effective stiffness and damping of any of the isolators in
the isolation system are dependent on the magnitude of the
imposed bilateral (orthogonal) displacement, additional
testing is required to quantify this dependence.
The static vertical load test is used to verify isolator stability at the total maximum displacement under
maximum and minimum vertical loads. The maximum
vertical load is calculated using 1.2 DL + 1.0 LL and the
maximum downward seismic overturning load from the
MCE. The minimum vertical load is calculated using
0.8 DL and maximum upward seismic overturning load
from the MCE. This is a static stability test; no cycling is
required.
Load.
C161.2.7
No Commentary provided.
154
The effective stiffness of an isolator shall be calculated for each cycle of loading from displacement + to
+
Determination of Force-Deflection
Characteristics
Eqn. C161-3
where F is the lateral force in the isolator at + ; and F is the lateral force in the isolator at , assuming
maximum force to occur at maximum displacement.
C161.4
No Commentary provided.
C161.5
C161.5.1
References
ACI-318, 1995. American Concrete Institute, Building
Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, ACI-31895.
ACI, 1983. American Concrete Institute, Recommended
Practice for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Bins, Silos and Bunkers for Storage of Granular
Materials, ACI-313R-1977 (Revised 1983).
ACI, 1985. American Concrete Institute, Code
Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete
Structures. ACI-349-85/349R-85.
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C161.5.2
C161.5.2 Commentary
156
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C161.5.2
158
Magnitude
Earthquake/Year
Pacoima Dam
M = 6.6
Karakyr Point
MS = 7.0
ML = 6.6
Tabas
M = 7.4
Site 1
MS = 6.9
Corralitos
MS = 7.1
Cape Mendocino
MS = 6.9
1992 Petrolia, CA
Lucerne Valley
MS = 7.5
1992 Landers, CA
September 1999
Table C104-2. 1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (sites <= 15 km of fault rupture)
Instrument Station Information
Name
Peak Response
Distance to
Fault Rupture
(km)
Site
PGA (g)
SA1.0(g)
N/A
0.98/0.56
>0.90
Soil
0.63/0.61
>0.90
Soil
0.85/0.48
>0.90
Rock
0.79/0.45
>0.90
Sepulveda VA Hospital
N/A
0.94/0.74
0.7
Soil
0.91/0.61
0.75
Soil
0.35/0.29
0.6
Rock
0.44/0.30
0.45
Rock
0.59/0.54
0.35
10
Soil
A0.26/0.18
0.35
12
Rock
0.23/0.21
0.4
12
N/A
0.29/0.23
0.25
14
Lake Hughes 12
September 1999
0 to 2km
2km to 5km
5km to 10km
10 km to 15km
Na = 1.5
Na = 1.7-0.1d
Na = 1.4-0.04d
Na = 1.0
Nv = 2.0
Nv = 2.266-0.133d
Nv = 1.6-0.8d
Nv = 1.6-0.4d
Na = 1.3
Na = 1.5-0.1d
Na = 1.0
Na = 1.0
Nv = 1.6
Nv = 1.866-0.133d
Nv = 1.4-0.4d
Nv = 1.0
159
1.
Table C155-1.
Effective
Damping, (%)
Velocity-Domain
Spectra Ratio1
0.8
1.0
1.00
10
1.2
1.20
20
1.5
1.53
30
1.7
1.80
40
1.9
2.07
50
2.0
2.34
0.81
Dynamic Analysis
Design Parameter
Static Analysis
Design Displacement
DD
1.1 DD
DTD
Maximum Displacement
g
-------- C T
4 2 VM M
= --------------------------------BM
DM
Total Maximum Displacement
DTM
1.1DM
V b = k Dmax D D
k Dmax D D
V s = ---------------------RI
k Dmax D D
V s = ---------------------RI
Drift
160
g
-------- C T
4 2 VD D
= -------------------------------BD
0.010/RI
Response
Spectrum
Time-History
0.9 DTD
0.9 DTD
0.8 DTM
0.8 DTM
0.9 Vb
0.9 Vb
0.8 Vs
0.6 Vs
1.0 Vs
0.8 Vs
0.015/RIi
0.020/RI
September 1999
Aa=EPA in g's
Av=EPV/30 in g's; EPV is
in inches/seconds
Av=velocity related
acceleration value
Figure C104-1.
Schematic representation showing how effective peak acceleration and effective peak velocity are obtained
from a response spectrum
Figure C104-2. Determination of distance from nonvertical fault for use in establishing near-source factor.
The closest distance to known seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance between the site and the
area described by the vertical projection of the source on the surface. The surface projection need not include
portions of the source at depths of 10 km or greater
September 1999
161
162
Figure C104-3.
Figure C104-4.
September 1999
Figure C104-5.
September 1999
163
Figure C104-6.
164
September 1999
Figure C104-7.
September 1999
165
166
September 1999
Figure C105-2.
Px =
( D + L )i
i=x
above level x
Stability coefficient:
Figure C105-3.
September 1999
Px
= -----------------V x h sx
Eqn. C105-1
167
Figure C107-1. Comparison of Equation 107-2 with recorded data. (Note: The recorded
data come largely from near-source records in Seismic Zone 4. In-structure acceleration
records are not available from the other seismic zones.)
168
September 1999
Figure C108-1.
September 1999
169
Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104-6 or 104-8
( R I )T
with Vmin > 0.56CaIw
2.5C a
Vmax = --------------
RI
ap Ca Ip
3h
---------------- 1 + -------x- W
Rp
h p
r
Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104( R I )T
6 or 104-8
with Vmin > 0.56CaIw
2.5C a
Vmax = --------------
RI
ap Ca Ip
3h
----------------- 1 + -------x- W
Rp
h p
r
Figure C109-1.
170
September 1999
Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104-6
( R I )T
or 104-8
with: Vmin>0.56CaIW
2.5C a
Vmax = -------------- W
RI
Support Structure
Cv
V = ------------------ W with R from the smaller of Table 104( R I )T
6 or 104-8
with Vmin > 0.56CaIw
2.5C a
Vmax = --------------
RI
ap Ca Ip
Rp
3h
hr
x
or: Fp = ----------------- 1 + -------- W p
September 1999
171
Figure C151-1.
172
September 1999
September 1999
173
174
September 1999
Commentary
C201
CHAPTER 2
General Requirements
C202
C202.1
Recommended Modifications
to the 1997 UBC
Special Inspections
C202.1.1
Wood.
C202.1.3
In addition to the special inspections required for the gravity and wind load resisting
systems, additional quality assurance is needed for the designated seismic systems identified in the quality assurance
plan. This is due to the nonlinear action the system compo-
September 1999
nents are required to undergo during an earthquake. Buildings such as publicly funded schools and hospitals that
receive a higher level of quality assurance during construction have consistently performed better during seismic events than typical buildings. Many of the additional
inspection requirements in this section address areas in
which problems have been observed in the past. Their implementation will result in structures that are more likely
to perform as intended by the design engineer.
Every type of construction can benefit from more
thorough quality control and assurance, but wood and masonry constructed without special inspection in the past
have had extensive problems that would be addressed by
increased inspection requirements. In particular, inspection of connections in wood construction needs additional
attention, as demonstrated by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Inspections are required for nailing of shear panels
and diaphragms to ensure proper installation, including
edge and end distances. Inspection is also required for
tightening of connectors and of the condition of members
at connections to address splitting, crushing, and oversized
bolt holes.
The Northridge earthquake exposed problems with
steel construction, particularly welding, that have been attributed in part to construction practices. Tighter quality
assurance measures are required for welding.
Extensive nonstructural damage has occurred in every
major earthquake in the past. Typically the nonstructural
components of a building have not received the necessary
attention from both designers and inspectors. These provisions will help ensure that design provisions are constructed correctly.
C202.2
Nondestructive Testing
175
202.3 Commentary
surance plan. In addition to concerns regarding construction quality, there are concerns regarding the materials
used in construction. Greater assurance that material properties will match those assumed by the design engineer is
important, especially where the components of the structure will be exposed to loading and deformations significantly in excess of the elastic limits of the materials.
Requirements for testing of welded connections have been
increased in large part due to the problems encountered in
structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
C202.3
Structural Observation
Design Review
Quality Assurance
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C202.6
In addition to the quality assurance provisions required, it is recommended that the Engineer of Record review contractors submittals thoroughly and provide
construction consultation to clarify the intent of the construction documents when necessary. Procedures for modifying the construction documents during construction
should also be included in the plan.
177
C202.6 Commentary
178
September 1999
Commentary
C301
CHAPTER 3
Foundations
C301
General Requirements
C302
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
C302.1
Modify:
UBC 1805, Allowable Foundation and Lateral Pressures. Seismic shears and overturning effects
C302.2 Commentary
Recent publications describing the liquefaction hazard and methods for evaluating it include those by Seed
and Idriss [1982], Seed et al. [1983], National Research
Council [NRC, 1985], Seed et al. [1985], and Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute [EERI, 1986]. The procedure developed by Seed and his coworkers is a widely accepted and economical method for evaluating liquefaction
potential. It relates liquefaction potential to the standard
penetration resistance (SPT) blow count. A more recent
commentary on liquefaction is presented in the 1997
NEHRP provisions [NEHRP, 1997].
C302.2
C302.2.1
1. No Commentary provided.
2. The reduction factor to transverse reinforcement for
confinement of concrete in potential plastic hinge regions is based on the New Zealand concrete design
code. Testing by Hoat Joen and Park et al. [1990] and
Park and Hoat Joen [1990b] has demonstrated the adequacy of these Requirements. Uplift testing by Caltrans of a metal shell type pile with vertical flutes and
cast-in-place concrete infill resulted in a premature
failure by bond between the concrete and steel. Anchorage for uplift loads was made to the concrete only
[Caltrans/DFI Seminar, 1993].
3. Width to thickness ratios of steel plate or pipe elements are prescribed so that the steel pile can develop
its plastic moment capacity without local buckling.
4. No Commentary provided.
5. Loss of cover over the confined core will occur at a
displacement ductility of approximately 2. The loss of
section and reduction of pile capacity is usually equalized by the overstrength in the core due to confining
reinforcement. However, abnormally large cover requirements or low ratios of core depth to gross depth
of section are not fully compensated by this rationalization. Therefore, a reduction in the capacity of the
pile is warranted for these situations.
6. Batter pile systems that are partially embedded have
historically performed poorly under strong ground
motions [Gerwick, 1992]. Difficulties in examining
existing fully embedded batter piles have led to uncer180
tainties of the extent of damage for this type of foundation. Typically, battered piles are designed
assuming that lateral loads are resisted only by the axial component on the pile without any induced moments. However, this is an erroneous assumption to
make [Lam and Bertero, 1990]. Proper design of battered pile systems typically require detailed soil-pile
interaction analyses. Battered piles should be designed for both moment and shear, in addition to the
axial load. Such moments and shears can also result
from interaction with the superstructure and from
ground movements such as subsidence, liquefaction,
or seismic compaction. Batter piles are considered as
limited ductile systems and should be designed using
the special seismic load combinations of Section
101.7.4.
C302.2.3
1. No Commentary provided.
2. Anchorage of the pile to the pile cap or grade beam for
tension or fixity should not fail before developing the
pile or soil uplift capacity. It is also desirable that the
pile structural capacity exceed the geotechnical failure/pile slip capacity. This could allow energy dissipating mechanisms, such as rocking, to occur in the
soil without structural failure of the pile.
3. Grade beam elements attached to moment resisting
columns should not form plastic hinges, unless unavoidable, where detection of failure or distress is difficult, nor should they provide a source of instability
for the superstructure. A strong column-weak beam
system at the foundation level has little benefit for the
superstructure and forces plastic hinges in the grade
beams. Column longitudinal reinforcing hooked in
footings or pile cap/grade beams are traditionally
placed with hooks out. This has been found to substantially reduce the joint shear capacity [Chai, et al.,
1991]. The hooks should be turned into the joint in a
manner similar to that of a typical beam-column exterior joint.
4. Transverse reinforcing for grade beams and pile caps
should extend past the centerline of edge piles sufficiently to develop the reinforcing.
5. Design of pile caps typically assumes that the pile cap
will remain rigid to distribute loading linearly to piles.
Caltrans undertook a nonlinear parametric study to determine span-to-depth (L/D) ratios that fulfill the rigidity requirement. This study showed an L/D of
approximately 2.2 and lower resulted in a nearly planar pile cap where piles in each cross row have a
nearly equal deformation [Caltrans/DFI Seminar,
1993].
September 1999
Commentary C302.2.4
References
ATC-6, 1981. Applied Technology Council, Seismic
Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges.
Broms, B., 1981. Precast Piling Practice, Thomas
Telford Ltd., London.
Caltrans/DFI Seminar, 1993. Pile Load Test Results at
Deep Bay Mud Site Using Various Pile Types,
September 9-10, Oakland, CA.
Chai, Priestly, Seible, 1991. Seismic Retrofit of Circular
Bridge Columns for Enhanced Flexural Performance,
ACI Structural Journal, September-October.
Czerniak, E., 1957. Resistance to Overturning of Single
Short Piles, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE
Vol. 83, ST-2.
Duncan, J. M., L.T. Evans, and P.S.K. Ooi, 1994. Lateral
Load Analysis of Single Piles and Drilled Shafts,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, New
York.
EERI, 1986. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Reducing Earthquake Hazards: Lessons Learned from
Earthquakes, Publication No. 86-02, Oakland, CA.
Gazetas, Fan, et al., 1992. Seismic Pile-Group-Structure
Interaction, Piles Under Dynamic Loads,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 34, ASCE.
Gerwick, Jr., B., and G. Fontinos, Drilled Piers and
Driven Piles for Foundations in Areas of High
Seismicity. SEAONC Fall Seminar, 1992.
Hoat Joen, P. and R. Park, 1990. Flexural Strength and
Ductility Analysis of Spirally Reinforced Prestressed
Concrete Piles, PCI Journal, July-August.
Lam and Bertero, 1990. Aseismic Design of Pile
Foundations for Port Facilities, Proceedings of the
POLA Seismic Workshop on Seismic Engineering.
Port of Los Angeles, CA.
NEHRP, 1997. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the
Development of Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings, Parts 1 and 2, 1997 Edition. Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C., 1997.
NRC, 1985. National Research Council, Liquefaction of
Soils During Earthquakes.
Ooi, P.S.K. and J.M. Duncan, 1994. Lateral Load
Analysis of Groups of Piles and Drilled Shafts,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, New
York.
181
C302.2.4 Commentary
182
September 1999
Commentary
C401
CHAPTER 4
Reinforced Concrete
C401
General Requirements
September 1999
C402
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
C402.1
Definitions of n and v
C402.2
183
C402.4 Commentary
C402.5
Strong-Column/Weak-Beam
Delete:
UBC 1921.4.2.1
Mc Mg
Mc =
Eqn. C402-1
Mg =
Flexural strengths shall be summed such that the column moments oppose the beam moments.
Exception 1: Equation C402-1 need not be satisfied
for the columns below the roof.
Exception 2: Equation C402-1 need not be satisfied
if a plastic or nonlinear analysis of the structure shows
that a story mechanism does not govern seismic response.
Delete:
UBC 1921.4.2.3
C402.5.2
184
September 1999
Replace:
UBC 1921.6.2.4
September 1999
Commentary C402.6
Outside of plastic hinge regions, SEAOC recommends that splices be staggered to avoid weak sections.
The requirement to stagger splices was deleted from the
UBC in 1996.
The provisions for development of flexural reinforcement in UBC 1912.10, 1912.11, and 1912.12 are mainly
pertinent to beams, and thus SEAOC does not recommend
their application to walls. However, the curtailment of
flexural reinforcement must consider the shift of calculated tension stresses toward the point of zero moment, as
discussed in Section R12.10.3 of the ACI 318 Commentary. The issue is also discussed in Section 5.4.2 of Paulay
and Priestley [1992] where additional recommendations
are given.
The referenced sections, UBC 1912.10.2,
1912.10.3, and 1912.10.4, result in the minimum requirement that vertical wall reinforcement shall extend beyond
the point at which it is no longer required to resist flexure
for a distance equal to the effective depth of the member
(0.8lw) or ld, whichever is greater. The extension is not required at the top of the wall, which acts as the free end of
a cantilever.
The requirements of Section 402.7 can result in longer
extensions of flexural reinforcement than some engineers
have traditionally used, particularly for walls with short
height-to-length ratios. Whether the extension is necessary
in all such cases is the subject of further investigation by
SEAOC.
C402.8
Shear Demand
185
C402.9 Commentary
where the shear failure occurs, rather than distributing deformation demands over the height of the building. Thus,
increased wall shear forces, equivalent to using a reduced
R factor, are appropriate for the design of shear-governed
walls.
The magnification factor of R/2.5 for shear-governed
walls in bearing wall and building frame systems means
that such walls are designed for shear forces equivalent to
using an R of 2.5. This is consistent with ductility and
overstrength results from tests of shear-failing walls.
Shear-governed walls in dual systems are designed for
shear forces equivalent to using an R of 3.5. The increase
from 2.5 to 3.5 considers that global strength degradation
in a dual system will be lessened by effect of the moment
frame, and that dual systems are likely to have higher global overstrength than other systems.
Compared to previous practice, the requirements of
Section 402.8 can result in increased amounts of horizontal reinforcement or increased wall thickness. The amplification factors for walls that are shear-governed are based
on SEAOCs engineering judgment. SEAOC recommends
continued study of the appropriate amplification factors
for shear-governed walls.
SEAOC strongly recommends that engineers provide
shear strength in excess of the shear corresponding to the
development of the wall flexural strength.
As a minimum, this can be addressed by providing
shear strength, Vn to resist (Mn/Mu)(v)Vu. The quantity
Mn/Mu is the ratio of moment strength provided to factored
moment demand. In this application Mn should be calculated for the axial load case that results in the largest value
of Mn. For greater protection against shear failures, the
probable strength Mpr, calculated assuming a tensile stress
in the flexural reinforcement of 1.25fy, can be used instead
of Mn. For coupled walls, or other walls where the development of flexural strength corresponds to yielding of several wall segments, a plastic analysis of the structure is
recommended to assess shear demands. Alternatively, an
average or weighted-average value of Mn/Mu for all yielding locations can be used to magnify Vu.
The quantity v is a shear amplification factor that accounts for inelastic dynamic effects that can cause the vertical distribution of lateral seismic forces to differ from the
inverted triangular pattern assumed in the analysis, resulting in greater shear corresponding to the same wall flexural strength. The value of v can be taken as follows:
186
Designers should avoid providing more vertical reinforcement than is necessary for flexural strength. In many
cases it is preferable to provide the required flexural
strength with more distributed vertical reinforcement rather than with heavy concentrations of reinforcement at wall
ends, as shown in Figure C402-3. This is particularly the
case for lowrise walls, which are susceptible to sliding
shear. Avoiding heavy concentrations of vertical reinforcement at wall ends can increase sliding shear resistance by increasing the length of the compression zone of
the wall [Paulay and Priestley 1992], and facilitate the design and construction of boundary zones and lap splices.
UBC 1921.6.5.5 was based on tests that showed that
horizontal reinforcement contributed less to shear strength
than vertical reinforcement for low-rise walls
(hw/lw = 0.5 for the tests) [Barda et al., 1976]. However,
the walls tested showed brittle behavior with a rapid degradation of strength as displacement increased beyond that
at peak strength. While horizontal reinforcement may not
increase strength for lowrise walls, it can increase displacement capacity by preventing or delaying shear failures and allowing flexural behavior to initiate. Tests by
September 1999
Commentary C402.10
Paulay et al. [1982] show that low-rise walls can be designed to respond flexurally. The tested walls had hw /lw =
0.5 and a horizontal reinforcement ratio n approximately
twice the vertical reinforcement ratio v' .
SEAOC recommends that designers compare wall
flexural and shear strengths to the capacity of the wall
foundations, and to wall strength in sliding shear. This is
particularly important for low-rise walls. Specific recommendations are given in Paulay and Priestly [1992].
C402.10 Interaction of Wall Sections and
Flanges
UBC 1921.6.6.2. This item adds a general
Modify:
requirement that wall sections be considered as integral
units. For a wall L-shaped in plan, for example, the two
legs of the L should not be designed or reinforced independently. The leg of the L parallel to the direction of earthquake forces being considered will act as the web of the
section, while the other leg of the L will act as a flange,
with an effective flange width as specified.
Delete defini-
The definition of Mn is added because it is used in the definitions of cu and in y. By SEAOC recommendation
September 1999
UBC 1921.6.6.5
Replace defi-
UBC 1921.6.6.5.
Add three
Add:
Add new Section after UBC 1921.6.6.6.
The 1996 Blue Book Commentary strongly recommended that all wall edges in potential plastic hinge regions have ties spaced at 6db or 6 inches maximum to limit
buckling of [longitudinal] bars. This recommendation is
strengthened by the inclusion of Requirements Section
187
C402.13 Commentary
402.11 in this 1998 Blue Book. Figure C402-4 shows examples of how the quantity l is calculated.
Boundary ties to be provided under this section are
similar to those required in UBC 1931.6.6.6, but the required area of transverse reinforcement, Ash, is less.
C402.13 Diagonally Reinforced Coupling
Beam Detailing
UBC 1921.6.10.4. Since the diagonal reinModify:
forcement is designed to resist the entire flexure and shear
in the coupling beam, additional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement acts principally as basketing to contain concrete that may spall. As such, this reinforcement
need not conform to the UBC sections referenced in UBC
1921.6.10.4.
The 1996 Blue Book cautioned that requiring conformance to UBC 1910.5 may result in excessive longitudinal reinforcement; this Recommendation is
strengthened by revising the requirements for additional
reinforcement in this 1998 Blue Book. The SEAOC recommendations are not tied to UBC 1911.8.9 and UBC
1911.8.10 because the additional reinforcement is not
acting as the principal shear reinforcement.
SEAOC recommends against fully developing the additional longitudinal reinforcement into the wall piers, as
this would increase the flexural strength, and consequently
the shear demands, on the coupling beam. Instead SEAOC
recommends continuing the additional longitudinal reinforcement 6 inches into the wall pier, which should be adequate to maintain the integrity of the coupling beam after
cracking and spalling [Paulay and Priestley, 1992].
Additional
Commentary
The following Commentary discusses selected sections of
the 1997 UBC.
C403
General Requirements
C403.1
Eqn. 403-1
Eqn. 403-2
188
September 1999
especially be checked in the case of offset walls (Irregularity Type D in UBC Table 16-M) where the diaphragm is
required to transfer shear delivered from a wall above to an
offset wall below.
C403.3
SEAOC does not recommend the use of high strength reinforcing steel with yield strength in excess of 60 ksi for
the reasons stated below.
First, tests have shown that bond characteristics greatly influence the flexural stiffness and ductile behavior of
reinforced concrete members and their joints in the inelastic range, with bond stresses becoming much lower and
bond-slip increasing significantly in the post-yield range
over those in the elastic range. Second, cyclic tests of reinforced concrete joints indicate that the bond-slip increases
further in the inelastic range with an increase in the yield
strength of the reinforcing steel, which in turn further reduces the available bond stresses.
In order to compensate for this reduction in bond
stresses and enhance ductility when using high strength reinforcing steel, high strength concrete has been experimented with to meet the higher bond demand.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of research conducted in the
U.S. on the inelastic, cyclic response of high strength reinforcing steel, and in fact little research is available for high
strength reinforcing subjected to monotonic loading.
However, since 1988, a major effort has been undertaken by Japan's Ministry of Construction to direct a comprehensive program in development, design and
September 1999
Commentary C403.3
189
C404 Commentary
C404
C404.1
UBC 1921.3.1
Scope
UBC 1921.3.2
Reinforcement
Longitudinal
Even well-confined lap splices that do not slip are undesirable in plastic hinge regions because they prevent an
even distribution of yielding along the length of the flexural reinforcement. When splices are present, steel yielding and strains tend to concentrate over a short length of
reinforcement at one or both ends of the lap splice length.
This can reduce the rotation and ductility capacity of the
plastic hinge region.
C404.4
UBC 1921.3.3
Reinforcement
Transverse
September 1999
Commentary C404.5
1921.3.3. The amounts of transverse reinforcement required for shear and confinement are not required to be additive. Transverse reinforcement is also beneficial around
lap splices.
C405.3
C404.5
C405.4
UBC 1921.3.4.1
Design Forces
Shear Strength
C405
C405.1
UBC 1921.4.1
Scope
UBC 1921.4.1.1
Dimensions of
C405.2
September 1999
UBC 1921.4.3.2
Splice Locations
C405.4.1
requirements are prescribed for columns, which for architectural or other reasons, are designed with 4 or more
inches of concrete beyond the confined core. Reinforcement is required to prevent the spalling of large volumes
of concrete and the subsequent sudden loss of column
stiffness and/or falling hazards.
Item 6 Point of Contraflexure. When the dynamic
force procedure is used, the location of the point of contraflexure may be determined from the results of the equivalent static force procedure. The results of the dynamic
analysis will not provide the necessary information if the
particular method of modal combination (such as SRSS)
does not retain the algebraic signs of the column end moments.
C405.4.2
UBC 1921.4.4.4 Transverse Reinforcement, Extent. If the moment gradient over the height of
UBC 1921.4.4.7 Transverse Reinforcement at Columns. The maximum axial load that can be
191
C405.5 Commentary
UBC 1921.4.5.1
Design Forces
Shear Strength
C406
Joints of Frames
C406.1
UBC 1921.5.1
Requirements
General
In order to ensure that the required energy dissipation capability can be developed in reinforced concrete frame
structures, careful consideration must be given to the design and detailing of beam-column joints. Such joints
should be designed and detailed to:
1. Preserve the integrity of the joints sufficiently so that
the strength and deformation capacities of the connecting beams and columns are developed.
2. Prevent excessive degradation of joint stiffness under
seismic loading by minimizing cracking of the joint
concrete and by preventing the loss of bond between
the concrete and longitudinal beam and column reinforcement passing through the joints.
3. Prevent brittle shear failure of the joint.
The first of these requirements can be met by adequate
confinement of the joint concrete. The second can be dealt
with by providing adequate transverse joint reinforcement
(ties or hoops) and by adequate anchorage or development
of the longitudinal beam and column reinforcement. The
third requirement dictates that the joint be provided with
192
reinforcement and joint concrete under cyclic load reversals causes a significant increase in frame deformations, or
drift, which can lead to frame instability from p-delta effects. In order to prevent excessive degradation of joint
stiffness under seismic loading, it is necessary to minimize
this loss of bond.
The minimum column size requirement is intended to
reduce the loss of bond between beam longitudinal reinforcement and the joint concrete at deformation reversals
beyond the yield point of the steel. Additional measures
can be taken to improve the condition for anchorage and
bond development at beam-column joints. These include
forcing the location of beam plastic hinges away from the
column face. This can be accomplished by designing
haunched beams, cutting off or hooking some of the longitudinal beam reinforcement some distance away from the
column face, or by bending and diagonally crossing some
of the longitudinal beam reinforcement at a distance from
the column face.
Nearly all of the research conducted on beam-column
joints has been performed on specimens constructed of
normal weight concrete. Because of the reduced bond
strength of lightweight concrete, the minimum column
size required should be increased where columns are constructed with lightweight aggregate. Although no specific
design recommendations can be given, the modification
factors for lightweight concrete presented in ACI 12.2 may
be appropriate to apply to the 20db minimum column dimension limitation until further information is available.
September 1999
C406.2
The development length for a bar with a standard 90-degree hook is provided by UBC formula. 21-5. Eqn. 21-5 is
derived from the provisions of UBC 1912.5 by multiplying the hook development length specified therein by factors of: 0.7 for cover exceeding 2.5 inches; 0.8 for a
connection confined by ties spaced at not more than three
bar diameters; 1.25 for the ratio of actual bar yield stress
to specified yield stress; and 1.1 to account for cyclic load
effects.
In recognition of the rather limited amount and variable behavior of one-way load tests on hooks [Zsutty,
1985], the combined factors of 0.7 and 0.8 for cover and
confinement may need further consideration. Reversed cycles of tension and compression yield may also be more
destructive to bond than would be represented by the cyclic load factor of 1.1. Also, since reinforcing steel can
have a total strain-hardening ratio in excess of the 1.25 factor, a value nearer to the ratio of ultimate strength to specified yield strength may be more appropriate. Recent
cyclic load tests [Hawkins et al., 1987] have shown that
pull-out failures can occur at hook development lengths
only slightly less than those given by UBC formula 21-5.
The engineer should consider the consequences of hook
pull-out in exterior beam-column joints and provide extra
development length, especially where seismic load is the
major part of the total load combination. The 20db minimum column dimension in UBC 1921.5.1.4 can serve as
a guide.
C407
September 1999
Commentary C406.2
n
C407.1.1
193
C407.2 Commentary
C407.2
Reinforcement
C407.2.1
UBC 1921.6.2.2 Walls With Single Curtains of Reinforcement. UBC 1921.6.2.2 permits the
UBC 1921.6.2.4 Splices. See Requirements Section 402.7 and Commentary Section C402.7 for
recommended modification to UBC 1921.6.4 and Commentary on splices.
C407.3
194
the balanced point on the column interaction curve below which the tensile steel strains reach yield prior to concrete compressive strains reaching 0.003. When axial
loads exceed this limit, a brittle concrete compression failure mode can occur if concrete is not confined; confinement similar to that required for columns is necessary to
provide inelastic deformation capacity.
September 1999
UBC 1921.6.6.4
Commentary C407.5.4
Design Method
is to allow for the large neutral axis depth and corresponding high compressive strains that can occur in the stems of
these sections.
A symmetrical wall with a limit of P u 0.10A g f c
shall also have symmetrically distributed reinforcement. It
is anticipated that most walls in lowrise structures will
conform to the given trigger limits, in which case no further analysis is required. With respect to trigger 3, it is recommended that a limit on the shear span ratio Mu / Vu l w
3 should apply when Vu is near to its limit. This modification has been adopted in the 1997 UBC. In general, caution
should be taken when using the triggers for nonsymmetrical walls with large compression flanges or steel contents
on one end of the wall.
For wall sections not meeting the trigger limits, the
last paragraph of this Provision specifies the length of the
confined boundary zone that would make any further analysis of strain conditions unnecessary. It is intended for cases where there are only a few walls that do not meet the
trigger limits and where a detailed analysis is not justifiable in terms of any small savings in confinement steel.
The boundary zone lengths vary with the intensity of axial
load and have been formulated from parametric studies of
neutral axis depths for symmetrical wall sections and may
not be appropriate for the stems of nonsymmetrical sections.
C407.5.5
September 1999
Approach.
In general terms, if flexural compression strains exceed the limiting value when the wall is displaced to its
maximum inelastic deformation during the design earthquake, confinement of the compression or boundary zone
is required. These Requirements require confinement of
the boundary zone wherever compression strains in the
wall critical section (at the plastic hinge) exceed a strain
level of 0.003. In any concrete section yielding in flexure,
a rapid loss of strength occurs once the unconfined concrete begins to spall, see Figures C407-1 and C407-2.
Tests show that spalling of unconfined concrete initiates at
strains on the order of 0.004 inch/inch; the 0.003 strain
limit is thus conservative. In older versions of the UBC,
the trigger for boundary zone confinement was based on
combined gross section stresses; this now defunct procedure was found to be in some cases unconservative and in
others overly conservative.
Many parameters influence the magnitude of compression strain developed in a wall (or in any flexural
member). All other factors being equal, higher axial load,
higher flexural steel content and larger height-to-width ratios will yield higher compression strains for the same total
wall displacement at the top of the wall. For example, a
concrete wall without adequate confinement and with an
axial load higher than the balanced load will crush (develop strains in excess of 0.003) before the tensile reinforcement yields, and has, by definition, no ductility. Also, a Tsection wall will have higher compression strains when the
195
C407.5.5.2 Commentary
196
Item 2
Approximate Approach.
Item 2 of UBC 1921.6.6.5 describes an approximate approach for the computation of concrete compressive
strains at the maximum nonlinear displacement for cantilever walls. To use this simplified approach, the following
wall characteristics need to be met:
1. The wall must be a single cantilevered element extending from its base to the top of the building.
2. The wall can only form a plastic hinge at its base
(the base need not be at the foundation level, but
should be the elevation below which no plastic hinges
form). This requires that all sections above the wall
base must not yield as the base yields. The wall outside of the plastic hinge region should be designed for
strengths corresponding to the moment and shear envelope present when the probable moment Mpr is developed at the plastic hinge. This will help eliminate
the possibility of the plastic hinge forming in a location other than the base of the wall, possibly in a re-
September 1999
Commentary C407.5.5.3
September 1999
compression strain will be underestimated. As the ultimate goal of this analysis is to determine if confinement of portions of the wall is needed on the basis of
compression strain, it is conservative to underestimate
the plastic hinge length. Available research data on
plastic hinge length for walls is sparse and caution is
warranted. The UBC permits the use of lp = 0.51w,
which is reasonable for more slender flexural walls,
but may overestimate the length for long, squat walls.
Based on research specifically applicable to reinforced concrete walls, the plastic hinge length, lp, can
be taken as 0.2 times the wall length, lw, plus 0.07
times the moment to shear ratio, M/V [ATC, 1998;
Paulay and Priestley, 1993].
7. Solve for the total inelastic section curvature, t using
UBC formula 21-9. This relation, derived on
Figure C407-4d, is a relationship between curvature
and displacement, and is derived using first principles
and the moment area theorem [Park and Paulay,
1975].
8. Establish the neutral axis depth, c u , corresponding to
the top of wall displacement, t . This neutral axis
depth is illustrated on Figure C407-3c. The actual
value of the neutral axis depth corresponding to the
displacement, t , may be determined by a momentcurvature analysis of the section, or an approximate
value may be computed as follows: The neutral axis
depth, c u , may be computed as the neutral axis depth
at the development of the nominal flexural strength of
the wall, as defined by Figure C407-3b. This requires
a strain compatibility analysis of the section using the
principles outlined in UBC 1910.2 for the general
case of axial-flexure interaction of concrete sections.
For this analysis, the axial load shall be taken as P u =
1.2D+0.5L+Eh and all properly anchored, spliced, and
developed vertical reinforcement (such as vertical
web reinforcement) shall be included and shall be assumed as yielded in tension or compression. This latter assumption is accurate for cyclic loading because
the vertical reinforcement in the compression zone
will have yielded in tension in a previous cycle, and
197
C407.5.6 Commentary
minimum dimensional and reinforcement detailing requirements for assuring acceptable performance. See Requirements Section 402.12 and Commentary Section
C402.12 for recommendations where boundary zone detailing is not required by UBC 1921.6.6.4 or UBC
1921.6.6.5.
Gives the minimum boundary zone thickness requirement of lu /16. This is a decrease from the
1997 UBC requirement of lu /10. It is strongly recommended that the wall boundary thickness limit of lu /16 be
applied at all potential plastic hinge locations, regardless
of whether boundary zone confinement is required. This
value is provided to preclude out-of-plane buckling failure
of the wall compression zone. More comprehensive recommendations regarding wall out-of-plane buckling are
given in FEMA 306 [ATC, 1998] based on research by
Paulay and Priestly [1993]. The research shows that wall
buckling is aggravated when there are high residual tensile
strains in the steel and the associated boundary zone is
subjected to compression in successive flexural load cycles.
Item 1.
Items 1. 2 and 1.3. Minimum horizontal and vertical boundary zone dimensions have been defined to provide confinement within the potential plastic hinge
regions.
Item 1.4. Specific requirements for defining effective flange participation in the boundary zone are given in
Requirements Section 402.
Item 2. UBC formula 21-10 is essentially the same
C407.6
Coupling Beams
than or equal to 4, the coupling beams are designed in accordance with the general requirements of UBC 1921.2
and in conformance with the requirements of UBC
September 1999
Commentary C407.7.2
psi, Paulay [1992] recommended that diagonal reinforcement should carry 100 percent of the induced cyclic shear
forces.
For clear-span-to-depth ratios greater than 4.0, PCA
tests indicated that specimens with conventional reinforcement resisted over 46 inelastic reversing load cycles. At
the same time, maximum deformation of 13 times yield
deflection was measured. Therefore, experimental data
have shown that beams with a clear-span-to-depth ratio
greater than 4.0 do not require diagonal reinforcement.
It is recommended that pierced walls with weak piers
relative to the coupling beams be avoided. For such walls,
very large inelastic deformation demands may be concentrated on a single floor level. When such a mechanism
forms, the portion of the wall above the mechanism will
deform primarily as a rigid body and the inelastic demands
imposed on the piers within the mechanism may not be
properly predicted by the static force method.
C407.7.3
UBC 1921.6.10.3 Coupling Beams, Detail Requirements for Diagonal Bars. The requirement
for transverse reinforcement around diagonal bars, recommended by Paulay [1992], is to ensure the ability of the diagonal bar cage to sustain yield level compression forces.
Without the transverse confinement required, the bars can
buckle in compression and lose load-carrying capability.
C407.7.4
402.13 and Commentary Section C402.13 for recommended modifications to UBC 1921.6.10.4.
Additional detailing considerations are suggested below:
1. The development length of the diagonal reinforcement into the wall pier, according to Paulay [1992],
should be 1.5 times the nominal development length.
2. The force generated in the diagonal reinforcement
must be distributed into the body of the wall at each
end. Terminating the diagonal bars in a lightly reinforced wall is not recommended. Wall piers adjoining
the coupling beams should be designed for forces corresponding to the development of the probable
strength of the coupling beams.
3. Consideration must be given to constructibility of diagonally reinforced coupling beams. The required
wall thickness may be controlled by the layering of reinforcement in the coupling beam. A means of placing
concrete in congested coupling beams must be provided.
4. Where coupling beams are located on the exterior of a
building and are clad with architectural finishes, the
199
C407.8 Commentary
UBC 1921.6.13
Wall Piers
C408
200
UBC 1921.7.2.1 Members Not Exceeding Design Strength and With Low Axial
Loads. Members that respond essentially in flexure are
subject to the minimum and maximum reinforcement requirements for flexural members of frames. Also, the maximum spacing of stirrups is reduced to d/2 throughout the
member length.
C408.1.2
UBC 1921.7.2.2 Members Not Exceeding Design Strength and With Moderate Axial
Loads. When the factored axial load exceeds
September 1999
UBC 1921.7.2.3 Members Not Exceeding Design Strength and With High Axial Loads. The
When the induced forces exceed the design strengths, inelastic response of the member is expected.
C408.2.1
UBC 1921.7.3.1 Members Exceeding Design Strength Materials. Materials must comply with
UBC 1921.7.3.3 Members Exceeding Design Strength and With Moderate to High Axial Loads.
C409
Constructibility
Commentary C408.1.3
spacing, and other factors that influence the placing and consolidation of concrete. This is particularly true in structures designed for seismic loads,
where the reinforcement often becomes extremely congested and effective concrete consolidation
using conventional mixtures and procedures becomes impossible.
The engineer should communicate with the
constructor during the early concrete phases.
Problem areas should be recognized in time to
take appropriate remedial measures such as staggering splices, grouping bars, modifying stirrup
spacing, and increasing section size. When conditions contributing to substandard consolidation
exist, one or more of the following actions should
be taken: redesign the member, redesign the reinforcing steel, modify the mixture, utilize mock-up
tests to develop a procedure, and alert the constructor to critical conditions.
In addition to the concrete placement capabilities, the engineer should consider the configuration and assembly of the complete reinforcing
steel system. It is common construction practice
to prefabricate bar cages for beams, columns, wall
boundary elements, and shear wall curtains; and
to assemble or join these elements in place. This
procedure is often the most cost-effective, and results in an accurate and stable positioning of reinforcing steel. However, care and planning are
necessary to properly connect the pre-tied elements. Hooks, cross-ties, ties, lap splices, and mechanical splices all need appropriate shapes and
positioning to allow placement without interference.
References
ACI-309, 1987. ACI Committee 309, Guide for
Consolidation of Concrete, ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 84, no. 5.
ACI 318, 1995. Committee 318, Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete.
ACI-ASCE, 1988. Committee 352, Recommendations
for Design of Slab Column Connections in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 85, no. 6.
ACI-SEAOC, 1982. American Concrete Institute
Southern California Chapter and Structural Engineers
201
C409 Commentary
September 1999
Commentary C409
September 1999
203
Figure C402-1.
204
Example of beam and column moments considered in strong-column/weak beam (Equation 402-1)
September 1999
Figure C402-2.
September 1999
205
206
September 1999
Figure C402-4.
September 1999
Example calculation of L
207
Figure C407-1.
Figure C407-2.
208
September 1999
Figure C407-3.
September 1999
209
Figure C407-4.
210
Approximate determination of t
September 1999
Commentary
C501
CHAPTER 5
Aluminum
C501
General Requirements
C502
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
C502.1
Modify:
UBC 2002.2
The allowable stress provisions of Division I apply to columns and beams supported at both ends with
welds at the ends only. For members with welds not within
a distance of 0.05L from the supported ends, and for cantilever columns and single-web beams with welds at or
near their supported ends, the effect of welding on the
member strength shall be accounted for by using an increased slenderness ratio as specified in Division II. This
modification clarifies the wording of UBC 2002.2.
bers.
Currently, the 1997 UBC uses only ASD for the sizing
of aluminum elements. Research is suggested to determine
whether the Aluminum Association or any other industry
organization (such as the ASCE Task Committee for
Strength Design in Aluminum) plans to publish an LRFD
standard. This design method would conform more closely
with the direction of future Code editions.
C502.2
Replace:
UBC 2003.3
Siding. This modification corrects an assumed typographical error in the text of the 1997 UBC, which referenced 1/60 instead of 1/360.
September 1999
C502.3
C502.3.2
C502.4
Design
C502.5 Commentary
Modify:
UBC 2009.6
Webs.
C502.6
Fabrication
212
September 1999
Commentary
C601
CHAPTER 6
Reinforced Masonry
C601
General Requirements
The provisions of the 1997 UBC and the additional Requirements of this chapter represent acceptable minimum
requirements necessary to achieve the seismic design objectives of these Requirements.
The masonry design requirements of the 1997 UBC
are essentially the same as the 1994 UBC requirements,
except for changes necessary to align with the strength design requirements of UBC Chapter 16.
C601.1
Eqn. C601-2
C602
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
C602.1
Standards of Quality
Modify:
10
C602.3.1
C602.3.2
C602.3.3
Reinforcement.
C602.4
Modify: UBC 2108.2.2.7 Splices. Recently, the National Concrete Masonry Association in conjunction with the Council for Masonry Research, the Brick
Industries Association, and the Western States Clay Products Association conducted three phases of splice length
research [NCMA, 1998] to investigate required lap lengths
for reinforcing bars in masonry. The research showed the
existing formulas are unconservative for the larger rein213
C603 Commentary
forcing bar sizes (#8 and larger). For these larger size reinforcing bars, lap lengths greater than those required by
UBC equations (8-13) and (8-14) did not yield bars with 21/2 diameters cover before failure of the masonry. Other
phases of the research showed that cover depths greater
than 3 bar diameters increase the effectiveness of the lap
splice. The research also showed that the 1997 UBC formulas are overly conservative for the smaller size bars.
The revised lap splice requirements now provide much
longer laps for the larger size bars than the 1997 UBC requirements. These revised requirements were developed
from the above research and have been reviewed by the
Masonry Ad Hoc Committee. SEAOC adopts these revised requirements.
of 0.006. If the maximum strain expected under real earthquake displacements (i.e., strains calculated using an R
equal to 2) is greater than 0.006, greater confinement
should be provided.
Additional
Commentary
C604.2
C603
Special Inspection is always required for masonry constructed using strength design provisions. Special inspection is optional for masonry constructed using working
stress provisions if reduced allowable stress values are
used. Special inspection should be used on as many structures as practicable, as the reduced allowable stresses may
not adequately compensate for the probable lack of quality.
C604
C604.1
214
Column Reinforcement.
Shear Walls: Reinforcement. Joint reinforcement shall not be used as the principal reinforcement
to resist shears or lateral forces in lateral force resisting
systems. The bond characteristics of the smooth wire reinforcement degrade rapidly under cyclic loading. There is a
lack of experience in actual earthquakes on the performance of masonry with joint reinforcement.
Item 2.1
The performance of headed anchor bolts is generally superior to bent bar or plate anchor bolts. The test data for bent
bar anchors loaded in tension or shear appears to have little
consistency, whereas headed anchor bolts behave with a
more consistent cone pullout-type failure similar to concrete, given that the headed anchor bolts have sufficient
embedment, spacing, and end and edge distance.
C604.3
UBC 2106.3.2 Plain Bars. The use of plain bars in reinforced masonry construction is prohibited, except for
joint reinforcement, because of the poor bond capacity,
particularly under cyclic loading.
C605
UBC 2107.1.7
Loads.
September 1999
Commentary C605.2
C606
C606.1
UBC 2108.1
General
September 1999
UBC 2108.1.2
Provisions
Quality Assurance
UBC 2108.1.4
Design Strength
The axial load on a flexural member has a significant negative impact on ductility. For this reason, the strength reduction factor decreases with increasing axial load.
The strength reduction factor for shear for wall design
for in-plane loads (shear walls) has two alternative values.
The engineer should design, where possible, for the case
where the nominal shear strength exceeds the shear corresponding to the development of the nominal flexural
strength (ductile shear force). This case is controlled by a
ductile flexural failure mode. The other case is where the
nominal shear capacity is less than the ductile shear force,
in which case the failure mode may be a brittle shear fail-
215
C606.3.1 Commentary
UBC 2108.2
Reinforced Masonry
C606.3.2.1 UBC 2108.2.1.2 Design Assumptions. This UBC section sets the maximum usable ma-
that the maximum bar size should be one less than the
block thickness in order to minimize splitting, i.e., the
maximum bar size for an 8-inch block wall is a #7 bar.
C606.3.2.3 UBC 2108.2.2.6
Development.
UBC 2108.2.3
and Columns
The probability of adequate behavior of structural assemblies constructed of these elements is improved by requiring quality control provisions. Masonry units are
restricted to hollow units. Minimum prism strength is restricted to 1500 psi. Maximum strength that may be used
in design computations is 4000 psi. Dimensional limits on
216
beams, piers, and columns are specified. Minimum quantities and maximum spacing of reinforcement are specified. These arbitrary requirements were included to ensure
that the constructed masonry reasonably conforms with
the construction of the tested specimens.
C606.3.2.2 UBC 2108.2.3.2 Design Assumptions. The member forces shall be based on an analysis
that considers the relative stiffness of all structural members. An analysis similar to that made for a frame composed of the beam, pier and column elements would
conform to this requirement. The joint elements, the material common to the beam and column or pier, could be considered as a rigid element. The effect of cracking on
member stiffness must be included in the analysis. This requirement requires an iterative process. The estimate of effective moment of inertia, Ie, is used to calculate the
moments, Ms, in the member. The cracking moment, Mcr,
is calculated as the product of the section modulus of the
uncracked section and the modulus of rupture. The modulus of rupture of grouted hollow unit masonry is assumed
to be 235 psi. This value was derived from experimental
testing. If the initial estimates of effective moment of inertia are significantly changed by the results of the preliminary analysis, the revised estimates of effective moment of
inertia are used in the subsequent analysis until closure of
the iterative procedure is obtained.
The interstory drift ratio calculated by the analysis of
the system shall be compared with the drift limits specified
in the general seismic design sections.
Strength computations for beams, piers, and columns
are based on an assumption that strain in the masonry and
reinforcement in compression, and in the reinforcement in
tension, is proportional to the distance from the neutral
axis of the flexural section. The maximum strain used in
calculations at the extreme compression fiber shall not exceed 0.003. The strain of the extreme tension reinforcement may exceed yield strain, but the stress in
reinforcement shall be taken as the specified yield stress.
The strength of the element shall be calculated by applicable conditions of equilibrium. The tensile forces in the reinforcement and the appropriately load factored axial
loads shall be in equilibrium with the compressive forces
in the assumed compression block.
The compression block may be assumed to be rectangular and having a uniform stress of 0.85 of the specified
compressive prism strength. The assumed size of the rectangular compression block is limited to 0.85 of the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme compressive
September 1999
Commentary C606.3.2.3
fiber multiplied by the width of the element. The computation of flexural strength shall neglect the tensile strength
of the masonry. Deformation calculations may include the
tension capacity of masonry by use of a tension stiffening
model. The equation for computation of the effective moment of inertia considers tension stiffening effects in
cracked zones and the effects of uncracked zones in the
length of the element.
C606.3.2.3 UBC 2108.2.3.3 Balanced Reinforcement Ratio for Compressive Limit States. This
Nominal Shear
Strength.
September 1999
Reinforcement.
Seismic Design
217
C606.3.3 Commentary
C606.3.4
Loads.
UBC 2108.2.5
C606.3.5
UBC 2108.2.6
Wall Frames
C606.3.5.1 UBC 2108.2.6.1 General Requirements. The masonry wall frame is a new lateral force re-
Flexural Mem-
Longitudinal reinforcing steel is required to be distributed evenly over the depth of the beam
rather than concentrated at the top and bottom, as is common for reinforced concrete beams. This even distribution
governs the behavior of the beam. Instead of an essentially
elasto-plastic moment curvature relationship where essentially all the tension steel yields simultaneously, the transition from first reinforcement yield to ultimate strain is
more gradual as successive reinforcing bars yield. The resulting moment curvature relationship is a gently rising
curve from first yield to ultimate.
bers (Beams).
218
are basically slender shear walls. Hence, many of the requirements are similar to those for shear walls. Confinement must be provided if the compressive strains at
factored forces determined using a R of 1.5 exceed 0.0015.
This procedure is intended to determine real strains at realistic earthquake loads, and provide confinement as necessary. Confined masonry has a much larger usable
compressive strain than unconfined masonry. See
Figure C606-1.
C606.3.5.4 UBC 2108.2.6.2.7
Pier Design
Forces.
Shear
Shear design includes both a masonry and reinforcing steel contribution similar to shear walls. The nominal shear strength is required to be greater than 1.4 times
the shears corresponding to beam flexural yielding in order to preclude a brittle shear failure mode.
Design.
September 1999
shear forces in the joint must not exceed the shear capacity; and 4) there is limited test data. Since there is no confinement reinforcement per se in the joint, the
development lengths for cyclic behavior of reinforcing
steel in grout dominate the geometry. The beam longitudinal reinforcing must be adequately developed in the joint
to prevent slip and joint degradation.
References
Brandow, Gregg E., Gary C. Hart, and Ajit Virdee,
1997. Design of Reinforced Masonry Structures,
Concrete Masonry Association of California and
Nevada, Citrus Heights, California.
Ghosh, S. K., 1998. Design of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings Under the 1997 UBC, Building Standards,
ICBO, May-June
NCMA, 1998. Splice Length Research Summary, National
Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA.
September 1999
Table C606-1.
State
Description
Behavior State 1
Limit State 1
M = Mcr and the maximum stress in the masonry is equal to the modulus of rupture
Behavior State 2
Limit State 2
M = My and strain in the steel reinforcing farthest from the neutral axis
s = y
Behavior State 3
Limit State 3
219
Figure C606-1.
220
September 1999
Commentary
C701
CHAPTER 7
Steel
C701
General
C702
Recommended Modifications
to the 1997 UBC
September 1999
UBC Division IV
C702.2
Modifications to AISC-Seismic 97
Part I, LRFD
Modify Terms
C702.2.2
Modify Scope
C702.2.3
Modify Glossary
C702.2.3.1
Inelastic Rotation of Beam-to-Column Connection: This value is related to the interstory drift associated
with the maximum inelastic response displacement, m ,
defined in UBC 1630.9.2. The rotation is based on the
distance to the column centerline for consistency with
FEMA 267A.
Reduced Beam Section (RBS): The intent of RBS
designs is to locate inelastic behavior (yielding, hinging,
and local buckling) away from the column face. The three
most common flange cut profiles have been referred to as
221
C702.2.3.2 Commentary
straight or constant, tapered, and circular or radius [SAC, 1997b]. The various details do not all have the
same assurance of reliability, as some have not been tested
as thoroughly as others. At least two specimens with tapered flange cuts have shown brittle failure [Iwankiw and
Carter, 1996], although adding fin plates has generally
shown good performance [Zekioglu et al., 1997]. The circular cut RBS has performed more reliably. RBS design
guidelines have been proposed by Engelhardt et al. [1998]
and Iwankiw [1997], but these should still be considered
tentative. The capacity of the beam-column interface is not
yet well understood (see Section C704.2). It is believed
that the successful performance of these connections is
due to shifting the strain demand away from the beam-tocolumn joint region.
C702.2.3.2
Add definitions:
See discussions in
C702.2.4
C702.2.5
No Commentary
C702.2.6
No Commentary
C702.2.8
Add: ASTM Part 1, 2 Referenced Specifications Codes and Standards For discussion on Parent
Metal Considerations, see Section C703.7.
All welds
Toughness of the weld metal was thought to be a major factor contributing to the fractures observed in the
Northridge earthquake. Therefore, higher toughness weld
metal is now being specified for moment frame connections. However, engineers should recognize that CVN
toughness of filler metal is very sensitive to the welding
222
specimen beam yield strengths more than 15 percent below the prototype Fye. This is to ensure that qualification
tests capture typical conditions, not best-case conditions
that may be artificially low. A detail designed to develop
beam hinging may test better if low-yield beam material is
used. For similar reasons, columns and strengthening elements (for example, haunches or cover plates) with unusu-
September 1999
Inelastic rotation demands of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 were established in AISC-Seismic 97 to categorize three types of
moment frames, i.e., ordinary moment frames (OMF), intermediate moment frames (IMF), and special moment
frames (SMF). The basis of a new class of moment frame,
the intermediate moment frame (IMF), was created in
AISC-Seismic 97 in addition to the special and ordinary
moment frames to allow additional flexibility for design.
The major difference between SMF, IMF, and OMF appears to be the inelastic rotational capacity of the beam/
column assembly demonstrated by tests. A detailed study
by Hale in 1999 for the Seismology Committee demonstrated that for the same ground motion or shaking level
(i.e. the same structural design category, or SDC), the ductility or drift demand and, therefore, inelastic rotational demands on the connections remain essentially the same for
all systems and do not decrease. This is because the
strength of the frame does not govern the design when using the present R factors, particularly for frames that have
light gravity load demands and short spans.
The situation was illustrated by Leelataviwat et al.
[1998] where the rotational ductility demands on the connections were directly correlated with base shears. Leelataviwat also suggested that the R factors be 1/3 of what they
presently are. Hale's 1999 study reported that there is not
much reduction in member sizes from OMF to IMF and
SMF. Hale concluded that the SDC in which the IMF and
OMF allowed by AISC-Seismic 97 may not be appropriate
and are not based on a rational analysis when used with
provisions 9.2a, 10.2a, and 11.2a. AISC concurred with
Hale's study and is proposing that IMF not be adopted by
the UBC 97 at this time.
C702.2.10 Modify: AISC Part 1, 11.2a Beam-toColumn Joints and Connections. Add alternative
qualification for ordinary moment frames (OMF) to demonstrate an inelastic rotation capacity of 0.02 radians.
OMFs of structural steel are moment resisting space
frames that do not need to meet the special detailing requirements for ductile behavior required for SMFs. Although the design lateral loads for OMFs are twice those
of SMFs, based on the observed Northridge earthquake
damage, this is not sufficient to recommend their use even
with high CVN toughness weld metal. Pre-Northridge
connections, even using full penetration welds with improved notch toughness, have generally demonstrated
September 1999
Commentary C702.2.9
only low (less than 1 percent) inelastic rotation capacities [Whitaker et al., 1997]. Tests carried out on beam-tocolumn connections (W21 x 68 beams) using weld overlays on pre-Northridge connections have shown good performance [DLW, 1998; Anderson and Duan, 1998].
Research has also shown that there is no consistent
linkage between the R factor and rotation demands. Furthermore, because of the drift limitations, stiffness rather
than strength generally governs the design of welded steel
moment frames in mid- and highrise buildings. Therefore,
the use of an R of 4.5 versus 8.5 may not make a significant
difference in rotational demands. Rotational demands on
frame connections are not easily predictable since they are
quite sensitive to the site ground motion intensity and duration, as well as to system redundancy and material overstrength. Occasions do arise when it is not possible or not
essential to meet all of the detailing requirements for an
SMF. Examples include light metal buildings, usually limited to one or two stories, and open industrial structures.
The studies described above and those by Hale [1999] on
IMFs discussed in Section C702.2.9, appear to indicate
that the demands on OMFs are significantly greater than
the AISC's requirement of 0.01 for inelastic rotation capacity. It is recognized that more study on the rotational
demands acting on OMFs is needed. However, based on
the above considerations, The Seismology Committee decided that the OMF may continue to be permitted, but only
in limited applications and with the inelastic rotation demand increased to 0.02.
It should also be noted that, with reference to
Chapter 1, nonbuilding structures in Seismic Zones 3 and
4 are permitted up to 160 feet in height but are required to
have an inelastic rotational capacity of 0.03 radians.
C702.2.11 Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF)
Requirements. This Commentary supplements AISCSeismic 97 C12 and explains the revisions made to it in
Blue Book Section 702.2.11.
223
C702.2.12 Commentary
224
Quality
Assurance.
C702.2.14 Add:
AISC Part I, S2
Symbols.
Defines theta.
C702.2.15 Modify:
C702.2.16 Modify:
The Seismology Committee believes that the improved consistency of properties including CVN toughness and elongation are important factors in providing
reliable ductile behavior of steel structures. In general, engineers cannot specify a steel producer. Shop and field
quality control is the only way to verify if the steel meets
the required properties. It is our understanding that SAC is
investigating these concerns and will provide recommendations related to the desired properties of the base materials.
C702.2.17
Modify: AISC Part I, S6.3 Basic LoadA basic loading sequence is recommended for testing of steel components and connections
based on SAC [1997a]. Tests based on the ATC-24 [1992]
loading sequences are also acceptable. These basic loading
sequences should be employed to evaluate performance of
a beam-to-column subassembly, provided the ground motion that controls design is not of a near-fault type that contains a large displacement pulse. In the latter case, the
near-fault loading history should be used.
ing Sequence.
September 1999
Commentary C702.2.18
Acceptance
September 1999
ly variable. Weld fracture is a failure mode in the latter category. For such a case, ATC-24 recommends at least three
identical specimens with identical loading histories. Further, if only three specimens are tested, the useful capacity
should be taken as the lowest of the three test results.
The reliability of a given connection concept can only
be well established after many tests over a range of critical
variables (including, but not limited to, member size and
material properties). A program of two or even three tests,
as described by AISC-Seismic 97 Appendix S, should only
be used to qualify specific sizes for specific projects.
SAC [1995] recognizes that two laboratory specimens
are not statistically adequate to predict actual performance
of every connection in a frame, even if the specimen and
the prototype are of identical design. Engineers are therefore advised to evaluate research and testing by SAC and
others and to base their designs on established engineering
principles. However, engineers who cite successful test results must consider any failed tests of similar specimens as
well.
Most test programs have used one-sided specimens
that simulate the exterior or end connection of a frame.
Relatively few tests have used two-sided assemblies to
study the more typical interior joint for which panel zone
demands may be significantly greater. Accordingly, extrapolation of successful results from one-sided tests to
two-sided applications may not be valid. Consideration
should be given to the relative strengths and stiffness of
one-sided versus two-sided connections. Popov and Yang
[1995] suggest that weak panel zones may have contributed to brittle fractures in column webs of pre-Northridge
joints and that code provisions for controlling panel zone
strength and stiffness might not be adequate.
Recognizing the uncertain attributes of many of the
post-Northridge connection designs and potentially statistically inadequate testing programs, the interpretation of
the test results must be done carefully. Connection tests
conducted by Popov [1970] on full-size steel connections
performed successfully. However, these tests were based
on lower acceptance criteria than currently required. Three
out of four tests of cover plate connection exceeded 0.03
radians plastic rotation at the University of Texas in 1994
[Englehardt, 1995]. The fourth one reached 0.025 radians.
A 1998 cover plate test at UC Berkeley [unpublished as of
mid-1999] using larger members failed suddenly at 0.01
radians elastic rotation. Fracture experts noted minor indications in the beam flange near the fracture initiation point
as the source of brittle failure along with concern for lack
of toughness in the parent metal. It is interesting that the
225
C702.3 Commentary
C702.4
C702.4.1
C702.4.2
Delete:
Additional
Commentary
C703
Moment Frames
The primary objective of seismic design is to achieve ductile behavior and overall stability in structures subjected to
large earthquake ground motions. To meet these objectives, connections in steel moment frames must be able to
develop and maintain the yield strength of selected members at significant strain magnitudes and relatively high
strain rates. To achieve this, the potential for fracture initiation must be minimized and, ideally, fracture propagation
226
Overview
September 1999
Commentary C703.1.1
Welding has been considered a more convenient and reliable method of connecting steel members than bolting or
riveting. Welded structures are economical and efficient,
and engineers have used them with high confidence. The
technique allows engineers to design complicated structural forms with minimum design and detailing. However,
the welding process fundamentally alters the mechanical
and chemical properties of base materials in ways that can
adversely affect structural performance. Engineers, lacking a thorough understanding of these effects, employed
welded connections without requiring minimum toughness in the weld and heat-affected zone. More recent welding processes involving high heat input and high
deposition rates were developed to improve productivity;
unfortunately these processes can further erode toughness
in the weld and heat-affected zone. Conventional civil engineering curricula do not address these issues, so few engineers possess a thorough understanding of welding
technology and procedures or of fracture mechanics. It is
now understood that to achieve reliable steel designs, engineers must give more consideration to weld details and
processes employed.
C703.2
Factors that affect the performance of welded connections include the following:
n
Chemical composition and mechanical properties of
the parent metal (usually different for columns and
beams).
n
Residual stresses due to mill rolling and straightening.
n
Residual stresses due to fabrication and welding.
n
Properties of the heat affected zone.
n
Properties and quality of the weld metal.
n
Weld defects (including excessive porosity, slag, and
discontinuities).
n
Joint geometry (triaxial stress states keep constrained
steel elements from yielding; limited weld access
tends to reduce weld quality).
n
Welding procedures.
n
Welder workmanship.
n
Field conditions (including humidity, ventilation,
temperature, and wind speeds).
n
Quality of inspection procedures.
n
Earthquake intensity (including strain rate effects).
n
Local stress gradients.
September 1999
C703.3 Commentary
Stress concentrations
Material toughness
A European Standard, EN 10164 [EN, 1993], involving specimens similar to ASTM 770, is used in some fields
(notably offshore structures) for T-T testing of parent metal. Some engineers feel that additional test methods and
standards need to be developed to account for the factors
listed above.
Some Seismology Committee members believe that a
simplified through- thickness stress limit for design, similar to that in SAC[1997b], is still warranted. For example,
a limit such as 0.9Fy or 0.8Fu could be compared to the required stress averaged across the flange width. Citing Dexter's tests, others conclude that such a limit is not needed.
In any case, the properties of steel throughout the world
market remains variable, and, therefore, past problems associated with T-T strength may still be present or may recur. The final SAC guidelines are expected to provide
recommendations aimed at tightening requirements on
steel properties in order to address this and other issues. A
fracture mechanics approach, setting weld and parent met-
228
K-Area Brittleness
The K-area is a location defined by Figure C-6.1 of AISCSeismic 97. It has been found that certain manufacturing
processes can result in lower toughness and ductility in
this region with the potential for crack initiation. There
have been reports (unpublished) of steel shapes that fractured in the K-area in the fabricator's shop. These fractures
happened after inspection and during cool down. Subsequently, AISC issued an Advisory [AISC, 1997a]. AISC
organized a Technical Committee to study the issue and as
mid-1999, its work is still in progress.
Low ductility is a critical condition, especially in material subject to high residual stress induced by constrained
welded beam-column connections. Some connection tests,
particularly those on pre-Northridge connections, have resulted in cracks initiating at the access hole adjacent to the
beam K-area, although it has not yet been shown that this
phenomenon is due to the material properties in the K-area. In addition, some buildings damaged in the Northridge
earthquake were observed to have columns with cracks
propagating along the K-area. Residual stress in the parent
metal was historically believed to have no impact on the
plastic moment of a cross section [Bruneau, 1997]. This
understanding was based on the assumption that all parts
of the cross-section are capable of yielding. There is now
a valid concern as to whether residual stresses due to
straightening and welding in the K-area can safely ignored, particularly with regard to domestic sections under
150 pounds per foot.
The Seismology Committee therefore recommends
that coupons be taken at the K-area for yield strength and
toughness determinations to ensure that the properties of
the most critical and most vulnerable area of steel wide
flange shapes, the K-area, are as specified and expected.
September 1999
This Recommendation is not supported by the steel industry at this time for a number of reasons. It is pointed out
that the location of mill test coupons has been moved from
the traditional web to the flange. K-area is not the location
specified in ASTM A370 [ASTM, 1992]. Questions have
been raised about whether the mills will change the sampling location and deviate from the ASTM Standard. The
legality of rejecting steel that does not meet this requirement may be challenged. Furthermore, it is noted that rolling practice has been improved in certain major domestic
mills to reduce the potential low toughness and variation
of strength at various locations of the cross-section.
The Seismology Committee considers it the engineer's
responsibility to specify and to take measures to ensure
that the properties of the material delivered are as designed
and specified so that the expected performance is realized.
Therefore, until the ASTM Standard is changed to include
mill test results (MTR) of the properties at the K-area, engineers are encouraged to specify in the construction documents that acceptable material strength be based on this
location as well as on flanges.
It should be noted that, although it is unusual to specify testing at a location different from the ASTM, it is not
unprecedented. At the present time, AISC recommends
that the CVN toughness specimens be obtained from the
core area, while ASTM standards still specify that it be
taken from the flange. Additionally, engineers should consider, in the preparation of construction documents, that
they have little or no control over the source of structural
steel. It should also be recognized that the possibility of reduced notch toughness in the K-area may not be limited to
steel produced by rotary straightening process. There is no
dependable way for the design engineer or construction
professionals to easily identify steel shapes that may have
problems in the K-area. For these reasons, engineers are
encouraged to examine construction details and take coupons at the core area to verify compliance if the source or
quality of the steel is suspect. It may be that the steel produced by domestic mills has reasonable ductility and
toughness in the K-area. Similar confidence cannot be established for all steel products on the marketplace.
C703.4
Strength Deterioration
September 1999
Commentary C703.4
Strong-Column/ Weak-Beam
With respect to both concrete and steel, significant Seismology Committee discussions have taken place in the relating to the concern expressed by many engineers that
column moments can be significantly higher than predicted by simplified methods. Paulay and Priestley [1992]
and Bondy [1996] have shown this in their studies.
For concrete structures, Paulay and Priestley recommend a dynamic magnification factor applied to column
moments that varies from 1.0 to 1.8 depending on the
number of stories and the fundamental period of the structure. Bondy demonstrated by time-history analysis that the
global curvature of columns can substantially add to the
moments applied by the beams. In a study of a 10-story
229
C703.6 Commentary
230
Traditional design procedures assume that steel is homogeneous and isotropic. This assumption is adequate for
gravity design, where reasonably high factors of safety are
built in to the equations. The assumption is questionable,
however, for predicting the performance of steel beyond
its elastic limits. ASTM material standards make the same
assumption. These standards ensure that manufacturing
processes provide consistent products that can be used to
design safe and reliable structures. History has shown that
ASTM standards have generally proven adequate and have
met the expectations of engineers. In seismic design, however, inelastic deformation and rotation capacity may be
more important than yield and tensile strength. Material
characteristics needed for acceptable seismic performance
may not be adequately covered by current ASTM specifi-
September 1999
cations. For these reasons, the Seismology Committee recommends development of new material testing standards
for seismic applications. These should consider ductility
of the complete cross section, T-T properties, flaw sizes
from a fracture mechanics perspective, CVN toughness,
and maximum flange thickness.
Yield strength, as reported by the mills, is generally
higher than the minimum specified strength. MTR from
U.S. mills' 1992 production showed all A36 steel shapes
exceeded the 36 ksi requirement and that the average yield
was about 49 ksi [SSPC, 1994]. AISC [1995] acknowledged that large variations are possible due to the material
sampling locations and test methods used. However, it
should be understood that the MTRs are produced at the
steel mills in accordance with ASTM A370, with two
specimens per heat taken from the flange (previously from
the web) before roller straightening or other cold work.
Cooling, straightening, and welding could build residual
stresses in certain areas of the shape that are not captured
by MTR.
Testing reveals a notable variation in yield strength,
notch toughness, and ductility across rolled sections.
Galambos and Ravindra [1978] concluded for AISI in the
1970s that yield strength varies not only from heat to heat,
but from flange to web, from mill to mill, from time to time
in the same mill, and may be dependent on the shape of the
test coupon. In their research on European steels, Byfield
and Nethercot [1997] mention that higher yield strengths
are obtained from the web due to a finer grain structure and
higher carbon content than the flanges. SAC [Engelhardt,
1996] reported significant strength variation between
flange and web sections. Similar characteristics of property variation were shown even as long ago as 1928 [Withey,
1928].
Damage discovered during postearthquake investigations suggests that, in some cases, the column material did
not possess adequate toughness to accommodate the high
strain and strain rate characteristics of earthquakes. Although this may be attributed to insufficient toughness in
the heat-affected zone (due to excessive heat and rapid
cool-down, causing brittleness), questionable toughness of
the surrounding material may have contributed to the damage. Furthermore, in repairs involving the replacement of
cracked column flanges with welds, during excavation by
air arcing, cracks vertical and parallel to the face of the column have sometimes occurred, again raising questions regarding the toughness of the material [SEAOSC, 1998].
This crack propagation is apparently attributed to unintentional or residual alloy elements such as sulphur, phospho-
September 1999
Commentary C703.7
231
C703.8 Commentary
Effects of Significantly
Overstrength Material and
Variation of Strength
Engineers are cautioned that the following should be recognized as a result of significantly (greater than 15 percent) overstrength material being used in the lateral force
resisting system and its components:
1. Increased strength of members or elements intended
to yield will impose increased demand on welds and
T-T stresses. Weld strengths may become undermatched.
2. Members that are marginally compact at the specified
yield strength may not behave in a compact manner at
the actual yield strength. Note that compactness requirements are a function of
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Panel Zone
The significance of panel zone yielding has been the subject of research for decades. Typical full-scale tests with
one-sided assemblies do not significantly improve our understanding on this subject. A study for SAC by El-Tawil
[1998] found no conclusive evidence of the effects of
panel zone yielding on overall ductility. However, Roeder
and Foutch [1998] suggest that flexural ductility may be
significantly reduced in beams connected to joints with
panel joint yielding. Generally, there appeared to be very
little evidence of panel zone yielding in the Northridge
earthquake. The use of doubler and continuity plates and
the potential for K-area brittleness (see Section C703.3)
further complicate the issue. Additional industry-sponsored testing could improve our understanding.
AISC-Seismic 97 increased the design forces on panel
zones in beam-column joints. However, the direct adoption of the factor of 0.75 from the 1992 AISC-Seismic
provisions may not be appropriate. Shear yielding of wide
flange steel sections is quite predictable. Therefore, a
factor of 0.90 should be considered. A factor of 0.90 has
been adopted in every edition of AISC's LRFD provisions
for the shear design of flexural members. As indicated in
the AISC-Seismic 97 commentary, the use of = 0.75 for
the panel zone design was to maintain the same load-to-capacity ratio as that given in the UBC before 1997, without
changing the LRFD load factor of 1.5 used for earthquake
load.
Since 1970, the UBC has required that beam-to-column connections develop the full plastic capacity of the
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C703.10
233
C703.12 Commentary
thin-wall I beam section is primarily governed by warping stiffness, which is a function of ry not i. Lastly, the
observation of test specimen behavior may not be the most
recent. Other than the one set of tests quoted in FEMA
267A, almost no tests on this connection have additional
bracing at the reduced beam section.
AISC-Seismic 97 requires bracing at a closer spacing.
It also requires that the placement of the bracing shall be
consistent with that used in the tests.
It seems that the closer bracing spacing is required for
the following reasons. For a moment frame beam in a seismic application, the inelastic rotations of the beams are expected to be much higher than those expected in the typical
plastic design. (AISC expects the beams to have inelastic
rotation of up to seven to nine times yield rotation). As the
beam goes through inelastic rotation, the beam material
yields and stiffness degrades (including lateral stiffness).
Thus, the beam becomes more susceptible to lateral buckling.
The following conclusions were drawn by Engelhardt
[1998] based on several RBS tests:
1. The torsional buckling of the beam flanges is a selflimiting phenomenon that occurs in all moment connection types involving beam yielding. Torsional
buckling is not particularly serious for RBS connections.
2. RBS connection specimens demonstrate adequate
performance without additional lateral bracing.
3. In a completed building, moment frame beams are restrained by the diaphragm against axial shortening and
lateral displacement of the top flange. Such restraints
significantly reduce the likelihood and extent of torsional buckling of the flanges compared with the specimen in a laboratory setting.
Engelhardt suggested that no additional lateral bracing is required at the dog bone region. Other researchers
[Gross et al., 1998] appear to agree.
The Seismology Committee suggests that more research is necessary on this issue, not only for reduced
beam sections, but for all connections that move the plastic
hinge away from the face of the column.
C703.12 Quality Assurance
September 1999
C704
C704.1
September 1999
Commentary C703.13
235
C704.2 Commentary
ous provisions for OCBFs has produced connection failures [Astaneh et al., 1985]. Although typical practice has
been to design connections only for axial loads, good postelastic response demands that eccentricities be accounted
for in the connection design. Good connection performance can be expected if the effects of cyclic postbuckling
of braces are considered [Astaneh et al., 1986; Goel and
Lee, 1992; AISC-Seismic 97]. It should be noted that some
of the issues associated with moment frames (e.g., the
toughness of welds and procedures for complete-penetration welds) need to be considered in order to ensure successful connection performance (see Section C703).
Beams or columns of the frame should not be interrupted to allow for continuous braces. This provision is
necessary, although perhaps not sufficient, to ensure outof-plane stability of the bracing system at those locations.
Typical practice is to provide perpendicular framing that
engages a diaphragm to provide out-of-plane strength and
stiffness as well as resistance to lateral torsional buckling
of beams where these are intersected by braces [Kim and
Goel, 1992].
236
September 1999
stitches. SCBF provisions now incorporate these requirements (see Section C704.4).
The effects of slenderness on brace hysteresis are also
important, but no range optimizes all aspects of performance. The buckling of braces reduces their compression
capacity for subsequent cycles [Zayas et al., 1981] and
Figure C704-2. This degradation is most pronounced for
slender braces (for an expression of hysteretic stability as
a function of slenderness see Remennikov and Walpole
[1998]. Purely elastic buckling may result in very low system stiffness when the direction of loading is reversed,
creating undesirable behavior similar to that of tensiononly bracing. For these reasons a limiting value of slenderness is set. Hysteresis diagrams of intermediate-slenderness braces show that their postbuckling behavior is also
not ideal: they lose force after buckling with very little additional deformation [Jain and Goel, 1978]. This can lead
to greatly reduced system stiffness, especially for chevronbraced (V-braced) frames [Khatib et al., 1988]. Braces of
low slenderness dissipate the most energy per cycle, but
are susceptible to local buckling and early fracture [Tang
and Goel, 1987; Goel and Lee, 1992]. However, brace
width-to-thickness requirements in the SCBF provisions
address this tendency (see Section C704.5). Low-slenderness braces exhibit the least hysteretic degradation. Braces
with slenderness ratios below 30 exhibit stable hysteresis.
In order to achieve trilinear hysteresis, it is usually
necessary to design connections and adjoining elements to
withstand forces corresponding to the tensile capacity of
the brace. Since the brace compression capacity is usually
determined by code-prescribed loads, the use of slender
braces to achieve that compression capacity may result in
a situation in which it is difficult to design for tensile yielding. If the system is to withstand tensile yielding, the force
level of that yielding may need to be controlled. Providing
braces with a higher yield strength (Fy A) will improve system performance only if all other components of the system can resist the higher corresponding forces. The lowest
ratio of tensile yielding to compression capacity results
from using low-slenderness pipe braces of low expected
yield strength; the highest ratio results from using slender
wide-flange beams of high expected yield strength buckling about the minor axis. Filling hollow sections with
concrete also lowers the ratio as well as prevents local
buckling. Popov and Black [1981] determined that the effective length concept is applicable to braces subject to cyclic buckling.
The computed slenderness should reflect the expected
buckling length with the effects of end restraint included.
September 1999
Commentary C704.3
237
C704.4 Commentary
fied forces, as more energy is entailed in elastic deformation, leaving less energy to cause inelastic drift.
C704.4
September 1999
C704.7
Inelastic brace buckling creates plastic hinges in three locations: one at the brace midspan and one at each end of
the brace. There have been many observed fractures in
tests on connections that failed to accommodate cycles of
plastic hinge formation at the ends of braces [Astaneh et
al., 1985]. SCBF brace connections are designed to accommodate cyclic buckling of braces in one of two ways.
First, connections can be designed to provide fixity and
withstand the maximum axial load and moment that the
brace can deliver, thereby forcing the plastic hinge to occur in the brace. Alternatively, connections can allow the
hinge to occur in the gusset plate by providing an unrestrained zone that can tolerate the rotational demands imposed by brace buckling.
Fixed-end braces are generally more desirable than
pinned-end ones because smaller sections can be used.
Connections for fixed-end braces are designed to remain
elastic, forcing the plastic hinges entailed in buckling to
occur in the brace. For the purposes of connection design,
the combined axial force and moment demands corresponding to fixed-end brace buckling can be treated conservatively as the expected plastic moment capacity of the
brace, factored according to AISC-Seismic 97. This moment must be resisted by the gusset, its bolts or welds, and
adjoining members.
Except at the foundation, where brace connections are
often buried in concrete, fixity is often difficult to achieve.
A common alternative is to provide a hinge zone in the
gusset plate to accommodate brace buckling without transferring large moments into the frame; this zone is expected
to undergo cycles of large inelastic strains as brace buckling forces the plate to bend (Figure C704-4). Astaneh et
al. [1986] demonstrated that this hinge zone performs in a
ductile manner if there is an unrestrained zone perpendicular to the brace axis of width between two and four times
the gusset plate thickness. It is recommended that three
September 1999
Commentary C704.7
239
C704.10 Commentary
240
In the event of a major earthquake, columns in concentrically braced frames can undergo significant bending beyond the elastic range after buckling and yielding of the
braces. Even though their bending strength is not considered in the design process when elastic design methods are
used, columns in SCBFs are required to have adequate
compactness as well as shear and flexural strength in order
to maintain their lateral strength during large cyclic deformations of the frame.
Yield modes of SCBFs almost always entail column
rotational demands. Columns must maintain their axial capacity for both gravity and seismic loads and are therefore
required to adhere to certain compactness criteria. These
areas of concentrated column rotational demand are expected to occur adjacent to beam connections or adjacent
to gusset plates if these provide significant restraint. Splices should be located away from these areas.
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C704.12
Bracing Connections.
Forces. Connection failures generally are nonductile; OCBF connection design aims at preventing these
failure modes through capacity design or forestalling them
by using amplified forces. The use of capacity design is
recommended (see Section C704.6 for the calculation of
tensile and compressive yield capacity). The stress reduction factor described above should not be used in the calculation of the compression force demand on connections.
Gusset Plates. The LRFD and ASD provisions of
the 1997 UBC are inconsistent on this point. The LRFD
provisions require that OCBF gussets comply with provisions identical to the SCBF provisions (2211.4.9.3.c), as
does AISC-Seismic 97, while the ASD provisions do not
include gusset plate requirements. It is recommended that
the requirements of 2213.9.3.3 be applied to gusset plates
in OCBFs (see Section C704.8).
Chevron Bracing. Chevron-braced frames have
very undesirable postbuckling behavior characterized by
beam flexure rather than truss action (see Section C704.9
and Figure C704-5). OCBF provisions aim at forestalling
this mode of behavior and limiting inelastic drift by requiring that braces be designed for amplified loads. Unlike
chevron bracing designed according to SCBF provisions,
beams in ordinary chevron-braced frames are expected ultimately to yield in flexure; compact sections should therefore be used. Lateral and torsional stability at the beam-tobrace connection must be provided [Kim and Goel, 1992].
In areas of high seismicity, chevron bracing is not recommended except where special configurations are used so
that the vertical unbalanced force can be resisted by truss
action of braces and beams at other levels (see Section
C704.9 and Figure C704-6). If the typical chevron configuration is used, it is recommended that the system be designed to remain elastic in a major seismic event.
241
C705 Commentary
K-Bracing. K-braced frames are subject to a postbuckling flexure mode similar to that of chevron-braced
frames. Column failure has more severe consequences
than beam failure, however, and column stability (both
out-of-plane and torsional) at the brace intersection is difficult to provide. Therefore, K-bracing is not recommended in areas of high seismicity. If the K-bracing
configuration is used, it is recommended that the system
be designed to remain elastic in a major seismic event.
C705.4
C705
C705.5
The best-understood and likely most reliable EBF configuration has a link at the center of a chevron or two-story X
brace arrangement. For these brace configurations, a link
length between 0.9Mv /Vs and 1.3Mv /Vs and a brace angle
of 45 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees in general will produce an efficient design.
A link beam web of lower strength is allowed when designing using ASD per the 1997 UBC than when using
LRFD. Using a beam that does not meet LRFD shearstrength requirements will result in a design that does not
comply with the expected provisions of the 2000 IBC. The
prescribed lateral forces referred to in this section are
Eh /1.4.
AISC 15.2 / UBC 2213.10.18
Link Beam Flanges
Transverse beams capable of deforming flexurally or horizontal struts framed to other adjacent laterally braced
beams are the preferred lateral bracing system for the
beam flanges at the link ends. Diagonal braces or short
transverse beams may introduce unacceptable secondary
forces or deformations due to the kinematics of the necessary vertical deformations of the link beam.
C705.6
EBF configurations that create links adjacent to columns are discouraged. See Section C705.6 for discussion
of link- to-column connections.
C705.3
When computing link beam rotation, the redundancy factor (rho) should be taken as equal to 1.
242
September 1999
References
*References marked with asterisks are not mentioned in
the text.
*AASHTO/American Welding Society, D1.5-95 Bridge
Welding Code.
AISC, 1992. Seismic Provisions for Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD). June 15.
AISC, 1994a. LRFD Specifications for Structural Steel
Buildings.
*AISC, 1994b. Northridge Steel Update I, October.
*AISC, 1995. Letter to Los Angeles County.
AISC, 1997a. Advisory Statement on Mechanical
Properties Near the Fillet of Wide Flange Shapes and
Interim Recommendations, January 10.
AISC, 1997b. Technical Bulletin 3, March (ASTM Gr50
with special requirements).
AISC, 1997. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings.
Anderson, J.C. and X. Duan, 1998. Repair/Upgrade
Procedures for Welded Beam to Column Connections
Peer 98/03 May.
*ANSI/American Welding Society D1.1 - 98.
ATC-24, 1992. Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of
Components of Steel Structures. Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, CA.
Aslani, F., and S.C. Goel, 1991. Stitch Spacing and Local
Buckling in Seismic-resistant Double Angles,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 177,
#8.
Astaneh-Asl, A., 1998. Seismic Behavior and Design of
Gusset Plates, Structural Steel Education Council.
Astaneh-Asl, A., S.C. Goel, and R. Hanson, 1985. Cyclic
Out-of-Plane Buckling of Double-Angle Gusset
Plates, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 111(5).
Astaneh-Asl, A., S. C. Goel, and R. Hanson, 1986.
Earthquake-resistant Design of Double-angle
Bracing. Engineering Journal, AISC, fourth quarter.
AWS,1995. D.1.1 Committee and Structural Welding
Committee Position Statement on Northridge
Earthquake Welding Issues: November 10.
September 1999
Commentary C705.7
C705.7 Commentary
244
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C705.7
245
C705.7 Commentary
246
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C705.7
Figure C702-1.
Figure C704-1.
248
September 1999
September 1999
Figure C704-2.
Figure C704-3.
249
250
September 1999
Commentary
C801
CHAPTER 8
Wood
C801
September 1999
C802
Recommended Modifications
to the 1997 UBC
C802.1
C802.1.1
walls that support horizontal forces contributed by concrete or masonry to buildings one story in height. Recognizing the need for wood shear walls to support two-story
buildings with concrete or masonry walls, an exception is
added where wood structural panel sheathed shear walls
can be used with restrictions. In order to be able to support
rigid walls laterally, a wood structural panel shear wall
must possess rigidity comparable to the supported element. To achieve this, in addition to the story height, deflection, and sheathing thickness limitations in the UBC
for all seismic zones, the recommended modification specifies use of a lower allowable shear for Seismic Zones 3
and 4.
802.1.2
No Commentary provided.
802.2
251
C803 Commentary
Additional
Commentary
C803
3.
C803.3
The following errata to the 1997 UBC are of particular importance to persons designing engineered wood construction in high seismic zones. Underline and strikeout
indicate modifications to the 1997 UBC, First Printing.
Designs must conform to these modified provisions in order to conform to the 1997 UBC. The following is only a
partial listing of errata. A complete listing is available
from ICBO. Note that Table 23-II-G in Commentary Section C803.2 is further modified by Requirements Section
802.2.
C803.1
UBC 2318.3.1
Modify as follows:
3
C804
Comments on Selected
1997 UBC Provisions
C804.1
UBC 2302
C804.1.1
Table 23-II-G. Maximum Diaphragm Dimension Ratios
Horizontal
Diaphragms
Maximum SpanWidth Ratios
Vertical
Diaphragms
Maximum HeightWidth Ratios
3:1
1:11
4:1
2:12
Wood structural
panels and particleboard, nailed all
edges
4;1
2;12, 3
Wood structural
panels and particleboard, blocking
omitted at intermediate joints
4:1
3, 4
1.
2.
252
Definitions
Modify as follows:
Material
Subdiaphragm
Definition: A portion of a diaphragm used to transfer wall anchorage forces to diaphragm cross ties.
Discussion: This concept originated as a device for
transferring anchorage forces from concrete or masonry
walls or other mass concentrations to wood diaphragms. In
Figure C804-1, the heavy lateral forces contributed to the
wall are transmitted into the subdiaphragm by means of
anchor ties. The span or length of the subdiaphragm in the
figure is between the end shear wall and the center diaphragm cross-tie (drag strut). The subdiaphragm must be
designed as if it were going to act by itself in transferring
anchor tie forces to the shear wall and the diaphragm
crosstie.
The subdiaphragm width generally determines the
length of the anchor ties. However, the width of the subdiaphragm should be sufficient to provide:
1. A length of anchor tie that can transfer the anchor
forces from the wall into the diaphragm without the
use of cross-grain tension at panel joints.
September 1999
2. A subdiaphragm width necessary to transfer the subdiaphragm shear to the shear wall and/or diaphragm
cross-tie.
Item 1 above deserves further discussion related to the
direction of framing. Wall forces can be effectively transferred into the diaphragm when the framing members are
perpendicular to the wall. The length of the framing member and the type of connection typically used will provide
adequate development length to transfer the wall forces to
the diaphragm. However, where framing members and
panelized sheathing joints are parallel to the wall, special
detailing is required to obtain adequate development
length to transfer the wall anchorage force into the subdiaphragm. If an anchorage force is not fully transferred within the depth of the subdiaphragm, the panelized sheathing
can only transmit the force at the panel juncture through
the nails into framing member by cross-grain tension,
which is not permitted in the ledger or at the panel joints.
It is required that the maximum subdiaphragm span-towidth ratio be 2-1/2:1 (See Requirements Section 108.2.9,
Item 4). This ratio will result in reduced diaphragm shears
and mitigate concerns with wood structural panel distress
observed in the 1994 Northridge earthquake in concrete
tilt-up wall buildings.
C804.1.2
Blocked Diaphragm
Rotation)
September 1999
Commentary C804.1.2
C804.2.1
C804.3
UBC 2315.5.3
Panels
Wood Structural
C804.4 Commentary
shank to a shank with cut threads occurred at the sheathing-to-framing interface. Brittle failure of the screws occurred at this interface.
C804.4
254
September 1999
Commentary C804.6
C804.8
UBC 1633.2.6
Elements
Collector
September 1999
255
C804.10 Commentary
Referring to Requirements Section 202.1.3.4, it is common practice for building inspectors to observe wood
structural panel nailing; however, where stresses are high
and nail spacing is critical, special inspection is recommended to ensure full conformance of the construction
with the construction documents. Furthermore, in addition
to nailing, other components such as anchor bolts, tiedowns, diaphragm ties, collectors or struts, and nailing
practices (which are of vital importance to the proper performance and stability of the shear wall) must also be inspected for compliance. Where shear walls are detailed for
continuity around openings, it is recommended that the
special nailing, strapping, and blocking also receive special inspection.
C804.11 UBC 1702 Structural Observation
256
litigation involving wood structures has demonstrated ongoing significant problems with achieving complete and
adequate lateral load paths in wood structures. Structural
observation gives the engineer the opportunity not only to
check for conformance to the construction documents, but
also to identify locations where addition direction to the
contractor may be required.
See the Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear Walls
[SEAOC, 1997b] for discussion of items to be observed.
Two items of particular note for structural observation are
the type and size of sheathing nail and the edge nailing of
sheathing to tie-down posts that fall inboard of the sheathing edge.
C804.12 UBC 1806.6
or Sills
Foundation Plates
C805
C805.1
The 1997 UBC incorporates both ASD and LRFD methods of design for wood structures. For ASD the ANSI/
NFoPA 1991 NDS is adopted by reference in UBC 2316,
with a list of amendments following. The amendments
were adopted in order to avoid any significant change in
technical content from the 1994 UBC. It is suggested that
users copy amendments that effect their practice into the
NDS. In future codes we are likely to see the NDS adopted
with few or no amendments.
September 1999
Commentary C805.2
C805.3
Starting with the 1988 Edition, the UBC has had a criterion
to determine when diaphragms are to be considered flexible, which in turn suggests the type of analysis to be used
for lateral force distribution. In the UBC criteria, the deflection of the diaphragm under the design load is compared with the average story drift of the vertical elements
under equivalent tributary lateral load, per Requirements
Section 105.6. If the diaphragm deflection is more than
twice the story drift, the diaphragm is considered flexible.
For diaphragms that do not meet the criteria for being considered flexible, UBC provisions require that the distribution of lateral forces be in proportion to the relative rigidity
of the vertical resisting elements. This criterion is applicable to all structural materials.
Past and present design practice in California and other areas has almost exclusively used flexible diaphragm
assumptions for distribution of seismic forces in structures
with wood diaphragms. While design using structural materials other than wood had considered rigid and occasionally semi-rigid diaphragm behavior prior to the 1988 UBC,
design of wood structures had been based on the assumption that all wood diaphragms behave in a flexible manner.
The assumption of flexible behavior of wood diaphragms
conforms quite well with the UBC criteria for larger buildings with concrete or masonry walls. Lateral force resisting systems using wood diaphragms in combination with
wood shear walls seldom meet the UBC definition of a
flexible diaphragm, suggesting that for many wood shear
wall structures the UBC would require that a rigid diaphragm analysis be performed. The adoption of the 1988
UBC, did not seem to prompt any significant change in design practice related to the assumption of diaphragm flexibility for wood framed structures. Most designers
continued their past practice and most building officials
continued to accept this practice. This is one area where a
divergence developed between common design practice
and a strict interpretation of the code. With the adoption of
the 1997 UBC this divergence has now raised enormous
consternation among designers of residential structures,
which constitute a large part if not a majority of wood
frame structures in areas of high seismicity. See Steinbrugge [1994] and Cobeen [1998] for discussion of the development of design practice for wood frame buildings.
Following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, discussion of rigid diaphragm behavior was brought to the forefront because of poor performance of some multi-storied
buildings with tuck-under parking. The wood diaphragms
in a number of these buildings were forced to act in rota-
C805.2
II General Requirements
Design and construction requirements applicable
to all design methods
III Design Specifications for Allowable Stress
Design
September 1999
257
C805.3.1 Commentary
an engineering standpoint because many one and two-family residences have highly irregular configurations with
low redundancy and significant discontinuities in the
structural system.
Comments received during drafting of this commentary indicate that significant further efforts are necessary
on the topic of lateral force distribution in structures with
wood diaphragms. The CUREe-Caltech Woodframe
Project, currently underway, will be involved in testing,
development of analysis tools, and development of recommended code provisions that will address this topic as well
as others. In addition a simplified analysis method is being
developed for inclusion in the 2000 Edition of the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings. The drafters of this simplified method are
developing simplified criteria for determining when flexible diaphragm analysis may be used. The SEAOC Seismology and Code Committees plan on following and
contributing to many of these ongoing efforts and will consider whether additional efforts are necessary to pursue
current concerns.
C805.3.1
Use of the UBC Criteria and Rigid Diaphragm Analysis. While the classification of a dia-
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary 805.3.2
n
As a result of aspects like these, the creation of finetuned calculations of shear wall relative stiffness for purposes of lateral force distribution does not make a lot of
sense. It is necessary to apply engineering judgment to the
information available. Approximate methods of evaluating relative stiffness may be appropriate, and a simplified
evaluation of stiffness used with engineering judgment
may well lead to more realistic results than a numerically
rigorous method. Results from a number of shear walls
tests using cyclic loading are now available to provide
guidance on load versus deflection [APA, 1993, 1996;
ATC, 1995, Commins, 1996; Dolan, 1996, 1997ac; Karacebeyli, 1998; NAHB, 1998].
One numerically rigorous approach to determining
shear wall stiffness for lateral force distribution is the use
of the shear wall deflection equations in UBC Standard 232. This equation includes four sources of shear wall deflection: chord member bending deflection, sheathing shear
deformation, sheathing nail slip, and tie down anchor slip.
This results in a very complex stiffness calculation, and
may require several cycles of iteration of the lateral force
distribution. Clearly this approach is not very practical.
It is recommended that simplified approaches to determining shear wall stiffness be used when they can be demonstrated to be applicable. One such approach involves
determining the relative contribution to deflection made
by each of the four terms, and then using only those terms
that contribute significantly. Calculations generally show
that deflection is dominated by sheathing fastener slip and
tie down slip. In a structure that uses all wood structural
panel sheathing and has shear walls with very minimal tie
down slip, the shear wall deflection can be thought of as
being proportional to only the nail deformation end from
UBC Table 23-2-K. If the stiffness can be viewed as proportional to the nail deformation, it can also be taken as
proportional to the wall length times the tabulated unit
shear capacity. This greatly simplifies the calculation of
stiffness.
It is cautioned that the horizontal deflection of slender
shear walls due to tie down anchor slip can be significantly
greater than the deflection due to sheathing nail slip. It
259
C805.4 Commentary
Although the majority of shear wall analysis only includes walls with full height sheathing for calculation of
capacity and stiffness, some designers do include consideration of shear wall continuity above and below openings,
using models similar to coupling beams. One reference for
an engineered design approach is Diekmann [1982]. Testing has recently been conducted on walls with openings
designed using an empirical method by Dolan [1996,
1997ac] and NAHB [1998]. This testing provides some
indication of the load-deflection behavior for walls with
openings.
C805.4
September 1999
by SEAOC. As a result of debate by ICBO, the less restrictive version shown in Commentary Section C803.2 was
adopted. Inadvertently the more restrictive version was included in early printings of the 1997 UBC. The proper
printing of the 1997 UBC requirements appears in Commentary Section C803.2. The Blue Book recommends use
of the more restrictive provisions that appear in Requirements Section 802.2.
At the time the aspect ratio limitation was proposed to
ICBO, the need for a definition to allow consistent application of the ratio was identified. Practice in application
varied from those that said the height was to be the full
multistory height of the shear wall, to those that measured
the height as floor-to-floor clear height. One interpretation
used the cumulative height above each floor for the ratio,
resulting in a stepped shear wall. The story clear height
was chosen because it was the most common interpretation. From a rational standpoint, multistory shear walls
with very high overturning forces act more like a single
cantilever, and application of the aspect ratio to the full
multistory height might be more appropriate. Walls with
low overturning forces act more like floor-to-floor cantilevers, so story clear height is probably reasonable. Regardless of whether the aspect ratio is taken on a floor-to-floor
or full-height basis, the overturning and resisting moments
need to consider the cumulative effects of the lateral forces
and gravity loads at all of the stories above.
Due to recent testing, an understanding of all the different sources contributing to wall deflection is just starting to develop. Besides the contribution of the aspect ratio,
other sources include: sheathing sheet size, tie-down device slippage, cross-grain shrinkage of floor framing,
crushing of sills under compression loading, and fastener
slip between framing and sheathing.
C805.5
Earthquake Performance
Detailing
September 1999
Commentary C805.5
Conventional Construction
Cripple Wall Bracing. New UCBC Appendix Chapter 6 contains prescriptive provisions for anchoring and bracing cripple walls in existing wood frame
construction. These provisions were drafted following
damage observed in the 1992 Cape Mendocino and earlier
earthquakes. Extensive damage to unbraced and unanchored cripple walls continues to be seen in most earthquakes.
C805.8.2
Tilt-Up Wall Anchorage. New UCBC Appendix Chapter 5 contains engineering provisions for seismic improvements to existing tilt-up wall structures.
Damage to these structures has been seen repeatedly in
California earthquakes. The issue of proper anchorage to
wood diaphragms is also applicable to masonry and castin-place concrete wall construction. See Provisions Sec.
C108.2.8.
C805.9
Ordinances
There are a variety of ordinances adopted by or being considered for adoption by local jurisdictions. Included are
modified shear wall requirements, provisions for hillside
dwellings, and provisions for soft-story apartment buildings.
261
C805.9 Commentary
References
AF&PA, 1996. Wood Construction Manual. American
Forest and Paper Association, Washington D.C.
APA, 1997. Design/Construction GuideDiaphragms
and Shear Walls. Report 105, Engineered Wood
Association, Tacoma, Washington.
APA, 1996. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls With
Gypsum Wall Board and Window/Door Openings,
Report 157. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma,
Washington.
APA, 1993, Revised. Wood Structural Panel Shear
Walls. Report 154, Engineered Wood Association,
Tacoma, Washington.
APA, 1994. Northridge, California Earthquake, Report
T94-5. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma
Washington.
APA, 1967. Laboratory Report 55, APA the Engineered
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. Revised
1968. [out of print].
APA, 1955. Laboratory Report 63A, APA the Engineered
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. [out of
print].
APA, 1954. Laboratory Report 63, APA the Engineered
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. [out of
print].
APA, 1952. Laboratory Report 55, APA the Engineered
Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington. [out of
print].
ATC, 1980. Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of
Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC 7-1. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 1981. Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal Wood
Diaphragms, ATC 7. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California.
ATC, 1995. Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear
Walls, ATC R-1. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California.
ASCE, 1995a. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures. ASCE 7-95. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
ASCE, 1995b. Standard for Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) for Engineered Wood Construction.
ASCE 16-95. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, New York.
262
September 1999
September 1999
Commentary C805.9
263
Figure C804-1.
264
Subdiaphragm
September 1999
Figure C804-4.
September 1999
265
266
September 1999
Commentary
C901
CHAPTER 9
Other Materials
C901
General Requirements
C902
Recommended Modifications
to 1997 UBC
None.
C903
September 1999
C904
There are two distinct FRP systems - glass-epoxy composite and carbon-epoxy composite - that make them suitable
for use as structural materials. Their high strength-toweight ratio, high stiffness-to-weight ratio and corrosionresistance may be beneficial in some new construction applications.
For instance, the incorporation of FRP with concrete
columns, piers, and piles can improve the compressive,
flexural and shear strengths and ductility of these concrete
members, relative to conventional construction without
FRP. In columns, for instance, an FRP exterior shell not
only serves as the form during construction, but the FRP
shell prevents or retards the intrusion of moisture, thereby
helping to prevent or retard both environmental degradation of the concrete and corrosion of any steel reinforcement. The use of prefabricated FRP column forms allows
for the design of longitudinal and transverse strength into
the form. Such designs provide exceptional levels of confinement and shear capacity. Axial load capacity (associ267
C904 Commentary
C905
C906
Plastics
C907
Composite Materials
References
Gray, R.G. and Zacher, E.G., 1985. Dynamic Tests of
Wood Framed Shear Panels, SEAOC Convention
Proceedings. Structural Engineers Association of
California, Sacramento, California.
Rihal, S.S. and Granneman, G., 1985. Dynamic Testing of
Wood-Framed Building Partitions. California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,
California, Report ARCE-85-1. Prepared for National
Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Grant No.
CEE-81-17965.
September 1999
Appendices
APPENDIX A
September 1999
Z Coefficient
The seismic hazard of a site depends on both the intensity
of ground shaking in an earthquake and the frequency of
occurrence of the earthquake. The earliest seismic hazard
271
272
September 1999
September 1999
273
tion recorded close to fault rupture in California. The primary cause of strong ground shaking felt throughout Kobe
was the proximity of the city to the fault rupture. The nearfault shaking was amplified by basin edge effects along a
narrow zone that ran through Kobe and adjacent cities parallel to the edge of the Osaka basin [Kawase, 1996; Pitarka
et al., 1998]. Near-source ground shaking records from
Kobe contained a few very strong, long-period pulses,
similar to near-source records from California earthquakes
such as Northridge. Like Northridge, these pulses were
also typically much stronger in the direction of shaking
normal to the plane of fault rupture [Somerville 1997,
Somerville et al., 1997].
It is estimated that prior to the earthquake there were
about 700,000 buildings in Kobe and other nearby cities.
About 375,000 of these buildings were located within 5
km of the fault rupture [Kircher, 1996]. The damage survey by the Architectural Institute of Japan reported that
144,032 buildings collapsed or were severely damaged,
[AIJ, 1995]. Of particular interest, about 90 percent131,355 of the 144,032-of these were located within 5 km
of fault rupture. In contrast, buildings in Osaka account for
only about 1 percent of all buildings that collapsed during
the Kobe earthquake. Osaka is located about 10 km to 30
km from Kobe and has an even greater number of the types
of buildings that collapsed in Kobe.
These observations dramatically show by both ground
motion recordings and observed damage to buildings that
earthquake loading conditions in the near-source region
subject buildings to more severe conditions than previously assumed.
Near-Source Factor
The near-source factor is best described by distinguishing
between the short period (acceleration) and long period
(velocity) domains, since the effect is substantially greater
at longer periods. This distinction is made through the use
of the Na and Nv factors. The values for the Na factor are
based on the ratio of 0.3 second response predicted by the
median estimates of ground motion attenuation functions
to the 0.3 second response of the UBC spectrum for stiff
soil anchored at an EPA of Z = 0.4g. The Nv factor is similarly derived for the 1.0-second period.
The average of two well-known attenuation functions
was used to estimate 1.0-second response for a stiff soil
site: Boore, Joyner and Fumal [1993] was used as the average prediction for Site B and Site C soils, and Sadigh et al. [1986] was used as the average prediction for
274
September 1999
September 1999
Procedures for determining Na and Nv values in unmapped Seismic Zone 4 areas are provided in the Preamble to the ICBO maps. Some seismic sources were
intentionally excluded from these maps. The excluded
sources include some known active blind thrust faults
(faults whose rupture during earthquakes does not extend
to the ground surface) and active faults with low slip rates.
These faults were excluded based on comparisons made
between the 1997 UBC design ground motions and future
2000 IBC design ground motions.
The 2000 International Building Code (IBC) will be
based on design maps developed from the USGS Project
97 Ground Motion Project. When the excluded faults are
evaluated on a probabilistic basis using the Project 97
Ground Motion map values, the design ground motions either only marginally exceed (by less than 10 percent) or
are less than the 1997 UBC design ground motions with
Na=Nv=1.0. Furthermore, since the proposed 2000 IBC includes a probabilistic ceiling, it did not seem prudent to
temporarily increase ground motions above the UBC Seismic Zone 4 design values for the blind thrust zones and
low slip rate faults because the ground motions would revert to pre-1997 levels when the 2000 IBC is implemented. For more information on the maps proposed for the
2000 IBC, see Appendix A of the 1997 NEHRP Provision
Commentary.
References
Abrahamson, N.A. and K Shedlock (1997). Overview:
Ground motion models, Seismological Research
Letters, 68, 9-23.
Abrahamson, N.A. and P. Somerville (1996). Effects of
hanging wall and footwall on ground motion recorded
during the Northridge earthquake, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol.86, 593-599.
AIJ, 1995. Preliminary Reconnaissance Report of the
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Tokyo.
Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhaus, S. L.
Hansen, and B.L. Bender, 1982. Probabilistic
Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in
Rock in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 82-1033.
275
September 1999
Table AppA-1.
Instrument Name/
Location
Magnitude
Pacoima Dam
M = 6.6
Karakyr Point
MS = 7.0
ML = 6.6
Tabas
M = 7.4
Site 1
MS = 6.9
Corralitos
MS = 7.1
Cape Mendocino
MS = 6.9
Lucerne Valley
MS = 7.5
Table AppA-2. 1994 Northridge Earthquake Records (Sites <= 15 km of Fault Rupture)
Instrument Station Information
Name
September 1999
Site
Peak Response
PGA (g)
SA1.0 (g)
Distance to
Fault Rupture
(km)
N/A
0.98/0.56
> 0.90
Soil
0.63/0.61
> 0.90
Soil
0.85/0.48
> 0.90
Rock
0.79/0.45
> 0.90
Soil
0.90/0.61
> 0.90
Sepulveda VA Hospital
N/A
0.94/0.74
0.7
Soil
0.91/0.61
0.75
Soil
0.35/0.29
0.6
Rock
0.44/0.30
0.45
Rock
0.59/0.54
0.35
10
Soil
0.26/0.18
0.35
12
Rock
0.23/0.21
0.4
12
N/A
0.29/0.23
0.25
14
277
278
September 1999
APPENDIX B
Soil Coefficients
This edition of the Blue Book specifies the design base
shear in a new way compared to that of prior editions.
Among the several changes are the way in which the Z coefficient is determined and the influence of soil type on the
values used. This Appendix discussed the influence of soil
type, while Appendix A discusses the Z coefficient and
near-source factors.
UBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R specify seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv, respectively, in terms of the seismic
zone factor, Z, the near-source factors, Na and Nv, and the
soil profile type. For construction of design response spectra, Ca is the effective peak acceleration (EPA) and Cv is
the value of acceleration response at a 1.0-second period.
In Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the seismic zone factor, Z (or the
product, ZNa or ZNv, for sites in Seismic Zone 4 that have
near-source factors Na or Nv greater than 1.0) represents
the shaking intensity for soft rock site conditions (Soil Profile Type B). The tables specify seismic coefficients for
Soil Profile Types C, D and E that include the effect of soil
amplification on site response. Seismic coefficients for
Soil Profile Type F are not provided and must be determined by a site-specific hazard analysis. Generally, soil
Profile Type A (hard rock) is only appropriate for classification of sites more likely to be found in the eastern United
States.
geotechnical parameters rather than qualitative description. Soil Profile Type A is a very hard rock that underlies
some areas in the eastern United States. Most of the rock
in the western states will be Soil Profile Type B.
Much more data has become available for a wide
range of ground shaking and site characteristics, in major
part because of the extensive strong ground motion instrumentation program undertaken since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. In particular, records from the 1985
Mexico City and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake have contributed to the development of the new site categorization
procedure and coefficients that better represent the response of different types of soil sites. The site characterization procedure was adapted from the procedure in the
1994 (or 1997) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, which was developed at the 1992 NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC Site Response
Workshop.
Prior to the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, studies had
shown that, in general, earthquake motions were attenuated as they propagated from rock to soft soil for rock accelerations greater than 0.1g. There was insufficient data for
soft soils, so the relationships were extrapolated from firm
soil data. Records from the 1985 Mexico City earthquake
and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake show that ground
motions can be significantly amplified, not attenuated, for
soft sites at moderate accelerations. The largest amplification typically occurs at the natural period of the soft soil
deposit. For example, in the Mexico City earthquake, the
rock acceleration was amplified by a factor of four by the
soft clay deposit at T=0 second, while the spectral amplitude at approximately T=2 seconds indicated an amplification of 15-20 times the rock acceleration. Records from the
Loma Prieta earthquake also indicate an amplification of
three to six times at long-period spectral amplitudes. The
largest amplification occurred at the natural period of the
soil deposit. However, at stronger levels of ground shaking, this later data corroborates the results of previous
279
Soil CoefficientsAppendix B
September 1999
APPENDIX C
weight W divided by the R factor. The purpose of the progressive changes was not primarily to change resistance
requirements, but rather to provide a rational meaning in
terms of response spectrum demand and the inelastic response reduction capabilities of a given structural system.
The basis for the K factor was the definition of four
basic lateral force resisting systems ranging from the special moment resisting frame with K=0.67 to the bearing
wall system with K=1.33. The corresponding values for
the Rw and R approximately follow the relation of
Rw=8/K and R = RoRd=Rw /1.4, where the 1.4 reflects the
conversion to strength design. Note that the subscript w in
Rw was provided in previous editions of the Blue Book to
indicate that the R factor was reducing elastic demand
force levels to working stress levels. For a given level and
type of the specified site ground motion, there was no
compelling reason to change the relative design load levels
for the four basic systems. In general the structural system
characteristics that were considered in the evaluation of
the previous and present factors include:
1. Observed and/or predicted system performance under
strong ground motion.
2. Level of inelastic deformation capability.
3. Vulnerability of the vertical load-bearing system.
4. Degree of redundancy in the lateral force resisting
system.
5. Multiplicity of lines on resistance, such as back-up
frames.
The structural systems were then divided into categories within which some of these characteristics were common. These categories and their abilities to meet the listed
characteristics are briefly reviewed below.
Moment Resisting Frame System
1. Good performance.
2. Good elastic response control for moderate shaking;
good energy dissipation for strong shaking.
3. Damage to primary lateral force resisting system does
not affect stability of the vertical system.
4. Backup system provided in the form of a moment
frame.
Building Frame System
282
September 1999
September 1999
283
References
Krawinkler, H. and P. Seneviratna, 1998. Pros and Cons
of a Pushover Analysis for Seismic Performance
Evaluation, Journal of Engineering Structures.
Vol.20, no.4-6.
Uang, C.M., 1991. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors
for Building Seismic Codes, Journal of Structural
Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 117, no.1.
Figure AppC-1.
284
September 1999
APPENDIX D
Dynamic Analysis
Multi-Dimensional Analysis
Procedures
Dynamic analysis principles are set forth in many textbooks on dynamics. However, the emphasis and applications are mainly for two-dimensional (planar) systems.
Torsionally irregular structures require an understanding
of three-dimensional dynamic analysis procedures that
couple torsional response with lateral response. This Appendix sets provides both two- and three-dimensional response spectrum analysis procedures.
(Lk)= Participating mass ratio for the nth mode and kth
degree-of-freedom direction, as determined from
Equation AppD-10.
Mik =
Mk =
NK =
NP =
September 1999
(T)=
285
Dynamic AnalysisAppendix D
NP n ( ) ( M )
ik
ik
)
------------------------------=
k
n( M )
i=1
Eqn. AppD-1
where:
n
Mik =
i=1
k=1
NP =
n(
NK = 1, NP = N = number of stories
( S ak ) = S a, n in the k = x direction
NK
NP
k = x = horizontal displacement
ik )
( M ik )
Eqn. AppD-2
M k = M = M i = total mass
i=1
( ik ) = in
NK =
( ik ) = ( P k ) ( ik ) ( S ak )
Eqn. AppD-3
2 M
( M ) = M n = in
i
i=1
in M i
i=1
( P k ) = P n = -----------------------------N
2 M
in
i
( ij ) = ( P k ) ( ij ) ( S ak )
i=1
Eqn. AppD-4
n(
( F ik ) = ( M ik ) ( ik ) ( P k ) ( S ak ) Eqn. AppD-5
( V k ) = ( P k ) ( M ) ( S ak )
Eqn. AppD-6
th
( OM k ) = M ik
i=1
( ik ) ( P k ) ( S ak ) ( h i )
Eqn. AppD-7
286
n(F
n
ik )
ik )x in
= P n in S a,n
= F in = M i P n in S a,n
( V k ) = V n = ( P n ) 2 M n S a,n
k=1=x
Mi1 = Mi
k=2=y
Mi2 = Mi
k=3=
September 1999
Part 2
NP = N = number of stories
x, y, are at center of mass Mi.
n
( i1 ) = ( ix )
( V k ) = ( M k ) ( S ak )
Eqn. AppD-8
( i3 ) = ( i )
(M) =
( i2 ) = ( iy )
( ik ) 2 M i
( Mk ) = ( Pk )2 ( M )
i=1 k=1
Eqn. AppD-9
= ( ix
i=1
)2
Mi +
i=1
( iy
)2
N n
M i + ( i
i=1
N n
( ik ) M ik
i=1
( P k ) = --------------------------------------n
(M)
N n
( ix ) M i
( P x ) = -----------------------------------n
(M)
N n
( iy ) M i
i=1
( P y ) = -----------------------------------n
(M)
( ij ) = ( P k ) ( ij ) ( S ak )
( xi ) = ( P x ) ( ix ) ( S ax )
Ii
tion factor (for the kth direction) and the modal mass respectively for the nth mode, as defined in the main body of
Section 106.5.1. From this, n(Lk), the participating mass
ratio for the nth mode, can be expressed as:
n
( Mk )
( L k ) = ------------Mk
Eqn. AppD-10
i=1
)2
( i ) = ( P x ) ( iy ) ( S ax )
n
n
n
( i ) = ( P x ) ( i ) ( S ax )
September 1999
NP
M k = M ik
i=1
Eqn. AppD-11
287
Dynamic AnalysisAppendix D
NT
Mk = ( Mk );
n=1
NT
Part 3
( Lk ) = 1
n
n=1
Eqn. AppD-12
( V k ) = ( M k ) ( S ak ) = ( M k ) 1 Eqn. AppD-13
By summing these modal values over all of the structure's NT modes, the exact value of the total base shear
becomes:
NT
( V k ) NT = ( M k ) 1 = M k 1 Eqn. AppD-14
n=1
Now, if N modes are included in the above summation, where N < NT, then:
N n
( Vk )N = ( Mk ) < Mk
n=1
Eqn. AppD-15
( Lk ) < 1
n
n=1
Eqn. AppD-16
( L k ) 0.9
n
n=1
Eqn. AppD-17
corresponds to the requirement that the total base shear resulting from these N modes of vibration, (Vk)N, should be
within 10 percent of the exact value, (Vk)NT, i.e.:
( V k ) N 0.9 ( V k ) NT
Eqn. AppD-18
288
u ki ij u kj
1/2
Eqn. AppD-19
i=1 j=1
uk =
Combining Modes
modal response in its kth degree of freedom when it is vibrating in its ith and jth mode respectively, and ij is the
cross-modal coefficient. It is noted that here, uk, uki, and
ukj are general symbols and may correspond to total acceleration, relative (to base) displacement, interstory drift,
base shear, overturning moment, or any other structural response quantity. Furthermore, when computing uk in accordance with the above expression, the signs of uki and ukj
should be preserved.
The cross-modal coefficient ij as denoted above is
dependent on the damping ratios and the natural periods of
the ith and jth mode. When the modes have identical damping ratios , ij is expressed as:
September 1999
8 2 ( 1 + r )r 3 / 2
- = Eqn. AppD-20
ij = ---------------------------------------------------------ji
( 1 r 2 ) 2 + 4 2 r ( 1 + r ) 2
where r is the ratio of the natural period of the jth mode, Tj,
to the natural period of the ith mode, Ti (i.e., r = Tj /Ti).
From Equation AppD-7, it can be shown that: 1) ij =1
when r=1; and 2) ij decreases with decreasing r in a manner that is dependent on the modal damping ratio . Furthermore, when the modal periods are well spaced such
that:
Tj
0.1
r = ---- ----------------- ( T i > T j )
T i 0.1 +
then:
Eqn. AppD-21
ij 0 ( for i j )
uk =
u 2ki
Eqn. AppD-22
September 1999
1/2
i=1
Tj
r = ---- 0.67
Ti
References
Eqn. AppD-23
ij
1.00
1.000
0.95
0.791
0.90
0.473
0.80
0.166
0.70
0.071
0.67
0.0
289
Dynamic AnalysisAppendix D
Figure AppD-1.
290
September 1999
APPENDIX E
Deformation Compatibility
In order to provide a level of seismic performance consistent with the underlying philosophy of these seismic design provisions, designing and detailing elements not part
of the lateral system for deformation compatibility must be
considered equal in importance to designing and detailing
the lateral system for adequate strength and ductility. In a
building with a properly designed and detailed lateral system, collapse of the structure can occur if all structural elements are not capable of deforming with the building
during the event. Likewise, if certain nonstructural elements in the building are not capable of deforming with
the building, the resulting falling hazards may threaten life
safety or impede egress from the building. Understanding
and complying with these provisions is essential to achieving the seismic performance goals implicit in these Requirements.
Designing for deformation compatibility is a two-part
process:
1. Deformation demands must be established.
2. Individual elements and their connections must be assessed for their capacity to deform.
It has been noted by the SEAOC Seismology Committee that both sides of the demand-capacity equation can be
assessed using engineering techniques, but that in certain
circumstances a more effective approach may be to bypass
the complex and possibly inaccurate analytical calculations in favor of more conservative design details. In this
Appendix, both approaches for demand and capacity assessment are discussed.
Definitions
The provision wording, as set forth in Section 108.2.4:
. . . when subjected to the expected deformations caused
by seismic forces is defined by examination of specific
sub-phrases, as follows:
September 1999
Deformation CompatibilityAppendix E
Deformation Demands
The first step in a deformation compatibility analysis is to
determine the deformation demand, denoted herein as DM.
It is the intent of these Requirements to use as a design basis the deformations that can be expected during a major
earthquake (probability of exceedance of 10 percent in 50
years).
Section 108.2.4 requires that this deformation demand
be the greater of the maximum inelastic displacement M ,
considering P effects, or the deformation induced by a
story drift of 0.0025 times the story height. This value of
DM = M must be computed using a structure model that
neglects the stiffening effects of those elements not part of
the lateral force resisting system.
This method of evaluating DM assumes that the inelastic deformation can be estimated in terms of the deformation of the elastic structure model. For structures with
short fundamental periods and /or with degrading stiffness
properties, this assumption may possibly underestimate
the actual deformation. References such as Miranda
[1994] and Uang [1991] provide analytical studies of these
effects.
When an engineering analysis is made to determine
the maximum expected seismic deformations, proper
modeling of the structure is needed. Because deformation
incompatibility can have profound life safety implications,
it is essential that the deformations not be underestimated.
The following guidelines should be considered:
292
1. Flexural, shear, and axial deformations of structural elements should be included in the deformation compatibility analysis. The analysis should
include all possible sources of deformation in the
structure. Axial and shearing deformations are sometimes excluded in a lateral force analysis, without a
loss of accuracy. However, in a deformation compatibility analysis, it is essential that all sources of deformations be included. For example, for frame
structures, deformations of the joint region should be
included.
2. P-delta effects shall be included in the deformation
compatibility analysis. When Section 105.1.3 requires that p-delta effects be determined, they shall be
included in the analysis of the structure drift.
3. The deformations of diaphragms shall be included
in the deformation compatibility
analysis. Although it is common practice in a force
analysis to ignore deformations of the diaphragm between lateral frames lines, significant deformation demands can result from diaphragm deformations.
Including these effects may require supplemental
analysis in addition to the global system analysis, particularly where computer programs are used that assume rigid diaphragms. Assessing the effect of
diaphragm deformations may require additional
hand analysis to determine the diaphragm displacements in regions remote from the primary lateral system (Figure E-1).
4. The deformations of foundations shall be included
in the deformation compatibility
analysis. Although it is common practice to ignore
sources of deformation such as rotation of the foundation, significant deformation demands can result from
foundation rotations. Rotation of the foundation can
increase total deformation values due to rigid body rotations of the lateral force resisting elements of the
building. Including these effects may require supplemental analysis in addition to the lateral system analysis, particularly where computer programs are used
that assume rigid foundations. Assessing the effect of
foundation deformations on deformations of the superstructure may require input from a geotechnical engineer (Figure E-2).
5. The stiffness contributions of structural and nonstructural elements not part of the lateral force resisting system shall be neglected in the deformation
compatibility analysis. When modeling the structure to determine deformation demands, only the primary lateral force resisting system elements may be
September 1999
September 1999
Deformation CompatibilityAppendix E
294
September 1999
Many nonstructural elements may be damaged beyond repair by building deformations, but prevention of
damage is not a code requirement. In these cases, it is advisable for the engineer to notify the client of the approach
used, specifically noting that damage may occur.
In some cases, the engineer's client declines to compensate the engineer for design services related to nonstructural elements. In this case, the engineer is obligated
to notify the client of:
1. The predicted deformations of the structure.
2. The code requirements for deformation compatibility.
3. The owner's obligation to comply with the governing
building code.
Element
Explanation
Concrete
Columns
Included. In many building structures, interstory drifts will be large enough to cause post-yield
response of concrete columns. If the induced shear force exceeds the member capacity, or if the
resulting compressive strains exceed the members capacity, special detailing is required.
Connections
Included. In many structural elements, the induced forces may be insignificant to the member
but may result in significant damage and loss of strength to the member connections.
Deep Girders
Included. Although the connections may be considered pinned, most deep girder connections
possess some degree of fixity. Both the girder and the connections must be investigated. A common approach is to detail the connections for the expected deformation using slotted holes or other
means.
Flat Slabs
Included. The slab-column joint region is a rigid connection and some frame action will occur.
The combined moment/torsion/shear forces induced in the joint by lateral floor drift may exceed
the shear capacity of the joint region.
September 1999
295
Deformation CompatibilityAppendix E
Element
Explanation
Trusses
Included. Similar to girders, seismic deformations can induce large forces in deep trusses if the
truss end connections do not isolate the truss from the building deformations. For example, a story
deep truss in a moment frame building could be at risk if the diagonals respond as bracing members. Even if the truss is designated as part of the lateral force resisting system and designed according to braced frame provisions, it may not be compatible with the expected deformations;
nonlinear response in a primary gravity load member, such as truss chords or diagonals, should be
carefully considered, since buckling or rupture of truss diagonals could result in loss of load-carrying capacity.
Miscellaneous
Bracing
Included. Various forms of miscellaneous bracing members are used to brace finishes, mezzanines, or other secondary structures. While the bracing may be designed for prescribed code forces,
deformations of the structure may induce much larger forces, which could result in loss of member
strength, loss of connection, or have secondary consequences. For example, if the brace is connected to a primary structural element and large forces are induced in the brace, the strength and/
or stability of the primary structure element could be jeopardized.
Stairs
Included. Most stair stringers, if not properly detailed and isolated from seismic deformations of
the structure, can act as bracing members. Possible consequences include rupture or buckling of
the stringer, failure of its connection, or unexpected forces induced in other portions of the primary
structure. Because stairs are an essential life safety element, damage to the stair structure must be
avoided.
Cladding
Included. Most cladding systems are by their nature stiff and brittle. Because the cladding envelopes the building, it is normally subjected to seismic deformations. While damage to the cladding
may occur, designers must ensure that the resulting damage does not result in falling hazards or
endanger the primary structure.
Partitions
Included and Excluded. If a partition is similar in construction to cladding, special considerations will be needed. Some partitions, such as metal stud and gypsum wall board partitions are
light and flexible and do not have a history of seismic hazard if properly designed and built.
Ceilings
Included and Excluded. Normally the ceiling system is designed with some isolation from the
structure so that deformations of the structure do not induce forces in the ceiling system. If the ceiling system is anchored to the structure in a way that deformations of the structure can cause the
ceiling to move, special considerations may be needed.
References
Miranda, 1994. Strength Reduction Factors for
Earthquake Resistant Design, Earthquake Spectra.
Volume 10, no. 2, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, California.
Uang, C.M., 1991. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors
for Building Seismic Provisions, J. of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, no. 1.
296
September 1999
Figure AppE-1.
Figure AppE-2.
September 1999
297
Deformation CompatibilityAppendix E
298
September 1999
APPENDIX F
Engineering Implications
of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
NOTE: This appendix has been reprinted unchanged from the previous (1996) Blue Book. It is included in
the 1999 Blue Book because of its continuing usefulness and relevance. It should be noted that references to
code sections quoted in this Appendix correspond to those of the 1996 Blue Book (not the 1999 edition) and
the 1994 UBC (instead of the 1997 UBC).
September 1999
299
300
September 1999
APPENDIX F
Engineering Implications
of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
Introduction
The magnitude 6.7 Mw Northridge earthquake of January
17, 1994 provided a significant test for many buildings designed in accordance with these Recommendations. Although the strong ground shaking was of relatively short
duration, spectral values in broad period ranges at many
sites exceeded the Blue Book design spectrum. The performance of these tested buildings, both good and poor, must
be carefully studied to determine engineering implications, formulate any revisions to these Recommendations
that may be appropriate, and prepare improved designs in
the interim.
Overall impressions of damage patterns or the performance of a single building may not be sufficient to justify
changes in recommendations that will affect the design of
all future buildings. The criteria used to determine the appropriateness of changes to seismic design recommendations should include the following considerations:
1. Characteristics of the Ground Motion. The exact
motion at any one site is not known unless the site or
building is instrumented. The possibility that extraordinary damage was caused by unusual ground motion
or motion particularly tuned to a structure must be
considered. The effects of duration are poorly quantified, but the acceptability of performance for any
ground motion intensity should consider this factor.
2. Expected or Acceptable Performance for the Intensity of Ground Motion Experienced. Given
that damage is expected for moderate and major levels
of ground motion, the extent of actual damage should
be measured against expectations before considering
changes to design recommendations.
3. Damage to Older Buildings. Buildings designed to
earlier versions of these Requirements should be carefully screened and considered separately. This performance may include effects of multiple deficiencies
September 1999
and therefore not be applicable as justification for specific changes to current recommendations.
4. Quality of Construction. Consider how well the
current Requirements were implemented and whether
improvements can be most efficiently be made by
more stringent design requirements or better implementation of the current ones. The quality of design,
construction, and inspection of certain types of wood
construction, such as apartment buildings and strip
malls, was found to be unacceptable in many instances.
Review and analysis of the results of any damaging
earthquake is educational. Damage or damage patterns
which, for one reason or the other do not warrant code
changes, should be flagged so designers can consider individually whether to change their design practice with respect to structural systems, detailing, or interaction with
the construction process. This appendix has been added to
address concerns that may not yet have resulted in changes
in formal design recommendations, but which should be
considered in designs immediately. Additional information can be found in the Findings and Recommendations of
the City of Los Angeles/SEAOSC Task Force on the
Northridge Earthquake [LA/SEAOSC, 1994].
The primary design issues resulting from the
Northridge earthquake include:
1. Concern regarding whether the damage and resulting
economic losses to be expected using current Blue
Book performance goals is generally acceptable.
2. Intensity and characteristics of the ground motion,
particularly in comparison with standard design spectra, possible near field effects, and possible effects of
vertical accelerations.
3. Performance of wood frame buildings, particularly
gypsum board and stucco shear walls, and the performance of certain commonly used hardware.
301
302
September 1999
September 1999
303
the horizontal distortion will be much larger than anticipated. These larger-than-anticipated deflections or drifts
can result in more damage to nonstructural elements.
Recent testing of narrow shear walls [Shepherd and
Allred, 1995] also indicate some concern with holddown
connections at the ends of the walls. Observed failures included splitting of the wood post at the bolt holes, and substantial rotation and elongation of the holddowns. Sliding
of sill plates after the anchor bolts split the wood was also
observed. The American Plywood Association (APA) is
also studying this issue. Early results of the APA tests
were reported by [Commins and Gregg, 1994], and indicate that plywood nailing and holddowns distorted significantly, the National Design Specification (NDS) bolt
spacing values may be inadequate, and code deflections
were exceeded when code forces were applied. Unfortunately, though the testing was cyclic, displacements were
not taken to the levels that might be experienced during an
actual earthquake, but rather to levels near the much lower
values that might be used in code design [SSC 94-08].
As a result of a study of the performance of wood
framed buildings by a task force of the City of Los Angeles
and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, a series of recommendations for adoption by the
City of Los Angeles, as it relates to wood frame buildings,
has been made. Some of the major items in the report and
the Emergency Enforcement Measures that the Los Angeles City Building Department has adopted are as follows:
1. Reduction of the allowable shear values for stucco and
drywall to approximately half of that previously allowed by the code. Restrict the use of staples for attaching wire lath in stucco and restrict the height-tolength ratio for walls used for lateral resistance to no
more than 1:1. In addition, restrict these walls to onestory buildings or the upper stories of multi-level
buildings.
2. For plywood shear walls, reduce the code values by
approximately 25 percent and restrict the height-tolength ratio to 2:1 in lieu of the previous 3.5:1 ratio.
For heavily loaded walls, the width of members at the
boundary and plywood joints would have to be at least
3x members.
3. Require that the size of holes for bolts at the holddown anchors be verified to be no more than 1/16 inch
oversize and that the hold-down bolts be tightened
properly.
4. Require that column deflection in wood buildings be
limited to 0.005 H (where H is the height of the col-
304
September 1999
Section 105.10 of these Requirements requires explicit consideration of vertical acceleration in the design of
horizontal cantilever components as well as horizontal
prestressed components. Whether explicit consideration of
vertical acceleration needs to be expanded beyond that remains unclear at this time.
Structural Systems and Deformation
Compatibility. These Requirements formally recognize
signed as moment-resisting frame systems, or as undefined systems? The conservative answer is probably the
latter. In view of the popularity of this system, guidance
needs to be developed as to its design.
These Recommendations specifically require that any
structural element designated as not part of the lateral load
resisting system of a building in a moderate or a high seismic zone be designed to be able to sustain factored gravity
loads imposed on it under a lateral displacement equal to
(3Rw /8) times the lateral displacement of the lateral load
resisting system elastically computed under the code-prescribed seismic forces. This deformation compatibility requirement is crucial to the safety of the building frame
system, where lateral loads are resisted by shear walls and
frames carry gravity loads only. It is even more crucial to
the safety of buildings that combine a small number of
ductile lateral load resisting frames with a significant number of nonductile frames designed for gravity only. Unfortunately, the deformation compatibility check is seldom
properly carried out by design engineers, and even more
seldom enforced by local jurisdictions. Deformation compatibility requirements have been made more stringent and
more enforceable in the 1996 Accumulative Supplement
to the UBC (see Appendix C1-AppE).
The UBC further requires that a column that is not part
of the lateral force resisting system in Seismic Zone 3 or 4
be detailed like a column that is part of the resisting system
in Seismic Zone 2 (1994 UBC 1921.7.2.2). In the absence
of proper deformation compatibility checks, this required
level of detailing is not sufficient and needs to be made
more stringent. This has been done in ACI 318-95 as well
as in the 1996 Accumulative Supplement to the UBC (see
Blue Book Section 402.13).
Section 1909.3.4.2 of the 1994 UBC appears to allow
the use of overstrength, nonductile columns even as part of
the lateral force resisting system. That section is confusing, may lead to unsafe designs, and has been deleted from
ACI 318-95 as well as from the 1996 Accumulative Supplement to the UBC. This particular section has been corrected by the Blue Book Section 402.7.
Precast Prestressed Concrete. Specific code requirements are needed for precast, prestressed concrete
structures in high seismic zones. Such specific provisions
will replace the current vague requirement that precast,
prestressed concrete structures be equivalent to monolithic
concrete structures in terms of strength and toughness. The
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the
current requirement has been nonuniform for obvious reasons. The Building Seismic Safety Council has approved a
305
An
area of weakness in modern precast parking structures is
the flexibility of the thin cast-in-place topping slab that
forms the horizontal floor and roof diaphragms and the
chords and collectors for these diaphragms. The UBC currently requires these topping slabs to be designed to act as
diaphragms independently of the precast elements. The
use of a composite design of the topping together with the
precast elements to act a as diaphragm may very well be
preferable. Details of chord reinforcing in thin topping
slabs need improvement [SSC 94-06].
Cast-in-Place Topping Acting as Diaphragm.
306
Performance of Anchorage of
Concrete and Masonry Walls to Wood
Diaphragms
The Northridge event was the first since the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake to subject a large number of tilt-up
and masonry buildings to ground motions as strong as
those projected for the most severe events. Within the San
Fernando Valley, which encompasses the areas most
strongly shaken by the Northridge earthquake, there are an
estimated 1,200 tilt-up buildings [Brooks, 1994], most
with panelized plywood roofs. An estimated 400 of these
buildings [Deppe, 1994] within the administrative limits
of the City of Los Angeles experienced severe damage, including partial roof collapses and, in some cases, collapse
of perimeter walls. Additional similar damage, not included in the above statistics, occurred outside the City of
Los Angeles. Many of the damaged buildings were designed to recent editions of the UBC. While no lives were
lost as a result of this performance, the damage sustained
by many buildings was clearly life-threatening.
Primary structural failure occurred at the out-of-plane
connections between the perimeter masonry or concrete
walls and the panelized plywood roofs. Many failures occurred in buildings provided with specially detailed wall
ties, mandated by the UBC in every edition since 1973.
Nearly every conceivable type of wall tie connection experienced failure, including catalog hardware supplied by
timber connector manufacturers, as well as custom designed and fabricated details. Wall tie failures included:
shear cone pullout of anchors within the masonry or concrete walls; splitting of timber members at bolted connections; and fracture of light gauge metal hardware,
particularly at locations of bends, swivel joints, and bolt
holes.
These buildings are classical box type structures
with flexible diaphragms. Research on instrumented
buildings following the 1984 Morgan Hill [Celebi, 1989]
and 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquakes [Bouwkamp, 1991] indicates that the dynamic response of structures with predominantly solid walls is dominated by the diaphragms,
with initial periods in the range of 1 to 3 seconds. Walls
September 1999
September 1999
phragms for Seismic Zones 3 and 4. The changes (see Requirements Section 108.2.8.1) are:
1. All elements of the wall anchorage system are to be
designed using Cp equal to 1.2 over the entire length
of the diaphragm. This results in a minimum
design force of 0.48wh in Seismic Zone 4. The load
factor for the concrete embedment design is 1.7
(rather than 1.4). The design force for the working
stress design of steel elements is increased by a factor
of 1.7, or:
1.7 ZC p wh = 1.7 0.4 1.2wh = 0.82wh
for Seismic Zone 4.
2. Eccentricity must be explicitly considered in the design of all elements.
3. Wood elements must have a minimum net thickness
of 2 1/2 inches (3x rafters) if used as part of the anchorage system.
4. Wall pilaster can significantly affect the force distribution. Their configuration and details must provide
for stable support at the maximum earthquake deformation level.
5. Anchorage using embedded straps must be attached to
or hooked around reinforcement or otherwise terminated to effectively transfer the force from the strap to
the reinforcing steel.
308
Since data about the damage suffered by these buildings is still being collected, it is difficult to accurately determine the similarities in design and construction between
steel moment frame buildings affected by the Northridge
earthquake and those in other areas. It is likely that they are
very similar, if not identical, to design and construction
practices in other parts of the state and country.
Almost without exception, the connections that failed
were of the type prescribed by paragraph 4F.1.b of the
1990 edition of the Blue Book. That type of connection
was first specifically prescribed in the 1988 Blue Book and
in the 1988 UBC, but similar connections have been in
common use for about 20 years. The history of this type of
connection (welded flanges/bolted web plate) dates originally to the work of Popov and Stephen in the early 1970s
[Popov and Stephens, 1970]. This investigation, using
W18x50 and W24x76 beams, compared the performance
of all-welded connections to that of welded flange/bolted
web connections. Although the investigation showed that
the welded flange/bolted web connections did not perform
as well as the all-welded, and that their performance was
somewhat erratic, nonetheless these connections did develop substantial inelastic beam rotations, and were accepted by structural engineers as being adequate for
seismic applications.
The conclusions drawn from this investigation, coupled with the basic economy of the connection and an increasing development of trust in welding, led to such
widespread acceptance by structural engineers and fabricators that the welded flange/bolted web connection became fully accepted and was written into the code.
Subsequent tests by Tsai and Popov (1988), and by Englehardt (1993), further demonstrated the variability of performance of these welded flange/bolted web connections.
Despite the lack of complete reliability of the connection as demonstrated in the tests, the number of failures at
Northridge would have to be considered as quite unexpected. The following factors may have contributed to this
poor performance:
1. Unreliability of material properties, particularly excessive strength of A36 beams and girders.
2. Poor execution and quality control of welding.
3. A basic joint configuration not conducive to ductile
behavior.
4. Web connections with bending strength less than that
of the web itself.
5. Unreliable through-thickness strength of column
flange material.
September 1999
September 1999
Guidance is also included on specifications for welding, quality control, and nondestructive testing.
Another issue for structural engineers to consider is
the shear connections of nonmoment frame girders to columns. Considering that many web shear tabs cracked under the rotations imposed on them after the flange welds
failed, and recognizing that the nonframe connections
must undergo similar rotations, the advisability of beams
or girders being rigidly connected to shear tabs by slipcritical bolts or by welds must be evaluated.
In the fall of 1994, an emergency code change was
made to the 1991 UBC that deleted provisions prescribing
requirements for beam-column joint connections, the
UBC equivalent of the 1990 Blue Book Section 4.F.1.b.
The section was replaced by performance oriented requirements that require considerable interpretation. Current interpretation is contained in SEAOC Interim
Recommendation Number 2 published in January, 1995.
The Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994 was centered in the San Fernando Valley. The epicenter was about
1 mile south-southwest of Northridge, or about 20 miles
west-northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The moment
magnitude of the earthquake is Mw=6.7.
Analyses of aftershock data indicate that the mainshock fault rupture plane covered an approximately rectangular zone extending about 15 km west-northwest from
the epicenter and about 15 km to the northwest-northeast.
The fault rupture plane slopes upward at about 45 degrees
from a depth of about 18 km at the mainshock's focus to
within about 5 km of the surface. The fault rupture plane
slopes upward to the northeast so that areas closest to the
fault rupture lie roughly along Interstate 5 between Sylmar
and Newhall.
Strong ground motion was recorded at a number of
stations located within 10 to 15 km of the fault rupture.
These recording stations include:
California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program
(CSMIP)
310
September 1999
September 1999
Building proximity to fault rupture is an important parameter, since ground motion attenuates with distance.
Figure AppF-3 illustrates ground motion attenuation from
a fault in terms of a 1-second response. The trend in
ground motion attenuation is similar for other periods. In
Figure AppF-3, empirically based predictions of attenuation are based on the work of Boore et al. [1993], although
the work of other researchers could have been used. Boore
et al. uses a distance definition of the horizontal distance
to the surface projection of the fault rupture, which is different than closest distance to source, but the points discussed below are still valid. Soil type is assumed to be
Boore et al. soil type B/C, corresponding to medium soil
site conditions (i.e., SEAOC Soil Type S2). Attenuation
values are provided for two earthquake magnitudes,
Mw=6.7 and Mw=7.5. In both cases, attenuation is shown
by values that range from the median to + 1 sigma levels of predicted response. The range of predicted values is
large, reflecting the large scatter in measured ground motion.
As shown in Figure AppF-3, the empirically based
predictions of the shaking level drop off significantly with
distance. Superimposed on the empirically based predictions shown in the figure are response values obtained
from 1994 Northridge earthquake spectra of six of the
near-field records listed in Table AppF-1. Five of the
records (Rinaldi, Newhall, Sylmar, SCS, and SCSE) are at
about 5 km from fault rupture and the sixth record (Arleta)
is at about 15 km. Also shown for reference is the value of
the SEAOC spectrum for Soil Type S2 at a period of 1 second. This value is 0.6 g for Zone 4 and 0.45 g for Zone 3.
When multiplied by the building's weight, these accelerations are the same as the design values required for equivalent lateral force design of a 1-second building, before
reduction by the Rw factor. Within a given seismic zone,
the SEAOC spectrum (and corresponding design values)
do not vary with distance from earthquake source(s). As illustrated in Figure AppF-3, the SEAOC spectrum would
be expected to underpredict ground shaking for sites located within about 10 to 15 km of fault ruptures. The nearfield records of the Northridge earthquake confirm this expectation.
Near-Field Ground MotionVertical
Direction
311
References
Andreason, Kenneth and John Rose, 1994. Northridge,
California Earthquake: Structural Performance of
Buildings in San Fernando Valley, California,
American Plywood Association: Tacoma,
Washington, APA Report T94-5, March.
Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner, and T.E. Fumal, 1993.
Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak
Accelerations from Western North American
Earthquakes: an Interim Report, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 93-509.
Bouwkamp J., R.O. Hamburger, and J. Gillengerten, 1991.
Degradation of Plywood Roof Diaphragms Under
Multiple Earthquake Loading, CSMIP90.
Brooks H., 1994. Tilt-Up and Earthquakes: A PostNorthridge Assessment.
BSSC, 1994. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the
Development of Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, D.C.
CDMG, 1994. California Department of Conservation,
CSMIP Strong-Motion Records from the Northridge,
California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, California
Division of Mines and Geology Office of Strong
Motion Studies Report No. OSMS 94-07, California
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program.
Celebi, M., G. Bongiovanni, E. Safak, G. Brady, 1989.
Seismic Response of a Large Span Roof Diaphragm,
Earthquake Spectra. Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
September 1999
September 1999
313
Table AppF-1.
1994 Northridge Earthquake Ground Motion Recorded Near-Fault Rupture [References:
CDMG, 1994; USGS, 1994; Lindvall et al., 1994]
Distance from
Fault (km)
Recording Station
Name
Sepulveda VA Hospital
Rinaldi Receiving
Station
Sylmar Converter
Station (SCS)
Sylmar Converter
Station East (SCSE)
Sylmar LA County
Hospital
314
Owner
(Instrument No.)
VA (NSMP)
LADWP (5968)
CDMG
(CSMIP 24087)
MWD (NSMP)
LADWP (306-3)
LADWP (6273)
CDMG
(CSMIP 24514)
CDMG
(CSMIP 24279)
Location
Site
Geology
Ground level
Free field
Ground level
Alluvium
Alluvium
Ground level
Free field
Free field
Free field
Ground level
Epicenter
Fault
Rupture
Comp
PGA (g)
10
360
0.94
Up
0.48
10
10
12
Alluvium
Rock
Alluvium
Alluvium
Maximum
Acceleration
12
13
16
20
15
270
0.74
318
0.48
Up
0.85
228
0.84
90
0.35
Up
0.59
360
0.29
022
0.56
Up
0.52
292
0.98
052
0.61
Up
0.64
142
0.90
015
0.83
Up
0.38
285
0.49
360
0.91
Up
0.60
90
0.61
90
0.63
Up
0.62
360
0.61
September 1999
Figure AppF-1.
Figure AppF-2.
September 1999
315
316
September 1999
APPENDIX G
Appendix G presents a Conceptual Framework for performance-based seismic engineering. It is reprinted unchanged
from the 1996 Blue Book. Material in Appendix G is to be superseded first by the Guidelines and then by the Provisions
of Appendix I. The developing Guidelines document is presented in Part A, Appendix I of this Blue Book. This
Conceptual Framework is a reference document.
September 1999
317
318
September 1999
APPENDIX G
Conceptual Framework
for Performance-Based Seismic Design
Introduction
The SEAOC Blue Book has historically targeted a limited
set of design objectives, as described in Section 101 of this
Commentary. The Recommendations are based largely on
application of an equivalent lateral force approach to a single level earthquake design and focus primarily on design
of the primary structural system. In recent years, SEAOC
has recognized the need and opportunity to develop a new
generation of performance-based engineering provisions
that embrace a broader scope of design and construction
quality assurance issues and that yield more predictable
seismic performance over a range of earthquake demands.
SEAOC's Vision 2000 Committee has defined a
framework for development of performance-based engineering procedures. These procedures will address a broad
range of performance objectives that consider life safety,
structural and nonstructural damage control, and maintenance of function over a range of earthquake hazards.
These performance-based procedures will embrace new
design and analysis approaches that will more directly address the inelastic response of structures and provide alternative procedures to better achieve defined seismic
performance objectives.
This Appendix is adapted from SEAOC's Vision 2000
report [OES, 1995] and outlines the conceptual framework
developed by Vision 2000. It defines performance-based
engineering in terms of performance levels, seismic hazard levels and performance objectives, and provides guidance for the development and incorporation of
performance-based engineering guidelines into future editions of the Blue Book.
Overview
The conceptual framework for performance-based engineering is defined as a full range of seismic engineering is-
September 1999
tives. Building design approaches are outlined in the Vision 2000 report [OES, 1995] and include:
Comprehensive Design
Displacement
Energy
General Force/Strength
Simplified Force/Strength
Prescriptive Approaches
Verification analysis procedures outlined include:
Probability of
Exceedence
Frequent
43 years
50% in 30 years
Occasional
72 years
50% in 50 years
Rare
475 years
10% in 50 years
Very rare
970 years
Event
320
September 1999
The selection of performance objectives sets the acceptance criteria for the design. The performance objectives represent performance levels, or damage levels,
expected to result from design ground motions. The performance levels are keyed to limiting values of measurable
structural response parameters, such as drift and ductility
demand. When the performance objectives are selected,
the associated limiting values become the acceptance criteria to be checked in later stages of the design. Limiting
values of the response parameters that correlate with the
defined performance levels must be established through
research. Acceptance criteria are discussed further in Preliminary and Final Design Steps, below.
September 1999
Conceptual Design
Once the performance objectives are selected and the site
suitability and seismic ground motions are established,
structural design can proceed. Structural design begins
with overall conceptual design of the facility including
layout, configuration, selection of structural systems and
materials, selection of foundation systems and, to varying
degrees, selection of nonstructural systems. It is in the conceptual design stage that fundamental decisions are made
that determine the ultimate viability of the design.
Modern seismic resistant design relies on the inelastic
response of the structure to dissipate much of the input energy generated by major earthquakes. Therefore, it is imperative that the postelastic behavior of the structure be
addressed at this stage of design. Capacity design principles should be applied to provide an overview of the inelastic response and to designate the ductile links or
fuses in the lateral force resisting system. The designated fuses will be counted on to yield and to dissipate the
input energy of the earthquake while the rest of the system
remains elastic. The conceptual overview obtained provides the design team with a clear conceptual understanding of the intended inelastic response of the structure and
allows the design and quality assurance programs to focus
on the critical links in the system. At the final design and
detailing stage, these critical links must be rigorously detailed to provide the ductility required.
In making fundamental design decisions at the conceptual design stage, the following guidelines to good seismic design should be considered:
1. Use simple, symmetrical and regular configurations
where possible.
321
322
September 1999
Design Review
Structural response, as measured by certain quantifiable parameters, must be consistent with the performance
objectives and associated acceptance criteria. The acceptance criteria consist of limiting values in structural response parameters, associated with selected performance
levels or damage levels for specified levels of ground motion. Within a particular building, the design of specific
components may be controlled by the same or different response parameters for the same or different performance
objectives. Typical response parameters verified may include:
Stress ratios
Structural accelerations
September 1999
323
verify the quality of construction materials and the qualifications of the special inspector.
324
Research Needs
The development of this conceptual framework into a
guideline for performance-based engineering will require
considerable new basic research, applied research, calibration studies, trial designs, and actual guideline preparation.
Each facet must be embraced and supported in a balanced
manner if the goal is to be achieved.
In general, research related to this conceptual framework is needed in the following general areas:
1. Validate the appropriateness of the four performance
levels and the specific parameters used to define their
minimum performance states.
2. Validate the appropriateness of the four seismic hazard definitions through consideration of the social,
economic, and political impact seismic design and
seismic performance has on communities in various
seismic regions.
3. Establish appropriate acceptance criteria for site performance in terms of permissible settlement, lateral
spreading, liquefaction, faulting, etc. for each performance objective.
4. Identify appropriate ground motion parameters
needed for the possible design approaches and analysis checks that yield the best and most appropriate
characterization of the seismic hazard.
5. Develop guidelines for conceptual design that address
all facets of performance-based engineering from the
project start.
6. Identify and develop appropriate design approaches
and verification methods that are fully compatible
with the entire structural/earthquake engineering design effort.
7. Identify the key characteristic of a proper design review based on current and successful efforts and develop appropriate guidelines. Determine if there is a
need to augment and/or change the basic functions of
September 1999
References
OES, 1995. California Office of Emergency Services,
Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering
of Buildings. Prepared by Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, California.
ATC-33, in progress. Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
ATC-40, 1996. Recommended Methodology for the
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete
Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City, California.
These research recommendations are somewhat general and provide only an indication of the level of research
and development that is needed in each of the key areas of
performance-based engineering. In each case, it is important that sufficient work is done to verify the accuracy of
the techniques purposed, their compatibility with the overall conceptual framework as defined, and their consistency
with the historic performance of buildings in past earthquake
September 1999
325
System Description
Fully
9
Operational
7 6
Operational
5
Life Safety
4
3 2
1
Near Collapse
Collapse
Negligible
Light
Moderate
Severe
Complete
Permissible Transient
Drift
< 0.2%
< 0.5%
< 1.5%
< 2.5%
> 2.5%
Permissible Permanent
Drift
Negligible
Negligible
< 0.5%
< 2.5%
> 2.5%
Vertical Load-Carrying
Element Damage
Negligible
Negligible
Light to moderate,
but substantial capacity remains to
carry gravity loads
Moderate to
heavy, but elements continue to
support gravity
loads
Partial to total
loss of gravity
load support
Lateral Load-Carrying
Element Damage
Negligible. Generally
elastic response; no
significant loss of
strength or stiffness
Moderate. Reduced
residual strength and
stiffness, but lateral
system remains functional
Negligible residual
strength and stiffness; no story collapse
mechanisms, but
large permanent
drifts; secondary
structural elements
may completely fail
Partial or total
collapse; primary elements
may require
demolition
Damage to Architectural
Systems
Negligible damage to
cladding, glazing,
partitions, ceilings,
finishes, etc.; isolated
elements may require repair at users
convenience
Light to moderate
damage to architectural systems; essential and select
protected items undamaged; hazardous materials
contained
Moderate to severe
damage to architectural systems, but
large falling hazards
not created; major
spills of hazardous
materials contained
Severe damage to
architectural systems; some elements may
dislodge and fall
Egress Systems
Not impaired
Mechanical/Electrical/
Plumbing/Utility Services
Functional
Equipment essential
to function and fire/
life safety systems
operate; other systems may require repair; temporary utility
service provided as
required
Severe damage
and permanent
disruption of systems
Partial or total
destruction of
systems; permanent disruption of systems
Damage to Contents
Light to moderate
damage; critical contents and hazardous
materials secured
Moderate to severe
damage to contents;
major spills of hazardous materials
contained
Severe damage to
contents; hazardous materials may
not be contained
Partial or total
loss of contents
Repair
Not required
At owner/tenants
convenience
Possible; building
may be closed
Not possible
Effect on
Occupancy
No effect
Permanent loss
of use
326
September 1999
Elements
Concrete
Frames
Braced Steel
Frames
Concrete
Shear Walls
September 1999
Type
Fully
Operational
9
8
Operational
7 6
Life Safety
5 4
Near Collapse
Primary
Negligible
Extensive damage to
beams; spalling of cover
and shear cracking (< 1/8")
for ductile columns; minor
spalling in nonductile columns; joints cracked < 1/8"
width
Secondary
Negligible
Same as primary
Primary
Negligible
Extensive distortion of
beams and column panels;
many fractures at connections
Secondary
Negligible
Extensive distortion of
beams and column panels;
many fractures at connections
Extensive distortion of
beams and column panels;
many fractures at connections
Primary
Negligible
Secondary
Negligible
Same as primary
Same as primary
Same as primary
Primary
Negligible
Secondary
Negligible
327
10
Elements
Unreinforced Masonry Infill
Walls
URM
Bearing
Walls
Reinforced
Masonry
Walls
Wood
Stud Walls
Foundations
328
Type
Fully
Operational
9
8
Operational
7 6
Life Safety
5 4
Near Collapse
Primary
Negligible
Secondary
Negligible
Same as primary
Same as primary
Primary
Negligible
Secondary
Negligible
Same as primary
Same as primary
Same as primary
Primary
Negligible
Secondary
Negligible
Same as primary
Primary
Negligible
Secondary
Negligible
Same as primary
General
Negligible
September 1999
Element
10 Fully Functional 9
Metal Deck
Diaphragms
Negligible
Large distortion with buckling of some units and tearing of many welds and
seam attachments
Wood Diaphragms
Negligible
No observable loosening,
withdrawal of fasteners, or
splitting of sheathing or
framing
Concrete
Diaphragms
Negligible
Table AppG-4.
Operational
7 6
Life Safety
5 4
Near Collapse
Element
10 Fully Functional 9
Operational
7 6
Life Safety
5 4
Near Collapse
Cladding
Negligible damage
Glazing
Generally no damage;
isolated cracking possible
Partitions
Ceilings
Light
Fixtures
Doors
Negligible damage
Minor damage
Elevators
September 1999
329
10 Fully Functional 9
Operational
7 6
Life Safety
5 4
Near Collapse
Mechanical
Equipment
Ducts
Negligible damage
Piping
Negligible damage
Fire Alarm
Systems
Functional
Functional
Not functional
Not functional
Emergency
Lighting
Systems
Functional
Functional
Functional
Not functional
Electrical
Equipment
Negligible damage
330
September 1999
Element
10 Fully Functional 9
Operational
7 6
Life Safety
5 4
Near Collapse
Furniture
Negligible effects
Office
Equipment
Negligible effects
Computer
Systems
Operational
Minor damage; some sliding Extensive damage from slidand overturning; mostly func- ing, overturning, leaks, falltional
ing debris, etc.
File Cabinets
Negligible damage
Bookshelves
Negligible damage
Storage
Racks And
Cabinets
Art Works,
Collections
Hazardous
Materials
September 1999
331
Figure AppG-1.
332
September 1999
Negligible
10
Fully
Operational
Light
9
8
Operational
Structure is safe for occupancy immediately after
earthquake. Essential operations are protected, nonessential operations are disrupted.
Moderate
7
6
Life Safe
Life safety is generally protected. Structure is
damaged but remains stable. Falling hazards remain
secure.
Complete
Severe
5
4
3
2
Near
Collapse
Collapse
Complete structural collapse.
September 1999
333
Operational
Life Safe
Frequent
(43 year)
Very Rare
(970 year)
Figure AppG-3.
334
Unacceptable
Performance
Es
Occasional
(72 year)
Rare
(475 year)
Near Collapse
Sa
fet
se
nt
yC
Ba
ial
rit
/H
ica
az
lO
ar
sic
do
bje
us
cti
Ob
Ob
jec
jec
tiv
tiv
ve
September 1999
APPENDIX H
September 1999
335
336
September 1999
APPENDIX H
Passive Energy
Dissipation Systems
H1
General
These Requirements provide minimum design requirements for the incorporation of passive energy dissipation
devices in buildings.
Energy dissipation devices (also termed damping devices) reduce global and interstory seismic displacement
response of structural systems, but may either increase or
decrease seismic stresses and accelerations within structural systems. Energy dissipation devices provide a controlled increase in structural damping, and may also result
in an increase in structural stiffness or a change in participating mass. Passive energy dissipation systems do not require active control by electrical, pneumatic, or hydraulic
systems.
Buildings designed in conformance with these Requirements must also be designed in accordance with all
other applicable provisions of the UBC, except as specifically defined in this appendix. Design must consider the
combined behavior of all elements of both the lateral force
resisting system (LFRS) and the energy dissipation system
(EDS). Energy dissipation devices must not form part of
the gravity load-resisting system.
Buildings employing both energy dissipation and base
isolation devices shall be designed using the Requirements
for the design of base-isolated buildings.
H2
Definitions
Defined in
Defined in
deformations and displacements. EDD types may be classified as any combination of displacement-dependent or
velocity-dependent, and may be designed or configured to
act in either a linear or non linear manner.
Energy Dissipation System (EDS). Consists of energy dissipation devices (EDDs) plus any structural framing or bracing used to transfer forces between components
of the lateral force resisting system (LFRS) and the EDDs.
Displacement-Dependent Device. The force response of a displacement-dependent device is primarily a
function of the relative displacement, between each end of
the device. The response is substantially independent of
the relative velocity between each end of the device, and/
or the excitation frequency.
Velocity-Dependent Device. The force-displacement
relation for a velocity-dependent device is a function of the
relative velocity between each end of the device, and may
also be a function of the relative displacement between
each end of the device.
H3
The following symbols and notations apply to the Requirements of this section:
B
DDi =
337
EDj =
ES =
keff
MM =
T1 =
TE =
TD =
S =
Dj =
Di =
Dj =
Si =
338
D =
H4
General Requirements
H4.1
Classification of Structural
Behavior
Static Force Procedure. The static procedure presented in Section H6 may be used for buildings
which conform with each of the following requirements:
1. Regular buildings not more than 5 stories nor 65 feet
in height.
2. At least two EDDs shall be provided at each level (excluding penthouses) and in each direction of the building. At each level, the number of devices shall be
equally distributed about the center of gravity. No outof-plane offsets between adjacent story levels shall be
permitted in the placement of damping devices.
3. The horizontal damping forces in adjacent stories
shall not differ by more than 20 percent.
4. The effective damping, eff, calculated using Equation AppH4-1 shall not exceed 30 percent.
5. All velocity-dependent devices shall be linear.
6. The elastic stiffness of devices shall be included in the
structure analysis.
7. Damping in displacement-dependent devices shall be
ignored.
8. The LFRS shall meet both the strength and drift requirements of UBC 1630.
September 1999
The maximum value of used for any mode of vibration shall not exceed 5 percent. The value of eff calculated using Equation AppH4-1 shall be used to determine the
damping modification factor, B, in Table H-2.
H4.3
Buildings that contain energy dissipation devices are required to have a complete lateral force resisting system
(LFRS) independent of the energy dissipation devices defined in UBC 1629.6.
Exception: Displacement-dependent energy dissipation devices which operate by yielding of steel components may be utilized as part of the lateral force
resisting system, provided that:
1. The LFRS, including the pre-yield stiffness
contributed by all EDDs, is designed to resist wind
forces defined in UBC Chapter 16, Division III.
2. The LFRS, including the pre-yield stiffness
contributed by all EDDs, is designed to resist
earthquake forces defined in UBC 1630
calculated using a maximum value of R equal to
6.0.
3. Structure forces and displacements are
determined according to Section H7.
4. The design meets all other applicable
requirements of this Appendix.
The LFRS shall be designed and detailed to meet all
strength and detailing requirements defined by the UBC.
Building lateral deformations shall meet the drift limitations presented in Sections H4.2 and H8.3. Minimum
strength requirements for components subjected to forces
from energy dissipation devices shall meet the additional
requirements of Section H8.4.
H4.4
Total effective damping at the point of maximum displacement, eff, shall be calculated as the sum of the damping
which is provided by energy dissipation devices, S, and
the inherent damping in the LFRS, :
eff = + S
September 1999
Eqn. AppH4-1
H5
Mathematical
Representation of Damping
Devices
H5.1
Displacement-Dependent Devices
Displacement-dependent devices are limited to either metallic-yielding or friction elements. The force-displacement response of such a device is primarily a function of
the relative displacement between each end of the device,
and is substantially independent of the relative velocity between each end of the device, and/or the frequency of excitation.
The energy dissipation characteristics of displacement-dependent devices may only be considered in conjunction with the nonlinear time history analysis
procedures presented in Section H7.
H5.2
Velocity-Dependent Devices
H5.2.1
Viscoelastic Devices. The force F in a viscoelastic device may be expressed by the following:
F = k eff D + C D
Eqn. AppH5-1
Eqn. AppH5-2
where the forces F+ and F- are evaluated at device displacements D+ and D-, respectively. The damping coefficient shall be calculated as:
WD
C = ------------------------- ( D ) avg
Eqn. AppH5-3
where ( D)avg is the average of the absolute values of device displacements D + and D, is the effective angular excitation frequency occurring at displacement
( D)avg, and WD is the area enclosed by one complete cycle of the force-displacement response of the device at displacement ( D)avg.
If the cyclic response of the device cannot be defined
throughout the range of operating conditions by single val339
ues of these constants, multiple analyses shall be undertaken to bound the response of the building.
H5.2.2
F = C D
1
- F D
E S = -2
i Mi Di
Eqn. AppH5-4
where FMi is the maximum inertial force at level i corresponding to the maximum displacement, DDi, at level i.
FMi may be taken as:
F Mi = 0 F i + k eff Di cos j
j
H6.3
H6.1
General
H6.3.1
H6.2
Design Displacements. Design displacements at roof level n, DDn, shall be calculated as:
2
D Dn
S = -------------4E S
C0 =
C1 =
Eqn. AppH6-1
2
2
2
E Dj = --------- C j Di cos j
TD
340
Eqn. AppH6-2
g C 0 C 1 T E Sa
= --------2- ------------------------B
4
Eqn. AppH6-5
where:
The damping ratio provided by EDDs for buildings containing velocity-dependent devices shall be determined
from the following:
E Dj
Eqn. AppH6-4
H6
The stiffness of each damping device, whether velocitydependent or displacement-dependent, shall be included in
the mathematical model of the DSS. Where velocity-dependent EDDs are used, the damping modification factor,
B, must be calculated at the point of maximum displacement assuming device motion at period TD. For displacement-dependent EDDs, B shall be set equal to 1.0.
Eqn. AppH6-3
Cv /TE for TE TS
Seismic coefficient set forth in UBC
Table 16-Q.
Ca =
September 1999
Cv =
g
The design displacement DDi at level i shall be calculated using either the first mode or deformed shape of the
building, scaled so that the roof displacement equals DDn
per Equation AppH6-5. Interstory displacements Di may
be calculated as the difference between the displacements
DD at adjacent floor levels.
H6.3.2
V D Dn
- ---------T D = T 1 -----V M Sn
Eqn. AppH6-6
V M = F Mi
Eqn. AppH6-7
i=1
H6.3.3
mined using the interstory displacements Di. If the horizontal deformation of framing elements supporting the
devices is less than 1/15 of the interstory displacement, the
deformations of the supporting elements may be neglected. Device velocities may then be determined using
the interstory velocities calculated as:
2 Di
Dj = --------------- cos j
TD
Eqn. AppH6-8
H7
H7.1
Time Histories
Ground motion time-histories used for analysis shall be selected in accordance with criteria defined in
UBC 1631.6.1. In addition, motions shall be scaled such
that the average value of the SRSS spectrum does not fall
below 1.3 times the 5 percent-damped spectrum of the design-basis earthquake for periods from 0.2T1 second to
1.1TD seconds.
H7.2
Analysis Procedures
H8
Detailed Design
Requirements
H8.1
Environmental Conditions
Multi-Axis Movement
Connection points of EDDs shall provide sufficient articulation to accommodate simultaneous longitudinal, lateral, and vertical displacements of the EDD.
H8.3
H8.4.1
Reliability/Redundancy Factor, D .
September 1999
341
H8.4.2
E m = 0 E h + E EDS
EDS.
Eqn. AppH8-1
Eqn. AppH8-2
342
Eqn. AppH8-3
2.
3.
4.
5.
H8.4.4
tory analysis of Section H7 is used, responses shall be calculated at each time step, and the maximum responses
shall be used for design. Components of the EDS shall
have sufficient strength and stiffness to resist forces and
displacements resulting when input ground motions are
scaled by a factor equal to D times MM. Actual expected
material strengths of structural components may be included when determining strengths for this Requirement.
H8.5
September 1999
tablished in-service history of each type (and internal design) of device, and the likelihood of change in mechanical
characteristics over the design life of the device.
H8.6
A quality control plan for the manufacture of energy dissipation devices shall be established by the Engineer of
Record responsible for the structural design. As a minimum, this plan shall include the requirements described in
Section H10.3.
H9
Design Review
H10
Testing of Energy
Dissipation Devices
H10.1
General
The force-displacement relations and damping values assumed in the design of the passive energy dissipation system should be confirmed by the following tests of a
selected sample of devices prior to production of devices
for construction. Alternately, if these tests precede the design phase of a project, the results of this testing program
should be used for the design.
The tests specified in this section are intended to:
1. Confirm the force-displacement properties of-the passive energy dissipation devices assumed for design
2. Demonstrate the robustness of individual devices to
extreme seismic excitation.
These tests do not satisfy the requirements of a manufacturing quality control (production) plan. The tests also
do not address tests that maybe required to demonstrate
September 1999
The Engineer of Record should provide explicit acceptance criteria for the effective stiffness and damping
values established by the prototype tests. These criteria
should reflect the values assumed in design, account for
likely variations in material properties, and provide limiting response values outside of which devices will be rejected.
The Engineer of Record should also establish appropriate criteria to evaluate the amount of travel that a device
will be subjected to under wind excitation. These criteria
will likely vary considerably, and are a function of the
stiffness of the device.
The Engineer of Record should provide explicit acceptance criteria for effective stiffness and damping values for
the production EDDs. The results of the prototype tests
should form the basis of the acceptance criteria for the production tests, unless an alternate basis is established by the
Engineer of Record. Such acceptance criteria should recognize the influence of loading history on the response of
individual devices by requiring production testing of devices prior to prototype testing.
The fabrication and quality control procedures used
for all prototype and production devices should be identical. These procedures should be approved by the Engineer
of Record prior to the fabrication of prototype devices.
H10.2
Prototype Tests
H10.2.1
General.
H10.2.2
Data Recording. The force-deflection relationship for each cycle of each test should be digitally recorded.
343
in the building, at the extreme ambient temperatures anticipated (if the response of the energy dissipation devices is
dependent on temperature). In the following sequence, the
design displacement for the EDD, D , shall be calculated
using information from Section H6.3.3, or from time history analysis.
1. Each device should be loaded with the number of cycles expected in the design wind storm, but not less
than 200 fully-reversed cycles of load (displacementdependent and viscoelastic devices) or displacement
(viscous devices) at amplitudes expected in the design
wind storm, at a frequency equal to the inverse of the
fundamental period of the building (f1 = 1/T1).
Exception: Devices need not be subjected to these
tests if they are not subjected to wind-induced forces
or displacements, or if the design wind force is less
than the device yield or slip force.
2. Each device should be loaded with 5 fully reversed cycles at a displacement in the EDD corresponding to
1.5 D at a frequency equal to 1/TD calculated in
Section H6.2.1. Where the device characteristics may
vary with temperature, these tests shall be conducted
at a minimum of 3 temperatures which extend through
and beyond the expected temperature range.
Exception: Energy dissipation devices may be tested by other methods than those noted above provided
that: equivalency between the proposed method and
cyclic testing can be demonstrated; the proposed
method captures the dependence of the energy dissipation device response on ambient temperature, frequency of loading, and temperature rise during
testing; and the proposed method is approved by the
Engineer of Record.
3. If the force-deformation properties of the EDDs at any
displacement less than or equal to 1.5 D change by
more than 15 percent in testing frequency, from 0.5 f1,
to 2.0 f1, the preceding tests should be performed at
frequencies equal to f1 and 2.0 f1.
Exception: If reduced-scale prototypes are used to
qualify the rate dependent properties of energy dissipation devices, the reduced-scale prototypes should be
of the same type and materials, and manufactured with
the same processes and quality control procedures, as
full-scale prototypes, and tested at a similitude-scaled
frequency that represents the full-scale loading rates.
4. If the EDDs are subjected to substantial bilateral deformation, the preceding tests should also be per-
344
September 1999
5. For displacement-dependent devices, the average effective stiffness, average maximum and minimum
force at zero displacement, and average area of the
hysteresis loop (WD), calculated for each test in the sequence described in Section H10.2, shall fall within
the limits set by the Engineer of Record. For velocitydependent devices, the average maximum and minimum force at zero displacement, effective stiffness
(for viscoelastic devices only), and average area of the
hysteresis loop (WD) calculated for each test in the sequence described in Section H10.2, shall not differ by
more than plus or minus 15 percent from the values
specified by the Engineer of Record. For fluid viscous
devices, the force-velocity relationship shall not deviate by more than plus or minus 15 percent from the
specified theoretical relationship for the device.
Exceptions:
1. The 15 percent limit may be increased by the
Engineer of Record, provided that the increased
limit has been demonstrated by analysis to not
have a deleterious effect on the response of the
building
2. Fluid viscous energy dissipation devices need not
comply with this requirement.
3. Within each test of Section H10.2, the maximum
force and minimum force at zero displacement for a
prototype device for any one cycle does not differ by
more than plus or minus 15 percent from the average
maximum and minimum forces as calculated from all
cycles in that test.
Table AppH-2.
September 1999
Stories
Co
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.35
1.4
Effective Damping
Ratio, eff
(% of critical)
1.
Production Testing
1.0
1.0
10
1.3
1.2
20
1.8
1.5
30
2.3
1.7
TS = Cv / 2.5 Ca
345
Commentary
APPENDIX H
CH1
General
The Requirements presented herein for implementing passive energy dissipation devices (also termed dampers in
the commentary below) in buildings assume that the
dampers are being added to the lateral force resisting system primarily to reduce displacements in the building during earthquake shaking. The lateral force resisting system,
independent of the dampers and the damper support framing, is required to be complete per UBC 1629.6 and to
comply with all strength, drift, and detailing provisions of
the UBC.
These Requirements are based on the guidelines and
commentary set forth in Chapter 9 of FEMA 273 [FEMA,
1997]. Two of the three authors of Chapter 9 of FEMA 273
are members of SEAOC. The third author, Professor
Michael Constantinou of SUNY Buffalo, is herewith acknowledged as a key contributor to the development of
analysis, design, and implementation procedures for passive energy dissipation devices.
The primary reason for introducing dampers into a
building frame is to reduce displacements during earthquake shaking. A reduction in displacement is achieved by
adding either stiffness or energy dissipation (also termed
damping) to the frame. Metallic yielding, friction, and viscoelastic dampers add both stiffness and damping; viscous
dampers generally only add damping to a building frame.
The force-displacement relations of Figure CH-1 schematically illustrate the effect of adding different types of
346
These Requirements do not apply to the implementation of energy dissipation devices in seismic isolation systems because the displacement calculation procedures are
not applicable to buildings with low yield strength (equal
to the yield strength of the isolation system in this instance). The reader is referred to these Requirements for
seismic isolation (Section 150 et seq.) for information on
how to calculate displacements and implement dampers in
an isolation system.
CH2
Definitions
Figure AppCH-2 defines terms used throughout these Requirements. The dashed line enclosing the one-story,
one-bay of framing defines part of the energy dissipation
system. Other bays of framing that include energy dissipation devices and/or structural framing that transfer force
between the lateral force resisting system and the energy
dissipation devices are also included in the energy dissipation system.
CH3
No Commentary provided.
CH4
General Requirements
CH4.1
Classification of Component
Behavior
Fewer restrictions are placed on the use of time (response) history analysis to implement energy dissipation
devices. Linear response history analysis may be used if
the building frame remains essentially elastic in the design
earthquake. Essentially elastic response is achieved if the
demand-to-capacity ratio for each component is less than
2.0. This value was chosen for a number of reasons including:
1. The ultimate strength of structural components generally exceed the strength determined by analysis by a
wide margin.
2. Nominal strengths are reduced by capacity reduction
factors to estimate design strengths. (The product of
the ratio of the ultimate strength to the strength required by analysis and the inverse of the capacity reduction factor likely exceeds 2.0. See ATC [1995] for
more information.)
If the building frame remains essentially elastic, the
force-based procedures of the UBC can be used to check
component demands versus expected component
strengths. (See FEMA 273 for procedures to calculate expected component strengths.)
Nonlinear response history analysis can be used to implement dampers regardless of the degree of inelastic response in the building frame. If nonlinear procedures are
used, deformation demands must be checked against deformation capacities for deformation-controlled actions,
and actions must be checked against lower-bound estimates of component strengths for force-controlled actions.
Refer to FEMA 273 for information on deformation- and
force-controlled actions, component deformation capacities, and procedures for calculating lower-bound estimates
of component strengths.
CH4.3
347
TS /T1 where TS is the secant period at the point of maximum displacement, and T1 is the fundamental period of
the building as determined by Eigen analysis.
Steel-yielding dampers function in a manner very similar to shear links in eccentrically braced frames. Accordingly, steel-yielding dampers can be modeled as
conventional structural steel components (i.e., nominal
material properties and elastic stiffness) and may be included in the lateral force resisting system. Similar to all
other components in a steel frame, the force in a
steel-yielding damper must be less than its design yield
strength (equal to the nominal yield strength multiplied by
a capacity reduction factor of 0.75) in the design wind
storm. Conservatively, buildings incorporating
steel-yielding dampers in the lateral force resisting system
must be designed for forces calculated using a maximum
value of R equal to 6. (The value of 6.0 is smaller than the
value of 7.0 assigned to an eccentrically braced frame in
these Requirements.) If the steel-yielding dampers are being implemented in parallel with a lateral force resisting
system that is assigned a value of R smaller than 6.0, the
smaller value must be used to analyze and design the
damped lateral force resisting system.
CH4.4
No Commentary provided.
CH4.5
The total effective damping of the building frame, including the effects of the dampers is given by Equation
AppCH4-1. In this equation, is the inherent damping in
the structural frame that accounts for energy dissipation in
the framing system prior to significant yield. should not
be increased beyond 5 percent of critical. The term S is
the damping provided by the energy dissipation devices at
the point of maximum displacement. Values of S for velocity-dependent dampers are calculated in Section CH6;
S equals 0 for displacement-dependent dampers.
If nonlinear response history analysis is used to implement energy dissipation devices in a building frame, care
must be taken to not overestimate the inherent damping at
the point of maximum displacement. If the inherent damping is assumed to be equal to 5 percent of critical at the
point of maximum displacement, a smaller value must be
assigned to the mathematical model for analysis because
the inherent damping will be increased by a factor equal to
September 1999
CH5
Mathematical
Representation of Damping
Devices
These Requirements identify three types of energy dissipation devices: displacement-dependent, velocity-dependent, and other. Metallic yielding and friction devices are
classed as displacement-dependent dampers. Figure
AppCH-3 shows sample force-displacement relations for
displacement-dependent devices. Velocity-dependent devices include solid and fluid viscoelastic dampers and
fluid viscous dampers. Figure AppCH-4 shows sample
force-displacement relations for velocity-dependent
dampers. Other devices have characteristics that cannot be
classified as one of the two basic types depicted in Figures
CH-3 and CH-4. Examples of other devices include those
constructed using shape-memory (superelastic) alloys,
friction-spring assemblies with recentering capability, and
fluid dampers with restoring force. The reader is referred
to ATC [1993], EERI [1993], and Soong and Constantinou
[1994] for more information on this class of damper. Only
displacement-dependent and velocity-dependent dampers
are addressed in these Requirements.
Displacement-dependent dampers exhibit bilinear or
trilinear hysteretic, elasto-plastic or rigid-plastic behavior.
Details on the behavior of displacement-dependent devices can be found in Whittaker et al. [1991], Aiken et al.
[1993], ATC [1993], and Soong and Constantinou [1994].
Solid viscoelastic dampers are typically composed of
constrained layers of acrylic copolymers. Such dampers
have mechanical properties, which are dependent on the
frequency, temperature, and amplitude of the imposed
loading. Viscoelastic solid behavior can be modeled with
the standard linear model of Figure AppCH-5 using Equations AppCH5-1 through AppCH5-3. Fluid viscoelastic
dampers operate by shearing viscoelastic fluids, and have
response characteristics similar to those of solid viscoelastic dampers except that the fluid dampers have zero effective stiffness (Equation AppCH5-2) under static load.
Fluid viscoelastic behavior can be modeled with the Maxwell model of Figure AppCH-6. Pure viscous behavior can
be produced by forcing fluid through an orifice. Fluid viscous dampers may exhibit some stiffness if the excitation
frequency is high (i.e., greater than 4 Hz). In the absence
of stiffness, the force in a fluid viscous damper can be cal-
348
culated using Equation AppCH5-4. Derivations of Equations AppCH5-1 through CH5-4 can be found in ATC
[1993] and Soong and Constantinou [1994].
CH6
calculated as:
CH6.1
General
September 1999
Sa Te
- -------- t = C i ---B 4 2
i = 1,4
Eqn. AppCH6-1
where Ci are coefficients to relate expected inelastic displacements to elastic displacements (all greater than 1.0),
Te is the effective fundamental period of the building (an
improved measure of the fundamental period of the building up to first significant yielding), Sa is the 5 percent
damped spectral acceleration at period Te, and B is a reduction factor for values of viscous damping different from
5 percent of critical. The effective period is calculated using an estimate of the effective elastic stiffness (Ke), where
the effective stiffness is defined in Figure AppCH-7.
In Figure AppCH-7, the multilinear force-displacement relation (solid line) is approximated by a bilinear relation (dashed line). The elastic stiffness of the bilinear
relation is termed the effective stiffness.
The FEMA 273 provisions recognize that the primary
benefit of adding displacement-dependent dampers to a
building frame is that of added stiffness. As such, there is
no calculation of added damping for displacement-dependent devices. Adding stiffness to a framing system reduces
the effective period and displacements of the building
frame. See Equation AppCH6-1, wherein a reduction in
the effective period will generally reduce the maximum inelastic displacement (termed the target displacement in
FEMA 273).
The addition of velocity-dependent dampers to a
building frame will reduce displacements through a combination of added damping and added stiffness. Some velocity-dependent dampers exhibit little or no stiffness
(e.g., fluid viscous devices operating at frequencies below
5 Hertz) and the primary benefit of such devices is added
damping.
The Blue Book Requirements for calculating displacements in framing systems that include energy dissipation devices mirror those set forth in FEMA 273 for use
with the nonlinear static procedure. Namely, displacements are reduced with displacement-dependent dampers
through added stiffness only, and with velocity-dependent
dampers through added stiffness (if any) and added damping.
349
C D , where C is the damping coefficient and D is the relative velocity between the two ends of the damper. Assuming that the relative displacement history is harmonic
with amplitude D and frequency D , the maximum ve-
350
Eqn. AppCH6-2
2
D = D D = -----TD D
Eqn. AppCH6-3
Equation AppCH6-5 provides an estimate of the maximum displacement of a yielding system subject to earthquake shaking characterized by an earthquake with a
5 percent damped spectral acceleration ordinate equal to
Sa at an effective elastic period of Te. The maximum displacement is that of the control node of the building where
the control node is typically the node associated with the
center of mass at the roof. The equation assumes a relation
between mean elastic and mean inelastic displacements.
The coefficient C0 serves to extrapolate the displacement of the generalized first modal mass to the roof level.
Either the first mode participation factor or an approximate value from Table AppCH-1 should be used for C0.
The coefficient C1 accounts for the difference between the maximum inelastic and elastic displacements in
buildings with full and stable hysteresis loops. The values
are loosely based on the studies of Miranda [1991] and
Nassar and Krawinkler [1991]. For buildings either designed using large values of R (greater than 5) or located
in the near field to a major active fault, the values assigned
to C1 may not be conservative [Whittaker et al., 1998].
Interstory displacements are estimated using the estimate of the maximum inelastic displacement (DDn in these
Requirements). Floor displacements are calculated by
September 1999
Equations AppCH6-6 and AppCH6-7 present an approximate means by which to calculate the secant period
at the maximum inelastic displacement of the building.
Using the force-displacement relation of Figure AppCH-1,
the secant period at the maximum inelastic displacements
can be calculated as:
K
T s = T e ------e
Ks
Eqn. AppCH6-4
CH7
CH7.1
Time Histories
September 1999
CH7.2
Analysis Procedures
CH8
Detailed Design
Requirements
CH8.1
Environmental Conditions
351
Multi-Axis Movement
No Commentary provided.
CH8.4
CH8.4.1
The
factor D for reliability and redundancy shall be set equal
to 1.4 if less than four dampers total are provided in each
story of the building. If three or fewer dampers are used in
any one story of a building, D shall be set equal to 1.4 regardless of the number and location of the dampers in any
other story. The value of 1.4 is preliminary and mutable at
the time of this writing, and is based solely on the judgement of the authors of the Requirements. The intent of the
Requirement is to encourage engineers to use a large num-
Component actions and deformations can be estimated using either the static lateral force procedure of
Section CH4.2.1 or response history analysis per
Section CH4.2.2. If response history analysis is used,
forces and deformations in each component, at each time
step, must be checked against the limiting values defined
by the engineer. If the static lateral force procedure is used,
forces must be checked as follows:
EDS.
352
September 1999
CH8.5
Component actions at the point of maximum acceleration can be calculated using information on the forces at
the points of maximum displacement (FD) and velocity
(FV). Assuming that the building frame is a viscoelastic
system undergoing harmonic displacement at a frequency
fD =1/TD (where TD is the secant period at maximum displacement), the forces at maximum acceleration (FA) can
be calculated to be equal to:
F A = CF 1 F D + CF 2 F V
Eqn. AppCH8-1
force components from the LFRS, which have been determined using R factors with force components, resulting
from energy dissipation devices.
Structural members of the EDS should resist forces in
the elastic stress range to provide stable and predictable
movements at dissipation devices. In order to achieve this,
EDDs should generally not be connected directly to elements of the LFRS (such as beams in moment frames)
which are designed to resist seismic forces in the inelastic
range. Beams intended for inelastic behavior may still be
required to transmit some secondary EDS forces as collector elements, therefore stress limitations are provided to
establish reasonable limits for EDS stress components.
Other beams, as well as columns, braces, diaphragms,
struts and foundations, should be designed using the earthquake design force multipliers specified. Soil strengths
used to determine foundation or sliding strengths should
represent ultimate rather than working stress soil properties.
Because bracing members that transmit only EDS
forces are designed to resist transmitted forces in the elastic stress range, normal code multipliers intended to correct for less ductile performance are not considered to be
applicable.
September 1999
To ensure effective control over product quality, the vendor should establish and maintain a manufacturing/processing control system, including written process
specifications and procedures. It is strongly recommended
that the quality control program be designed to ensure that
manufacturing, processing inspection, and testing be accomplished in accordance with a recognized quality assurance system, such as International Standards Organization
(ISO) 9001.
The extent and detail of a suitable quality control program will likely vary depending on the complexity of the
energy dissipation devices. For example, relatively simple
metallic yielding devices may only require some controls
for metallurgy and cutting and/or welding processes, while
devices that are complex assemblages of many subcomponents should have more detailed programs.
353
CH9
Design Review
CH10
CH10.1
General
Prototype Tests
CH10.2.1 General.
354
September 1999
A custom, or
one-off, energy dissipation device design with specific
mathematical behavior will require unique prototype testing for each device type. However, manufacturers may be
able to produce standardized energy dissipation device designs, in terms of design strength and operating behavior.
A standard set of prototype tests could then be used to
meet prototype testing requirements. The adequacy of
such a standard set of tests for any particular project
should be determined by the Engineer of Record.
ment Characteristics. The determination of energy dissipation device properties and subsequent evaluation of
adequacy should use consistent definitions for properties
and parameters.
CH10.2.6 System Adequacy.
Negative incremental
stiffness is ordinarily assumed to be indicative of unstable
behavior in displacement dependent devices. It should be
recognized that in some cases for these devices, and for all
velocity-dependent devices, negative incremental stiffness
is an implicit feature of their behavior and is not detrimental.
The 15 percent tolerance range is generally regarded
as a maximum acceptable range to meet design assumptions without significant deviation of actual versus modeled behavior. A different tolerance range may be more
appropriate for a particular type of device, or may be acceptable in specific project instances. In such cases, the acceptable range of device properties should be
appropriately incorporated in the design process, either by
utilizing more sophisticated modeling techniques, or by
performing multiple analyses to account for the actual
range of device properties.
CH10.3
Production Testing
September 1999
References
Aiken, I.D., D.K. Nims, A.S. Whittaker, and J.M. Kelly,
1993. Testing of passive energy dissipation systems,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 9, No. 3. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
ATC, 1993. Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Isolation,
Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control,
Report No. ATC-17-1. Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, CA.
ATC, 1995. A Critical Review of Current Approaches To
Earthquake Resistant Design, Report No. ATC-34.
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Constantinou, M.C. and M. D. Symans, 1993.
Experimental Study of Seismic Response of
Buildings With Supplemental Fluid Dampers, The
Structural Design of Tall Buildings. John Wiley &
Sons, London.
Constantinou, M.C., T.T. Soong, and G.F. Dargush, 1996.
Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for Structural
Design and Retrofit. NCEER Monograph, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
N.Y.
EERI, 1993. Theme Issue: Passive Energy Dissipation,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 9, No. 3. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
FEMA, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. FEMA 273.
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Miranda, E., 1991. Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of
Existing Buildings, Ph.D. diss., Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Nassar, A. and H. Krawinkler, 1991. Seismic Demands for
SDOF and MDOF Systems, Report No. 95. John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Soong, T.T. and M.C. Constantinou, 1994. Passive and
Active Structural Vibration Control in Civil
Engineering. Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York.
Tsai, K-C, H-W. Chen, C-P. Hong, and Y-F. Su, 1993.
Design of Steel Triangular Plate Energy Absorbers
for Seismic-Resistant Construction, Earthquake
Spectra. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, CA.
355
356
September 1999
September 1999
357
Figure AppCH-6.
358
September 1999
Figure AppCH-8.
September 1999
359
360
September 1999
APPENDIX I
Part B
Force-Displacement Approach
These Tentative Guidelines represent work in progress, are intended for trial use only, and require significant case
studies before they can be recommended for practical use. Readers are encouraged to provide feedback to the SEAOC
Seismology Committee regarding practical application of these Tentative Guidelines.
361
362
September 1999
APPENDIX I
Introduction
In Appendix B of the 1996 SEAOC Blue Book, a conceptual framework for performance-based seismic design was
introduced into the Requirements and Commentary for the
first time. This framework was based on SEAOCs Vision
2000 report, published in April of 1995, which was prepared for the California Office of Emergency Services. In
Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Vision 2000 report, specific
goals were suggested for future editions of the SEAOC
Blue Book so that it would incorporate performance-based
engineering (PBE) concepts. The suggested modifications
and timing were as follows.
1. 1995 Blue Book (actually the 1996 Blue Book)
a. Performance definitions added to appendix.
2. 1997 Blue Book (actually the 1999 Blue Book)
a. Matrix of performance objectives added to
appendix.
b. PBE Framework added to appendix.
c. Nonstructural provisions added to appendix.
d. Current force/strength procedures modified in
code pages and commentary.
3. Year 2000 Blue Book
a. Performance definitions moved from appendix to
code pages.
b. Matrix of performance objectives moved from
appendix to code pages.
c. PBE framework moved from appendix to code
pages.
d. Nonstructural provisions moved from appendix to
code pages.
e. Prescriptive design approach added to appendix.
September 1999
f.
Significant Finding
One of the more significant findings of the subcommittee
was that, typically, the sizing of structural members is governed by elastic design for the lowest level earthquake (50year return period for BSO). Thus, structures can be sized
for the elastic level and checked for stability at the more
extreme earthquake levels.
364
Other Considerations
In order to achieve performance goals, performance-based
seismic engineering must address a full range of engineering design and quality assurance issues, in addition to
ground motion and the primary structural system design
issues. Issues such as nonstructural component design, design implementation, design review, and construction
quality assurance are all important if performance objectives are to be achieved. In the guideline documents that
follow, the subcommittee has attempted to address these
subjects in a manner that will encourage PBSE to proceed
in a consistent and reasonably comprehensive manner.
Appropriate application of PBSE procedures can be
expected to improve the seismic resistant design of structures and nonstructural systems and enhance performance
reliability. However, it must be recognized that many uncertainties remain in seismic design and that seismic performance cannot be guaranteed.
Minority Opinion
Sigmund A. Freeman
This Appendix represents a work in progress by the Performance-Based Seismic Engineering Ad Hoc Subcommittee. It has been developed over a period of two years.
Many of the individual sections have not been coordinated
into a single workable document and have not gone
through the process of peer review. With some additional
work, this document could be made into a useful tool for
the basis of a consensus document.
SEAOC and other members of the Subcommittee
have chosen to publish this document because it contains
useful information. However, there is a strong opinion by
this writer that this document should not be published until
the document has been edited and reviewed for consistency and usability. A brief review by this writer, using simple design examples, found inconsistencies and instances
where the document is not workable and the results are potentially misleading.
In its present form, this Appendix should be used only
for review purposes and in sample cases to check for validity of the proposed procedures.
September 1999
APPENDIX I, PART A
These Tentative Guidelines represent work in progress, are intended for trial use only, and require significant case
studies before they can be recommended for practical use. Readers are encouraged to provide feedback to the SEAOC
Seismology Committee regarding practical application of these Tentative Guidelines.
365
366
September 1999
APPENDIX IA
IA-1
Introduction
IA-1.1
Background
Purpose
These Tentative Guidelines present interim recommendations developed to permit immediate application of the
PBSE concepts using currently available design guidelines
and standards. Specifically, these PBSE Tentative Guidelines are based on SEAOCs strength design provisions
found in Chapter 1 of the Blue Book with appropriate
PBSE modifications. The term tentative is used herein to
indicate that the Part IA procedure is intended to be replaced by the Part IB displacement-based procedure once
the displacement-based procedure is further developed, refined, and calibrated.
367
Intent
Limitations
IA-2
Performance Objectives
IA-2.1
Introduction
Performance Levels
A performance level describes a limiting damage condition that may be considered satisfactory for a given building and a given ground motion. The limiting condition is
described by the physical damage within the building, the
threat to life safety of the buildings occupants created by
the damage, and the post-earthquake serviceability of the
building.
System performance levels can be defined to describe
the expected structural and nonstructural performance in a
building. For this Interim Guideline, five structural performance (SP) levels and five nonstructural performance
(NP) levels are defined in qualitative terms (see Figure
AppIA-1). Building performance is then described by defining structural and nonstructural performance separately
and in combination. For example, a building performance
target may be specified as SP1-NP3, meaning Performance Level 1 for the structural system and Performance
Level 3 for nonstructural systems, for a given seismic hazard level.
Force-based design criteria are specified herein for
use to achieve the defined performance levels within ex-
September 1999
NP1
NP2
NP3
NP4
NP5
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
September 1999
Building Performance
Building performance can be defined in terms of combinations of the structural performance levels and nonstructural performance levels. Any SP-NP combination can be
specified, however, for economic reasons, it is expected
that the structural performance levels will typically be
specified to meet or exceed the specified nonstructural
performance.
Generally, buildings meeting performance levels
SP1-NP1 (Level 1) remain operational. Buildings meeting
at least SP2-NP2 (Level 2) are occupiable but are not fully
operational and will require repair. Buildings meeting at
least SP3-NP3 (Level 3) are life-safe but need to be evacuated for repairs. Buildings at SP4-NP4 (Level 4) have a
substantially reduced margin against collapse and should
369
Performance Objectives
September 1999
IA-3
Engineering Procedures
This section presents interim recommendations for specific engineering procedures to be employed in the performance-based seismic engineering of buildings and
structures.
The following factors are essential to producing structures with predictable seismic performance:
1. Site selection
2. Characterization of design ground motions
3. Structural materials and system selection
4. Configuration and continuity of load path
5. Detailing
6. Strength and stiffness
7. Nonstructural system and services
8. Design and construction documents
9. Project design peer review
10. Design plan check
11. Construction quality assurance
These interim recommendations are based on the
above framework, which is adapted from SEAOCs Vision 2000 framework. The engineering procedures outlined are an adaptation of SEAOCs strength design
provisions and utilize a traditional forced-based design
and analysis approach. These procedures entail what is, in
effect, a four level seismic design. Four levels of seismic
demand can be compared simply by comparing the reduced base shears resulting from each level of ground motion. Then a single level design can be performed based on
the governing demand.
In general, the design procedures recommended herein are intended to enable performance-based engineering
with improved reliability compared to that achieved using
the current SEAOC strength design procedures alone. Other rational procedures, such as those outlined in Part IB of
these Tentative Guidelines, may be employed to further
enhance the reliability of performance-based seismic design. Such alternative procedures should, at a minimum,
September 1999
Site Selection
Site plays an important role in overall seismic performance of a structure. The project site should be assessed
for its suitability based on the desired performance objective. Table AppIA-1 gives the limitations that apply to the
selection of sites for various performance objectives.
These limitations may be superseded provided that adverse site hazards are mitigated in the design, as substantiated by analysis.
IA-3.2
Ground Motion
Detailing
In order to attain reliable seismic performance, it is essential that elements of the structure be detailed in a manner
that will permit the required inelastic deformations to occur without excessive damage.
In order to achieve this, all structures, regardless of the
intended performance objectives, should be detailed in accordance with the requirements contained in the UBC for
Seismic Zones 3 and 4.
IA-3.6
The lateral strength and stiffness of the lateral bracing system should be evaluated and designed in accordance with
the criteria contained in this section. These criteria are
based on the linear elastic force-based analysis procedures
used in the 1997 UBC and the 1999 SEAOC strength provisions, which are the Requirements found in Chapter 1 of
this edition of the Blue Book.
372
The design and analysis procedure should be at minimum a two level procedure, in which not less than two levels of earthquake are considered. These two earthquake
levels should include the expected yield level or service
level earthquake and either EQ-III or EQ-IV. Typically,
one earthquake level can be shown to govern the design,
by comparing the appropriately reduced base shears. Then,
the performance-based design of the structure can be
based on the single governing earthquake.
IA-3.6.1 Analysis Procedure. The structural analysis
should follow the elastic dynamic analysis procedure per
Section 1631 of Uniform Building Code 1997, for any performance objective, or the linear elastic static procedure
per Section 1630 of the UBC for the Basic Safety Objective for buildings up to two stories in height.
IA-3.6.2 Strength Design.
September 1999
September 1999
Reliable seismic performance of nonstructural components and services is also essential if buildings are to
achieve their functional objectives. Nonstructural components include architectural, mechanical, and electrical
components that are permanently installed in buildings.
The seismic design of nonstructural components is
typically acceleration sensitive or deformation sensitive.
In Table AppIA-6, the analytical method that is used to design nonstructural components is specified. Unless otherwise specified, all nonstructural components should be
designed to satisfy these requirements.
IA-3.7.1 Acceleration Sensitive Design.
Items that
are acceleration sensitive should be designed on a strength
basis using design lateral force equations of the Blue Book
provisions for nonstructural systems and using the values
of Rp provided in Table AppIA-7. Such design should be
based on EQ-III.
Alternatively, nonstructural systems may be designed
to remain elastic at two times the spectral acceleration expected to cause the primary lateral force resisting system
to yield.
IA-3.7.2 Displacement Sensitive Design. For items
that are drift sensitive, the components should be designed
to accommodate the drifts calculated for the structure.
Guidance regarding the drift performance of various nonstructural components is provided in Appendix B of this
Blue Book.
373
Eqn. AppIA-1
Eqn. AppIA-2
Where:
Dp =
Dr =
Drift ratio
IA-3.8
In
order to meet the seismic performance objective, it is essential that responsibility and scope of services for the
seismic design for all structural and nonstructural systems
be clearly defined and understood by all design professionals involved in the project. The lead design professional should prepare a matrix of design responsibility. For
those items and systems for which the supplier is responsible for design and installation, the scope of services of
the design professional should clearly indicate who has responsibility for preparing seismic bracing and anchorage
detail drawings and calculations, and when these documents need to be submitted to the lead professional for review. The lead professional also needs to clearly indicate
how installation details need to be coordinated and how
physical conflicts are to be avoided or resolved.
IA-3.8.3 Design Documents. Design criteria documents should be prepared for structural and nonstructural
documents. These documents should indicate the design
objectives, design ground motions levels, design criteria,
assumptions, and design concepts.
Rp =
E =
374
Construction
documents consist of the construction scope of work,
drawings, and specifications. The scope of work should
September 1999
Where the purpose of these provisions is to achieve enhanced and more reliable performance beyond the BSO,
project design peer review (PDPR) must be performed.
The purpose of PDPR is to examine the design objectives,
including reliable performance; the criteria for determining acceptable performance; and any related design assumptions and concepts. This independent evaluation
increases the likelihood that the goal of enhanced performance will be achieved.
A more thorough discussion of how to implement
PDPR is included in references 1 and 2 of the Commentary. Those discussions include the purpose and objectives
of PDPR, Qualifications of the peer reviewer, scope of
provided services, responsibility, reporting, resolution of
differences between the peer reviewer and the engineer of
record, written agreement, and limitations.
IA-3.9.1 Scope of Services.
The PDPR should be initiated in the schematic design phase to allow evaluation of
major engineering decisions. The scope and responsibility
should be identified in a written agreement between the
owner and the peer reviewer. The scope, timing, and
schedule of the peer review should be made available to
the Engineer of Record (ER). The Scope should include
review, discussion with the ER, resolution of differences,
and a written report to the owner of the design objectives,
the design criteria, assumptions, and design concepts,
which are the elements and connections required to
September 1999
IA-3.10
Where the purpose of these provisions is to achieve enhanced and more reliable performance beyond the BSO,
additional plan checking should be required beyond that
provided to assure compliance with the building code. The
purpose of this additional plan checking is to confirm that
the design as presented in the construction documents conforms to the design assumptions, concepts, and criteria
that have been confirmed in the PDPR. The additional plan
checking will likely be done by the peer reviewer. The
scope and responsibility should be defined in a written
agreement with the Owner. Additional discussion is included in the ATC publication Quality Assurance Procedures.
IA-3.10.1 Scope. The additional plan checking beyond that required to assure compliance with the building
code should be specific to confirm that the construction
documents are consistent with the design criteria, concepts, and assumptions. The plan checker should also review and confirm that the proposed structural observation
and testing and inspection program will provide the construction quality assurance necessary to ensure conformance with the construction documents.
IA-3.10.2
The
qualifications and responsibilities of the plan checker will
be similar to those of the peer reviewer, although he will
be constrained to checking whether the construction documents and proposed construction quality assurance are
consistent with what has already been agreed to by the Engineer of Record and the peer reviewer. The plan checker
does not have the responsibility to examine the appropriateness of the project design objectives and criteria but
Qualifications and Responsibility.
375
must confine the scope of his review to whether the construction documents will actually accomplish the specified
criteria.
IA-3.11
To ensure general conformance to the construction documents, structural observation should be required of the Engineer of Record at significant construction stages and at
the completion of the structural system. Structural observation does not supplant any necessary continuous inspections or the building inspectors progress inspections.
The significant construction stages and the structural
elements and connections to be observed should be determined by the Engineer of Record, confirmed by the peer
reviewer and plan checker, and identified on the construction documents.
The construction documents must provide for and allow the structural observer to perform his observations in
a responsible manner. There can be no interference from
the structural observer.
IA-3.11.1 Scope. As discussed above, the owner
should employ the Engineer of Record to provide structural observation at significant construction stages and at
the completion of the structural system. The scope should
be specified in a written agreement and should state that
the structural observer will visit the project at each significant construction stage as defined on the construction
documents and will observe those elements and connections specified on the construction documents. The structural observer is to identify all significant errors or
deficiencies in the specified elements and connections. He
should report in writing on the same to the owner, contractor, and building inspector and should revisit the project to
observe the correction of those errors and deficiencies in a
timely manner. He should submit a final written observation report at completion of the structural system when all
work is in general conformance with construction documents and any approved changes.
376
IA-3.11.2
IA-3.11.3
IA-3.11.4 Testing and Inspection Program. The Engineer of Record should determine the required material
testing and continuous inspection of those aspects of the
project that are necessary to achieve the design objectives.
The testing and inspection program should be reviewed
and confirmed by the peer reviewer, the plan checker and
should be should be administered by the Engineer of
Record or the structural observer. The responsibilities for
administering the testing and inspection program should
be clearly indicated by written agreement with the Engineer of Record or the structural observer.
September 1999
Enhanced Objective 1
(EO1)
Enhanced Objective 2
(EO2)
d 200 feet
d 500 feet
d 1,000 feet
d 100 feet
d 200 feet
d 500 feet
Liquefaction Potential
Low to negligible
Negligible
Landslide Potential
Low to negligible
Negligible
Tsunami/Inundation Potential
Low to negligible
Negligible
Soil Types/Profiles
1.
2.
The limitations of this table apply to the selection of a site for buildings and/or structures designed to various performance objectives
unless the effects of such hazards can be shown to be mitigated.
Buildings designed to EO1 and EO2 should not be constructed within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone or known fault rupture zone
unless adequate measures are taken to control the effects of this hazard.
September 1999
377
Table AppIA-2.
Recommended Limitations on Structural Materials and Systems
(by Performance Objectives)
Performance Objective1, 4
Basic Structural
System
Bearing Wall System
Basic
Safety
EO1
EO2
65 feet
65 feet
NR2
NR
NR
NR
a. Concrete
160 feet
65 feet
NR
b. Masonry
160 feet
65 feet
NR
65 feet
NR
NR
a. Steel
160 feet
65 feet
NR
b. Concrete
NR
NR
NR
c. Heavy timber
65 feet
NR
NR
240 feet
240 feet
240 feet
65 feet
65 feet
NR
65 feet
NR
NR
a. Concrete
240 feet
240 feet
240 feet
b. Masonry
160 feet
160 feet
NR
a. Steel
160 feet
65 feet
NR
b. Concrete
NR
NR
NR
c. Heavy timber
65 feet
NR
NR
240 feet
240 feet
240 feet
a. Steel
NL3
NL
160 feet
b. Concrete
NL
NL
160 feet
160 feet
65 feet
65 feet
NR
NR
NR
a. Steel
160 feet
65 feet
NR
b. Concrete
NR
NR
NR
2. Shear walls
3. Shear walls
378
September 1999
Basic
Safety
EO1
EO2
1. Shear walls
a. Concrete with SMRF
NL
NL
NL
160 feet
160 feet
NR
NR
NR
NR
160 feet
160 feet
NR
160 feet
65 feet
NR
NR
NR
NR
NL
NL
NL
160 feet
160 feet
65 feet
NL
65 feet
NR
160 feet
65 feet
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NL
NL
NL
160 feet
160 feet
65 feet
35 feet
NR
NR
2. Steel EBF
Cantilevered Column
System
1.
2.
3.
4.
September 1999
Height limit
NR = not recommended
NL = no limit
The limitations of this table may be superseded if behavior can be shown to be acceptable through appropriate
analysis.
379
EO1
EO2
1. Torsional Irregularity
When diaphragms are not flexible, and maximum story drift calculated
including accidental torsion at one end of the structure transverse to an axis
is more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts of two ends of the
structure.
NR2
NR
2. Reentrant Corners
Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force resisting system
contain reentrant corners where both projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the
structure in the given direction.
NR
NR
4. Out-of-Plane Offsets
Discontinuities in a lateral force path, such as out-of-plane offsets of the
vertical elements.
NR
NR
5. Nonparallel Systems
The vertical lateral load resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric
about the major orthogonal axes of the lateral force resisting system.
NR
Irregularity
3. Diaphragm Discontinuity
1.
2.
380
The limitations of this table may be superseded if the effects of hazards resulting from such irregularity can be
shown to be mitigated through appropriate analysis.
NR = not recommended
September 1999
EO1
EO2
NR2
NR
NR
NR
a. The effective mass of any story is more than 120 percent of the effective
mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need
not be considered.
NR
b. The effective mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective
mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need
not be considered.
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
a. The story strength in a story is less than 100 percent of that in the story
above or more than 200 percent of that in the story above.
NR
b. The story strength in a story is less than 80 percent of that in the story
above.
NR
NR
NR
Irregularity
1.
2.
September 1999
The limitations of this table may be superseded if the effects of hazards resulting from such irregularity can be
shown to be mitigated through appropriate analysis.
NR = not recommended
381
Basic Structural
System
Performance Levels
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP41
0.012
0.020
0.030
NR
NR
NR
NR
a. Concrete
0.004
0.009
0.014
0.021
b. Masonry
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.018
NR
NR
NR
NR
a. Steel
0.004
0.006
0.010
0.015
b. Concrete
NR
NR
NR
NR
c. Heavy timber
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.004
0.013
0.022
0.032
0.012
0.020
0.030
NR
NR
NR
NR
a. Concrete
0.004
0.009
0.014
0.020
b. Masonry
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.018
a. Steel
0.004
0.006
0.010
0.015
b. Concrete
NR
NR
NR
NR
c. Heavy timber
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.004
0.009
0.015
0.022
a. Steel
0.005
0.015
0.025
0.038
b. Concrete
0.005
0.015
0.025
0.038
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.018
NR
NR
NR
NR
a. Steel
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.018
b. Concrete
NR
NR
NR
NR
2. Shear walls
Building Frame
System3
3. Shear walls
382
September 1999
Performance Levels
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP41
1. Shear walls
a. Concrete with SMRF
0.004
0.010
0.016
0.024
0.004
0.009
0.014
0.021
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.004
0.009
0.014
0.021
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.018
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.004
0.013
0.022
0.033
0.004
0.010
0.016
0.024
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.022
0.004
0.007
0.010
0.015
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.004
0.009
0.015
0.022
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.018
NR
NR
NR
NR
2. Steel EBF
1.
2.
3.
September 1999
Drift limits tabulated for SP4 are set at 1.5 times those for SP3. Structural designs should be analyzed to verify that
the maximum ductility demands do not exceed the maximum ductility capacities at the yielding elements.
NR = not recommended
Drift values for concrete and masonry shear walls are based on H/L in the range of 2 to 3. Alternate values may be
used where substantiated by analysis.
383
Analysis
Method1
1. Elements of structures
a. Walls including the following:
F/D
Exterior walls at or above the ground floor and parapets braced above their centers of gravity
F/D
F
F/D
F
F
b. Chimneys, stacks, and trussed towers supported on or projecting above the roof
Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below the centers of mass
Laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at or above the centers of mass
e. Permanent floor-supported cabinets and book stacks more than 6 fee (1829 mm) in height,
including contents
f. Anchorage and lateral bracing for suspended ceilings and light fixtures
PR/FD
F
F/D
3. Equipment
a. Tanks and vessels (include contents), including support system
b. Electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment and associated conduit and ductwork and piping
PR
c. Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below their
center of mass
4. Other components
1.
384
F = Force analysis
F/D = Analytical procedure: force and relative displacement analysis
PR = Prequalification required
September 1999
Table AppIA-7. Nonstructural Components: Horizontal Force Factors ap and Rp as a Function of Performance Objectives
Elements of Structures and Nonstructural Components and Equipment
Rp
ap
EO2
EO1
BSO
1. Elements of structures
a. Walls including the following:
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
Exterior walls at or above the ground floor and parapets braced above their
centers of gravity
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
4.0
c. Connections for prefabricated structural elements other than walls (see also
Section 163.2.2)
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
2. Nonstructural components
a. Exterior and interior ornamentations and appendages
b. Chimneys, stacks, and trussed towers supported on or projecting above the roof
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
4.0
e. Permanent floor-supported cabinets and book stacks more than 6 fee (1829
mm) in height, including contents
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
f. Anchorage and lateral bracing for suspended ceilings and light fixtures
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
i. Partitions
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
3. Equipment
4. Other components
September 1999
385
Commentary:
1. The performance objective matrix illustrates the typical
performance levels to be achieved at each hazard level to meet
the three defined performance objectives.
2. Meeting one performance level at one hazard level does not
indicate that the specified performance objective is met.
Performance should be checked at each hazard level to verify
that the selected objective is met.
3. The performance objectives illustrated above indicate the same
performance objectives for both structural and nonstructural
systems. Alternatively, separate and different objectives can be
selected for the structural and nonstructural systems.
Figure AppIA-1.
386
September 1999
Structural
Performance Level
Qualitative
Description
V EQUIP
------------------VY
Nonstructural
Performance Level
Nonstructural
Damage Ratio
SP-1
Operational
NP-1
0%-10%
SP-2
Occupiable
R/2
NP-2
5%-30%
SP-3
Life safe
NP-3
20%-50%
SP-4
Near collapse
1.5R
NP-4
40%-80%
SP-5
Collapsed
NP-5
> 70%
Note: The strength acceptance criteria recommended for design for SP1 defines a point well to the left of SP1 on the above
figure. See sections IA-2.2 and IA-3.6.2 for further discussion.
Figure AppIA-2.
September 1999
387
Figure AppIA-3.
388
September 1999
APPENDIX I, PART B
These Tentative Guidelines represent work in progress, are intended for trial use only, and require significant case
studies before they can be recommended for practical use. Readers are encouraged to provide feedback to the SEAOC
Seismology Committee regarding practical application of these Tentative Guidelines.
389
390
September 1999
APPENDIX I, PART B
Force-Displacement Approach
IB-1
Introduction
IB-1.1
General
Purpose
Scope
hancements in the level and rigor of the analysis and design procedures.
IB-1.4
Significant Features
392
IB-2
Performance Objectives
IB-2.1
General
Performance objectives are defined in terms of performance levels to be achieved at several specified seismic
hazard levels (design earthquake levels). In these Tentative Guidelines, three typical performance objectives are
defined based on common occupancy considerations, as illustrated in Figure AppIB-2. Other enhanced performance
objectives that exceed code minimums can be defined by
the engineer in consultation with the client/owner.
The performance objective for a given project should
be selected by the engineer and owner prior to design. In
addition to meeting selected performance objectives, the
design must meet or exceed the minimum requirements of
the applicable building code.
IB-2.2
A set of seismic hazard levels, or ground motion levels, should be established for design. In these Tentative
Guidelines, four hazard levels, equivalent to frequent, occasional, rare, and maximum considered events, are defined in Section IB-3.3 and are designated as EQ-I, EQ-II,
EQ-III, and EQ-IV, respectively.
IB-2.3
Performance Levels
September 1999
SP1
SP2
SP3
SP4
SP5
NP1
NP2
NP3
September 1999
NP4
NP5
Building Performance
Building performance can be defined in terms of combinations of the structural performance levels and nonstructural performance levels. Any SP-NP combination can be
specified; however, for economic reasons, it is expected
that the structural performance levels will typically be
specified to meet or exceed the specified nonstructural
performance.
Generally, buildings that meet performance levels
SP1-NP1 (Level 1) remain operational; buildings that
meet at least SP2-NP2 (Level 2) are occupiable but not operational and will require repair; buildings that meet at
least SP3-NP3 (Level 3) are life safe but need to be evacuated for repairs; buildings at SP4-NP4 (Level 4) have a
substantially reduced margin against collapse and should
be evacuated for shoring and repairs; and buildings at
SP5-NP5 (Level 5) may be a total loss.
Again, note that building performance can be targeted
for different levels of structural versus nonstructural performance, such as SP1-NP3, for a specific level of ground
motion.
IB-2.4
393
Enhanced Objective 2 is similar to the one typically considered for safety critical facilities such as base-isolated
emergency command and control centers or high hazard
nuclear process facilities. This objective encompasses
SP1-NP1 performance in the EQ-I, EQ-II, and EQ-III, and
SP2-NP2 performance for EQ-IV.
IB-2.7
IB-3
IB-3.1
General
IB-3.3
Recommended design ground motions for use in high seismic regions include the frequent, occasional, rare, and
maximum considered events as defined in Table AppIB-1.
Alternate seismic hazard levels can be used where appropriate, considering the local hazard environment and the
owner's objectives.
394
Design ground motions should be based either on sitespecific seismic hazard analysis or on the generalized design spectra described in Sections IB-3.4 and IB-3.5 for
the BSO. Procedures for determining earthquake ground
motion response parameters for the various earthquake
levels are provided in Attachment 1 of these Tentative
Guidelines. The MCE may be determined from the IBC
2000 maps for the maximum considered earthquake.
IB-3.4
Acceleration-Displacement
Response Spectra (ADRS)
The design ground motions can be represented by the generalized acceleration-displacement response spectrum in
Figures AppIB-4 and AppIB-5. For greater performance
reliability and for higher enhanced objectives such as EO1
or EO2, it is recommended that site-specific response
spectra be considered.
IB-3.5
IB-4
IB-4.1
General
Performance-based seismic engineering design and analysis procedures should account for the inelastic force-deformation behavior of the structure and should predict the
seismic performance of the structural and nonstructural
systems with a measurable and acceptable level of reliability. The procedures should quantify the structural seismic
response in terms of force, displacement, and inelastic deformation demands on elements and systems in order to
compare the design capacity of the structure to the expected seismic demand for the considered seismic hazard
levels.
September 1999
IB-4.2
Conceptual Design
IB-4.2.1
IB-4.2.2
System Regularity. Structural system regularity in configuration, layout, and proportioning should
be maintained to the greatest extent feasible to minimize
unpredictable and undesirable seismic responses. Structural irregularities and other potential sources of uncertainty should be accounted for in the structural design and
analysis.
have established ductile detailing standards for which inelastic force-deformation characteristics and usable ductility limits have been established by testing. Recommended
lateral force-resisting systems and detailing standards that
meet this criteria are listed in Section IB-4.3.
System Yield Mechanisms. System yield
IB-4.2.4
mechanisms should be designated and designed to provide
controlled and acceptable inelastic deformation patterns in
the global structural response. Capacity design principles
or similar yield-control design approaches should be used
to control and design for the inelastic response. Typical
system yield mechanisms are illustrated in Table AppIB-3.
Drift Compatibility. Structural systems and
IB-4.2.5
nonstructural systems should be selected considering drift
compatibility. Structural systems should be capable of
providing sufficient stiffness to be compatible with the deformation tolerance of the nonstructural systems selected
for the design. Characteristic drift limits for typical structural systems are described in Section IB-4.4 and are tabulated in Table AppIB-4.
IB-4.3
Structural Systems
September 1999
IB-4.3.3
Concrete
lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the
following:
1. Special concrete moment frames - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue
Book (or Paulay-Priestley).
2. Concrete shear walls - detailed in accordance with
1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue Book (or
Paulay-Priestley).
3. Coupled shear walls - detailed in accordance with
1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue Book [or
Paulay-Priestley].
Masonry
lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the
following:
1. Shear walls - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC
as revised by the 1999 Blue Book strength provisions
(or 1997 NEHRP or Paulay-Priestley guidelines).
2. Wall frames - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC
as revised by the 1999 Blue Book strength provisions
(or 1997 NEHRP guidelines). (Additional testing is
required to establish inelastic behavior characteristics).
395
4.
IB-4.3.5
Wood Systems.
IB-4.3.6
Wood-framed lateral
force-resisting systems should consist of the following:
1. Plywood shear walls - detailed in accordance with
1997 UBC Provisions as revised by the 1999 Blue
Book. (Additional testing is required to establish inelastic behavior characteristics.)
Systems. Base isolation systems should be detailed in
accordance with 1997 UBC and the 1999 Blue Book Provisions. Added damping systems should be detailed in accordance with the 1999 Blue Book Provisions.
IB-4.4
Drift Limits
IB-4.4.1
Table AppIB-4 summarizes the recommended interstory drift limits for use in preliminary design, based on
typical framing and detailing characteristics for each lateral system type. The drift limits are intended to serve as design targets for both the structural and the nonstructural
systems but must be verified for each design based on
analysis of the structural system. Alternate design drift
limits may be used when substantiated by analysis. The
drift capacity of the final design should meet or exceed the
expected maximum drift demand.
IB-4.5
IB-4.5.1
IB-4.6
IB-4.6.1
General. Structural elements should be designed to meet identified performance criteria consistent
with the selected performance objectives. Capacity design
and detailing procedures or other yield-control procedures
are recommended for design and detailing to provide control of the inelastic behavior in the structure. Other design
procedures may be used as long as comparable control of
the inelastic behavior is achieved and as long as ductility
capacities are provided to exceed ductility demands.
IB-4.7
IB-4.7.1
September 1999
Linear Static Analysis. Linear static analysis procedures should be not be used except where the
BSO is targeted, where lower levels of reliability are acceptable and where regular, well-balanced and well-detailed systems are used, and where ductility demands
capacity ratios are generally uniform throughout the structure.
IB-4.8
Nonstructural Systems
The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that the performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. Design
and analysis procedures are outlined in Section IB-6.
IB-5
Displacement-Based Design
and Analysis Procedures
IB-5.1
General
Considering that the displacement design procedures outlined in Sections IB-5.3 and IB-5.4 are relatively new and
unproven, several additional limitations at the conceptual
design level are recommended. The design procedures can
be applied to structures not meeting the criteria listed but
the effectiveness of the procedures may be reduced. The
recommended limitations are noted in Sections IB-5.2.1,
IB-5.2.2 and IB-5.2.3.
Structural System Selection. The proceIB-5.2.1
dures are recommended for application to the selected systems indicated in Section IB-4.3. The effectiveness of the
procedures for other systems is expected to be limited.
September 1999
IB-5.3
397
T = ( 1 ) ( hE ) ( k2 ) = ( 1 ) ( hR ) ( k1 ) ( k 2 )
Eqn. AppIB-1
Where:
Keff = effective stiffness
Where:
k3
1 =
hR =
k1 =
k2 =
Eqn. AppIB-4
Where:
Ki =
Keff =
Step 2
K eff [ ( r r + 1 ) ]
T eff 2 = ( 4 S d S a )
Eqn. AppIB-2
The effective
stiffness at each selected performance level can be determined from Equation AppIB-3.
Step 3A Determine Effective Stiffness.
398
Eqn. AppIB-3
Eqn. AppIB-5
Where:
r
effective stiffness.
Step 4 Determine Required Strength. The required strength can be determined based on the effective
stiffness and the target displacement.
V base = K eff T
Eqn. AppIB-6
Where:
Vbase= design base shear
Keff =
effective stiffness
T =
September 1999
Eqn. AppIB-7
Where:
=
Step 5 Prepare Preliminary Design/System Element Sizes. The lateral load-resisting elements can be
7, the final design and detailing proceeds, following capacity design principles to assure that the yielding elements possess the design ductility and that the remaining
elements possess sufficient strength to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements. See Section IB-5.6.
IB-5.4
The EBD is based on the equal displacement approximation noted by Newmark-Hall according to which the displacement of an inelastically responding system is
approximately equal to the total displacement of an equivalent elastically responding system, as illustrated in Figure
AppIB-9. The EBD is an adaptation of the traditional
force-based code procedures, but it uses the ADRS or the
September 1999
Where:
T = target displacement for the global system, at the
effective height for the equivalent SDOF system.
1 =
399
T =
target displacement
hR =
k1 =
hE =
Step 2 Determine Initial Period. The initial period at the yield limit state (SP-1) can be determined using
the ADRS (Figures AppIB-4 and AppIB-5) with 5 percent
of critical damping (considering traditional viscous damping). The initial period (Ti) is determined by entering the
( V F t )w x h x
F x = ------------------------------ wi hi
= ( 4 S d S a )
Eqn. AppIB-9
K i = 4 M eff T i
Eqn. AppIB-10
Where:
Ki
Eqn. AppIB-13
Cy =
k3
Ti
The effective mass is calculated based on the target displaced shape and the equivalence in work between the real
structure and the equivalent SDOF structure.
Step 4 Determine Required System Yield
Strength. The required yield strength can be determined
Where:
Vy =
Ki =
400
Where:
= initial stiffness
Vy = Ki r
Eqn. AppIB-12
Other elements in the structural system, not designated as yield points, should be sufficiently below yield to
provide sufficient strength to develop the overstrength in
the yielding elements.
If the requirements of Equation AppIB-13 are not met,
then more detailed verification analysis will be required
and greater redundancy will be required in the LFRS.
Step 5C Member sizes should be proportioned to
provide the initial effective stiffness approximately equal
to that obtained from Equation AppIB-10. Initial effective
stiffness can be measured in terms of the applied seismic
force divided by the displacement at the effective height,
(taking into account cracked section properties for con-
September 1999
the pushover curve based on established rational procedures. Typically, at the effective yield point, approximately 25 percent to 50 percent the hinges in the yield
mechanism are developed.
K y = V base y K i +/-10%
Eqn. AppIB-14
Where:
Ky =
If the preliminary design verification in Step 6 indicates that the interstory drift limits or achievable ductility limits are not
maintained at the design earthquake levels, the design
should be modified and Step 6 repeated until the design
criteria are met.
Step 7
Analyze structural design by applying incremental displacements. Using the elastic mode shape from a modal
September 1999
Step 3 Plot the Performance Levels on the Pushover Curve. Plot the performance level lines on the
pushover curve based on the IDDR=0 at Level 1 (the effective yield point) and IDDR =1 at Level 5 (the collapse
point).
Step 4 Plot the Performance Points on the Pushover Curve for Each Design Earthquake. Determine
IB-5.6
401
Yielding elements (displacement controlled): Detail in accordance with ductile detailing requirements per
standards referenced in Section IB-4.3 to provide the ductility capacities listed in Table AppIB-5 or as established
by testing.
When inelastic response is designed into the nonstructural systems, the significant participation of the nonstructural systems should be accounted for in the structural
system design and analysis.
Design and Analysis Procedures The design of the nonstructural systems should follow one of the methods outlined below or an equivalent rational procedure.
IB-5.7
Nonstructural Systems
The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that the performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. Design
and analysis procedures are outlined in Section IB-6.
IB-6
Nonstructural Systems
Design
IB-6.1
General
The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that their seismic performance is consistent with the selected performance
objectives. A checklist of such potential elements should
be developed at the early stages of design. Those elements
and systems critical to seismic life safety in the building
(e.g., potential falling hazards and elements potentially obstructing egress from the building) and those critical to the
performance objective of the design should be addressed.
The nonstructural elements to be seismically protected should be designed to accommodate the drift and acceleration expected in the structural frame without being
damaged beyond defined limits, in accordance with the selected performance objectives.
IB-6.2
Design Strategies
Nonstructural systems should be designed to accommodate drift and acceleration by one of the following strategies.
1. Drift accommodation by:
a. Separation joints
b. Elastic deformations
c. Inelastic deformations consistent with the
selected performance objective
2. Acceleration accommodation by:
a. Elastic response
402
IB-6.3
Nonstructural Systems
IB-6.3.1
Method 3 Detailed Design of Nonstructural Systems. The nonstructural systems can be de-
The nonstructural elements should be designed to accommodate the maximum drift and acceleration response ex-
September 1999
IB-7
IB-7.1
Design Documents
IB-7.3
Construction Documents
IB-8
IB-8.1
IB-8.2
Scope. The additional plan checking beyond that required to assure compliance with the building
code should be specific in order to confirm that the construction documents are consistent with the design criteria,
concepts, and assumptions. The plan checker should also
review and confirm that the proposed structural observation and testing and inspection program will provide the
construction quality assurance necessary to reasonably ensure conformance with the construction documents.
IB-8.2.3
404
IB-9
Construction Quality
Assurance Procedures
IB-9.1
Structural Observation
IB-9.1.1
September 1999
timely manner. He should submit a final written observation report at completion of the structural system and significant nonstructural systems when all work is in general
conformance with construction documents and any approved changes.
Qualifications. The structural observer
IB-9.1.3
should be the Engineer of Record, or an engineer designated by the Engineer of Record, registered in the state of
the project. The structural observer should have demonstrated knowledge and experience of the type of construction proposed for the project. He should be independent of
the contractor and have no conflicts of interest related to
the project for which he providing structural observation.
Responsibility. The structural observer is
IB-9.1.4
responsible for verifying general conformance of those
specific elements and connections identified in the construction documents, including, but not limited to, elements of the yield mechanism and the major nonstructural
components, at the indicated significant construction
stages and at the completion of the structural system. The
structural observer is not responsible to certify, guarantee,
or assure conformance with all of the specific requirements of the construction documents.
September 1999
IB-9.2
IB-10
Building Seismic
Maintenance
405
EQ
Description
Probability of
Exceedance
Other
Definition
Mean Return
Period (yrs)
Annual
Probability of
Exceedance
EQ-I
Frequent
87%/50 yrs
25
4%
EQ-II
Occasional
50%/50 yrs
72
1.4%
EQ-III
Rare
2/3 MCE
250-800
0.12%-0.4%
EQ-IV
Maximum considered
MCE
800-2,500
0.04%-0.12%
Table AppIB-2.
Essential/Hazardous
Objective (EO1)
Safety Critical
Objective (EO2)
200 ft
500 ft
Class B
100 ft
200 ft
500 ft
Liquefaction Potential
Low to negligible
Negligible
Landslide Potential
Low to negligible
Negligible
Tsunami/Inundation Potential
Low to negligible
Negligible
Soil Types/Profiles
1.
406
1,000 ft
It is recommended that projects with the above specified performance objectives be restricted to sites with not
greater than the tabulated hazard potentials. If the site hazard exceeds the tabulated level, the structural design
should be shown by specific analysis to account for or mitigate the hazard.
September 1999
System
1.
SMFR, CMRF
Mechanism
Commentary
n
n
n
2.
EBF
n
n
3.
SCBF
4.
5.
6.
n
n
7.
Base isolation
n
n
8.
n
n
September 1999
Rocking on foundation
Localized soil yielding
Yielding in isolators
Elastic response in structure above isolators
407
Structural Systems
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
H/L=1
0.003
0.0055
0.008
0.010
H/L=2
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.015
H/L=3
0.010
0.019
0.028
0.035
0.005
0.015
0.030
0.040
SCMRF
0.005
0.015
0.030
0.040
SCBF
0.003
0.008
0.012
0.015
EBF
0.004
0.013
0.022
0.032
SMRF
0.005
0.018
0.032
0.040
H/L=1
0.003
0.055
0.008
0.010
H/L=2
0.004
0.007
0.010
0.012
H/L=3
0.010
0.017
0.024
0.028
0.005
0.011
0.022
0.030
0.005
0.015
0.024
0.030
0.003
0.005
0.008
0.010
PED systems
0.005
0.014
0.022
0.030
Concrete
Shear wall
Steel
Masonry
Shear wall
MMRF
Wood
Plywood shear wall
Special Technologies2, 3
1.
2.
3.
408
Tabulated drift limits are intended as design targets for both the structural and
nonstructural systems for use with displacement design approaches. Alternate limits
may be used where substantiated by analysis.
Drift limits for base isolated systems are guideline values for the structure above the
isolator system, assuming generic rigid lateral bracing system.
Drift limits for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic
flexible bracing system.
September 1999
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
1.0
2.5
4.0
5.0
1.0
1.6
2.1
2.5
1.0
3.0
5.1
8.0
SCMRF
1.0
3.6
6.2
8.0
SCBF
1.0
2.5
4.0
5.0
EBF
1.0
3.6
6.2
8.0
SMRF
1.0
3.6
6.2
8.0
1.0
2.1
3.3
4.0
1.0
1.4
2.8
2.0
1.0
2.5
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.9
4.8
6.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
Concrete
Shear wall
(1
H/L 5)
H/L=102
Steel
Masonry
Shear wall
(1
H/L 5)
H/L=102
MMRF
Wood
Plywood shear wall
Special Technologies
Base isolated systems3
4
PED systems
1.
2.
3.
4.
September 1999
Tabulated values are recommended displacement ductility limits for selected structural
systems and their yielding elements. Alternate limit may be used where substantiated by
analysis. At this time, equal ductility limits are recommended for systems and elements; it
is expected that with further research different values will be used.
The maximum usable drift ratio is assumed to be about 4% for the purposes of these
recommendations. Therefore, for high H/L ratio walls, where the elastic drift is relatively
large, the useful displacement ductility of these walls is limited by the limiting drift ratio
( Total - Elastic = Plastic).
Values for base isolated systems are guideline values for structure above isolator system,
assuming generic rigid lateral bracing system.
Values for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic
flexible bracing system.
409
Table AppIB-6.
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
5%
15%
18%
20%
5%
16%
22%
24%
SCMRF
5%
18%
25%
28%
SCBF
5%
10%
15%
20%
EBF
5%
10%
20%
25%
SMRF
5%
10%
20%
25%
5%
15%
18%
20%
5%
10%
15%
20%
5%
10%
15%
20%
5%
15%
25%
30%
PED systems2
5%
15%
25%
30%
Concrete
Shear wall (1
H/L 5)
Steel
Masonry
Shear wall (1
H/L 5)
MMRF
Wood
Plywood shear wall
Special Technologies
1.
2.
410
Tabulated systems damping values are estimates for use in design based on currently
available test data for the selected systems. These values are based on the ductility
values in Table AppIB-5. If lower ductility demands than are shown in Table AppIB-5
are expected, then the appropriate damping values should be calculated (see
Commentary).
Damping values for base isolation systems and passive damping systems are
representative ranges. Values for use in design shall be substantiated by analysis.
September 1999
Table AppIB-7.
K2 Shape Factor
Shape 3
Shape
1
Shape
2
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.83
0.78
Shape 3
Shape
1
Shape
2
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.90
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.78
0.85
0.77
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.77
1.00
0.73
0.74
0.85
0.77
10
0.67
0.70
0.85
15
0.62
0.69
20
0.57
50
0.56
Where
Shape
2
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.88
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.75
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.75
0.98
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.85
0.84
0.85
0.75
0.77
0.87
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.84
0.79
0.85
0.75
0.85
0.77
0.79
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.83
0.77
0.85
0.75
0.68
0.85
0.77
0.73
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.82
0.77
0.85
0.75
0.68
0.77
0.72
1.00
0.60
0.75
0.88
0.82
0.77
0.75
H/L=2
H/L=5
=1
=2
=5
H/L=2
H/L=5
=displacement ductility
September 1999
411
Figure AppIB-1.
412
September 1999
Commentary:
1. The performance objective matrix illustrates the typical performance
levels to be achieved at each hazard level to meet the three defined
performance objectives.
2. Meeting one performance level at one hazard level does not indicate that
t specified performance objective is met. performance should be checked
at each hazard level to verify that the selected objective is met.
3. The performance objectives illustrated above indicate the same
performance objectives for both structural and nonstructural systems.
Alternatively, separate and different objectives can be selected for the
structural and nonstructural systems.
September 1999
413
Inelastic
Displacement
Demand
Ratio (IDDR))
Nonstructural
Performance
Level
Nonstructural
Damage
Ratio
0%
NP1
0%-10%
Occupiable
y+.3 P
30%
NP2
5%-30%
SP3
Life safe
y+.6 P
60%
NP3
20%-50%
SP4
Near collapse
y+.8 P
80%
NP4
40%-80%
SP5
Collapsed
y+ P
100%
NP5
> 70%
Structural
Performance
Level
Qualitative
Description
SP1
Operational
SP2
System
Displacement
Limit
Figure AppIB-3.
414
Illustration of structural performance levels seismic response curve for structural systems
September 1999
September 1999
415
416
September 1999
Figure AppIB-6a. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites where a displacement transition
period Td=4.0 seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
September 1999
417
Figure AppIB-6b. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 4 sites where a displacement transition
period Td=4.0 seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
418
September 1999
Figure AppIB-6c.
September 1999
Displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
419
Figure AppIB-6d. Displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 4 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
420
September 1999
Figure AppIB-6e. Acceleration response spectra (5% damped) Zone 4 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
September 1999
421
Figure AppIB-6f. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition
period Td=4.0 seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
422
September 1999
Figure AppIB-6g. Acceleration-displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition
period Td=4.0 seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
September 1999
423
Figure AppIB-6h.
424
Displacement response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
September 1999
Figure AppIB-6i. Displacement response spectra (20% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
September 1999
425
Figure AppIB-6j. Acceleration response spectra (5% damped) Zone 3 sites where displacement transition period Td=4.0
seconds is valid (located away from sources of large earthquakes, Mw 6.5)
426
September 1999
Procedure:
1.
2.
Use DBD to determine required Teff, Vmax, and Vy, or use EBD to determine
3.
4.
September 1999
427
Figure AppIB-8.
428
September 1999
Figure AppIB-9.
September 1999
429
430
September 1999
Appendix IAttachment 1
Procedures for Determining Earthquake Ground Motion Response Spectra
The demands of earthquake ground motion can easily be
defined by response spectra. Earthquake hazard maps have
recently been produced for the 1997 NEHRP that give
spectral acceleration contours for the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) motion.The MCE, which represents the big earthquake (EQ IV), is generally defined by
a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years; however, the maximum values are governed by deterministic
methods of estimating ground motion. This results in the
MCE having an equivalent larger than 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (e.g., 5 percent/50) in some
high seismic areas of California. Equations are given in
FEMA 273 for approximating these variations in probabilities. Equations are also given for converting probabilities
of exceedance in 50 years, PE50, to return periods, PR. For
example, 2 percent/50 equates to a return period of 2,475
years and 10 percent/50 to 475 years.
The design earthquake (EQ III), which is smaller than
the MCE, is generally defined by 10 percent/50; however,
it is limited to a maximum value of two-thirds of the EQ
IV. Thus, the EQ-III may have a larger than 10 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years. Equations are also
given for approximating these variations in probabilities.
In addition to determining the EQ III and EQ IV,
smaller earthquakes, with more frequent periods of return,
may be required for various performance objectives.
Equations and coefficients are given for making these approximations.
PR = 475 (Si /Si 10/50)1/n
PE50 = 1 ( 1 e
50 P R
PR = 1/[1 - (1 - PE50)1/50]
Si = Si 10/50 (PR /475)n
September 1999
Where:
Si =
431
Graphical Representation of
Response Spectra
Response spectra may be plotted in various formats of
coordinates (e.g., Sa versus T, Sa versus Sd, Sd versus T,
and tripartite log graphs). The traditional format has been
spectral acceleration versus period (Sa versus T). When
this format is used, spectral displacements (Sd) and
velocities (Sv) may be calculated by the following:
2
S d = S ag ( T 2 )
The ADRS format uses orthogonal coordinates Sa versus
Sd. The periods (T) are represented by radial lines and the
spectral velocities (Sv) can be represented by curved lines
that follow the shape of S1/T. Examples follow:
Si 10/50
PR (MCE)
PE50
Ss
S1
Ss
S1
Ss
S1
1.5
0.6
1.0
0.4
1,922
1,922
2.6%
890
5.1%
1,515
3,5%
1,922
2. Si ratio
<
1.5
1.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
1,025
950
3. Si (MCE)
> 1.5
1.75
0.7
1.3
0.5
1,323
1,400
432
September 1999
Table AppI-Att1-2. Equivalent Probability of EQ-III and smaller (n=0.44 for California)
Si
Case
Si 10/50
PR
PE50
Ss
S1
Ss
S1
Ss
S1
1.0
0.4
1.2
0.5
313
285
5. EQ II, PR = 72
0.55
0.22
1.2
0.5
72
50%
6. EQ I, PR = 25
0.33
0.13
1.2
0.5
25
86%
15%
300
September 1999
433
Figure AppI-Att1-2.
434
September 1999
Appendix IAttachment 2
Equations for Determining Spectral Points
Figure AppI-Att2-1.
Given:
SD1 =
Determine:
September 1999
2.31 0.41 ln ( )
D V = ---------------------------------------------1.65
1.82 0.27 ln ( )
D D = ---------------------------------------------1.39
2. Next determine values of TO, TS, and TD as follows:
S P1 D V
T O ( ) = -------------------------12.5S PS D A
T S ( ) = 5T O ( )
T D ( 5% )D D
T D ( ) = --------------------------DV
TD (5%) is typically 4.0 seconds except for sites in the
near-source zones of large earthquakes (Mw=6.5). For
near-source zones, site-specific analysis is required to determine TD.
3. Next determine Sa ( ), and Sd ( ) for full range of periods, in accordance with the following equations:
435
Sa
Sd
T = 0
EPA = 0.4S PS
0 < T < TO
T
S a ( ) = 0.4S PS 1 + ------ ( 2.5D A 1 )
TO
T
T 2
------ ( 2.5D 1 ) ------ g
S d ( ) = 0.4S PS 1 + T
A
2
O
T = TO
S a ( ) = S PS D A
TO 2
g
-----S d ( ) = S PS D A
2
TO < T < TS
S a ( ) = S PS D A
T 2
S d ( ) = S PS D A ------ g
2
T = TS
S a ( ) = S PS D A
TS 2
S d ( ) = S PS D A ------ g
2
TS < T < TD
S P1 D V
S a ( ) = --------------T
S P1 D V gT
S d ( ) = ---------------------2
( 2 )
T = TD
S P1 D V
S a ( ) = --------------TD DD
T > TD
T D S P1 D D
S a ( ) = ----------------------2
T
436
T D S P1 D D g
S d ( ) = -------------------------2
( 2 )
T D S P1 D D g
S d ( ) = -------------------------2
( 2 )
September 1999
Where:
TO 2
S do ( ) = S PS D A ------ g , which corresponds to TO
2
T 2
S ds ( ) = S PS D A ------ g , which corresponds to TS
2
T D S P1 D D g
- , which corresponds to TD
S D ( ) = -------------------------2
( 2 )
Note:
September 1999
437
Appendix IAttachment 3
Historical Perspective and Context
Code procedures are generally referred to as prescribed requirements as opposed to performance requirements. In this terminology, the engineer follows the
prescribed requirements to design the building. It is assumed that the finished product will satisfy performance
objectives, such as those stated in the SEAOC Blue Book:
Structures designed in conformance with these Recommendations should, in general, be able to:
1. Resist a minor level of earthquake ground motion
without damage.
2. Resist a moderate level of earthquake ground motion
without structural damage, but possibly experience
some nonstructural damage.
3. Resist a major level of earthquake ground motion having an intensity equal to the strongest either experienced or forecast for the building site, without
collapse, but possibly with some structural as well as
nonstructural damage.
In most engineering design criteria, the results are
fairly predictable because stresses and strains are kept well
438
4. Provide a lower than code level of performance to provide a voluntary (nonmandated) seismic upgrade to
reduce hazards of existing buildings.
5. Provide a multilevel performance menu that matches
probabilistic earthquakes with a variety of performance objectives.
PBSE can be broken down to two major components:
1.) the demands of the earthquake ground motion causes
the building to shake and 2.) the capacity of the building to
resist the shaking.
Demands of Earthquakes
In the Vision 2000 recommendations (Appendix G), four
earthquake levels are defined.
Frequent
Occasional
Rare
Very Rare
Earthquake II
September 1999
value of spectral displacement (Sd) to make direct comparisons between demands and capacities.
Capacities defined by allowable stresses and/or code
strength will be referred to as service level capacities
(SLC). These capacities are determined by calculating the
V/W that results in the first significant lateral force-resisting elements (or components) reaching code acceptable
limits. The code prescribed value for V (e.g., V/W = ZIC/
Rw) will usually provide a lower limit for the SLC. The actual SLC will generally be larger because of some conservatism in sizing structural members, code limits on drift,
and detailing requirements for ductility.
The ultimate overall, global capacity of a structure can
be approximated by a pushover curve that defines a nonlinear force-displacement curve that accounts for sequential yielding of elements and redistribution of forces until
the building approaches a condition of unacceptable deformation of instability under gravity. This capacity level will
be designated as the no collapse capacity (NCC) and represents the capacity required to resist the demands of the
EQ IV earthquake.
Other capacity designations represent performance
levels intermediate to the SLC and NCC. For example, the
yield level capacity (YLC) represents a yield point representing an idealized bilinear capacity plot of the pushover
curve. The life-safety capacity (LSC) designation represents a point on the nonlinear slope of the capacity curve
that provides a factor of safety against collapse. This point
is generally taken at a point two-thirds from the YLC to the
NCC.
From the point of view of PBSE, it would appear that
the SLC and NCC are the key capacity levels for representing no damage (serviceability) and no collapse (survivability) limits, respectively, of a building. The intermediate
level represents optional levels of continued occupancy
and damage control. It should be noted that the LSC is generally considered as the code-intended performance goal
for a EQ III earthquake demand level. However, this is
consistent with the NCC goal for the EQ IV. In other
words, if the building satisfies NCC for EQ IV, it should
be in the vicinity of a LSC for EQ III.
439
440
Displacement Approach
This methodology is based on the assumption that the elastic demand displacement of an elastic structure with a
DCR-1 will have the same displacement as a similar inelastic structure with a DCR greater than 1. This relationship is assumed applicable if the elastic period is in the
constant velocity region (i.e., S1 /T curve). When the elastic period is in the constant acceleration region (i.e., Ss region) the inelastic displacement. Adjustments for the
difference are made by the use of special coefficients. The
results of this procedure are validated by the use of a pushover curve.
Capacity Versus Inelastic Response
Demands
September 1999