Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
By Denis Mitchell
and Patrick Paultre
Seismic Design
11.1 Introduction
The 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) gives the minimum lateral earthquake
force for the equivalent static force procedure as:
S (Ta ) M v I E W S (2.0 )M v I E W
V =
Rd Ro Rd Ro
and for a Seismic Force Resisting System (SFRS) with an R d equal to or greater than 1.5 ,
2 S (0.2)IEW
V need not be taken greater than
3 Rd Ro
where:
S (Ta ) = design spectral response acceleration, expressed as a ratio to gravitational
acceleration for a period of Ta
Mv = factor to account for higher mode effect on base shear
IE = earthquake importance factor for the structure
Ta = fundamental period of vibration of the building in seconds in the direction under
consideration
W = dead load, plus 25% of the design snow load, plus 60% of storage load and the full
contents of any tanks. Minimum partition load need not exceed 0.5 kPa
Rd = ductility-related force modification factor that reflects the capability of a structure to
dissipate energy through inelastic behaviour
Ro = overstrength-related force modification factor that accounts for the dependable
portion of reserve strength in a structure.
The designer chooses the type of SFRS, with the corresponding force modification factors,
R d and R o . The values of R d and R o are a function of the type of lateral load resisting system
and the manner in which the structural members are designed and detailed. Table 11.1 provides
a guide for the required design and detailing provisions of CSA Standard A23.3 associated with
the corresponding factors, R d and R o .
114 Seismic Design
Table 11.1 Design and Detailing Provisions Required for Different Reinforced Concrete
Structural Systems and Corresponding R d and R o Factors
Type of SFRS Rd Ro Summary of design and detailing requirements in CSA
A23.3-04
Ductile 4.0 1.7 Beams capable of flexural hinging with shear failure and
moment bar buckling avoided. Beams and columns must satisfy
resisting ductile detailing requirements. Columns properly
frames confined and stronger than beams. Joints properly
confined and stronger than beams.
Moderately 2.5 1.4 Beams and columns must satisfy detailing requirements
ductile for moderate ductility. Beams and columns to have
moment minimum shear strengths. Joints must satisfy moderate
resisting ductility detailing requirements and must be capable of
frames transmitting shears from beam hinging.
Ductile 4.0 1.7 At least 66% of base overturning moment resisted by
coupled walls wall system must be carried by axial tension and
compression in coupled walls. Coupling beams to have
ductile detailing and be capable of flexural hinging or
resist loads with diagonal reinforcement (shear failure
and bar buckling avoided). Walls must have minimum
resistance to permit attainment of nominal strength in
coupling beams and minimum ductility level.
Ductile 3.5 1.7 Coupling beams to have ductile detailing and be
partially capable of flexural hinging or resist loads with diagonal
coupled walls reinforcement (shear failure and bar buckling avoided).
Walls must have minimum resistance to permit
attainment of nominal strength in coupling beams and
minimum ductility level.
3.5 1.6 Walls must be capable of flexural yielding without local
Ductile
instability, shear failure or bar buckling. Walls must
shearwalls
satisfy ductile detailing and ductility requirements.
Moderately 2.0 1.4 Walls must satisfy detailing and ductility requirements
ductile for moderate ductility. Walls must have minimum shear
shearwalls strength.
Conventional 1.5 1.3 Beams and columns must have factored resistances
construction: greater than or equal to factored loads. Columns and
Moment beams must satisfy minimum detailing requirements for
resisting conventional construction. Closely spaced hoops
frames required in columns unless factored resistance of
columns greater than factored resistance of beams or if
R d R o = 1.0 .
Conventional 1.5 1.3 Walls must have factored resistances greater than or
construction: equal to factored loads. Factored shear resistance must
Shearwalls exceed shear corresponding to factored flexural
resistance or shear corresponding to R d R o = 1.0 .
Walls must satisfy minimum detailing requirements for
conventional construction.
Other 1.0 1.0
SFRS(s)
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 115
The six-storey reinforced concrete frame building shown in Fig. 11.1 is located in Vancouver
and is to be designed as a ductile moment resisting frame structure. The six-storey reinforced
concrete office building has 7 - 6 m bays in the N-S direction and 3 bays in the E-W direction which
consist of 2 - 9 m office bays and a central 6 m corridor bay.
The interior columns are all 500 x 500 mm while the exterior columns are 450 x 450 mm.
The one-way slab floor system consists of a slab 110 mm thick spanning in the E-W direction
supported by beams in the N-S direction. The secondary beams supporting the slab are 300 mm
wide x 350 mm deep (from top of slab to bottom of beam). The beams of both the N-S and E-W
frames are 400 mm wide x 600 mm deep for the first three storeys and 400 x 550 mm for the top
three storeys.
Material Properties
Concrete: normal density concrete with f c = 30 MPa
Reinforcement: f y = 400 MPa
Live loads
Floor live loads:
2
2.4 kN/m on typical office floors
2
4.8 kN/m on 6 m wide corridor bay
Roof load
2
2.2 kN/m snow load, accounting for parapets and equipment projections
2
1.6 kN/m mechanical services loading in 6 m wide strip over corridor bay
Dead loads
3
self-weight of reinforced concrete members calculated as 24 kN/m
2
1.0 kN/m partition loading on all floors
2
0.5 kN/m mechanical services loading on all floors
2
0.5 kN/m roofing
Wind loading
2
1.84 kN/m net lateral pressure for top 4 storeys
2
1.75 kN/m net lateral pressure for bottom 2 storeys
To determine the member forces, the structure was analyzed using ETABS. To make
allowances for cracking, member stiffnesses were assumed to be 0.4 of the gross I for all beams
as required by CSA A23.3. To account for the influence of the axial load level on the column
stiffnesses, average estimated cracked moments of inertia of 0.6 and 0.7 of I g were used for the
columns in the top three storeys and bottom three storeys, respectively (Clause 21.2.5.2). The
analysis models and the gravity loading are illustrated in Fig. 11.2.
118 Seismic Design
Fig. 11.2 Unfactored loading cases considered in design of typical interior frame
The empirical fundamental lateral period, Ta , for concrete moment frames is given by:
The calculated period for this structure, using the computer program ETABS is 1.35 s. The
value of the fundamental lateral period cannot be taken greater than 1.5 0.759 = 1.139 , and
hence use Ta = 1.14 s. The corresponding value of S (Ta ) is 0.308 (see Fig. 11.3).
For this office building, the earthquake importance factor, I E = 1.0 . The values of M v and
J depend on the ratio of Sa (0.2) / Sa (2.0 ) = 0.94 / 0.17 = 5.53 and the value of Ta . For this case
M v = 1.0 and J = 1.0 .
For this ductile moment resisting frame structure R d = 4.0 and R o = 1.7 . Hence the seismic
base shear, V, is:
S (Ta ) Mv IEW 0.308 1.0 1.0 W
V = = = 0.0453W
Rd Ro 4.0 1.7
Accidental Torsion
The 3-D model shown in Fig. 11.4 was used to calculate accidental torsional effects by
applying the lateral forces Fx (see Table 11.3) at an accidental eccentricity of 0.1D nx , where
Dnx is the plan dimension of the building at level x, perpendicular to the direction of seismic
loading. This gives an accidental torsional eccentricity of 4.245 m, from the centre of mass (same
as centre of rigidity) for loading in the E-W direction. The resulting floor torques, T x , are given in
Table 11.3.
1110 Seismic Design
Dynamic Analysis
This symmetrical structure has no structural irregularities in the vertical or horizontal
directions and in addition is not sensitive to torsion (see Section 11.4.3). Therefore, In accordance
with NBCC a dynamic analysis is not required. However, a dynamic analysis was carried to
determine the lateral period of vibration (see above). This dynamic analysis was also used to
determine the design forces for the members and to estimate the lateral displacements. The
purpose of carrying out a dynamic analysis in this example is to illustrate the approach required
and to obtain a more realistic design force distribution.
The first step is to determine Ve from a linear dynamic analysis. The design base shear
Vd is obtained from:
Ve
Vd = IE
Rd Ro
However for this regular structure, Vd shall not be taken less than 0.8V .
All forces and deflections obtained from the linear dynamic analysis are scaled by the factor
Vd / Ve to obtain the design values. However, in order to obtain realistic values of anticipated
deflections and drifts, the design values need to be multiplied by R d R o / I E .
Fig. 11.4 shows the 3-D model for the dynamic analysis, using ETABS. In the analysis, rigid
end offsets were used to simulate the dimensions of the joints and rigid diaphragms were
assumed. The total mass for each floor was concentrated at the centre of mass (coincident with
the centre of rigidity for this structure). To account for sway effects (P-Delta) the ETABS program
option, accounting for second order effects by the addition of the so-called geometric stiffness,
which is a function of the compression forces in the columns from gravity loads, was used. These
compressive forces were obtained from the consistent loading case of 1.0D + 0.5L + 0.25S , with
live load reduction factors.
The first three lateral modes in the E-W direction are shown in Fig. 11.5, together with the
associated periods of vibration and the modal participating mass ratios. Note that the sum of
these ratios is 96.9% of the total mass and hence exceeds the minimum required ratio of 90% of
the total mass (NBCC). Spectral modal superposition, using SRSS for the first three modes in the
E-W direction was used to determine all forces and deformations.
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1111
Figure 11.5 Mode shapes, corresponding lateral periods of vibration and modal
participating mass ratios
Therefore:
10690
Vd = 1.0 = 1572 kN
4.0 1.7
However for this regular building Vd shall not be taken less than 0.8V = 0.8 2026 .1 = 1620.9 kN.
Hence, all forces and deflections obtained from the dynamic analysis shall be multiplied by
Vd / Ve = 1620 .9 / 10690 = 0.152 .
1112 Seismic Design
Fig. 11.7 Loading cases on typical interior beam at second floor level
Table 11.4 gives the unfactored moments at critical locations and also gives the factored moment
combinations which need to be considered.
AB a b BA BC c
D -167 +119 +105 -206 -104 +29
L -66 +50 +45 -90 -79 +41
Accidental Torsion 30 11 9 28 41 15
E without accidental 98 36 30 92 131 48
torsion
E with accidental 128 47 39 120 172 63
torsion
1.25D+1.5L -308 +224 +199 -393 -249 +98
1.0D+1.0E -39 +166 +144 -86 +68 +92
1.0D-1.0E -295 +72 +66 -326 -276 -34
1.0D+0.5L+1.0E -72 +191 +167 -131 +29 +112
1.0D+0.5L-1.0E -328 +97 +88 -371 -316 -13
Note: controlling load combinations shown in bold
AB a b BA BC c
D -167 +132 +133 -165 -104 +29
L -66 +56 +57 -72 -79 +41
Accidental Torsion 30 11 9 28 41 15
E without accidental 98 36 30 92 131 48
torsion
E with accidental 128 47 39 120 172 63
torsion
1.25D+1.5L -308 +249 +252 -314 -249 +98
1.0D+1.0E -39 +180 +172 -45 +68 +92
1.0D-1.0E -295 +85 +94 -284 -276 -34
1.0D+0.5L+1.0E -72 +208 +201 -81 +29 +112
1.0D+0.5L-1.0E -328 +113 +122 -320 -316 -13
Note: controlling load combinations shown in bold
It is noted that, after redistribution, earthquake loading governs at all negative moment
sections at the second floor level.
distance of 3hf from the sides of the beam is effective, then 410M bars in the slab are effective.
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1115
It is assumed that these 10M bars in the flange are effective under reversed cyclic loading even
though there is no anti-buckling reinforcement for these bars. Note that larger bars may not be
2
effective. The additional reinforcement required is then 1744 mm . Note that it is unwise to be too
conservative when designing the top reinforcement since beam shears, joint shears, column
moments and column shears are all increased if the flexural capacity at the end of the beam is
increased.
Let us try an arrangement of 620M bars as shown in Fig. 11.8. Keeping in mind that the
positive moment resistance of the beam needs to be at least one-half of the negative moment
resistance, try using 420M bars on the bottom of the beam.
Accounting for the presence of the compression reinforcement, the depth of compression, c,
is found to be 92 mm and the factored negative moment resistance is 359 kNm. Hence the
moment capacity is satisfactory.
The required minimum top and bottom reinforcement, As ,min , from Clause 21.3.2.1 is:
2 2
As ,min = 1.4bw d / f y = 1.4 400 527 / 400 = 738 mm 1200 mm O.K.
Note that in choosing the arrangement of the beam bars at column faces the following
factors must be considered:
(a) the need to restrain the longitudinal bars from buckling by providing lateral restraint in the
form of hoops and ties.
(b) the need to pass the beam bars through the column cage, and
(c) the need to provide adequate space between top bars to permit placement and vibration of
concrete.
Since the magnitudes of the negative moment resistances required at column faces AB, BA
and BC are all about the same, we will use the same reinforcing arrangement at these three
locations.
1116 Seismic Design
Span BC:
For span BC, the effective compressive flange width is 1600 mm (see Clause 10.3.3). For
2
420M bars ( As = 1200 mm ), M r at the column face, accounting for the large amount of top
reinforcement, is 229 kNm which is larger than one half of 359 kNm (i.e., M r at column face
2
where As = 2200 mm ).
As 420M bottom bars are provided at column faces AB, BA and BC, use 420M bars in
span BC. The positive moment resistance M r is 229 kNm in the midspan regions of span BC.
As 229 kNm exceeds 112 kNm (Table 11.5), 4-20M bars will be satisfactory.
Span AB:
For span AB, the effective compressive flange width is 2200 mm (see Clause 10.3.3). For
M r 252 kNm (Table 11.5) try 6- 20M bottom bars. Neglecting the top reinforcement, the depth
of the equivalent rectangular stress block is 18 mm and M r = 315 kNm (see Fig. 11.9).
Accounting for the large amount of top reinforcement, the positive moment M r at the column face
is 246 kNm.
At the column faces the transverse reinforcement consists of 410M legs, hence
2
Av = 400 mm .
Note that near the ends of the beams the stirrup spacing required for shear cannot exceed
276 and 247 mm for spans AB and BC, respectively.
The details of the reinforcement in the beam are illustrated in Fig. 11.11.
Note that for this member Ag fc / 10 = (500 500 ) 30 / 10 = 750 kN. As Pf exceeds this
value, the requirements of Clause 21.4 apply (Clause 21.4.1.1).
Although there is a considerable excess of moment capacity in the column, this additional
capacity is needed at the top of the column in order to ensure that the columns are stronger than
the beams (see below).
M nc M pb
Hence it is necessary to first determine the probable resistances of the beams framing into the
column.
1124 Seismic Design
(a) Probable negative moment resistance, M pb
Note that the probable resistance, M pb , can be approximated as
1.47M r = 1.47 359 = 528 kNm. This simple approach is sufficiently accurate for design
purposes as can be seen from Fig. 11.9.
+
(b) Nominal positive moment resistance, M pb
+
M pb = 1.47 246 = 362 kNm.
(c) Determination of M nc
To determine M nc for a particular loading case we need to calculate the nominal moment
resistance of the column above and below the beam-column joint. The lowest flexural resistance
will occur at either the highest or lowest axial load, that is, load cases 3 and 4 need to be
investigated (load case 1 does not involve lateral load). The axial load corresponding to cases 3
and 4 are given in Fig. 11.15 along with the column nominal moment resistances corresponding to
these axial loads (from the P-M interaction diagram).
Thus the requirement that M nc M pb is satisfied. Note that for simplicity the above
calculations have neglected the influence of the beam and column shears acting at the joint faces.
forces due to factored loads (Clause 21.4.5.1). From Table 11.6, load case 4 (1.0D + 0.5L + 1.0E )
gives the maximum factored shear of 132 kN.
The moment at the top of the column corresponding to the development of the probable
moment resistances of the beams may be estimated from:
( +
M c = M pr
+ M pr)
Kc
= (362 + 528 )
1 / 3.05
= 445 kNm
Kc 2 1 / 3.05
However since we are designing a ground storey column a different approach is required at
the base of this column. It is assumed that the column frames into a substructure that is
considerably stronger and stiffer than the column and hence the possibility of hinging at the
column base must be accounted for. To ensure adequate column shear capacity, it is necessary
to determine the maximum probable moment resistance corresponding to all axial loads.
Because the axial loads for all the seismic load cases are close to the balanced axial load level,
the moment at the base of the column will be taken as the probable moment resistance
corresponding to the balanced loading conditions (i.e., the highest probable moment resistance
possible). The calculations involved in determining this moment resistance are summarized in
Fig. 11.16.
The column actions which will correspond to the formation of hinges in the beams at the top
of the column and the formation of a hinge at the base of the column are shown in Fig. 11.16.
From Clause 21.4.5.2 the shear carried by the concrete is determined with values of and
taken from Clause 11 but limited to a maximum of 0.10 and a minimum of 45, respectively.
For this column containing greater than minimum amounts of transverse reinforcement and
subjected to axial compression, Clause 11.3.6.3 applies, but the limits for and given above
control. The shear resistance attributed to the concrete, assuming that d v = 0.72h , is:
The required Vs is equal to 359 64.1 = 294.9 kN. Using the transverse reinforcement
arrangement shown in Fig. 11.13 with square and diamond shaped hoops, the effective area of
( ) 2
shear reinforcement is Av = 2 + 2 cos 45 o 100 = 3.41 100 = 341 mm . Hence, the required
stirrup spacing can be found from Equation (11-7) as:
s Av f y d v cot 0.85 341 400 0.72 500 cot 45 o
s= = = 142 mm
Vs 294.9 1000
Since Vf of 359 kN is less than 0.125 c fcbw d v = 439 kN, then from Clause 11.3.8.1, the
maximum spacing of the shear reinforcement is the smaller of 0.7 0.72 500 = 252 mm or
600 mm.
In order to satisfy the minimum shear reinforcement requirements of Clause 11.2.8.2, the
maximum spacing of the 10M stirrups is:
Av f y 341 400
s= = = 830 mm
0.06 f c bw 0.06 30 500
( ) ( )
Po = 1fc Ag Ast + fy Ast = 0.805 30 500 2 4000 + 400 4000 = 7541 kN
k p = Pf / Po = 2119 / 7541 = 0.281
Hence, the total area of confinement reinforcement is:
Ag f c 500 2 30
Ash = 0.2k n k p shc = 0.2 1.33 0.281 2
420s = 3.34s
Ach f yh 420 400
but not less than:
f c 30
Ash = 0.09shc = 0.09 420 s = 2.84s
f yh 400
2
For Ash = 341 mm , s = 341 / 3.34 = 102 mm.
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1127
From Clause 21.4.4.3 the spacing of the hoops shall not exceed:
(i) h / 4 = 500 / 4 = 125 mm
(ii) 6d b = 6 25 = 150 mm
Hence use 10M hoops at 100 mm centres as shown in Fig. 11.17. The chosen arrangement
of hoops and longitudinal reinforcement also satisfies Clauses 21.4.4.4 and 7.6.5. The details of
the first-storey column reinforcement are given in Fig. 11.17.
To estimate the corresponding shear, Vcol , in the column above the joint, assume that
flexural hinging occurs in the beams at the first and second storey levels. The calculations are
summarized in Fig. 11.19.
The twelve-storey reinforced concrete office building has a centrally located elevator core.
Each floor consists of a 200 mm thick flat plate with 6 m interior spans and 5.5 m end spans. The
columns are all 550 x 550 mm and the thickness of the core wall components 400 mm. The 400
mm thick wall thickness was initially chosen such that it exceeds l u / 14 = 4650 / 14 = 332 mm
(Clause 21.6.3). This value is checked in Section 11.5.6.5. The core wall measures 6.4 m by 8.4
m, outside to outside of the walls. Two 400 mm wide x 900 mm deep coupling beams connect the
two C-shaped walls at the ceiling level of each floor. The core walls extend one storey above the
th th
roof at the 12 floor level forming an elevator penthouse at the 13 floor level. The slab has a 100
mm overhang.
Material Properties
Concrete: normal density concrete with fc = 30 MPa
Reinforcement: f y = 400 MPa
Table 11.8 Spectral response accelerations and design spectral response accelerations
The empirical fundamental lateral period, Ta , for this shear wall structure in the N-S and E-W
directions, is given by:
Ta = 0.05hn3 / 4 = 0.05 45.0 3 / 4 = 0.869 s
N-S Direction
The calculated period for this structure in the N-S direction, using the computer program
ETABS, is 1.83 s. Note that a 3-D model including the walls, the slabs and the columns was also
analysed and resulted in a period of 1.75 s. Because this period is within 15% of the periods of the
walls alone, then a period of 1.83 s was used.
The value of the fundamental lateral period cannot be taken greater than 2 0.869 = 1.74 and
hence use Ta = 1.74 s. From linear interpolation, S (Ta ) = 0.0981 (see Fig. 11.22).
The values of M v and J depend on the ratio of Sa (0.2) / Sa (2.0 ) = 0.69 / 0.048 = 14.4 and the
value of Ta . It is necessary to interpolate the value of S (Ta ) Mv and the value of J between periods of
1.0 and 2.0 s and 0.5 and 2.0 s, respectively. This interpolation results in S (Ta ) Mv = 0.170 ,
Mv = 1.736 and J = 0.505 .
1134 Seismic Design
This office building has an earthquake importance factor, I E = 1.0 . For this ductile shear wall
Rd = 3.5 and Ro = 1.6 .
Hence the seismic base shear, V, is:
S (Ta ) Mv IEW 0.0981 1.736 1.0 W
V = = = 0.0304W
Rd Ro 3.5 1.6
E-W Direction
The calculated period for this structure in the E-W direction, using the computer program
ETABS is 1.72 s. It is noted that this period may be used because the period for the full 3-D
structure (walls, slabs and columns) is within 15% of this value. The value of the fundamental
lateral period cannot be taken greater than 2 0.869 = 1.74 and hence use Ta = 1.72 s. From
linear interpolation, S (Ta ) = 0.101 (see Fig. 11.22).
It is necessary to interpolate the value of S (Ta ) Mv and the value of J between periods of 1.0
and 2.0 s and 0.5 and 2.0 s, respectively. This interpolation results in S (Ta ) Mv = 0.110 ,
Mv = 1.093 and J = 0.757 .
For the ductile coupled wall system in the E-W direction Rd = 4.0 and Ro = 1.7 .
Hence the seismic base shear, V, is:
S (Ta )Mv IEW 0.101 1.093 1.0 W
V = = = 0.0162W
Rd Ro 4.0 1.7
The calculations of the seismic lateral forces at each floor level using the equivalent static
force procedure are summarized in Table 11.9. The weight of the penthouse has been included
at the roof level.
appropriate to use these values to determine the degree of coupling because the values obtained
from modal combination (e.g., SRSS or CQC) does not satisfy static equilibrium. The degree of
coupling was determined using static analysis with the Fx forces from the equivalent static force
procedure, giving:
Tl 5513 6.5
= = 0.74
M1 + M 2 + Tl 2 6400 + 5513 6.5
where
T = axial tension and compression acting at centroid of coupled walls
l = distance between centroids of coupled walls, equal to 6.5 m for this example
The degree of coupling is 74%, which is exceeds the minimum limit for ductile coupled walls of
66%. Hence Rd = 4.0 and Ro = 1.7 , as assumed above.
Because B is greater than 1.7, the structure is sensitive to torsion and hence is designated as
irregular. The maximum value of B in the E-W direction occurs in the first storey and is 1.66.
Note that a 3-D analysis of the structure, including the columns and slabs as well as the
actual mass distributions indicates that the first and fourth modes of vibration are torsional with
periods of 1.89 and 0.54 s, respectively. This confirms that the structure is indeed torsionally
sensitive.
This design example illustrates the steps necessary to design this common type of structure,
that is torsionally sensitive.
Ve
Vd = IE
Rd Ro
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1137
Because this is an irregular structure, that requires dynamic analysis (NBCC 4.1.8.7), Vd shall not
be taken less than 1.0V rather than 0.8V , permitted for a regular structure.
All forces and deflections obtained from the linear dynamic analysis are scaled by the factor
Vd / Ve to obtain the design values. However, in order to obtain realistic values of anticipated
deflections and drifts, the design values need to be multiplied by R d R o / I E .
Fig. 11.23 shows the 3-D ETABS model that considers only the core wall system (SFRS) and
is used for the dynamic analysis. The second model used is the entire structure including the
frame members not considered part of the SFRS (columns and the slabs) to check the ductility
and strength of these members subjected to seismically induced deformations. The total mass for
each floor was concentrated at the centre of mass (same as centre of rigidity for this example)
and rigid diaphragms were assumed at each floor level. Sway effects (P-Delta) were included
using the ETABS program option. For this analysis, compressive loads on the walls were obtained
from the consistent loading case of 1.0D + 0.5L + 0.25S , with live load reduction factors.
The first three lateral modes in the N-S and E-W directions are shown in Fig. 11.24, together
with the associated periods of vibration and the modal participating mass ratios. Note that the sum
of these ratios is 94.9% and 93.8% of the total mass in the N-S and E-W directions, respectively.
These ratios exceed the minimum required ratio of 90% of the total mass (NBCC). Spectral modal
superposition, using SRSS for the first three modes in the both directions was used to determine
all forces and deformations.
The base shear in the N-S direction determined by dynamic analysis is Ve = 14159 kN.
Therefore:
1.0
Vd = 14159 = 2528 kN
3.5 1.6
However for this irregular building Vd shall not be taken less than V = 2755.6 kN. Hence, all
forces and deflections obtained from the dynamic analysis shall be multiplied
byVd / Ve = 2755.6 / 14159 = 0.195 in the N-S direction.
The base shear in the E-W direction determined by dynamic analysis is Ve = 11021 kN.
Therefore:
1.0
Vd = 11021 = 1621 kN
4.0 1.7
However for this irregular building Vd shall not be taken less than V = 1466.1kN. Hence, all
forces and deflections obtained from the dynamic analysis shall be multiplied by
Vd / Ve = 1621 / 11021 = 0.147 in the E-W direction.
1138 Seismic Design
Figure 11.24 Mode shapes, corresponding lateral periods of vibration and modal
participating mass ratios in the N-S and E-W directions
1140 Seismic Design
Table 11.10 Results of Seismic Loading Analyses (1.0E) in N-S direction for one wall,
including accidental torsion
Table 11.11 Results of Seismic Loading Analyses (1.0E) in E-W direction (Coupled Wall)
for one wall
Table 11.12 Local forces due to accidental torsion (1.0E) in E-W direction (Coupled Wall
Direction) in different components of C-shaped wall
The design forces for both seismic and wind loading are given in Fig. 11.25. The distribution
of wall moments for wind loading is typical for a coupled wall system. The distribution of wall
moments for seismic loading was obtained from modal combinations (SRSS) and therefore the
moments obtained are absolute values.
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1145
If 4-20M bars are provided in each set of diagonal bars then the factored shear resistance is:
Vr = 2s As fy sin = 2 0.85 4 300 400 sin 19.4 = 271.0 kN
If this reinforcement is placed in the lower storeys, then a moment redistribution of 17.8%
would be required in the coupling beam with maximum moment due to seismic loading and 6.7%
redistribution would be required for wind loading. Clause 9.2.4 permits a moment redistribution up
to 20%.
The diagonal reinforcement must have closely spaced hoops as required in Clause 21.6.8.7
with a maximum spacing given by the smaller of:
(a) 6d bl = 6 20 = 120 mm
(b) 24d bh = 24 10 = 240 mm
(c) 100 mm
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1147
This shear resistance of the thirteen coupling beams exceeds the required shear resistance of
3283 kN.
Hence provide diagonally reinforced coupling beams with 4-20M for the first 11 storeys and
beams with 4-15M diagonal bars for the top two coupling beams.
In order to satisfy the capacity design requirement, the factored wall moments will be
increased at each level x by the factor bx , determined as:
bx =
V n
V f
where:
V n = sum of the shears corresponding to the nominal flexural resistance of coupling
beams above level x
V f = sum of factored shears above level x
The beam overstrength factors, cumulative dead and live loads and the factored axial loads
and factored moments in each wall multiplied by bx are shown on Table 11.14. The values of
V f are taken as the wall axial loads given in Table 11.14, since the axial load wall is the sum of
the shears in the coupling beams.
Table 11.14 Coupling Beam Overstrength Factors and Dead and Live Loads per Wall
Storey Vn , Vf , bx PD , PL , Pn , bx M1 ,
kN kN kN kN kN kNm
13 top 212.6 113.0 1.88 -945 0 425 851
13 bot -945 0 425 851
12 top 212.6 149.0 1.62 -1701 -196 850 1750
12 bot -1701 -196 850 501
11 top 318.9 192.8 1.64 -2457 -394 1488 1777
11 bot -2457 -394 1488 1012
10 top 318.9 228.9 1.55 -3213 -513 2126 1469
10 bot -3213 -513 2126 1765
9 top 318.9 251.6 1.48 -3969 -621 2764 1506
9 bot -3969 -621 2764 2239
8 top 318.9 265.1 1.42 -4725 -725 3402 1814
8 bot -4725 -725 3402 2438
7 top 318.9 276.7 1.37 -5481 -825 4039 2088
7 bot -5481 -825 4039 2483
6 top 318.9 290.7 1.32 -6237 -924 4677 2259
6 bot -6237 -924 4677 2459
5 top 318.9 307.4 1.28 -6993 -1020 5315 2338
5 bot -6993 -1020 5315 2382
4 top 318.9 323.3 1.24 7749 1115 5953 2259
4 bot 7749 1115 5953 2344
3 top 318.9 329.8 1.21 8506 1208 6591 1929
3 bot 8506 1208 6591 2664
2 top 318.9 310.4 1.19 9262 1301 7228 1550
2 bot 9262 1301 7228 3676
1 top 318.9 244.3 1.20 9797 1393 7866 2345
1 bot 9797 1393 7866 6682
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1149
The required moment capacity at the base of each wall, given in Table 11.14, is 6682 kNm
for seismic loading without accidental torsion. It is noted that the required moment at the base of
each wall due to wind (see Table 11.13) is 5599 kNm. Hence the seismic capacity design
requirements control the design.
From Table 11.14, the minimum axial force at the base of the "tension wall" corresponding to
development of flexural hinges in the coupling beams is:
Ps + Pn = 9797 + 7866 = 1931 kN, that is a compressive load.
The maximum axial force at the base of the "compression wall" corresponding to
development of flexural hinges in the coupling beams is:
Ps + Pn = 9797 0.5 1393 7866 = 18360 kN.
To account for the local forces (see Table 11.12) from accidental torsion a simplified
approach will be taken. Although the axial loads and moments on parts AB and CD have opposite
signs it will be assumed that the C-shaped wall is subjected to an additional axial load of twice the
axial tension or compression acting on segments AB or CD and an additional moment of twice the
moment acting in these segments. For example, at the base of the structure the additional axial
load for design is 2 457 = 914 kN and the additional moment is 2 361 = 722 kNm.
The development length required for the 10M bars, using the simplified equation in Clause
12.2.3 is:
1.25fy 500
l d = 0.45k1k 2 k 3 k 4 d b = 0.45 1 1 1 0.8 10 = 329 mm
fc 30
The length provided in the region of concentrated reinforcement (see Fig. 11.27) is 320 mm.
With the significant cover provided on the bars and the additional confinement provided in this
region of concentrated reinforcement, the development length can be shown to be less than 320
mm using Eq. 12-1 in Clause 12.2.2. Hence, the hoop configuration shown in Fig. 11.27 is
adequate.
At the base of the walls the spacing of the horizontal distributed reinforcement must be decreased
to 120 mm in component BC and to 150 mm in components AB and CD (see Section 11.5.6.7).
The factored moment resistances for different loading cases were determined using the
stress block factors of Clause 10.1.7, strain compatibility and a maximum concrete compressive
strain of 0.0035. Table 11.15 summarizes the results.
Table 11.15 Predicted Factored Moment Resistances and Depths of Compression per Wall
at the base (Global wall forces)
Load Case Nf Mf Nr Mr c
kN kNm kN kNm mm
E-W (1 C-shaped wall)
tension
1.0D + 1.0E -1931 6682 -1931 15058 493
wall
compression 1.0D + 1.0E -17663 6682 -17663 21773 226
wall 1.0D + 0.5L + 1.0E -18360 6682 -18360 22280 233
N-S (per wall)
1.0D + 1.0E -9797 28332 -9797 49058 290
1.0D + 0.5L + 1.0E -10494 28332 -10494 51097 303
The required moment capacity in the E-W direction from analysis is 6682 kNm per wall. As
can be seen from Table 11.15, the tension wall has a factored moment resistance of
15058 kNm, while the compression wall has a factored moment resistance of 22280 kNm.
Hence the factored flexural resistance exceeds the required factored moment. Figure 11.28
illustrates the moment resistances for the walls in the E-W direction.
It is noted that the total forces in the E-W tension wall, including global (Table 11.15) and
local (Table 11.12) forces at its base is:
N f = 1931 + 914 = 1017 kN and M f = 6682 + 722 = 7405 kNm.
For this level of axial load the factored moment resistance is 13385 kNm. Hence the wall
strength is adequate for both global and local forces. It can be shown, in a similar way, that the
factored resistance of the compression wall is adequate for global and local forces.
Clause 21.6.8.8 requires that the walls at each end of a coupling beam be designed so that
the factored moment resistance of the wall about its centroid, calculated using axial loads Ps + Pn ,
1152 Seismic Design
exceeds the moment corresponding to the nominal resistance of the coupling beam. This
requirement will be satisfied at all the different levels of the structure because the push-over
analysis summarized in Table 11.14 already considers the attainment of the nominal resistances
of the coupling beams over the entire height of the structure. Hence all of the design moments
and axial forces correspond to these conditions.
In the N-S direction, the factored moment resistance for both load cases significantly
exceeds the required moment (see Table 11.15 and Fig. 11.29).
Fig. 11.28 Factored moment resistances of ductile coupled walls (E-W direction)
Fig. 11.29 Factored moment resistance of ductile shear walls (N-S direction)
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1153
For ductile coupled walls, the inelastic rotational demand id is taken as:
l 0.0035 8.4
ic = cu w 0.002 = 0.002 = 0.0278 0.025
2c 2 0 . 493
Because the rotational capacity of 0.025 exceeds the rotational demand of 0.004, sufficient
ductility is provided.
id =
( f Ro Rd
f w ) (0.028 1.6 3.5 0.028 1.95 )
= = 0.0024 0.004
l 6.4
hw w 45.0
2 2
The inelastic rotational capacity ic , assuming cu = 0.0035 is:
cu l w 0.0035 6.4
ic = 0.002 = 0.002 = 0.0350 0.025
2c 2 0.303
Because the rotational capacity of 0.025 exceeds the rotational demand of 0.004, sufficient
ductility is provided.
For the 6400 mm long portion of the E-W "compression wall", it is noted that
c / 2 = 233 / 2 = 117 mm, which is less than the wall thickness, and furthermore, the wall is
laterally supported at its ends by the 3200 mm wall portions. Hence, this portion of the wall need
not have a thickness of l u / 10 (see Clause 21.6.3.5).
For stability considerations for the wall loaded in the N-S direction, the value of
c / 2 = 303 / 2 = 152 mm is smaller than the 400 mm thickness of the flanges. Therefore the
400 mm wall dimension is adequate and the width of the flange of 3200 mm, greatly exceeds
l u / 5 (see Clause 21.6.3.5).
Therefore all of the stability requirements are satisfied.
N-S direction:
M pw 60679
V = Vf = 2057 = 4406 kN
Mf 28332
In calculating the shear capacity of the wall, the effective shear depth d v is taken as
0.9d = 0.9 6200 = 5580 mm, but need not be taken less than 0.8l w = 0.8 6400 = 5120 mm
(Clause 21.6.9.3).
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1155
In the region of expected plastic hinging, at the base of the wall, the inelastic rotational
demand id is less than 0.005 and hence the factored shear demand cannot exceed:
0.15c fcbw d v = 0.15 0.65 30 400 5120 = 5990 kN
The factored shear demand of 4406 kN is less than this upper limit.
Because the inelastic rotational demand id is less than 0.005, the factored shear resistance
is calculated using = 0.18 . The axial load on the tension wall is -10494 kN (compression). This
axial load is less than: 0.1fc Ag = 0.1 30 (3200 800 + 5600 400 ) = 14400 kN.
Hence is taken as 45 (Clause 21.6.9.6). The factored shear resistance (Clauses 11.3.4
and 11.3.5), assuming pairs of 10M bars at 120 mm spacing is:
s Av f y d v cot
Vr = c f c bw d v +
s
0.85 200 400 5580 cot 45 o
= 0.65 0.18 30 400 5580 +
120
= 1430 + 3162 = 4592 kN
Hence the shear resistance is adequate with pairs of 10M horizontal bars spaced at 120 mm.
It is noted that the accidental torsion causes shear in segments AB and CD. This shear, due
to accidental torsion, must be considered in design, accounting for the fact that the critical flange
will be in tension and have large flexural cracks due to the attainment of plastic hinging for loading
in the N-S direction. A method to check the shear resistance of these segments, accounting for
large cracks and possible redistribution of shear resisting torsion, is described in the calculations
below for loading in the E-W direction.
E-W direction:
In the E-W direction it is necessary to first determine the shear from seismic loading and
include accidental torsion effects. The shear at the base without accidental torsion is
810 / 2 = 405 kN in segment AB. The analysis including accidental torsion indicates a shear force
of 120 kN on wall segments AB and CD (see Table 11.12). In accordance with Clause 21.6.8.13 it
may be necessary to redistribute the shear force of 359 kN in the segment BC because under
plastic hinging this wall segment will experience large tensile strains and cracks. If the torsion
arising from this 359 kN force is redistributed to wall segments AB and CD, then an additional
shear force will be necessary. This additional shear force is:
8.0 8.0
VAB = VBC = 359 = 479 kN in two segments
6.0 6.0
Hence the total shear in segment AB is 405 + 120 + 479 / 2 = 765 kN.
In lieu of redistributing the torsional shear from wall segment BC, a more detailed analysis
will be conducted (Clause 21.6.8.13). Wall component BC is lightly loaded in shear but must resist
the shear with large cracks in this tension wall. In order to determine the shear resistance under
these conditions the dowel action resistance will be determined, considering the resistance of
the reinforcement only. From Paulay and Priestley (1992) the dowel resistance can be taken as:
Vr = 0.25 s Av f y = 0.25 0.85 27 200 400 = 459 kN.
Because this resistance exceeds the shear force of 359 kN, redistribution of the shear from the
tension wall BC to wall AB is not necessary. Hence the total shear in segment AB is
405 + 120 = 525 kN.
1156 Seismic Design
The design shear for segment AB, including torsional effects is:
M pw 26235
V = Vf = 525 = 1860 kN
Mf 6682 + 722
For segment CD, the shear from accidental torsion acts in the opposite direction from that in
segment AB. Hence the total shear for segment CD is 405 120 = 285 kN. This results in a
design shear for this segment of:
M pw 26235
V = Vf = 285 = 1010 kN.
Mf 6682 + 722
Segments AB and CD must both be designed for the larger shear of 1860 kN because the
accidental torsion can reverse.
In calculating the shear capacity of the wall, in accordance with Clause 21.6.9.3, we will
assume an effective shear depth, dv = 0.8l w = 0.8 3200 = 2560 mm.
In the region of expected plastic hinging, at the base of the wall, the inelastic rotational
demand id is less than 0.005 and hence the factored shear demand in one segment cannot
exceed:
0.15c fcbw dv = 0.15 0.65 30 400 2560 = 2995 kN
The factored shear demand of 1860 kN is less than this upper limit.
Because the inelastic rotational demand id is less than 0.005, the factored shear resistance
is calculated using = 0.18 . The axial load on the tension wall is -1017 kN. This axial load is less
than: 0.1fc Ag = 0.1 30 (3200 800 + 5600 400 ) = 14400 kN.
Hence is taken as 45 (Clause 21.6.9.6). The factored shear resistance (Clauses 11.3.4
and 11.3.5) for wall segment AB at the base with pairs of 10M bars at a spacing of 150 mm is:
s Av f y d v cot
Vr = c f c bw d v +
s
0.85 200 400 2560cot 45 o
= 0.65 0.18 30 400 2560 +
150
= 656 + 1161 = 1817 kN
Segment AB is overstressed by only 2%, while segment BC is very lightly loaded and hence
a portion can be redistributed to this segment. Hence the shear strength in the E-W direction is
adequate with 2-10M bars at 150 mm spacing.
Extend the 10M horizontal reinforcement into the confined core of the region of concentrated
reinforcement as close to the outside surface of the walls as cover will permit (see Fig 11.27 and
Section 11.5.6.3).
N-S direction:
In the N-S direction, the required shear strength is 4406 kN per wall. If the construction joint
is intentionally roughened, the factored shear stress resistance from Clauses 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 is:
N
v r = c c + v fy +
Ag
9797 1000
= 0.65 0.50 + 1.0 0.0025 400 +
800 3200 + 400 5600
= 2.302 MPa
Hence, the sliding shear resistance is: 2.302 Acv = 2.302 400 6400 = 5893 kN
Since the sliding shear resistance exceeds the shear corresponding to plastic hinging, sliding
shear will be prevented.
E-W direction:
In the E-W direction, the required shear strength of segment AB is 1860 kN. It will be
assumed that the net compressive axial load is acting on the segments AB and CD (the segment
BC is in tension). If the construction joint is intentionally roughened, the factored shear stress
resistance from Clause 11.5 is:
N
v r = c c + v f y +
Ag
1931 1000
= 0.65 0.50 + 1.0 0.0025 400 +
800 3200
= 1.465 MPa
( )
Vf = [1.0(4.8 + 1.5 ) + 0.5(2.4 )] 5.75 6.0 0.712 = 255 kN
A clear cover of 25 mm and 15M top bars are assumed for the slab.
The corresponding shear stress is:
Vf 255 1000
vf = = = 0.561 MPa
bo d 4 (550 + 160 ) 160
CAC Concrete Design Handbook 1159
The limiting shear stress obtained by multiplying RE by the two-way shear stress for this
square column from Clause 13.3.4.1 is:
( )
Vf = [1.0(4.8 + 1.5 ) + 0.5(2.4 )] 3.125 2 0.73 2 = 69.2 kN
Vf 69.2 1000
vf = = = 0.296 MPa
bo d 2 (100 + 550 + 160 / 2) 160
The limiting shear stress obtained by multiplying RE by the one-way shear stress for this
corner column from Clause 13.3.6 and 11.3.6.2 is:
11.5.8 Comparisons with the Design Using the 1994 CSA Standard
The structure designed in this chapter is the same structure designed in Reference 2, except
that the structure designed in this chapter was for a foundation on soil of site Class D (stiff soil),
whereas the structure in Reference 2 was for the same structure founded on rock. In addition,
900 mm deep diagonally reinforced coupling beams were used, instead of 600 mm deep coupling
beams with conventional reinforcement. It is noted that, for this structure, the design force levels
using the 2005 NBCC are somewhat lower than those using the 1995 NBCC.
11.5.9 References
1. Mitchell, D. and Collins, M.P., "Chapter 11 - Seismic Design", Concrete Design Handbook,
Canadian Portland Cement Association, Ottawa, 1985, pp. 11-1 11-31.
2. Mitchell, D., Paultre, P. and Collins, M.P., "Chapter 11 - Seismic Design", Concrete Design
Handbook, Cement Association of Canada, Ottawa, 1995, pp. 11-1 11-33.
3. Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1992, 744p.
1160 Seismic Design