2012 Ibc Seaoc SSDM Vol3 PDF

2012 IBC
SEAOC STRUCTURAL/SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL

®
Volume 3
EXAMPLES FOR CONCRETE BUILDINGS
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd i 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved. This publication
or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Structural
Engineers Association of California.
Publisher
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

1400 K Street, Ste. 212
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501
E-mail: seaoc@seaoc.org; Web address: www.seaoc.org
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional
member organizations (Central California, Northern California, San Diego, and Southern California).
SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in
keeping with SEAOC’s stated mission:
To advance the structural engineering profession; to provide the public with structures of
dependable performance through the application of state-of-the-art structural engineering
principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional structural engineering services; to
promote natural hazard mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage research;
to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their
practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession.
SEAOC Board oversight of this publication was provided by 2012 SEAOC Board President James
Amundson, S.E. and Immediate Past President Doug Hohbach, S.E.
Editor
International Code Council
Disclaimer
While the information presented in this document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member
organizations, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed to this publication make
any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application
of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication.
The material presented in this publication should not be used for any specific application without competent
examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability. Users of information from this
publication assume all liability arising from such use.
First Printing: August 2013
ii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd ii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Suggestions for Improvement
Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to the following:
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

Don Schinske, Executive Director
1400 K Street, Suite 212
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501
E-mail: dschinske@seaoc.org
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document is accurate. In
the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC web site at
www.seaoc.org and on the ICC web site at www.iccsafe.org.
SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may issue written errata.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 iii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd iii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd iv 8/15/13 8:41 AM
Table of Contents
Preface to the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface to Volume 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
How to Use This Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Design Example 1
Reinforced Concrete Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Design Example 2
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Design Example 3
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Design Example 4
Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Design Example 5
Pile Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Design Example 6
Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 v
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd v 8/15/13 8:41 AM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd vi 8/15/13 8:41 AM
Preface to the 2012 IBC SEAOC
Structural/Seismic Design Manual
The IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, throughout its many editions, has served the purpose
of illustrating good seismic design and the correct application of building-code provisions. The manual
has bridged the gap between the discursive treatment of topics in the SEAOC Blue Book (Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary) and real-world decisions that designers face in their practice.
The examples illustrate code-compliant designs engineered to achieve good performance under severe
seismic loading. In some cases simply complying with building-code requirements does not ensure good
seismic response. This manual takes the approach of exceeding the minimum code requirements in such
cases, with discussion of the reasons for doing so.
Recent editions of the IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual have consisted of updates of previous
editions, modified to address changes in the building code and referenced standards. Many of the adopted
standards did not change between the 2006 edition of the International Building Code and the 2009 edition.
The 2012 edition, which is the one used in this set of manuals, represents an extensive change of adopted
standards, with many substantial changes in methodology.
Additionally, this edition has been substantially revised. New examples have been included to address new
code provisions and new systems, as well as to address areas in which the codes and standards provide
insufficient guidance. Important examples such as the design of base-plate anchorages for steel systems and
the design of diaphragms have been added.
This expanded edition comprises five volumes:
• Volume 1: Code Application Examples

• Volume 2: Examples for Light-Frame, Tilt-Up, and Masonry Buildings
• Volume 3: Examples for Reinforced Concrete Buildings
• Volume 4: Examples for Steel-Framed Buildings
• Volume 5: Examples for Seismically Isolated Buildings and Buildings with Supplemental Damping
Previous editions have been three volumes. This expanded edition contains more types of systems for
concrete buildings and steel buildings. These are no longer contained in the same volume. Volumes 3 and 4
of the 2012 edition replace Volume 3 of the 2009 edition. Additionally, we have fulfilled the long-standing
goal of including examples addressing seismic isolation and supplemental damping. These examples are
presented in the new Volume 5.
In general, the provisions for developing the design base shear, distributing the base-shear-forces vertically
and horizontally, checking for irregularities, etc., are illustrated in Volume 1. The other volumes contain
more extensive design examples that address the requirements of the material standards (for example, ACI
318 and AISC 341) that are adopted by the IBC. Building design examples do not illustrate many of the
items addressed in Volume 1 in order to permit the inclusion of less-redundant content.
Each volume has been produced by a small group of authors under the direction of a manager. The
managers have assembled reviewers to ensure coordination with other SEAOC work and publications, most
notably the Blue Book, as well as numerical accuracy.
This manual can serve as valuable tool for engineers seeking to design buildings for good seismic response.
Rafael Sabelli
Project Manager
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 vii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd vii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd viii 8/15/13 8:41 AM
Preface to Volume 3
Volume 3 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual illustrates the design requirements
for reinforced concrete shear wall and moment-frame seismic systems, and also important interfaces with
the rest of the structure.
The design examples in this volume represent a range of structural systems and seismic systems. The
design of each of these systems is governed by standards developed by the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) in ACI-318. The methods illustrated herein represent approaches consistent with the ductility
expectations for each system and with the desired seismic response. In most cases there are several details
or mechanisms that can be utilized to achieve the ductility and resistance required, and the author of each
example has selected an appropriate option. In many cases alternatives are discussed. This manual is not
intended to serve as a building code, nor to be an exhaustive catalogue of all valid approaches and details.
The manual is presented as a set of examples in which the engineer has considered the building-code
requirements in conjunction with the optimal seismic response of the system. The examples follow
the recommendations of the SEAOC Blue Book and other SEAOC recommendations. The examples
are intended to aid conscientious designers in crafting designs that are likely to achieve good seismic
performance consistent with expectations inherent in the requirements for the systems.
Three examples have been included in past editions of this manual and are updated in this edition:
reinforced concrete shear wall, reinforced concrete shear wall with coupling beams, and reinforced concrete
special moment frame. Three examples are new and are included in this edition of the manual: reinforced
concrete parking garage, reinforced concrete pile foundation, and reinforced concrete diaphragms and
collectors.
Jon Kiland
Volume 3 Manager
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 ix
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd ix 8/15/13 8:41 AM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd x 8/15/13 8:41 AM
Acknowledgements
Volume 3 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly
qualified structural engineers, chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering
practice and seismic design. The authors are:
Joe Maffei, S.E., Ph.D., LEED AP, Principal, Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2
With 29 years of experience in research and practice, Joe is an expert on the seismic evaluation, design,
and retrofitting of structures. He has directed a range of projects, including those using innovative solutions
and advanced methods of evaluation. The American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete
Institute have appointed Joe to committees writing structural code provisions. www.maffei-structure.com
Karl Telleen, S.E., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Karl joined Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers in San Francisco in 2004, and his experience
includes seismic retrofit of concrete buildings as well as design of new structures. Mr. Telleen joined MSE
in 2013. He completed a Fulbright Fellowship in Switzerland in 2010, and he performed post-earthquake
reconnaissance in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake. He is currently participating in the ATC-
94 project studying the performance of concrete buildings in the 2010 Chile earthquake. www.maffei-
structure.com
Jon Kiland, S.E., Applied Technology Council—Volume 3 Manager and Example 3

Jon has 33 years of experience as a structural design and consulting engineer in Northern California. His
practice has included extensive experience in seismic analysis and evaluation of existing buildings, the
design of new construction, and the seismic strengthening and rehabilitation of existing building projects.
He currently works for the Applied Technology Council in Redwood City, California, as Director of
Projects involved with developing advanced engineering applications for natural hazard mitigation. He has
been actively involved in the development of codes and standards for over 25 years.
He is a Past President of the Structural Engineers Association of California and the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California, and a Fellow Member of both organizations. His current committee
assignments include the ASCE 7-16 Seismic Sub-Committee (SSC) and Chair of the TC-2 General
Provisions Task Committee. www.atcouncil.org
Jeremiah LeGrue, S.E., Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. Structural Engineers—Example 4.

Jeremiah has been with Hohbach-Lewin since 2002 and works in their Eugene, Oregon, office. His
experience includes analysis and design of concrete structures using traditional and performance-based
methods. Prior to joining Hohbach-Lewin, Jeremiah developed probabilistic hazard assessments and loss
models for the re-insurance industry. He is a registered Structural Engineer in California and Oregon.
Jeremiah has a Masters in Structural Engineering from Stanford University. www.hohbach-lewin.com
Stephen Harris, S.E., Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.—Example 5

Stephen Harris has practiced structural engineering for over 26 years. He is a graduate of the University of
California at Davis and a registered Structural Engineer in California, Oregon, and Hawaii. His experience
includes design of new structures, seismic strengthening of existing structures and design of pile foundation
systems. www.sgh.com
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xi
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xi 8/14/13 4:41 PM

Badri Prasad, S.E., Vice President, TTG Engineers—Example 6
Badri received his BS degree from Bangalore University, India, and MS degree from Mysore University,
India. He also obtained his MS degree from the University of Arizona. He is currently a Vice President
and Branch Manager—Structural at TTG Engineers, San Francisco, California. He is a registered SE in
California and registered PE in Washington State. He has 25 years of experience in the design of various
types of structures, such as healthcare facilities, biotechnology facilities, mid- and high-rise structures,
schools, and seismic retrofit, among others. He is a member of the SEAONC Seismology Committee’s
concrete subcommittee and was instrumental in publishing the committee’s work titled “Concrete Slab as
a Collector Element” in the 2008 SEAOC Blue Book. He is also the project manager for this guide. He
has published several papers on buckling restrained braced frames and a research paper on base-isolation
system.
Additionally, a number of SEAOC members and other structural engineers helped check the examples in
this volume. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent to these individuals. Their help was
sought in review of code interpretations as well as detailed checking of the numerical computations. The
reviewers include:
Russell Berkowitz
Anindya Dutta
Tim Hart
Mark Jokerst
Jon Kiland
Yixia Liu
Ted Zsutty
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained during the development of the
document. The Seismology Committee has reviewed the document and provided many helpful comments
and suggestions. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
Production and art was provided by the International Code Council.
xii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

References
Standards
ACI 318, 2011, Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ASCE/SEI 7, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, Virginia.
ICC, 2012, International Building Code (IBC). International Code Council, Washington, DC.
Other References
Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A.M.M., and Bryson, M., 2007, Test of High-Rise Core Wall: Effective
Stiffness for Seismic Analysis, ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, Farmington,
Michigan, September-October 2007.
AISC, 2003, Design guide 18—Steel-framed open-deck parking structures., American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
ASCE/SEI 41-06, 2007, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Structural Engineering

Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 1971, Plastic Design in Steel, A Guide and Commentary, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, New York.
ATC, 1996, ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
CRSI, 1996, Rebar Design and Detailing Data—ACI., Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute,
Schaumberg, Illinois.
Elwood, Kenneth J., Joe Maffei, Kevin A. Riederer, and Karl Telleen, 2009, Improving Column
Confinement Part 2: Proposed new provisions for the ACI 318 Building Code, Concrete
International, Volume 31, No. 12, pages 41–48, December 2009.
Elwood, Kenneth J., Joe Maffei, Kevin A. Riederer, and Karl Telleen, 2009, Improving Column
Confinement Part 1: Assessment of design provisions, Concrete International, Volume 31, No. 11,
pages 32–48, November 2009.
Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council (ATC-43 project) for the Partnership for Response and Recovery. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Report No. FEMA-306, Washington, D.C., 1999.
FEMA, 1998, FEMA 306/307, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xiii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xiii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Ghosh, S. K., 1998, Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997 UBC, Building
Standards, May-June, pp. 20–24. International Conference of Building Officials, Washington,
D.C.
Guzman T. and M. Abell. (2012, April 17). Modeling cracked shear-wall behavior. Retrieved from
https://wiki.csiberkeley.com/x/AoBF
Jirsa, J.O., L.A. Lutz, and P. Gergely, 1979. Rationale for Suggested Development, Splice, and
Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension, Concrete International: Design &
Construction, Vol. 1, No. 7, July 1979, pp. 47–61.
Maffei, Joe, 1996, Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls—Beyond the Code, SEAONC Fall Seminar
Proceedings. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, San Francisco, California,
November, 1996.
McCormac J.C.. 1992, Design of Reinforced Concrete, Third Edition, Harper Collins College
Publishers, New York, New York.
MacGregor, J.G., 1992, Second Edition, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
Nilson, A.H. and Winter, G., 1966, Design of Concrete Structures, Tenth Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, New York.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2010, Tall Buildings Initiative: Guidelines
for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Version 1.0, University of California,
Berkeley, California, November, 2010.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1992, Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Design for
Seismic Resistance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1993, Stability of Ductile Structural Walls. ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 90, No. 4, July-August 1993.
Reese, L.C., Isenhower, W.M., Wang, S-T, 2006, Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep
Foundations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Schotanus, M. IJ., and Maffei, J.R., 2007, Computer Modeling and Effective Stiffness of Concrete
Wall Buildings, Proceedings of the International FIB Symposium on Tailor Made Concrete
Structures: New Solutions for Our Society, CRC Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, May 2007.
SEAOC Blue Book, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural
Engineers Associate of California (SEAOC), Seventh Edition, Sacramento, California.
SEAOC Blue Book, 2009, Reinforced Concrete Structures (Article 09.01.010). Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Associate of California,
Sacramento, California, First Printing, September, 2009.
SEAOC Blue Book, 2008, Concrete slab collectors, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
xiv 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xiv 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Standards New Zealand, 1995, Concrete Structures Standard: Part 2—Commentary on the Design
of Concrete Structures (NZS 3101: Part 2)., May 1995, p. 84.
Structurepoint. 2010, SPcolumn Version 4.60: Design and Investigation of Reinforced Concrete
Column Sections, STRUCTUREPOINT, Skokie, Illinois.
Schotanus, M. IJ., and Maffei, J.R. 2007, Computer Modeling and Effective Stiffness of Concrete
Wall Buildings, Proceedings of the International FIB Symposium on Tailor Made Concrete
Structures: New Solutions for Our Society, CRC Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, May 2007.
USGS, 2012, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, Retrieved from http://geohazards.usgs
.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xv
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xv 8/15/13 8:41 AM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xvi 8/15/13 8:41 AM
How to Use This Document
Equation numbers in the right-hand margin refer to the one of the standards (e.g., ACI 318, ASCE 7 or
IBC). The default standard is given in the heading of each section of each example; equation numbers in
that section refer to that standard unless another standard is explicitly cited.
Abbreviations used in the “Code Reference” column are
§ – Section T – Table
F – Figure Eq – Equation
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xvii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xvii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xviii 8/15/13 8:41 AM
Design Example 1
Reinforced Concrete Wall
OVERVIEW
The structure in this design example is an eight-story office with load-bearing reinforced concrete walls as
its seismic-force-resisting system. This design example focuses on the design and detailing of one of the
30-foot, 6-inch-long walls running in the transverse building direction.
The purpose of this design example is twofold:
1. To demonstrate the design of a solid reinforced concrete wall for flexure and shear, including
bar cut-offs and lap splices.
2. To demonstrate the design and detailing of wall boundary zones.
The design example assumes that design lateral forces have already been determined for the structure and
that the forces have been distributed to the walls of the structure by a hand or computer analysis. This
analysis has provided the lateral displacements corresponding to the design lateral forces.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 1
01_Example-01_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 1 8/6/13 3:36 PM

Design Example 1 䡲 Reinforced Concrete Wall
OUTLINE
1. Building Geometry and Loads
2. Load Combinations for Design
3. Preliminary Sizing of Wall
4. Flexural Strength at Base of Wall
5. Flexural Strength and Lap Splices over Height of Wall
6. Shear Strength of Wall
7. Shear Friction (Sliding Shear) Strength of Wall
8. Detailing of Wall Boundary Elements
1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7
1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION
This design example follows the general building code requirements of the 2012 International Building
Code (2012 IBC) and ASCE 7. For structural concrete design, the 2012 IBC references the American
Concrete Institute Building Code (ACI 318) as indicated in Section 1901.2. This example follows the
requirements of ACI 318-11. Discussions related to the SEAOC Blue Book recommendations refer to the
document Recommended Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary (SEAOC, 1999) as well as the
Blue Book online articles on specific topics (SEAOC, 2009) as applicable.
Figure 1–1 shows the typical floor plan of the structure. The design and analysis of the structure is based on
a response modification coefficient, R, of 5 (ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1) for a bearing wall system with special
reinforced concrete shear walls. The deflection amplification factor, Cd , is 5. The SEAOC Blue Book (2009,
Article 09.01.010) expresses the opinion that the R value for concrete bearing-wall systems (R = 5) and that
for walls in building frame systems (R = 6) should be the same, which may be justified based on detailing
provisions. To be consistent with the current code requirements though, this design example uses R = 5.
Mapped spectral response acceleration values from ASCE 7 maps (Figures 22–1 through 22–11) are
• S1 = 0.65
• SS = 1.60
• Site Class D
• Risk Category II
2 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

• Seismic Design Category D
• Redundancy factor, ρ = 1.0
• Seismic Importance factor, I = 1.0
• Concrete strength, fc′ = 5000 psi
• Steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi
Figure 1–1. Floor plan
1.2 DESIGN LOADS AND LATERAL FORCES
Figure 1–2 shows the wall elevation and shear and moment diagrams. The wall carries axial forces PD
(resulting from dead load including self-weight of the wall) and PL (resulting from live load) as shown in
Table 1–1. Live loads have already been reduced according to IBC Section 1607.10. The shear, VE, and
moment, ME, resulting from the design lateral earthquake forces are also shown in Table 1–1. The forces are
from a linear static analysis.

Figure 1–2. Wall elevation, shear, and moment diagram
Table 1–1. Design loads and lateral forces
Level PD (kips) PL (kips) VE (kips) ME (kip-ft)

Roof 193 37 84 0
8 388 72 244 928
7 573 108 414 3630
6 758 144 595 8210
5 945 181 785 14,800
4 1130 217 987 23,500
3 1310 253 1220 34,400
2 1540 290 1420 48,000
1 73,000

For this design example, it is assumed that the foundation system is rigid, and thus the wall is considered to
have a fixed base. The fixed-base assumption is made here primarily to simplify the example. In an actual
structure, the effect of foundation flexibility and its consequences on structural deformations should be
considered.
The analysis uses effective section properties for the stiffness of concrete elements. Example 2 includes a
discussion of effective section properties for use in analysis.
Using the fixed-base assumption and effective section properties, the horizontal displacement at the top
of the wall corresponding to the design lateral forces is 1.55 inches. This displacement is needed for the
detailing of boundary zones according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6, which is illustrated in Part 8 of this
design example.
2. Load Combinations for Design ASCE 7
2.1 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations for the seismic design of concrete are given in Section 2.32. (This is indicated in
Section 12.4.2.3.) Equations 5 and 7 of Section 2.3.2 are the seismic design load combinations to be used
for concrete.
1.2D + 1.0E + L + 0.2S

0.9D + 1.0E.
Load combinations for non-seismic loads for reinforced concrete are given in Section 2.3.2, Equations 1, 2,
3, 4, and 6.
2.2 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE FORCE
The term E in the load combinations includes horizontal and vertical components according to
Equations 12.4–1 and 12.4–2 of Section 12.4.2:
E = Eh + Ev Eq 12.4–1
E = Eh − Ev Eq 12.4–2
where Eh and Ev are defined according to Equations 12.4–3 and 12.4–4 of Section 12.4.2.1 and Section
12.4.2.2 as follows:
Eh = ρQE Eq 12.4–3
Ev = 0.2SDSD. Eq 12.4–4
Substituting this into the seismic-load combinations results in
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + L + 0.2S

(0.9 − 0.2SDS)D + ρQE.

Since there is no snow load, S = 0. Section 12.4.2.3 permits the load factor on L in the above combination to
be reduced to 0.5 where the unreduced design live load is less than or equal to 100 psf, with the exception
of garages or areas occupied as places of public assembly. Because this example building is an office
building, the reduced factor on L is applicable.
Given Site Class D and SS = 1.60, from Table 11.4–1, Fa = 1.0
SMS = FaSS = 1.60 Eq 11.4–1

SDS = (2/3)SMS = 1.07. Eq 11.4–3
With SDS = 1.07, ρ = 1.0, and a live load factor of 0.5, the governing load combinations for this design
example become
1.41D + QE + 0.5L
0.686D + QE.
2.3 ACTIONS AT BASE OF WALL
For the example wall, the dead and live loads cause axial forces only, and the earthquake forces produce
shear and moment only. The second of the above combinations gives the lower bound axial force. Because
the axial force is less than that which would cause the balanced strain condition, the second of the above
load combinations will be the more critical for the flexural strength of the wall.
The governing axial force at the base of the wall is thus
Pu = 0.686PD = 0.686(1540 kips) = 1060 kips
The governing moment and shear at the base of the wall is
Mu = ME = 73,000 kip-ft
Vu = VE = 1420 kips.

3.1 SHEAR STRESS AND REINFORCEMENT RATIO RULES OF THUMB
The dimensions and required number of walls in a building can be selected by limiting the average shear
stress in the walls, corresponding to factored lateral forces, to between 3 fc′ and 5 fc′ . Walls with higher
levels of shear stress are permitted by ACI 318, but shear stress within the range suggested leads to more
easily constructible detailing for shear strength, sliding shear, and boundary confinement. For taller
buildings with significant influence of higher modes, PEER Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic
Design of Tall Buildings (PEER, 2010) recommends limiting shear stresses to the range of 2 fc′ and 3 fc′
for preliminary design.
For the example wall, the maximum factored shear force equals 1420 kips. Using a 3 fc′ criterion, for a
wall length of 30 feet, 6 inches, the wall thickness equals
1,420,000 lb
= 18.3 in
(
366 in 3 5000 psi )
Say b = 20 inches.

Detailed shear design for calculated demands is discussed in Section 5.
3.2 MINIMUM THICKNESS TO PREVENT WALL BUCKLING SEAOC Blue Book
For structures with tall story heights, the designer should check that the wall thickness exceeds lu /16
where lu is the unsupported height or length of the wall, whichever is shorter. The SEAOC Blue Book
Commentary (1999, C407.5.6, p. 198) recommends 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.”
For the example wall, the clear height at the first story is 17 feet.
Recommended thickness = lu /16 = 17 (12)/16 = 12.8 in < 20 in . . . OK.
3.3 LAYOUT OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT ACI 318
Based on brief calculations and the preliminary sizing considerations discussed here, the wall section and
reinforcement layout shown in Figure 1–3 is proposed for the base of the wall.
Figure 1–3. Layout of vertical reinforcement at wall base
The reinforcement layout addresses the following issues:
• Vertical bars are spaced longitudinally at 9 inches on center for ease of construction.
• The maximum permissible center-to-center spacing of vertical bars is 14 inches in boundary

regions of walls where confinement is needed, according to ACI 318 Section 21.6.4.2, which
is referenced by ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.4(c). This means that at the ends of the 20-inch-thick
wall, three bars are used as shown in Figure 1–3.
ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.1 specifies a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 for both vertical and
horizontal reinforcement of structural walls. For the proposed layout, at the center portion of the wall’s
length
ρv = As /bs = 1.58 in2 / (9 in × 20 in) = 0.0088 > 0.0025 . . . OK.

4. Flexural Strength at Base of Wall ACI 318
4.1 REINFORCEMENT CONSIDERED “EFFECTIVE”
As required by ACI 318 Section 21.9.5.1, all “developed longitudinal reinforcement within effective
flange widths, boundary elements, and the wall web shall be considered effective.” Thus, the vertical
reinforcement in the web of the wall and axial force contributions to the flexural strength of wall sections
may not be neglected.
The 1995 and earlier editions of ACI 318 and the 1991 and earlier editions of the UBC required wall
boundaries to carry all moment and gravity forces. This practice results in higher flexural strengths in walls,
which can lead to poor earthquake performance because it makes shear failure more likely to occur. By
ACI 318 Section 21.9.5.1, this design practice is no longer permitted.
Wall flexural strength can be computed by hand calculations, spreadsheet calculations, or a computer
program such as spColumn (American Structurepoint, 2010). All three calculation approaches are
demonstrated below and are based on an assumed strain distribution and an iterative calculation procedure.
4.2 ASSUMED REINFORCEMENT STRAIN
For cyclic loading, all vertical reinforcement along the wall can be assumed to yield in either tension or
compression. This assumption simplifies the hand calculation of moment capacity and is used in the hand
calculations shown below.
Alternatively, the reinforcement strain can be assumed to be directly proportional to distance from the
neutral axis, as discussed in ACI 318 Section 10.2.2. This assumption is used in the spreadsheet calculations
demonstrated here and is also used by the spColumn computer program.
The assumption of all reinforcement yielding results in a slightly greater flexural strength compared to the
strain assumption of Section 10.2.2, but the difference is not significant. The two possible assumed strain
distributions are illustrated in Figure 1–4.
Figure 1–4. Steel stress and neutral axis depth

In calculating flexural strength, it is necessary to determine the neutral axis depth, c, as shown in
Figure 1–4. A typical calculation of flexural strength is based on the following steps:
1. An initial estimate of c
2. Calculation of the steel reinforcement tensile and compressive forces
3. Balancing the forces to calculate the concrete compressive force, Cc = (Pn + ΣTs − ΣCs)
4. Calculation of the stress block length, a, which corresponds to Cc
5. Calculation of c equal to a/β1, and a reiteration of steps 1 through 4, if necessary.
4.3 STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR
ACI 318 Section 9.3.2 gives the requirements for determining the strength reduction factor φ. For
reinforced concrete sections with flexure and axial force, the value of φ depends on whether the section is
tension-controlled or compression-controlled. This procedure for determining φ was introduced in the 2002
edition of ACI 318.
ACI 318 Section 10.3.3 defines the conditions for compression-controlled sections, and Section 10.3.4
defines the conditions for tension-controlled sections. The definitions depend on the strain values at the
cross sections at nominal strength. For Grade 60 reinforcement, sections are compression controlled if
the net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel, εt, is less than or equal to 0.002 when the concrete in
compression reaches its assumed strain limit of 0.003. Sections are tension controlled if εt is greater than or
equal to 0.005 when the concrete in compression reaches its assumed strain limit of 0.003.
For tension-controlled sections, φ is 0.9. For compression-controlled sections (without spiral

reinforcement), φ is 0.65. When εt is between 0.002 and 0.005, the value of φ is linearly interpolated as
indicated in Section 9.3.2
4.4 HAND CALCULATION
The calculation of moment strength is based on the free-body diagram shown in Figure 1–5.
The strength reduction factor, φ, is determined according to ACI 318 Section 9.3.2. Considering the
moderate amount of reinforcement in the wall section and relatively small (less than 0 10 fc′Ag ) axial force,
it is reasonable to assume that the net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel, εt, is greater than 0.005
when the concrete in compression reaches its assumed strain limit of 0.003. Thus the section is tension
controlled as defined in Section 10.3.4. With this assumption, φ is equal to 0.9 per Section 9.3.2.1. (We will
verify this assumption and modify the value of φ if required in the subsequent design steps.)
Pn = Pu /φ = 1060 kips / 0.9 = 1180 kips.

Figure 1–5. Free-body diagram for flexural strength
The iterative calculation of neutral axis depth and flexural strength is shown in Tables 1–2 and 1–3.
Table 1–2. First iteration for c and Mn
Reinforcement
Force Bars As (in2) As fy (kips) x (in) As fy*x (kip-in)
CS1 3 #11 4.68 –281 3 –843
CS2 12 #11 18.7 –1120 34.5 –38,600
TS3 54 #8 42.7 2560 183 468,000
TS2 12 #11 18.7 1120 332 372,000
TS1 3 #11 4.68 281 363 102,000
Pn 1180 183 216,000
Cc −3740 22.0 –82,300
0 1,040,000 = Mn (kip-in)
86,400 = Mn (kip-ft)
Table 1–3. Second iteration for c and Mn
Reinforcement
Force Bars As (in2) As fy (kips) x (in) As fy*x (kip-in)
CS1 3 #11 4.68 –281 3 –843
CS2 10 #11 15.6 –936 30 –28,100
TS3 54 #8 42.7 2560 183 468,000
TS2 12 #11 18.7 1120 332 372,000
TS1 3 #11 4.68 281 363 102,000
Pn 1180 183 216,000
Cc −3920 23.0 –90,200
0 1,040,000 = Mn (kip-in)
86,600 = Mn (kip-ft)

First iteration, assume c ⴝ 62 in
Therefore, fifteen #11 bars yield in compression, fifty-four #8 bars (all web vertical bars) plus fifteen #11
bars yield in tension. (Assume all reinforcement yields in either tension or compression.)
Solve for Cc to balance forces, Cc = 3740 kips
Calculate a corresponding to Cc,
a = Cc / (0.85 fc′ b) = 3740 kips / (0.85(5 ksi) 20 in) = 44.0 in
Calculate c = a/β1 = 44.0 in / 0.80 = 55.0 in
Second iteration, assume c ⴝ 55 in
Therefore, thirteen #11 bars yield in compression, fifty-four #8 bars plus fifteen #11 bars yield in tension.
Neglect force in two #11 bars located at x = 57 inches. Therefore, centroid of ten #11 bars is at x = 30
inches. Assume all other reinforcement yields.
Solve for Cc to balance forces, Cc = 3920 kips
Calculate a corresponding to Cc,
a = Cc / (0.85 fc′ b) = 3920 kips / (0.85(5 ksi) 20 in) = 46.1 in
Calculate c = a/β1 = 46.1 in / 0.80 = 57.6 in solution converged
This results in Mn = 86,600 kip-ft
Now check the assumption that the section is tension controlled per Section 10.3.4. Using the strain
compatibility for the section of the wall, the tensile strain in the extreme tension steel can be calculated as
follows:
0.003 0.003
εt = (lw 3 c) = i −3
(366 in − 5577.6 in)
n = 0.0159 > 0.005
c 57.6 in
Therefore φ = 0.9.
φMn = 0.9(86,600 kip-ft) = 77,900 kip-ft > Mu = 73,000 kip-ft . . . OK.
4.5 SPREADSHEET CALCULATION
The approach used above to calculate flexural strength can be done on a spreadsheet or by hand. A more
generally applicable spreadsheet to calculate wall flexural strength can also be created. Such a spreadsheet
is shown in Figure 1–6.

Figure 1–6. General spreadsheet to calculate flexural strength

This spreadsheet is set up so that each individual layer of reinforcement is represented by a spreadsheet
row. The input variables are at the top of the spreadsheet. The user adjusts the input value of the neutral
axis depth, c, on the spreadsheet until the tension and compression forces on the section are balanced, as
indicated by the added notes on the section.
The spreadsheet gives a design moment capacity, φMn, of the selected section equal to 78,100 kip-ft,
approximately the same as that calculated by hand in the previous section.
4.6 SOFTWARE CALCULATION
Computer software tools are also available to design wall sections for combined flexural and axial forces.
The example wall section is analyzed using the program spColumn, and the flexural strength obtained is
approximately the same as that calculated by the hand and spreadsheet methods. The printed screen output
from spColumn is shown in Figure 1–7.
Figure 1–7. Analysis of wall section by spColumn.

(For P-M section analysis, ACI 318-11 is the same as ACI 318-08, which is cited in the program output.)

5. Flexural Strength and Lap Splices over Height of Wall ACI 318
5.1 BAR CUT-OFFS
ACI 318 Section 12.10.3 addresses the development of flexural reinforcement and states: “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 or 12db, whichever is greater.” ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.3(a) indicates that this
requirement is applicable to walls and that the effective depth may be considered equal to 0.8lw. Section
402.7 of the SEAOC Blue Book (1999) also includes a discussion of this requirement.
Applying the bar cut-off requirement to the example wall, the flexural strength is reduced in two steps over
the height of the wall: above Level 5 and above Level 7. The dimensions of the wall section and the number
of vertical bars are unchanged at these transitions—only the bar size is reduced. The selection of vertical
reinforcement sizes and cut-offs is shown in the wall elevation of Figure 1–8. A summary of flexural
reinforcement and flexural strength over the wall height is given in Table 1–4.
Figure 1–8. Wall elevation

Table 1–4. Boundary and vertical web reinforcement
Vertical Bars Each Axial Force Design Flexural

Location Boundary Web Vertical Bars Pu = (0.9–0.2SDS)PD Strength, φMn
Level 1 – Level 5 15 #11 54 #8 1060 kip 78,100 kip-ft
The flexural strengths for each reinforcement arrangement are calculated using the spreadsheet procedure
described in Part 4.5, above.
The moment demand above Level 5 is checked by the calculation below. For simplicity, the moment
diagram is assumed to be linear over the building height. This addresses higher mode dynamic response
effects according to the recommendations of Paulay and Priestley (1992, Figures 5–28 and 5–29).
Height of reinforcement cut-off above base = 51 ft + 2-ft, 9-in lap splice = 53.75 ft
Height after subtracting 0.8lw bar extension = 53.75 ft – 0.8(30.5 ft) = 29.4 ft
Moment demand Mu at the base of the wall = 73,000 kip-ft
Overall wall height, hw = 95.3 ft
Moment demand at h = 29.4 based on linear = (73,000)(95.3 − 29.4)/95.3 = 50,500 kip-ft
moment diagram < 59,000 . . . OK.
Similarly, the moment demand above Level 7 is checked by the following calculation.
Height of reinforcement cut-off above base = 73-ft, 2-in + 1-ft, 8-in lap splice = 74.8 ft
Height after subtracting 0.8lw bar extension = 74.8 − 0.8(30.5) = 50.4 ft
Moment demand at h = 50.4 based on linear = (73,000)(95.3 − 50.4)/95.3 = 34,400 kip-ft
moment diagram < 39,900 . . . OK.
The calculations for bar cut-off locations are illustrated in Figure 1–9.
The wall reinforcement ratio, ρv, shall not be less than 0.0025 per ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.1. For the top
levels of the building with #6 @ 9-inch web vertical bars, ρv is calculated as
ρv = 2(0.44 in2) / (9 in)(20 in) = 0.00489 > 0.0025 . . . OK.

Figure 1–9. Calculation of required flexural strength at bar cut-off locations
5.2 LAP SPLICE LENGTH
The lap splices of the vertical reinforcement are shown in the wall elevation of Figure 1–8.
Lap splice lengths are calculated according to ACI 318 Section 12.15. This section indicates that Class B
tension lap splices are to be 1.3 times the tension development length, ld , from ACI 318 Section 12.2.
For cases with ample cover and spacing between bars or where reinforcement exists to provide Atr > 0
per ACI 318 Chapter 12, the more explicit calculation per ACI 318 Section 12.2.3 will result in smaller ld
than calculations per ACI 318 Section 12.2.2. Given below are sample calculations for the two lap-splice
conditions that occur for the vertical bars just above the 5th floor.

Lap splices of the #7 @ 9-inch vertical bars of the wall web
The calculation of ld is according to ACI 318 Equation 12–1:
⎛ 3 fy ψt ψeψ s ⎞
ld = ⎜ ⎟ db Eq 12–1
⎜40 λ fc′ ⎛ cb K tr ⎞ ⎟
⎜⎝ ⎜ d ⎟⎟
⎝ b ⎠⎠
Because the vertical bars in the wall web are in the outside layer, there is no transverse reinforcement that
“crosses the potential plane of splitting,” so Atr = 0. Thus, Ktr = 0.
Clear cover for these bars is specified on the drawings as 11⁄2 inches. The distance cb is defined in ACI 318
as the smaller of (a) the distance from center of a bar or wire to the nearest concrete surface, and (b) one
half the center-to-center spacing of bars or wires being developed. In this case, cb, equals the cover
measured from the center of the bar: 1.5 in + 0.875 in / 2 = 1.94 inches.
The term (cb + Ktr) / db equals 2.22, which is less than the upper limit of 2.5 from ACI 318 Section 12.2.3.
Other input values to Equation 12–1 are
ψt = 1.0 (vertical bars)

ψe = 1.0 (uncoated reinforcement)
ψs = 1.0 (#7 bars or larger)
λ = 1.0 (normal weight concrete)
db = 0.875 in
⎛ 3 60,000 psi (1.0)(1.0)(1.0) ⎞
ld = ⎜ ⎟ db = db
⎝ 40 1 0 5000 psi (2.22) ⎠
The required length for a Class B lap splice equals
1.3(28.7db) = 37.3(0.875 in) = 2 ft, 9 in.
Lap splices of the #10 vertical bars within boundary ties
The calculation of lap splice length for vertical boundary bars is similar, except that the ties around the bars
cross the potential plane of splitting and provide a transverse reinforcement area, Atr , that can reduce the
required lap splice length.
ACI 318 defines Atr as the “total cross–sectional area of all transverse reinforcement within spacing s that
crosses the potential plane of splitting through the reinforcement being developed.” The quantity n is the
number of bars or wires being spliced or developed along the plane of splitting. The interpretation of how
to determine Atr and n is not entirely clear from ACI 318, but Figure 1–10, adapted from Jirsa et al (1979)
and the commentary to the New Zealand concrete code (Standards New Zealand, 1995), depicts potential
splitting planes and corresponding values for Atr /n.

Figure 1–10. Determination of Atr /n for calculation of lap-splice length

(adapted from Figure 4 of Jirsa et al [1979] and Figure C7.5 of Standards New Zealand [1995])
As can be deduced from Jirsa et al, case (b) governs when spacing between bars is relatively large, as is the
case for the boundaries of the example wall. Therefore,
Atr /n = At = 0.20 in2
Ties around the boundary bars are spaced at 8 inches on center, as shown in Figure 1–8, so s = 8 in
2 i 2 (40)
40 Atr 0.20
K tr = = = 1 00 in
sn (8 i )(1)
Clear cover is specified as 11⁄2 inches to the tie, so
cb = 1.5 in + 0.5 in + 1.27 in / 2 = 2.64 in
The term (cb + Ktr)/db equals 2.87, which is greater than the upper limit of 2.5 from ACI 318 Section 12.2.3,
so the value input into ACI 318 Equation 12–1 is 2.5.
db = 1.27 in
⎛ 3 60,000 psi (1.0)(1.0)(1.0) ⎞
ld = ⎜ ⎟ d b = 5 5d b
⎝ 40 1 0 5000 psi (2.5) ⎠
The required length for a Class B lap splice equals
1.3(25.5db) = 33.1(1.27 in) = 3 ft, 6 in.
5.3 SPLICES IN PLASTIC-HINGE REGIONS
At locations where yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur, ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.3
requires the development lengths of longitudinal reinforcement to be 1.25 times the values calculated for fy
in tension.

For the example wall, yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is expected (and designed to occur) at the base
of the wall where the bending moment is the highest. (See Figure 1–2.) This is the intended plastic-hinge
region of the wall.
Where possible, lap splices of flexural reinforcement should be avoided in plastic-hinge regions of
walls. As indicated in 1999 Blue Book Sections C402.7 and C404.3 (and in the commentary ACI 318
Section 21.5.2.3, applicable to flexural members of frames), lap splices in plastic-hinge regions are likely
to slip unless they are surrounded by confining ties. Even well-confined lap splices that do not slip are
undesirable in plastic-hinge regions because they concentrate yielding over a shorter length of the flexural
reinforcement than occurs if lap splices are not present.
Paulay and Priestley (1992) note that splices in plastic-hinge zones tend to progressively unzip, and
that attempting to mitigate the problem by making lap splices longer than required is unlikely to ensure
satisfactory performance.
Mechanical splices
Properly designed mechanical splices are preferable to lap splices in plastic-hinge regions. Ideally, the
mechanical splices should be able to develop the breaking strength of the bar. As a minimum, mechanical
splices must be Type 2 splices according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.3 and Section 21.1.6.2 if they are to
be used in plastic-hinge regions. SEAOC recommends that mechanical splices be staggered so that no
more than one-half of the reinforcement is spliced at one section, and the stagger is not less than 2 feet.
Staggering of the splices is not required by ACI 318.
Plastic-hinge length and zone in which to exclude lap splices
The equivalent plastic-hinge length, lp, of a wall section can be taken as 0.2lw + 0.07 M/V where M/V is the
moment to shear ratio at the plastic-hinge location (ATC, 1999).
For the example wall, lp is calculated as shown below:
lp = 0.21lw + 0.07 M/V = 0.2(30.5 ft) + 0.07(73,000 kip-ft/1420 kips)

= 6.1 ft + 3.6 ft
= 9.7 ft
Equivalent plastic-hinge lengths, as calculated above, can be used to relate plastic curvatures to plastic
rotations and displacements. The actual zone of yielding and nonlinear behavior typically extends beyond
the equivalent plastic-hinge length.
For this design example wall, the expected zone of yielding is taken as equal to approximately
2lp (19.4 feet), and lap splices are avoided over this height.
In the design example, lap splices are excluded over the first two stories, i.e., over a height of 28.8 feet, as
shown in the wall elevation of Figure 1–8. Because of potential construction difficulties in using continuous
vertical bars from the foundation through Level 3, an option to use mechanical splices can be specified as
shown in Figure 1–8.
It might also be a reasonable design to exclude lap splices over the first-story height of 17.1 feet and to
have lap splices above the 2nd floor. In this case, however, the lap splices at the 2nd floor would be in a
location where “yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur” from seismic displacements.
Thus, the 2nd-floor lap splices would need to be to be designed for 1.25fy in accordance with ACI 318
Section 21.9.2.3(c).

6. Shear Strength of Wall
The SEAOC Blue Book (2009, Article 09.01.010) recommends that “the most ideal ductile design for shear
walls is to promote a flexural response in the wall.” To ensure this, the shear capacity of the wall must
be sufficient to develop the flexural strength of the wall. A design for shear force based on ASCE 7 and
ACI 318 code requirements will typically not achieve this objective. Thus, the code provisions covered in
Part 6.1 should be considered as minimum requirements for the shear design of walls.
Designing for amplified shear forces as recommended in the Blue Book is covered in Part 6.1 below.
6.1 ACI 318 REQUIREMENTS ACI 318
Shear demand
If designing to the minimum requirements of the ACI 318 Section 21.9.3, the shear demand is taken directly
from the design forces, factored by the load combinations discussed in Part 2. At the base of the wall:
Vu = VE = 1420 kips
Shear capacity
ACI 318 Section 11.9 gives shear strength provisions for walls designed for non-seismic lateral forces such
as wind or earth pressure. ACI 318 Section 21.9.4 gives shear strength provisions for walls designed for
seismic forces.
Vn (
Acv α c λ fc′ f
t y ) Eq 21–7
Because the subject wall has a ratio of hw /lw greater than 2.0, αc = 2.0. For normal weight concrete, λ = 1.0.
Therefore:
Vn (
Acv 2(1.0) fc′ ρt f y )
As prescribed in ACI 318 Section 9.3.4.(a), the shear strength reduction factor, φ, shall be 0.6 for the design
of walls if their nominal shear strength is less than the shear corresponding to development of their nominal
flexural strength.
φ n
0 6(20 i )(366 i )(2 1 0) 5000 ρt (60,000 psi)) = (621 263, ρt ) kips
At each level, the amount of horizontal reinforcement provided for shear strength is given in Table 1–5.
Note that for all levels above Level 2, the minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 governs the amount of
horizontal reinforcement (Section 21.9.2.1).

Table 1–5. Horizontal reinforcement for ACI 318 shear strength requirements
Horizontal
Level VE (kips) Reinforcement ρt φVn (kips)
Roof 84 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
8 244 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
7 414 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
6 595 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
5 785 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
4 987 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
3 1220 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1300
2 1420 #6 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00367 1585
ACI 318 Section 21.9.4.4 requires that Vn shall not be taken greater than 8Acv fc′
8 cv
fc′ 8(20 i )(366 i ) 5000 = 4140 kips > 1585 kips . . . OK.
6.2 SEAOC BLUE BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS SEAOC Blue Book
Shear demand
To comply with the Blue Book recommendation of providing shear strength to develop the wall flexural
strength, an amplified shear demand is considered.
The Blue Book (2009, Article 09.01.010) gives the following equation for the shear amplification factor, ωv,
which accounts for inelastic dynamic effects.
ωv = (1.3 + n/30), for buildings over 6 stories, where n = number of stories

= (1.3 + 8/30) = 1.57
As indicated in the Blue Book, the ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted triangular distributions of
lateral forces. If a response spectrum analysis is carried out, a somewhat lower ωv factor can be justified in
some cases, as shown in Figure 1–11.
The shear demand is based on the upper bound of flexural strength, taken as the “probable flexural
strength,” Mpr , defined in ACI 318 Section 2.1.
Mpr is calculated using a strength-reduction factor φ = 1.0, reinforcement strength 1.25fy, and the
load combination of ASCE 7 Section 2.3.2 that results in the greatest flexural strength (in this case
corresponding to greater axial force). Table 1–6 shows the probable flexural strength along with the
nominal flexural strength for comparison. The nominal flexural strength is that which is provided to meet
the minimum required flexural strength; the probable flexural strength is that which is considered for
calculating shear demand.

Table 1–6. Flexural strength comparison
Quantity Axial Force Considered Reinforcement Strength Flexural Strength

Probable strength Pu = 1.41PD + 0.5PL = 2320 kips 1.25 fy = 75 ksi Mpr = 120,000 kip-ft
Nominal strength Pu = 0.686PD = 1060 kips fy = 60 ksi Mn = 86,800 kip-ft
At the base of the wall, the magnified shear demand Vu* is calculated as
Vu* = ωv(Mpr /Mu)VE = 1.57(120,000 kip-ft / 73,000 kip-ft)(1420 kips) = 3670 kips
Figure 1–11. Relationship of shear amplification factor to number of stories

Shear capacity
Because this design example provides nominal shear strength to exceed the shear corresponding to flexural
strength, a strength-reduction factor, φ, of 0.75 can be used. As before, ACI 318 Equation 21–7 is used to
calculate shear capacity:
φ n
0 5 20 i )(366 i )(2 1 0) 5000 ρt (60, 000 p i)) = ( 6+ , ρt ) kips
For the shear demand of 3670 kips, the required amount of horizontal reinforcement is calculated
ρt = (3670 kips − 776 kips) / 329,000 = 0.0088

Try #7 @ 6 inches on center each face
ρt = 2(0.60 in2) / (6 in)(20 in) = 0.0100 > 0.0088 . . . OK.
This amount of shear reinforcement is provided over the bottom story of the wall. For the other stories, the
recommended amount of horizontal reinforcement, based on the magnified shear demand Vu*, is calculated
as shown in Table 1–7. For all stories of the building, Mpr /Mu is that value calculated at the base plastic
hinge of the wall. Likewise, the value of ωv remains constant for all stories of the building.
Table 1–7. Horizontal reinforcement based on Blue Book shear design recommendations
Horizontal
Level VE (kips) Vu* (kips) Reinforcement ρt φVn (kips)
Roof 84 217 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
8 244 630 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
7 414 1070 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
6 595 1540 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
5 785 2030 #5 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00517 2478
4 987 2550 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00733 3192
3 1220 3150 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00733 3192
2 1420 3670 #7 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.01000 4070
Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend equations for shear strength that are somewhat different from
ACI 318 Equation 21–7, and in which the shear strength at plastic hinge zones is taken to be less than that
at other wall locations. FEMA 306 (ATC, 1999) also gives equations for wall shear strength. For the wall
design in this design example, the Paulay and Priestley shear-strength equations result in nearly identical
amounts of horizontal reinforcement as does ACI 318 Equation 21–7.

6.3 COMPARISON OF DESIGNS PER ACI AND SEAOC
A comparison of Tables 1–5 and 1–7 shows that the Blue Book recommendation (2009, Article 09.01.010)
of providing shear strength that exceeds flexural strength results in more horizontal reinforcement in the
bottom four stories of the wall than that required by the code. The code approach of using φ = 0.6 rather
than φ = 0.75 results in only a 1.25 increase over static elastic results, whereas the Blue Book approach of
using ωv and Mpr results in a 2.58 increase (Vu*/VE) for this design example. The Blue Book approach is
recommended by SEAOC, as it leads to more ductile wall behavior.
In the upper four stories of the wall, the code minimum amount of horizontal steel (ρn = 0.0025) is adequate
to meet both the ACI 318 requirements and the Blue Book recommendations.
The wall elevation of Figure 1–8 shows the horizontal reinforcement per the Blue Book recommendation.
7. Shear Friction (Sliding Shear) Strength of Wall ACI 318
At construction joints and flexural plastic-hinge zones, walls can be vulnerable to sliding shear failure.
Typically, low-rise walls are more vulnerable. If construction joint surfaces are properly prepared according
to ACI 318 Section 11.6.9, taller walls should not be susceptible to sliding shear failure.
Sliding shear can be checked using the shear friction provisions of ACI 318 Section 11.6. Shear strength is
computed by Equation 11–25
Vn = Avf fy μ Eq 11–25
μ is the coefficient of friction, which is taken as 1.0λ assuming there is a construction joint at the first story
with the surface roughened to 1⁄4-inch amplitude, where λ = 1.0 for normal weight concrete.
Avf is the amount of shear-transfer reinforcement that crosses the potential sliding plane. For the wall in
this design example, all vertical bars in the section are effective as shear-transfer reinforcement (ACI 318
Section R11.6.7). At the base of the wall
Avf = 30(1.56 in2) + 54(0.79 in2) = 89.5 in2.
Section 11.6.7 indicates that “permanent net compression” can be taken as additive to the force Avf fy; thus,
the lower bound axial force, 0.686PD, can be included in Equation 11–25
Vn = (Avf fy + 0.686PD)μ = [(89.5 in2)(60 ksi) + 1060 kips](1.0) = 6430 kips.
Section 11.6.5 requires that the shear friction strength not be taken greater than the smallest of 0.2 fc′ λ,
(480 + 0.08 fc′ )Ac, or 1600Ac, where Ac is the concrete area. For the example wall with fc′ = 5000 psi, the
(480 + 0.08 fc′ )Ac criterion governs.
Vn ≤ [480 + 0.08(5000 psi)](20 in)(366 in) = 6442 kips > Vu* = 3665 kips . . . OK.
By inspection, the sliding shear capacity at higher story levels of the building is also adequate.

8. Detailing of Wall Boundary Elements ACI 318
8.1 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Boundary elements at the edge of structural walls are designed according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.
For the example wall, the need for special boundary elements is determined according to ACI 318
Section 21.9.6.2, which applies to walls that are effectively continuous from the base of structure to the top
of the wall and designed to have a single critical section for flexure and axial forces. Under this section,
boundary zone detailing is required if
lw
c> . Eq 21–8
600(δ u hw )
The quantity δu /hw shall not be taken less than 0.007.
The neutral-axis depth, c, should be calculated for the axial load case that results in the largest value of c,
i.e., the case with higher axial force. Therefore,
Pu = 1.41PD + 0.5PL + 1.0QE = 2320 kips.
Using the same procedure as in Part 4.5 above, the depth of the compression zone is determined to be
c = 80 in.
δu is the design displacement defined in ACI 318 Section 2.2. The commentary (ACI 318 Section R2.2)
indicates that the displacement is calculated considering “modification factors to account for expected
inelastic response.” Thus, the design displacement corresponds to Cd times δxe, according to ASCE 7
Section 12.8.6. The term δxe is the elastic displacement of the top of the wall corresponding to the design
seismic force. For this building, δxe is 1.55 inches; Cd is the deflection amplification factor, equal to 5.
Therefore,
Cd δ xe 5(1.55 in)
δ u = design displacement = = = 7.755 in
IE 10
δu /hw = 7.75 / [(95.4)(12)] = 0.00677 Use δu /hw = 0.007
lw 366
= = 87.1 i c 80 in.
600(δ u hw ) 600(0.007)
Therefore, special boundary elements are not required. Please refer to Example 2 for further discussion in a
case where special boundary elements are required.
8.2 DETAILING WHERE SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED
Where special boundary elements are not required, Section 21.9.6.5(a) requires the following detailing
consideration.
If the longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the wall boundary is greater than 400/fy, boundary
transverse reinforcement shall satisfy Section 21.6.4.2 and Section 21.9.6.4(a). The maximum
longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement in the boundary shall not exceed 8 in.

In this example, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio for fifteen #8 bars in the boundary region of the wall at
the top floor is
15 Ab (15)(0.79 in 2 )
ρ= = = 0.010
t w (1.5 in + 6(9 i ) + 1.5 i ) (20 in)(
) 57 in)
which is greater than 400/fy = 0.00667.
Therefore, boundary ties per Section 21.9.6.5(a) are required at the top story and at all other stories that
have a higher reinforcement ratio.
The minimum width of the boundary element is determined based on the requirements of
Section 21.9.6.4(a): “The boundary element shall extend horizontally from the extreme compression
fiber a distance not less than the larger of c − 0.1lw and c/2.”
c − 0.1lw = 80 in − 0.1(366 in) = 43.4 in . . . governs

c/2 = 80 in / 2 = 40 in.
For the wall in this design example, #4 tie sets are provided enclosing the 15 longitudinal bars at each end
of the wall. The tie sets have a tie leg located at each of the longitudinal bars, as shown in Figure 1–12.
The ties create a boundary element that extends 58 inches horizontally from the extreme compression fiber.
(58 in > 43.4 in . . . OK.)
ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.5(a) requires 8-inch maximum tie spacing. The SEAOC Blue Book (1999,
Section 402.12) requires 6-inch maximum tie spacing, but only requires boundary ties “at potential plastic
hinge regions.” For the example wall, the potential plastic hinge region occurs at the base and extends over
the first one to two stories, as discussed in Part 5.3 of this example. For this example, the boundary ties
are spaced at 6 inches on center over the first two stories, satisfying the Blue Book and ACI requirements.
Boundary ties are then spaced at 8 inches on center over the remaining height of the wall, satisfying the
ACI requirement. The spacing of the boundary ties is indicated in Figure 1–8.
Figure 1–12. Boundary reinforcement at wall base

Design Example 2
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams
OVERVIEW
The structure in this design example is a six-story office building with reinforced concrete walls as its
seismic-force-resisting system. The example focuses on the design and detailing of one of the reinforced
concrete walls. This is a coupled wall running in the transverse building direction. The example assumes
that design lateral forces have already been determined for the building and that the seismic moments,
shears, and axial forces on each of the wall components are given from computer analysis.
The purpose of this design example is to illustrate the design of coupling beams and other aspects of
reinforced concrete wall design.

Design Example 2 䡲 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams
OUTLINE
4. Coupling Beam Strength and Diagonal Reinforcement
5. Flexural Reinforcement of Wall Piers
6. Plastic Mechanism Analysis
7. Shear Reinforcement of Wall Piers
8. Detailing of Wall-Pier Boundary Elements
9. Detailing of Coupling Beams
This design example follows the general building code requirements of the 2012 International Building
Code (2012 IBC) and ASCE 7. For structural concrete design, the 2012 IBC references the American
Concrete Institute Building Code (ACI 318), as indicated in Section 1901.2. This example follows
the requirements of ACI 318-11. Discussions of the SEAOC Blue Book recommendations refer to the
document Recommended Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary (SEAOC, 1999) as well as the
Blue Book online articles on specific topics (SEAOC, 2009) as applicable.
The wall to be designed is one of several reinforced concrete walls in the building. The design and analysis
of the structure is based on a response modification coefficient, R, of 5 (ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1) for a
bearing-wall system with special reinforced concrete shear walls. The deflection amplification factor, Cd ,
is 5. The SEAOC Blue Book (2009, Article 09.01.010) expresses the opinion that the R value for concrete
bearing wall systems (R = 5) and that for walls in building frame systems (R = 6) should be the same, which
may be justified based on detailing provisions. To be consistent with the current code requirements though,
this design example uses R = 5.
Mapped spectral response acceleration values from ASCE 7 maps (Figures 22–1 through 22–11):
• S1 = 0.65
• SS = 1.60
• Site Class D

• SDS = 1.07
• Risk Category II
• Seismic Design Category D
• Redundancy factor, ρ = 1.0
• Seismic Importance factor, I = 1.0
• Concrete strength, fc′ = 4000 psi
• Steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi
1.2 DESIGN LOADS AND LATERAL FORCES
The wall elevation, a plan section, and the design forces are shown in Figure 2–1. A linear static analysis of
the wall for lateral forces, using a computer analysis program, gives the results shown in Figure 2–2, which
shows the moments and shear for each coupling beam (i.e., wall spandrel), and the moments, shear, and
axial forces for each vertical wall segment (i.e., wall pier).
Lateral story displacements corresponding to effective section properties are also shown on the figure.
In the analysis model, the member stiffness used is 30 percent of the gross member stiffness for the
walls and 10 percent of the gross member stiffness for the coupling beams. The recommendations for
member stiffness assumptions are based on Section 5.3 of Paulay and Priestley (1992). ASCE/SEI 41-06
(ASCE 2007) recommends an effective stiffness of 50 percent of the gross member stiffness for walls,
though tests and moment curvature analysis predict lower stiffness depending on axial load, section
geometry, reinforcement ratio, and loading history (Adebar et al 2007, Schotanus and Maffei 2007).
In this design example, the displacement output is used in Part 8.2 for determining the need for special
boundary elements. In an actual building design, the displacements would also need to be considered for
(a) design of elements not part of the lateral-force-resisting system, (b) building separations, and (c) P−Δ
analysis.
Gravity loads are not included in the computer model. Gravity effects are added separately by hand
calculations.

Figure 2–1. Wall elevation, plan section, and design forces

Figure 2–2. Results of ETABS computer analysis (kips, inches)

Load combinations for reinforced concrete are discussed in detail in Part 2 of Design Example 1. As in that
example, the governing load combinations become
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + L + 0.2S

(0.9 – 0.2SDS)D + ρQE
Because there is no snow load, S = 0. As indicated in Section 12.4.2.3, the load factor on L in the above
combination is permitted to equal 0.5 since the given structure is an office building with Lo = 50 psf per
ASCE 7 Table 4.1.
With SDS = 1.07, ρ = 1.0, and a live load factor of 0.5, the governing load combinations for this design
example are
1.41D + QE + 0.5L
0.686D + QE
The forces shown in Figure 2–2 correspond to QE.
For walls with diagonally reinforced coupling beams, the required wall thickness is often dictated by the
layering of the reinforcement in the coupling beam, described in Part 9 of this example. For the subject
wall, a wall thickness, bw, of 16 inches will be tried.
Although not required by code, the SEAOC Blue Book (2009, Article 09.01.010) recommends rotation
limits of 0.03 to 0.05 radians for confined coupling beams unless higher values can be justified by testing
specimens that have aspect ratios and reinforcement similar to those to be used in the design. Rotation
limits can affect the proportioning of walls so that coupling beams are not too short relative to wall piers.
This design example assumes that the building walls and coupling beams have been proportioned to satisfy
this requirement. This can be checked using the displacements δu from Table 2–12 and calculating the
corresponding coupling beam rotation θcb as described in Part 6 of this example.
4. Coupling Beam Strength and Diagonal Reinforcement ACI 318
4.1 REQUIREMENT FOR DIAGONAL REINFORCEMENT
Code requirements for the diagonal reinforcement of coupling beams (ACI 318 Section 21.9.7) are based
on the clear length-to-overall-depth ratio for the coupling beam, ln /h, and on the level of shear stress in the
coupling beam.
For the wall in this design example, ln /h = 72 in / 72 in = 1.00 for the typical coupling beam, and
ln /h = 72 in / 120 in = 0.60 for the coupling beams at the second floor.
(
As shown in Table 2–1 (5th column), for four of the nine coupling beams the shear exceeds 4λ fc′ Acw , )
where Acw = bw h and λ = 1.0 for normal weight concrete. For these coupling beams, diagonal reinforcement
is required.

For the five coupling beams that have lower shear stress, diagonal reinforcement is not required by
ACI 318. Designing these five coupling beams without diagonal reinforcement, using horizontal
reinforcement to resist flexure and vertical stirrups to resist shear, might lead to cost savings in the labor
to place the reinforcing steel.
In this design example, however, diagonal reinforcement is used in all of the coupling beams of the
wall because (a) it can simplify design and construction to have all coupling beams detailed similarly,
(b) research results show that diagonal reinforcement improves coupling beam performance, even at lower
shear stress levels, as discussed in of the SEAOC Blue Book (1999, Section C407.7), and (c) uniform and
consistent yielding up the height of the structure results in better overall performance.
Table 2–1. Coupling beam forces and diagonal reinforcement
Grid Vu ( )
Diagonal Avd α φVn
Line Level (kips) h (in) Vu bw h fc′ Bars (in2) (degrees) (kips) φVn /Vu
C-D Roof 151 72 2.1 4 #8 3.16 37.9 175 1.16
C-D 6th 325 72 4.5 4 #11 6.24 37.9 345 1.06
C-D 5th 447 72 6.1 6 #11 9.36 36.0 495 1.11
C-D 4th 211 72 2.9 4 #9 4.00 37.9 221 1.05
C-D 3rd 180 72 2.5 4 #9 4.00 37.9 221 1.23
C-D 2nd 285 120 2.3 4 #9 4.00 53.1 288 1.01
D-E 4th 319 72 4.4 6 #9 6.00 36.0 317 0.99
D-E 3rd 454 72 6.2 6 #11 9.36 36.0 495 1.09
D-E 2nd 406 120 3.3 4 #11 6.24 53.1 449 1.11
Note:
1. Diagonal bars are required per ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.2 when this ratio exceeds 4 and ln /h < 2.
4.2 DESIGN OF DIAGONAL REINFORCEMENT
Diagonal reinforcement is provided in the coupling beams according to Equation 21–9 of ACI 318 Section
21.9.7.4
φ n
φ2A
Avd f y i α fc′ Acw . Eq 21–9
Each group of diagonal bars must consist of at least four bars per ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(b). The
calculation of the required diagonal reinforcement is shown in Table 2–1. For coupling beams with higher
shear stresses, six bars are needed in each group, as shown in Table 2–1.
The angle, α, of the diagonal bars is calculated based on the geometry of the reinforcement layout, as
shown in Figure 2–3. The value of α depends somewhat on the overall dimension of the diagonal bar group
and on the clearance between the diagonal bar group and the corner of the wall opening. This affects the
dimension, x, shown in Figure 2–3 and results in a slightly different value of α for a group of six bars
compared to that for a group of four bars, as shown in Table 2–1.

As discussed in Part 9 of this design example, ACI 318 provides different options for the detailing of
coupling beams, and each option may require a number of preliminary design iterations to determine
required bar sizes and the lateral dimensions of the diagonal bar group. Preliminary design iterations are not
shown in this design example.
The provided diagonal bars are shown in Figure 2–4. The diagonal reinforcement provides both the shear
and flexural resistance for the coupling beam. The vertical component of the bar forces provides resistance
to shear per Equation 21–9. The horizontal component of the bar forces provides resistance to the moment,
equal to Vln /2 at each end of the coupling beam. As can be derived from the geometry of the beam,
Equation 21–9 automatically provides adequate shear strength in the coupling beam corresponding to the
flexural forces.
Figure 2–3. Geometry of coupling-beam diagonal bars

Figure 2–4. Diagonal bars provided in coupling beams
5. Flexural Reinforcement of Wall Piers ACI 318
The design of the vertical wall segments for flexure is carried out following the procedures and
recommendations given for conventional “solid” walls. This is shown in Part 4 of Design Example 1.
From Figure 2–2, the critical wall segments (i.e., those with the highest moments or earthquake axial
forces) include the wall pier at the fourth floor on line D, and the wall piers at the base on lines C and E.
The 20-foot-long wall pier on line D at the base is also checked.
5.1 CRITICAL MOMENTS AND AXIAL FORCES
As can be seen from Figure 2–1, the gravity loads on each wall pier are not concentric with the centroid of
the wall-pier cross section. Therefore, gravity-load moments must be considered in the design of flexural
reinforcement. The dead and live loads (except wall self-weight) in Figure 2–1 act at the column grid lines
and have an eccentricity, eDF, with respect to the section centroid, as given in Table 2–3. (The calculation
of weights and section centroids, eDF and eDW, is not shown.) The wall self-weight provides additional dead
load at each level, equal to the values given in Table 2–2.

Table 2–2. Dead load from wall self-weight
Line C Line D Line E

Sum of Wall Eccentricity, Sum of Wall Eccentricity, Sum of Wall Eccentricity,
Level Weight (kips) eDW (ft)(1) Weight (kips) eDW (ft)(1) Weight (kips) eDW (ft)(1)
Above 6th 26 2.06 26 −2.06 0
Above 5th 53 2.06 53 −2.06 0
Above 4th 79 2.06 79 −2.06 0
Above 3rd 106 2.06 132 −3.71 26 −2.06
Above 2nd 132 2.06 185 −2.65 53 −2.06
At base 166 2.03 252 −1.94 86 −2.00
Note:
1. eDW = distance between centroid of weight and centroid of wall section.
The calculation of the factored forces on the critical wall piers is shown in Table 2–3. In this table, gravity
moments are calculated about the section centroid, using the gravity loads acting at the column centerline, PDF
and PL, plus the dead load from wall self-weight, PDW. Earthquake moments, ME, are taken from Figure 2–2.
Loads are factored according to the combinations discussed in Part 2 of this design example, giving
two cases for each wall pier: minimum axial force and maximum axial force. The minimum axial force
case is based on the combination of Eh with 0.686D, and the maximum axial force case is based on the
combination of Eh with 1.41D + 0.5L.
Considering that larger axial compression generally increases flexural strength, potentially governing
combinations are shown as shaded areas in Table 2–3.
Table 2–3. Calculation of factored axial forces and moments on critical wall piers
Minimum Maximum
Axial Axial
PDF eDF PDW eDW PL Direction PE ME MD ML See
Level Line (kips) (ft) (kips) (ft) (kips) of Force (kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Pu Mu Pu Mu Figure
4th D 471 +4.13 79 −2.06 48 west −923 −6070 1782 198 −546 −4847 −124 −3458 2–6(a)
4th D 471 +4.13 79 −2.06 48 east 923 6070 1782 198 1300 7293 1723 8682 2–6(b)
1st C 962 −4.13 166 2.03 110 west 1600 −4105 −3636 −454 2374 −6599 3245 −9459 2–6(b)
1st C 962 −4.13 166 2.03 110 east −1600 4105 −3636 −454 −826 1611 45 −1249 2–6(c)
1st E 962 +4.13 86 −2.00 110 west −1179 −4191 3801 454 −460 −1583 354 1396 2–6(c)
1st E 962 +4.13 86 −2.00 110 east 1179 4191 3801 454 1898 6799 2712 9778 2–6(b)
1st D 962 0 252 −1.94 110 west −421 −13,250 −489 0 412 −13,585 1346 −13,939 2–6(d)
Notes:
PDF = dead load distributed over floor area, which acts at the column line.
eDF = distance between PDF and centroid of wall section.
PDW = dead load from wall self-weight.
eDW = distance between PDW and centroid of wall section.

5.2 DESIGN OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT
The program spColumn (American Structurepoint, 2010) is used to design the reinforcement in each
wall pier. Figure 2–5 shows a wall section with the typical layout of vertical reinforcement. Typical
reinforcement in the “column” portion of the wall piers is eight #9 bars, and typical vertical reinforcement
in the wall web is #7 bars at 12 inches on each face. The spColumn results of Figures 2–6a, 2–6b, and 2–6c
show that this reinforcement is adequate in all locations except line C at the first floor and line D at the
fourth floor, where eight #11 bars are required instead of eight #9 bars. Figure 2–6d shows that the typical
reinforcement provides adequate flexural strength to the 20-foot-long wall pier on line D. The points in
these figures indicate the (Mu /φ, Pu /φ) coordinate of each critical force. These values are obtained using the
corresponding strength reduction factor φ per ACI 318 Section 9.3.2 as discussed in the previous design
example. Selected results of such analysis for the most severe cases are summarized in Table 2–4. For all
other load cases the wall section is tension-controlled, and φ = 0.9 is used.
Table 2–4. Calculation of φ value for selected load cases
Direction φPn φMn c

Level Line of Force (kips) (kip-ft) (in) εt φ
1st C West 3250 9,790 79.4 0.00187 0.65
1st C West 2380 12,200 40.0 0.00668 0.90
1st E East 1900 10,700 34.9 0.00809 0.90
1st E East 2720 11,400 55.0 0.00404 0.82
Figure 2–7 shows the vertical reinforcement provided in the wall piers to satisfy flexural strength
requirements. The vertical reinforcement at the fourth-floor piers is increased to eight #11 bars for both
columns and #8 bars at 12 inches at the wall webs. The reasons for this will be discussed in Part 6 of this
design example.
Figure 2–5. Section through wall pier in vicinity of line C

a.
b.
Figure 2–6. spColumn results for design of vertical reinforcement

c.
d.
Figure 2–6 (continued). spColumn results for design of vertical reinforcement

Figure 2–7. Elevation showing vertical wall reinforcement
5.3 SPLICES OF REINFORCEMENT
In general, lap splices should be avoided in potential plastic-hinge regions of concrete structures. This is
discussed in Part 5.3 of Design Example 1 and in the Blue Book (1999, Section C404.3). For this example
wall, plastic hinging is expected (and designed to occur) at the base of each wall pier at the ground floor
and in the coupling beams. Plastic hinging may also be possible above the wall setback, in the fourth-floor
wall piers. (This will be investigated in more detail in Part 6 of this design example.)
Figure 2–7 shows the vertical wall reinforcement and the location of lap splices. The lap splices of the
vertical reinforcement are located to avoid the potential plastic-hinge regions in first-floor and fourth-floor
wall piers, which are shown in Figures 2–9 and 2–10 in Parts 6.2 and 6.3.
Any lap splices that are in potential plastic-hinge locations are required by ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.3(c) to
be designed for 1.25fy.

6. Plastic Mechanism Analysis SEAOC Blue Book
This part of the design example presents a plastic analysis methodology that is not a code requirement. It is
included to assist the reader in understanding the post-elastic behavior of coupled structural walls and how
they can be analyzed for seismic forces when elements of the wall are yielding.
Plastic analyses are not required by ASCE 7 or ACI 318, but they are recommended in the SEAOC Blue
Book to (a) establish shear demand corresponding to flexural strength, and (b) identify potential plastic
hinge regions where special boundary and splicing requirements may be necessary. Because there is a trend
toward nonlinear analysis methods, the engineer’s ability to use plastic analyses will become increasingly
important. The first three chapters of the textbook Plastic Design in Steel (ASCE, 1971) summarize the
basic principles and methods of plastic design.
Given below is an illustration of plastic analysis for the reinforced concrete walls and coupling beams of
this design example.
6.1 PROBABLE FLEXURAL STRENGTH
The “probable flexural strength,” Mpr , will be determined in calculating shear demands according to the
Blue Book recommendations. As defined in ACI 318 Section R21.5.4, Mpr is calculated assuming a tensile
stress in the longitudinal bars of 1.25 fy and a strength reduction factor, φ, of 1.0. For the purposes of this
plastic analysis, we will neglect earthquake axial forces in calculating Mpr for each wall pier and assume
an axial force of 1.2PD + 0.5PL. In reality, the wall pier with earthquake axial tension will have a decreased
flexural strength, while the wall pier with earthquake axial compression will have an increased flexural
strength. These effects tend to cancel out, so our plastic analysis will give an acceptable estimate of (a) the
governing mechanism of response, and (b) the shear corresponding to the development of a mechanism at
probable flexural strength. Table 2–5 shows Mpr values for the critical wall piers based on the spColumn
results shown in Figure 2–8.

a.
b.
Figure 2–8. spColumn calculation of probable flexural strength Mpr (fy = 75 ksi, φ = 1.0)

c.
d.
Figure 2–8 (continued). spColumn calculation of probable flexural strength Mpr (fy = 75 ksi, φ = 1.0)

e.
f.
Figure 2–8 (continued). spColumn calculation of probable flexural strength Mpr (fy = 75 ksi, φ = 1.0)

Table 2–5. Approximate probable flexural strengths of wall piers for plastic analysis
Axial Force
Reinforcement of Considered
Level Grid Line Column Portion 1.2PD + 0.5PL kips Mpr (kip-ft) See Figure
4th C 8 #9 684 10,500 2–8(a)
4th D 8 #10 684 8,000 2–8(b)
1st C 8 #11 1410 14,600 2–8(e)
1st D 8 #9 1510 28,000 2–8(c)
1st E 8 #9 1310 10,000 2–8(d)
4th C 8 #11 684 13,000 2–8(e)
4th D 8 #11 684 8,000 2–8(f)
6.2 MECHANISM WITH HINGING AT BASE OF WALL PIERS
The preferred behavior of the wall occurs when plastic hinges occur at the base of the wall piers and in
the coupling beams. This produces the desirable situation of flexural yielding, energy dissipation, and
avoidance of shear failures.
Table 2–6 shows calculations of the shear strength of the preferred plastic mechanism, which has plastic
hinges forming at the base of each wall pier and in each coupling beam, as shown in Figure 2–9. The
equivalent plastic-hinge length at the pier base, lp, is taken equal to 5 feet.
The plastic hinge length is used in the calculation of external work shown in Table 2–6. The calculation is
not sensitive to the value of lp assumed, since lp /2 is subtracted from hi, the height above the base. In this
case, the value of 5 feet is taken as one-half the wall length of the external wall piers. Although the central
pier is longer, it is assigned the same plastic hinge length.
Plastic lateral story displacements, Δi, increase linearly with height above the midpoint of the base plastic
hinges. The value of Δi is arbitrarily set equal to 1.00 foot at the roof. The external work equals the sum of
each lateral story force, Fxi, times Δi.
The plastic rotation angle of the wall piers, θ, equals the roof displacement divided by the roof height above
the midpoint of the plastic hinge. Thus, θ = 1.00/85.5. The plastic rotation angle and internal work of the
coupling beams can be calculated as
lc
θcb θ
ln
where
ln = clear length of the coupling beam

lc = distance between centroids of wall pier sections.
Internal work = Σ(θcbMpr) for each end of each coupling beam

= Σ(θcb1.25Vn ln /2)
= Σ(θ1.25Vn lc /2)
= Σ(θ1.25Vn lc) for each coupling beam (sum of 2 ends).

The internal work of the base plastic hinges equals the sum of Mpr times θ for each of the three base plastic
hinges. The summation of the internal work is shown in Table 2–6. Equating internal work with external
work gives the solution of V = 2651 kips.
Table 2–6. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging at base and in all coupling beams(1)
External Work
Level hi (ft) hi − lp /2 (ft) Δi (ft) Fxi /V Work/V (ft)
R 88 85.5 1.000 0.254 0.254
6th 74 71.5 0.836 0.240 0.201
5th 60 57.5 0.673 0.195 0.131
4th 46 43.5 0.509 0.149 0.076
3rd 32 29.5 0.345 0.104 0.036
2nd 18 15.5 0.181 0.058 0.011
Sum 1.000 0.708
Internal Work, Coupling Beams
Grid Line Level 1.25Vn (kips) lc (ft) Work (kip-ft)
C-D Roof 291 21.5 73
C-D 6th 575 21.5 145
C-D 5th 825 21.5 208
C-D 4th 368 21.5 93
C-D 3rd 368 21.5 93
C-D 2nd 480 21.5 121
D-E 4th 528 21.5 133
D-E 3rd 825 21.5 208
D-E 2nd 748 21.5 188
1262
Internal Work, Wall Piers θ = 1.00/85.5
Grid Line Level Mpr (kip-ft) Work (kip-ft)
C base 14,600 171
D base 28,000 327
E base 10,000 117
615
V = (Int. Work, Coupling Beams + Int. Work, Wall Piers)/(Ext. Work/V) = (1262 + 615)/0.708 = 2651 kips
Note:
1. See Figure 2–9 for illustration of hinge locations.

Figure 2–9. Mechanism with plastic hinges at base of wall
6.3 MECHANISM WITH HINGING AT FOURTH FLOOR
Table 2–7 shows calculations of the shear strength of another possible plastic mechanism, shown in
Figure 2–10, which has plastic hinges forming at the fourth-floor wall piers and only in the coupling beams
at the fifth, sixth, and roof levels. This plastic mechanism is less desirable than a mechanism with hinging at
the base because energy dissipation is concentrated in fewer yielding locations and because plastic rotations
in the wall piers would need to be much greater to achieve the same roof displacement.
As in the previous calculation, plastic lateral story displacements, Δi, increase linearly with height above
the midpoint of the base plastic hinges, and Δi is set equal to 1.00 foot at the roof. For this mechanism, the
plastic rotation angle of the wall piers, θ, equals 1.00/39.5. The plastic analysis solution, based on equating
internal and external work, gives V = 2569 kips. Because this is less than 2651 kips, the mechanism having
plastic hinging at the fourth floor governs (i.e., it is more likely to form than the preferred base mechanism
shown in Figure 2–9).

Table 2–7. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging at fourth-floor piers(1)
External Work
Level hi (ft) hi − lp /2 (ft) Δi (ft) Fxi /V Work/V (ft)
Roof 42 39.5 1.000 0.254 0.254
6th 28 25.5 0.646 0.240 0.155
5th 14 11.5 0.291 0.195 0.057
4th 0.000 0.149 0.000
3rd 0.000 0.104 0.000
2nd 0.000 0.058 0.000
Sum 1.000 0.466
Internal Work, Coupling Beams
Grid Line Level 1.25Vn (kips) lc (ft) Work (kip-ft)
C-D Roof 291 17 125
C-D 6th 575 17 248
C-D 5th 825 17 355
Sum 728
C 4th 10,500 266
D 4th 8,000 203
Sum 469
Note:
1. See Figure 2–10 for illustration of hinge locations.

Figure 2–10. Mechanism with plastic hinges at fourth-floor wall piers
To help prevent plastic hinging in the fourth-floor piers, their flexural strength can be increased.
Reinforcement of the column portions of these wall piers is increased to eight #11 bars. Table 2–8 shows
revised internal work calculations. The solution gives V = 2703 kips. Because this is greater than 2651 kips,
the preferred mechanism now governs.
The calculation of the governing plastic limit load, V, depends on the assumed vertical distribution of lateral
forces, which in actual seismic response can vary significantly from the inverted triangular pattern assumed.
Thus the difference between V = 2651 kips and 2703 kips does not absolutely ensure against plastic hinging
in the fourth-floor wall piers.
Additionally, nonlinear response-history analyses by computer generally show less predictability of yield
locations than plastic analyses imply. For the wall of this design example, a response-history analysis might
show some wall-pier yielding both at the base and at the fourth floor. Interaction of the wall with other
walls in the structure and with gravity framing can also influence the mechanism of yielding.
Plastic analyses are simpler to carry out and understand than most other analysis methods, particularly
nonlinear response-history analyses, and they offer valuable insight into the seismic performance of a
structure. For this design example, the plastic analyses indicate that strengthening the fourth-floor piers will
protect the upper stories above the setback against high ductility demands and make it more likely that the
preferred mechanism will form.

Table 2–8. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging at fourth-floor piers—
revised for stronger piers at fourth floor

C 4th 13,000 329
D 4th 8,000 203
Sum 532
7. Shear Reinforcement of Wall Piers
In this part, the wall piers will be designed for shear. Both the ACI 318 and Blue Book approaches will be
illustrated. Design for the minimum ACI 318 requirements is given in Part 7.1 below.
As discussed in Part 6 of Design Example 1, the SEAOC Blue Book contains more restrictive requirements
than do the ASCE 7 and ACI 318 standards for the shear design of reinforced concrete walls. The SEAOC
approach, in Part 7.2 of this design example, is recommended for the reasons given in Design Example 1.
7.1 ACI 318 REQUIREMENTS ACI 318
Shear demand
If designing to the minimum requirements of the ACI 318, the shear demand is taken directly from the
design forces, factored by the load combinations discussed in Part 2. For the example wall, all of the
significant shear on the wall piers results from earthquake forces; thus, Vu = VE, where the values VE are
those shown in Figure 2–2. The highest shears are at the fourth floor, line D, with VE = 544 kips in an
11-foot-long wall pier (49.5 kip/ft), and at the first floor, line D, with VE = 731 kips in a 20-foot-long wall
pier (36.6 kip/ft).
Shear capacity
ACI 318 Section 11.9 gives shear strength provisions for walls designed for non-seismic lateral loads such
as wind or earth pressure. Section 21.9.4 gives shear strength provisions for walls designed for seismic
forces.
In Equation 21–7, wall shear strength depends on αc, which depends on the ratio hw /lw.
Vn (
Acv α c λ fc′ t y
f .) Eq 21–7
Per Section 21.9.4.2, the ratio hw /lw is taken as the larger of that for the individual wall pier and for the
entire wall.
Overall wall hw /lw = 88 ft / 54 ft = 1.63

11-feet-long × 8-feet clear-height pier hw /lw = 8 ft / 11 ft = 0.73
20-feet-long × 8-feet clear-height pier hw /lw = 8 ft / 20 ft = 0.40.

Thus the value hw /lw = 1.63 governs for all wall piers. The coefficient, αc, varies linearly from 3.0 for
hw /lw = 1.5 to 2.0 for hw /lw = 2.0.
αc = 3.0 − 1.0(1.63 − 1.5) / (2.0 − 1.5) = 2.74.
As prescribed in ACI 318 Section 9.3.4(a), the shear strength reduction factor, φ, shall be 0.6 for the design
of walls if their nominal shear strength is less than the shear corresponding to development of their nominal
flexural strength. For normal weight concrete, λ = 1.0. For the 11-foot-long wall piers
φ n
6 6 lw ) 2 4 1 0) 4000 ρt (60
6 000 p i)] = lw [1.66 kip-in + (5 6 ki i )ρt ].
For the wall sections with highest shear, the amount of horizontal shear reinforcement is given in Table 2–9.
Table 2–9. Design for shear by ACI 318
Grid Horizontal
Level Line lw (in) Vu (kips) Reinforcement ρt φVn (kips) Vu /φAcv fc′ (1)
4th C 132 371 #4 @ 10 inches E.F. 0.00250 409 4.63
4th D 132 544 #6 @ 10 inches E.F. 0.00550 637 6.79
1st C 132 283 #4 @ 10 inches E.F. 0.00250 409 3.53
1st D 240 731 #4 @ 10 inches E.F. 0.00250 744 5.02
1st E 132 316 #4 @ 10 inches E.F. 0.00250 409 3.95
Note:
1. Under ACI 318 Section 21.9.4.4, the value of Vu /φAcv fc′ shall not exceed 10 for any wall pier, or 8 for
an entire wall section.
As shown above, for all wall-pier locations except the fourth floor at line D, the minimum reinforcement
ratio of 0.0025 (required under ACI 318 Section 21.9.2.1) is sufficient to meet ACI 318 shear strength
requirements.
7.2 SEAOC BLUE BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS SEAOC Blue Book
Shear demand
To comply with the Blue Book recommendation of providing shear strength in excess of the shear
corresponding to wall flexural strength, an amplified shear demand must be considered. The shear
corresponding to the probable flexural strength Mpr has been calculated by the plastic analysis in Part 6 of
this design example as V = 2651 kips at the base of the wall.
The Blue Book (2009, Article 09.01.010) gives the following equation for the shear amplification factor, ωv,
that accounts for inelastic dynamic effects:
ωv = 0.9 + n/10, for buildings up to six stories, where n = number of stories

= 0.9 + 6/10 = 1.5.

As indicated in the Blue Book, the ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted triangular distributions of
lateral forces. If a response spectrum analysis is carried out, a somewhat lower ωv factor can be justified in
some cases.
At the base of the wall, the magnified shear demand, Vu*, is calculated as
Vu* = ωvVp = 1.5(2651 kips) = 3977 kips.
In the plastic analysis, the amplification effect considered by ωv can instead be considered by using a
different vertical distribution of the lateral forces, fxi . Rather than using the inverted triangular distribution,
a vertical distribution with a resultant located lower in the building, such as a uniform distribution pattern,
could be used in the plastic analysis to give shear forces.
Shear capacity
Because this example is designing for the nominal shear strength to exceed the shear corresponding to
flexural strength, a strength reduction factor, φ, of 0.75 can be used (see ACI 318 Section 9.3.4(a)). As
before, ACI 318 Equation 21–7 is used to calculate shear capacity:
φ n cv (α λ c c
ρt f y ) Eq 21–7
φ n
5 6 lw 2 4(1 0) 4000 ρt (60
6 000 p i)] = lw [2 08 ki i + ( ki i )ρt ].
For the shear demand of 3977 kips over the net wall length of 42 feet (504 inches) at the first floor, the
required amount of horizontal reinforcement is calculated:
Vn = 504(2.08 + 720 ρt) = 1050 + 363,000ρt ≥ 3977 kips

ρt = (3977 kips − 1050 kips) / 363,000 = 0.00806.
Try #6 bars at 6 inches on center each face.
ρt = 2(0.44 in2) / (6 in)(16 in) = 0.00917 ≥ 0.00806 . . . OK.
For the other stories of the building, the shear demands are magnified from the analysis results by the same
proportion as for the first floor. The recommended amount of horizontal reinforcement can be calculated as
shown in Table 2–10.
Table 2–10. Design for shear by the Blue Book recommendations
Horizontal
Level VE (kips) Vu* (kips)(1) lw net (in) Reinforcement ρt φVn (kips)
6th 338 1010 264 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00323 1163
5th 656 1960 264 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00917 2291
4th 915 2740 264 #7 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.01250 2925
3rd 1150 3440 504 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00917 4374
2nd 1250 3740 504 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00917 4374

1st 1330 3977 504 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00917 4374
Note:
1. Vu* = magnified shear demand.

7.3 COMPARISON OF DESIGNS PER ACI AND SEAOC
A comparison of Tables 2–9 and 2–10 shows that the Blue Book recommendations for ensuring that shear
strength exceeds flexural capacity result in increased horizontal reinforcement compared to that required by
the ASCE 7 and ACI 318 codes. The Blue Book approach is recommended, as it leads to more ductile wall
behavior.
8. Detailing of Wall-Pier Boundary Elements ACI 318
Boundary elements at the edges of structural walls are designed according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.
This section provides two alternative criteria for determining where special boundary elements are
required, each of which could be applied to the example wall, depending on whether the wall is
considered as a whole, or if each wall pier is considered independently.
If considered as a whole, the example wall is not “designed to have a single critical section for flexure
and axial loads.” It is, instead, designed to have plastic hinging in the coupling beams and at the base
of each wall pier, as shown in Part 6. Considering the wall as a whole, the need for special boundary
elements should be determined according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.3 rather than Section 21.9.6.2. Per
this interpretation, the evaluation of special boundary elements by the gross-section-stress criteria is
shown in Part 8.1.
Alternatively, if the wall piers of the example wall are considered independently, then ACI 318
Section 21.9.6.2 can be interpreted to apply because each wall pier is continuous and is designed to
have a single critical section (i.e., the plastic hinge) at the base of the wall pier for flexure and axial
forces. Using this interpretation, the evaluation of special boundary elements based on neutral-axis
depth is shown in Part 8.2. Detailing of the boundary elements is covered in Parts 8.3 and 8.4.
8.1 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS: STRESS-BASED APPROACH
ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.3 requires structural walls to have special boundary elements at boundaries and
edges around openings where the maximum extreme fiber compressive stress corresponding to factored
forces including earthquake effects exceeds 0 2 fc′ . The special boundary element is permitted to be
discontinued where the calculated compressive stress is less than 0 15 fc′ . Stresses are calculated for the
factored forces using a linearly elastic model and gross section properties. The stress at the left extreme
fiber is calculated as
fL = Pu /Ag − MuX0 /Ig
and at the right extreme fiber
fR = Pu /Ag + Mu (Wall length − X0)/Ig.
These stresses are compared to the limit 0 2 fc′ = 0.2(4000 psi) = 0.80 ksi. The stress analysis for this
example is performed as shown in Table 2–11. The results are shown in Figure 2–11. The shaded area
in the figure indicates where special boundary elements are required.

Table 2–11. Stress analysis for special boundary element requirement by ACI 318
Line D:
Minimum Axial Maximum Axial Minimum Axial Maximum Axial
Xo (to Wall
Pu Mu Pu Mu Ag lg the left) Length
Level (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kip-ft) (in2) (in4) (in) (in) fL (ksi) fR (ksi) fL (ksi) fR (ksi)
−32 −591 100 −170 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.13 −0.14 0.08 0.01
6th
270 1360 402 1780 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.20 0.40 −0.24 0.54
−228 −1780 48 −880 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.32 −0.47 0.23 −0.16
5th
724 3380 1000 4290 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.48 1.01 −0.58 1.32
−546 −4840 −124 −3450 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.90 −1.23 0.76 −0.76
4th
1300 7290 1720 8680 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −1.15 2.06 −1.30 2.53
−291 −5830 299 −6190 4032 18,440,000 120 240 0.39 −0.53 0.56 −0.41
3rd
1341 5160 1931 4810 4032 18,440,000 120 240 −0.07 0.74 0.11 0.85
131 −9000 886 −9360 4032 18,440,000 120 240 0.74 −0.67 0.96 −0.51
2nd
1215 8330 1970 7970 4032 18,440,000 120 240 −0.35 0.95 −0.13 1.11
412 −13600 1350 −13950 4032 18,440,000 120 240 1.16 −0.96 1.42 −0.75
1st
1254 12900 2190 12570 4032 18,440,000 120 240 −0.70 1.32 −0.44 1.52
Line C:
Xo (to Wall
Pu Mu Pu Mu Ag the left) Length
Level (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kip-ft) (in2) lg (in4) (in) (in) fL (ksi) fR (ksi) fL (ksi) fR (ksi)
270 −1360 400 −1780 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 0.39 −0.20 0.54 −0.25
6th
−32 591 100 165 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.14 0.13 0.01 0.08
724 −3380 1000 −4290 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.01 −0.48 1.32 −0.58
5th
−228 1780 48 880 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.47 0.32 −0.16 0.23
1300 −4890 1720 −6280 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.57 −0.59 2.04 −0.73
4th
−546 2450 −124 1060 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.74 0.34 −0.27 0.20
1640 −2800 2210 −4680 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.28 0.05 1.92 −0.14
3rd
−627 −492 −57 −2370 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.16 −0.39 0.48 −0.58
1950 −3870 2670 −6240 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.64 −0.07 2.45 −0.31
2nd
−678 −267 38 −2640 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.24 −0.36 0.56 −0.60
2370 −6600 3250 −9460 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 2.39 −0.52 3.36 −0.82
1st
−826 1610 45 −1250 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.69 0.02 0.28 −0.27

Table 2–11. Stress analysis for special boundary element requirement by ACI 318 (continued)
Line E:
Xo (to Wall
Pu Mu Pu Mu Ag the left) Length
Level (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kip-ft) (in2) lg (in4) (in) (in) fL (ksi) fR (ksi) fL (ksi) fR (ksi)
134 −647 646 1350 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.21 −0.07 −0.04 0.56
3rd
772 4170 1280 6170 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.65 1.19 −0.90 1.82
−190 −193 470 2290 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.04 −0.12 −0.34 0.68
2nd
1350 4550 2010 7040 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.49 1.52 −0.79 2.32
−460 −1580 350 1400 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.17 −0.53 −0.18 0.44
1st
1900 6800 2710 9780 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.78 2.22 −1.13 3.19
Figure 2–11. Compressive stresses (ksi) and required locations of special

boundary elements according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.3

8.2 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS: NEUTRAL AXIS APPROACH
Considering each wall pier independently and assuming that plastic hinging occurs at the base as shown in
Figure 2–9, there are three wall piers to be evaluated, shown in the first three rows of Table 2–12.
Given the possibility of plastic hinging at the fourth floor, as shown in Figure 2–10, wall piers at lines C and
D are also evaluated using wall height and relative displacement between the fourth floor and the roof. This
is shown in the last two rows of Table 2–12.
Table 2–12. Requirement for special boundary element by ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.2.
Load Pu Mu Vu c φMn hw δxe δu lw

in
Wall Pier Direction (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (in) (kip-ft) (ft) (in) (in) 600δ u /hhw
Assuming plastic hinging at the base, per Figure 2–9.
Line C W 3250 −9,470 283 79.4 9,778 88 1.66 8.30 28.0
1st-Roof
E 50 −1,260 283 24.5 8,326 28.0
Line D W 1350 −13,900 731 56.0 23,300 88 1.66 8.30 50.9
1st-Roof
E 2190 12,600 731 71.6 27,500 50.9
Line E W 358 1,410 316 25.7 7,610 46 0.556 2.78 31.4
1st-4th
E 2720 9,790 316 55.0 11,400 31.4
Assuming plastic hinging at the 4th floor, per Figure 2–10.
Line C W 1720 −6,290 371 31.0 11,000 42 1.10 5.50 20.2
4th-Roof
E −121 1,050 371 23.2 8,150 20.2
Line D W −121 −3,450 544 23.2 8,150 42 1.10 5.50 20.2
4th-Roof
E 1720 8,690 544 31.0 11,100 20.2
According to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.2, boundary zone detailing is required if
lw
c≥ Eq 21–8
600δ u /hhw
where the quantity δu /hw shall not be taken less than 0.007.
The compression depth, c, should be calculated for the axial force case that results in the largest value of c.
Therefore,
Pu = 1.41PD + 0.5PL + 1.0QE.
Using the same procedure as in Part 5.2, the depth of the compression zone is determined for each wall pier.

The term δu is the design displacement defined in ACI 318 Section 2.2, taken at the top of the wall (the roof
level). The commentary (ACI 318 Section R2.2) indicates that the displacement is calculated considering
“modification factors to account for expected inelastic response.” Thus, the design displacement
corresponds to Cd times δxe according to ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6. The term δxe is the elastic displacement
corresponding to the design loads, using effective section properties. For the example wall, δxe, at each level
is shown in Figure 2–2 and the deflection amplification factor Cd is equal to 5.
The calculations in Table 2–12 show that special boundary elements are required at the locations shaded in
Figure 2–12.
Figure 2–12. Required locations of special boundary elements according to ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.2.

8.3 DETAILING OF SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Whether the approach of ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.2 or Section 21.9.6.3 is used, boundary elements are
detailed according to Section 21.9.6.4. This section uses the results of Part 8.2 and provides detailing for
where special boundary elements are required.
The minimum width of the boundary element is determined based on the requirements of Section 21.9.6.4(a):
“The boundary element shall extend horizontally from the extreme compression fiber a distance not less
than the larger of c − 0.1lw and c/2.”
As defined in ACI 318 Section 2.1, c is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis
calculated for the factored axial force and nominal flexural strength resulting in the largest neutral axis
depth. In applying these requirements to the example wall, the wall piers with the largest neutral axis depth
govern the design.
Where special boundary elements are required, they are extended vertically from the critical section a
distance not less than the larger of lw or Mu /4Vu per ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.2(b) as shown in Figure 2–12.
At doorways, the extent of boundary element reinforcement is limited to the height of the doorway. At the
base of Line D where the required vertical extent of boundary element reinforcement is greater than the first
story height, boundary element reinforcement is provided over the height of the doorways on both the first
and second stories.
Per ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.4(d), the boundary element transverse reinforcement at the wall base shall
extend into the support at least ld of the largest longitudinal reinforcement in the special boundary element,
or at least 12 inches when the special boundary element terminates on a footing or mat. In this example,
boundary element transverse reinforcement is extended below the fourth floor a distance ld .
The calculation of required width and vertical extent of the special boundary elements is shown in
Table 2–13.
Table 2–13. Required width and vertical extent of special boundary elements
Minimum Width of Minimum Extent of

Boundary Element Boundary Element
Governing c − 0.1lw c/2 Provided lw Mu Provided

ft
Wall Pier Boundary c (in) (in) (in) Width (in) Figure (ft) 4Vu Extent (ft)
Line C, 1st-Roof Column 79.4 66.2 39.7 69.5 2–13a 11 8.37 18
Line E, 1st-4th
Line D, 1st-Roof Doorway 71.6 47.6 35.8 50.5 2–13b 20 4.75 16*
Line C, 4th-Roof Column 31.0 17.8 15.5 33.5 2–13c 11 4.24 14
Line D, 4th-Roof
Line C, 4th-Roof Doorway 23.2 10.0 11.6 13.5 2–13c 11 1.59 8*
Line D, 4th-Roof
* Extent limited to height of wall boundary, equal to height of door opening(s).

Figure 2–13. Boundary ties required by the ACI 318 procedure
The required area of boundary ties is calculated according to ACI 318 Equation 21–5:
Ash 09sbbc fc′/f yt .

0.09 Eq 21–5
Calculations of Ash are given in Table 2–14, corresponding to section cuts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I
through the boundary zones as shown in Figure 2–13.

Table 2–14. Required boundary zone ties by the ACI 318 procedure
bc s Ash Required Ash Provided

Section Cut (in) (in) (in2) Tie Legs (in2)
A 21.0 4 0.50 3 #4 0.60
B 14.0 4 0.34 2 #4 0.40
C 68.0 4 1.63 9 #4 1.80
D 14.0 4 0.34 2 #4 0.40
E 50.0 4 1.20 6 #4 1.20
F 21.0 4 0.50 3 #4 0.60
G 32.0 4 0.77 4 #4 0.80
H 14.0 4 0.34 2 #4 0.40
I 14.0 4 0.34 2 #4 0.40
Note:
1. See Figure 2–13.
Blue Book recommendations
ACI 318 Equation 21–5, which specifies the required area of confining reinforcement, comes from the
requirements for special moment frame columns and is referenced by Section 21.9.6.4(c) for special
boundary elements of walls. For special moment-frame columns, the SEAOC Blue Book (2009, Article
09.05.010) recommends an alternative equation that accounts for axial load and effectiveness of confining
reinforcement, based on detailing:
Ash Ach fc′/f yt sbc

0. kn k p ( Ag /A
where kn = [0.6 + 0.4(n/nls)][(hx + 12)/20]

(hx + 12)/20 ≥ 1.0
n = total number of longitudinal bars in the column cross section
nls = number of longitudinal bars that are laterally supported by the corner of hoops or by
seismic hoops or crossties that are ≥ 135 degrees
hx = center-to-center horizontal spacing of crossties or hoop legs
kp = Pu /Ag fc′ ≥ 0.2.

The Blue Book does not provide a comparable recommendation for confinement of special wall boundaries
because it is difficult to quantify the axial load on a wall boundary. However, Elwood et al (2009)
recommend an alternative formulation of the kp term for use with wall boundary elements, based on the
expected strain demand:
kp = 120(c/lw)(δu /hw).
Elwood et al suggest that an upper limit on kp may be appropriate to avoid congestion of ties but do not
provide a recommendation for the upper limit.
This recommendation for boundary confinement could be checked as well. For this design example, the
requirements of ACI 318 are followed.
8.4 DETAILING WHERE SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED
Where special boundary elements are not required, ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.5(a) requires the following
detailing consideration:
400
If the longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the wall boundary is greater than , boundary
fy
transverse reinforcement shall satisfy Section 21.6.4.2 and Section 21.9.6.4(a). The maximum
longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement in the boundary shall not exceed 8 inches.
At the doorway end of walls where vertical reinforcement is #7 bars at 12 inches on center.
2(0.60 in) 400

ρ= = 0.00625 < = 0.00667
12 in(166 i ) fy
Therefore, no boundary ties are required.
At the doorway end of walls where vertical reinforcement is #8 bars at 12 inches on center.
2(0.79 in) 400

ρ= = 0.00823 > = 0.00667
12 in(166 i ) fy
Therefore, #4 at 8 inches on center ties are provided as a minimum.
At column end of walls with eight #9 longitudinal bars,
8(1.0 in) 400

ρ= = 0.0139 > = 0.00667 .
24 in(24 i ) fy
Therefore, #4 at 8 inches on center ties are used as a minimum tie throughout the columns. The same ties
are used for the column portion of the wall pier D at the first three floors, although ties are not strictly
required by the code since this portion is not a wall boundary.
Figure 2–12 shows the location of the boundary ties provided to satisfy ACI 318 Section 21.9.6.5.

9. Detailing of Coupling Beams ACI 318
9.1 DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF DIAGONAL REINFORCEMENT
The diagonal bars must be developed for tension into the wall piers. By ACI 318, bars are required to
have a development length of ld . For coupling beams, however, ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(b) requires an
increase of 25 percent in the development length. Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend increasing the
development length by 50 percent instead of 25 percent. Following the ACI 318 requirement, the bars are
extended a distance of 1.25ld beyond the face of the supporting wall pier, as shown in Figures 2–15 and
2–17, where ld is the development length of a straight bar as determined under ACI 318 Section 12.2.
9.2 OPTIONS FOR CONFINEMENT OF COUPLING BEAMS
ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(c) and (d) provide two options for confinement of diagonal bars in coupling
beams. The first option (c) provides transverse reinforcement around each of the two groups of diagonal
bars individually, while the second option (d) provides transverse reinforcement confining the entire beam
cross section. The second option was introduced in the 2008 edition of ACI 318 and tends to result in
more easily constructible reinforcement layouts. Both options are discussed for comparison in this design
example.
9.3 OPTION 1: TIES AROUND DIAGONAL BARS
In the first option, per ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(c), “diagonal bars shall be enclosed by transverse
reinforcement having out-to-out dimensions not smaller than bw /2 in the direction parallel to bw and bw /5
along the other sides.” This design example assumes that these ties are #4, and the recommended layering
of reinforcement in the coupling beams is shown in Figure 2–14. The proposed layering corresponds
to a clear cover of 1 inch in the coupling beam and 13⁄8 inches in the wall pier. The layering shown in
Figure 2–14 results in a diagonal bar cage with lateral “core” dimensions of 9.0 inches by 14.5 inches,
measured outside-to-outside of the ties. Ties extend over the portion of the diagonal bars within the
coupling beam length, as shown in Figure 2–15.

Figure 2–14. Section through coupling beam showing layering of reinforcement
Under the requirements of ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(c), the required transverse reinforcement around
diagonal bars
shall satisfy ACI 318 Section 21.6.4.2 and Section 21.6.4.4, shall have spacing measured
parallel to the diagonal bars satisfying Section 21.6.4.3(c) and not exceeding six times the
diameter of the diagonal bars, and shall have spacing of crossties of legs of hoops measured
perpendicular to the diagonal bars not exceeding 14 in.

Section 21.6.4.3(c) requires a maximum tie spacing not exceeding
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞
so = 4 + ⎜ where 4 in ≤ so ≤ 6 in Eq 21–2
⎝ 3 ⎟⎠
hx is the maximum horizontal spacing of hoop legs on all faces of the member.
In this example we have
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞ ⎛ 14 − 14 ⎞
4+⎜ = 4+⎜ = 4.0 in governs
⎝ 3 ⎟
⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎟⎠
6db = 6(1.00 in) = 6.0 in (for #8 diagonal bars).
Thus,
s = 4.0 in is chosen as the required spacing.
Equations 21–4 and 21–5 must be checked in each direction.
sh
0.3( bc fc′/ff yt Ag /Ach ) − 1] Eq 21–4
Ash 0.09 bc fc′/f yt .
09sb Eq 21–5
The quantity Ag is calculated assuming the minimum cover per Section 7.7 around each diagonal bar core.
For walls with #11 bars and smaller, without exposure to weather, this minimum cover equals 3⁄4 inch. Thus
Ag = [9.0 + 2(0.75)][14.5 + 2(0.75)] = 168 in2
and
Ach = 9.0(14.5) = 131 in2.
For the required area of steel in the vertical direction, bc = 9 in:
Ash = 0.3[(4 in)(9 in)(4 ksi) / 60 ksi](168/131 − 1) = 0.203 in2 Eq 21–4

Ash = 0.09(4 in)(9 in)(4 ksi) / 60 ksi = 0.216 in2 governs. Eq 21–5
For steel in the horizontal direction, bc = 14.5 in:
Ash = 0.3[(4 in)(14.5 in)(4 ksi) / 60 ksi](168/131 − 1) = 0.305 in2 Eq 21–4

Ash = 0.09(4 in)(14.5 in)(4 ksi) / 60 ksi = 0.348 in2 governs. Eq 21–5
A single #4 tie around the six diagonal bars provides two tie legs in each direction; thus, Ash = 0.40 in2.
Using a #3 perimeter tie with one #3 crosstie provides Ash = 0.22 in2 across the shorter core direction, and
Ash = 0.33 in2 across the longer core direction, which would not quite meet the Ash requirement of 0.348 in2.

Per Section 21.9.7.4(c), cross-ties shall not be spaced more than 14 inches on center. For the heaviest
diagonal reinforcement of 6 #11 bars, the center-to-center dimension of the #11 bars is given as 12 inches
in Figure 2–15. The center-to-center hoop dimension in this direction thus equals 12 inches plus one
diameter of a #11 bar plus one diameter of a #4 tie, equal to 12.0 + 1.40 + 0.5 = 13.9 inches. Since this is
less than 14 inches, a crosstie is not needed.
Per ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(c), confinement around the diagonal bars is required at the intersection of the
diagonals, either by continuing the ties through this intersection or by providing “alternatively configured
reinforcement satisfying the spacing and volume ratio requirements of the transverse reinforcement along
the diagonals.” This is provided by a combination of hoops and crossties at the intersection.
Figure 2–15. Elevation showing detailing of a coupling beam
Per ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(c), “additional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement shall be distributed
around the beam perimeter with total area in each direction not less than 0.002bws and spacing not
exceeding 12 in.”

For #4 at 6 inches transverse (vertical) bars:
0.002bws = 0.002(16 in)(6 in) = 0.192 in2 ≤ 0.40 in2 . . . OK.
For 14 #4 longitudinal (horizontal) bars:
0.002bws = 0.002(16 in)(11.5 in) = 0.368 in2 ≤ 0.40 in2 . . . OK.
The Blue Book (2009, Section 402.13) requires that the reinforcement parallel to the longitudinal axis of
the beam be at least #3 in size, spaced at not more than 12 inches on center. The reinforcement transverse to
the longitudinal axis of the beam must be at least #3, spaced at not more than 6 inches on center.
Figure 2–15 shows the recommended parallel and transverse reinforcement: 14 #4 bars longitudinally and
#4 ties at 6 inches transversely, which also meets the ACI 318 requirements.
Per the Blue Book recommendations (2009, Article 09.01.010), the longitudinal reinforcement is extended
6 inches into the wall pier, as shown in Figure 2–15. Longitudinal reinforcement is not developed for
tension because it is undesirable to increase the probable moment strength of the coupling beam beyond
that provided by the diagonal bars.
9.4 OPTION 2: TIES AROUND ENTIRE BEAM
In the second option, per ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(d),
transverse reinforcement shall be provided for the entire beam cross section satisfying
Section 21.6.4.2, Section 21.6.4.4, and Section 21.6.4.7, with longitudinal spacing not
exceeding the smaller of 6 in. and six times the diameter of the diagonal bars, and with
spacing of crossties or legs of hoops both vertically and horizontally in the plane of the
beam cross section not exceeding 8 in.
In this example for #8 diagonal bars, the maximum tie spacing permitted by ACI 318 is the smaller
of 6 inches or 6db = 6(1.00 in) = 6.0 in. However, to satisfy the volume ratio requirements of ACI 318
Section 21.6.4.4 calculated next, a spacing of s = 4.0 in is chosen for design.
ACI 318 Section 21.6.4.4 requires that Equations 21–4 and 21–5 be checked to determine the minimum
area of transverse reinforcement in each direction.
Ash 0.3(sbc fc′/f yt Ag /Ach ) − ] Eq 21–4

Ash 0.09sbc fc′/ff yt . Eq 21–5
For the coupling beams at the second floor in this example,
Ag = (16 in)(120 in) = 1920 in2

and
Ach = (14 in)(118 in) = 1652 in2.
For the required area of steel in the vertical direction, bc = 14 in

For steel in the horizontal direction, bc = 118 in

In the vertical direction, a single #4 tie around the beam cross section provides two tie legs; thus,
Ash = 0.40 in2, which is greater than the required 0.336 in2. However, the spacing of crossties or legs
of hoops in the plane of the beam cross section must be limited to 8 inches, so a vertical crosstie is
provided as well.
In the horizontal direction, the two legs of the #4 tie plus 14 #4 horizontal crossties provides a total
of Ash = 3.2 in2, which satisfies the required 2.83 in2. This arrangement also satisfies the 8-inch maximum
spacing between crossties or legs of hoops.
For the coupling beams at other floors, performing these same calculations with the beam depth of
72 inches results in the same design as above, except that the shallower beam requires fewer horizontal
crossties (8 rather than 14) to maintain a similar spacing and satisfy transverse reinforcement area
requirements.
Figures 2–16 and 2–17 show the resulting reinforcement layout for this design example. ACI 318
Section 21.9.7.4(d) permits hoops configured per ACI 318 Section 21.5.3.6, consisting of a stirrup having
seismic hooks at both ends and closed by a crosstie. In accordance with ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(d) and
Section 21.6.4.2, consecutive crossties are alternated end for end along the longitudinal reinforcement. Per
ACI 318 Section 21.9.7.4(d) each crosstie and each hoop leg must engage a longitudinal bar of equal or
larger diameter, so #4 longitudinal bars are placed around the perimeter of the beam at the ends of each
crosstie and hoop leg.
In accordance with the Blue Book recommendations (2009, Article 09.01.010), the longitudinal
reinforcement is extended 6 inches into the wall pier, as shown in Figure 2–17. Longitudinal reinforcement
is not developed for tension because it is undesirable to increase the probable moment strength of the
coupling beam beyond that provided by the diagonal bars.

Figure 2–16. Section through coupling beam showing layering of reinforcement

Figure 2–17. Elevation showing detailing of a coupling beam

Design Example 3
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame
OVERVIEW
Concrete frame buildings, especially ones with older, non-ductile frames, have frequently experienced
significant structural damage in earthquakes. A number have collapsed. Following the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake, special requirements for ductile concrete frames were introduced in the code.
Today these ductile frames are designated as SMRF (Special Moment-Resisting Frames). All reinforced
concrete moment-frame structures built in Seismic Design Category D, E, or F locations must be SMRF as
required by Table 12.2–1. Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frames (OMRF) are prohibited in Seismic Design
Category locations C, D, E or F, and Intermediate Moment-Resisting Frames (IMRF) are prohibited in
Seismic Design Category locations D, E, or F.
This example illustrates the seismic design of a seven-story concrete SMRF. A conceptual elevation of
the building is shown. This is a reinforced concrete office building with the typical floor plan shown
in Figure 3–1. The building has seven stories with a SMRF on each perimeter wall. A typical building
elevation is shown in Figure 3–2.

Design Example 3 䡲 Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame
1 2 2.3 3 3.5 4 4.7 5 6

120' – 0"
24' – 0" 24' – 0" 24' – 0" 24' – 0" 24' – 0"
F.O. SLAB
TYP 6' – 0" 12' – 0" 6' – 0"
30" × 30" CONC
CORNER COL’S
TYP
E
30" × 36" CONC

PERIMETER
COLS’S, TYP
D
C.7
TYP PERIMETER
CONC SMRF
8" P.T. SLAB
BEAMS
24" × 24" SQ
INTERIOR COLS’S,
TYP
B.3
Figure 3–1. Typical floor plan
1 2 3 4 5 6
ROOF
7th FLOOR
6th FLOOR
5th FLOOR
4th FLOOR
3rd FLOOR
2nd FLOOR
1st FLOOR
120' – 0"
Figure 3–2. Typical frame elevation, line A

OUTLINE
Determine the controlling seismic parameters and/or design the following structural elements.
1. Site Ground Motion
2. Design Base Shear Coefficient
3. Redundancy Factor
4. Combined Effect of Horizontal and Vertical Earthquake-Induced Forces
5. Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces
6. Frame Nodal and Member Forces
7. Analysis and Evaluation of Frame Drifts
8. Beam Design
9. Column Design
10. Joint Shear Analysis
11. Detailing of Beams and Columns
12. Foundation Considerations
13. Commentary
GIVEN INFORMATION
The building has a floor system consisting of post-tensioned slabs. Vertical loads are carried by a frame
system. Use of perimeter SMF is designed to allow freedom for tenant improvements.
Seismic and site data:
Mapped spectral response accelerations (5% critical damping, Site Class B)

SS = 1.5 at 0.2-second response §22.0
S1 = 0.60 at 1.0–second response
Ie = 1.0 (Occupancy Category II) §11.5.1
Site Class D

Average story weights (for seismic design):
Roof loads:
Material Roof (psf)

Roofing 5.0
Concrete slab 100.0
Girders 15.0
Columns 9.0
Partition walls (seismic)* 5.0
Curtain wall 3.0
MEP 2.0
Miscl. 1.0
Total dead for seismic 140.0
Lr (roof live load) 20
Typical floor loads:
2nd–5th Floors 6th–7th Floors

Material (psf) (psf)
Floor covering 1.0 1.0
Concrete slab 100.0 100.0
Girders 27.0 15.0
Columns 18.5 18.5
Partition walls (seismic)* 10.0 10.0
Curtain wall 5.0 5.0
MEP 2.0 2.0
Miscl. 1.5 1.5
Total dead for seismic 165.0 153.0
L (floor live load) 50 50
* Partitions in ASCE 7 are live loads, and are 15 psf minimum live load for gravity calculations
and 10 psf for seismic calculations per Section 12.7.2.
Structural material specifications are given as follows:

Concrete fc′ = 4000 psi (normal weight)
Reinforcing A706, ( fy = 60 ksi) for longitudinal bars in Special Moment Frames
Reinforcing A615, Grade 60 ( fy = 60 ksi) for stirrups located in Special Moment Frames

CALCULATIONS AND DISCUSSION CODE REFERENCE
1. Site Ground Motion §11.4

The maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for short periods, SMS, and at
1.0-second period, SM1, adjusted for site class effects, shall be determined by Equations 11.4–1
and 11.4–2.
Fa = 1.0 T 11.4–1
Fv = 1.5 T 11.4–2
SMS = FaSS = (1.0)(1.5g) = 1.5 Eq 11.4–1
SM1 = Fv S1 = (1.5)(0.60g) = 0.90 Eq 11.4–2
Five-percent-damped design spectral response acceleration at short periods, SDS, and at 1.0-second
period, SD1, adjusted for site class effects, shall be determined by Equations 11.4–3 and 11.4–4.
SDS = 2/3 SMS = (2/3)(1.5) = 1.0 Eq 11.4–3

SD1 = 2/3 SM1 = (2/3)(0.90) = 0.60 Eq 11.4–4
2. Design Base Shear Coefficient §12.2–1
The coefficients for a reinforced concrete special moment frame building:
Response modification factor, R = 8 T 12.2–1

System overstrength factor, Ωo, = 3
Deflection amplification factor, Cd = 5.5.
The approximate fundamental building period, per Section 12.8.2.1, is
Ta = Ct hnx = (0.016)(86 ft)0.9 = 0.88 sec.
Alternately,
Ta = 0.1N = 0.1(7) = 0.7 sec Eq 12.8–8

Therefore, use Ta = 0.88 sec.
The seismic base shear, V, in a given direction shall be determined in accordance with the following
equation
V = CsW. Eq 12.8–1
The calculation of seismic response coefficient, Cs, shall be
S DS 10
Cs = = = 0.125. Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠

Calculation of TL = 8 per Figure 22.8.
Cs need not exceed the following:
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.085 for T ≤ TL Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
T⎜ ⎟ 0 88 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝1 0⎠
or
S D TL
Cs = for T ≥ TL. Eq 12.8–4
⎛ R⎞
2
T ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
The value of seismic response coefficient, Cs, shall be not less than
Cs 0 044 S DS I e = 0.044 ≥ 0 01. Eq 12.8–5
In addition, for buildings located where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6, the value of the seismic response
coefficient, Cs, shall not be less than
Cs =
0 5S1
=
( 0 5) ( 0 6) = 0 043
04 . Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
T⎜ ⎟ 0 88 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝1 0⎠
Equation
12.8-2
Cs
Equation
12.8-3 Maximum of Equation 12.8-5,
or 12.8-6
Figure 3–3. Typical response spectrum
Therefore, Equation 12.8–3 controls the base shear calculation for this building, and the seismic coefficient
is thus
V = CSW = 0.085W

3. Redundancy Factor §12.3.4.2
In structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, ρ shall be 1.3 unless one of the following two
conditions is met, whereby ρ is permitted to be taken as 1.0:
a. Each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear in the direction of interest shall
comply with Table 12.3–3, or
b. Structures that are regular in plan at all levels, provided that the seismic-force-resisting systems
consist of at least two bays of seismic-force-resisting perimeter framing on each side of the
structure in each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
Based on the above, this building has a ρ equal to 1.0.
4. Combined Effect of Horizontal

and Vertical Earthquake-Induced Forces §12.4.2
E = Eh + E v Eq 12.4–1
E Eh − E v Eq 12.4–2
Eh QE Eq 12.4–3
E v 0 2 S DS D Eq 12.4–4
Seismic Load Combinations for Strength Design §12.4.2.3
5. 1.2D + 0.5L + E = (1.2 + 0.2(1.0))D + 0.5L + ρQE = 1.4D + 0.5L + ρQE

7. 0.9D ± E = (0.9 − 0.2(1.0))D − ρQE = 0.7D ± ρQE
5. Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces §12.8.3
In this part, the seismic forces on the concrete frame are determined.
5.1 STORY MASSES (WEIGHTS) ARE CALCULATED IN TABLE 3–1
Table 3–1. Calculation of building and story weights
Level Area (sf) Wi (psf) Wi (kips)

Roof 10,800 140.0 1,512
7th 10,800 153.0 1,652
6th 10,800 153.0 1,652
5th 10,800 165.0 1,782
4th 10,800 165.0 1,782
3rd 10,800 165.0 1,782
2nd 10,800 165.0 1,782
Total 75,600 11,945
Note:
These weights are provided information for this design example and not for discussion.

5.2 BASE SHEAR AND VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHEAR
Using the results of Part 2, the base shear is
V = 0.0852W = 0.0852(11,945 kips) = 1,018 kips.
The vertical distribution of shear is determined from Equations 12.8–11, 12.8–12 and 12.8–13:
Fx CvvxV Eq. 12.8–11

w hk
Cvx = n x x Eq. 12.8–12
∑ wx hx
k
i =1
k = a distribution exponent related to the building period as follows:
k = 1.0 for 0.5-sec period or less

k = 2.0 for 2.5-sec period or more.
For Ta between 1.0 and 2.5 seconds, use linear interpolation to determine k. Therefore k = 1.19 seconds.
⎛ 0 88 − 0.5 ⎞
k =1 0+⎜ = 1.19.
⎝ 2 5 − 0 5 ⎟⎠
Table 3–2. Vertical distribution of shear
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

wx hxk
wx Σwx ΣFx
n
∑ i=1
k
Level (kips) (kips) hx (ft) h (ft) x x wx hxk Fx (kips) (kips)
R 1512 1512 86 12 303,113 24% 246 246

7 1652 3164 74 12 277,013 22% 225 471
6 1652 4817 62 12 224,420 18% 182 653
5 1782 6599 50 12 187,362 15% 152 805
4 1782 8381 38 12 135,161 11% 110 915
3 1782 10,163 26 12 86,045 7% 70 985
2 1782 11,945 14 14 41,191 3% 33 1018
Totals 11,945 1,254,305 100% 1018
V = 1018 kips

6. Frame Nodal and Member Forces
The longitudinal frame along Line A is designed in this example. The dead and live loads on the perimeter
beams are determined using a tributary width of 15 feet. The gravity loads (including self weight) applied
to the beams in the frame analysis are summarized in Table 3–3.
Table 3–3. Beam gravity loads for analysis
Framing Level Dead Load (plf) Live Load (plf)

R 2100 300
7 2295 750
6 2295 750
5 2475 750
4 2475 750
3 2475 750
2 2475 750
A torsional analysis of the building using a 5 percent accidental torsion (using an eccentricity equivalent to
5 percent of the perpendicular building dimension) gives results such that all frames on the four faces of the
building resist torsional shears of approximately 2 percent of the base shear. Thus the seismic forces in the
frame analysis were increased by 2 percent to account for accidental torsion (per Section 12.8.4.2). Each
line of perimeter frames should be designed to resist a base shear of 52 percent of the total building design
base shear, V.
A two-dimensional frame analysis is performed for the frame along line A. The frame forces are determined
from story forces above. Forces are distributed to frame nodes in proportion to their location along line A.
Thus, at longitudinal frames with six columns, 10 percent of the story force is applied to end column nodes
and 20 percent of the story force is applied to the interior column nodes. The force distribution at transverse
frames with five columns is 12.5 percent to exterior column nodes and 25 percent to interior column nodes.
The frame nodal loads for longitudinal and transverse frames are summarized in Table 3–4. Frame joint and
member numbers are shown in Figures 3–4 and 3–5.

Table 3–4. Column nodal forces for analysis
Long. Frame Long. Frame Trans. Frame Trans. Frame

End Column Interior Col. End Column Interior Col.
Story Forces Node Forces Node Forces Node Forces Node Forces
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
R 246 12.8 25.6 16.0 32.0
7 225 11.7 23.4 14.6 29.2
6 182 9.5 18.9 11.8 23.7
5 152 7.9 15.8 9.9 19.8
4 110 5.7 11.4 7.1 14.3
3 70 3.6 7.3 4.5 9.1
2 33 1.7 3.5 2.2 4.3
Total 1018 105.9 423.5 132.3 397.0
The loads shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3–4 add to 52 percent of the design base shear. The loads in
columns 5 and 6 also add to 52 percent of the design base shear. To account for torsion, a load factor of
1.04 × 50 percent = 52 percent was used to define the frame nodal loads. This problem was solved on a
two-dimensional frame program. Any elastic finite element analysis program could be used, including those
with three-dimensional capability.
Figure 3–4. Computer model of the frame on line A

Figure 3–5. Computer model of the frame on line A with beam and column sizes
7. Analysis and Evaluation of Frame Drifts
Under Section 12.12.1, allowable story drifts, Δa are limited to 0.020hsx for drifts corresponding to the
maximum inelastic response displacement δx. Under Section 12.8.6,
Cd δ xe δ xe
δx = = .
Ie 10
Table 3–5 summarizes the calculations of the allowable frame drifts.
Table 3–5. Allowable story deformations and displacements
Total Story Allowable Sum Allowable Analysis

Height Height δx Σδx δxe Σδxe δxe Drift
Story (ft) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) DCR
Roof 86 12 2.88 20.64 0.524 3.755 2.608 0.44
7 74 12 2.88 17.76 0.524 3.231 2.376 0.65
6 62 12 2.88 14.88 0.524 2.707 2.034 0.76
5 50 12 2.88 12.00 0.524 2.183 1.637 0.75
4 38 12 2.88 9.12 0.524 1.659 1.245 0.75
3 26 12 2.88 6.24 0.524 1.135 0.85 0.78
2 14 14 3.36 3.36 0.611 0.611 0.444 0.73

The frame analysis is thus performed using a standard frame analysis program. Columns, beams, and
grade beams are sized to meet allowable drift limits. Member section properties are chosen to represent
the cracked structure. In accordance with ACI 318-11 Section 10.10.4.1, 70 percent of the gross section
properties are used for columns and 35 percent of gross section properties are used for beams to estimate
the contribution of cracked sections on the frame behavior. The joints were simply modeled as rigid;
however, engineers could consider flexibility in the modeling of joints.
Selected sections are 30 × 30 corner columns, 30 × 36 interior perimeter columns, 24 × 40 beams and
60 × 48 foundation grade beams. The designer must size a frame that meets drift limitations and also meets
strength criteria. For the design of this frame, the controlling parameters were frame stiffness and strength
of beams. Using the member sizes chosen, frame analysis gives the lateral story displacements, shown in
Table 3–5. The frame analysis gives δxe deflections; thus, the comparison is made using δxe deflections,
and the ρ factor is not used in the deflection analysis. The important idea to remember is that inelastic δx
deflections should be compared to allowable drift limits in Section 12.12.1 of ASCE 7.
As can be determined from the information in Table 3–5, story drifts are determined to be within allowable
limits. The iteration between frame stiffness and member strengths has resulted in a frame design with
conservative drifts. The designer must iterate between frame analysis and member section design. The
designer should include joint shear in the iteration to determine if joint shear is an important contributor to
deformation and flexibility.
8. Beam Design
8.1 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The next procedure is frame member design. Frame beams are designed to support gravity loads and resist
seismic forces. Beams are sized to limit frame drift and to resist the corresponding moment with a nominal
strength φMn. The φ factor for bending analysis is 0.90. The controlling load combinations are given in
Section 12.4.2.3 and are summarized below.
(1.2 + 0.2SDS) + ρQE + 0.5L. Eq 12.4.3.2

Load Combination 5
Thus,
1.2D + 0.2(1.0g)D + 0.5L + ρQE =

1.4D + 0.5L + ρQE.
Alternately,
(0.9 − 0.2SDS)D + ρQE. Eq 12.4.3.2

Load Combination 7
Thus,
0.9D − 0.2(1.0g)D − ρQE =

0.7D − ρQE.

8.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAME BEAMS
The nominal beam strength is calculated using the following formula and ignoring compression steel for
simplicity:
⎛ a⎞
φ φ
φA
As f y d − ⎟ ≥ M u .
n
⎝ 2⎠
Standard practice has been to consider the frame beam to have a combined section including consideration
of the contribution of the adjacent slab for both compression and tension stresses (ACI 318-11 Section
21.5.1.4). Chapter 21 of ACI 318-11 is the required code for design of concrete SMRF elements under the
2012 IBC.
The probable flexural strength, Mpr , is calculated per ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.4.1 using 1.25fy for the
reinforcing steel stress. Recalculating the beam strength using φ = 1.0 gives
⎛ a pr ⎞
M pr 1.25 As f y d − ⎟.
⎝ 2 ⎠
The shear strength of the beam, φVn, must be designed to be greater than required to resist Ve due to Mpr at
both ends of the beam plus shear from gravity loads. L is the distance from column face to column face.
For this example, the distance is L = 24 feet minus 36 inches = 21 feet, 0 inches from the center of column
to the center of column. The φ factor for shear analysis is 0.75 per ACI 318-11 Section 9.3.2.3. Thus, the
ultimate shear load is calculated as
⎛ + M pr − ( M pr ) ⎞ wfact
f ored
r grav
r ity
L
Ve = ⎜ ⎟+ ≤ φVn
⎝ L ⎠ 2
φ n
φVc + φVs
d
φ c
0 φV
φVs = 0.75 Av f y .
s
Under ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.4.2, the shear contribution from concrete, Vc, is considered to be zero when
both of the following conditions occur: 1) the earthquake-induced shear force represents more than one half
of the total shear force; and 2) the factored axial compressive force is less than Ag fc′ /20.
In the region of plastic hinges, transverse ties are required to resist shear forces.
Maximum spacing of ties cannot exceed ACI 318-11 §21.5.3.2, 21.5.3.3
1. d/4,
2. six times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal reinforcement,
3. 14 inches where hoop bars are required.
An example beam design for beam 48 (Figure 3–6) is shown. The controlling load combinations including
seismic forces are Equations 5 and 7. Depending on the direction of seismic inertial force, seismic moments
add with gravity moments at one beam end and subtract at the other end.

Beyond regions of potential plastic hinges, stirrups with seismic ties are required at a maximum spacing of
d/2 throughout the length of the beam under ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.3.4.
Diagrammatic shear and moment diagrams are shown in Figure 3–6.
Figure 3–6. Moment and shear diagrams for beams
A review of the moment and shear diagrams for gravity loads and seismic loads (Figure 3–6) will help
the designer realize that seismic moment and negative gravity moment at beam ends will be additive for
top reinforcement design and subtractive for bottom reinforcement design. Because seismic moment is
usually considerably greater than gravity moment, the reinforcement design will be controlled by load
combinations including seismic loads; however, greater amounts of top reinforcement will be required than
bottom reinforcement. Because the frame behavior produces beam moments as depicted in Figure 3–6, load
combination 5 will maximize negative moments for top reinforcement design, and load combination 7 will
maximize positive moments for bottom reinforcement design.

An example calculation for beam 48 is as follows:
From the frame analysis, load combination 5, the negative moment is −790 kip-ft. For a beam with b = 24
inches and h = 40, d = 37.
Try 5 #9 top bars, A = 5.00 in2
Per ACI 318-11 Section 10.5.1, As, the minimum shall not be less than Eq 10–3:
3 fc′ 3 4000 psi

As ,min = bw d = (24 in)(40
i i = 3 04
in) 04 2
5.00 in 2
fy 60,000 psi
and not less than,
200 bw d 200(24 in
i )(37 in
i )
As ,min = = = 2 96 in 2 ≤ 5 00 in 2 ∴ . . . OK.
fy 60,000 psi
Per ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.2.1, As maximum is limited to 0.025bwd:
As,max = 0.025(24 in)(37 in) = 22.20 in2 ∴ . . . OK.
Nominal moment strength is calculated as follows:
(5.00 in)(60,000 psi)

a= = 3.68 in
0.. 5(4000 psi)(24 in)
⎛ 3.68 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = ( .90)(5. i 2 )(6 p i) 37 in −
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1000 lb ⎟⎠
= 791 kip-ft ≥ 790 kip-ft; therefore OK.
From the frame analysis, load combination 7, the positive moment is 705 kip-ft.
Try 5 #9 bottom bars, As = 5.0 in2.
b = the beam width plus slab one side equal to minimum of 1/12 span; 6× the slab thickness; or one-
half of the distance to the next beam web.
b = 48 in; (24 in + (min of 24 in; 6(8 in) = 48 in, or 78 in)
(5.00 in)(60,000 psi)
a= = 1.84 in
0.. 5(4000 psi)(48
)(48 in)
⎛ 1.84 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = ( .90)(5. i 2 )(6 p i) 37 in −
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1000 lb ⎟⎠
= 811 kip-ft ≥ 705 kip-ft; therefore OK.
Thus the beam 48 design will have 5 #9 top bars and 5 #9 bottom bars.
ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.2.2 requires that positive moment strength at the joint face shall not be less
than (bottom reinforcement) 50 percent of negative moment strength at the joint face and that neither the
positive or negative moment strength along the beam be less than one fourth of the strength at either joint
(end). In this example, 811 kip-ft is greater than 50 percent of 791 kip-ft, therefore, OK.

8.3 BEAM SKIN REINFORCEMENT
If the overall depth of a beam exceeds 36 inches, longitudinal skin reinforcement shall be distributed along
both side faces of a beam for a distance h/2 from the tension face per ACI 318-11 Section 10.6.7. The skin
reinforcement shall be spaced a distance s per ACI 318-11 Section 10.6.4 (Eq. 10–4).
⎛ 40,000 ⎞ 2 fy
s = 15 ⎜ ⎟ − 2.5cc fs =
⎝ fs ⎠ 3
⎛ 40,000 ⎞
s = 15 ⎜ − 2.5(3 i ) = 7 5 in
⎝ 40,000 ⎟⎠
but not greater than
⎛ 40,000 ⎞
12 ⎜ ⎟ = 12 in .
⎝ fs ⎠
For this example, skin reinforcement is required. Use three #4 side bars at 6.8 inches spacing (5 equal
spacings). Significant skin reinforcing can 1) reduce congestion at the top and bottom and 2) increase Mpr
if not accounted for.
8.4 BEAM SHEAR DESIGN
The design shear force, Ve , is determined from consideration of the forces on the portion of the member
between faces of the joints per ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.4.1. For shear design, the designer allows for
plastic hinge formation, which will produce shear forces greater than those from frame analysis.
+ M pr − ( M pr ) wgrav
r ity
L
Ve = +
L 2
( .25)(5. )(60,000 psi)
−a = = 4.60
. in
0.. 5(4000 psi)(24
)( in)
⎛ 4.60 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
− M pr = ( .25)(5. i 2 )(60 000 p i) ⎜ 37 in − = −1084 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1000 lb ⎟⎠
( .25)(5. )(60,000 psi)
a= = 2.30
3 in
0.. 5(4000 psi)(48 in)
⎛ 2.30 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
M pr = ( .25)(5. i 2 )(60 000 p i) 37 in − = 1120 kip-ft .
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1000 lb ⎟⎠
Shear from dead load is calculated from load combination 5.
Beam length L = 24 feet – 36 inches/2 – 30 inches/2 = 21.25 feet at end bays:
⎛ 21.25 ft ⎞
Vgrav = [(1. )(24 5 plf 5 5 plf )] ⎜ = 40.8 kips
r ity
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
( kip f + kip f )
∴ Vu = + 40.8 kips = 144.5 kips.
21.25 ft

The design shear, Ve , is thus the sum of the shear from the plastic end moments plus the gravity shear.
Seismic stirrups at the plastic hinge regions are calculated as shown below. The plastic hinge region is a
distance of 2d from the column face.
Try #5 ties with four vertical legs at 6-inch spacing over the 2d length (62 inches). Transverse
reinforcement should be proportioned to resist shear, assuming Vc = 0 when both of the following
conditions occur (ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.4.2)
a. The earthquake-induced shear force calculated in accordance with Section 21.5.4.1 represents
one half or more of the maximum required shear strength within those lengths.
b. The factored axial compressive force including earthquake effects is less than Ag fc′ /20.
φ n φVc + φVs
φVc = 0
φAv f y d 0.75(2)(0.31
3 i )(60 000 p i)(3377 i )
φVs = = = 172
7 kips ≥ 144.5 kips , ∴ O.K.
s 6
Therefore, use two legs, #5 stirrup ties at 6-inch spacing at plastic hinge regions at beam ends.
The shear load between columns 2d from column face is calculated as follows:
⎛ 2 ⎞ (2)(440 in
i )
Vu = 144 kips − 40.4 kips ⎜ = 118.6
6 kips.
⎝ 21.25 ⎟⎠ 12
Seismic stirrups in the beam between plastic hinge regions are calculated as follows. Try #5 ties at 8-inch
spacing:
( .75)(2)(0.. i 2 )(60,000 p i)(37 in)

φVs = = 129 kiips 8.6 kips . . . OK.
8 in
Use 6-inch stirrup spacing across the beam. Maximum tie spacings are d/4 or six times the smallest
longitudinal bars per 21.5.3.2 in plastic hinge regions defined as two times the beam depth from the
columns. Outside the hinge regions, spacing can be d/2 per 21.5.3.4. For this beam, d/4 is 9.25 inches and
six times the bar diameter is 6.75 inches. Therefore 6 inches is OK at plastic hinge regions and across the
beam outside hinge regions.
Therefore, the final design for Beam 48 is a 24-inch-wide by 40-inch-deep beam with five #9 top bars, five
#9 bottom bars, two legs #5 stirrup ties at 6-inch spacing at plastic hinges and two legs #5 stirrup ties at
6-inch spacing between hinges. Side bars are three #4 each side.
8.5 DESIGN OF ALL FRAME BEAMS
Following these same procedures and using the forces from the frame analysis, the Frame A beam designs
for flexural strength are shown in Table 3–7.

Table 3–7. Beam member longitudinal reinforcement design
Mu, i Mu, j Bar

Eq. Eq. B h d Bar No. Bar Area As a φMn Bending
Member 12–6 12–5 (in) (in) (in) Location Bars Size (in2) (in2) (in) (k-ft) Results DCR
Level 2
48 790 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 1.00
705 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.87
49 769 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
675 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
50 763 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.96
671 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
51 757 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.96
666 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.82
52 752 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.95
Level 3
53 760 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.96
687 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.85
54 770 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
673 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
55 769 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
674 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
56 767 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
675 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
57 767 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
Level 4
58 723 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.91
659 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.81
59 745 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94
651 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.80
60 744 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94
650 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.80
61 745 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94
651 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.80
62 742 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94

Table 3–7. Beam member longitudinal reinforcement design (continued)
Mu, i Mu, j Bar

Level 5
63 602 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.86
538 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.94
64 630 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.90
536 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.93
65 629 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.90
535 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.93
66 630 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.90
536 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.93
67 622 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.89
Level 6
68 455 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 0.87
379 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.88
69 485 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
385 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.89
70 485 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
384 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.89
71 485 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
385 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.89
72 469 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
Level 7
73 374 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.89
298 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.90
74 410 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.98
309 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.94
75 408 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.97
308 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.94
76 408 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.97
309 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.94
77 387 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.92

Table 3–7. Beam member longitudinal reinforcement design (continued)
Mu, i Mu, j Bar

Roof
78 257 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.61
189 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.44
79 286 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.68
208 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.48
80 282 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.67
207 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.48
81 282 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.67
210 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.49
82 249 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.59
210 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.49
Note:
DCR = demand to capacity ratio.
With longitudinal beam reinforcement proportioned as indicated in Table 3–7 above, the plastic moment
Mpr and shear design is as follows. Note that Mpr is calculated including contribution of perimeter
reinforcement. VU, (gravity) is calculated as the factored combination of D + L loads. In this example skin
reinforcement is not included.
VU, (gravity) = 1.40D + 0.50L from the seismic load combination 5.
Table 3–8. Beam member shear reinforcement design
Mem Bar As apr Mpr Vpr VU, GR Vu φVc Ties # Tie Avs s φVs φVn
ID As T&B (in2) (k-ft) (k) (k) (k) (k) Legs Size (in2) (in) (k) (k) Result DCR
Level 2
48 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
49 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
50 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
51 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
52 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120

Table 3–8. Beam member shear reinforcement design (continued)
Level 3
53 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
54 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
55 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
56 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
57 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
Level 4
58 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
59 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
60 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
61 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
62 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 172 172 OK 0.84
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
Level 5
63 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 153 153 OK 0.80
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
64 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 153 153 OK 0.80
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
65 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 153 153 OK 0.80
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
66 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 153 153 OK 0.80
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
67 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 153 153 OK 0.80
0.79 3.95 1.82 792

Table 3–8. Beam member shear reinforcement design (continued)
Level 6
68 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 144 144 OK 0.69
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
69 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 144 144 OK 0.69
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
70 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 144 144 OK 0.69
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
71 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 144 144 OK 0.69
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
72 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 6.0 144 144 OK 0.69
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
Level 7
73 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.50
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
74 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.50
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
75 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.50
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
76 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.50
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
77 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.50
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
Roof
78 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.42
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
79 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.42
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
80 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.42
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
81 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.42
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
82 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 2 0.31 0.62 5.0 173 173 OK 0.42
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
Note:
DCR = demand to capacity ratio.

Having satisfied the design for both bending and shear, the final beam designs are thus chosen as shown in
Table 3–9.
Table 3–9. Final beam designs
Width Depth Shear Reinf.

b h Long. Reinf. Long. Reinf. Skin Shear Reinf. in between Hinge
Level (in) (in) Top Bottom Reinf. Hinge Regions Regions
None 2 legs 2 legs
Roof 18 34 4 #7 4 #7
Req’d #5 Ties @ 5 in #5 Ties @ 5 in
None 2 legs 2 legs
7 18 34 4 #8 4 #7
None 2 legs 2 legs
6 18 34 4 #9 4 #8
3 #4 2 legs 2 legs
5 24 36 5 #9 5 #8
each side #5 Ties @ 6 in #5 Ties @ 6 in
3 #4 2 legs 2 legs
4 24 40 5 #9 5 #9
3 #4 2 legs 2 legs
3 24 40 5 #9 5 #9
3 #4 2 legs 2 legs
2 24 40 5 #9 5 #9
Figure 3–7. Represents a beam at Level 2 showing dimensions and reinforcement

9. Column Design
9.1 STRONG COLUMN CALCULATION
Columns should be designed to ensure that the plastic hinges are located in the beams (i.e., strong column-
weak beam behavior) and to resist column shears. To assure strong column-weak beam behavior, columns
must be designed to have nominal bending strengths 120 percent stronger than beams per ACI 318-11
Section 21.6.2.2. This is achieved by summing the Me of columns above and below a joint and comparing
the result with the sum of Mg for beams on both sides of a joint:
ΣMnc ≥ (6/5)ΣMnb. ACI 318-11 (21–1)
The controlling girder location occurs at levels 2, 3, 4, and 5. The girders are 24 inches × 40 inches with
five #9 bars at the top and five #9 bars at the bottom.
Calculation of moment strength −Mnb (negative at beam tops at interior column joints) is as follows:
(5.00 in)(60,000 psi)

a= = 3.68 in
0.. 5( p )(24 in)
⎛ 3.68 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = ( .90)(5. i 2 )(6 p i) 37 in −
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1000 lb ⎟⎠
= 791 kip-ft.
Calculation of moment strength of Mnb (positive at beam bottoms at interior column joints) is as follows:
b = 48 in
(5.00 in)(60,000 psi)
a= = 1.84 in
0.. 5(4000 psi)(48
)( 8 in)
⎛ 1.84 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = ( .90)(5. i 2 )(60 000 p i) 37 in −
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1000 lb ⎟⎠
= 811 kip-ft.
Therefore, at interior columns
6 6
Σ nb = (791 kip f + 811 kip f ) = 1922 kip-ft.
ΣM
5 5
Therefore, at corner columns
6 6
Σ nb = (811 kip-ft)
ΣM t = 973 kip-ft.
5 5
The girder moments are resisted by two column sections, the column above the joint and the column below
the joint. The required column strengths, Mnc for interior columns are given below.
1
M nc = ( kip f ) = 961 kip-ft
2

or at corner columns,
1
M nc = (973 kip f ) = 487 kip-ft.
2
9.2 FORCES ON COLUMNS DUE TO FACTORED LOAD COMBINATIONS
For column design, load combinations 5 and 7 are used. Also, because strength design is used, the
effect of the vertical seismic component, Ev, must be included. Load combinations 5 and 7 are given
below. Tables 7–10 and 7–11 provide axial forces and moments on the columns of Frame A for load
combinations 5 and 7, respectively.
1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E = 1.2D + 0.2D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE (5)
0.9D − 1.0E = 0.9D − 0.2D − 1.0QE = 0.70D − 1.0QE. (7)
9.3 DESIGN OF COLUMN FOR BENDING STRENGTH
ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.3.1 requires the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of columns to be between 1
and 6 percent. The design of columns is usually performed by calculating a column axial force-moment
capacity (P-M) interaction diagram. The major points used to construct such a diagram are φPn for
compression, (φPb, φMb) at the balanced point, φMn for pure moment, and φTn for pure tension. The φ factor
for column calculations is 0.65 for tied columns and 0.70 for spiral-tied columns meeting requirements in
ACI 318-11 Section 9.3.2.2. In accordance with ACI 318-11 Section 9.3.2.2, the φ factor may be increased
linearly to 0.9 for columns or other axial load-carrying members as φPn decreases from 0.10 fc Ag (or φPb,
whichever is less) to zero.
The equation for φPn is given in ACI 318-11 Section 10.3.6:
φPn = 0.85φ[0.85 fc′ (Ag − Ast) + fy Ast ]. ACI 318-11 (10–1)
Note that φ = 0.65 for members with axial compression and flexure (not with spiral shear reinforcement)
per ACI 318-11 Section 9.3.2.2.
Calculation of the balanced point is determined by using 0.002 strain for reinforcing steel at yield and
0.003 for concrete strain at crushing in accordance with ACI 318-11 Section 10.3.2. By summing forces
and moments, the balanced axial load and moment (φPb, φMb) can be determined. The nominal moment
strength is determined by using 0.002 strain for steel yielding and by calculating tension forces and
compression forces such that they add up to 0. The resulting moment is thus φMn, where φ = 0.9.
The equation for tension members is
φTn = φFy Ast.
Note that φ = 0.90 for members with axial tension and axial tension with flexure per ACI 318-11
Section 9.3.2.1.

Table 3–10. Column loads for load combination 5
Member Pu (kips) Vu (kips) Mu Bottom (kip-ft) Mu Top (kip-ft)

1 17 59 597 −284
2 32 41 235 −256
3 48 39 224 −237
4 60 32 207 −172
5 61 23 145 −129
6 45 12 14 −135
7 21 5 −75 −20
8 598 111 1076 −596
9 507 104 625 −627
10 420 96 562 −589
11 333 84 539 −471
12 248 68 421 −391
13 158 47 185 −381
14 70 25 39 −260
15 596 107 1036 −565
16 510 105 630 −628
17 425 97 570 −600
18 339 86 550 −484
19 254 70 434 −403
20 163 50 201 −402
21 72 28 52 −283
22 595 105 1018 −550
23 509 105 633 −625
24 424 98 572 −600
25 338 86 551 −485
26 254 70 436 −404
27 163 51 203 −407
28 72 28 47 −279
29 554 106 1029 −562
30 476 108 654 −643
31 399 101 593 −620
32 321 89 569 −503
33 242 72 452 −419
34 156 53 218 −425
35 69 29 54 −289
36 542 61 584 −338
37 448 68 414 −400
38 353 63 367 −384
39 261 56 357 −321
40 178 49 300 −290
41 108 40 179 −297
42 45 28 91 −249

Table 3–11. Column loads for load combination 7
Member Pu (kips) Vu (kips) Mu Bottom (kip-ft) Mu Top (kip-ft)

1 391 −65 −626 357
2 316 −59 −349 358
3 243 −56 −328 343
4 173 −50 −315 280
5 114 −42 −258 246
6 67 −32 −134 252
7 28 −20 −46 189
8 237 −113 −1086 608
9 207 −106 −633 639
10 175 −100 −583 611
11 143 −88 −561 495
12 110 −71 −444 412
13 72 −52 −209 413
14 33 −27 −50 281
15 267 −106 −1036 566
16 230 −104 −628 626
17 192 −98 −570 600
18 154 −86 −551 484
19 116 −70 −435 403
20 75 −50 −202 405
21 34 −27 −48 281
22 268 −104 −1017 549
23 231 −105 −634 626
24 193 −98 −570 600
25 154 −86 −550 484
26 116 −69 −435 404
27 75 −50 −202 403
28 34 −27 −51 282
29 281 −104 −1020 550
30 237 −107 −646 631
31 196 −98 −571 599
32 155 −86 −546 480
33 115 −69 −430 399
34 74 −49 −194 393
35 34 −26 −43 267
36 −137 −55 −555 266
37 −99 −50 −301 297
38 −62 −45 −264 278
39 −28 −39 −248 214
40 −4 −30 −188 174
41 4 −20 −59 180
42 4 −4 30 81

The designer may use a commercial program to develop a P-M diagram for the column axial load-moment
interaction including effects for slenderness of columns. From the frame analysis for Frame A, the
controlling load cases are summarized in Table 3–12.
Table 3–12. Critical column loads for Frame A
Size Load Comb. Pu Vu Mu

Column Level Location (in) Equation (kips) (kips) (kip-ft)
8 1 perimeter 30 × 36 5 598 111 1076
36 1 corner 30 × 30 5 542 61 584
36 1 corner 30 × 30 7 −137 −55 −555
Column 8 represents the controlling load combination for a column in compression and Column 36
represents the controlling load combination for a column in tension.
Using the program, check 30 × 36 interior column 8 with twenty #10 bars around the perimeter. The
resulting P-M diagram is shown in Figure 3–8. Note Pu max is 598k and Pu min is 237k. φMn min is
approximately 1750 kip-ft at Pu = 237k. This value of φMn min should be used for strong-column / weak-
beam calculations.
Figure 3–8. Column P-M diagram for 30-inch × 36-inch interior column

Check 30 × 30 corner Column 36 with twenty #10 bars around the perimeter. The resulting P-M diagram
is shown in Figure 3–9. Pu max is 542k and Pu min is −137. φMn min is approximately 1200 kip-ft at
Pu = −137k. This value of φMn min should be used for strong-column/weak-beam calculations.
Figure 3–9. Column P-M diagram for 30-inch-square corner column
When checking strong column/weak beam, the column flexural strength should be the minimum value
of φMn considering the range of possible axial loads. By comparing the design loads against the column
P-M diagrams of Figures 3–8 and 3–9, it can be determined that both columns have adequate strength; see
Table 3–13.
Both column sections achieve 120 percent of beam moment strength and thus have adequate strength
to develop the plastic moments of beams. φMn for interior columns is approximately 1750 kip-ft at
Pu = 237 kips (minimum flexural strength at column #8). For end columns, φMn is approximately
1200 kip-ft at Pu = −137 kips.
6
Σ nc
ΣM nb
Σ
5
ΣMnc, interior = 2(1750 kip-ft) = 3500 kip-ft ≥ 2166 kip-ft . . . OK.
ΣMnc, end = 2(1200 kip-ft) = 2400 kip-ft ≥ 1189 kip-ft . . . OK.
The authors of ACI 318-11 believe that the design of columns 120 percent greater in flexural strength than
girders will cause plastic hinge formation to occur in the beams. This is probably true in most cases. Since
that is what is required in ACI 318-11, it is shown in this example.

Some engineers believe that they should design the columns to develop the strength of the beam plastic
moments, Mpr. While this is not explicitly required by ACI 318-11, it is a prudent idea. The reasoning is that
the yielding elements in the frame are the beam plastic moments located at beam ends followed by column
plastic moments at column bases. When all non-yielding aspects of the frame are designed to be stronger
than the yielding elements, the anticipated frame yield behavior is assured. Thus the shear design of beams,
columns, and joints; column flexural strengths; and foundation elements are all designed to have adequate
strengths to resist the anticipated flexural yield mechanism of the frame.
Table 3–13. Column axial and flexural design strengths
Size φPn at M = 0 φPb φMb φMn at P = 0

Column (in) (kips) (kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft)
Interior 30 × 36 2658 1250 1875 1700
End 30 × 30 2334 1000 1400 1350
9.4 DESIGN OF COLUMNS FOR SHEAR STRENGTH
Columns must be designed for shear strength, Ve , required by ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.5.1 and for the
special transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.4.4. The design shear force, Ve ,
shall be determined from the consideration of the maximum forces that can be generated at the faces of
the beam/column joints at the ends of beams framing into the joint. The beam/column joint forces are
determined using one of three methods:
1. The column shear, Ve , can be determined using the maximum probable moment strengths, Mpr ,
of the column at the top and the bottom of the column between joints including the associated
axial loads on the column (with axial load selected to be consistent with the maximum flexural
strength of the column).
2. The column shear, Ve , need not exceed that determined based on the probable moment strength,
Mpr , of the beams framing into the joint.
3. Ve shall not be less than the factored shear determined from analysis.
It is likely that the second method described above will control the shear design of the column since
strong column behavior of the frame will force plastic hinges to form in the beams. At the columns in the
first story, the controlling case is from column top moments based on Mpr of beams and column bottom
moments based on Mpr of the column calculated with associated axial loads.
For the interior column, 30 × 36, at stories one and two, the maximum shear needs to be determined from
maximum shear that can be transferred from beam strength, Mpr , as shown below.
Interior column at first story
Clear height of column = 14 feet − 3 feet = 11 feet.

Mpr of beams framing into top of column is based on negative moment from one beam and positive moment
from the other beam.
ΣMpr = 1084 kip-ft + 1123 kip-ft = 2207 kip-ft.
Distribution of beam moments to columns is in proportion of 4EI/L of columns below and above the joint.
Since columns are continuous, 4EI is constant, and moments are distributed based on 1/L of columns. The
lower column has a height of 14 ft, 0 in and the upper column has a height of 12 ft, 0 in. The lower column
will have a moment at its top, determined as follows.
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 11 ft ⎟ 2207 2 kip-ft(9 ft)
t
M pr ,top ΣM
M pr ,beams ⎜ ⎟= = 993 kip-ft
⎜ 1 1 ⎟ ( 20 f
ft )
⎜⎝ 11 ft + 9 ft ⎟⎠
The lower column could develop a maximum of Mpr at its base. The moment, Mpr, for the column is
determined using a reinforcement yield strength of 1.25Fy or 75 ksi. Mpr determined for an axial load
of 1200 kips is approximately 1800 kip-ft.
The shear, Ve , is determined as follows based on clear column height
( kip f + kip f )
Ve = = 254 kips
11
This value is compared with frame analysis, Vu = 112 kips, thus Ve controls.
Interior column at second story
Clear height of column = 12 feet − 3.33 feet = 8.67 feet.
Mpr of beams framing into top and bottom of column is based on negative moment from one beam and
positive moment from the other beam.
Σ Mpr, above = 1084 kip-ft + 1123 kip-ft = 2207 kip-ft

Σ Mpr, below = 1084 kip-ft + 1123 kip-ft = 2207 kip-ft.
The second story column will have moments above and below. The column will have probable moments as
shown below:
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 8 67 ft ⎟
M pr ,col ΣM
M pr ,beams ⎜ ⎟ = 1104 kip-ft
⎜ 1 + 1 ⎟
⎜⎝ 8 67 ft 8 67 ft ⎟⎠
thus column shear, Ve , is determined as follows based on clear column height
( kip f + kip f )
Ve = = 254.7 kips.
8.67 ft

This value is compared with frame analysis Vu = 106 kips, thus Ve controls.
The tabulated calculation of column shears is shown in Table 3–14.
Table 3–14. Calculation of column shear forces, Ve
Col. −Mpr +Mpr Dist. M at −Mpr +Mpr Dist. M at

Col. at Clear (Joint (Joint ΣMpr ΣMpr Col. (Joint (Joint ΣMpr ΣMpr Col. Ve at
Grid Level/ Height Above) Above) at to Top Below) Below) at to Bot. ΣM Col.
Lines Story (ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Joint Col. (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Joint Col. (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips)a,b
1, 6 1 11 0 1,123 1,123 0.450 505 0 0 0 1 1,800 2,305 210
2 9 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 0 1,123 1,123 0.538 604 1,166 130
3 9 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 1,123 125
4 9 959 0 959 0.5 480 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 1,041 116
5 9.5 614 0 614 0.5 307 959 0 959 0.5 480 787 83
6 9.5 495 0 495 0.5 248 614 0 614 0.5 307 555 58
7 9 0 596 596 1 596 495 0 495 0.5 248 844 94
2,3,4,5 1 11 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.450 993 0 0 0 1 1,400 2,393 218
2 9 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.538 1,187 2,291 255
3 9 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 2,207 245
4 9 959 794 1,753 0.5 877 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 1,980 220
5 9.5 614 516 1,130 0.5 565 959 794 1,753 0.5 877 1,442 152
6 9.5 495 395 890 0.5 445 614 516 1,130 0.5 565 1,010 106
7 9 574 596 1,170 1 1,170 495 395 890 0.5 445 1,615 179
Notes:
a. Vu appears to govern at floors 5 and 6. b. Vu may govern at floor 6.
b. The Ve for column shear at the base of the column should be based on the maximum Mpr of the column at
the base under the full range of potential axial compression and/or tension forces (worst case).
Special transverse reinforcement is required to be in accordance with ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.4.
The total cross-section area of rectangular hoop reinforcement shall not be less than that required by
Equations 21–4 and 21–5:
sbc fc′ ⎡ ⎛ Ag ⎞ ⎤
Ash = 0 3 ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ ACI 318-11 (21–4)
f yt ⎢ ⎝ Ach ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
sbc fc′
Ash = 0 09 ACI 318-11 (21–5)
f yt

Transverse reinforcement shall be spaced at distances not exceeding (1) one quarter minimum member
dimension, (2) six times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, and (3) s0 as defined by
Equation 21–2.
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞ ⎛ 14 − 6 ⎞
s0 = 4 + ⎜ = 4+⎜ = 6 67 6 in
⎝ 3 ⎟⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎟⎠
The transverse reinforcement should extend beyond any joint face a distance lo equal to the larger of (1) one
member (column) depth at location where flexural yielding will occur, (2) one-sixth of the clear column
span, or (3) 18 inches. Spacing between transverse reinforcement should not exceed six bar diameters of the
longitudinal steel or 6 inches (ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.4.5).
Table 3–15 shows calculations for special transverse reinforcement.
Table 3–15. Special transverse reinforcement in columns
Col. bc bc No. Size

Size Eq. b d Trans Long fc′ fyt Ag Ach s Ash Legs Bars
30 × 36 21–3 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 1080 832 6 0.966
21–4 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
21–3 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 1080 832 6 0.966

21–4 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
30 × 30 21–3 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 900 676 6 1.074

21–4 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
21–3 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 900 676 6 1.074

21–4 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
Calculations for the required shear steel are shown in Table 3–16.
Table 3–16. Shear strength
Shear Shear
Vu Ve b d fc′ fy φVc Av s φVs φVn
Col. (kips) (kips) (in) (in) (psi) (psi) (kips) (sq in) (in) (kips) (kips) DCR
30 × 36 111 371 30 33 4000 60,000 97 1.2 6 306 403 0.92
30 × 30 68 238 30 27 4000 60,000 0 1.2 6 245 245 0.97

The final column design at the first level is summarized in Table 3–17.
Table 3–17. Final column design at first level
Long. Stirrups Long. Stirrups Trans. Stirrups Trans. Stirrups

Longitudinal Within Yielding Beyond Yielding Within Yielding Beyond Yielding
Column Reinforcement Zones, lo Zones, lo Zones, lo Zones, lo
30 × 36 20 #10 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches
30 × 30 20 #10 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches
The column design may be used for the full-height columns, or the reinforcement can be reduced slightly
at the upper portion of the frame. Since the longitudinal reinforcement is 2.8 percent, the longitudinal
reinforcement could be reduced to as little as 1 percent in upper stories.
Figures 3–10 and 3–11 show the column cross-section with dimensions and reinforcement indicated.
Figure 3–10. 30 × 36 column

Figure 3–11. 30 × 30 column
10. Joint Shear Analysis
Beam-column joints of frames must be analyzed for joint shear in accordance with ACI 318-11
Section 21.7. The shear forces from analysis and the joint strength are calculated in Table 3–20. φ = 0.85.
Table 3–20. Joint shear analysis
Shear from Vpr , Plastic Nominal Joint

Analysis (Vu) Shear (Ve) Shear Aj Strength
Element Location (kips) (kips) Stress (in2) (kips) Results
Int. Column Level 3 99 540 1080 871 OK
φ15 fc′ A j
End Column Level 3 96 270 900 580 OK
φ12 fc′ A j
Int. Column Level 2 99 557 1080 871 OK
φ15 fc′ A j
End Column Level 2 93 279 900 580 OK
φ12 fc′ A j

11. Detailing of Beams and Columns
11.1 BEAM REINFORCEMENT
Beams should be detailed with top, bottom, and side reinforcement as shown in Figure 3–12. In accordance
with ACI 318-11, beam shear reinforcement, which meets the spacing requirements of ACI 318-11 Section
21.5.3.2, should be provided over a distance 2d from the faces of columns. The tie spacing shall not exceed
(1) d/4, (2) 6db of the smallest primary flexural reinforcing bars excluding longitudinal skin reinforcement,
(3) 6 inches. These requirements result in a 6-inch-maximum tie spacing: however, from analysis, ties
required are #4 ties spaced at 6-inch centers. For ties between beam hinge regions, ties are required at d/2
spacing: however, based on analysis, #4 ties at 6-inch spacing are required across the remaining length of
the beam (outside the hinge areas at each end).
Longitudinal beam bars should be spliced away from the beam-column joints and a minimum distance of
2h from the face of the columns, per ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.2.3. At the Level 2 beams for this example,
the beam clear spans are approximately 21 feet and 2h = 2(40 inches) = 80 inches = 6 feet, 8 inches. The
designer might consider splicing beam longitudinal reinforcement at the quarter-span, one-third-span, or
half-span locations (Figure 3–13). In this case the quarter-span locations would not be away from hinge
regions; however, the one-third or mid-span locations would be acceptable. Increased shear reinforcement is
required at the lap splice locations per ACI 318-11 Section 21.5.2.3. The maximum spacing of ties in these
regions shall not exceed d/4 or 4 inches. In this case, the beam mid-point is the best location for lap splices.
The #9 top bars or #9 bottom bars with Class B splices would have a splice length of 80 inches or 6 feet,
8 inches. Longitudinal reinforcement can be shipped in 60- to 80-foot lengths on trucks; thus, two locations
of longitudinal beam lap splices may be required in the frame along Line A, conceivably on the two interior
spans. Figure 3–14 shows beam-column joint reinforcement at an exterior span, and beam reinforcement at
interior spans is shown in Figure 3–15. A beam-column corner joint at the roof is presented in Figure 3–16.
Figure 3–12. Beam-column joint

Figure 3–13. Beam reinforcement lap splice
Figure 3–14. Beam-column joint reinforcement at exterior span
11.2 COLUMN REINFORCEMENT
Column splices should occur at column mid-story heights (or within the center half of the column
heights) per ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.3.3. Special transverse reinforcement is required per ACI 318-11
Section 21.6.4 over a length lo above and below beams at spacing not greater than (1) the column depth,
(2) one sixth the column clear span, or (3) a maximum of 18 inches. For this example, the column depth
(which is 36 inches) would control. For column sections between the locations where special transverse
reinforcement is required, the spacing requirements of ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.4.5 governs (6 inches
maximum). The type of column ties required is per ACI 318-11 Section 7.10.

Figure 3–15. Beam reinforcement at interior spans
Figure 3–16. Beam-column corner joint at roof

12. Foundation Considerations
The foundation system should be capable of resisting column base moments sufficient to cause plastic
hinges to be located in the beams and column bases. If the plastic hinge location is forced into the columns,
the foundation elements need not be designed for yielding or ductility. The foundation should also be
adequate to keep soil pressures within allowable values and adequate for frame overturning stability. For
this analysis, a 60-inch-wide by 48-inch-deep grade beam was used, and cracked beam properties were used
in the computer analysis. ASD combinations of loads should be used for the calculation of foundation soil
pressures; however, the actual design of foundation elements was not performed in this example.
13. Commentary
Deformation compatibility should be checked at interior columns due to seismic drifts, k. This will lead to a
conservative design for punching shear at slab/column joints. These joints may require drop panels or shear
head reinforcement in the slab over interior columns.
The building period in this example was calculated using the approximate fundamental period method.
A dynamic analysis may be performed considering the structure geometry, element stiffness, and story
masses to determine eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The dynamic analysis results may be used as long as the
fundamental period of the structure is not greater than 120 percent of the approximate fundamental period.
If a mathematical model of the building is used to determine the period, the designer should keep in mind
that non-seismic elements can add stiffness in the building and thus cause the fundamental period of the
structure to be shorter. Thus, interior non-seismic columns or other important stiffening elements should be
included in structural modeling and period calculations to assure conservative period calculation results.
Reinforced concrete SMRF frames can provide very ductile seismic systems for buildings with highly
desirable performance characteristics. The yielding mechanisms can be predicted and the seismic
performance will be ductile and not brittle or sudden. Care should be taken to assure adequate shear
strength at beams, columns, and joints to assure that ductile flexural yielding will occur as anticipated.
Care should also be taken with lap splices, with detailing of reinforcement, and with specified couplers.
Longitudinal reinforcement should be ASTM A706, which has more ductility than ASTM A615
reinforcement.

Design Example 4
Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage
OVERVIEW
This design example utilizes a five-story parking garage to illustrate the design and detailing of secondary
frame members; i.e., beams and columns that are not part of the lateral-force-resisting system, diaphragms,
and collectors. The example structure is classified as a bearing-wall system with special reinforced concrete
shear walls.
In performing seismic analysis and design, engineers identify and distribute seismic forces to elements
that are part of the Seismic Load Resisting System (SLRS). Through the incorporation of a Response
Modification Factor, R, seismic design procedures assume that the SLRS elements will yield in the design
seismic event. Accordingly, the elements are detailed to remain intact, stable, and capable of energy
dissipation through repeated cycles of post-elastic deformation.
For most wood and steel structures, it is reasonable to assume that elements that are not designated part
of the SLRS do not participate significantly in the seismic response of the structure. Typical, steel beam-
column connections are assumed to be pinned; i.e., not capable of creating frame action. In wood buildings,
the lack of a sufficiently rigid load path prevents partition walls that are nominally connected to the
diaphragm from engaging in lateral resistance.
However, the materials and methodology of cast-in-place reinforced concrete construction result in rigid
connections between members that transfer lateral forces to elements that are not treated as part of the
SLRS. This along with the high stiffness-to-strength ratio of reinforced concrete results in conditions
where, even in a rigid structure such as the shear wall building used in this example, shears and moments in
excess of their elastic capacity are induced in the non-SLRS elements in the design seismic event.
The example structure resembles a series of switch-back stair flights with central ramps bounded by flat
landings at each end. The exterior columns span a full story height between parallel ramps. Interior columns
have spans of varying distances between crossing ramps. Short columns such as these are significantly
stiffer than the full-height columns on the perimeter. Consequentially, the shears and moments induced by
inelastic deformation are large, and the columns must be detailed to undergo such deformations without
loss of axial capacity.

Design Example 4 䡲 Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage
Figure 4–1. Cutaway view of example structure
OUTLINE
3. Lateral Analysis
4. Slab, Beam, and Column Design
5. Wall and Ramp Forces
6. Provisions for Secondary Frame Members
7. Diaphragm Analysis
8. Diaphragm Design
9. Collector Design

Seismic design coefficients for the 2012 IBC, which uses the 2008 USGS seismic hazard data, were
determined using the USGS Seismic Design Maps Web Application (USGS 2012).
Input Parameters:
• Site Class: D
• Occupancy Category: II
USGS Output:
• SS 1 531g; S MS 1 531g; S DS 1 020 g
• S1 0 02 g; S M1 1 052 g; S D1 0 02 g
The example structure is classified as a bearing-wall system with special reinforced concrete shear walls.
Seismic design parameters have been computed in accordance with the referenced ASCE 7 sections as
follows:
• Seismic Importance Factor, I = 1 0 (Section 11.5.1)
• Seismic Design Category: D (Section 11.6)
• Response Modification Factor, R = 5 (Table 12.2–1)
• System Overstrength Factor, Ω0 = 2 5 (Table 12.2–1)
• Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd = 5 (Table 12.2–1)
• Reliability and Redundancy, ρ = 1 0 (Section 12.3.4.2)
Structural material properties:
• Concrete strength (slabs, beams, and walls), fc′ = 5000 psi
• Concrete strength (columns), fc′ = 6000 psi
• Mild reinforcement yield stress, f y = 60 ksi
• P/T tendon ultimate stress, fu ,PT = 270 ksi
• P/T tendon effective force: 26.8 kips

The example building is rectangular in plan and measures 180 feet east-west by 120 feet north-south (see
Figure 4–2 and Figure 4–3). There are four above-grade parking levels spaced at 11 feet (132 inches) from
slab to slab. As shown in Figure 4–4, the east landings, denoted Level 1.0, Level 2.0, etc., are located at full
intervals of 132 inches from grade, and the west landings, denoted Level 0.5, Level 1.5, etc., are located at
intermediate elevations. A vehicle entering the structure at gridline 9 would ascend beginning at the base of
the south ramp and continue clockwise through the structure until it reached Level 4.0. A flat extension of
Level 4.0 is present above the south ramp between gridlines 6 and 8.
Gravity framing consists of 6.5-inch-thick one-way P/T slabs and ramps spanning east-west supported by
16-inch by 36-inch P/T beams. The beams frame into columns and walls on grid lines A, B, and C. At the
base level, the south ramp is a sloped slab-on-grade bounded by8 -inch-thick concrete retaining walls on
lines 1, A, and B. An 8-inch retaining wall on line 2 between grids B and C marks the transition from slab-
on-grade to elevated post-tensioned slab construction.
Columns are 24 inches square at the exterior and 30 inches square on line B. Their spans vary throughout
the structure due to the sloping ramps. Column spans on Grid B are shown in Table 4–1 for the column
below the listed level. Note that the table includes the column extensions above the highest ramp level on
gridlines 6 and 7 that support the flat section of Level 4.0. On gridlines A and C, spans are variable below
the first ramp level and are a constant 132 inches from level to level above that. At gridline A, the lowest
level column spans are equal to the gridline B column spans below Level 0.5. At gridline C, sum the
gridline B column spans below Level 1.0. For example the lowest level gridline A and C column spans on
gridline 5 are 33 inches and 99 inches, respectively.
Table 4–1. Slab-to-slab column spans on gridline B (inches)
Grid 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
LEVEL 0.5 66 55 44 33 22 11 N/A
LEVEL 1.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
LEVEL 1.5 132 110 88 66 44 22 N/A
LEVEL 2.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
LEVEL 2.5 132 110 88 66 44 22 N/A
LEVEL 3.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
LEVEL 3.5 132 110 88 66 44 22 N/A
LEVEL 4.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
EXTENSION N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 11 N/A
Top Elevation 462 473 484 495 528 528 528

Figure 4–2. Level 3.0-3.5 plan
Figure 4–3. Base plan

Figure 4–4. Section at gridline B
1.2 MATERIAL WEIGHTS
Ramps and Landings:
• 6.5-in. P/T slab: 81 psf
• 16-in × 36-in beams @ 22 ft o.c.: 22 psf
• Misc.: 3 psf
• Total:106 psf
Walls:
• 20-in walls: 250 psf
Columns:
• 30-in × 30-in columns (line B): 940 lb/ft
• 24-in × 24-in columns (lines A and C): 600 lb/ft
1.3 LIVE LOADS ASCE 7 CHAPTER 4
ASCE 7 Table 4.1 lists the minimum uniform live load for parking garages accommodating passenger
vehicles as 40 psf. Footnote (a) gives an additional requirement for a 2,000 lb point load due to a jack.
In addition to these loads, “realistic” live loads including 30 psf applied to alternate bays and 25 psf applied
to alternate bays with zero tension permitted in the top of the slab are recommended for post-tensioned
parking structures (AISC 2003).
Live loads may not be reduced for design of slabs or beams in parking garages; however, Section 4.8.3
allows a 20 percent live load reduction for columns supporting two or more levels.

1.4 SEISMIC MASS
The seismic mass for each level of the example structure is determined as follows:
Table 4–2. Summation of seismic mass
Slab: ((90 ft)(120 ft)-(44 ft)(60 ft))(106 psf) 865 kips

Walls: (1/2)(30 ft + 30 ft + 22 ft + 22 ft)(11 ft)(250 psf) 195 kips
LEVEL 0.5
Cols: (1/2)(14 × 600 plf + 7 × 940 plf)(11 ft) 80 kips
Total: 1140 kips
Slab: (90 ft)(120 ft)(106 psf) 1145 kips
LEVEL 1.0 Walls: (1/2)(30 ft + 30 ft + 22 ft + 22 ft)(11 ft)(250 psf) 195 kips
through
LEVEL 3.5 Cols: (1/2)(14 × 600 plf + 7 × 940 plf)(11 ft) 80 kips
Total: 1420 kips
Slab: (90 ft)(120 ft)(106 psf) 1145 kips
LEVEL 4.0 Walls: (1/4)(30 ft + 30 ft + 22 ft + 22 ft)(11 ft)(250 psf) 100 kips

Cols: (1/4)(14 × 600 plf + 7 × 940 plf)(11 ft) 40 kips
Total: 1290 kips
Total: 10,950 kips
Basic load combinations for strength design are listed in ASCE 7 Section 2.3.2. Seismic load combinations
are listed in Sections 12.4.2.3 and 12.4.3.2. The latter combinations include the overstrength factor, Ω0 . The
following load combinations are used in this example:
1.4 D (Section 2.3.2 Combination 1)

1.22 D 1 6 L + 0.5( Lr S or R) (Section 2.3.2 Combination 2)
( .2 + 0.2 S DS ) D + ρQE + L + 0.2 S (Section 12.4.2.3 Combination 5)
( .9 − 0.2 S DS ) D + ρQE + 1.6 H (Section 12.4.2.3 Combination 7)
( .2 + 00..2 S DS ) D + Ω0QE + L + 0.2 S (Section 12.4.3.2 Combination 5)
( .9 − 0.2 S DS ) D + Ω0QE + 1.6 H (Section 12.4.3.2 Combination 7)
Exception 1 of Section 2.3.2, which allows the Live Load factor in Combination 5 to be reduced to 0.5 for
occupancies with design live load of 100 psf or less, does not apply in this example because the structure is
a garage.

Eliminating unused loads H, Lr, and S and substituting DS

1 02 and ρ = 1 0 results in the following load
combinations:
1.4 D (Combination 1)
1.22 D 1 6 L (Combination 2)
1.4 D QE + L (Combination 5)
0 7D QE (Combination 7)
Where the overstrength factor is required, substituting Ω0 = 2 5 yields the following combinations:
1.4D
4 2 5QE + L (Combination 5)
0 77D 2 5QE (Combination 7)
3. Lateral Analysis ASCE 7
3.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM §12.2.1
As noted in the Overview, the structure is a bearing-wall system with special reinforced concrete shear
walls. Seismic design coefficients are listed in ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1. These values have been provided
above in the “Given Information.”
3.2 HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES §12.3.2.1
Horizontal structural irregularities are listed in ASCE 7 Table 12.3–1. Shear walls are located symmetrically
about the structure’s center of mass, so torsional irregularities (Types 1a and 1b) do not apply. The building
has no reentrant corners (Type 2). Shear walls are continuous and parallel to the orthogonal axes of the
building, so out-of-plane offsets (Type 4) and non-parallel systems (Type 5) are not present.
However, the ramp openings create abrupt variations in diaphragm stiffness, so the example structure has a
Type 3 diaphragm discontinuity irregularity at each level.
3.3 VERTICAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES §12.3.2.2
Vertical structural irregularities are listed in ASCE 7 Table 12.3–2. The stiffness, mass, and geometry of
each story are identical, so soft-story (Types 1a and 1b), weight (Type 2), and vertical geometry (Type 3)
irregularities are not present. There are no in-plane discontinuities in the shear walls (Type 4). The strength
of the shear walls at each story is not computed as part of this example; however, there is no reason for it
to be less at any level than at the level above. Therefore, weak-story (Type 5a and 5b) irregularities are not
present.
3.4 PROHIBITED IRREGULARITIES §12.3.3.1
Structures with type 5b vertical irregularities; i.e., extreme weak story, are not permitted in Seismic
Design Category D. Additionally, structures with Type 1b horizontal irregularities or Type 1b or 5a vertical
irregularities are not permitted in Seismic Design Categories E or F. Structures with Type 3 horizontal
structural irregularities are permitted in Seismic Design Category D.

3.5 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS §12.3.3.4
Structures in Seismic Design Categories D through F with Type 3 horizontal irregularities must comply
with Section 12.3.3.4. This section requires that collectors and the connections of diaphragms and
collectors to vertical elements of the seismic-load-resisting system be designed for 1.25 times the forces
determined from Section 12.8.1. Collectors and their connections that are designed for the overstrength
factor are exempt from this requirement.
Per Section 12.10.2.1, collector elements in Seismic Design Categories C through F and their connections
must be designed for the overstrength factor except in light-frame construction. Therefore, the 25 percent
increase applies only to diaphragm connections in this example.
3.6 DIAPHRAGM CLASSIFICATION §12.3.1
Diaphragms are classified as semi-rigid unless they can be idealized as flexible or rigid per Section 12.3.1.1
or 12.3.1.2. The example structure utilizes concrete diaphragms, which do not meet the requirements of
Section 12.3.1.1 and cannot be considered flexible. Section 12.3.1.2 permits concrete diaphragms to be
idealized as rigid if the span-to-depth ratio is less than three and no horizontal irregularities are present.
However, the structure has Type 3 horizontal irregularities. Therefore, the diaphragms cannot be classified
as flexible or rigid per Sections 12.3.1.1 and 12.3.1.2, respectively.
Section 12.3.1.3 allows for diaphragms to be classified as flexible if diaphragm deflection exceeds two
times the average drift of the adjoining vertical elements. Based on the conventional classification of
concrete diaphragms as rigid, this calculation was not attempted for the example structure.
Thus, the diaphragms are classified as semi-rigid.
3.7 REDUNDANCY §12.3.4
The redundancy factor, ρ, is unity for drift calculations, design of collectors and other members subject to
amplified seismic loads, and design of diaphragms using loading per Equation 12.10–1.
This example is limited to design of secondary frame members, diaphragms, and collectors, so ρ = 1 0 has
been used as indicated in the “Given Information.”
For the design of other elements, i.e., the shear walls for the example structure, ρ is determined in
accordance with Section 12.3.4.2. Because the example structure is not regular, ρ = 1 3 unless each story
resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear complies with Table 12.3–3. The example structure is a
shear wall building, and all of the walls have height-to-length ratios less than one. Table 12.3–3 classifies
the lateral-force-resisting elements as “other” and indicates there are “no requirements.” Therefore, ρ = 1 0
for design of the shear walls.
3.8 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE §12.6
ASCE 7 Table 12.6–1 lists permitted analytical procedures based on Seismic Design Category, building
type, building period, and structural irregularities. The example structure is located in Seismic Design
Category D, is less than 160 feet tall, and has only a Type 3 horizontal irregularity. Therefore, the
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis procedure is permitted.

3.9 STRUCTURAL MODELING §12.7.3
Modeling requirements are as follows.
• Structures with horizontal irregularities of types 1a, 1b, 4, or 5 require 3-D modeling. The
example structure does not fall under this criterion; however, a 3-D ETABs model has been
used to accurately represent the ramp geometry and the resulting effects on wall and column
stiffness.
• Structures with diaphragms that are not classified as rigid or flexible shall include
representation of the diaphragm’s stiffness characteristics. The diaphragms are defined as
ETABs shell elements, having in-plane and out-of-plane degrees of freedom.
• Properties of concrete elements shall be based on cracked sections; see ACI 318-11
Section 8.8.2. It is permissible to approximate cracked section properties through a
reduction factor applied to the moment of inertia of each element as shown in ACI 318-11
Section 10.10.4.1. Modification factors are listed in Table 4–3.
• For slab and wall elements, ETABs implements property modification factors applied to the
shell stiffnesses, denoted f11, f22, etc. (Guzman and Abell, 2012). Depending on the orientation
of the element, shell property modifiers act as multipliers on the quantities GA, EI , or EA.
Wall elements are typically oriented with the local-1 axis parallel to the orientation of the wall
in plan and the local-2 axis parallel to the global-Z (vertical) axis. Therefore, the f12 modifier
affects GA (the in-plane shear stiffness), and the f22 modifier affects EI (the in-plane flexural
stiffness). The m12 modifier on the slab element stiffness affects out-of-plane (i.e., vertical)
flexural stiffness. Compression due to post-tensioning prevents cracking in the slab due to in-
plane flexure, so a reduction of in-plane stiffness is not warranted.
Table 4–3. ETABs section property modifiers
Element Properties Modification Factor

Columns M2, M3 0.70
Beams M3 0.35
Walls f12, f22 0.35
Slabs m12 0.25
3.10 PERIOD DETERMINATION §12.8.2
For purposes of determining the seismic response coefficient, the approximate structural period, Ta , is
estimated in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2.1.
Ta Ct hnx (12.8–7)
where
hn = 44 ft (overall height of the structure)

and the coefficients Ct and x are determined from ASCE 7 Table 12.8–2 as follows for “all other structural
systems”:
Ct = 0 02
x = 0 75
resulting in
Ta = ( .02)(44 f )0 75 = .342 s.
3.11 SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT §12.8.1.1
The seismic response coefficient, Cs , is calculated as follows:
S DS
Cs = (12.8–2)
(R I )
where
R=5
I =1
as provided in the given information.
Thus,
1 02 g
Cs = = 0.204 g .
(5 1)
The value of Cs need not exceed
S D1 0 70 g
Cs = = = 0.409 g (12.8–3)
T ( R I ) (0.342)(5 /1)
and Cs shall not be less than
Cs 0 044 S DS I 0 01g (12.8–5)

Cs ( 044)(1 02 g)(1.0)) = .045g
or
0 5S1 (0.5)(0.70
7 g)
Cs = = = 0 07 g . (12.8–6)
(R I ) (5 1)
(5
Therefore,
Cs 0 204 g .

3.12 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR §12.8.1
V CsW = ( .204)(10950 kips) = 2234 kips. (12.8–1)
3.13 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEISMIC FORCES §12.8.3
Story shears at each level of the structure, Fx , are determined as follows:
Fx CvvxV (12.8–11)
where
wx hxk
Cvx = n
. (12.8–12)
∑ i=1 wi hik
for T < 0 5 s , k = 1.
Story shears based on hand calculations and the ETABs model are presented in Table 4–4. The ETABs
model computes story masses from the modeled elements, resulting in more mass at Level 4.0 and a
16 percent greater story shear at Level 4.0. The overall mass and story shear for the ETABs model are
within 1 percent of the hand-calculated values.
Table 4–4. Seismic force distribution
wi hi wi hik Fx ETABS
Level (k) (ft) (k-ft) Cvx (k) (k)
LEVEL 4.0 1290 44.0 56,760 0.209 466 541
LEVEL 3.5 1420 38.5 54,670 0.199 445 421
LEVEL 3.0 1420 33.0 46,860 0.171 382 367
LEVEL 2.5 1420 27.5 39,050 0.142 318 308
LEVEL 2.0 1420 22.0 31,240 0.114 254 247
LEVEL 1.5 1420 16.5 23,430 0.085 191 185
LEVEL 1.0 1420 11.0 15,620 0.057 127 123
LEVEL 0.5 1140 5.5 6270 0.023 51 49
Σwi = 10,950 273,900 ΣFx = 2230 2241

Σwi hik =

4. Slab, Beam, and Column Design ACI 318-11
As noted in the Commentary, the requirements of ACI 318-11 Section 21.13 for “Members not designated
as part of the lateral force resisting system” are intended to provide slabs, beams, and columns with
sufficient ductility to undergo flexural yielding while subjected to the design seismic displacement without
loss of gravity-load-carrying capacity. This section provides a brief overview of the gravity framing of the
example structure. Specifically, M pr , defined in ACI 318-11 Section 2.1 as the probable flexural capacity
based on tensile steel stress of 1.25 f y , φ = 1 0, and factored axial loads, must be determined for the
slab, beams, and columns for use in Section 6. The members shown in Figure 4–5 have been selected to
demonstrate these principles.
Design of P/T structures is typically performed using computer software that performs load balancing,
optimizes tendon profiles, and selects reinforcement based on design loading and code requirements. The
details of P/T concrete design are beyond the scope of this example. Therefore, the P/T design steps have
been omitted, and the discussion is limited to demands and capacities.
Figure 4–5. Members selected for gravity design

4.1 POST-TENSIONED SLAB
The slab has been designed for the governing effects of the three live load patterns discussed above: 40-psf
uniform load, 30-psf alternating load, and 2,000-pound point load. A computer analysis has shown that the
slab requires P/T tendons spaced at 2 feet on center and #4 top reinforcement at 12 inches on center at the
beam lines. Design of distributed slab reinforcement in both directions to resist diaphragm shear forces is
shown in Section 8.1. Bottom reinforcement at the beam lines consists of distributed slab reinforcement;
i.e., #4 at 16 inches on center. The slab reinforcement is shown in Figure 4–6. Flexural capacities at the
beam lines are computed as follows for a 1-foot-wide slab.
For negative moment:
( kip )( .153 in 2 )(1 tendon)

PPT = = 20.7 kips
p /ft
f
2 ft
As = 0.19 in 2 /ft
d = 5 25 in
b = 12 in
20.7 kip + (1.25)(0.19 2 )(60 ksi)
a= = 0.69 in
(0.85)(5 ksii)( in)
−
M pr (
= 20.7 kip + (1.255)(0.19 2 )(60
⎛
)
) 5.25 in −
⎝
0 69 in ⎞
2 ⎟⎠
f = 14.3 k-ft/f
/(12 in/ft) f ft .
For positive moment:
As = 0.14
1 in 2 /ft
d = 5 25 in
b = 12 in
( .25)(0. i 2 )(6 k i)
a= = 0.21
2 in
( .85)(5 ksi)(
)(12 in)
+ ⎛ 0.21 in ⎞
M pr = ( .25)(0. i 2 )(60 k i) 5.25 in − f = 4 5 k-ft/f
/(12 in/ft) f ft .
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
Figure 4–6. P/T slab reinforcement

4.2 POST-TENSIONED BEAMS
It is common practice to treat gravity design of P/T beams as a floor-by-floor exercise using software that
accounts for the stiffness of supporting columns but does not consider the overall structure. Beams must
be designed to resist forces due to load combinations 2, 5, and 7; however, the seismic components of
load combinations 5 and 7 are typically not significant for long-span beams. The beams are designed as
T-sections as follows.
Design forces
Moment diagrams for beams and columns on grid lines 2 through 5 are shown in Figure 4–7. Beam
end moments and shears for four beams at the south ramp are summarized in Table 4–5. Values for load
combinations 5 and 7 are listed twice: the gravity component only and with seismic forces included. This is
because ACI 318-11 Section 21.13 requires that seismic shear forces based on member flexural capacity be
substituted for QE in combinations 5 and 7.
The following observations can be made.
• Load combination 5 produces design forces that are about 5 percent higher than combination 2.
The seismic shear and moment should be included in design, but they do not greatly affect the
outcome for long-span beams.
• Beam shear and moment vary less than 10 percent between gridlines 2 and 5 and between
Level 3.5 and Level 1.5. Two-dimensional modeling for design of “typical” beams is
reasonable.
Table 4–5. Beam forces (units of kips and k-ft)
Combo 5 Combo 7 Combo 5 Combo 7

Combo 2 (Gravity) (Gravity) (Seismic) (Seismic)
Line/
LEVEL Grid V M V M V M V M V M
2/3.5 A 121 997 119 984 47 389 124 1042 52 446
2/3.5 B 113 1025 112 1012 44 400 115 1034 48 421
2/1.5 A 124 1057 123 1041 48 410 126 1094 52 462
2/1.5 B 115 1043 114 1029 45 406 117 1069 48 445
5/3.5 A 123 1063 122 1050 48 416 124 1097 50 463
5/3.5 B 124 1098 123 1085 49 430 125 1135 51 479
5/1.5 A 124 1087 123 1073 49 424 125 1120 51 471
5/1.5 B 124 1097 123 1084 49 429 125 1132 51 477

Flexural capacity
Figure 4–8 shows the typical beam elevation used throughout the example structure. Fifteen P/T tendons
are located at the geometric centroid of the effective T-section, 25.75 inches from the bottom of the beam.
Mild reinforcement consists of four #9 top bars located 33 inches from the bottom of the beam and two #9
bottom bars centered 3 inches from the bottom of the beam. Probable flexural capacities at the beam ends
are computed as follows:
Negative:
x = 25.75 in
PPT = ( kip )( .153 in 2 )(15 tendons) = 620 kips
As = 4.0 in 2
Preinf Treinf = ( .0 in 2 )(1.. 5)(6 ksi
k i) 300 kips
b = 16 in
620 kips + 300 kips
a= = 13.5 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(16 in)
− ⎛ 13.5 in ⎞
M pr = (620 kip kip ) 25.75 in − +( kip )( i − 25.75 in) = 1640 k-ft .
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
For positive flexure, the beam is analyzed as a T-section per ACI 318-11 Section 8.12.2. The overhang on
each side is limited to one-half the clear distance to the next web or eight times the slab thickness; i.e.,
MIN [8t f , 0.5(22 ft 1. f )] = 52 in . The effective flange width, befff , may not exceed one-quarter of the
beam span; i.e., befff < ( .25)(56.25 ft
f ))((1 in/ft
i /ft
f) 0 in .
Thus
befff = (2)(5 in) + 16 in = 120 in

i < 170 in .
The positive moment capacity is found as follows:
As = 2.0 in 2
Preinf Treinf = ( .0 in 2 )(1.. 5)(6 ksi
k i) 150 kips
b = 120 in
620 kips + 150 kips
a= = 1 5 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(120 in)
+
M pr = (620 kip 150 kip )(35.25 in − 25.75 in) + (150
1 kips)(25.755 i 3 i ) = 890 k-ft .

Figure 4–7. Beam and column moment diagrams: (a) line 2; (b) line 3; (c) line 4; (d) line 5
Figure 4–8. P/T beam reinforcement

4.3 COLUMNS
Columns on gridlines A and C are 24 inches square. On grid line B, the columns are 30 inches square.
Columns must be designed for the axial, flexural, and shear loads of load combinations 2, 5, and 7. Design
for axial and flexural loads is presented below. Design for shear has been deferred to Section 6 because the
seismic forces of ACI 318-11 Section 21.13 govern.
Design forces
Factored gravity forces in the columns supporting the south ramp on gridlines 2 and 5 below levels 1.5
and 3.5 are given in Table 4–6. Note that these are the columns directly below the beams considered in
Section 4.2. The following observations can be made.
Gravity forces induce significant shears and moments in all columns except where beams frame into both
sides at the same elevation; i.e., the column on grids 2/B and 8/B.
Unlike those in a moment-frame building, where column moments are typically least at upper levels,
gravity moments at columns on grids 2/A, 5/A are largest at the uppermost levels.
Table 4–6. Column forces (units of kips and k-ft).
Combo 2 Combo 5 (Gravity)

East-West North-South East-West North-South
Col LVL P V M V M P V M V M
2/A 3.5 135 0 7 150 684 135 0 6 148 676
2/A 1.5 412 2 14 108 483 410 2 14 105 475
2/B 3.5 268 5 30 3 16 267 5 31 3 15
2/B 1.5 797 8 43 31 231 794 8 42 29 219
5/A 3.5 136 1 4 160 763 135 1 4 158 754
5/A 1.5 409 0 4 84 475 409 0 3 83 469
5/B 3.5 275 19 43 3 744 274 19 42 3 735
5/B 1.5 818 3 5 15 739 815 3 5 15 732

Table 4–6. Column forces (units of kips and k-ft) (continued)
Combo 7 (Gravity) Combo 5 (Seismic)

2/A 3.5 54 0 2 59 267 139 6 28 157 716
2/A 1.5 165 1 5 40 186 422 11 111 112 483
2/B 3.5 107 2 13 1 6 273 15 62 13 65
2/B 1.5 318 3 16 11 80 815 38 321 51 378
5/A 3.5 55 0 2 63 299 137 7 30 165 788
5/A 1.5 165 0 1 32 185 413 11 123 86 483
5/B 3.5 110 7 17 1 291 274 25 58 23 798
5/B 1.5 327 1 2 7 291 817 20 198 24 797
Combo 7 (Seismic)
East-West North-South
Col LVL P V M V M
2/A 3.5 50 6 26 67 308
2/A 1.5 154 10 112 47 194
2/B 3.5 100 12 57 11 55
2/B 1.5 297 33 309 33 240
5/A 3.5 53 7 28 70 332
5/A 1.5 160 11 121 36 199
5/B 3.5 110 13 32 22 358
5/B 1.5 326 19 197 16 356
Flexural design
Interaction diagrams for the design of these columns are shown in Figure 4–9. Column sections are shown
in Figure 4–10. The 24-inch-square columns on gridline A are reinforced with 12 #9 longitudinal rebar
below Level 2.5. Due to the increased gravity moment at Level 3.5, the reinforcement consists of eight #10
rebar on the outside face of the column in addition to eight #9 rebar.
Reinforcement for typical 30-inch-square columns on gridline B consists of 12 #10 longitudinal rebar.
Twelve #8 rebar are provided for the column on gridline 2/B.

Figure 4–9. Column interaction diagrams
Flexural capacity
Probable flexural capacities shown in Table 4–7 have been computed from interaction diagrams generated
with f y = 75 ksi and φ = 1 0. Load combination 5 has been used to determine the axial load because it
produces larger values of M pr than load combination 7.

Table 4–7. Probable moment capacity for columns on gridlines 2 and 5
Column Level Reinf. Axial Load (k) Mpr (k-ft)

2/A LEVEL 3.5 Eight #9 + Eight #10 139 1350
2/A LEVEL 1.5 Twelve #9 422 950
2/B LEVEL 3.5 273 1050
Twelve #8
2/B LEVEL 1.5 815 1500
5/A LEVEL 3.5 Eight #9 + Eight #10 137 1350
5/A LEVEL 1.5 Twelve #9 413 950
5/B LEVEL 3.5 274 1450
Twelve #10
5/B LEVEL 1.5 817 1800
Figure 4–10. Column reinforcement
5. Wall and Ramp Forces
Shear forces in the wall elements from the ETABs model output are provided in Table 4–8. Axial and
shear forces in the ramp elements are provided in Table 4–9. The tabulated values are the maximum forces
computed at the ends and middle of each ramp. The larger axial forces for the east-west analysis indicate
that the ramps act similar to diagonal bracing in transferring load from one level of the structure to another.
The shear forces in the north-south direction indicate that the ramps behave as diaphragms spanning
horizontally between grids 2 and 8.

Table 4–8. Maximum seismic shear forces in wall elements (kips)
North-South East-West
Line 1 Line 1 Line 2 Line 9 Line A Line A Line B Line C
LEVEL (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in) (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in)
LEVEL 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 290 150 N/A N/A 290
LEVEL 3.5 350 N/A N/A N/A 490 N/A N/A N/A
LEVEL 3.0 N/A N/A N/A 640 N/A N/A N/A 560
LEVEL 0.5 520 350 260 N/A 860 260 520 N/A
Table 4–9. Maximum seismic axial and shear forces in ramp elements (kips)
RAMP Axial Shear Axial Shear
LEVEL 4.0 150 130 100 80
LEVEL 3.5 190 130 280 90
LEVEL 3.0 140 110 130 70
LEVEL 2.5 130 100 260 90
LEVEL 2.0 110 90 120 50
LEVEL 1.5 70 80 160 70
LEVEL 1.0 60 130 170 50
Shear wall design is beyond the scope of this example problem. For a thorough treatment, the reader is
referred to Example 1 in this volume.
The 280 kip axial force in the ramp at Level 3.5 is roughly 30 percent of the story shear at that level (960
kips for Level 3.5 and above). However, the resulting stress,
280 kips
fraamp = = 60 psi ,
(60
6 ft
f )(6.5 in)(12 in/ft
f)
is approximately 1.2 percent of the concrete compressive strength and is offset completely by pre-
compression stress (170 psi as shown in Section 8.3). Therefore, axial forces in ramps are neglected.
Design of the ramps (and slabs) as diaphragms, chords, and collectors is the subject of Sections 8 and 9.

6. Provisions for Secondary Frame Members ACI 318-11 §21.13
ACI 318-11 Sec. 21.13 establishes strength and detailing requirements for beams and columns that are not
designated as part of the structure’s Seismic Load Resisting System; i.e., secondary frame members. The
design procedure for secondary members is as follows:
• Step 1: Design member for the forces of all appropriate ASCE 7 load combinations, including
load combinations 5 and 7.
• Step 2 (optional): Determine whether the member remains elastic at the factored combination
of gravity forces and seismic forces associated with the design seismic displacement, u .
Ag fc′ for the member.

• Step 3: Determine Pu /A
• Step 4: Comply with the minimum reinforcement and other detailing provisions of Section
21.13.3 or 21.13.4 as dictated by the results of Steps 2 and 3.
• Step 5: If required by Section 21.13.3 or 21.13.4, design transverse reinforcement to comply

with the shear strength requirements of Section 21.5.4 or 21.6.5.
The design process must be performed independently for each seismic load combination because the
Ag fc′ calculation of Step 3 are likely to produce different outcomes for load
results of Step 2 and the Pu /A
combinations 5 and 7. Some steps may be performed out of order. For example, Steps 2 and 3 or Steps 4
and 5 may be reversed. However, it is necessary to determine the longitudinal reinforcement in all members
(Steps 1 and 4) before completing Step 5.
These steps are shown in Figure 4–11 and the corresponding code provisions are summarized in
Table 4–10. Members that remain elastic at the design displacement must meet the detailing requirements
of Sections 21.13.3.1, 21.13.3.2, or 21.13.3.3 depending on axial force. If the forces of Section 21.13.3
exceed the member strength or if the designer elects not to evaluate induced seismic forces, then, per
Section 21.13.4, the member must meet the requirements of Sections 21.13.4.1 and 21.13.4.2 or 21.13.4.3,
depending on axial load.
Generally the difference between the requirements for yielding and non-yielding members is that yielding
members must have additional transverse reinforcement. One important difference exists with respect
to shear strength, however. Members with low axial loads (typically beams, but also top-level columns)
need not meet the shear strength requirements of Section 21.5.4 if they remain elastic at u . Members
with axial stress greater than 10 percent of concrete strength must meet the shear strength requirements of
Section 21.6.5 regardless of whether they yield or remain elastic at δ u .

Table 4–10. Provisions for secondary frame members per Section 21.13
Member Strength Axial Load Requirements

Pu Minimum flexural reinforcement for MF flexural
≤ 0 10 members per Sec. 21.5.2.1
Ag fc′
(Sec. 21.13.3.1) Maximum stirrup spacing = d/2
Longitudinal reinforcement for MF axial-flexural per

Sec. 21.6.3.1.
Member has sufficient Pu Hoop or tie reinforcement w/ maximum hoop/crosstie leg
> 0 10
strength to resist factored Ag fc′ spacing, hx = 14 in per Sec. 21.6.4.2
combination of induced (Sec. 21.13.3.2) Shear strength requirements of Sec. 21.6.5
seismic and gravity forces Hoop/tie spacing shall not exceed so for the full member
(Sec. 21.13.3) length
Satisfy Sec. 21.13.3.2 (above)
Pu 0 35P0 Satisfy 21.6.4.7 regarding concrete cover
(Sec. 21.13.3.3) Transverse reinforcement equal to one-half the amount
required by Sec. 21.6.4.4 with spacing limited to so for
the full member length
Satisfy the material requirements of Sec. 21.1.4.2,
All cases
21.1.4.3, 21.1.5.2, 21.1.5.4, 21.1.5.5
(Sec. 21.13.4.1)
Satisfy the splice requirements of Sec. 21.1.6 and 21.1.7.1
Minimum flexural reinforcement for flexural members per
Pu
≤ 0 10 Sec. 21.5.2.1.
Ag fc′
Induced seismic forces Shear strength requirements of Sec. 21.5.4.
(Sec. 21.13.4.2)
not evaluated or exceed Maximum stirrup spacing = d/2.
member capacity (Sec.
21.13.4) Longitudinal reinforcement for MF axial-flexural
members per Sec. 21.6.3.
Pu Transverse reinforcement for MF axial-flexural members
> 0 10
Ag fc′ per Sec. 21.6.4.
(Sec. 21.13.4.3) Shear strength requirements of Sec. 21.6.5.
Joint reinforcement per Sec. 21.7.3.1 (column hoops/ties
to continue through joint unless confined).

Figure 4–11. Section 21.13 design procedure
6.1 DESIGN AND DETAILING OF SECONDARY BEAMS §21.13.4
Beams do not resist axial forces due to gravity loads. Therefore, the outcomes of Steps 2 through 4 are the
same for load combinations 5 and 7. Step 5 addresses the load combinations independently.
Step 1, design of beam longitudinal reinforcement for ASCE 7 load combinations 1, 2, 5, and 7, has been
completed (see Section 4.2). Shear reinforcement design has been deferred to Step 5.
Induced seismic demands at the design displacement have not been evaluated (Step 2).
For Step 3, the effective post-tensioning force is Pu = ( 5 d )( 6.8 kips/tendon) = 402 kips. The gross
area of the effective T-beam is Ag = (2)(6.5 )(52 i ) + (16 )(36 in) = 1252 in 2 . Therefore,
Pu 402 kips
= = 0.064 < 0.10 .
Ag fc′ ( 5 in
i 2 )(5 ksi)
Step 4 requires that the provisions of Sections 21.13.4.1 and 21.13.4.2 be met.
The shear strength requirements of Section 21.5.4 must also be met (Step 5).

Step 4: Material and splice requirements §21.13.4.1
Secondary elements are required to conform to the same material standards listed in Section 21.1.4 as
special moment frames and special structural walls. It is assumed that these requirements are satisfied via
the project specifications.
• Section 21.1.4.2: minimum fc′ = 3000 psi.
• Section 21.1.4.3: maximum fc′ = 5000 psi for light-weight concrete.
• Section 21.1.5.2: ASTM A706 reinforcement or ASTM A615 with testing to show that actual
yield strength does not exceed f y by more than 18 ksi and the ratio of actual tensile strength to
actual yield strength is at least 1.25.
• Section 21.1.5.4: maximum f yt = 100 ksi .
• Section 21.5.5: maximum f y and f yt = 60 ksi (80 ksi for welded deformed wire).
Section 21.13.4.1 also requires that mechanical and welded splices conform to the requirements of special
moment frames and shear walls specified in Sections 21.1.6 and 21.1.7.1.
Step 4: Longitudinal reinforcement §21.5.2.1
Beams are required to meet the following minimum and maximum longitudinal reinforcement
requirements.
⎛b d⎞
As ,min MAX ⎡ 200, 3 fc′ ⎤ ⎜ w ⎟
M
⎣ ⎦⎝ f ⎠
y
and
ρ < 0.025 .
Therefore,
⎛ (166 in i )⎞
i )(33 in
As,min MAX ⎡ 200, 3 5000 ⎤ ⎜
M = 1.9 in 2
⎣ ⎦ ⎝ 60000 psi ⎟⎠
and
As,max = ( .025)(16 in)(33 in) = .2 in 2 .
The four #9 top reinforcement and two #9 bottom reinforcements provided in Section 4.2 satisfy the
criteria.
Step 5: Shear strength §21.5.4
The beam must be proportioned to resist the design seismic shear force, Ve , resulting from application of
the probable flexural capacities at the beam ends in combination with factored gravity loads.
− +
M pr M pr
Ve = .
u

Using the beam capacities computed in Section 4b,
1640 k-ft + 890 k-ft

Ve = = 44 kips .
60 ft − 3 25 ft
Per Section 21.5.4.2, if the seismic shear exceeds one-half of the factored shear demand and
Pu 0 05 Ag fc′ , the shear capacity must be calculated with Vc = 0. Axial stress is greater than 0 05Ag fc′, so
this provision is not invoked in the example.
From Table 4–5, the maximum factored gravity shear from load combination 5 is 123 kips. The factored
shear demand is
Vu = 123 kips + 44 kips = 167 kips. (Load Combination 5)
For load combination 7
Vu = 44 kips + 44 kips = 88 kips. (Load Combination 7)
For pre-stressed concrete,
⎛ Vu d p ⎞
Vc = ⎜ 0 6 λ fc′ + 700 ⎟b d (11–9)
⎝ Mu ⎠ w
where
Vu d p ( 6 kip )( 5.75 in)

= = 0.21
2 <1 0
Mu ( 6 k f )( i f )
resulting in
(
Vc = (0.6) 5 + )
(0.. ) ( 6 )(3 i ) = 100 kips .
Try #4 stirrups at 6 inches on center:
Av f yt d
Vs = (11–15)
s
2(0.19 in 2 )(60 ksi)(33 in)
Vs = = 125 kips
6 in
resulting in
φVn = ( .75)(100 kips + 125 kips) = 170 kips > 167 kips. . . . OK
Check minimum shear reinforcement per ACI 318-11 Section 11.4.6.3:
⎛ (16 i )(6 i ) ⎞
Av MAX ⎡ 0.75 5000 , 50 ⎤ ⎜
M = 0.085 in 2 . . . . OK
⎣ ⎦ ⎝ 60 ksi ⎟⎠

Check maximum shear reinforcement per Section 11.4.7.9:
Vs < 8 5000 (16 i )(33 i ) = 300 kips.
Check maximum stirrup spacing per Sections 11.4.5.2 and 11.4.5.3:
Vs < 4 5000 (166 i )(33 i ) = 150 kips.
Therefore,
d
smax
a
= = 16.5 in,
2
which is the same limit as Section 21.13.4.2.
There are no specific requirements for the placement of hoops (as opposed to open stirrups) in secondary
members with Pu /A Ag fc′ < 0.10. Section 21.5.3, which specifies regions of moment frame beams that require
hoops, is not referenced by Section 21.13.3.1 or 21.13.4.2. Therefore, stirrup spacing and placement is
dictated by design loading and the requirements of Chapter 11.
The region of the beam for which stirrups spaced at 16 inches on center is adequate is determined as
follows. The lower bound Vc of Section 11.3.2 is used instead of equation (11–9) because M u has not been
determined at intermediate locations.
Vc fc′bbw d = 2 5000 (16 i )(33 i ) = 75 kips

2(0.19 in)(60 ksi)(33 in)
Vs = = 47 kips
16 in
φVn = ( .75)(75 p + 47 kip ) = 92 kips.
Seismic shear Ve is constant over the beam span. However, the gravity shear varies linearly and is zero near
mid-span. From this linear relationship, the distance from the end of the beam to the location where stirrups
at 16 inches on center are adequate is found by
⎛ 56.75 ft ⎞
x = (16 kip − kip ) ⎜ = 17.3 ft .
⎝ 123 kips + 123 kips ⎟⎠
Provide 35 #4 stirrups at 6 inches on center at each end of the beam and provide #4 stirrups at 16 inches on
center for the remainder.
The example has assumed an abrupt transition from reinforcement designed per Section 21.5.4 to the
minimum transverse reinforcement. A more efficient design may be result if stirrup spacing gradually
transitions from 6 inches to 16 inches.

6.2 DESIGN AND DETAILING OF SECONDARY COLUMNS
The differing axial forces of load combinations 5 and 7 require that Steps 2 through 5 address each load
combination independently.
Step 1 has been performed and the longitudinal reinforcement has been designed for load combinations 1,
2, 5, and 7 (see Section 4.3).
The remainder of the design process is performed with the following variations:
Ag fc′ < 0.10. Such columns are

• Step 3 is checked prior to Step 2 to identify columns with Pu /A
designed to remain elastic at the induced seismic force and thereby exempted from the shear
strength requirement of Section 21.5.4.
• Step 5 is performed prior to evaluating the minimum transverse reinforcement requirements of

Step 4. This is done purely for bookkeeping reasons.
Step 3: Column axial stress §21.13.3, §21.13.4
Axial stresses due to load combinations 5 and 7 are summarized in Table 4–11. The Level 3.5 columns
satisfy Pu 0 10 Ag fc′ for both load combinations. Level 1.5 columns satisfy Pu 0 10 Ag fc′ for load
combination 7, but not for load combination 5.
Table 4–11. Design Step 3: column axial stress for load combinations 5 and 7
Combo 5 Combo 7
Col LVL Ag (in2) Pu (k) Ag fc′
Pu /A Pu (k) Ag fc′
Pu /A
2/A 3.5 576 139 0.040 50 0.014
2/A 1.5 576 422 0.122 154 0.045
2/B 3.5 900 273 0.051 100 0.019
2/B 1.5 900 815 0.151 297 0.055
5/A 3.5 576 137 0.040 53 0.015
5/A 1.5 576 413 0.120 160 0.046
5/B 3.5 900 274 0.051 110 0.020
5/B 1.5 900 817 0.151 326 0.060

Step 2: Induced seismic forces in columns at design displacement §21.13.3
Induced seismic forces for the columns have been evaluated based on the design displacement; i.e., the
static displacement, δ s , multiplied by the deflection amplification factor δ u δ = 5 δs .
d s
It is possible to compute the induced forces by scaling static displacement values that are output by
ETABs and multiplying the stiffness matrix of each element by the design displacements. To achieve
consistent results, the engineer must use the same stiffness matrix that ETABs used to compute the static
displacements, including element length, reduced section properties, shear stiffness terms, and rigid end
zone offsets. The process requires several steps and is prone to error. An equivalent approach is to scale the
forces computed by ETABs by the deflection amplification factor. The resulting induced seismic forces in
combination with gravity forces are shown in Table 4–12.
Table 4–12. Maximum column forces at design displacement (units of kips and k-ft)
1.4 QE (δ
( u) 0.77 + QE (δ u )
2/A 3.5 155 30 121 188 876 34 30 117 99 467
2/A 1.5 465 47 504 140 515 110 46 495 75 226
2/B 3.5 302 55 191 53 265 72 52 173 51 256
2/B 1.5 899 158 1442 139 1014 213 153 1416 121 875
5/A 3.5 145 36 134 193 924 45 35 132 98 469
5/A 1.5 434 55 603 103 539 140 55 601 52 255
5/B 3.5 274 49 122 108 1050 110 37 97 106 606
5/B 1.5 820 93 970 60 1062 322 91 967 52 621

Figure 4–12. Column interaction diagrams with seismic forces determined at design displacement
Step 2: Check flexural yielding at induced seismic forces §21.13.3
The interaction diagrams shown in Figure 4–12 demonstrate that column 2/B at Level 1.5 is the only
column that yields at the induced seismic axial and flexural forces. This is due to a large seismic moment
that occurs where the column is restrained by the retaining walls on lines 2 and B.
Step 2: Design Level 3.5 columns for shear at induced seismic forces
Shear design for the Level 3.5 columns is as follows. Because flexural yielding does not govern, φ = 0 60
has been used per Section 9.3.4.
For columns 2/A and 5/A,
Vu = 190 kips.

Try #5 ties with three legs at 5 inches on center.
Vc = 2 6000 (24 i )(21.5 ) = 80 kips
and
Av f yt d 3(0.31 in)(60 ksi)(21.5

.5 i )
Vs = = = 240 ki
k ps.
s 5 in
Resulting in
φVn = (0.60)(80 kips + 240 kips) = 192 kips > 190 kips. . . . OK
⎛ (24 i )(5 i ) ⎞
Av MAX ⎡ 0.75 6000 , 50 ⎤ ⎜
M = 0.12
1 in 2 . . . . OK
⎣ ⎦ ⎝ 60 ksi ⎟⎠
Vs < 8 6000 (24 i )(21.5 i ) = 320 kip .
Check maximum tie spacing per Sections 11.4.5.2 and 11.4.5.3:
Vs > 4 6000 (24 i )(21.5 i ) = 160 kips.
Therefore,
d
smax
a
= = 5 4 in ,
4
which supersedes Section 21.13.3.1.
Provide #5 ties with three legs at 5 inches on center.
For columns 2/B and 5/B,
Vu = 110 kips.
Try #5 ties with two legs at 12 inches on center.
Vc = 2 6000 (30 i )(27.5 in) = 128 kips
and
Av f yt d 2(0.31 in)(60 ksi)(277.5

.5 i )
Vs = = = 85 ki
k ps.
s 12 in

Resulting in
φVn = (0.60)(128 kips + 85 kips) = 128 kips > 110 kips . . . . OK
⎛ (30 i )(12 i ) ⎞
Av MAX ⎡ 0.75 6000 , 50 ⎤ ⎜
M ⎟⎠ = 0.35 in . . . . OK
2
⎣ ⎦⎝ 60 ksi
Vs < 8 6000 (30 i )(27.5 i ) = 510

5 kip .
Check maximum stirrup spacing per Sections 11.4.5.2 and 11.4.5.3:
Vs > 4 6000 (30 i )(27.5 i ) = 255 kips
Therefore,
d
smax
a
= = 13.8 in ,
2
which is the same limit as Section 21.13.3.1.
Column tie spacing must also comply with Section 7.10.5.2, which requires maximum spacing of:
• 16 longitudinal bar diameters: 18 inches for gridline A, 20 inches for gridline B;
• 48 tie diameters: 30 inches for #5 ties;
• the least dimension of the column: 24 inches for gridline A, 30 inches for gridline B.
Provide #5 ties with two legs at 12 inches on center.
Summary of Design Steps 2 and 3
The outcomes of Steps 2 and 3 and requirements for Steps 4 and 5 are shown in Table 4–13. The Level 3.5
columns are not required to meet the Step 5 shear-strength requirements. Except for the engineer verifying
the minimum reinforcement requirements of Section 21.13.3.1, the columns’ design is complete. Level 1.5
columns must meet the shear-strength requirements of Section 21.6.5. These columns have not yet been
checked against the induced seismic shear, so their classification with respect to Step 2 is premature.
However, it is shown below that the shear strength required for Step 5 typically exceeds that required for
Step 2. Columns are designed for the worst-case shear of Steps 2 and 5.

Table 4–13. Column detailing and shear strength requirements.
Load Combo 5
Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5:
Col LVL Yields at QE (δ u ) Pu 0 10 Ag fc′ Detailing Shear Strength
2/A 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
2/A 1.5 NO NO §21.13.3.2 §21.6.5
2/B 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
2/B 1.5 YES NO §21.13.4.3 §21.6.5
5/A 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
5/A 1.5 NO NO §21.13.3.2 §21.6.5
5/B 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
5/B 1.5 NO NO §21.13.3.2 §21.6.5
Load Combo 7
Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5:
Col LVL Yields at QE (δ u ) Pu 0 10 Ag fc′ Detailing Shear Strength
2/A 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
2/A 1.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
2/B 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
2/B 1.5 YES YES §21.13.4.2 §21.5.4
5/A 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
5/A 1.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
5/B 3.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
5/B 1.5 NO YES §21.13.3.1 n/a
Step 4: Level 3.5 columns—detailing requirements §21.13.3.1
ACI 318-11 Section 21.13.3.1 requires that longitudinal reinforcement comply with Section 21.5.2.1. For
the columns on line A, the minimum reinforcement is
⎛ (24 in
i )(21.5 in) ⎞
As,min = 3 6000 ⎜ = 2.00 in 2,
⎝ 60000 psi ⎟⎠
which is satisfied by the four #9 on the inside face. The maximum reinforcement is
As,max = ( .025)(24 in)(21.5 in)

i ) = 12.9 in 2 ,
in
which is satisfied by the eight #10 on the outside face.

On line B, the requirements are
⎛ (30 in
i )(27.5 in) ⎞
As,min = 3 6000 ⎜ = 3.22 in 2 ,
⎝ 60000 psi ⎟⎠
which is satisfied by the four #8 at column 2/B, and
As,max = ( .025)(30 in)(27.5 in)

i ) = 20.6 in 2 ,
in
which is satisfied by the four #10 at column 5/B.
Maximum tie spacing is d /2, which is shown to be satisfied in Table 4–20.
Steps 4 and 5: Level 1.5 columns—detailing and shear strength requirements §21.13.3.2, §21.13.4.3
The Level 1.5 columns have Pu 0 10 Ag fc′ for load combination 5 and Pu 0 10 Ag fc′ for load combination
7 as shown in Table 4–11. Except for 2/B, the columns do not yield in flexure at the design displacement.
The requirements of Section 21.13.2 are more stringent than those of Section 21.13.1. Likewise, 21.13.4.3
is more stringent than 21.13.4.2. Therefore the columns except for 2/B must satisfy 21.13.2, and column
2/B must satisfy 21.13.4.3. All of the Level 1.5 columns must satisfy the shear-strength requirement, which
is identical in Sections 21.5.4 and 21.6.5.
Sections 21.13.3.2 and 21.13.4.3 both require longitudinal reinforcement per Section 21.6.3.1.
Columns that remain elastic at the induced seismic force need not satisfy all of the transverse
reinforcement requirements of Section 21.6.4; they are required to satisfy only the maximum cross-tie
spacing requirements of Section 21.6.4.2. Additionally, such columns are not required to satisfy the joint
reinforcement requirements of Section 21.7.3.1.
If Pu 0 35P0 , which it is not for the columns under consideration, Section 21.13.3.3 is also required.
Step 4: Longitudinal reinforcement §21.6.3.1
Longitudinal reinforcement complies with the relationship 0 01 g st

0.06 Ag as shown in Table 4–14.
Table 4–14. Column longitudinal reinforcement per ACI 318-11 Section 21.6.3.1
Size Ag 0.01Ag 0.06Ag Long. Ast

Column (in) (in2) (in2) (in2) Reinf. (in2)
2/A & 5/A 24 × 24 576 5.8 34.6 12-#9 12.0
2/B 30 × 30 900 9.0 54.0 12-#8 9.5
5/B 30 × 30 900 9.0 54.0 12-#10 15.2

Step 5: Shear strength §21.6.5
Section 21.6.5 requires column design shears to be “determined from the maximum forces that can be
generated at the faces of the joints at each end of the member.” This calculation is conventionally performed
for an isolated column element and takes the form
M pr ,top M pr ,btm
t
Ve =
u
where M pr ,top and M pr ,btm

t are the maximum moments that can be generated at the top and bottom of the
column, respectively. u is the column clear span. Ve increases as u decreases. Therefore, the largest values
of Ve are expected to occur in the column with the shortest clear span. Theoretically, very large design
shears may result where clear spans are small, such as at the ramps of parking structures.
The following calculations first address the cases where u is a reasonable value for a building column
following the conventional approach of ACI 318 described above. For the example problem, such columns
occur on lines A and C and at 2/B and 8/B. An unconventional but acceptable approach will be introduced
later in this section to solve the short-column problem.
Conventional approach for column shear strength
The example structure contains columns of varying clear spans as indicated in the building description and
in Table 4–1. Clear spans for the north-south direction are equal the slab-to-slab span minus the 36-inch
beam depth. In the east-west direction, clear spans equal the slab-to-slab span minus the slab thickness
of 6.5 inches. Column clear spans on lines A and C and at 2/B and 8/B are 96 inches in the north-south
direction and 126 inches in the east-west direction. The column at 5/B has a 30-inch clear span in the north-
south direction and a 60-inch clear span in the east-west direction. This column is also addressed in the
alternative analysis below. It is included here because the conventional approach is valid for the east-west
direction and to illustrate the difference between the two approaches for the north-south direction.
Section 21.6.5 states, “the member shears need not exceed those determined from joint strengths of the
transverse members framing into the joint.” That is, e for the column need not exceed the shear based
on the moments that occur at the top and bottom of the column when the beams framing in are at their
probable flexural capacities.
Values of M pr based on the probable moment strength of the columns subjected to factored axial loads are
provided in Table 4–7. Typically if column flexural capacity governs the determination of Ve ,
M pr ,top M pr ,btm
t
= M pr
p ,col
resulting in
M pr ,col
Ve = 2 .
u
The moment induced in a column due to flexural yielding of beams framing into the column is determined
from the free-body diagrams shown in Figure 4–13. Where the column is continuous through the joint,

the moment is distributed between the members above and below the joint in proportion to their flexural
stiffness. The moment in the column below the joint is
⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ ⎛h h ⎞⎞
M pr ,col Σ ⎜ M pr ,bm + Vbbm col + bm ⎟ ⎟
⎝ b + a ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎠
where
a and b are the clear span of the column above and below the joint, respectively. The term
⎛ a ⎞
⎜ ⎟ is the relative stiffness of the column below the joint. If the column does not extend
⎝ b a⎠
above the joint, i.e., if a = 0, then this term is replaced with unity (1.0).
M pr ,bm is the probable moment capacity of the beam. For a single-sided connection, M pr ,bm should be taken
as the larger of the positive or negative moment capacities. For a two-sided connection, the positive yield
moment occurs on one side of the connection and the negative yield moment occurs on the other.
Vbm is the shear at the beam plastic hinge that occurs simultaneously with M pr ,bm . In two-sided connections,
the gravity components of Vbm produce offsetting moments, but the seismic components are additive.
hcol and hbm are the width of the column and height of the beam in the plane of the connection. The
⎛ hcol hbm ⎞
quantity ⎜ +
2 ⎟⎠
is the distance from the centerline of the column to the plastic hinge in the beam
⎝ 2
and is the eccentricity through which Vbm acts, causing additional moment in the column.
Framing configurations used to compute column moments based on beam or slab flexural capacity are
shown in Figure 4–14 and Figure 4–15 for the north-south and east-west directions, respectively. The M pr
of the column is used for the bottom joint where columns are embedded in the 8-inch retaining walls on
lines 2, A, and B and at the column bases. Where the retaining wall is parallel to the direction of induced
shear, it restrains the column; where it is perpendicular, it is assumed that there is no restraint at that level
and the column length is taken from the base of the structure.
North-south moments are produced by the P/T beams, and east-west moments are produced by the slab. In
the following equations, column moments are written M top and M btm t .
M pr denotes beam or slab moments.
− +
At one-sided connections, M pr is used because it results in a greater column end moment than M pr .V
denotes total shear in the beam at the plastic hinge. Ve denotes seismic shear in the beam and is used at two-
sided connections where gravity shear components cancel. The shear component in the slab is insignificant
and has been ignored.
For the north-south direction:
Recall from Section 4.2 for the P/T beams:

−
M pr = 1640 k-ft,
+
M pr = 890 k-ft ,
V = 167 kips,
and
Ve = 44 kips.

Column 2/A at Level 1.5 (one-sided; spans to base; column extends 8 feet above joint and 13.5 feet below
the joint):
⎛ ⎛ 24 in 36 in ⎞ ⎞
⎜ +
2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎟
(167
16 kip ) ⎜
⎛ 8 ⎞⎛ − ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜ ⎝ 2
M top M + V + = 1640 k-ft + = 770 k-ft
⎝ 8 + 13 5 ⎠ ⎜⎝ pr ⎝ 2 2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 8 13 5 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in/ft
f ⎟⎠
M btm
t
M pr
p ,col
= 950 k-ft .
Column 5/A at Level 1.5 (one-sided; spans to base; column extends 8 feet above joint and 10.8 feet below
the joint):
⎛ ⎛ 24 in 36 in ⎞ ⎞
⎜ +
2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎟
(167
6 kip ) ⎜
⎛ 8 ⎞⎛ − ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜1640 k-ft + ⎝ 2
M top M + V + = = 880 k-ft
⎝ 8 + 10 8 ⎠ ⎜⎝ pr ⎝ 2 2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 8 10 8 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in/ftf ⎟⎠
M btm
t
M pr
p ,col
= 950 k-ft .
Column 2/B at Level 1.5 (two sided at top; restrained by wall at bottom; equal span above and below joint):
⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ − + ⎛h h ⎞⎞
M top M + M pr 2Ve ⎜ col + bm ⎟ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎜⎝ pr ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎠
⎛ ⎛ 30 in 36 in ⎞ ⎞
⎜ +
2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎟
2(44
4 kip
kips) ⎜
⎛ 1⎞ ⎜ ⎝ 2
M top = ⎜ ⎟ 1640 k-ft + 890 k-ft + = 1390 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in/ft
f ⎟⎠
M btm
t
M pr
p ,col
= 1500 k-ft .
Columns 5/B at Level 1.5 (beams on opposite sides; equal spans above and below joint). The gravity
components of V cancel similar to the two-sided condition:
⎛ ⎛ 30 in 36 in ⎞ ⎞
⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ − ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜ ( )
44 kips ⎜
⎝ 2
+
2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎟
M top M + Ve + = ⎜1640 k-ft + = 880 k-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎜⎝ pr ⎝ 2 2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in/
n/ft ⎟⎠
⎛ ⎛ 30 in 36 in ⎞ ⎞
⎜ +
2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎟
(44 kip ) ⎜
⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ + ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 890 k-ft + ⎝ 2
M btm M + Ve + = = 510 k-ft .
t
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎜⎝ pr ⎝ 2 2 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 in/f/ft ⎟⎠
For the east-west direction:
An effective slab width of eight times the thickness is used (similar to one-sided T-beam design per ACI
Section 8.12.3), resulting in
−
M pr = (8)(6.5 )(14.. k f ft)( i f ) = 62 k-ft
ft
and
+
M pr = (8)(6.5 )(3.6 )(1 i f ) = 16 k-ft.

Columns 5/B at Level 1.5 (two-sided; equal spans above and below joint):
− +
M top (0.5)( M pr + M pr ) = (0.5)(6 k-ft
k f + 6 k-ft
k f ) = 40 k-ft
M btm
t
M top
= 40 k-ft .
Columns 2/A, 2/B, and 5/A at Level 1.5 (two-sided at top with equal spans above and below joint;
restrained by wall at bottom):
− +
M top (0.5)( M pr + M pr ) = (0.5)(62 k-ft
k f + 16 k-ft
k f ) = 40 k-ft
M btm
t
M pr
p ,col .
Column seismic shear forces based on column and beam moments are shown in Table 4–15 and Table 4–16.
Beam and slab moments produce smaller shears than column moments. The difference is especially
significant at the short columns at 5/B. Shears produced by slab moments are significantly less than shears
resulting from beam moments.
Table 4–15. Column seismic design shear, Ve—north-south direction
Column Capacity P/T Beam Capacity

Column Level u (in) Mcol Ve Mtop Mbtm Ve
2/A 1.5 162 950 140 770 950 127
2/B 1.5 96 1500 380 1390 1500 361
5/A 1.5 129 950 180 880 950 170
5/B 1.5 30 1800 1440 880 510 560
Table 4–16. Column seismic design shear, Ve—east-west direction
Column Capacity P/T Slab Capacity

Column Level u (in) Mcol Ve Mtop Mbtm Ve
2/A 1.5 126 950 180 40 950 94
2/B 1.5 126 1500 290 40 1500 147
5/A 1.5 126 950 180 40 950 94
5/B 1.5 60 1800 720 40 40 16
Table 4–17 and Table 4–18 summarize the shear reinforcement design for the columns. The design shear
demand, Vu , is the maximum shear demand from the following sources:
• Table 4–6, fulfilling the deferred shear design for Step 1.
• Table 4–12, to verify that the columns remain elastic at the induced seismic shear for Step 2.
• Table 4–15 or Table 4–16, the required shear strength per Section 21.6.5 for Step 5.

The Step 2 shear force governs for column 2/A. Otherwise, shear forces from Step 5 govern.
The concrete shear strength is calculated from ACI 318-11 Equation 11–4:
⎛ Pu ⎞
Vc = 2 ⎜ 1 + ⎟ λ fc′bbw d .
⎝ 2000 Ag ⎠
Steel strength is calculated as
Av f ytyt d
Vs = ≤ 8 fc′bbw d
s
and
φVn 0.75(Vc + Vs ).
Shear reinforcement design is shown in Table 4–17. The columns on gridline A use #4 ties with four legs;
the columns on gridline B use #5 ties with four legs. Column 2/B is listed twice because it must meet the
shear strength requirement for load combinations 5 and 7.
The short column at 5/B is approximately 7 percent overstressed with Vs fc′ . This result is typical
for the short ramp columns. Assuming it is not possible to enlarge the columns without affecting parking
space in the structure, the designer may elect to require higher concrete strength for the ramp columns
(e.g., 7,000 psi at 56 days). Alternatively, the short column approaches shown below may be utilized to
produce designable column shear forces.
Table 4–17. Column shear reinforcement design: Level 1.5
Col Pu Ag Av s b d Vc Vs φVn Vu
2/A 422 576 0.76 6 24 21.5 110 160 200 140
2/B 815 900 1.24 6 30 27.5 190 340 400 361
2/B 297 900 1.24 6 30 27.5 150 340 370 361
5/A 413 576 0.76 6 24 21.5 110 160 200 170
5/B 817 900 1.24 4 30 27.5 190 510 520 560
Figure 4–13. Free-body diagram at beam column joints

Figure 4–14. Beam-column joints at Level 1.5
Figure 4–15. Slab-column joints at Level 1.5
Full-height modeling approach for short column shear §21.6.5
The following approach is applicable to any building geometry. The applied forces are based on beam
flexural capacity and are conservative.
Columns 3/B, 4/B, and 5/B have been modeled over their full height using the RISA-2D finite element
program (see Figure 4–16). Except for the bottom segments, which are shorter at lines 3 and 4, the columns
at 3/B and 4/B are similar to the columns at 7/B and 6/B, respectively.

Rigid elements have been used to model the beam-column joints. At 3/B, the beams overlap, and at 4/B
there is an 8-inch clear span between columns. Rigid vertical elements have been defined over the extent of
the joint at these locations because it is not reasonable to expect unique rotations to develop in short clear
spans without significant damage. The clear spans between rigid joints are 74 inches at 3/B and 52 inches at
4/B. As noted previously, clear spans at 5/B are 30 inches.
Horizontal rigid elements extend 33 inches from the column centerline in each direction to account for
additional moment due to shear forces occurring at the plastic hinge. This matches the free-body diagram of
Figure 4–13.
Lateral restraint is provided at each joint. For columns 3/B and 4/B, single lateral restraints are provided at
the mid-height of the two-sided joints. At column 5/B, the beams are sufficiently spaced so as to undergo
independent rotation. Each beam joint is restrained independently.
Moments and vertical shears are applied at each beam; moments are applied at the column bases. Beams
−
to the right of the column are assumed to yield in negative flexure and have M M pr = 1640 k-ft and
V Vgravr ity
+ Ve
= 123 kips + 44 kips = 167 kips applied. For beams on the left side of the column,
+
M M pr = 890 k-ft and V V grav
r ity
− Ve
= 123 kips − 44 kips = 79 kips are applied. The column base
moment is M = 1800 k-ft per Table 4–7. Computed shears are shown in Table 4–18. Shears at the top level
have been omitted because it has been previously established that Section 21.6.5 need not be checked at
Level 3.5 and above.
The maximum shear force occurs at column 5/B and is 510 kips, which is less than the capacity of 525 kips
Figure 4–16. FEM model for full-height column method

Table 4–18. Column design shear: full-height column method
Col LVL Vu (kips)

3/B 1.5–3.5 330
3/B Below 1.5 260
4/B 1.5–3.5 440
4/B Below 1.5 270
5/B 1.5–3.5 510
5/B Below 1.5 270
Simplified pushover approach for short column shear §21.6.5
As previously noted, Section 21.6.5 allows the moments applied to the column to be limited by the capacity
of the beams (or other transverse elements) framing into the column. This limit has been applied to the
conventional approach and the full-height approach in the above sections. A reasonable extension of this
method is to use a pushover analysis to determine the column shear forces that occur when the structure is
deformed to the target displacement. This alternative has been included for illustrative purposes. Because
the language of Section 21.6.5 specifically references the M pr of transverse members as a limit to the
applied column moments, the following approach is believed to fulfill the intent of the code, but is not in
strict compliance with its wording.
The pushover method can be simplified for the example structure. The long-span beams sustain a
negative gravity moment of approximately 1000 k-ft at the column faces for load combination 5. The
−
probable negative moment capacity is M pr = 1640 k-ft. Therefore, the beams are expected to yield
in negative flexure with an additional applied seismic moment of 640 k-ft. However, when the beam
on one side of the ramp column yields in negative flexure, the applied moment at the beam framing
opposite is M − = 1000 k-ft − 640 k-ft = 360 k-ft . That is, the beam framing opposite has not only failed
+
to reach M pr , it is still in negative flexure. The seismic beam shear corresponding to this condition is
Ve = 2(640 k f ) / (60 ft − 3.25 ) = 23 kips.
−
Moments and shears have been applied to the full-height column models used above. M pr has been applied
−
to the right-side beam, and M has been applied to the left side. The right- and left-hand shears are 146
kips and 100 kips, respectively. Moments have not been applied at the column bases because the columns
are not expected to yield in flexure. Column bases have been fixed and the moment reactions computed by
the program. The resulting column shears are shown in Table 4–19.
Table 4–19. Column design shear: simplified pushover method
Col LVL Vu (kips)

3B 1.5–3.5 185
3/B Below 1.5 280
4/B 1.5–3.5 240
4/B Below 1.5 220
5/B 1.5–3.5 150
5/B Below 1.5 200

The results computed by this method may be un-conservative because the model represents only the
initiation of yielding in the beams. Application of additional seismic force will decrease the applied
moment on the left beam, increasing shear in the column. However, if a full push-over analysis were
performed, the expectation is that the structure would reach the target displacement prior to a plastic hinge
forming in the left beam, so the shear force in the column would be less than computed above for the full-
height column.
A further point of interest occurs when seismic moment in the left-hand beam equals 1000 k-ft resulting in
zero applied moment on the left side. The stress-state in the column is similar to that produced by the one-
−
sided joints at lines A and C. pr is applied at the top and bottom of a column with a 96-inch clear span.
The seismic beam shear corresponding to this state is
1000 k-ft + 640 k-ft

Ve = = 29 kips ,
60 ft − 3 25 ft
the resulting column moments are
⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ (123 kips + 29 kips)(33 in) ⎞

M col,top M col,btm = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 1640 k-ft + ⎟⎠ = 1030 k-ft,
t
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 12 in/ft
f
and the column design shear is
( )( k f )( i f)
Ve = = 260 kips.
96 in
This is 10 to 70 percent greater than the shears computed with M − = 360 k-ft and 20 to 50 percent less than
+
the values computed with the full-height method using M pr .
The above approach demonstrates that shear at intermediate level ramp columns is less than the shear
computed for an equivalent one-sided column up until the point where stress-reversal occurs in the left-
hand beam. Therefore, the short-column effect that causes large shear forces in the conventional and
full-height approaches does not manifest until significant positive moment occurs in the left-hand beam. If
the designer can show that target displacement is achieved prior to development of such moment, it may be
possible to reduce the amount of shear reinforcement provided at ramp columns.
Step 4: Transverse reinforcement §21.6.4
Comparison of the design shear forces based on the design displacement (Table 4–12) and the column
capacities shown in Table 4–17 indicates that all of the columns have sufficient shear strength to resist the
induced seismic shear force. Therefore, columns 2/A, 5/A, and 5/B are only required to have tie spacing in
compliance with Section 21.6.4.2. Column 2/B must comply with Section 21.6.4.
For column 2/B, Section 21.6.4.1 requires that transverse reinforcement at each end of the member per
Section 21.6.4.4 must extend over a distance from the joint of at least:
• the column depth: 30 inches,
• one-sixth the clear span: 21 inches,
• 18 inches.

All of the columns are required to comply with Section 21.6.4.2 and so must have hoops or seismic ties
with a maximum leg spacing of 14 inches. Therefore, a minimum of three legs is required for the ties for
both 24-inch and 30-inch columns.
Maximum hoop spacing for column 2/B is given by Sec. 21.6.4.3 as follows:
• one-quarter of the minimum member dimension: 7.5 inches,
• six times the longitudinal bar diameter: 6 inches,
• s0 , per equation 21–2.
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞
s0 = 4 + ⎜ ≤ 6 in (21–2)
⎝ 3 ⎟⎠
hx = 8 in at column 2/B, so
⎛ 14 − 8 ⎞
s0 = 4 + ⎜ = 6 in.
⎝ 3 ⎟⎠
The columns at 2/A, 5/A, and 5/B have maximum tie spacing set by Section 21.13.3.2 as follows:
• six times the longitudinal bar diameter: 6.8 inches at 2/A and 5/A, 7.5 inches at 5/B;
• six inches;
• s0 , per equation 21–2. The calculation of s0 above is valid for 5/B for the columns on gridline A
since they have smaller values of hx .
The minimum area of rectangular hoop reinforcement for column 2/B is given by Section 21.6.4.4 as the
larger of equations 21–4 and 21–5:
⎛ f ′ ⎞ ⎛ Ag ⎞
Ash 0 3 ⎜ sbc c ⎟ ⎜ −1 ⎟ (21–4)
⎝ f y ⎠ ⎝ Ach ⎠
fc′
Ash 0 09sbc (21–5)
fy
where
s is the hoop spacing,

bc is the width of the core, measured to the outside of the outermost ties, and
Ach is the area of the core, evaluated at the outside of the outermost tie.
Clear cover to the column ties is 1.5 inches as shown in Figure 4–10. Therefore, bc is 3 inches less than
the column width, and the core for determination of Ach is 3 inches less than the member dimension in
both axes. Shear reinforcement requirements are identical for both axes because the columns are square.
Transverse reinforcement required for shear strength per Section 21.6.5 consists of four #5 ties at 6 inches
on center (see Table 4–17). However, tie spacing of 5 inches on center is required to comply with Section
21.6.4.4.

For s = 5 in
⎛ (5 )(27 )(6 k i) ⎞ ⎛ 900 in 2 ⎞

Ash = 0 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ −1 0.95 in 2
⎝ 60 ksi ⎠ ⎝ 729
2 in 2
⎠
0.09(5 in)(27 in)(6 ksi)
Ash = = 1.22 in 2
60 ksi
Ties are required to be spaced at 5 inches on center for 30 inches at the ends of the column and at 6 inches
on center for the remainder. Section 21.6.4.5 states that the maximum spacing of the balance of the
reinforcement is the smaller of 6 inches or six times the longitudinal bar diameter.
Finally, Section 21.7.3.1 requires that the ties at column 2/B continue through the beam-column joint.
Shear reinforcement summary
Shear reinforcement for the members designed above is shown in Figure 4–17. Table 4–20 summarizes the
ACI 318-11 sections used to determine the column shear reinforcement.
Table 4–20. Design reference for column shear reinforcement
Design
Col LVL Basis Shear Demand Min Av Max Tie Spacing Ties Provided
2/A 3.5 §21.13.3.1 Combo 5 w/Cd × VE §11.4.6.3 5.4 in (d/4) 3-#5 at 5 in o.c.
§11.4.5.3
2/A 1.5 §21.13.3.2 Combo 5 w/Cd × VE §11.4.6.3 6 in §21.13.3.2 4-#4 at 6 in o.c.
2/B 3.5 §21.13.3.1 Combo 5 w/Cd × VE §11.4.6.3 13.8 in (d/2) 2-#5 at 12 in
§11.4.5.3 o.c.
2/B 1.5 §21.13.4.3 §21.6.5 §21.6.4.4 6 in §21.6.4.3 4-#5 at 5 in o.c.
5/A 3.5 §21.13.3.1 Combo 5 w/Cd × VE §11.4.6.3 5.4 (d/4) 3-#5 at 5 in o.c.
§11.4.5.3
5/A 1.5 §21.13.3.2 §21.6.5 §11.4.6.3 6 in §21.13.3.2 4-#4 at 6 in o.c.
5/B 3.5 §21.13.3.1 Combo 5 w/Cd × VE §11.4.6.3 13.8 in (d/2) 2-#5 at 12 in
§11.4.5.3 o.c.
5/B 1.5 §21.13.3.2 §21.6.5 §11.4.6.3 6 in §21.13.3.2 4-#5 at 4 in o.c.

Figure 4–17. Beam and column shear reinforcement
7. Diaphragm Analysis ASCE 7 §12.10.1.1
Diaphragm inertial forces listed in Table 4–21 have been calculated as follows:
n
Fpx =
∑ i xFi wi (12.10–1)
n
∑ i xwi
but not less than
Fpx ,min 0 2 S DS Iwx (12.10–2)
and not greater than
Fpx ,max 0 4 S DS Iwx . (12.10–3)

Table 4–21. Diaphragm inertial forces

n
∑ i xFi wi
wi Fi n Fpx,min Fpx,max Fpx
Level (k) (k) ∑ i xwi (k) (k) (k)
LEVEL 4.0 1300 466 466 265 530 466
LEVEL 3.5 1420 445 477 290 579 477
LEVEL 3.0 1420 381 443 290 579 443
LEVEL 2.5 1420 318 411 290 579 411
LEVEL 2.0 1420 254 379 290 579 379
LEVEL 1.5 1420 191 348 290 579 348
LEVEL 1.0 1420 127 316 290 579 316
LEVEL 0.5 1130 51 231 230 461 231
For a conventional building analysis, it is often reasonable to scale the seismic force in each element, QE ,
by the ratio Fpx /F
Fx for the level at which the element occurs to determine the corresponding diaphragm
force. However, the presence of ramps in the example structure makes this difficult because seismic forces
may be transferred from level to level by the ramps before they are transferred to the walls. Therefore,
a second lateral analysis was performed with the Fpx values from Table 4–21 input as story shears. The
resulting shear forces at the slab-wall interfaces are shown in Table 4–22. Because the ETABs model
neglects transfer of shear from the slab-on-grade to the underlying soil via friction, interface shear forces
for Level 0.5 are over-estimated and are not addressed in this example.
Forces and moments in the ramps are shown in Table 4–23. Axial forces are in the long direction of the
ramps; i.e., east-west. Shear forces are transverse to the ramps; i.e., north-south. Moments are about the
60-foot width of the ramps. The tabulated forces are the maximum values computed at gridlines 2, 5,
and 8.

Table 4–22. Seismic shear forces at slab-wall interfaces (kips)
Line 1 Line 1 Line 2 Line 9 Line A Line A Line B Line C
LEVEL (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in) (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in)
LEVEL 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 290 150 N/A N/A 320
LEVEL 0.5 −400 570 560 N/A −200 530 1040 N/A
Table 4–23. Maximum seismic forces at the ramps (kips and k-ft)
RAMP P (k) V (k) M (k-ft) P (k) V (k) M (k-ft)
LEVEL 4.0 180 170 4300 90 80 4640
LEVEL 3.5 230 170 4230 360 120 4520
LEVEL 3.0 210 170 3520 130 110 5450
LEVEL 2.5 200 190 3720 380 140 4800
LEVEL 2.0 200 180 3060 150 90 5350
LEVEL 1.5 150 180 2600 250 130 3270
LEVEL 1.0 130 280 3820 220 100 3750
8. Diaphragm Design ACI 318-11
8.1 SHEAR DESIGN §21.11
For the north-south direction, the maximum diaphragm shear, Vu = 490 kips, occurs on gridline 9 at
Level 2.0. The depth of the diaphragm at this location is the overall width of the structure, Ddiaph = 120 ft ,
resulting in
490 kips
vu = = 4.1 klf .
120 ft

The nominal shear strength of a reinforced concrete diaphragm is given as
Vn (
Acv 2λ f ′ + ρt f y ) (21–10)
where
λ = 1 0 for normal-weight concrete,

Acv is the gross area of the diaphragm cross section, and
ρt is the ratio of transverse reinforcement to gross concrete area.
Additionally, per Sec. 21.11.9.2,
Vn 8 Acv fc′ .
Per ACI 318-11 Section 21.11.7.1, minimum reinforcement ratio for diaphragms shall comply
with Section 7.12, and reinforcement spacing shall not exceed 18 inches. Section 7.12.2.1 specifies
ρmin = 0.0018 for slabs where Grade 60 deformed bars are used as reinforcement.
Try #4 rebar at 16 inches on center.
As 0 19 in 2
ρt = = = 0.00183
00183 > 0.0018 . . . OK.
Acv (6.5 in)(16 in)
On a per lineal foot basis,
vn = (6.5 i )(12 i ) ( 5000 p i + (0. )(60000

6 psi)) ) .6 klf .
Verify
vn Acv fc′ = 8(6.5 in)(12 in) 5000 p i = 44.1 klf . . . OK.

8A
Section 9.3.4 specifies that the resistance factor, φ , for shear for elements that resist seismic forces in
special moment frame and special shear wall structures is 0.60 unless the elements are governed by flexure.
Therefore
φvn = (0.60)(19.6 klf ) = 11.8 klf > 4.1 klf . . . OK.
Provide #4 reinforcement at 16 inches on center each way.
8.2 CHORD AND COLLECTOR REINFORCEMENT §21.11.7.5, §21.11.7.6
Chord and collector reinforcement that is confined by transverse ties undergoes less spalling and
demonstrates better performance when subjected to cyclic loading. However, ties are often undesirable in
thin slabs due to clear cover limitations and from a constructability standpoint. Chord and collector design
in this example fulfills the design criteria such that transverse reinforcement is not required, as will be
shown in subsequent sections.
Section 21.11.7.5 states that diaphragm chord and collector elements with compressive stress exceeding
0 2 fc′ (0 5 fc′ if the design force includes the overstrength factor) require transverse reinforcement per
Section 21.9.6.4(c).

Section 21.11.7.6 requires transverse reinforcement per Section 11.4.6.3 unless the chord or collector
reinforcement is spaced at least three bar diameters center-to-center, but not less than 1.5 inches, and has a
minimum concrete cover of two and a half bar diameters, but not less than two inches.
For a 6.5-inch thick slab, the clear cover requirement is satisfied by #10 and smaller rebar.
8.3 DIAPHRAGM CHORD DESIGN
The maximum moment in the ramp determined by analysis is M chord r

= 5450 k-ft at Level 3.0 (see
Table 4–23). All tabulated moments are about the width of the ramp; i.e., Ddiaph = 60 ft . The critical design
moment results from diaphragm forces applied in the east-west direction, suggesting that it is due to force
transfer between levels, not flexure of the ramps due to their own inertial forces.
Chord design considering P/T force §21.11.7.2
Precompression force due to unbonded tendons is permitted to resist diaphragm forces. The slab tendons
are spaced at 2 feet on center resulting in a precompression force of 13.4 klf, or
( .4 klf )
fPT = = 170 psi.
(6.5 in)(12 in)
The maximum stress due to M chord

r is
M chord (6)(5 5 k-ft

k f )(12 in/ft
i f)
fchord
r
= r
= 2
= 120 psi 170 psi .
Sdiaph f )2
(6.5 )(60 ft) (12 in/ft
Therefore, no portion of the diaphragm is in tension, and additional chord reinforcement is not required.
Chord design neglecting P/T force
The following chord design, which neglects the effects of precompression, is provided for completeness.
The chord force at lines A and B is
M chord 5450 k-ft

Tchord
r
Cchord
r
= r
= = 90 kips
p .
Ddiaph 60 ft
The required reinforcement is
Tchord ( kips
kip )
As = r
= = 1.7 in 2 .
φ fy 0.. (60 ksi)
Chord design does not utilize the overstrength factor, so the compressive stress limit of Section 21.11.7.5 is
0 2 fc′ . Ties are not required for the chord reinforcement if
Cchord (90 kips

kip )
Wchord > r
= = 14 in .
r
0 2 fc′tdiaph 0.2(5000 psi)(
) 6.5 i )

Try three #7 chord bars ( As = 1.8 in 2 ) at 8 inches on center. Using #7 rebar, the minimum spacing of 3d b
is 2.6 inches, satisfying Section 21.11.7.6. The width of the chord element is 2 8 in = 16 in, satisfying
Section 21.11.7.5. Therefore, the chord reinforcement does not require ties. The chord force should be re-
computed using center-to-center depth, thus:
5450 k-ft
Tchord Cchord = ∼ 90 kips . . . OK.
r r
60 ft − (16 in
i ) / (12 in/ft
f)
Provide three #7 chord bars at 8 inches on center.
9. Collector Design ASCE 7 §12.10.2
Collectors are elements that transfer diaphragm forces to vertical elements of the SLRS primarily through
tension or compression. They are required where the force to be transferred from the diaphragm to the
walls exceeds the shear capacity of the diaphragm over the length of the wall or capacity of the slab-wall
interface. It is not necessary to provide collectors solely because the total length of the diaphragm exceeds
the length of vertical elements of the SLRS.
In Seismic Design Categories C through F, the overstrength factor must be applied to collector forces
determined via Section 12.8 (Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure), Section 12.9 (Modal Response Spectrum
Procedure), Equation 12.10–1 (Fpx ), or Equation 12.10–2 (Fpx,min ). The overstrength factor is not required
for collector forces determined from Equation 12.10–3 (Fpx,max ) or in structures consisting of light-framed
shear walls. The 1.25 factor required by ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.4 for irregular structures is not applied
when the overstrength factor is used. Diaphragm forces computed in this example are determined from
Equation 12.10–1; therefore, the overstrength factor is applied to collector forces.
The following calculations illustrate alternative collector and shear transfer design methodologies.
Diaphragm design for gridline 9 at Level 2.0 has previously shown (Section 8.1) that #4 reinforcement at
16 inches on center is adequate to resist shear forces in the slab. However, that calculation was based on
the overall slab width of 120 feet. The slab-wall interface is 30 feet long, resulting in a shear demand of
vu = ( kip ) / ( f ) = 16.3 klf . Similarly, at gridline A at Level 1.5, the diaphragm shear over the length
of the building is less critical than at the gridline 9 location. However, the shear at the slab-wall interface is
vu = ( kip ) / (22 ft) = 19 klf . In both cases, the shear force that must be transferred to the wall exceeds
the diaphragm shear capacity established in Section 8.1 as φvn = 11.8 klf . Therefore, additional diaphragm
reinforcement is required.
9.1 DIAPHRAGM STRENGTHENING AT GRIDLINE 9
The beams on gridline 9 north and south of the wall could be used as collector elements. However, for
illustrative purposes additional reinforcement has been provided to strengthen the slab so that a collector
element is not necessary.
Recall that
vu = ( kip ) / (30 ft) = 16.3 klf .
Verify that the required capacity is less than the maximum permissible capacity for the diaphragm per
ACI 318-11 Section 21.11.9.2:
vu 16.3 klf 8 Avc fc′ = (0.6)(44.1 klf ) = 2266.5 klf . . . . OK.

Try additional reinforcement consisting of #4 rebar at 16 inches on center.
(0.19 in 2 )
ρt = 0.00183 + = 0.00366 .
(6.5 in)(16 in)
This results in
φvn = (0.6)(6.5 i )( (( )
i ) 2 5000 + ( .00366)(60000 psi) ) klf > 16.3 klf . . . . OK.
6.9 klf
Provide additional #4 rebar at 16 inches on center.
The slab stress contours shown in Figure 4–18 indicate that the region of high stress extends approximately
70 feet in the north-south direction and ten feet in the east-west direction.
Figure 4–18. Slab stress contours at Level 2.0: (a) shear stress, (b) axial stress
9.2 SHEAR TRANSFER DESIGN AT GRIDLINE 9 §11.6.4
Shear from the ramps and landings is transferred to the walls via shear friction dowels oriented
perpendicular to the slab-wall interface, so
Vn = Avfv f y μ (11–25)

where
μ is the coefficient of friction in accordance with Section 11.6.4.3. For surfaces that are intentionally
roughened (required for diaphragm construction joints per Section 21.11.10) and normal-weight concrete,
μ = 1 0.
The resistance factor for shear friction, φ, is 0.75 per Section 9.3.2.3. Section 9.3.4, which specifies
φ = 0 60 for members resisting seismic forces, such as the diaphragms and shear walls, does not apply
because the shear interface is not a member.
Per Section 11.6.5, for normal-weight concrete placed monolithically or with an intentionally roughened
surface, Vn ≤ MIN [0.2 f ′ f ′,1600
6 i] Ac where Ac is the surface area of the slab-to-wall
interface.
Recall from Section 3.5 that ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.4 requires an additional 1.25 factor for shear
transfer to vertical elements of the SLRS due to the presence of a Type 3 horizontal irregularity in
the structure. Therefore, for shear transfer from the Level 2.0 slab to the 30-foot-long wall at line 9,
Vu = ( .25)(490 kips) = 610 kips .
Inverting (11–25), the reinforcement required per foot of wall is
Vu 610 kips
Avf ≥ = = 0.45 in 2 /ft
f.
φμff y Lwall
a
0 . 75(1. 0 )(60
6 k
ksi
i )(3 0 f
ft )
Select #7 dowels at 15 inches on center resulting in As = 0.48 in 2 /ft .
Verify that Section 11.6.5 is satisfied:
MIN [0.2 fc′ 6 p i] = 880 psi

fc′,,1600
φVn,max
a
= ( .75)(880 psi)(6.5 in)( ft)( in/ft
/ ) = 1540 kips > 650 kips . . . OK.
Section 11.6.8 requires that shear friction reinforcement be developed on both sides of the shear plane.
The development length for a #7 bar with standard hook in 5000 psi concrete is given by ACI 318-11
Section 12.5.2 as
0 02 f y (0.02)(60000 psi)
dh = db = (0.875 in) .8 in
fc′ 5000 psi
for normal-weight concrete. Therefore, the #7 dowels can be developed into the 20-inch-thick wall with
standard hooks.
The dowels must extend into the slab a distance d determined from Section 12.2.3 as follows:
⎛ 3 fy ψ ψ ψ ⎞
d = ⎜ t e s
⎟ db (12–1)
⎜ 40 (
fc′ b K trt
c ) ⎟
⎜⎝ db ⎟⎠

where
ψt ψ e = ψ s = 1.0,
cb = 3.25 in,
K tr = 0 in, and
d b = 0.875 in.
cb K tr 3 25 + 0 in
= = 3 7 > 2 5.
db 0.875 in
Therefore,
⎛ 3 60000 psi 1 ⎞
d = ⎜ ⎟ (0.875 in) = 22 in
⎝ 40 5000 psi 2 5 ⎠
and the overall length of the dowels is 37 inches, not including the hooked end.
Provide #7 dowels at 15 inches on center.
A partial plan showing the required reinforcement at Level 1.5 is shown in Figure 4–19.
Figure 4–19. Partial plan at line 9

9.3 SLAB COLLECTOR DESIGN AT GRIDLINE A
Gridline A at Level 1.5 has been selected to illustrate the methodology because it produces an elegant
solution that is applicable at line A at Level 4.0 and line C at all levels. The same methodology can be
used for the Vu = 580 kip and Vu = 500 kip shears at gridline A at Level 3.5 and Level 2.5, but more
reinforcement is required.
The collector diagram for gridline A at Level 1.5 is shown in Figure 4–20. The maximum collector force
occurs at the west end of the wall and is
⎛ 420 kips ⎞
Twest Cwest = ⎜ f ) = 260 kips
(112 ft p .
⎝ 180 ft ⎟⎠
The collector force at the east end of the wall is
⎛ 420 kips ⎞
Twest Cwest = ⎜ f ) = 110 kips.
(466 ft
⎝ 180 ft ⎟⎠
Including the overstrength factor, the collector design forces are
Tu ,west Cu ,west = Ω0QE = (2.5)(260 kips) = 650 kips
and
Tu ,west Cu ,west = Ω0QE = (2.5)(110 kips) = 280 kips.
Two load cases are considered for collector design: Tu ,west Cu ,east and Tu,east Cu,
u ,west , corresponding to
seismic forces oriented east-to-west and west-to-east, respectively. By inspection, the former load case
governs for the collector reinforcement design due to the significantly larger tension force, Tu,west ; however,
both load cases are investigated.
In practice, collector reinforcement may be varied with demand and terminated when no longer required.
For clarity of presentation, however, this example assumes collector reinforcement is continuous for the full
length of the structure.
There are no beams on gridline A, so collector elements must be incorporated into the slab. The width
of the collector element is arbitrary, provided eccentricity introduced due to the width of the collector is
accounted for in the design (SEAOC Seismology Committee 2008). However, as noted in Section 8.2,
transverse reinforcement is required per ACI 318-11 Section 21.11.7.5 if the compressive stress in the
collector element exceeds 0 5 fc′. (This limit is used instead of 0 2 fc′ because collector forces include the
overstrength factor.) Slab precompression, previously computed as fPT = 170 psi , is deducted from the
allowable compression stress resulting in the following expression for the minimum width based on the
west collector force.
Cu 650 kips
Wcomp > = = 43 in .
(0.5 fc′ − fPT tslab ( (0.5)(5000 psi psi )
p i (6.5 in
i )
Wcomp is associated with transfer of compression forces through the collector. A different width may
be selected for transfer of tension forces in order to avoid congestion of the reinforcement. Again,

precompression force, FPT = ( p i)( i f ) = 13.4 k/ft

/ , may be included in the design of the collector.
Based on an arbitrarily selected width of Wtens = 12 ft from the inside face of the wall, the required area of
steel to resist tension forces in the west collector is
Tu W FPT 650 kips − (12 ft

f )(13.4 klf )
As = = = 9 1 in 2 .
φff y (0.9)(60 ksi)
A portion of the required reinforcement may be placed in line with the wall. The remainder is distributed
across the width of the collector element. In this case, for the 20-inch-thick wall, four bars in line with the
wall will result in a reasonable bar spacing of 4 inches. Therefore, four #10 bars are specified centered on
the wall for As,inline = 5.1 in 2 . It has been previously shown in Section 8.2 that #10 bars are the largest bars
permitted in a 6.5-inch slab without transverse reinforcement. The balance of the required reinforcement is
( .1 in 2 − 55..1 2 ) / (12 ft) .33 in 2 /ft
f , which can be satisfied by providing #6 bars at 16 inches on center
for As,dist = 4.0 in .
2
The geometry of the collector element produces a moment due to the eccentricity between the collector
and wall. This moment is resolved through shear forces in the diaphragm perpendicular to the collector and
bending in the plane of the diaphragm. These forces are shown on the free-body diagram in Figure 4–21.
The required flexural strength of the diaphragm is
Mu Tdist etens Cdist ecomp V

VLwall
a .
Where Tdist is the portion of the tension collector force resisted by As,dist , Cdist is the portion of the
compression collector force resisted by the slab outside the wall, and V is the shear capacity of the
diaphragm. Tension force is assumed to be proportional to reinforcement and compression force
proportional to width. Precompression force is subtracted from tension and added to compression. It is
appropriate to neglect the contribution of the concrete to V because the collector element is in tension.
Also, if different widths are selected for tension and compression, it is conservative to base V on the
smaller width; thus, for the typical slab shear reinforcement determined in Section 8.1:
V φρt f y Av (Wcomp − Wwall

a
)
V = (0.60)(0. )(60 k i)( i − in) = 9.8 kipss .
For the load combination of Tu ,west Cu ,east ,
⎛ 4 in 2 ⎞
Tdist = ⎜ ⎟ ( 650 kips − (12 ft )
l ) = 220 kips
f )(13.4 klf
⎝ 9 1 in 2 ⎠
and
⎛ 23 in ⎞
Cdist = ⎜
⎝ 43 in ⎟⎠
( 280 kips + (43 ini )(13.4 klf ) / ( i ft)) ) 1700 kips.
For Tu,east Cu ,west ,
⎛ 4 in 2 ⎞
Tdist = ⎜ ⎟ ( 280 kips − (12 ft )
l ) = 50 kips
f )(13.4 klf
⎝ 9 1 in 2 ⎠

and
⎛ 23 in ⎞
Cdist = ⎜
⎝ 43 in ⎟⎠
(650 kips + (43 ini )(13.4 klf ) / ( i /fft)) ) 3 0 kips .
370
The eccentricities are
( f )( iin/ft
ft /ft
f ) ( ini )
etens = + = 82 in
2 2
and
43 in
ecomp = = 21 in .
2
Slab moment for Tu,west Cu ,east and Tu,east Cu ,west , respectively is given by
Mu = ( kip )( i )+( kip )( i ) − ( .8

. kipss)( / ) = 19000 k-in
ft)(12 in/ft
and
M u = (5 kip )( i )+( kip )( i ) − ( .8 kips)(

) 22 ft)(12 in/ft
f) 9300 k-in .
Provide three #7 rebar at each end of the wall to resist M u .
As = 1.8 in 2 .
d = 21.55 ft = 258 in
( .8 in 2 )(60 ksi)
a= = 3.9 in
( .85)(5 ksi)(6)(6.
6.5 i )
⎛ 3.9 in ⎞
φM n = ( .9)(1.. i 2 )(60 k i) 258 in − = 24900
2 k-in > 19000 k-in . . . OK.
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
Provide four #10 in-line and nine #6 distributed reinforcement. Provide three #7 dowels at each end of the
wall.
Figure 4–20. Collector diagram, line A

Figure 4–21. Free-body diagram, line A
9.4 SHEAR TRANSFER DESIGN AT GRIDLINE A
If a portion of the diaphragm force is transferred directly to the wall via the in-line reinforcement in tension
and direct bearing in compression, the diaphragm and shear transfer interface need only be designed for
the remaining force. Assuming tension forces are distributed in proportion to the collector reinforcement
and compression forces are distributed in proportion to collector area, Vu for diaphragm and shear transfer
design is computed as follows:
For the Tu ,west Cu ,east load case:
⎛ 5 1 in ⎞ ⎛ 20 in ⎞
Vu = 420 kips − ⎜ 6 kip ) − ⎜
(260 (110 kip ) = 220 kips.
⎝ 9 1 in ⎟⎠ ⎝ 43 in ⎟⎠
For the Tu,east Cu ,west load case
⎛ 5 1 in ⎞ ⎛ 20 in ⎞
Vu = 420 kips − ⎜ (110 kip ) − ⎜ (260 kip ) = 240 kips.
⎝ 9 1 in ⎟⎠ ⎝ 43 in ⎟⎠
Although the Tu ,west Cu ,east load case governs the collector design by a large margin, the Tu,east Cu,
u ,west load
case governs diaphragm and shear transfer design due to a larger proportion of compression force carried in
the slab.
The 1.25 factor of ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.4 applies to the shear transfer force. The required shear transfer
reinforcement is
Vu 1.25(420 kips)
Avf ≥ = = 0.30 in 2 /ft
f,
φμff y Lwall
a
0 . 75(1. 0 )(6
60 k
ksi
i )( f )
or #6 dowels at 18 inches on center.
The required diaphragm strength is vu = ( kip ) / (22 ft) = .9 klf . The typical diaphragm
reinforcement of #4 at 16 inches on center results in φvn = 11.8 klf , which is adequate.
Provide #6 dowels at 18 inches on center.
A partial plan showing the required reinforcement at Level 1.5 is shown in Figure 4–22.

Collector design can be performed following the same procedure at Level 3.5 and Level 2.5. Since four #10
is the maximum practical in-line reinforcement, additional distributed reinforcement is necessary. Due to
the larger collector forces and greater proportion of distributed inline force, additional shear transfer dowels
and additional diaphragm shear reinforcement are also required at these locations.
Figure 4–22. Partial plan, line A
Figure 4–23 shows the typical shear transfer at the slab-wall interface at Line 9 and Line A. Because the
slab span is parallel to the wall at Line 9, additional dowels have not been provided for transfer of gravity
forces to the wall. However, the wall on Line A is a bearing wall. The slab bears on the wall and slab top
reinforcement is developed into the wall to resist gravity forces.
Figure 4–23. Shear transfer at slab-wall interfaces

Summary
Design and detailing of secondary beams and columns in a reinforced concrete parking garage has been
demonstrated. Section 21.13 of ACI 318-11 lists the requirements for secondary frame members, which
must conform to a subset of requirements for special moment-resisting frame members depending on axial
load and whether they yield at the design seismic displacement. The design process must be completed for
ASCE 7 load combinations 5 and 7. This can be complicated if the two load combinations produce different
design requirements.
Except for the shear strength requirements of Sections 21.5.4 and 21.6.5, all of the requirements referenced
in Section 21.13 for beams and columns can be met through detailing. For example, all secondary members
must meet minimum standards for longitudinal reinforcement and must have transverse reinforcement
spaced more closely than is generally required by Chapters 7 and 11. Secondary members need not
conform to transverse reinforcement in beams (Section 21.5.3), strong column-weak beam (Section 21.6.2),
and joint shear strength (21.7.4). The shear-strength requirements are the only requirements that potentially
require members to be designed to resist forces larger than those determined by analysis.
In the case of members with small axial loads, such as beams and upper-level columns, members
explicitly designed to resist the induced seismic forces are exempt from the shear-strength requirements of
Section 21.5.4. This approach can be utilized effectively with members subject to relatively small seismic
forces. However, members with significant axial loads must always meet the shear-strength requirements of
Section 21.6.5 regardless of yielding at the design displacement.
The conventional approach to shear-strength design provided in Section 21.6.5 considers the members as
isolated elements subjected to moments at each end. However, the design shear resulting from this approach
increases without limits as the member clear span decreases. This is problematic for short columns such
as occur at the ramps of parking garages. An alternative approach, which models the full-height column, is
provided. This approach results in finite shear values, even for very short column spans.
Diaphragm and collector design have also been shown for the example structure. Collector elements are
required where the diaphragm shear strength and shear friction are not adequate to transfer lateral forces
directly to the vertical elements of the seismic-load -resisting system. The design example illustrates both
cases. Diaphragm shear-strength and shear-friction capacity are increased near line 9 to transfer inertial
forces directly to the wall via shear. Collector elements are provided in the slab at line A to transfer inertial
forces to the wall as tension and compression forces.

Design Example 5
Pile Foundation
OVERVIEW
The structure in this Design Example is a parking garage with five elevated levels. It includes post-
tensioned one-way slabs and post-tensioned beams. It resists lateral loads with its perimeter reinforced
concrete moment-resisting frames. This Design Example includes the design of the pile foundation to resist
vertical and lateral loads.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the selection of the appropriate pile length and capacity as well
as the design and detailing of pile reinforcing.
OUTLINE
3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length
4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement
5. Building Base Shear Resistance
6. Lateral-Loading Analysis
7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction
8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing
9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap
The following information is given:
SDS = 0.93g
Site Class = D
Seismic Design Category = D
Pile grout strength, fc′ = 5 ksi.

Pile cap and slab-on-grade concrete strength, fc′ = 4 ksi.
Reinforcing steel yield strength, fy = 60,000 psi.

Design Example 5 䡲 Pile Foundation
Building Base Shear, each perimeter line = 1130 kips, including accidental torsion.
Overall building plan dimensions: 249 ft. × 186 ft.
Concrete slab-on-grade thickness = 5 in.
Figure 5–1 shows the foundation plan.
Figure 5–1. Foundation plan
1.2 DESIGN VERTICAL LOADS
Design loads for several foundation categories are given in Table 5–1. The live loads have been reduced by
20 percent, as permitted by IBC Section 1607.10.1.3 (Exception) and Section 1808.3.

Table 5–1. Loading at various support conditions
Number Dead Load (D) Live Load (L) Seismic Load (E)
Condition Each kips kips kips
Stair support 8 5 10 0
Typical exterior 12 340 94 0
Frame interior 20 260 40 0
Frame end 8 230 54 280
Typical interior 14 590 182 0
Interior girder 8 930 271 0
1.3 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The surficial soils at the site are soft alluvial deposits, underlain by denser old alluvium. The Geotechnical
Engineer has recommended a pile foundation in order to reduce settlements to an acceptable level.
Liquefaction is not expected at the site. The geotechnical engineer has indicated that piles will develop their
resistance through skin friction and end bearing and has provided a chart of allowable capacity vs. depth for
16-inch-diameter drilled piles, reproduced in Figure 5–2.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pile Geotechnical Capacity, Tons
Figure 5–2. Geotechnical pile capacity vs. depth, from geotechnical report

The structural engineer may select the depth most appropriate for the design within the range of 30 to 55
feet, yielding allowable capacities of 76 to 160 tons. The geotechnical engineer has noted that a one-third
increase in allowable loads is permitted for load combinations including wind or seismic. This is allowed
by 2012 IBC Section 1806.1 for the Alternative Basic Load Combinations.
2. Load Combinations for Design IBC
2.1 COMBINATIONS FOR GEOTECHNCAL DESIGN
Geotechnical design is accomplished using the Alternative Basic Load Combinations for allowable
stress design (IBC Section 1605.3.2). These combinations are consistent with the traditional approach
to geotechnical design, permitting the use of increased allowable stresses for short-term loading. This
approach is appropriate for geotechnical design because the allowable loads are determined based on the
limitation of settlements. Since settlements occur over time, use of higher allowable loads for transient
loads is appropriate. The applicable load combinations for this design are:
D+L IBC Eq 16–17

D + L + E/1.4, where E is positive and acts downward IBC Eq 16–21
0.9D + E/1.4, where E is negative and acts upward IBC Eq 16–22
2.2 COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Structural design of the piles is accomplished using the Basic Load Combinations for load and resistance
factor design (IBC Section 1605.2.1).
The applicable load combinations for this design (simplified to omit inapplicable load types) are:
1.4D IBC Eq 16–1

1.2D + 1.6L IBC Eq 16–2
1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L, where E is positive and acts downward;
E includes 0.2SDS IBC Eq 16–5
(The load factor for L, f1, is 1.0 for parking garages)
0.9D + 1.0E, where E is negative and acts upward; E includes 0.2SDS IBC Eq 16–7
3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length IBC
3.1 NUMBER OF PILES PER LOCATION—GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Table 5–2 shows the load combinations for geotechnical design for each pile group using the Alternative
Basic Load Combinations for allowable stress design per Section 2.1, above. See Figure 5–1 for the
locations of the various support conditions indicated.

Table 5–2. Load combinations for geotechnical design
Vertical Loads on Pile Caps

Dead Live Seismic D+L D + L + E/1.4 0.9D − E/1.4
Number Load (D) Load (L) Load (E) IBC 16-17 IBC 16-21 IBC 16-22
Condition Each (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 8 5 10 0 15 15 4.5
Typical exterior 12 340 94 0 434 434 306
Frame interior 20 260 40 0 300 300 234
Frame end 8 230 54 280 284 484 7
Typical interior 14 590 182 0 772 772 531
Interior girder 8 930 271 0 1201 1201 837
The structural engineer can assess the relationship between the number of piles required at each location
vs. the pile demand loads. Doing so can minimize the pile cost by employing fewer deeper piles where
feasible. The engineer should use a single pile length for the project in order to simplify interpretation of
the in-situ confirmatory load tests.
First, consider the relative values of the combined load for the frame ends. The seismic load combination
(484 k) is more than one-third greater than the gravity load combination (284 k). Thus, this category of
foundation will be controlled by the seismic combination. Dividing the seismic load combination (484 k)
by 1.33 provides an equivalent gravity design load of 363 kips. A single pile at this location would need an
allowable capacity of 182 tons, which exceeds the permitted range. Two piles at this location would need a
capacity of 91 tons each.
Next, consider the typical exterior condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 434 kips. A single
pile at this location would need an allowable capacity of 217 tons, which again exceeds the permitted range.
Two piles at this location would need a capacity of 109 tons each, and three piles would need a capacity of
72 tons each.
Consider the typical interior condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 772 kips. A single pile at
this location would need an allowable capacity of 386 tons, which again exceeds the permitted range. Two
piles at this location would need a capacity of 193 tons each, three piles would need a capacity of 129 tons
each, and four piles at this location would need a capacity of 97 tons each.
Lastly, consider the typical interior girder condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 1201 kips.
Three piles at this location would need capacity of 200 tons each, four piles at this location would need
capacity of 150 tons each, five piles at this location would need capacity of 120 tons each, and six piles
would need capacity of 100 tons each.
Considering a capacity of 130 tons provides for an efficient design. Increasing the capacity beyond this
point does not decrease the number of piles significantly, while decreasing the capacity will require
more piles (due to the typical interior caps all changing from three piles to four). Select this capacity and
determine the required length of 47 feet from the geotechnical engineer’s table, shown in Figure 5–3.

60
50
47 ft.
40
30
13OT
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pile Geotechnical Capacity, Tons
Figure 5–3. Geotechnical pile capacity vs. depth, with selected depth and capacity
Round up the required length to an even number and specify a depth of 48 feet for the piles. This results in a
total of 170 piles.
Use 16-inch-diameter ⴛ 48-foot-long reinforced concrete piles, spaced at three diameters (4 feet) apart.
The number of piles used at each pile group size is shown in Table 5–3.
Table 5–3. Number of piles required for each condition
Condition Piles Per Group

Stair support 1
Typical exterior 2
Frame interior 2
Frame end 2
Typical interior 3
Interior girder 5

4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement IBC, ACI 318
4.1 MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT
Minimum reinforcing for cast-in-place concrete piles is indicated in Chapter 18 of the IBC.
Section 1810.2.4.1, which applies only to site classes E and F, requires a minimum longitudinal reinforcing
ratio of 0.005 throughout the pile length in order to avoid explicit design due to free-field earthquake-
induced soil strains. It is good practice to provide this minimum reinforcing regardless of the site class.
Use #9 Continuous Center Bar.
Section 1810.3.9.4.2 defines a “minimum reinforced length” for cast-in-place concrete piles, which is
defined by four factors: 1) half the pile length, 2) 10 feet, 3) three pile diameters, and 4) the distance from
the top of the pile to the point below which the required moment strength remains below the pile cracking
moment. For this provision, the IBC defines the cracking moment (in Section 1810.3.9.1) as 3 fc′Sm (where
Sm is the elastic section modulus) which is 40 percent of the normally computed cracking moment per
ACI 318. This last computation implies that the moments be determined based on a laterally loaded pile
analysis. For practical purposes and in almost all cases, the first requirement (half the pile length) will be
the controlling requirement. Proceed on this basis and confirm following additional computations.
Within the minimum reinforced length, a minimum of four longitudinal bars are required, with a minimum
reinforcing ratio of 0.005. In order to maintain a reasonably circular cage and to maintain more uniform
flexural resistance for loading in any direction, a minimum of six #6 bars is recommended.
Use six #6 bars throughout the reinforced length. (See Figure 5–6.)
4.2 LIMITING LOADS
Loads on pile structural sections are limited by IBC Section 1810.3.2.6. However, these limits may be
exceeded and the structural capacity computed by normal means (i.e., in accordance with ACI 318)
provided that there is a geotechnical investigation for the project and the piles will be tested in-situ. Both
of these conditions are satisfied in this example, so the structural capacity will be computed according to
ACI 318.
5. Building Base Shear Resistance IBC
5.1 DISTRIBUTION THROUGH GROUND LEVEL SLAB
The building base shear is imparted along the perimeter lines at the locations of the moment-resisting
frames with a value of 1130 kips per frame in each direction. This shear includes the effect of accidental
torsion. A total base shear of 2260 kips is then a conservative assessment of the total loading at the
foundation level. Excluding the eight single piles that support the stairs, this results in an average shear
per pile of 2260/168 = 13.5 kips per pile. This simple analysis ignores the additional resistance due to
passive pressure on the pile caps and presumes that all of the piles resist the lateral load equally. Subsequent
sections of this example provide additional refinement.

5.2 PASSIVE PRESSURE ON CAPS
The geotechnical engineer has indicated that it is appropriate to incorporate resistance due to passive
pressure of 350 pcf on the sides of the caps acting in parallel with the resistance of the piles. This pressure
is developed at a displacement equal to 0.5 percent of the caps’ vertical dimension. Since our caps are
40 inches deep, the passive pressure is mobilized at a deflection of 0.2 inches. For each foot of cap width,
the resulting resistive force on the sides of the cap is 350 pcf (3.33 f )2 2 1.94 k .
5.3 PILE GROUP EFFICIENCY
Piles spaced at less than eight diameters apart in the direction of the lateral load will be more flexible,
because they share the soil that resists their lateral movement. Consideration of this behavior is required
by Section 1810.2.5 of the IBC. This requirement is based on research on the behavior of piles under
lateral loading by various investigators and documented by Reese, et al. (2006). The preferred method of
addressing the softening of the soil surrounding pile groups is to reduce the stiffness of the p-y curve used
in the laterally loaded pile analysis. The computed p-modification factor may be used directly as input in
the commonly used laterally loaded pile analysis program LPILE. Table 5–4 indicates the p-modification
factors for conventionally arranged pile groups of sizes employed in this example, spaced at three
diameters.
Table 5-4. Computed p-modification factors for groups of various numbers of piles in standard
formations, with three-diameter spacing, according to formulae presented in Reese, et al. (2006)
p-Modification
N Piles Per Group x y Average
2 83% 93% 88%
3 78% 78% 78%
4 74% 74% 74%
5 77% 77% 77%
Rather than using differing p-modification factors for pile groups of various sizes, use an average values for
both directions of loading, based on the distribution of pile group sizes in this example. The average value
used is 84 percent.
6. Lateral-Loading Analysis
6.1 PILE LATERAL STIFFNESS
The flexural stiffness of piles is dependent on their axial loading. For most of the piles in this example, all
loading is due to gravity. For the pile groups at the frame ends, loading includes seismic effects and can
vary, depending on the direction of the seismic loading. For the purpose of this example, consider three
loading cases: gravity, seismic up, and seismic down. Table 5–5 shows the load combinations for structural
design, for each type of foundation. Since the number of piles in each pile group is now known, the loads
are presented on a per-pile basis.

Table 5–5. Computed factored axial loads per pile for various support types
1.4D 1.2D + 1.6L 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L 0.9D + 1.0E

Piles Per IBC 16-1 IBC 16-2 IBC 16-5 IBC 16-7
Support Type Group (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 1 7 22
Typical exterior 2 238 279
Frame interior 2 182 188
Frame end 2 161 181 439 −42
Typical interior 3 275 333
Interior girder 5 260 310
For the purpose of stiffness calculations, consider three cases:
Minimum load (maximum uplift): −42 k

Moderate gravity loading: 240 k (average of all except stair support columns)
Maximum loading: 439 k.
For each of these cases, compute the elastic pile stiffness in a moment-curvature analysis:
Pu = −42 k: EI = 1.9 million kip-in2

Pu = 240 k: EI = 6.7 million kip-in2
Pu = 439 k: EI = 10.7 million kip-in2.
Use these values in the laterally loaded pile analysis to compute the pile flexural demands and shear
developed at a given displacement.
6.2 CONSISTENT LATERAL DEFORMATIONS
Because the ground floor slab is tied to the pile caps and grade beams and the slab is relatively rigid
in-plane, consider that all piles are subject to the same lateral displacement. Each pile resists shear
based on this displacement and its stiffness, which depends on its reinforcing and the applied axial load.
The displacement employed in this analysis is a matter of judgment, but should be consistent with the
displacement used in the development of the passive pressure on the sides of the caps. Therefore, the LPILE
analyses should be performed at the same deformation (0.2 inch) that was used to develop the passive
pressure recommendations.
The LPILE analyses result in differing shears and moments at the various axial loads, due to the stiffness
variation, as shown in Table 5–6. All of the LPILE analyses are performed considering fixed-head pile
behavior, since the pile reinforcing is developed into the caps.
Table 5–6. Axial load, moment, and shear for selected design points
Design Points Pu (kips) Mu (kip-in) Vu (kips)

Min −42 326 12.0
Mod 240 675 18.2
Max 439 821 20.5

6.3 RESISTANCE OF TOTAL BASE SHEAR
Resistance to the total base shear in the building’s transverse direction will be investigated. For this
analysis, consider the passive pressure acting on the faces of all of the two-pile and larger pile caps and
main grade beams. Consider the pile resistance for all caps, with the exception of the single pile caps and
the two-pile caps oriented perpendicular to the load. These caps are not able to restrain the tops of the piles
from rotation. They will not truly be able to produce pile head fixity. As such, they will be considerably
more flexible under lateral loading and may be conservatively ignored. Similarly, the contribution of the
passive pressure on the single pile caps at the stair supports and on the minor grade beams should be
ignored due to their lower stiffness. Table 5–7 shows the resistance developed at the 0.2-inch displacement
recommended by the geotechnical engineer, based on the contribution of the caps and piles under
consideration.
Table 5–7. Lateral resistance due to passive pressure and pile bending
Gridlines
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Min 2 2
No. of piles at
each loading Mod 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
condition
Max 2 2
Cap face width (ft) 7 32 14 32 36 50 50 50 50 50 36 32 14 32 7
Resistance @ (kips) 261 244 27 244 252 279 279 279 279 279 252 244 27 244 261
0.2 in.
The sum of the resistance is 3450 kips, which exceeds the required base shear of 2260 kips (1130 kips per
frame). This indicates that the required resistance will actually be developed at a lower deformation, but
that the analysis is conservative.
The analysis assumes that the ground floor slab will be required to distribute the shear among the piles and
caps. The maximum shear in the slab occurs immediately inside of gridline 1 (or 15).
Vu = 1130 k − 261 k = 869 k = 4.7 k/fft.
This shear is resisted by the ground floor slab, which is 5 inches thick and reinforced with #3 at 18 inches
on center.
⎣ (
ϕVn = 0.75 ⎡(12)(5) 2 4000 + (0.11 )
1 )(60000)(12 18) ⎤ = 9 0 k/ft
⎦
/ . . . . OK.
So, the slab is adequate to transfer the shear. It’s also necessary to attach the grade beam to the slab to
transfer the same shear using embedded dowels crossing the interface. Using #4 dowels at 12 inches on
center,
ϕVn 0 75 μ = 0.6)(0.2)(60000)] = 5.4 k/ft

/ . . . . OK.
The #4 connecting dowels are shown in Figure 5–6.

7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction ACI 318
7.1 ACI 318 REQUIREMENTS
The axial-flexural design is based on the typical approach outlined in ACI 318 Chapter 10 for columns, with
the proviso that, per IBC Section 1810.2.1, the soil is considered to brace the pile laterally for the purpose
of axial loading. The limiting axial loads, per ACI 318 Section 10.3.6.2 are
ϕ n max
ϕP a
.8 )(0.65)[0.85 f ′(A
( .80 Ag Ast f y Ast ] = 521 k .
7.2 CONTROLLING DESIGN POINTS
The capacity in the interaction analysis is limited by this maximum value, resulting in a truncated curve,
which is due primarily to the limiting factor of 0.8 and the strength reduction factor of 0.65 for compression
elements that do not comply with the ACI 318 Chapter 10 requirements for columns. The resulting
interaction diagram with design points indicated is shown in Figure 5–4.
Pile Axial-Moment Interaction
700
500
300
100
-100
-300
Design Moment Strength, kip-in
Factored Loads 16-in (6)#6 5 ksi
Figure 5–4. Axial-moment interaction, with axial load limited per ACI 318
All points are within the interaction diagram, so the proposed reinforcing is acceptable.
Use six #6 vertical bars.

8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing IBC, ACI 318
8.1 IBC DETAILING REQUIREMENTS
Transverse confining reinforcing is required within the top three diameters of the pile (4 feet) by IBC
Section 1810.3.9.4.2.1. The requirement points to Sections 21.6.4.2, .3, and .4 of ACI 318. Transverse
reinforcing is also required within the remainder of the reinforced length. A summary of the requirements is
Table 5–8. Transverse reinforcing requirements
Transverse Reinforcing for 16-inch Cast-in-Place Piles; SDC D, Site Class D

Requirement Reference
Spiral or tie size #3 minimum IBC 1810.3.9.4.2
Spiral or tie spacing 1/4 pile diameter (4 in) ACI 318 21.6.4.3
Volumetric ratio ρs = 0.12 fc′ /fyt ACI 318 21.6.4.4(a)
The minimum spiral size of #3 and maximum spacing of 4 inches results in a volumetric ratio of 0.011
for the 16-inch-diameter pile. For the materials in this example, the required volumetric confinement ratio
per ACI 318 is 0.12 × 5/60 = 0.010, and the IBC permits the use of one-half of this value as a minimum in
Section 1810.3.9.4.2.1. However, the minimum tie size and maximum spacing will control the design.
ACI 318 Section 21.6.4.4 requires compliance with Eq. 10–5, which requires considerably heavier
confinement. However, IBC Section 1810.3.2.1.2 specifically excludes this requirement for piles. This
clause was deleted from Chapter 18A of the CBC. Thus, the heavier confinement requirements of ACI 318
Eq. 10–5 do indeed apply for DSA and OSHPD in California.
Transverse reinforcing is also required outside of the confined length, but within the minimum reinforced
length. For this reinforcing, the tie spacing may be relaxed to 12 longitudinal bar diameters (9 inches), half
the pile diameter (8 inches), or 12 inches. In this example, the reinforcing spacing outside of the confined
length will not be relaxed, for ease of cage alignment during placement.
Use #3 at 4 inches spirals throughout the reinforced length.
8.3 CHECK PILE MOMENT VS. DEPTH FOR REINFORCED LENGTH
After having completed the LPILE analysis, confirm that the depth where the flexural demand exceeds the
cracking moment does not exceed half the pile length. For the piles in this example, the cracking moment
(as defined by the IBC) is
⎛ ⎛ 16 ⎞ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 16 ⎞
3 5000 ⎜ π ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ / ⎜ ⎟ = 855 kip
i -in.
⎜⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
As shown in Figure 5–5, the deepest point in the pile where the moment exceeds the cracking moment is
165 inches (13 feet, 9 inches), which is significantly less than half the pile length.

Moment (kip-in.)
-1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400

0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Depth = 165 in
200.00
250.00
Mcr = 85 kip-in
300.00
350.00
400.00 Maximum Load
Moderate Load
Minimum Load
450.00
Figure 5–5. Moment vs. Depth from LPILE, with cracking moment shown

8.3 CHECK PILE SHEAR CAPACITY
The largest shear developed in the piles is Vu = 20.5 kips. Confirm that the piles’ structural shear capacity
exceeds this amount, according to Chapter 11 of ACI 318. Section 11.2.3 indicates that b may be taken as
the diameter and d may be taken as 0.8 times the diameter of a circular cross section. Thus,
ϕVn ( )
ϕ[Vc + Vs ] = 0.. 5 ⎡(16)(0. )( 6) 2 5000 + ( )( .11)(6
⎣
)
) ( ( .8)(16) / 4 ⎤
⎦
53.4 k. . . . OK.
9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap ACI 318
9.1 DEVELOPMENT OF STRAIGHT BARS
In most designs, straight bar development is computed using Section 12.2.2 of ACI 318. In the case of
the connection of the pile bars into the cap or grade beam, it’s possible to take advantage of the greater
spacing between the bars and the greater edge distance (from the bars to the edge of the cap) to employ the
formulation in Section 12.2.3.
⎡ 3 fy ψt ψeψ s ⎤
ld = ⎢ ⎥ db
⎢ 40 λ fc′ ⎛ cb K tr ⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎜ d ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ b ⎠⎦
Here, cb is the lesser of the one-half of the center-to-center bar spacing and the distance from the center
of the bar to the edge of the cap concrete. Since the edge distance is very large, the center-to-center bar
spacing controls. Ktr, which incorporates the effect of confinement reinforcing, may be ignored. The
maximum permitted value of cb/db is 2.5. For the #6 bars in this example, db is 0.75, meaning that the
smallest center-to-center spacing between bars that will result in the maximum benefit is
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜⎝ 1/ 2 ⎟⎠ (2.5)(0.75) 3.75 in.
1' – 4"
3"
Figure 5–6. Center-to-center spacing of six bars in a 16-inch pile with 3 inches of clear cover
For the geometry of the pile reinforcing in this example, the applicable distance is 4¼ inches, allowing the
use of cb/db of 2.5. The resulting development length in the pile cap or grade beam, based on 4 ksi concrete,
is then computed:
⎡ 3 60, 000 (1.0)(1.0)(0.8)(1.0) ⎤
ld = ⎢ ⎥ ( .75) = 1 .1 in.
⎢⎣ 40 4, 000 25 ⎥⎦
Use 19-inch (1 foot, 7 inches) bar extensions to allow for installation tolerance (see Figure 5–7).

9.2 DEVELOPMENT OF HEADED BARS
When more or larger vertical bars are required, there may not be sufficient room in the pile cap to develop
the bars without hooks. Hooks are inconvenient to use, because the pile head will be within the drilled hole
until the caps are excavated; headed terminators are preferred. The development length for headed bars is
specified in ACI 318 Section 12.6.
9.3 EMBEDMENT OF PILES INTO CAP
Section 1810.3.11 of the IBC requires that piles be embedded into the caps and grade beams they support
by a minimum of 3 inches. In order to account for installation tolerances, a specified embedment of
4 inches is recommended.
9.4 DESIGN OF GRADE BEAMS
Section 1810.3.12 of the IBC requires that grade beams that resist shear and flexure due to seismic
demands comply with ACI 318 Section 21.12.3, which requires that the grade beams be detailed per
ACI 318 Section 21.5 (as beams in Special Moment Resisting Frames), or be designed to remain elastic
per the amplified load combinations in ASCE 7.
9.5 SUMMARY OF DESIGN
Figure 5–7 shows the connection of the slab-on-grade to the grade beam. Figure 5–8 shows a summary of
the reinforcing and dimensional requirements for the pile.
COLUMN PER PLAN

AND SCHEDULE
GRADE BEAM SLAB ON GRADE
#4 BARS @ 12" O.C.

ALONG GRADE BEAM
AND AROUND
PERIMETERS OF PILE
CAPS
GRADE BM. REINF.
3"
CLR.
PILES PER PLAN, TYP.
Figure 5–7. Grade beam detail, showing connection to slab-on-grade

ADD TWO
TURNS @ TOP
PILE CUTOFF ELEV.
BOTT. OF PILE CAP
SPIRAL
SPIRAL PITCH = 4",
TYP.
LONGITUDINAL BAR,
TYP.
ADD TWO TIGHT

TURNS @ BOTTOM
OF CAGE
CENTER BAR
TIP ELEV.
PILE ELEVATION
PILE 135° HOOK @ EA.

16" Ø END OF SPIRAL
#3 SPIRALS
LONGITUDINAL BARS:
(6) #6
3" TYP.
CENTER BAR: #9
PILE SECTION
Figure 5–8. Pile detail, showing dimensions and reinforcing

Design Example 6
Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector
OVERVIEW
Diaphragms are horizontal or sloped systems acting to transfer lateral forces to the vertical lateral-load-
resisting system (LLRS). The purpose of the diaphragm is to (a) transfer inertial mass to the vertical LLRS,
(b) provide restraint to gravity as well as the LLRS from buckling and (c) facilitate connection of various
components of the vertical LLRS with appropriate strength and stiffness so that the building responds as
intended in design.
In this design example, the four-story concrete building has a big opening in the center of the floor
diaphragm. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate a simplified approach to find the demands on
the diaphragm (using a rigid diaphragm assumption) and collector based on the IBC 2012. Design of
diaphragm chords and collector and detailing of these elements is also included in this example.
The diaphragm demands obtained from a simplified approach is compared with the demands obtained by
modeling the diaphragm as a semi-rigid element using shell elements. Conclusions based on the results are
presented at the end of the example.
OUTLINE
2. Determination of Diaphragm Demands
3. Determination of Diaphragm Shears and Chord Forces for Diaphragm with Large Opening
4. Design of Diaphragm Reinforcement for Diaphragm with Large Opening
5. Collector Design
6. Comparison of Diaphragm Force and Chord Force using Rigid Diaphragm Assumption and
Hand Calculations vs. Computer Model Analysis with Semi-Rigid Diaphragm Assumption
GENERAL INFORMATION
• Building located in Pasadena, CA
• Site Class D
• Occupancy Category IV
• Four-story concrete building with a penthouse on the roof
• Concrete flat slab system with shear walls and collector beams at the perimeter

Design Example 6 䡲 Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector
• Concrete compressive strength fc′ = 4000 psi for concrete slab, beams, columns, and shear wall
• Reinforcing steel strength f y′ = 60,000 psi
• Typical flat slab reinforcing is #5 at 12 inches on center each way, top and bottom
• Governing codes: IBC 2012 , ASCE 7, and ACI 318-08
COMPUTER MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

A computer program is used to calculate the self-weight of the concrete slabs, beams, girders, columns,
and shear walls. The following are the modeling assumptions incorporated into the computer model for the
lateral-load-resisting system analysis:
• The concrete shear walls were assigned a stiffness modifier of 0.35 to model cracked section
properties
• All nodes at the foundation level for gravity columns are assigned pinned supports
• All nodes at the foundation level for shear walls are assigned fixed supports
• Seismic mass source is defined as from “Dead Load”
• It is assumed that the building has neither vertical nor horizontal irregularities
• Diaphragm is assumed to be rigid diaphragm


• Floor plan has typical dimension of 49 feet, 10 inches × 138 feet, 6 inches with typical floor
and roof framing as shown in Figures 6–1 and 6–2.
• Four stories with a penthouse level as shown in Figures 6–3 to 6–6.
Figure 6–1. Typical floor framing plan
Figure 6–2. Penthouse framing plan

Figure 6–3. Building elevation at gridline A
Figure 6–4. Building elevation at gridline D

Figure 6–5. Building elevation at gridline 1

Figure 6–6. Building 3D view

ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS
Typical Floor
Dead Loads Gravity Load Effective3 Seismic Weight
7¼-inch NW concrete slab self-weight — —
Concrete columns and beams self-weight — —
Concrete walls 10-inch-thick self-weight — —
Mechanical / Plumbing / Electrical 5 psf 5 psf
Ceiling and flooring 10 psf 10 psf
2
Partitions 10 psf 4
Miscellaneous 5 psf 5 psf
Total Superimposed Dead Load 20 psf 30 psf
Note: Shear walls, slabs, and columns are modeled with their self-weight included in the computer
program. Superimposed mass/gravity load indicated above is applied as superimposed dead load in
the model.
Building Live Loads1 Live Load

Occupancy rooms/Laboratories = 60 psf 60 psf
2
Partitions 15 psf
Penthouse Roof
4½-inch NW concrete slab self-weight — —
Concrete columns and beams self-weight — —
Concrete walls 10-inch-thick self-weight — —
Mechanical / Plumbing / Electrical 5 psf 5 psf
Roofing 6 psf 6 psf
Roof Live Loads1 Live Load

Flat Roof 20 psf

Exterior Wall5
Cladding 7 psf 7 psf
Metal studs 3 psf 3 psf
Insulation 2 psf 2 psf
5/8-inch gypsum board 3 psf 3 psf
Notes:
1. From ASCE 7 Table 4–1.
2. ASCE 7 Section 4.3.2 specifies a 15 psf live load where partitions will be erected or rearranged.
3. ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2 describes the loads that are included in the Effective Seismic Weight.
4. Per Section 12.7.2, 10 psf is included for partitions where partition load is required per ASCE 7
Section 4.3.2.
5. Exterior wall load 20 psf is applied where there are no perimeter shear walls; where there are
perimeter shear walls, 10 psf uniform load is applied on the wall to account for finish.
FLOOR AND ROOF WEIGHTS
The following are the total seismic weights tributary to each floor level, as calculated by the computer
program:
WPenthouse = 539 K
W4th Floor = 949 K
W3rd Floor = 990.5 K
W2nd Floor = 1008.5 K
W1st Floor = 1054.5 K
ΣW = 4541.5 K
Seismic weights are equal for both in the north-south and east-west directions.
2. Determination of Diaphragm Demands
2.1 DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS ASCE 7
The USGS internet-based web tool (geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php) can be used to

determine the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral accelerations at 0.2 sec (SS) and 1.0 sec
(S1) based on the longitude and latitude of the site. The longitude and latitude can be entered into the web
application to get the SS and S1 values. The output values are:
SS = 1.928g S1 = 0.696g

The Site Class is D, so the factors to modify the MCE spectral accelerations are:
Fa = 1.0 T 11.4–1
Fv = 1.5. T 11.4–2
These values are used to modify the spectral accelerations:
SMS = FaSS = 1.0 × 1.928 = 1.928g Eq 11.4–1

SM1 = FvS1 = 1.5 × 0.696 = 1.044g. Eq 11.4–2
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are
2 2
S DS S = × 1.928 = 1.285g Eq 11.4–3
3 MS 3
2 2
SD S M 1 = × 1.044 = 0.696 g Eq 11.4–4
3 3
SDS = 1.285g SD1 = 0.696g
2.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY ASCE 7
Risk Category = IV T 1.5–1

Importance Factor I = 1.5 T 1.5–2
Short Period Seismic Design Category = D (for SDS = 1.285g) T 11.6–1
1–sec Seismic Design Category = D (for SD1 = 0.696g) T 11.6–2
According to Section 11.6, the Seismic Design Category is the more severe of the two results of Table
11.6–1 and 11.6–2. Both resulted in Seismic Design Category D, so
Seismic Design Category (SDC) = D §11.6
2.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS ASCE 7
E = Eh ± E v Eq 12.4–1 and Eq 12.4–2

Eh QE Eq 12.4–3
285 D = 0.257 D , therefore:
E v 0 2 S DS D 0 2 1.285 Eq 12.4–4
E ρQE ± 0.257 D
Em = Emhh ± E v Eq 12.4–5 and Eq 12.4–6

Emh ΩoQE Eq 12.4–7
Em ΩoQE ± 0.257 D .
Load combinations of consequence are

§12.4.2.3
1.22 D 1 0 E + 0 5 L 1.457 D + 0 5 L ρQE Load Combo 5 (modified)
0 9 D 1 0 E = 0.643 D ρQE Load Combo 7 (modified)
§12.4.3.2
1.22 D 1 0 Em + 0 5 L 1.457 D + 0 5 L ΩoQE Load Combo 5 (modified)
0 9 D 1 0 Em = 0.643 D ΩoQE . Load Combo 7 (modified)

2.4 DESIGN BASE SHEAR ASCE 7
Determine the approximate building period:
Ta = Ct(hx)x = 0.02(61)0.75 = 0.44 s Eq 12.8.7
East-west direction:
T = 0.37 s (From computer model analysis).
North-south direction:
T = 0.19 s (From computer model analysis).
Check the upper limit: §12.8.2
For SD1 = 0.696g, Cu = 1.4 T 12.8.1

T shall not exceed (Cu)(Ta) = (1.4)(0.44) = 0.616 s.
For this example, the building period as calculated in the computer analysis is allowed in accordance with
Section 12.8.2. However, the approximate fundamental period Ta = 0.44 s calculated above can also be used
as an alternative, and this value is used for base shear calculation.
For bearing wall system, special reinforced concrete shear wall, T 12.2.1
R=5
Ωo = 2.5
Cd = 5
Design base shear is based on equivalent lateral force procedure §12.8.1
V = CsW Eq 12.8–1
where
S DS 1.285
Cs = = = 0.3855 (Governs) Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎞
⎜⎝ I ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1 5 ⎟⎠
The seismic response coefficient need not exceed
S D1 0.696
Cs = = = 0.475 for T ≤ TL. Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎞
T⎜ ⎟ 0 44 ⎜ ⎟
⎝I⎠ ⎝ 1 5⎠
The seismic response coefficient shall not be less than
Cs = 0.044SDS I = 0.0848 > 0.01. Eq 12.8–5

In addition, for structures located where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Cs shall not be less than
0 5S1 0.5(0.696
6 6)
Cs = = = 0.104 Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎞
⎜⎝ I ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1 5 ⎟⎠
In this example, the user-defined seismic coefficient Cs = 0.3855 is used in computer program and is
applied in both directions to simplify the base shear calculation.
V = CsW = 0.3855(4541.5 K) = 1751 K.
2.5 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES ASCE 7
The design base shear must be distributed to each floor level, as follows:
Fx = CvxV Eq 12.8–11
where
wx hxk
Cvx = n
Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
and
k = 1.0 for T ≤ 0.5 s

= 2.0 for T ≥ 2.5 s
= interpolated value between 1.0 and 2.0 for 0.5 s < T < 2.5 s.
In this example, k = 1.0 for both directions.
Determination of Fx is shown in Table 6–1.
Table 6–1. Determination of Fx
Level i wi kip hi ft w*x hxk kip ft w*x hxk / Σwi* hik Fx kip Ftotal kip
PH 539 60.57 32,647 0.22 381 381
4th 949 46.49 44,119 0.29 516 897
3rd 990.5 35.49 35,153 0.23 411 1308
2nd 1008.5 25.08 25,293 0.17 296 1603
1st 1054.5 12 12,654 0.08 148 1751
Sum 4541.5 149,866 1.00 1751
This hand calculation of story shear distribution matches with the computer model analysis results.

2.6 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN FORCES ASCE 7
The diaphragm design forces must be designed to resist seismic forces from the structural analysis, but shall
not be less than that determined in accordance with the ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1.1 requirement as follows:
n
∑ Fi
Fpx = i x
n
w px Eq 12.10–1
∑ wi
i x
The diaphragm design force at each level need not exceed
Fpx = 0.4SDS Iwpx = 0.4(1.285)(1.5)wpx = 0.771wpx
and the diaphragm design force at each level shall not be less than
Fpx = 0.2SDS Iwpx = 0.2(1.285)(1.5)wpx = 0.3855wpx
Determination of Fpx is shown in Table 6–2.
Table 6–2. Determination of Fpx
Fpx Fpx Effective

Fx Ftotal wpx Σwi Fpx Min. Max Fpx
Level i kip kip kip kip kip kip kip kip ϒ = Fpx /Fx
PH 381 381 539 539 381 208 416 381 1.00
4th 516 897 949 1488 572 366 732 572 1.11
3rd 411 1308 991 2479 523 382 764 523 1.27
2nd 296 1603 1009 3487 464 389 778 464 1.57
1st 148 1751 1055 4542 407 305 610 407 2.75
Sum 1751
Once the story shear force Fx is obtained, the story force is factored by ϒ to get the code-required
diaphragm force Fpx. This method of scaling by ϒ can be used only for buildings without irregularities.
For buildings with irregularities, follow the procedure described in Section 6.3.

3. Determination of Diaphragm Shears and Chord Forces

for Diaphragm with Large Opening
In this example, earthquake load in the east-west direction (along the longitudinal direction) is used for
illustration purposes.
From the computer analysis, in order to obtain the diaphragm force at the third-floor level for walls
on gridlines A and D, subtract the cumulative story shear in each wall at the third-floor level from the
cumulative story shear in the corresponding wall at the fourth-floor level. These values calculated in this
example represent the resulting shears with the mass displaced +5 percent from the center of mass to
account for accidental torsion per the code requirement.
Figure 6–7. Cumulative story shear wall forces by level—wall on gridline A
Figure 6–8. Cumulative story shear wall forces by level—wall on gridline D

Figure 6–9. Plan view of third-floor diaphragm loading
F3rd Story (Line A) = 773 K − 517 K = 256 K.

F3rd Story (Line D) = 522 K − 364 K = 158 K.
3.1 DETERMINATION OF DIAPHRAGM SHEARS
In order for the diaphragm shear force at the third level to be computed, the diaphragm is analyzed as a
simply supported beam with pinned supports representing the shear walls along gridlines A and D. The
diaphragm opening is ignored in this calculation. The resulting shear diagram based on the beam model is
used to determine the total diaphragm shear along the length of the diaphragm.
Figure 6–10. Beam model of diaphragm in the east-west direction
Known values:
RA = F3rd Story (Line A) = 256 K

RD = F3rd Story (Line D) = 158 K

The reaction RA is much larger than RD due to torsion.
L = total diaphragm length = 49.83 feet.
Using statics to solve for unknown values w1 and w2 (trapezoidal load distribution is assumed to account for
torsion):
⎧ ⎛ w1 + w2 ⎞
⎪ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ L = RA + RD
⎨
⎪ w2 L ⎛⎜ L ⎞⎟ + 1 (w1 − w2 ) L ⎛⎜ L ⎞⎟ = RD L
⎩ ⎝ 2⎠ 2 ⎝ 3⎠
Solve for w1 and w2:
⎧
⎪ w1 = 14.21 klf
⎨
⎪
⎩ w2 = 2.41 klf,
The diaphragm will be checked (1) along gridline D and (2) along gridline A.
Figure 6–11. Shear diagram of the diaphragm in the east-west direction
Applying the ϒ factor to the distributed load gives the diaphragm force Fpx. For the third story, ϒ = 1.27.
The maximum diaphragm demands on a per-foot basis are calculated as
(1) vD = ϒVD /LD = (1.27)(158 K) / 138.5 ft (diaphragm depth) = 1.45 klf

(2) vA = ϒVA/LA = (1.27)(256 K) / 90.5 ft (diaphragm depth) = 3.59 klf. (Governs)
The design shear strength of the 7¼-inch-thick concrete floor slab is calculated as follows:
ΦVc Φ fc′bbbd ACI 318-08 (11–4)

where
ACI 318-08 Section 9.3
Φ = 0.75
d = 7¼ in − ¾ in (clear) − 5/8 in − (½)(5/8 in) = 5.56 in.
For a 7¼-inch-thick concrete slab,
ΦVc = 0.75(2) 4000 p i (5.56 )(12 i f )(1 k 1000 lb ) = 6 33 klf

ΦVc > vA = 3.59 klf,; slab is OK for diaphragm shear demands.
3.2 DETERMINATION OF CHORD FORCES
The flexural behavior of the diaphragm in resisting lateral loads causes tension and compression to develop
in the diaphragm chords. Using the beam model as shown in Figure 6–12, the chord forces T1 and C1 along
gridlines 1 and 8 are calculated as a function of the flexural moment in the diaphragm and the depth of the
diaphragm perpendicular to the direction of loading.
Figure 6–12. Moment diagram of the diaphragm in the east-west direction
Chord Force T1 and C1:
Mmax = 2614 kip-feet based on trapezoidal loading shown in Figure 6–10 (occurs at a distance of 20 feet
from gridline A).
Provide chord reinforcement over a distance of 4 feet from gridlines 1 and 8:
D1 = 138.5 feet − 4 feet = 134.5 feet.
(Dimension should be measured from center-to-center of the chord elements.)
M ⎛ 2614 k-ft ⎞
T1 C1 = λ = (1.27) ⎜ = 24.7 K
D1 ⎝ 134.5 ft ⎟⎠

Chord Force T2 and C2 around opening, along gridlines 3 and 5: because the diaphragm has a large opening,
chord forces T2, C2 on gridlines 1 and 3 due to moment internal “M” acting at gridline 3/B must be checked
in the analysis as shown in Figure 6–14.
These chord forces occur due to local bending of the diaphragm segments on either side of the opening.
The loading on these segments is calculated based on the relative mass of the two segments. The chord
forces T1/C1 and T2/C2 are calculated using the corresponding diaphragm depths D1 and D2 respectively.
The values obtained from the hand calculations are compared with results from the semi-rigid diaphragm
analysis in Section 6.
Figure 6–13. Plan view of the third-floor diaphragm load distribution around the opening
⎛ 36.5 ft ⎞
w1′ = (14.21 klf ) ⎜ = 3 74 klf
⎝ 138.5 ft ⎟⎠
⎛ 54 ft ⎞
w1′′= (14.21 klf ) ⎜ = 5 54 klf
⎝ 138.5 ft ⎟⎠
⎡ ⎛ 28 ft ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 36.5 ft ⎞
w2′ = ⎢(14.21 klf − 2.41
.4 klf ) ⎜ ⎟⎠ + 2.41 klf ⎥ ⎜⎝ 138.5 ft ⎟⎠ = 2 38 klf
⎣ ⎝ 49 . 83 ft ⎦
⎡ ⎛ 28 ft ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 54 ft ⎞
w2′′ = ⎢(14.21 klf − 2.41
.4 klf ) ⎜ ⎟⎠ + 2.41 klff ⎥ ⎜⎝ 138.5 ft ⎟⎠ = 3 52 klf
⎣ ⎝ 49 . 83 ft ⎦
Consider the segment diaphragm next to the opening between gridlines 1 and 3 and gridlines A and B.
The goal is to find the moment at the fixed end in Figure 6–14. This moment acting at gridline 3/B acting
on the diaphragm is resisted by a couple-compression chord force at gridline 3 and tension chord force at
gridline 1.
Draw the free-body diaphragm as shown below in order to calculate the magnitude of moment “M” acting
at gridline 3/B.

1 3
36.5'
RB M
B w2''
A w1''
RA 1-3
Figure 6–14. Free-body diagram of third-floor diaphragm segment adjacent to opening
Known:
w1′ = 3.74 klf,

w2′′ = 2.38 klf.
RA1−3 − Reaction of the shear wall, over the length from gridline 1 to gridline 3;
Length of shear wall along gridline A, from gridlines 1 to 3 = 36.5 feet
Total length of shear wall along gridline A = 96.17 feet
Total shear force on shear wall on gridline A = 256 K at third level (from computer analysis)
RA1−3 = (256 K) (36.5 ft) / (96.17 ft) = 97.2 K

R1A−B − Reaction of the beam, along gridline 1, from gridline A to B (this is primarily due to torsion);
R1A−B = 1.0 K (from computer analysis, negligible).
Unknown:
M − Moment causing compression force at gridline 3/B. This moment is resisted by a chord-force couple T2
and C2 acting at gridline 1 and 3 respectively.
RB − Resisting force at gridline B acting on diaphragm segment.
Solve:
T2, C2: Chord-force couple that is resisting moment “M”; assume reinforcement will be provided over a
distance of 4 feet from gridline 1 and 3 and between gridlines A to B .
Take moment about point B/3:
⎛ 21.83 ft ⎞ ⎛ w1 in − w2 in ⎞ ⎛ 2⎞
RA1 3 (21.83 f ) w2 i (21.83 f ) ⎜ − f )−M = 0
⎟⎠ (21.83 ft) ⎜⎝ 3 ⎟⎠ (21.83 ft
⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 2

Solve the equation,
M = 1339 k-ft
D2 = 36.5 ft − 4 ft = 32.5 ft
M ⎛ 1339 k-ft ⎞
T2 C2 = λ = (1.27) ⎜ = 52 K at gridlines 3 and 1 between grids A to B.
D2 ⎝ 32.5 ft ⎟⎠
(The same force is used at gridlines 5 and 8; this is conservative as the chord forces are smaller at this
location.)
The hand calculation of chord force shown above is usually conservative; see Section 6.0 for a comparison
of results using the above procedure with the results obtained by modeling the diaphragm as a semi-rigid
element.
4. Design of Diaphragm Reinforcement for Diaphragm

with Large Opening
The additional slab reinforcement required to resist the chord forces is calculated as follows:
Along gridline 1 and 8 (between gridline A and B):
Chord force Ttotal = T1 + T2 = 24.7 k + 52 K = 76.7 K (for magnitude of T1 force, see calculations in
Section 3.2).
Ttotala 76.7 k
As = = = 1.42 in 2
φff y (0.9)(60 ksi)
Therefore, provide 10 #4 at the slab edge, As provided = 2.0 in2.

This reinforcement can be reduced, based on the bending moment producing primary chord forces T1 and
C1, since it decreases between gridlines B and D.
Along gridline 1 and 8 at gridline C:
Moment at gridline C = 1961 k-ft based on bending moment diagram; see Figure 6–12.
Chord force:
M ⎛ 1961 k-ft ⎞
Tc Cc = λ = (1.27) ⎜ = 18.5 K
D1 ⎝ 134.5 ft ⎟⎠
Tc 18.5
As = = = 0 34 in 2
φff y (0.9)(60 ksi)
Therefore, provide two #4 at the slab edge, As provided = 0.4 in2 between gridlines C and D.
Along gridline 3 and 5:
Chord force T2 = 52 k (see calculations in Section 3.2).

T2 52 k
Required As = = = 0 96 in 2
φff y (0.9)(60 ksi)
Provide six #4 total bars over the 4-foot width of the slab; see Figures 6–15 and 6–16 for reinforcement
details along gridlines 3 and 5.
Provided As = (0.2 in2)(6) = 1.2 in2.
Figure 6–15. Chord reinforcement detail at opening

Figure 6–16. Chord reinforcement plan for seismic force in east-west direction
5. Collector Design
5.1 COLLECTOR FORCE
The collector beams at gridlines A and D on the third floor shall be designed for the diaphragm force level
load. Take the collector at gridline D as an example:
F3rd floor (Line D) = 158 K (see calculations in Section 3)

Fpx = ϒF3rd floor (Line D) = 1.27(158 K) = 200.7 K.
Calculate the distributed diaphragm and shear wall resistance forces as follows:
vdiaphragm = Fpx /Ldiaphragm = (200.7 K) / (138.5 ft) = 1.449 klf

vwall = Fpx /Lwall = (200.7 K) / (66.5 ft) = 3.02 klf
FC3 = (vdiaphragm − vwall)(L1−3) = (1.449 klf − 3.01 klf)(36.5 ft) = −57.34 K
FC6 = (vdiaphragm)(L1−6) – (Vwall)(L1−3)
= (1.449 klf)(108.5 ft) − (3.02 klf)(36.5 ft) = 46.99 K.

46.99 K
57.34 K
Figure 6–17. Collector force diagram
Per collector diagram in Figure 6–17, the maximum axial force on the collector beam is
Tu = Cu = 57.34 K.
In structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F, collector elements and their

connections including connections to vertical elements shall be designed to resist the maximum
of the following: ASCE 7 §12.10.2–1
1. ΩoFx (where Fx per Section 12.8 or 12.9)
2. ΩoFpx (where Fpx per Section 12.10–1)
3. Collector force based on Equation 12.10–2, 0.2SDS Iewpx.
In accordance with Table 12.2–1 Ωo = 2.5; the collector force is calculated as:
1. Ωo Fx = 2.5(57.34 K) / (1.27) = 112.87 K (collector design force)
2. Ωo Fpx = 2.5(57.34 K) = 143.23 K (collector design force) Governs
3. 0.2SDS Iewpx = 0.2(1.285)(1.5)(991 K)/2* = 191.0 K**; collector design force = 54.49 K.
wpx shall be the weight tributary to each of the two collector lines in the direction being considered. To
simplify for this example, assume the weight tributary to collector at gridline D is approximately one half
of the total diaphragm weight. For wpx calculation, see “Floor and Roof Weights” in Section 1.
*
Force is divided by a factor of two, as there are two lines of resistance (along gridlines A and D).
**
This force represents the diaphragm load along gridline D. Calculate collector force similar to the
procedure described above in Section 5.1.

5.2 DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
The load combination used for the collector design as shown in part 2.3, is 1.457D + 0.5L + ΩoQE, where
ΩoQE is as the collector force from Section 5.1, calculated based on code provisions.
5.3 COLLECTOR BEAM DESIGN
Flexure
The flexural demand on the collector beams is due to the gravity loading, designed for 1.2D + 1.6L.
Collector beam size: 21 inches × 24 inches on gridline D.
Per the load table in Part 1, on typical floors,
Total superimposed dead load = 20 psf
7¼-inch NW concrete slab = (150 psf)(7.25 in/12) = 91 psf
ΣDL = 111 psf = 0.111 ksf
Tributary dead load to the beam:
(wgravity DL)u = (0.111 ksf)(14 ft)DL + (0.15 kcf)(24 in/12)(21 in/12)Beam self-weight = 2.08 klf
(wgravity LL)u = (0.06 ksf)(14 ft) = 0.84 klf
(Mgravity)u = 1.2D + 1.6L = [(1.2)(2.08 klf) + (1.6)(0.84 klf)](24)2/8 = 276.5 k-ft
(As)req’d = 3.6 in2
Provide four #9 bars at the bottom, (As)prov’d = 4.47 in2 > (As)req’d, . . . OK.
For the seismic Loading, design for 1.457D + 0.5L + ΩoQE:
(Mgravity)u = 1.457D + 0.5L = [(1.457)(2.08 klf) + (0.5)(0.84 klf)](24 ft)2/8 = 248.44 k-ft
Pu = ±143.23 K (see Section 5.1)
The collector beam is designed as beam-column element; an interaction diagram has been created for the
collector as shown in Figure 6–18.

Figure 6–18. Collector beam P-M diagram

In summary, use four #9 bars at the bottom, four #8 bars at the top, and two #8 bars on each side for the
collector beam. For reinforcement detail see Figure 6–19.
Figure 6–19. Collector beam and diaphragm chord reinforcement detail
Special transverse reinforcement in accordance with ACI 318-08 Section 21.11.7.5 is required for collector
elements with compressive stresses exceeding 0.2 fc′ . The special transverse reinforcement shall be
provided over the length of the element as given in ACI 318-08 Section 21.9.6.4c and is permitted to be
discontinued at sections where the calculated compressive stress is less than 0.15 fc′ . Because the axial load
is magnified by the overstrength factor, the stress criterion also must be increased accordingly. Check if
special transverse reinforcing is required:
Fc = Pu /Ag = 143.23 K / (21 in)(24 in) = 0.28 ksi < (Ωo)(0.2 fc′ ) = 0.5 fc′ = 2 ksi.
Also, Fc / fc′ = (0.28 ksi)/(4 ksi) = 0.07 < 0.15 fc′ .
Therefore, special transverse reinforcement is not required. The collector beam should also be checked and
designed for shear force, which is not included in this example.

6. Comparison of Diaphragm Force and Chord Force using Rigid

Diaphragm Assumption and Hand Calculations vs. Computer
Model Analysis with Semi-Rigid Diaphragm Assumption
6.1 CASE STUDIES
The object of this study is to compare the results from the semi-rigid diaphragm analysis to that of rigid
diaphragm analysis and draw some conclusions.
Case 1: Semi-Rigid Diaphragm without Opening
In order to model the semi-rigid diaphragm, the same building used in the rigid diaphragm example is used
for comparison. The diaphragm at the third level is used for this study.
Modeling assumptions:
• Diaphragm is modeled as semi-rigid using a shell element with a fine mesh
• Diaphragm out-of-plane stiffness is not considered (i.e. diaphragm is restrained for out-of-plane
displacements)
• Actual thickness of the concrete slab is used in the semi-rigid model without any stiffness
modifiers.
Figure 6–20. Case 1: Resultant F22 force diagram on the diaphragm
Figure 6–20 shows the semi-rigid diaphragm that represents the 7¼-inch-thick concrete slab. In this
example, the ETABS computer program has been used to model the semi-rigid diaphragm. The user can use
any other suitable computer program to model the semi-rigid diaphragm and to obtain internal diaphragm
demands. “Section Cuts” as defined in the ETABS program has been used to calculate diaphragm internal
demands.

Draw Section Cut “1–1” across the diaphragm as shown in Figure 6–20. The program then calculates the
internal diaphragm demands based on the model definition. This includes the diaphragm mass, tributary
wall load, self-weight, and superimposed dead load, with the semi-rigid diaphragm defined. The lateral load
defined in this model is in the east-west direction (longitudinal direction,) with the center of mass displaced
to account for positive 5 percent eccentricity. This force calculated by the program for the analysis is based
on the story shear force distribution, and therefore the results must be scaled by the ϒ factor as explained in
Section 2.6 in order to get the code-defined diaphragm force for design.
The internal chord force at the Section Cut “1–1” is given in the following table by the ETABS program.
This is the force that is acting in the local axis “2” direction and is due to the diaphragm flexure.
To obtain the chord force from the program, select “Display,” then “Member Forces/Stresses Diaphragm,”
then “Shell Stresses/Forces,” then choose the appropriate load case, then select “Forces” under component
type, then “F22” under component, and finally select “At all Joints” under stress averaging.
Figure 6–21. Case 1: Section-Cut forces on the diaphragm

From the table, the integrated chord force along the Section Cut F22 = 17.6 K at a distance of 30 feet from
gridline A over a distance of 6 feet beyond gridline 1. If chord reinforcement is provided over a distance
of 6 feet at both sides of the diaphragm near gridline 1 and gridline 8, the effective diaphragm depth
D = 138.5 ft − 2(6 ft/2) = 132.5 ft.
ϒ = 1.0 (assumed).
Therefore, the maximum chord force is
T = C = ϒF22 = 1.0(17.6 k-ft) = 17.6 K.
Case 2: Rigid Diaphragm without Opening
The model in Case 1 is revised by defining the diaphragm as rigid. The ETABS program is used to run
the analysis to obtain the story shears. As described in Section 3.1, the reactions at gridlines A and D are
calculated for the rigid diaphragm at the third level.
RA = F3rd Story (Line A) = 298 K

RD = F3rd Story (Line D) = 164 K
L = total diaphragm length = 49.83 ft.
Using hand calculation and beam model assumption with a distributed load as shown in Figure 6–22, solve
for w1, w2 and Mmax:
w1 = 17.339 klf,
w2 = 1.204 klf
Mmax = 2936 k-ft (maximum moment at a distance of 21 feet from gridline A).
Figure 6–22. Beam model of diaphragm in the east-west direction
Effective diaphragm depth D = 138.5 ft − 2(6 ft/2) = 132.5 ft.
ϒ = 1.0.
max
a M 2936 k-ft
Therefore, the maximum chord force T1 C1 = γ= (1.0) = 22.2 k
D 132.5 ft

Conclusion:
It is observed that for the case without openings in the diaphragm, the chord forces obtained using
simplified rigid diaphragm analysis is about 26 percent more than that obtained from the semi-rigid model.
The simplified beam model generally produces conservative results.
6.2 CASE STUDY—DIAPHRAGM WITH OPENINGS
The object of this study is to compare the results from the semi-rigid diaphragm analysis to that of rigid
diaphragm analysis and draw some conclusions.
Case 1: Semi-Rigid Diaphragm with Opening
Figure 6–23. Case 3: F22 Force diagram on the diaphragm
Draw Section Cuts 1–1, 2–2, 3–3, and 4–4 across the diaphragm as shown in Figure 6–23, based on the
observation of peak value locations. The program then calculates the internal diaphragm demands based on
the model definition as described in Case 1.
At Section Cut 1–1:

The integrated chord force along Section Cut F22 = 17.6 K (tension) at a distance of 22 feet from gridline
A over a distance of 6 feet beyond gridline 1. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a distance of 6
feet at both sides of the diaphragm, near gridline 1 and gridline 8, then:
Effective diaphragm depth D = 138.5 ft −2(6 ft/2) = 132.5 ft.
ϒ = 1.27 (see calculation in Section 2.6).
T = C = ϒF22 = 1.27(17.6 k-ft) = 22.4 K.


The integrated chord force along the Section cut F22 = −39.0 K (compression) at a distance of 21.5 feet
from gridline A over a distance of 4 feet beyond gridline 3. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a
distance of 4 feet at the edge of diaphragm near gridline 3, then:
T = C = ϒF22 = 1.27(39.0 k-ft) = 49.5K (at gridline 3).

The integrated chord force along the Section Cut F22 = 28.6 K (tension) at a distance of 21.5 feet from
gridline A over a distance of 4 feet beyond gridline 5. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a distance
of 4 feet at the edge of diaphragm near gridline 5, then:
T = C = ϒ F22 = 1.27(28.6 k-ft) = 36.3 K (at gridline 5)

The integrated chord force along the Section Cut F22 = −11.1 K (compression) at a distance of 22 feet from
gridline A over a distance of 6 feet beyond gridline 8. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a distance
of 6 feet at the edge of diaphragm near gridline 8, then:
T = C = ϒF22 = 1.27(11.1 k-ft) = 14.1 K (at gridline 8).
Case 2: Rigid Diaphragm with Opening
The chord force using hand calculation with rigid diaphragm assumption is illustrated in Section 3–2:
The resulting chord force at gridlines 1 and 8, between gridlines A to C: T = C = 24.7 K + 52.0 K = 76.7 K
(compared with 22.4 K at gridline 1 and 14.1 K at gridline 8 from the semi-rigid diaphragm analysis).
The resulting chord force along gridlines 1 and 8 at gridline C: T = C = 18.5 K (compared with 14.0 K at
grid 1/C from the semi-rigid diaphragm analysis).
The resulting chord force at gridlines 3 and 5: T = C = 52.0 K (compared with 49.5 K at gridline 3, 36.3 K
at gridline 5 from the semi rigid diaphragm analysis).

Conclusion
By comparing the results from cases 1 and 2 of Section 6.2, the following observations can be made:
a. The results obtained by drawing the free-body diaphragm for the rigid diaphragm case for
calculating the chord force at gridline 3 compares well (5 percent difference) with that obtained
from the semi-rigid analysis (52 K vs. 49.5 K). However, the hand calculation overestimates
the chord force at gridline 1 (by a factor of more than three) between gridlines A to B when
compared with the results from semi rigid diaphragm analysis (76.7 K vs. 22.4 K). At grid
1/C, the hand calculation overestimates the chord force by 32 percent when compared with
the results from the semi-rigid diaphragm analysis (18.5 K vs. 14.0 K). The user has to use his
or her judgment before using the simplified approach. The user is also encouraged to review
NCSEA’s “Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors” and NEHRP’s Seismic Design
Technical Brief No. 3 on “Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Diaphragms, Chords and
Collectors.”
b. Use of the ϒ scale factor to amplify the results from the story force (Fx) to obtain diaphragm
story shears is only appropriate for buildings without any irregularities (horizontal and vertical)
as defined in ASCE 7. For buildings with and without irregularities, the correct way to obtain
the diaphragm story shears is to use the procedure outlined in Section 6.3 below.
c. For buildings without irregularities and a well distributed lateral-load-resisting system and with
simple geometry, the simplified approach using the rigid diaphragm assumption (procedure as
shown in the design example) may be used to calculate the diaphragm and collector demands.
However, the rigid diaphragm idealization requirements per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.2 should be
satisfied.
d. Results obtained from the semi-rigid diaphragm are very sensitive to the size of the finite
element mesh that is used to model the diaphragm. The user is cautioned to avoid using odd-
shaped elements when modeling the diaphragm, and the use of a finer mesh is recommended
around the diaphragm openings.
6.3 CALCULATION OF DIAPHRAGM DEMANDS
Calculation of Diaphragm Demands for Fpx loads
As noted above, the following procedure may be used to correctly calculate the diaphragm demands due to
code-prescribed Fpx forces per ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1.1:
1. Define static load case A using ASCE 7 equation 12.8–12 (triangular load distribution of story
shear Fxi).
2. Calculate load case B = Fpi − ρFxi at each level (Fpi is the diaphragm force required by ASCE 7
Equation 12.10–1).
3. Define load combination: Load case A + Load case B for each level.
4. Run analysis for center of mass and positive and negative eccentricity for load combinations
defined in step 3 for each level and for each direction of loading.
5. After analysis, internal diaphragm forces could be obtained by drawing Section Cuts as shown
in Section 6.1 or using the simplified approach (rigid diaphragm assumption) as shown in
Section 3.1 for the design of diaphragm chords and collectors.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express his deep gratitude and sincere appreciation to Ms. Yixia Liu, P.E., Project
Engineer, TTG Engineers, San Francisco, CA, for her great help in preparing and checking this example.
Thanks are also due to Dr. Theodore Zsutty for reviewing this example. His input has been invaluable and is
much appreciated. Finally, the author wishes to express his sincere thanks to the following persons for their
help during the preparation of this example:
Dr. Rahul Rana S.E. Senior Associate, TTG Engineers, Pasadena, CA

Mr. Dhawal Agarwal S.E. Senior Associate, TTG Engineers, Pasadena, CA
Mr. Syed Hasanain Executive Vice President, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA
Mr. Faisal Habib Technical Manager, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA

$33529(:,7+
CONFIDENCE
ō ICC-ES®LVWKHQDWLRQłVOHDGHULQSHUIRUPLQJWHFKQLFDOHYDOXDWLRQVRI
EXLOGLQJSURGXFWVDQGPDWHULDOVIRUFRGHFRPSOLDQFH
ō ,&&(6LVGHGLFDWHGWRSURYLGLQJHYDOXDWLRQUHSRUWVRIWKHKLJKHVWTXDOLW\
DQGWHFKQLFDOH[FHOOHQFH
ō ,&&(6LVDVXEVLGLDU\RI,&&®WKHSXEOLVKHURIWKH,%&®,5&®,3&®DQG
RWKHU,&RGHV®DQGKDVXQLTXHH[SHUWLVHLQEXLOGLQJFRGHVDQGVWDQGDUGV
:HGRWKRURXJKUHVHDUFK<RXDSSURYHZLWKFRQğGHQFH
Look for the ICC-ES marks of conformity before

approving for installation
www.icc-es.org | 800-423-6587
13-07615 6XEVLGLDU\RI,&&
07_BM_Ads_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 221 8/6/13 3:30 PM

People Helping People Build a Safer World®
Turn to ICC for the Structural Tools

You Need
NOW IN ONE VOLUME!
2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
HANDBOOK
A comprehensive, full-color guide to the 2012 IBC technical provisions
This visual guide makes it easy to understand and apply complex IBC provisions. ICC code
experts Douglas W. Thornburg, AIA, and John R. Henry, P.E., skillfully interpret all technical
SURYLVLRQVRIWKHFRGHVWUXFWXUDODQGQRQVWUXFWXUDODVZHOODVğUHDQGOLIHVDIHW\
Features:
ōProvides the rationale behind the code provisions to clarify
the intent and facilitate proper application and enforcement 9 Bonus features online
ōIncludes more than 600 full-color illustrations 9 Expanded topics
ōHelps you achieve full compliance with every aspect of the code 9 600+ color illustrations
(1,008 pages)
VIEW SAMPLE PAGES ONLINE
Hard Cover #4000S12
100+ WORKED-OUT EXAMPLES!

B: SEISMIC AND WIND FORCES: STRUCTURAL
DESIGN EXAMPLES, 4TH EDITION
This new edition by Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., F.I.C.E.,
C. ENG., has been updated to the 2012 IBC, ASCE/SEI
7-10, ACI 318-11, NDS-2012, AISC 341-10, AISC 358-10,
AISC 360-10, and the 2011 MSJC Code. In each chapter,
sections of the code are presented and explained in a
logical and simple manner and followed by illustrative
examples. More than 100 completely worked-out design
A B C examples clearly illustrate proper application of the code
requirements. Problems are solved in a straight forward
INCLUDES BONUS SOLUTIONS MANUAL! step-by-step fashion with extensive use of illustrations and
A: STRUCTURAL LOADS: 2012 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-10 load diagrams. (580 pages)
Presents requirements in a straightforward manner Soft Cover #9185S4 | PDF Download #8804P
with emphasis placed on proper application in everyday
practice. The structural load provisions are organized in FROM SFPE AND ICC!
FRPSUHKHQVLYHĠRZFKDUWVWKDWSURYLGHDURDGPDSWR C: ENGINEERING GUIDE: FIRE SAFETY FOR VERY TALL
guide the reader through the requirements. A valuable BUILDINGS
training resource for those who need to understand how to A new information tool from ICC and SFPE for designers,
determine structural loads including dead load, occupancy builders and all engineering professionals to better
live load, roof live load and environmental loads such as XQGHUVWDQGğUHSURWHFWLRQLVVXHVLQYHU\WDOOEXLOGLQJV
UDLQVQRZLFHĠRRGZLQGDQGVHLVPLFORDGV7KLVHGLWLRQ 7KHIRFXVLVRQğUHDQGUHODWHGHYHQWVDQGWKHDIIHFWRI
includes a new chapter on load path, a new section on WKHVHHYHQWVRQOLIHVDIHW\DQGğUHğJKWHUVDIHW\7RSLFV
atmospheric ice loads, completely updated discussion of covered include: risks, unique challenges, egress, smoke
the new wind design procedures in ASCE/SEI 7-10, and PDQDJHPHQWğUHğJKWHUQHHGVVWUXFWXUDOğUHUHVLVWDQFH
problems at the end of each chapter. A complete Solutions design, site infrastructure, commissioning, inspection,
Manual is included as an online bonus. (550 pages) maintenance, and change of occupancy/use. (155 pages)
Soft Cover #4034S12 | PDF Download #8950P261 Soft cover #9627S | PDF Download #8950P300

D E F G H I
NEW FROM NCSEA AND ICC! G: DESIGN OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE

D: GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF BUILDING SYSTEMS FOR BUILDINGS: BASED ON THE 2009 IBC®, ASCE/SEI
SERVICEABILITY: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2012 7-05, ACI 318-08
IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-10 This publication by David A. Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.,
Provides practical information and design examples F.ASCE, will help engineers analyze, design and detail
for design professionals to evaluate the serviceability low-rise cast-in-place conventionally reinforced concrete
performance of buildings in accordance with the buildings in accordance with the 2009 IBC®. Section
requirements of the 2012 IBC and referenced standards. numbers and equation numbers from the 2009 IBC, ACI
Author Kurt D. Swensson, Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP, provides DQG$6&(6(,WKDWSHUWDLQWRWKHVSHFLğF
detailed explanations and examples of proper application requirements are provided throughout the text. The guide’s
of code provisions and standards for a broad scope of straightforward approach makes it an ideal reference for
materials, building systems, and building components, practicing engineers, engineers studying for licensing
covering the vast majority of limit states encountered in the exams, structural plan check engineers and civil engineering
structural design of buildings. Each chapter contains basic students. (384 pages)
information necessary for consideration of serviceability Soft Cover #7034S09 | PDF Download #8950P075
performance and several example problems associated with
an example building type. (220 pages) H: STEEL STRUCTURES DESIGN: ASD/LRFD
Soft Cover #7071S12 | PDF Download #8950P293 Author Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., C. Eng., introduces
the theoretical and fundamental basics of steel design
E: STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF LOW-RISE BUILDINGS IN and covers the detailed design of members and their
COLD-FORMED STEEL, REINFORCED MASONRY, AND connections. The book provides clear interpretations of the
STRUCTURAL TIMBER 2010 AISC Steel Design Manual; ASCE 7-05; and 2009
Author J.R. Ubejd Mujagic provides a concise, practical IBC. Contains 250+ design examples with step-by-step
guide that authoritatively covers the primary aspects of solutions. (624 pages)
structural design of low-rise buildings in the most common Hard Cover #9363S
materials: cold-formed steel, reinforced masonry, and
structural timber. (448 pages) FROM ICC AND NCSEA!
Hard Cover #9252S I: INSPECTION, TESTING, AND MONITORING OF
BUILDINGS AND BRIDGES
F: REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES: ANALYSIS Addressing both applications and emerging technologies
AND DESIGN related to the inspection, testing, and monitoring of
Author David A. Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., covers the civil engineering structures and structural systems, this
analysis, design, and detailing requirements in ACI 318-08 book covers a variety of topics by recognized experts in
DQGWKH,%&'HVLJQSURFHGXUHVDQGĠRZFKDUWVJXLGH WKHLUUHVSHFWLYHğHOGVWritten by the National Council
you through code requirements, and worked-out examples of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the
demonstrate the proper application of the design provisions. book considers visual, destructive and nondestructive
(652 pages) evaluation. The organization of the book proceeds from
Hard cover #9359S primarily visual inspection and evaluation of structures to
more in-depth analysis procedures. Many materials are
addressed, including reinforced concrete, structural steel,
ORDER YOURS TODAY! WLPEHUPDVRQU\DQGğEHUUHLQIRUFHGSRO\PHUV7KHERRN
is intended as a reference for engineers routinely faced with
1-800-786-4452 complex evaluation requirements. (180 pages)
www.iccsafe.org/books Soft Cover #7845S | PDF Download #8950P193
13-08300

ICC Plan Review Services…
Providing Quality Solutions to Your Toughest Plan
Review challenges
From high-rise commercial structures and retail centers, to educational and
residential developments, the International Code Council’s Plan Review
Services delivers the most comprehensive, detailed plan reviews available.
.H\%HQHğWVRI,&&3ODQ5HYLHZ6HUYLFHV
ō Quality solutions to even your most complex plan review projects.
ō Expert plan reviewers who work directly with you to meet your unique
turnaround requirements while maintaining the highest standards of quality.
ō Competitive fees.
Let’s talk about how ICC can support your projects with the most comprehensive,
detailed plan reviews available. Call 888-ICC-SAFE (888-422-7233) and talk to Chris
Reeves at x4309 or Doug Connell at x5226.
Or visit www.iccsafe.org/planreview.
13-07752

2012 Ibc Seaoc SSDM Vol3 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2012 Ibc Seaoc SSDM Vol3 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2012 IBC

SEAOC STRUCTURAL/SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd i 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

International Code Council

First Printing: August 2013

ii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd ii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may issue written errata.

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 iii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd iii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Preface to the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 v

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd v 8/15/13 8:41 AM

This expanded edition comprises five volumes:

• Volume 1: Code Application Examples

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 vii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd vii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 ix

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd ix 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Karl Telleen, S.E., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Jon Kiland, S.E., Applied Technology Council—Volume 3 Manager and Example 3

Jeremiah LeGrue, S.E., Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. Structural Engineers—Example 4.

Stephen Harris, S.E., Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.—Example 5

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xi

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xi 8/14/13 4:41 PM

Production and art was provided by the International Code Council.

xii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

ASCE/SEI 41-06, 2007, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Structural Engineering

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xiii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xiii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

xiv 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xiv 8/15/13 8:41 AM

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xv

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xv 8/15/13 8:41 AM

Abbreviations used in the “Code Reference” column are

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xvii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd xvii 8/15/13 8:41 AM

The purpose of this design example is twofold:

2. To demonstrate the design and detailing of wall boundary zones.

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 1

01_Example-01_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 1 8/6/13 3:36 PM

1. Building Geometry and Loads

2. Load Combinations for Design

3. Preliminary Sizing of Wall

4. Flexural Strength at Base of Wall

5. Flexural Strength and Lap Splices over Height of Wall

6. Shear Strength of Wall

7. Shear Friction (Sliding Shear) Strength of Wall

8. Detailing of Wall Boundary Elements

1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7

1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION

2 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

01_Example-01_2012_IBC_SSDM_V3.indd 2 8/6/13 3:36 PM

• Seismic Design Category D

• Redundancy factor, ρ = 1.0

• Seismic Importance factor, I = 1.0

• Concrete strength, fc′ = 5000 psi

• Steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi

Figure 1–1. Floor plan

1.2 DESIGN LOADS AND LATERAL FORCES