Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames

NIST GCR 8-917-1
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1
Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete
Special Moment Frames:
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Jack P. Moehle
John D. Hooper
Chris D. Lubke
Disclaimers
The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all of its publications.
However, in North America in the construction and building materials industry, certain non-SI units are so widely used instead of SI units that it
is more practical and less confusing to include measurement values for customary units only.
This report was prepared for the Building and Fire Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology under contract
number SC134107CQ0019, Task Order 68003. The statements and conclusions contained in this report are those of the authors and do not
imply recommendations or endorsements by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
This Technical Brief was produced under contract to NIST by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Applied Technology
Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While endeavoring to provide practical
and accurate information in this publication, the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, the authors, and the reviewers do not assume liability for,
nor make any expressed or implied warranty with regard to, the use of its information. Users of the information in this publication assume all
liability arising from such use.
Cover photo – Reinforced concrete special moment frame under construction.

NIST GCR 8-917-1
Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete
Special Moment Frames:
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600
By
Jack P. Moehle, Ph.D., P.E.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
John D. Hooper, P.E., S.E.

Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Seattle, Washington
Chris D. Lubke, P.E.

Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Seattle, Washington
August, 2008
U.S. Department of Commerce

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary
National Institute of Standards and Technology

James M. Turner, Deputy Director
NEHRP Seismic Design About The Authors
Technical Briefs Jack P. Moehle, Ph.D., P.E. is Professor of Civil and Environmental
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Technical Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches
Briefs are published by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and and conducts research on earthquake-resistant concrete construction.
Technology, as aids to the efficient transfer of NEHRP and other research He is a Fellow of the American Concrete Institute and has served on the
into practice, thereby helping to reduce the nation’s losses from earthquakes. ACI Code Committee 318 for 19 years, including 13 years as the chair of
the seismic subcommittee. He is an Honorary Member of the Structural
Engineers Association of Northern California.
National Institute of John D. Hooper, P.E., S.E., is Director of Earthquake Engineering at

Magnusson Klemencic Associates, a structural and civil engineering firm
Standards and Technology headquartered in Seattle, Washington. He is a member of the Building Seismic
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a federal Safety Council’s 2009 Provisions Update Committee and chair of the
technology agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce that promotes American Society of Civil Engineers Seismic Subcommittee for ASCE 7-10.
U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement
science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security Chris D. Lubke, P.E., is a Design Engineer with Magnusson Klemencic
and improve our quality of life. It is the lead agency of the National Associates, a structural and civil engineering firm headquartered in Seattle,
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Dr. John (Jack) R. Washington. He is the firm’s in-house reinforced concrete moment frame
Hayes is the Director of NEHRP, within NIST's Building and Fire Research specialist, and has experience designing a number of building types,
Laboratory (BFRL). including laboratories, high-rise office and residential towers, and
convention centers.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

This NIST-funded publication is one of the products of the work of the About the Review Panel
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture carried out under Contract SB The contributions of the three review panelists for this publication are
134107CQ0019, Task Order 68003. The partners in the NEHRP gratefully acknowledged.
Consultants Joints Venture are the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and
the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering John A. Martin, Jr., structural engineer, is the president of John A. Martin
(CUREE). The members of the Joint Venture Management Committee are and Associates in Los Angeles, California. He is responsible for the firm’s
James R. Harris, Robert Reitherman, Christopher Rojahn, and Andrew structural design and production services to clients and is a Fellow of the
Whittaker, and the Program Manager is Jon A. Heintz. American Concrete Institute.
Sharon L. Wood is the Robert L. Parker, Sr. Centennial Professor in

Applied Technology Council (ATC) Engineering in the Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
201 Redwood Shores Parkway - Suite 240 Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. She is the Director of the
Redwood City, California 94065 University’s Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, a member of
(650) 595-1542 the Structural Concrete Building Code Committee of the American Concrete
www.atcouncil.org email: atc@atcouncil.org Institute, and an ACI Fellow.
Loring A. Wyllie, Jr. is a structural engineer and principal of Degenkolb

Consortium of Universities for Research in Engineers in San Francisco, California. He is the 2007 recipient of the
Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) American Society of Civil Engineers Outstanding Projects and Leaders
1301 South 46th Street - Building 420 (OPAL) design award. He is a past president of the Structural Engineers
Richmond, CA 94804 Association of California and the Earthquake Engineering Research
(510) 665-3529 Institute. He is a member of the Structural Concrete Building Code Committee
www.curee.org email: curee@curee.org of the American Concrete Institute and an Honorary Member of ACI.
How to Cite This Publication

Moehle, Jack P., Hooper, John D., and Lubke, Chris D. (2008). "Seismic design of reinforced concrete special moment frames: a guide for
practicing engineers," NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the
Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD., NIST GCR 8-917-1
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2. The Use of Special Moment Frames...................................................................................2
3. Principles for Design of Special Moment Frames..............................................................4
4. Analysis Guidance................................................................................................................6
5. Design Guidance..................................................................................................................8
6. Additional Requirements...................................................................................................19
7. Detailing and Constructability Issues................................................................................21
8. References.........................................................................................................................24
9. Notation and Abbreviations................................................................................................25
10. Credits.................................................................................................................................27
Sidebars are used in this guide to illustrate key

points, to highlight construction issues, and to
provide additional guidance on good practices and
open issues in special moment frame design.
Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
1
Building codes present minimum requirements for
design, construction, and administration of
buildings, and are legal requirements where
adopted by the authority having jurisdiction over the
ACI 318-05 (ACI 2005) is currently the referenced building. Thus, where adopted, the Building Code
document for concrete seismic construction in Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08)
most jurisdictions in the U.S. In the interest of must, as a minimum, be followed. In addition to
incorporating the most recent developments, the Building Code, the American Concrete Institute
however, this guide is based on ACI 318-08 (ACI also produces guides and recommended practices.
2008). Most of the technical requirements of the An example is Recommendations for Design of
two documents for special moment frames are Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic
essentially the same. One notable difference is Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02) (ACI
the effective stiffness requirements for calculating 2002). In general, guides of this type present
lateral deflections in Chapter 8. In addition, recommended good practice, which as a minimum
Chapter 21 was revised to refer to Seismic Design also meets the requirements of the Building Code.
Categories directly, and was reorganized so the
requirements for special systems, including This guide is written mainly to clarify requirements
special moment frames, are later in the chapter of the Building Code, but it also introduces other
than in earlier editions of the code. As a result, guides such as ACI 352R-02 and it presents other
section numbers 21.6 through 21.13 in ACI 318-08, recommendations for good design and construction
the reference document used in this guide, practices. This guide is written to clearly
correspond generally to sections 21.4 through differentiate between Building Code requirements
21.11 in ACI 318-05. and other recommendations.
2.1 Historic Development
2
2.2 When To Use Special Moment Frames 2.4 Strength and Drift Limits
2.3 Frame Proportioning
Table 2-1
Table 2-1 hsx
Cd
Table 2-1
3
R
R Figure 3-1c
Figure 3-1b
3.2 Avoid Shear Failure
3.1 Design a Strong-column /

Weak-beam Frame
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-1a
Figure 3-1c
(a) Story mechanism (b) Intermediate mechanism (c) Beam mechanism

Figure 3-1
4
Figure
3-3
Figure 3-2
Ample shear reinforcement
3.3 Detail for Ductile Behavior
Vc
Confinement for heavily loaded sections Avoidance of anchorage or splice failure
fy
(a) Section (b) Elevation
Figure 3-3
5
4.1 Analysis Procedure
Ta
Figure 3-1(a)
CuTa
4.2 Stiffness Recommendations
Table 4-1
Table 4-1
Table 4-2 e g
Table 4-2
e g
6
4.3 Foundation Modeling
Figure 4-1
Figure
4-1 (a)
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-1 (b), (c), and (d)
Figure
4-2 Figure 4-2
7
Mpr
5.1 Beam Flexure and Longitudinal The overstrength factor 1.25 is thought to be a low
Reinforcement estimate of the actual overstrength that might occur
for a beam. Reinforcement commonly used in the
U.S. has an average yield stress about 15 percent
higher than the nominal value (fy), and it is not
unusual for the actual tensile strength to be 1.5
times the actual yield stress. Thus, if a reinforcing
bar is subjected to large strains during an
earthquake, stresses well above 1.25 fy are likely.
The main reason for estimating beam flexural
overstrength conservatively is to be certain there is
sufficient strength elsewhere in the structure to
Mn > Mu. resist the forces that develop as the beams yield in
flexure. The beam overstrength is likely to be offset
by overstrength throughout the rest of the building
as well. The factor 1.25 in ACI 318 was established
recognizing all these effects.
When a slab is cast monolithically with a beam, the
slab acts as a flange, increasing the flexural
stiffness and strength of the beam. ACI 318 is not
explicit on how to account for this T-beam behavior in
seismic designs, creating ambiguity, and leading to Mpr
different practices in different design offices. One
practice is to size the beam for the code required
moment strength considering only the longitudinal fy
reinforcement within the beam web. Another
practice is to size the beam for this moment
including developed longitudinal reinforcement within
both the web and the effective flange width defined in
ACI 318 - 8.12. Regardless of the approach used to
initially size the beam, it is important to recognize
that the developed flange reinforcement acts as
flexural tension reinforcement when the beam
moment puts the slab in tension. ACI 318 - 21.6.2.2
requires this slab reinforcement to be considered as Figure 5-1.
beam longitudinal tension reinforcement for the
purpose of calculating the relative strengths of
columns and beams.
Figure 5-1
8
Gravity
Sway right
Beam moments Probable moment strengths
Sway left
(a) Reversing beam (b) Non-reversing

plastic hinges beam plastic hinges
Figure 5-2
Figure 5-2(a)
5.2 Joint Shear and Anchorage
Figure 5-2(b)
Figure 5-3
Mpr+ + Mpr - > wu n2 / 2 Figure 5-3
9
As
Vn
Vj Figure 5-5
Aj Figure 5-6
Figure 5-4
Vcol Figure 5-7
Figure 5-6
Figure 5-4 A B
A B Ve2,A
Ve1, B
Mpr
Vcol
Vj
Figure 5-
5
Asfy
Figure 5-6
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-7
Figure 5-5
10
Figure 5-7
Figures 5-8 5-9
Figure 5-8
Plan view of connection Elevation

(Top beam bars) (Section A-A)
Figure 5-8
11
Plan view of connection Elevation
(Top beam bars) (Section A-A)
Figure 5-9
Figure 5-9
5.3 Beam Shear and

Transverse Reinforcement
Figure 5-10
Mpr
12
2h
Figure 5-11
Figure 5-10 2h
Figure 5-12
Figure 5-11
13
Figure 5-12
Vc Vs Ve
Where hoops are being provided at each end of a

beam and along a reinforcement splice, there may
not be much length of the beam left where stirrups
are acceptable. Because of this aspect, and to
prevent placement errors, it is practical to extend the
hoop detail and spacing over the entire length of the
beam. A quick quantity comparison should be
conducted to see the difference in the amount of
detailed reinforcement. Both the weight of
reinforcement and the number of pieces to be placed Figure 5-11
in the field affect the cost and should be considered
when specifying the hoops and stirrups. If a design
with hoops and stirrups with different configurations Hoops are required along the beam end zones
and spacing is specified, more rigorous observations (where flexural yielding is expected) and along lap
need to be conducted by the engineer to ensure that splices, with spacing limits as noted in .
ironworkers and special inspectors have a clear Elsewhere, transverse reinforcement is required at a
understanding of the placement requirements. These spacing not to exceed d/2 and is permitted to be in
observations are most crucial early in the the form of beam stirrups with seismic hooks.
construction process when the first level of beams is
constructed. Generally after the first level, the
reinforcement pattern is properly replicated.
5.4 Column Design and Reinforcement
Vc
Vs Ve
Ve
14
Laboratory tests demonstrate that column Design axial loads are calculated using ASCE 7 load
performance is negatively affected by high axial combinations, usually based on analysis of a linear-
loads. As axial loads increase, demands on the elastic model of the structure. During a strong
compressed concrete increase. At and above the earthquake, structural elements may respond
balanced point, flexural yielding occurs by “yielding” nonlinearly, with internal forces different from those
the compression zone, which can compromise calculated using a linear model. For example, if the
axial load-carrying capability. Although ACI 318 building shown in developed a beam
permits the maximum design axial load for a tied hinging mechanism over its entire height, every beam
column as high as 0.80 Po = 0.52Po , good design would develop the probable moment strength Mpr.
practice would aim for lower axial loads. It is This moment is higher than the design moment
recommended to limit the design axial load to the determined from the linear analysis and will generally
balanced point of the column interaction diagram. lead to higher internal forces in other elements such
as columns.
For the exterior column at the right side of

, the axial load could be as high as the sum of
the shears Ve2 from the yielding beams over the
height of the building (see ) plus the
loads from the column self-weight and other
elements supported by the column. Of course, there
is no way to know if the full-height beam yielding
Agf’c mechanism will be realized, so there is no way to
know with certainty how high the axial loads will be.
Since high axial loads reduce column performance
this is another reason why good design practice
aims to keep design axial loads low.
Figure 3-1 (b) and (c)
Mn
Figure 5-13 Figure 5-

14 Figure 5-14
Sway right Sway left
Figure 5-13 Figure 5-14
15
Figure 5-15
d/2 d
The requirement that the column be stronger than h
the beam is important to avoid formation of story
mechanisms such as the one illustrated in
. ACI 318 requires that the contribution of the
slab to flexural strength be considered in this case,
especially including the contribution of the devel-
oped slab reinforcement within the effective flange
width defined in Section 8.12.
A common construction form in modern buildings

uses unbonded post-tensioned slabs cast
monolithically with conventionally reinforced beams.
Placing the unbonded strands outside the effective
flange width does not mean those strands do not
contribute to beam flexural strength. This is
because, away from the slab edge, the post
tensioning produces a fairly uniform compressive
stress field across the plate including the beam
cross section (see sketch).
Uniform
prestress
away
from slab
edge
Figure 5-15
Plan
A reasonable approach is to calculate the average

prestress acting on the combined slab-beam
system, then apply this prestress to the T-beam
cross section to determine the effective axial
compression on the T-beam. This axial load, acting
at the level of the slab, is used along with the beam Ash = 0.3(sbcf’c / fyt)[(Ag / Ach) - 1]
longitudinal reinforcement to calculate the T-beam
flexural strength. This recommendation applies Ash = 0.09sbcf’c / fyt
only for interior connections that are far enough
away from the slab edge so as to be fully stressed
by the post-tensioning. It need not apply at an
exterior connection close to the slab edge because
the post-tensioning will not effectively compress the Figure 5-16 Ash1
beam at that location. bc1 bc
Ash2 bc2
16
Consecutive crossties engaging the
same longitudinal bar have their 90
hooks on opposite sides of column
6de extension
6de > 3 in. Ash2
xi
b c2
xi Ve
Ash1
xi xi xi Figure 5-17(a)
b c1 Vcode
The dimension xi from centerline of centerline to tie legs Ve

is not to exceed 14 inches. The term hx is taken as the Figure 5-17(b) Mpr
largest value of xi.
Figure 5-16 fy Mpr
Figure 5-18
Pu1 Pu2
Column hoops should be configured with at
least three hoop or crosstie legs restraining
longitudinal bars along each face. A single
perimeter hoop without crossties, legally
permitted by ACI 318 for small column cross
sections, is discouraged because confinement
effectiveness is low.
Poorly Improved Well

confined confinement confined Mpr
Figure 5-17(c)
(a) From analysis (b) Column hinging (c) Beam hinging

Figure 5-17
17
Mpr Mu x Vcode
Ve
Vc Vs Ve
Vc 0
Figure 5-15
Agf’c
Ve Vu
Vc Ve
Figure
4-2
Figure 5-18 Mpr
Mpr
Similar to the discussion on beam hoops and

stirrups, when a lap splice of the vertical column
reinforcement is present, there is often not much
space left to take advantage of the more relaxed 0
column tie spacing outside the 0 regions shown
in . For this reason, it is common
practice to specify a uniform tie spacing to
prevent misplaced ties during construction.
Where bars are not spliced at every floor, perhaps
every other floor, more economy can be realized
by specifying a larger spacing between the 0
regions. The benefit can be seen by simply
counting the number of ties that can be saved as
the spacing is relaxed. Agf’c
Vcode
Vcode 0 Figure
5-13
h
Mpr Mu
18
6.1 Special Inspection
6.2 Material Properties
fy
f’c
19
6.3 Additional System Design
Requirements
fyt
fyt
Figure 4-2
fy
fy
Figure
7-2
20
7.1 Longitudinal Bar Compatibility
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-1
21
Figure 7-3
7.2 Beam and Column Confinement
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-2
Figure 5-16
Figure 7-4
Figure 5-16
Figure 7-3
22
0
0
Figure 7-5
Figure 7-6
Figure 7-4
7.4 Concrete Placement
7.3 Bar Splices
23
Figure 7-5 Figure 7-6
24
fyt fy
Ach
h
Ag
hx xi
Figure 5-16
Aj
hsx
Figure 5-6
As
hx
As’
Ie
Ash
s
bc
Ig
Ast
c
b
dh
bc
Ash
bw
Cd
n
Cpr Mpr
0
Cu
L
d
Mn
M pr
D
db
fy
Mpr+ and Mpr -
E
f’c
Figure 5-3
fy
Mu
25
P D L Ve
Po
Ag Ast Ast Vj
Pu
Vn
R Vs
s
Vu
S
wu
s0
x
SDS
Figure 5-6
xi
T
Ta
Tpr Mpr
Vc o
Vcode
Vcol
26
Cover photo
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1, 4-2, 5-1
5-2, 5-3, 5-4
5-5, 5-6
5-7, 5-8, 5-9
5-10
5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15
5-16
5-17, 5-18
7-1
7-2
7-3, 7-4
7-5
7-6
27

Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames

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

Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NIST GCR 8-917-1

NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1

Cover photo – Reinforced concrete special moment frame under construction.

John D. Hooper, P.E., S.E.

Chris D. Lubke, P.E.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Institute of John D. Hooper, P.E., S.E., is Director of Earthquake Engineering at

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

Sharon L. Wood is the Robert L. Parker, Sr. Centennial Professor in

Loring A. Wyllie, Jr. is a structural engineer and principal of Degenkolb

How to Cite This Publication

Sidebars are used in this guide to illustrate key

2.1 Historic Development

2.3 Frame Proportioning

Table 2-1 hsx

3.2 Avoid Shear Failure

3.1 Design a Strong-column /

(a) Story mechanism (b) Intermediate mechanism (c) Beam mechanism

3.3 Detail for Ductile Behavior

Confinement for heavily loaded sections Avoidance of anchorage or splice failure

(a) Section (b) Elevation

4.2 Stiffness Recommendations

Figure 4-1 (b), (c), and (d)

Beam moments Probable moment strengths

(a) Reversing beam (b) Non-reversing

Mpr+ + Mpr - > wu n2 / 2 Figure 5-3

Figures 5-8 5-9

Plan view of connection Elevation

5.3 Beam Shear and

Where hoops are being provided at each end of a

5.4 Column Design and Reinforcement

For the exterior column at the right side of

Figure 5-13 Figure 5-

Sway right Sway left

Figure 5-13 Figure 5-14

A common construction form in modern buildings

A reasonable approach is to calculate the average

The dimension xi from centerline of centerline to tie legs Ve

Figure 5-16 fy Mpr

Poorly Improved Well

(a) From analysis (b) Column hinging (c) Beam hinging

Figure 5-18 Mpr

Similar to the discussion on beam hoops and

6.2 Material Properties

7.2 Beam and Column Confinement

7.3 Bar Splices

4-1, 4-2, 5-1

5-2, 5-3, 5-4

5-7, 5-8, 5-9

5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi