2012 Ibc Seaoc SSDM Vol4

2012 IBC
SEAOC STRUCTURAL/SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL

®
Volume 4
EXAMPLES FOR STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd i 8/28/13 5:13 PM

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 (Southern California, Northern California, San Diego, and Central 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. 4
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd ii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

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. 4 iii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd iii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd iv 8/28/13 5:13 PM
Table of Contents
Preface to the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface to Volume 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
How to Use This Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Design Example 1
Special Moment Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Design Example 2
Special Concentrically Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Design Example 3
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Design Example 4
Special Plate Shear Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Design Example 5
Eccentrically Braced Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Design Example 6
Multi-Panel OCBF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Design Example 7
Metal Deck Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
a. Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
b. Concrete-Filled Deck (Rigid) Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Design Example 8
Special Moment Frame Base Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Design Example 9
Braced-Frame Base Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Appendix 1: General Building Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 v
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd v 8/28/13 5:13 PM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd vi 8/28/13 5:13 PM
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. 4 vii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd vii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd viii 8/28/13 5:13 PM
Preface to Volume 4
Volume 4 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual addresses the design of steel building
systems for seismic loading. Examples include the illustration of the design requirements for braced frames
and moment frames, as were illustrated in previous editions, and also important interfaces with the rest of
the structure.
The design examples in this volume represent a range of steel structural systems. The Manual includes a set
of examples that illustrate a more complete design: the design of diaphragms and collectors is illustrated,
as are the design of base plates and anchorages for moment-frame and braced-frame columns. With the
addition of these items this edition of the Manual offers more extensive guidance to engineers, addressing
the design of these critical components of the seismic system.
The design of each of these systems is governed by standards developed by the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC). AISC produces its own Seismic Design Manual to illustrate the correct application of
the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC 341) and the AISC Prequalification Standard (AISC 358). The AISC
Seismic Design Manual is a valuable resource for designers, and this volume is not intended to duplicate
AISC’s efforts. This manual, for example, does not include the detailed range of options for gusset-plate
design, as the AISC Seismic Design Manual addresses this design aspect thoroughly.
Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference in purpose and approach between this manual and the AISC
Seismic Design Manual. The AISC Manual illustrates the code requirements, while the SEAOC Structural/
Seismic Design Manual illustrates SEAOC’s recommended practices, which traditionally have gone beyond
the code (or in advance of it). The design examples for base plates are important examples of design
methodologies not explicitly defined by building codes. Building code provisions for these connections
are difficult to apply and do not correspond well to the mechanisms of resistance. The examples herein
provide a convenient and valuable alternative methodology, one that is not an illustration of explicit code
requirements.
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 or 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.
Rafael Sabelli
Volume 4 Manager
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 ix
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd ix 8/28/13 5:13 PM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd x 8/28/13 5:13 PM
Acknowledgements
Volume 4 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.
Kevin S. Moore, S.E., SECB, Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger—Examples 1 and 8
With multiple state licenses, Kevin has more than 18 years of experience in structural engineering design,
analysis, and evaluation. He is the Chair of the SEAOC Structural Standards Committee, Past Chair of the
SEAOC Seismology Committee, and Chair of the Seismic Subcommittee of the NCSEA Code Advisory
Committee. He has written multiple papers and design examples associated with steel design, seismic
forces, and structural systems. Kevin is also a member of the AISC Connection Prequalification Review
Panel. www.sgh.com
Rafael Sabelli, S.E., Principal, Director of Seismic Design, Walter P. Moore—Volume 4 Manager and
Example 2
Rafael Sabelli is a member of the AISC Task Committee on the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chair of the AISC Seismic Design Manual committee, a member of the ASCE 7 Seismic
subcommittee, and a member of the BSSC Provisions Update Committee and Code Resource Support
Committee. He is the coauthor (with Michel Bruneau) of AISC Design Guide 20: Steel Plate Shear Walls
as well as of numerous research papers on conventional and buckling-restrained braced frames. He has
served as Chair of the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California and as
President of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. Rafael was the co-recipient of the
2008 AISC T.R. Higgins Lectureship and was the 2000 NEHRP Professional Fellow in Earthquake Hazard
Reduction.
Anindya Dutta, S.E., Ph.D, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger—Example 3

Dr. Dutta has over 12 years of experience in structural and earthquake engineering. He has provided
analysis and design of a variety structures in high seismic zones. Dr. Dutta’s experience also includes
seismic evaluation and strengthening of low-rise to high-rise structures. He has taught graduate and
undergraduate level courses on concrete design and structural analysis at the State University of New York
at Buffalo and is a regular lecturer at the San Francisco State University’s graduate program and at the
University of California at Berkeley’s extension program. He has authored a number of technical reports
and journal papers as well as served as a member of the review board for ASCE’s Structural Engineering
Journal.
Kenneth Tam, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger—Example 3

Kenneth has more than 17 years of experience in the field of structural and earthquake engineering. His
experience includes structural design and evaluation of variety of structures in high seismic zones. He has
co-authored various papers on design and analysis of buckling-restrained braced frames and has served on
the ASCE41-13 Steel Subcommittee.
Matthew R. Eatherton, Ph.D., S.E., Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech—Example 4

Matt has seven years of experience as a practicing structural engineer conducting high-seismic design
in the San Francisco Bay Area. Now he serves on the faculty at Virginia Tech where he teaches classes
on steel design, structural dynamics, and earthquake engineering. His research program includes both
experimental and computational investigations of steel-plate shear walls, self-centering seismic systems,
steel connections, and more. www.eatherton.cee.vt.edu
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xi
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xi 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Scott M. Adan, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., SECB, Principal, Adan Engineering—Example 5
With over 21 years of experience, Dr. Adan specializes in the investigation and design of buildings
and structures. He is also actively involved in the research and development of steel moment-resisting
connections. For the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, he chairs the Steel
Subcommittee. For the American Institute of Steel Construction, he is a member of the Seismic Design
Manual Subcommittee, the Connection Prequalification Review Panel, and the Seismic Design Task
Committee. www.adanengineering.com
Anna Dix, S.E., Associate, Liftech Consultants Inc.—Example 6

Anna has eight years of practice in design and analysis of steel and concrete structures. Her focus is
on special-use and marine structures including cranes, wharves, and heavy-lift and container-handling
equipment. She has specialized experience with ductile tie-down systems for cranes, seismic design
and analysis of steel structures, seismic crane-wharf interaction, designing ductile steel frames, and
investigating fatigue cracking for various structures. In her spare time, Anna introduces engineering to
inquisitive young minds. www.liftech.net
Katy Briggs, S.E., Project Engineer, Thornton Tomasetti—Example 7

A licensed S.E. in the State of California, Katy Briggs has seven years of experience in structural analysis
and design. She has worked on new buildings and seismic retrofits of existing buildings utilizing wood,
steel, concrete, and masonry construction. These projects include education, healthcare, government,
correctional, and commercial facilities. She has been involved with writing and editing design examples for
steel diaphragms and special concentrically braced frames.
Amit Kanvinde, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Davis—Example 8
Amit’s research heavily focuses on the seismic response of steel structures and connections through
experimentation and simulation. Pertinent to the design example, he has conducted 28 large-scale tests
on column base connections and is the author of two major technical reports and several journal and
conference papers on the topic of base plates. His other recent research has addressed the fracture of
seismic column splices in moment frames and braces in SCBF systems. He is the recipient of the 2008
ASCE Norman Medal and the 2003 EERI Graduate Student Paper award addressing the collapse of
structures.
David A. Grilli, M.S., E.I.T., Graduate Student Researcher, University of California, Davis—
Example 8
David is a doctoral student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Davis.
Through large-scale experimentation, his work addresses the seismic response of embedded and exposed
column-base plates. Pertinent to this example, he is co-author of a journal article that characterizes the
rotational flexibility of exposed column base connections. David was the recipient of the AISC Structural
Steel Education Council scholarship in 2009, and the Farrer/Patten Award for outstanding student in Civil
Engineering at UC Davis in 2012.
Lindsey Maclise, Associate, Forell/Elsesser Engineers Inc.—Example 9

Lindsey is currently an Associate with Forell/Elsesser Engineers specializing in seismic design for both new
construction and retrofit. She received her B.S. and M.S. from the University of California, Berkeley and is
an active member of SEAONC, SEI, and EERI. She is currently serving as a Housner Fellow for her work
in Sustainable Seismic Design. www.forell.com
xii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

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:
Geoff Bomba
Mike Cochran
Andrew Cussen
Tom Hale
Walterio López
Sara Jozefiak
Ryan Kersting
Benjamin Mohr
Carrie Leung
Thomas Nunziata
Patxi Uriz
Laura Whitehurst
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.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xiii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xiii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xiv 8/28/13 5:13 PM
References
Standards
American Concrete Institute. ACI 318: Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2011.
American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC 341: Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC 358: Prequalified Connections for Special and
Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
American Institute of Steel Construction. AISC 360: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
Chicago, Illinois, 2010.
American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures. ASCE 2010.
International Code Council. International Building Code (IBC). Falls Church, Virginia, 2012.
Other References
American Institute of Steel Construction. Manual of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2012.
American Institute of Steel Construction. Seismic Design Manual, Chicago, Illinois, 2013.
Anonymous, 1977. “Shear walls and slipforming speed Dallas’ Reunion project” Engineering News
Record, 20–21, July 28.
Anonymous, 1978a. “Patent problems, challenge spawn steel seismic walls” Engineering News
Record, 17, January 26.
Anonymous, 1978b. “Quake-proof hospital has battleship-like walls” Engineering News Record,
62–63, Sept. 21.
Astaneh-Asl, A. 2005. “Design of Shear Tab Connections for Gravity and Seismic Loads,” Steel
Technical Information and Product Report. Structural Steel Educational Council, CA.
Basler, K. 1961. “Strength of Plate Girders in Shear” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
Vol. 87, No. ST7 October.
Berman, J. W. and Bruneau, M. 2004. “Steel Plate Shear Walls are Not Plate Girders” AISC
Engineering Journal, Third Quarter.
Berman, J. W. and Bruneau, M. 2008. “Capacity Design of Vertical Boundary Elements in Steel
Plate Shear Walls” AISC Engineering Journal, First Quarter.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xv
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xv 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Bozorgnia, Y., Bertero, V., 2004. Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to
Performance-Based Engineering. CRC Press, LLC, Danvers, Massachusetts.
Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., and Sabelli, R. Ductile Design of Steel Structures. McGraw-Hill, 2011.
CAN/CSA S16-09 2009. “Limit States Design of Steel Structures,” published by Canadian
Standards Association.
Cheng, J.J.R., and Kulak, G.L. 2000. Gusset plate connection to round HSS tension members.
Engineering Journal, AISC, 4th Quarter, 133–139.
Clifton, C., Bruneau, M., MacRae, G., Leon, R., Russell, A., 2011. “Steel Structures Damage from
the Christchurch Earthquake of February 22, 2011,” NZST, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society
for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 4.
DeWolf, J. T., and Ricker, D. T. 1990. AISC Design Guide 1—Column Base Plates, Published by the
American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC.
Engelhardt, M., and Popov, E., 1989. “On Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames,” Earthquake
Spectra, EERI, Vol. 5, No. 3, 495–511.
Englehardt, M. Personal correspondence and notes. 2012.
Fisher, J.M. and Kloiber, L.A. 2006. “Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design,” 2nd Ed., Steel Design
Guide Series No. 1, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Gomez, I.R., Kanvinde A.M., and Deierlein G.G. 2010. “Exposed Column Base Connections
Subjected to Axial Compression and Flexure,” Report Submitted to the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.
Gomez, I.R., Kanvinde, A.M., and Deierlein, G.G. 2011. “Experimental investigation of shear
transfer in exposed column base connections,” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 4th Quarter, 246–264.
ICC/SEAOC 2006. “Design Example 4—Steel Plate Shear Walls”, 2006 IBC Structural/Seismic
Design Manual, Volume 3, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
Imanpour, A., Tremblay, R., and Davaran, A. “Seismic Evaluation of Multi-Panel Steel
Concentrically Braced Frames,” 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2012.
Lehman, D., Roeder, C. 2, Johnston, S. 1, Herman D. 1, and Kotulka, B. 1 2008 “Improved Seismic
Performance of Gusset Plate Connections”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134,
No. 6, 181–189.
Luttrell, Larry D. 1967. “Strength and behavior of light-gage steel shear diaphragms”, Cornell
Research Bulletin 67-1, sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute, Ithaca, NY.
Moehle, Jack P., Hooper, John D., Kelly, Dominic J., and Meyer, Thomas. 2010. “Seismic design
of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms, chords, and collectors: A guide for practicing engineers,”
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief Number 3, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint
Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities
xvi 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xvi 8/28/13 5:13 PM

for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 10-917-4.
Moore, Kevin S., Feng, Joyce Y., June 2007. “Design of RBS Connections for Special Moment
Frames,” Steel Tips. Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California.
Myers, A.T., Kanvinde, A.M., Deierlein, G.G., and Fell B.V. 2009, “Effect of Weld Details on the
Ductility of Steel Column Baseplate Connections,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
Volume 65, Issue 6, June 2009, 1366–1373.
Porter, D.M., Rockey, K.C. and Evans, H.R. 1975. “The collapse behavior of plate girders loaded in
shear”, The Structural Engineer, London England, Vol. 53, No. 8., Aug.
Prasad, Badri K., Thompson, Douglas S., and Sabelli, Rafael. 2009. Guide to the design of
diaphragms, chords and collectors based on the 2006 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05, International
Code Council Publications, Country Club Hills, IL.
Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2009. “Finite-Element Investigation and Design Recommendations

for Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 11,
1367–1376.
Purba, R., and Bruneau, M. 2007. Design Recommendations for Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls
Technical Report MCEER-07-0011.
Qu, B., and Bruneau, M. 2010. “Capacity Design of Intermediate Horizontal Boundary Elements of
Steel Plate Shear Walls” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 6.
Ricles, J., and Popov, E., 1989, “Composite Action in Eccentrically Braced Frames,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 8, 2046–2065.
Roberts, T. M. and Sabouri-Ghomi, S. 1991. “Hysteretic Characteristics of Unstiffened Plate Shear

Panels” Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier Science Publishers, Great Britain, 1991.
Rogers, C.A. and Tremblay, R. 2008. “Impact of Diaphragm Behavior on the Seismic Design of
Low-Rise Steel Buildings”, AISC Engineering Journal, First Quarter.
Sabelli, R. and Bruneau, M. 2006. AISC Design Guide 20—Steel Plate Shear Walls, Published by
the American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC.
Sabelli, Rafael, Sabol, Thomas A., and Easterling, Samuel W. 2011. “Seismic design of composite
steel deck and concrete-filled diaphragms: A guide for practicing engineers,” NEHRP Seismic
Design Technical Brief Number 5, 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 10-917-10.
Schumacher, A., Grondin, G.Y. and Kulak, G.L. 1999. “Connection of Infill Panels in Steel Plate
Shear Walls” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 26.
SDI 2004. Diaphragm design manual, Third Edition (SDI DDMO3), Steel Deck Institute, Fox
Grove, IL.
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xvii
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xvii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

SEAOC Blue Book, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
SEAOC Seismology Committee 2007. “Development of System Factors,” May 2007, The SEAOC
Blue Book: Seismic design Recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC Seismology Committee 2008. “Concentrically Braced Frames,” August, 2008, The SEAOC
Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA. Accessible via the world wide web at: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.
html
SEAOC Seismology Committee, FEMA 350 Task Group, 2002. “Commentary and
Recommendations on FEMA 350—Appendix D,” Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA.
Stoakes, C.D., Fahnestock, L.A. “Influence of Weak-axis Flexural Yielding on Strong-axis Buckling
Strength of Wide Flange Columns,” Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural
Stability Research Council, April 2012.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Seismology Committee, 2008. SEAOC

blue book: Seismic design recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA.
Thornton, W.A., and Fortney, P. 2012, “Satisfying Inelastic Rotation Requirements for In-plane
Critical Axis Brace Buckling for High Seismic Design.” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 49,
No. 3, 3rd Quarter.
Tremblay, R. 2001, “Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames,”
Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 38, No. 3, Chicago, IL.
Tremblay, R., Archambault, M.-H., Filiatrault, A. “Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced

Steel Frames Made with Rectangular Hollow Bracing Members,” December, 2003, Article 2003.
129:1626–1636, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Tremblay, R., et al. “Seismic Design of Steel Structures in Accordance with CSA-S16-09,” July 25–
29, 2010, Paper No. 1768, Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vian, D., and Bruneau, M. 2005. “Steel Plate Shear Walls for Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Building Structures” Technical Report MCEER 05-0010.
Vian, D., Bruneau, M., Tsai, K.C., and Lin, Y.-C. 2009. “Special Perforated Steel Plate Shear Walls
with Reduced Beam Section Anchor Beams 1: Experimental Investigation” Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 3, 211–220.
Wong, Alfred F. “Multi-tier Bracing Panels within a Storey,” Advantage Steel, Canadian Institute of
Steel Construction, No. 43, Summer 2012.
Zayas, V., Mahin, S., Popov, E. “Cyclic Inelastic Behavior of Steel Offshore Structures,” August
1980, Report No. UCB/EERC-80/27 to the American Petroleum Institute, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center & College of Engineering at University of California, Berkeley.
xviii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xviii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

How to Use This Document
Equation numbers in the right-hand margin refer to the one of the standards (e.g., AISC 341, AISC 358,
AISC 360, ASCE 7). 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. 4 xix
00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xix 8/28/13 5:13 PM

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xx 8/28/13 5:13 PM
Design Example 1
Special Moment Frame
OVERVIEW
Structural steel special moment frames (SMF) are typically comprised of wide-flange beams, columns, and
beam-column connections. Connections are proportioned and detailed to resist internal forces (flexural,
axial, and shear) that result from imposed displacement as a result of wind or earthquake ground shaking.
Inelasticity and energy dissipation are achieved through localized yielding of the beam element outside
of the beam-column connection. Special proportioning and detailing of this connection is essential to
achieving the desired inelastic behavior.
The anticipated seismic behavior of the SMF system is long-period, high-displacement motion, with
well distributed inelastic demand shared by all participating beam-column connections. System yielding
mechanisms are generally limited to frame beams with the intent to invoke yielding at the base of frame
columns. In many cases, engineers may model a SMF system with pin-based columns as significant stiffness
is required to yield the base of large wide-flange members. If yielding at the base of the frame is desired to
occur within the column section, the column might be extended below grade and tied into a basement wall
or a ground-level beam, which is added to create a beam-column connection. Economies of construction
usually limit the size of beam and column elements based on imposed displacement/drift limits.
Design regulations for steel SMF are promulgated in a series of standards: ASCE/SEI 7, ANSI/AISC 341,
ANSI/AISC 358, and ANSI/AISC 360. AISC 358 provides specific regulations related to prequalification
of certain SMF connection types that obviate project-specific testing required by AISC 341. This design
example follows the provisions of AISC 358 for the RBS connection type for the steel SMF seismic-force-
resisting system.
The six-story steel office structure depicted in the figure above has a lateral-force-resisting system
comprising structural steel special moment frames. The typical floor framing plan is shown in Figure 1–1.
A typical frame elevation is depicted in Figure 1–2. This design example utilizes simplifying assumptions
2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 1
01_Example-01_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 1 8/16/13 12:00 PM

Design Example 1 䡲 Special Moment Frame
for ease of calculation or computational efficiency. Because bay sizes vary, the example frames can be
designed with different participating bays in each direction, which will result in different sizes of beams and
columns for each frame depending on location. This example explores the design of a single frame and a
single connection of that frame. Assumptions related to base-of-column rotational restraint (assumed fixed),
applied forces (taken from the base example assumptions), and applied wind force (not considered) are all
incorporated into the example in “silent” consideration. Beam and column element sizes were determined
using a linear elastic computer model of the building. These element sizes were determined through iteration
such that code-required drift limits, element characteristics, and strength requirements were met.
While this example is accurate and appropriate for the design of steel SMF structures, different
methodologies for analysis, connection design, and inelastic behavior can be utilized, including the use of
proprietary SMF connection design. This example does not explore every possible option, nor is it intended
to be integrated with other examples in this document (i.e. Base Plate Design, Passive Energy Dissipation).
OUTLINE
1. Building Geometry and Loads
2. Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Load
4. SMF Frame
5. Element and RBS Connection Design
6. Detailing of RBS Connection
1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION
• Per Appendix A
䡩 Office occupancy on all floors
䡩 Located in San Francisco, CA, at the latitude and longitude given
䡩 Site Class D
䡩 120 feet × 150 feet in plan with typical floor framing shown in Figure 1–1
䡩 Frame beam and column sizes for lines 1 and 5 (Figure 1–2)
䡲 Beam and column sizes will vary from those on lines A and F
䡩 Six-stories as shown in Figure 1–2
• Structural materials
䡩 Wide-flange shapes ASTM A992 (Fy = 50 ksi)
䡩 Pates ASTM A572, Grade 50
䡩 Weld electrodes E70X-XX
2 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

A B C D E F
5 @ 30' – 0'' = 150' – 0''
Figure 1–1. Typical floor framing plan
A B C D E F
TOP OF PARAPET
ROOF W21 X 150 W30 X 99 W30 X 99 W30 X 99 W21 X 150
6th FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 116 W30 X 116 W30 X 116 W21 X 150
3rd FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 173 W30 X 173 W30 X 173 W21 X 150
2nd FLR W21 X 150 W30 X 191 W30 X 191 W30 X 191 W21 X 150
1st FLR
Figure 1–2. Frame elevation – line 1 (line 2 in background)

1.2 FLOOR WEIGHTS
For development of seismic forces per Appendix A:
Table 1–1. Development of seismic forces per Appendix A
Unit Wt Area Weight Floor Wt

Level Assembly (psf) (ft2) (kips) (kips)
Floor 78 15,220 1187
Typical floor 1315
Ext Wall 19 6990 133
Roof 36 15,220 548
Roof 656
Ext Wall/Parapet 19 5700 108
W = 5(1320 kips) + 656 kips = 7256 kips
2. Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations ASCE 7
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE SPECTRAL

ACCELERATIONS
Per ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1 for special steel moment frame:
R = 8.0 Ωo = 3 Cd = 5.5
2.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are derived in Appendix A:
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g
2.3 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Determine the approximate fundamental building period, Ta, using Section 12.8.2.1:
Ct = 0.028 and x = 0.8 T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0.028
028 × 720 8 = 0 86 sec (see discussion below) Eq 12.8–7
Ta = 0.86 sec
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00

⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T For T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = For T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long-period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long-period transition occurs at 12 sec
(from ASCE 7 Figure 22–12).
1.2
TS = 0.60 sec
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
1 SDS = 1.0g
SMF Building Period
0.8 Ta= 0.86 sec, Sa= 0.70g
To= 0.12 sec
Tmax= 1.20 sec, Sa= 0.50g
0.6
Sa= 0.4+5.0T
0.4
Sa= 0.60/T
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 1–3. Design Response Spectrum for the example building
Figure 1–3 depicts the design spectral acceleration determined from T, which is greater than TS , so the
design spectral acceleration Sa is 0.70g.
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2 indicates that the fundamental period of the structure “can be established using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated
analysis,” which might allow a linear elastic modal analysis to suffice. Section 12.8.2, however, limits the
period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta , where Cu is a factor
found in Table 12.8–1. In this case Tmax = 1.4 × 0.86 = 1.20 sec. For preliminary design, the approximate
period, Ta , will be used to design the SMF. As SMF designs are heavily dependent on meeting drift
requirements, the initial value (usually found to be much lower than the period found through mathematical
modeling) will suffice for the first design iteration.

2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3–1
1a. and 1b. Torsional Irregularity—A torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift
computed including accidental torsion is more than 1.2 times the average story drift.
Extreme torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift computed including
accidental torsion is more than 1.4 times the average story drift. A static linear elastic
three-dimensional computer analysis is used to obtain the displacement at the corners of the
building. This building has no torsional response, so the difference between the maximum
drift and average drift is 1.0. Table 1–2 provides an example of how one would evaluate the
presence of a torsional irregularity for the earthquake load case in the longitudinal direction
with positive accidental eccentricity and differences between maximum and average drift.
Table 1–2. Story displacements, line 1 and line 5, torsional irregularity check
Story δx at Line 5 (in) δx at Line 1 (in) δavg (in) δmax/δavg

Roof 15.8 11.00 13.4 1.18
5 14.3 10.5 12.4 1.16
4 12.0 9.44 10.7 1.12
3 8.86 7.22 8.04 1.10
2 5.26 4.51 4.89 1.08
1 1.85 1.80 1.83 1.01
NO TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY: δmax/δavg < 1.2
2. Reentrant corner irregularity exists where both plan projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the
given direction. The plan projections in longitudinal and transverse directions are 30 feet.
The plan dimensions are 150 feet and 120 feet in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively:
30 feet/150 feet = 20 percent in the longitudinal direction; →

REENTRANT CORNER IRREG
30 feet/120 feet = 25 percent in the transverse direction →
REENTRANT CORNER IRREG
3. to 5. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these horizontal structural
irregularities.
REENTRANT CORNER IRREGULARITY EXISTS

Per Section 12.3.3.4, forces for the connections of diaphragms to vertical
elements and collectors and the design of collectors and their connections
must be increased by 25 percent. If forces for the design of collectors and
their connections are calculated using seismic load effects including the
overstrength factor, the 25 percent increase is not required.

2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES T12.3–2
1a. to 5b. Calculation for type 1a, 1b, 5a, and 5b may be required for less experienced engineers.
These irregularities consider the stiffness and strength of one story relative to another. If
the story under consideration is less than 70 percent (1a) or 60 percent (1b) of the story
above or 80 percent (1a) or 70 percent (1b) of the average of the three stories above, a
soft-story irregularity will exist. This irregularity does not exist based on the element sizes/
stiffness, identical sizes of frames in each principal direction, the height of the stories, and
the similarity of bay sizes. If the story under consideration is less than 80 percent (5a) or 65
percent (5b) of the story above, a weak-story irregularity will exist. This irregularity does
not exist based on the element sizes, identical sizes of frames in each principal direction, the
relative height of each story, and the similarity of bay sizes. By inspection, the building does
not qualify for any of the vertical structural irregularities, but the engineer is encouraged
to calculate the conditions identified above and described in Table 12.3–2 for this problem.
Other sections of the SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual cover general analysis and
irregularities in more detail.
NO VERTICAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES
2.6 LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE T12.6–1
1. Simplified Alternative Structural Design Criteria—According to Section 12.14.1.1 this analysis

procedure cannot be used for buildings over 3 stories—NOT PERMITTED
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis—According to Table 12.6–1, since the structure is less than
160 feet and has only Type 2 horizontal irregularity—PERMITTED
3. Modal Response Spectrum Analysis—PERMITTED
4. Seismic Response History Procedures—PERMITTED
USE EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS
2.7 BASE SHEAR
S DS 10
Cs = = = 0.125 Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
but need to exceed
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.087 for T ≤ TL Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
T⎜ ⎟ 0 86 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝1 0⎠

but shall not be less than
0.044 SS DS I e = 0.044 > 0 01 Eq 12.8–5
and, for structures where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Cs shall not be less than:
0 5S1 (0.5)(0.6)
Cs = = = 0.038 Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
Cs = 0.087
V = CsW = (0.087)(7256) = 631 kips Eq 12.8–1
V = 631 kips
2.8 REDUNDANCY FACTOR
According to Section 12.3.4, the Redundancy Factor should be calculated for each principal axis. The
Redundancy Factor is 1.3 unless either 12.3.4.2.a or 12.3.4.2.b is shown to be true, in which case the
Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0. 12.3.4.2.a and Table 12.3–3 requires that for each story resisting
more than 35 percent of the base shear, loss of moment resistance at the beam-to-column connections at
both ends of a single beam would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity.
Section 12.3.4.2.a can be satisfied by showing that each story does not resist more than 35 percent of the
base shear (a taller, well-distributed frame design). Indeed, this is the case for this structure as evinced later
in the example; therefore, the Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0.
Section 12.3.4.2.b can be considered as follows. There are total of six bays of moment frame in the
longitudinal direction and four bays of moment frame in the transverse direction; thus, by inspection,
removal of an individual frame beam and its rigid connections will not result in more than a 33 percent
reduction in story strength (1/4 = 25 percent). The second condition needs to be confirmed by rigid
diaphragm analyses by removing individual moment beams and checking whether an extreme torsional
irregularity is produced. Frames can be designed with different elements in each direction, reducing the
influence of this provision. From the three-dimensional linear elastic static computer analysis, single-beam
elements can be changed to “pinned” to confirm that an extreme torsional irregularity does not exist. Since
the example satisfies the requirement promulgated in Section 12.3.4.2.a, Table 1–3 is superfluous and not
an actual representation of the building response, but it provides an example for how one might check for
extreme torsion with the analysis results from a model with a single moment beam removed:

Table 1–3. Story displacements, lines 1, 5, A, and F, extreme torsional irregularity check (illustrative)
δx at δx at δy at δx at
Line 1 Line 5 δavg Line A Line F δavg
Story (in) (in) (in) δmax/δavg Story (in) (in) (in) δmax/δavg
STORY6 10.7 7.65 9.20 1.17 STORY6 15.8 11.00 13.40 1.18
STORY5 9.82 6.48 8.15 1.20 STORY5 14.3 10.5 12.4 1.16
STORY4 8.27 5.35 6.81 1.21 STORY4 12.0 9.44 10.7 1.12
STORY3 6.15 4.89 5.52 1.11 STORY3 8.86 7.22 8.04 1.10
STORY2 3.69 3.01 3.35 1.10 STORY2 5.26 4.51 4.89 1.08
STORY1 1.32 1.25 1.29 1.03 STORY1 1.85 1.80 1.83 1.01
ρ = 1.0 FOR EAST-WEST DIRECTION

ρ = 1.0 FOR NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION
2.9 LOAD COMBINATIONS
See Appendix 1 for the derivation of combinations based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2SDS = 0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the SMF are §12.4.2.3
1.22 D 1 0 E + 0 5 L 1.4 D + 0 5 L 1 0QE Load Combo 5 (modified)

0 9 D 1 0 E = 0 7 D 1 0QE Load Combo 7 (modified)
3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Load ASCE 7

3.1 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHEAR
Table 1–4. Vertical distribution of shear §12.8.3
Level wi (kips) hi (ft) wi hik Cvx Fx (kips)

Roof 656 72 101,356 0.18 114
6th 1315 60 163,890 0.29 185
5th 1315 48 125,991 0.22 142
4th 1315 36 89,762 0.16 101
3rd 1315 24 55,662 0.10 62
2nd 1315 12 24,592 0.05 27
Total 7231 561,254 631

The terms used in Table 1–4 are defined in Section 12.8.3 and are presented in a rounded form taken from
spreadsheet calculations (values will not be duplicated by hand calculation of Table 1–4). Since the
period = 0.86 > 0.5 sec, the value for k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for
T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.18. The distribution of story shear is carried out using
wx hxk
Fx = CvxV, where, Cvx = n
Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
3.2 HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION OF STORY SHEAR
A B C D E F
5 @ 30' – 0'' = 150' – 0''
±6' – 0''
ACC.
TORSION
4
C.M.
C.R.
3
2
±7' – 6'' ACC.
TORSION TORSION
Figure 1–4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute story shear to SMFs
As shown in Figure 1–4, the center of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the building.
(While not precisely true, the example building is very well behaved and torsional response is non-existent
so the coincident C.M and C.R. is not an unrealistic assumption.) To distribute the load to each SMF, the
story shear, Fi , is applied in the X and Y directions. Per Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the
story shear is offset 5 percent to account for accidental eccentricity. This example designs all SMFs in the
X direction the same as the SMFs in the Y direction. However, for this illustration, a generic stiffness K
is used for all frames, and the assumption is made that frames have different stiffness in each direction as
shown. Each frame bay is described in Table 1–5 by using the gridline location of the frame (A, F, 1, 5) and
the gridline that intersects the frame line of interest (23, 34, BC, CD, DE).

Table 1–5. Center-of-rigidity calculation
Frame Dir x y Rx Ry xRy yRx

A23 Y −75 1K −75 K 0K
A34 Y −75 1K −75 K 0K
F23 Y 75 1K 75 K 0K
F34 Y 75 1K 75 K 0K
1BC X −60 0.8 K 0K −48 K
1CD X −60 0.8 K 0K −48 K
1DE X −60 0.8 K 0K −48 K
5BC X 60 0.8 K 0K 48 K
5CD X 60 0.8 K 0K 48 K
5DE X 60 0.8 K 0K 48 K
Sum 4.8 K 4K 0K 0K
Center of rigidity: Xr = 0 K/4 K = 0 ft, Yr = 0 K/4.8 K = 0 ft (from center of mass)
Table 1–6. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to SMFs (X-direction)
X-Direction
Frame Dir Ry x Rx y d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Vdirect Vtorsion Vacc. tors Vtotal
A23 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
A34 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
F23 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.01Fi
F34 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.01Fi
1BC X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.16Fi
1CD X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.16Fi
1DE X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.16Fi
5BC X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.17Fi
5CD X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.17Fi
5DE X 0.8 K 60.0 48 K 2880 K 0.17Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.17Fi
Sum 4.8 K 4K 39,780 K

Table 1–7. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to SMFs (Y-direction)
Y-Direction
Frame Dir Ry x Rx y d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Vdirect Vtorsion Vacc. tors Vtotal
A23 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.24Fi
A34 Y 1K −75.0 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi 0.24Fi
F23 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.26Fi
F34 Y 1K 75.0 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi 0.26Fi
1BC X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
1CD X 0.8 K −60.0 −48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
1DE X 0.8 K −60.00 −48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi −0.01Fi −0.01Fi
5BC X 0.8 K 60.00 48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.01Fi
5CD X 0.8 K 60.00 48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi
5DE X 0.8 K 60.00 48 K 2880 K 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi 0.00Fi
Sum 4.8 K 4K 39,780 K
The following calculations find the force in SMF along line F for shear in the X direction:
Ry
Vdirect Fi = 0 25Fi
r
ΣR
Ry
M acc. tors Fi × ( .05 × 150) = 7.5Fi ;
M acc. tor Rx y 7 5Fi × 75 K
Facc. tors = = = 0 011Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
39,780 K
M tor Rx y 0 Fi × 75 K
Ftors = = = 0 00 Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
39,780 K
M tors Fi × 0 = 0 Fi ;
Ftotala Fdiirect
r t
+ Facc. tor Fttorsion
i
= 0 26 Fi
Table1–7 shows that the maximum design force for any frame bay is 0.26 times the force at that level. The
rest of this example focuses on the design of the SMF along line F.
Table 1–8. Story forces applied to SMF along line F
Level/Story FStory (kips) FSMF-F (kips) VSMF-F (kips)

Roof/6th 114 30 30
6th/5th 185 49 79
5th/4th 142 38 116
4th/3rd 101 27 143
3rd/2nd 62 16 160
2nd/1st 27 3 163

4. SMF Frame ASCE and AISC
4.1 SMF LAYOUT
The layout of the lateral system should be well distributed to avoid torsional behavior as well as provide
reasonable redundancy. The layout for SMFs is constrained by the limitation of column alignment and uni-
axial connections (SMF beams aligned along a single column cross-sectional axis), which can sometimes
require discreet bays and frame lines. This example lends itself to the layout shown previously, which
tends to obviate any torsional response and related forces and/or penalties for unbalanced layouts. In some
designs, it may be desirable to design SMF connections in a bi-axial arrangement; only specific connection
types (prequalified or tested) may be utilized for bi-axial applications. Treatment of this complicated
condition is beyond the scope of this example.
4.2 DEFLECTION LIMITS
SMF design is highly influenced by drift limits. Some augmentative structural elements can be used to help
keep drifts low (i.e. dampers) or SMF can be used in conjunction with stiffer systems, increasing redundancy
and seismic resilience while meeting strict drift limits (i.e. dual systems). However, SMF can be designed to
meet required drift limits without the assistance of other structural elements. The engineer should consider
cost, constructability, anticipated performance, and client influence when weighing the use of SMF with or
without supplemental systems. This example examines only the design of SMF. The elastic story drifts are
the difference in the elastic deflections at the floor above and below. The maximum predicted inelastic story
drift (based on elastic story drift extracted from the linear elastic analysis model described earlier without
any modification of ground motion) is given by the following for the second story along line F:
Cd δ xe
δx = and Δ = δ x δ x −1 Eq 12.8–15 and F 12.8–2
Ie
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12–1 based on building system (SMF), > four stories in height
and the Risk Category (II):
Δ a = 0.020 hssx T 12.12–1

Δ 5 05 2.50 2.55 Δ a = (0.020)(144 i ) = 2.9 in T 1–9 and T 12.12–1
Δ Δ a → DRIFT IS OK
When the engineer is calculating lateral deflections for drift analysis, Section 12.8.6.1 provides an
exception that removes the lower limit on Cs , specified in Section 12.8.1.1 in determining seismic design
forces. This exception allows a recalculation of T without consideration of the upper limit on the period
(CuTa) as required by Section 12.8.2 (per Section 12.8.6.2). Therefore, the period calculated in the linear
elastic model described above can be used without modification (Tx and Ty below).
Without the lower limit on Cs , the design base shear per Equation 12.8–3 is
Longitudinal (X-direction): Tx = 1.35 sec
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0 06 Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
1 35 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Vx = CsW = (0.06)(7256 kips) = 403 kips Eq 12.8–1

Transverse (Y-direction): Ty = 1.64 sec
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0 05 Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
1 64 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Vx = CsW = (0.05)(7256 kips) = 332 kips. Eq 12.8–1
Using these modified design base shears, the force distribution to each level is adjusted and applied to the
output from the computer model. The structure displacement, drift ratios, and stability coefficients are
derived as shown in Table 1–9.
4.3 STABILITY COEFFICIENT
The following calculation is used to develop the stability coefficient:
Px ΔII e
θ= Eq 12.8–16
Vs hssx Cd
where
Px = the total vertical design load at and above Level x

Δ = the design story drift as defined in Section 12.8.6 occurring simultaneously with Vx
Vx = the seismic shear force acting between Levels x and x − 1
hsx = the story height below Level x
Cd = the deflection amplification factor in Table 12.2–1.
The stability coefficient, θ, shall not exceed θmax as determined from
0.5
θmax = ≤ 0.25 Eq 12.8–17
a
βCd
where β is the ratio of shear demand to shear capacity for the story between Levels x and x − 1, which
can be taken conservatively as 1.0. When the stability coefficient θ exceeds 0.10 but is less than θmax, the
incremental factor related to P–Δ effects on displacements and member forces shall be determined by
rational analysis, or displacements and member forces can be multiplied by1.0/(1 − θ). If θ is greater than
θmax, the structure is potentially unstable and shall be redesigned.
A review of drift ratios tabulated in Table 1–9 shows that all interstory drift ratios are less than 0.020 using
seismic forces corresponding to the actual period, T, in base shear Equation 12.8–1. Stability coefficients
are all less than 0.10, so P–Δ effects need not be considered. However, AISC 358 indicates that the global
drift consideration of reduced beam section (RBS) SMF design must consider the reduced stiffness

Table 1–9. Interstory displacements and drifts
Longitudinal (X-direction) Displacements and Drifts

Height h δx = δxe Δ Drift Drift Ratio Stability
Story (in) Cd (in) (in) (Δ/h) Coefficient θ
6th 144 9.52 0.82 0.006 0.01
5th 144 8.69 1.29 0.009 0.01
4th 144 7.41 1.67 0.012 0.02
3rd 144 5.74 2.35 0.016 0.03
2nd 144 3.39 1.61 0.011 0.02
1st 144 1.78 1.78 0.012 0.03
Transverse (Y-direction) Displacements and Drifts
Height h δx = δxe Δ Drift Drift Ratio Stability
Story (in) Cd (in) (in) (Δ/h) Coefficient θ
6th 144 14.66 2.48 0.017 0.04
5th 144 12.18 2.16 0.015 0.02
4th 144 10.02 2.42 0.017 0.03
3rd 144 7.60 2.55 0.018 0.03
2nd 144 5.05 2.55 0.018 0.03
1st 144 2.50 2.50 0.017 0.04
associated with the reduced beam section. The actual reduction in stiffness could be calculated and included
in the mathematical model to determine “accurate” story drifts based on increased beam flexibility.
However, a general value of system stiffness can be used to simplify the design and is allowed to be taken
as 1.1 times the elastic story drift for a 50 percent flange reduction per AISC 358 Section 5.8, Step 1. Using
this approach for the maximum drift ratio, the revised drift ratio is
(Δ/h)(1.1) = (0.018)(1.1) = 0.0198 < 0.020 . . . ΟΚ

(θ)(1.1) = (0.04)(1.1) = 0.044 << 0.25 . . . ΟΚ.
Most published reference documents (Bozorgnia, 2004; Moore, 2007) recommend a mathematical model
using centerline-to-centerline dimensions of framing members while also allowing for realistic assumptions
for the stiffness of panel zones or modification of the effective span length for beams and columns to more
accurately model frame stiffness. Many different analyses using different computer software, beam-column
joint models, and other parametric considerations indicate that a centerline analysis (assuming no panel
zone stiffness) represents a reasonable assumption for the majority of steel special moment frame designs.
This assumption allows for balanced connection behavior. This simplified analysis assumption (center-to-
center modeling of frame elements) with a 10 percent increase on expected elastic story drift is generally
acceptable for the design of steel SMF in the static linear elastic analysis/design regime and has been used
to determine the displacements and forces extracted for this example problem.

5. Element and RBS Connection Design AISC
5.1 ELEMENT SIZING
In this part of the design example, representative SMF beam and column members of Frame 1 are designed
in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10. SMF structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D are to conform
to the requirements of the 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 341). This
example problem uses the RBS SMF connection type.
Steel moment frame designs are typically drift controlled. Frame members are chosen to provide sufficient
stiffness to meet drift limits imposed by the model building code as described above, in this case IBC
2012, which relies upon limits promulgated in ASCE/SEI 7-10. The selected members are then checked for
SMF member design requirements per AISC 341. The selection of beam-column combinations must also
conform to the connection limitations set forth in AISC 358 and AISC 360 as appropriate. After confirming
that drift limitations were reasonably satisfied through selection of beam and column members to determine
acceptable system performance, the W30 × 132 beam at the fifth floor, line 1, and the W33 × 221 column
that comprises an interior connection at line C (see box on connection in Figure 1–2) were chosen to
illustrate this design example.
5.2 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES
AISC 341 Chapter A indicates the material specification and strength properties for steel members used in
seismic-force-resisting systems. Where the term “expected strength” is used, the value is to be taken as
Fye = (Ry)(Fy).
The “lower bound” strength is the minimum specified yield strength, Fy.
For this design example, material strengths are taken as
W30 × 132 beam, A992

Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
W33 × 221 column, A992

Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi.
Per AISC 341, Table A3.1, for ASTM A992

Ry = 1.1.
5.3 DESIGN TYPICAL BEAM
The fifth-floor beam in Frame 1 is selected to illustrate SMF beam design. This W30 × 132 beam is shown
in Figure 1–5.

C C
30' – 0''
W30 x 132
VL 5TH
VR
FLOOR
ML MR
Figure 1–5. Typical beam at fifth floor of Frame 1-CD
From a review of the computer output prepared in support of this design example, the moments and shears
at the right end of the beam are greatest. The unfactored moments and shears at the face of the column at
line D are
MDL = 502 kip-in

MLL = 288 kip-in
Mseis = +/−3208 kip-in
VDL = 5.42 kips
VLL = 3.23 kips
Vseis = +/−17.8 kips.
Seismic forces identified above include both vertical and horizontal components Ev and Eh. The vertical
component, Ev, is added to the dead load in Equation 12.4–1 and subtracted from the dead load in
Equation 12.4–2:
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + 0.5L + 0.2S ASCE 7-10, §12.4.2.3

E = ρQE = +/−0.2SDS(D) Eqs 12.4–1, 12.4–3, 12.4–4
Eh = ρQE = 1.0QE
Ev = 0.2SDSD = 0.2(1.0g)D = 0.2D.
Using the Basic Combinations of Section 2.3.2:
1.2D + 1.6L: MD+L = 1.2(502) + 1.6(288) = 1063.2 kip-in

VD+L = 1.2(5.42) + 1.6(3.23) = 11.7 kips.
Using the Seismic Load Combinations, Basic Combinations for Strength Design of Section 12.4.2.3:
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + 0.5L + 0.2S:

MD+L+E = [1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](502) + 1.0(3208) + 0.5(288) + 0 = 4055 in-kip

VD+L+E = [1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](5.42) + 1.0(17.8) + 0.5(3.23) + 0 = 27.0 kips

(0.9 − 0.2SDS)D − ρQE − 1.6H:
MD−E = [0.9 − 0.2(1.0)](502) − 1.0(3208) − 0 = −2857 in-kip
VD−E = [0.9 − 0.2(1.0)](5.42) − 1.0(17.8) − 0 = −14.0 kips.
Prior to evaluating demand/capacity ratios for member strength, SMF beams must be checked for stability
and proportions per AISC 358, 5.3, which references AISC 341 for limiting width-thickness ratios for
elements subjected to compression forces.
Check the flange width-thickness ratio:
b bf E 29,000 ksi
= ≤03 =03 = 7.22. AISC 341, T D1.1
t 2t f Fy 50 ksi
bf
For W30 × 132: = 5 27 7.22 . . . OK
2t f
However, if the section did not pass b/t criteria, then per AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 (6) for RBS connections,
bf may be measured at the end of the center two-thirds of the reduced beam section, provided that gravity
loads do not shift the plastic hinge location a significant distance from the center of the reduced section.
Check the web width-thickness ratio, confirming that the beam is a highly ductile member:
h
for Ca 5; 5 / y (1 − 0.. Ca )
/F AISC 341, T D1.1
tw
Pu 66 k
Ca = = = 0.038
038 < 0.125, soo Ca (foot
f tnotte [d ])
φc Py 0.9(50 ksi)(38.8
.8 i 2 )
h
≤ 2.455 E Fy = 59 0.
tw
h
For W30 × 132: = 43.99 < 59 0 . . . OK
tw
Check beam depth, weight and span-to-depth ratio limits per AISC 358, Section 5.3:
Maximum beam depth: W36 > W30 . . . OK

Maximum beam weight: 300 lb/ft > 132 lb/ft . . . OK
Maximum flange thickness: 1.75 in > 1.0 in . . . OK
(30)(12)
Minimum span-to-depth ratio: 7 < = 12 . . . OK.
30
Check beam lateral bracing requirements per AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 (7), which references AISC 341,
Section D1.2b. Note that per the exception in AISC 358 Section 5.3.1 (7), beams supporting a concrete
structural slab that is connected between the protected zones with welded shear connectors spaced at a
maximum of 12 inches on center do not require supplemental top and bottom flange bracing at the RBS.

As this is the case in most conditions (and assumed for this example), bracing will be considered under the
auspices of AISC 341, Section D1.2b:
Maximum brace spacing, Lb
Lb = 0.086ryE/Fy = (0.086)(2.25)(29,000/50) = 112 in or 9.35 ft.
Place minimum bracing at quarter points: L = 30/4 = 7.5 ft on center
⎛M C ⎞
Pbr = 0 02 ⎜ r d ⎟ AISC 360, Eq A-6–7
⎝ ho ⎠
Mr = RyZeFy, where Ry = 1.1. AISC 341 §D1.2a and T A3.1
Use Zx instead of Ze for a conservative estimate of bracing
= 1.1(437 in3)(50 ksi) = 24,035 kip-in = 2003 ft-k

Prb = 0.02MrCd /ho
⎛ ( 035
5 kip i )( .0) ⎞
Prb = ( .02) ⎜ = 16.4 k .
⎝ ( .3 1. ) in ⎟⎠
The length of the brace is assumed to be measured from the centerline of the W30 × 132 to the centerline of
the adjacent gravity beam. Assuming 10-foot beam spacing, the length of the brace is
2
⎛ ⎛ 12 in ⎞ ⎞
L = ⎜( f )⎜ + 30.3 i 2
= 124 in = 10.3 ft
⎝ ⎝ ft ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
Based on the Manual of Structural Steel Construction, a L4 × 4 × 3⁄8 as an eccentrically loaded single angle
will be examined:
φc Pn = 16.3 kips ~ 16.4 kips (using 11-foot length and Zx instead of Ze) AISC Manual T 4–12
AISC 360 states that a minimum stiffness is also required to provide adequate lateral bracing (A-6–8). This
type of brace is considered a nodal brace, providing a rigid brace support, so the required brace stiffness is
1 10 M r Cd
β br = AISC 360, Eq A-6–8
ϕ Lb ho
where
φ = 0.75
Mr = Ry ZeFy (however, Zx will be used to estimate bracing)
= 1.1(437 in3)(50 ksi) = 24,035 kip-in = 2003 ft-k
Cd = 1.0
Lb = 10.3 ft = 124 in
ho = db − tf = 30.3 in − 1.0 in = 29.3 in
10(24 0355 kip i )(1.0)
β br = = 88.2 k/in
k
0.75(124 in)(29.3 i )

The brace stiffness can be calculated as
Ag E
K= cos2 θ
L
⎛ 30.3 in ⎞
a −1 ⎜
θ = tan = 13.7
⎝ 124 in ⎟⎠
⎛ ( .86 2 )(29,000 ksi) ⎞
K =⎜ ⎟(
2
.7) = 631 k/in
⎝ 124 in ⎠
K > βbr . . . OK.
L4 × 4 × 3⁄8 kickers provided at 7.5 feet on center to brace the beam bottom flange to the top flange of an
adjacent steel beam meet lateral bracing requirements.
The W30 × 132 beam meets stability and proportion criteria; next, check the design flexural strength
(LRFD) per AISC 360.
From AISC 360 (Chapter F2) for W30 × 132:
E
Lp 1.76ry = 7.95 ft > 7 5 ft ∴ M n M p = Fy Z x . AISC 360, Eq F2–5
Fy
Design Flexural Strength (conservative assumption): φbMp = 19,680 kip-in. AISC, T 3–6
Demand-capacity ratio: D/C =
4055 k-in
= 0 21
2 < 1.0 . . . OK.
19,680
6 k-in
Check nominal shear capacity
for W30 × 132: AISC 341, T I–8–1
φVn = 0.6Fy AwCv AISC 360, Eq G2–1

Cv = 1.0 AISC 360, Eq G2–3
h E
43.9 2.24 = 53.95
95 ∴ φ = 1 0 AISC 360, Eq G2.1(a)
tw Fy
φvVn = 1.0(0.6)(50)(0.615)(30.3)(1.0) = 559 kips
27 k
D /C = = 0.048 < 1 . . . OK.
559 k
USE W30 × 132 BEAM
Note: The W30 × 132 beam is larger than required by strength considerations as calculated from
prescriptive load combinations. However, given the constraints of meeting frame drift limits, it is a
reasonable choice for this design. Limitations related to beam-column connection design and reduced beam
section parameters guided the size of beam selected.

5.4 DESIGN TYPICAL COLUMN
The column to be designed is the second-lift column of Frame 1 (line C) as shown in Figure 1–2 and
Figure 1–6. The maximum strong axis moments occur at the bottom of the column and are taken at the
top flange of the fifth-floor beam. For brevity, the example will look at critical conditions affecting design,
omitting the many different inconsequential demand values that are determined for the various analyses,
including out of plane bending loads, external wind forces, etc.
5TH
FLOOR
W33 X 221 4TH

STORY
4TH
FLOOR
W33 X 318
Figure 1–6. Typical second-story column at Frame 1
For the fourth-story column at line 4, the maximum unfactored column forces generated by the frame
computer analysis are
MDL = 15.4 kip-in

MLL = 13.2 kip-in
Mseis = +/−5559 kip-in
VDL = 0.22 kips
VLL = 0.22 kips
Vseis = +/−66 kips
PDL = 167 kips
PLL = 116 kips
Pseis = +/−2.23 kips.

Seismic forces identified above include both vertical and horizontal components Ev and Eh. The vertical
component, Ev, is added to the dead load in Equation 12.4–1 and subtracted from the dead load in
Equation 12.4–2:
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + 0.5L + 0.2S ASCE 7-10, §12.4.2.3

E = ρQE = 0.2SDS(D) Eqs 12.4–1, 12.4–3, 12.4–4
Eh = ρQE = 1.0QE
Ev = 0.2SDSD = 0.2(1.0g)D = 0.2D.
Using the Basic Combinations of Section 2.3.2:
1.2D + 1.6L: PD+L = 1.2(167) + 1.6(116) = 386 kips

MD+L = 1.2(15.4) + 1.6(13.2) = 39.6 kip-in
VD+L = 1.2(0.22) + 1.6(0.22) = 0.6 kips.
Using the Seismic Load Combinations, Basic Combinations for Strength Design of Section 12.4.2.3:
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + 0.5L + 0.2S:
PD+L+E = [1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](167) + 1.0(2.23) + 0.5(116) + 0 = 294 kips

MD+L+E = [1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](15.4) + 1.0(5559) + 0.5(13.2) + 0 = 5587 in-kip
VD+L+E = [1.2 + 0.2(1.0)](0.22) + 1.0(66) + 0.5(0.22) + 0 = 66 kips
(0.9 − 0.2SDS) D − ρQE − 1.6H:
PD−E = [0.9 − 0.2(1.0)](167) − 1.0(2.23) − 0 = 115 kips

MD−E = [0.9 − 0.2(1.0)](15.4) − 1.0(5559) − 0 = −5548 in-kip
VD−E = [0.9 − 0.2(1.0)](0.22) − 1.0(66) − 0 = −66 kips.
Try W33 × 221, ASTM A992 column.
Check the flange width-thickness ratio:
b bf E 29,000 ksi
= ≤03 =03 = 7.22 AISC 341, T D1.1
t 2t f Fy 50 ksi
bf
For W33 × 221: = 6 2 < 7.22 . . . OK.
2t f
Check the web width-thickness ratio:
Pu 294
Ca = = = 0 10
φc Py 0 9 ⋅ 50 ksi ⋅ 65.3 in 2
h
tw
≤ 2.45
5
E
Fy
(1 − 0.93C
93Ca ) = 2.45
45
29,000 ksi
50 ksi
(1 − (0.93)()0.. 0) ) 53.5

for W33 × 211: h/tw = 38.5 < 53.5. AISC 341, T D1.1
Check column depth, weight, and span-to-depth ratio limits per AISC 358 Section 5.3:
Maximum column depth: W36 > W33 . . . OK

Maximum column weight: unlimited . . . OK
Maximum flange thickness: compact per AISC 341 . . . OK.
Unbraced column height (taken from top of framing at bottom to mid-depth of beam at top):
Lp = 12.7 ft, Lr = 38.2 ft AISC Manual, T 3–6

H = 12.0 − (2.5/2) = 10.8 ft
Lb = 10.8 ft < Lp.
As SMFs are usually governed by stiffness criteria, most of the frame stability checks are superfluous
related to the large members required to provide adequate stiffness. Much effort can be expended on frame
stability checks and column capacity checks, but in general these systems fall well within limits of stability
and strength. Other documents (e.g. AISC Seismic Design Manual) provide exhaustive treatment of these
issues, but generally checking the columns for combined flexure/compression is adequate. Therefore, the
combined stresses for the critical load combination is
Pr 386 k
= = 0 13 < 0.2
Pc 2939 k
Pr M 386 5587
+ rx = + = 0 22 < 1 0. AISC 360, Eq H1–1b
2 Pc M cx (2)(0.9)(2939) 38,520
Check column shear strength:
h E 29,000 ksi
≤ 2.24 = 2.24 = 54.0
tw Fy 50 ksi
h
Since = 38.5
tw
Vn = 0.6Fy AwCv AISC 360, Eq G2–1

Cv = 1.0 AISC 360, G2–2
φvVn = 1.0(0.6)(50)(26.3)(1.0) = 788 kips
Vu = 66 kips < φvVn = 788 kips . . . OK.
Column flange bracing must also be considered and is addressed in Part 6 below.
USE W33 × 221 COLUMN
Note: The W33 × 221 is not necessarily an optimum size based on strength and local or global stability.
The size was chosen to meet drift requirements with consideration toward connection design limitations
and costs associated with the beam-column connection. A more refined optimization could result from a
number of detailed iterations, but this size is adequate for illustration of the design example.

5.5 RBS CONNECTION LIMITATIONS
The column-beam relationship must satisfy limitations identified in AISC 358 Sections 5.4 through 5.7.
Section 5.4 requires that panel zones conform to the requirements of AISC 341 and that the column-beam
moment ratios are limited to conform to the requirements of AISC 341, with some prescriptive conditions
associated with calculating the ratio of column-beam moments. Section 5.5 requires that SMF beam flanges
are connected to column flanges using complete-joint-penetration (CJP) groove welds and that the welds
and access hole geometry conform to the requirements of AISC 341 and AISC 360 respectively. Section 5.6
requires that the beam web provide the required shear strength according to Equation 5.8–9 and that the
SMF beam web be connected to the column flange using a CJP groove weld extending between weld access
holes. Section 5.7 defines some very specific conditions associated with the fabrication of flange cuts and
repair of gouges and notches. These requirements should be clearly identified in contract documents to
ensure that the quality of the connection is attained and maintained consistent with the AISC provisions.
5.6 RBS CONNECTION DESIGN
The RBS connection is a pre-qualified connection type per AISC 358. This design example follows the
procedure outlined in AISC 358 with reference to AISC 341 and AISC 360.
The following calculations comprise a design methodology that is inherently iterative and requires some
experience to gain proficiency. After considering code drift limits and evaluating several combinations for
strong column-weak beam and panel zone strength criteria, the combination of a W30 × 132 beam and
W33 × 221 column was selected for use in this design example. Note that the “allowance” for using deep
columns is a relatively recent development based on various research (Ricles et al, 2004; Uang et al, 2001).
The chosen frame members were shown to have adequate strength to resist the factored load combinations
(Parts 5.3 and 5.4), and this combination of beam and column sizes in the computer analysis results
in overall frame drifts within the code limits (Part 4). The W33 × 221 column was chosen to elucidate
consideration of deep columns, while providing an efficient frame design (based on drift limits). However,
an increase in column size might be warranted to obviate the need for doubler plates and possibly reduce
the cost of the frame considering fabrication costs. The connection detailing might also give rise to consider
different frame elements. When given the option, steel fabricators often request to use heavier columns in
lieu of installing doubler plates for economy. But, in light of these requests, the designer must consider
the actual realized savings when replacing fame elements. For example, if a W14 shape is selected for this
frame (instead of the W33 proposed), the comparable column is W14 × 665, an element more than three
times heavier than the selected column. In addition to connection detailing, necessary preheat for all welds,
required inspection, and the fabrication and inspection associated with column-splice details would all
drastically increase. Column splices in SMFs must comply with AISC 341 Section D2.5 (which is beyond
the scope of this example). The detrimental effects of using very heavy columns might be most evident
when executing a very complicated and expensive CJP weld at the column splice. These types of system
considerations are important when determining the final sizes appropriate for a steel SMF. The focus for
the following section will be on the design of the reduced beam section (RBS) connection and associated
design details that are appropriate for the chosen sizes.
Establish plastic hinge configuration and location AISC 358, §5.8, Step 1
The fundamental design intent expressed in the AISC 358 design procedure for RBS is to move the
plastic hinge away from the weld between the beam flange and column flange. This physical relocation of
the plastic hinge region is accomplished by providing a defined reduced beam section located at a pre-
determined distance away from the column flange (Figure 1–7).

AISC 358 Section 5.8 identifies specific limitations for the dimensions associated with the radius cut for the
reduced beam section.
0.50bbf ≤ a ≤ 0.75bbf AISC 358, Eq 5.8–1

0.65d ≤ b ≤ 0.85d AISC 358, Eq 5.8–2
0.10bbf ≤ c ≤ 0.25bbf AISC 358, Eq 5.8–3
Sh
COL HINGE
bf FOR FLANGE
COMPACTNESS,
SEE PART 5a
center 2/3
a b
Figure 1–7. RBS geometry
W30 × 132
0.5bf = 0.5(10.5) = 5.25 in

0.75bf = 0.75(10.5) = 7.88 in
Use a = 7 in
and
0.65d = 0.65(30.3) = 19.7 in

0.85d = 0.85(30.3) = 25.8 in
Try b = 24.0 in
The initial estimate for the depth of the cut, c, should be made such that 40 to 50 percent of the flange is
removed. This should limit the projection of moments at the face of the column to within 90 to 100 percent
of the plastic capacity of the full beam section.

With a 45 percent reduction in the flange area,
c = 0.45 bf /2 = 2.36 in
= 23⁄8-in cut, (2.38 in/10.5 in) = 0.23bf < 0.25bf . . . OK.
Use c = 2.38 in
4c 2 b 2 4 ⋅ 2.382 + 24 2
R= = = 31.5 in (radius of the flange cut).
8c 8(2.38)
The plastic hinge may be assumed to occur at the center of the curved cut such that
Sh = a + b/2 = 7 + (24/2) = 19 in
and
L = 30.0 ft = 360 in
L′ = L − dc − 2(Sh); (this assumes columns are the same size at each end of beam)
L′ = (360 in) − 33.9 in − 2(19 in) = 288 in.
The length between the plastic hinges, L′ (see Figure 1–8), is used to determine forces at the critical
sections for connection analysis.
L'
PLASTIC DRIFT
HINGES ANGLE
Figure 1–8. Plastic hinge locations
Determine plastic section modulus at the reduced beam section AISC 358, §5.8, Step 2
The plastic section modulus at the center of the reduced beam section is calculated as
ZRBS = Zx − 2ctbf (d − tbf ) AISC 358, Eq 5.8–4

2c = 2(2.38) = 4.75 in
ZRBS = 437 − [4.75(1.0)(30.3 − 1.0)] = 298 in3.

Determine probable maximum moment at the reduced beam section AISC 358, §5.8, Step 3
Next, the probable plastic moment at the reduced beam section, Mpr, is calculated as
Mpr = Cpr Ry Fy ZRBS AISC 358, Eqs 2.4.3–1, 5.8–5
The factor Cpr accounts for peak connection strength, including strain hardening, local restraint, additional
reinforcement, and other connection conditions.
Fy Fu
C pr = ≤ 1.2 AISC 358, Eq 2.4.3–2
Fy
50 ksi + 65 ksi
C pr = = 1.15
2 ⋅ 50 ksi
Mpr = (1.15)(1.1)(50)(298) = 18,849 kip-in.
The value for Mpr must be such that the projected moment demand at the face of the column Mf , is less than
the expected strength of the full beam section; this condition is verified in Part 6e below.
Compute the shear force at the center of each RBS AISC 358, §5.8, Step 4
Determine the shear force at the center of the reduced beam sections at each end of the beam. AISC 358
Section 5.8 requires that the shear force at the center of the reduced beam section is determined by a free-
body diagram of the portion of the beam between the centers of the reduced beam sections assuming the
moment at the center of each RBS is Mpr, and shall include gravity loads acting on the beam based on a
specific load combination: 1.2D + f1L + 0.2S (where f1 = 0.5). (Figure 1–9 and Figure 1–10)
L'
Mpr Mpr
Vpr Vpr
Figure 1–9. Beam equilibrium under the probable plastic moment Mpr
( )( M pr ) ( )( kip i )
Vpr = = = 131 kips
L′ 288 in
VRBS Vpr + Vp ′ = Vpr
d VRBS Vp
Vp = VD+L(L′/L)
Vp = 11.7 kips (288 in/360 in) = 9.36 kips
VRBS 131 kip 9 36 kip ′ S = 131
d VRBS 3 kips − 9 36 kips
VRBS 140 kip ′ = 122 kips.
d VRBS

Compute the probable maximum moment at the face of the column AISC 358, §5.8, Step 5
Mf = Mpr + VRBS(Sh) AISC 358, Eq 5.8–6

Mf = 18,849 kip-in + (140 kips)(19 in) = 21,509 kip-in (positive sense)
M f = 18,849
849 kip i + [( −122 kips)(19 in)] = −16,531 kip-in
i (negativ
ga i e sense)
RBS
Vu
Mf Mf
Vu
VRBSMpr
Sh = a + 2b
Figure 1–10. Free-body diagram between center of RBS and face of column (AISC 358, Fig. 5.2)
In this example (as in many actual applications), the moment attributable to the gravity load applied
between the plastic hinge and the face of the column flange is negligible (< 0.5%): therefore, it is omitted
and only briefly considered when comparing Mpe to Mf .
Compute the expected plastic moment of the beam AISC 358, §5.8, Step 6
To compute the plastic moment of the beam based on the expected yield stress of the beam material,
compute Mpe as
Mpe = ZbRyFy = (437)(1.1)(50) = 24,035 kip-in.
Check that Mf does not exceed ␾d Mpe AISC 358, §5.8, Step 7
Check the value of Mf against φd Mpe as follows
Mf ≤ φdMpe = 21,509 < 24,035 . . . OK.
If Mf exceeds φd Mpe, the depth of cut at the reduced beam section (c) should be increased, but not to
exceed a 50 percent total reduction of the beam flange. The difference between Mpe and Mf is greater than
0.5 percent, so the omission of the gravity load between the plastic hinge and the face of the column flange
is acceptable.

Determine the required shear strength, Vu AISC 358, §5.8, Step 8
Determine the required shear strength of the beam and beam web-to-column connection from the following
equation:
( )( M pr )
Vu = + Vgrav AISC 358, Eq 5.8–9
L′ r ity
where
Vu = required shear strength of beam and beam web-to-column connection

L′ = distance between the centers of the reduced beam sections
Vgravity = beam shear force resulting from 1.2D + f1L + 0.2S (where f1 = 0.5)
Vu = Vpr + (VD+L) = 131 kips + (11.7 kips) = 143 kips.
The design shear strength of the beam is checked in accordance with AISC 360, Chapter G. This calculation
was performed as part of the beam design (Part 5c). The shear strength of the W30 × 132 beam was
determined to be 559 kips. Therefore, the beam is adequate to resist the shear demand at any location along
the beam length, as the calculation considers the beam web only.
Design the beam web-to-column connection according to AISC 358 Section 5.6 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 9
This check references AISC 358 Section 5.6. Section 5.6 indicates that the strength of the beam web-to-
column connection strength must be determined in accordance with Equation 5.8–9. Furthermore, the
following description (from AISC 358) identifies the only allowable detailing for the beam web-to-column
connection:
For SMF systems, the beam web shall be connected to the column flange using a CJP groove
weld extending between weld access holes. The single plate shear connection shall be permitted
to be used as backing for the CJP groove weld. The thickness of the plate shall be at least 3⁄8 in
(10 mm). Weld tabs are not required at the ends of the CJP groove weld at the beam web. Bolt
holes in the beam web for the purpose of erection are permitted.
Because the beam web-to-column connection is made with a CJP groove weld, the shear capacity of the
weld is greater than or equal to the shear capacity of the beam, so no further checks are required to verify
the adequacy of this condition.
Check continuity plate requirements according to AISC 358 Chapter 2 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 10
This check references AISC 358 Chapter 2, 2.4.4. Section 2.4.4 identifies the following equation (via
AISC 341 Section E3.6f) for use in determining the need for continuity plates and the thickness of the
plates if they are required by calculation.
When the beam flange connects to the flange of a wide-flange or built-up I-shaped column having a
thickness that satisfies Equations 2.4.4–1 and 2.4.4–2, continuity plates need not be provided.
Ryb Fyb (11.1)(50

5 )
tcf 0 8bbf tbf = 0 4 1 8(10.5)(1.0) = 1.74 in AISC 341, Eqs E3–8, E3–9
Ryc Fyc (1.1)(50)
bbf 10.5
tcf ≥ = = 1.755 in
6 6

where tcf = minimum required thickness (inches) of column flange when no continuity plates are provided.
bbf = beam flange width, in

tbf = beam flange thickness, in
Fyb = specified minimum yield stress of the beam flange, ksi
Fyc = specified minimum yield stress of the column flange, ksi
Ryb = ratio of the expected yield stress of the beam material to the specified minimum yield stress,
per AISC 341
Ryc = ratio of the expected yield stress of the column material to the specified minimum yield stress,
per AISC 341
tcf = 1.28 in < 1.74 in and 1.75 in.
CONTINUITY PLATES ARE REQUIRED
Per AISC 358 Section 2.4 (AISC 341 Section E3.6f) the thickness of the plates is determined as follows:
(a) For one-sided (exterior) connections, continuity plate thickness shall be at least one-half of the
thickness of the beam flange.
(b) For two-sided (interior) connections, the continuity plate thickness shall be at least equal to the
thicker of the two beam flanges on either side of the column.
Continuity plates shall also conform to the requirements of Section J10 of the AISC specification. The
requirements of AISC 360 Section J10 pertain to detailing/sizing of the continuity plates. The thickness
requirements listed above combined with the detailing requirements of AISC 360 Section J10 ensures that
the continuity plate has adequate strength.
The detailing for the continuity plates dictates some of the verifying calculations associated with the
continuity plate, including the welded connections between the continuity plate and the column flanges and
web. The following detailing provisions (AISC 358 Section 3.6) affect plate design:
Along the web, the corner clip shall be detailed so that the clip extends a distance of at least
11⁄2 in (38 mm) beyond the published kdet dimension for the rolled shape. Along the flange, the
plate shall be clipped to avoid interference with the fillet radius of the rolled shape and shall
be detailed so that the clip does not exceed a distance of 1⁄2 in (12 mm) beyond the published k1
dimension. The clip shall be detailed to facilitate suitable weld terminations for both the flange
weld and the web weld. When a curved corner clip is used, it shall have a minimum radius of
1
⁄2 in (12 mm).
Using these requirements, the projected contact area between the edge of the continuity plate and the
column flange and column web are
Apb = (Wpb)(tcont−pl)
Wpb = bcont−pl − (“k1col” + 0.25 in).

The continuity plate width (Wpb−flange) can be determined considering the required strength at the projected
bearing surface as identified in AISC 360 Section J7, using φ factors for nonductile limit states (φ = 0.9) per
AISC 358 Section 2.4.1:
φRct = (0.9)1.8Fy Apb AISC 360, Eq J7–1

Mf 21,509
φR
Rct ( .9)(1.. ) Fy Apbb ≥ = = 734
3 kips
db t bf 30.3 − 1.0
734 k 734
Apb ≤ = = 9.06 in 2 .
(0.9)(1.8)( Fy ) (0.9)(1.8)(50)
If the width available within the column section (between the column web and the edge of the column
flange) limits the total available width for bearing, the following can be used to size the thickness of the
continuity plate:
bcf − tcw
Wpb (max) = = 7.51 in
2
Wpb = Wpb(max) − (“k1col” + 0.25 in) = 7.51 − (1.1875 + 0.25) = 6.07 in
Apb 9.06
Apb (Wpb )(tcont − pl ) tcont − pl = = 1.49 in; say tcont−pl = 1.5 in.
Wpb 6.07
Therefore, use two pairs of 11⁄2-inch × 71⁄2-inch continuity plates in the column aligned with the top and
bottom beam flanges.
In addition to the size of the continuity plate, the attachment/welding of the continuity plate shall meet the
criteria established in AISC 341, E3.6f(3):
Continuity shall be welded to column flanges using CJP groove welds. Continuity plates shall
be welded to column webs using groove welds or fillet welds. The required strength of the
sum of the welded joints of the continuity plates to the column web shall be the smallest of the
following:
(a) The sum of the design strengths in tension of the contact areas of the continuity plates
to the column flanges that have attached beam flanges
(b) The design strength in shear of the contact area of the plate with the column web
(c) The design strength in shear of the column panel zone
(d) The sum of the expected yield strengths of the beam flanges transmitting force to the
continuity plates
No design calculations are required for continuity plate to column flange portion of the connection.
However, the connection between the continuity plate and column web should be calculated to determine
an appropriate weld for this connection.
The maximum contact area between the continuity plate and the column web is
Apw = [dc − 2tcf − 2(k + 1.5 in)](1.5 in) = [33.9 − 2(1.28) − 2(2.06 + 1.5)](1.5 in) = 36.3 in2.

The tension strength of the continuity plate is limited by the connection strength between the edge of
the continuity plate and the face of the column flange. This condition is expressed in the limitations for
welding required between the continuity plate and the column web. The following calculations identify
the controlling case (minimum value of the four cases) for the required strength of the continuity plate-to-
column web welds.
ΣφFy Apb = 2(0.9)(50)(9.06) = 815 kips AISC 341, Eq 6f.(3)(a)

φvVnw = φ(0.6)Fy Apw = (1.0)(0.6)(50)(36.3) = 1090 kips AISC 341, Eq 6f.(3)(b)
φRv = 870 kips (see calculations in Step 11 below) AISC 341, Eq 6f.(3)(c)
φd M pe ⎛ (0.9)(24,035) ⎞
Σ = 2⎜ = 1477 kiips AISC 341, Eq 6f.(3)(d)
db tbf
b ⎝ 30.3 − 1.0 ⎟⎠
The smallest value is 815 kips, which will be used to design the welds between the continuity plate and the
column web.
The minimum required double-sided fillet weld size to develop 815 kips follows.
Ru
Dmin =
( )( .392 k ) dc tccf k 1.5 in]
815
= = 10.19 (16ths fillet).
(2)(1.392 k ) /i 33.9 − (2)(1.28) − (2)(2.06) + 1.5 in
i ]
The designer could use double-sided 5⁄8-inch fillet welds (within 2 percent of required size) to connect
the continuity plates to the column web. However, PJP preparation costs are not significant and often less
expensive than filler metal placement, so it may be more economical to use an equivalently sized PJP weld
or a CJP groove weld between the continuity plate and the column web. The most economical solution can
be determined through a conversation with the project structural-steel fabricator.
Check column panel zone according to AISC 358, Section 5.4 AISC 358, §5.8, Step 11
The panel zone strength is calculated below using the provisions of AISC 341 SectionE3.6e. The panel
zone shear calculation is derived by projecting the expected moments at the beam plastic hinges to the face
of the column, assuming points of inflection at the column mid-height between floors. (Figure 1–11)
Figure 1–11. Panel zone forces

db = 30.3 − (1.28) = 29.3 in

Mf = 21,509 kip-in
M ′f = 16,531
5 kip-in
ΣM f
Σ M f + M ′f = 21,509 + 16,531 = 38,040 kip-in
ΣM
Mf 38,040 kip-in
Vc = = = 264 kips
hb ht 144 in
Figure 1–12. Column shear
ΣM
Mf 38,040 kip-in
Ru = − Vc = − 264 kiips 03 kips
(d b tbbff (30.3 − 1.0) in
The panel zone shear strength is determined from AISC 360, J10.6 for Pr less than 0.75Pc
⎛ 3bcf tcf2 ⎞
φ φ0 6 Fy dc t w ⎜ 1 + ⎟ AISC 360, Eq J10–11
y
⎜⎝ d b dc t w ⎟⎠
where:
φ = 1.0 per AISC 341, Section 9.3a

bcf = width of the column flange
db = depth of the beam
dc = column depth
tcf = thickness of the column flange
tw = total thickness of the panel zone, including doubler plates.

For the W33 × 221 column, the panel zone shear strength is
⎛ 3(( 5.8)(1.. 2 ) ⎞
φRy = ( .0)(0.6)(50)( .9)(0. ) 1 + = 870 kips
⎝ (30 7 ) ⎟⎠
3 .3)(33.9)(0.78
φRy < Ru = 870 kips < 1034 kips N G. Doubler plates or thicker column web indicated.
The W33 × 221 column panel zone strength (without doubler plates) is not adequate when matched with
the W30 × 132 beam. However, the panel zone is 84.1 percent of the required strength without doubler
plates. This difference may be adequate considering the anticipated behavior of the connection (balanced
yielding in beam and column panel zone), but it does not strictly comply with code regulations. If the
panel zone must be strengthened, and if doubler plates are used in lieu of increasing the column size, then
compliance with AISC 341 Section 6e(3) is required.
The minimum panel zone thickness, tz, is also checked per AISC Section 341, E3.6e.(2).
(d z wz )
T≥ AISC 341, Eq E3–7
90
where:
dz = d − 2tf of the deeper beam at the connection

wz = panel zone width between column flanges
t = thickness of column web or doubler plate
30.3 − 2(1.0)
t = 0.775 i ≥ = 0.314 in .
90
Check moment ratio according to AISC Section E3.4a AISC 358, §5.8, Step 12
The moment ratio is checked in accordance with AISC Section E3.4a, with special attention paid to the
definition of M *pc and how the engineer derives the summation of nominal beam and column flexural
strengths. Mpc is projected to the centerline of the beam to compute M *pc . The difference between Mpc and
M *pc is the column shear multipled by the distance from the flange of the beam to the centerline of the beam
(Figure 1–17). The cruciform is defined by the assumed inflection point in the column(s) and the center of
the beam(s) RBS (Figure 1–13).
35.95'' 35.95''
RBS RBS
Figure 1–13. Beam-column dimensions

V'RBS = 122k
Mpr = 18,849in-k Mpr = 18,849in-k
VRBS = 140k
35.95'' 35.95''
RBS RBS
Figure 1–14. Demands from beam
M'pb-I M'pb-r
M'RBS MRBS
V'RBS VRBS
35.95'' 35.95''
RBS RBS
Figure 1–15. Free-body diagram for M *pb
⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ 33.9 ⎞
M *pb −l M pr + (VRBS
′ ) Sh + c ⎟ = 18,849 kip i + (122 k) 19 in + in ⎟ = 23,2355 kip-in
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ 33.9 ⎞
M *pb −r = M pr + (VRBS ) Sh + c ⎟ = 18,849 kip i + (140 k ) ⎜ 19 in + in ⎟ = 23,882 kip-in
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
Σ *pb = 23,235 + 23,882 = 47,117 kip-in
ΣM
M pc −t
Vcol−t =
db
ht −
2

M pc −t
Vcol− b =
db
hb −
2
⎛d ⎞ ⎛M ⎞ ⎛d ⎞
pc −t
M *pc −tt M pc t + Vcol −tt ⎜ b ⎟ = M pc −t + ⎜ ⎟ b
⎝ 2⎠ ⎜ d b ⎟ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
⎜⎝ht − 2 ⎟⎠
⎛M ⎞
⎛d ⎞ pc − b ⎛ d b ⎞
M *pc −bb M pc b + Vcol −bb ⎜ b ⎟ = M pc − b + ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2⎠ ⎜ d b ⎟ ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
⎜⎝hb − 2 ⎟⎠
⎛ H ⎞
ΣM *pc = M *pc −tt + M *pc
Σ pc b
2 M pc ⎜ ⎟
⎝ H db ⎠
Mpc = 37,776in-k
M'pc
M'pc
Mpc = 37,776in-k
Figure 1–16. Free-body diagram for M *pb
Puc 386 kips

= = 5 92 ksi
Ab 65.2 in 2
⎛ P ⎞
M pc Zc ⎜ Fyc − uc ⎟ = 857 in 3 (50 ksi
k i − 5 92
9 k i) = 37,,776
7 kip-in
⎝ Ag ⎠
⎛ 144 ⎞
Σ *pc = ( )(
ΣM 6 kip i ) ⎜ = 95,687 ki
k p-in
⎝ 144 − 30.3 ⎟⎠

Vcol-t
ht – db
2
db
Mpc – b
hb – db
2
Vcol-b
Figure 1–17. Development of M *pc
ΣM *pc
Is > 1.0 ?
ΣM *pb
ΣM *pc 95,687
6 k-in
= = 2.03 . . . OK.
ΣM *pb
47,117 k-in
Evaluate lateral bracing of columns AISC 358, §5.3.2
Per AISC 358 Section 5.3.2, lateral bracing of columns shall conform to requirements of AISC 341.
To preclude SMF column members from lateral torsional buckling AISC 341 Section E3.4c.(1)(1) specifies
requirements for column flange bracing. The W33 × 221 column has a perpendicular beam framing into
it at each level providing out-of-plane joint restraint. At the beam top flange, the concrete slab effectively
provides bracing for the column flange. The column flanges therefore need to be laterally braced at the
beam bottom flange only if AISC 341 Equation 3–1 is not greater than 2.0.
ΣM *pc
≥ 2.0
ΣM *pb
From Step 12 of this design example:
ΣM *pc 95,687
6 k-in
= = 2.03 . . . OK.
ΣM *pb
47,117 k-in

The column flanges, therefore, do not need lateral bracing at the beam bottom flange. If bracing were
required, it may be provided by perpendicular beams connected to full-depth stiffeners and column
continuity plates. When bracing is provided, it must be designed for a required strength that is equal to
2 percent of the available beam flange strength, as appropriate.
Welding parameters
Parameters for pre-qualified welded joints are presented in AISC 358 Chapter 3. The requirements
identified in AISC 358 reference AISC 341. The requirements for welding are clearly outlined in AISC 341
Chapter I Section I2.3, which references AWS D1.8.
Specific protocols associated with weld backing and weld tabs are described in AISC 358 Chapter 3 and
AISC 341 Section I2.3.
Quality control and quality assurance
Quality control and quality assurance requirements are outlined in AISC 358 Section 3.7, which refers to
AISC 341. AISC 341 Chapter J covers quality control and quality assurance related to SMF fabrication and
erection. Specifications regarding the quality of RBS fabrication are provided in AISC Section 5.7.
A “protected zone” is established for the connection (AISC 358 Section 5.3.1(8)). The zone is defined
as the portion of the beam between the face of the column flange to the end of the RBS farthest from the
column.
6. Detailing of RBS Connection
The details shown in Figures 1–18 through 1–22 are representative SMF RBS details.

Figure 1–18. RBS connection



Figure 1–22. Continuity plate

Design Example 2
Special Concentrically Braced Frame
OVERVIEW
This example shows procedures for the design of Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) buildings.
It is intended to provide specific methods for the design of braced frames that comply with the International
Building Code and the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 341), guiding
designers toward the careful consideration of the performance of concentrically braced frame structures
under severe seismic loading. Certain recommendations provided are considered best practice; nevertheless,
the calculation methods illustrated are applicable to a wide range of designs.
The SCBF system has been developed over several cycles of building codes as a moderately ductile system
that can withstand moderate inelastic drift while maintaining strength. In order to provide this performance,
SCBF braces must accommodate significant compression buckling demands. In addition, the system must
be able to realize the strength and stiffness of braces subject to tension as the strength and stiffness of
buckled braces in compression diminishes.
Thus SCBF are intended to have post-elastic behavior that differs significantly from the elastic distribution
of forces. A simple linear analysis of force distributions is insufficient, and an amplification factor is,
in many cases, insufficient as well. Design rules for SCBF have thus always contained some form of
requirement for consideration of post-elastic conditions.
02_Example-02_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 43 8/16/13 11:59 AM

Design Example 2 䡲 Special Concentrically Braced Frame
The 2010 edition of AISC 341 has gone further than previous codes in making this latter requirement an
explicit requirement. The provisions require that beams and columns have sufficient strength to withstand
forces corresponding to two different conditions: the maximum forces the frame can resist (with frame
forces corresponding to braces reaching their expected buckling strength and expected tension strength),
and the post-buckled condition (with frame forces corresponding to braces reaching a low estimated
post-buckling strength and expected tension strength). These are essentially plastic-mechanism analysis
requirements and are illustrated in this example.
As important as determining design forces for frame members is the detailing of connections to
accommodate building drift and ductility demands. To accommodate building drift, the effect of gussets on
the beam-to-column connection and the column base-plate connection must be considered. These gusseted
connections should be considered fully rigid unless special detailing is used to allow for relative rotation.
(The use of typical “simple” connections in combination with a gusset plate is insufficient to guarantee
adequate rotation capacity.) Connections considered rigid will develop large moments at the design story
drift, and AISC 341 requires that the connection have flexural strength corresponding to the strength of the
beam or of the column.
In this example a fully rigid beam-to-column connection is employed. This connection is a combination
of the gusset plate with a Special Moment Frame WUF-W (Welded Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web)
connection. The design of alternative connections (including the accommodation of rotation) is illustrated
in the AISC Seismic Design Manual.
Accommodating brace compression ductility demands entails detailing the gusset plate to allow for brace
rotations or designing the connection as a fixed end for the brace. In this example the former approach is
taken, with a hinge plate oriented to allow for in-plane rotation. Alternative designs are illustrated in the
AISC Seismic Design Manual.
This example does not include the design of a base-plate connection. However, Design Example 9
illustrates a base-plate design for a Buckling Restrained Braced Frame and can serve as a guide for SCBF
base plates.
For more information on the SCBF system see Blue Book article 08.03.050: “Concentric Braced Frames”;
August 2008.

OUTLINE
2. Design Base Shear and Load Combinations
4. Brace Sizing
5. Plastic Mechanism Analysis
6. Beam Seismic Forces
7. Column Seismic Forces
8. Detailing and Design of Connections
9. Additional Considerations
10. Items Not Addressed in This Example
The building is a six-story office building located in San Francisco. The Seismic Design Category is D. See
Appendix 1 for the following information:
• Building dimensions,
• Floor and roof weights,
• Latitude and longitude,
• Soil type,
• Spectral accelerations, and
• Load combinations including the vertical seismic-load effect.
1.2 FRAME LAYOUT
Early design decisions that should be made include
• Location of frames,
• Configuration of frames, and
• Relationship of braces to the architecture.

1.2.1 LOCATION OF FRAMES
In this example the frames are located at the building perimeter, which is more efficient in controlling
building torsion and ensuring redundancy. The plan layout of frames at floors 1–4 is shown in Figure 2–1.
Figure 2–1. Plan

1.2.2 CONFIGURATION OF FRAMES
Frames are configured in a two-story X configuration, which is advantageous in limiting beam flexural
demands in the post-buckled condition. Additionally, the frames are offset at floors 5 and 6. This reduces
the column overturning demands, which is especially beneficial for column size (and consequently column-
splice demands), base-plate demands, and foundation demands. This constitutes an irregularity, but this
irregularity does not represent a dramatically different collector beam demand from those in similar regular
configurations. A typical frame elevation is shown in Figure 2–2.
B C D E
ROOF
6th FLR
5th FLR
4th FLR
3rd FLR
2nd FLR
1st FLR
Figure 2–2. Frame elevation

1.2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF BRACES TO THE ARCHITECTURE
Braces in this example are exposed. Thus, no special wall detailing is required to allow for brace buckling
deformation. However, braces are located within 8 inches of the exterior glass, potentially leading to a
falling hazard should braces buckle out of the plane of the frame, causing damage to the façade. Such a
hazard could be mitigated in several ways, including increasing the physical separation or treating the glass
to prevent falling debris. In this example the hazard is eliminated by configuring braces to buckle in the
plane of the frame by using a round section in combination with end detailing that favors in-plane over
out-of-plane rotation. The detail employed at the beam-to-column connection is shown schematically in
Figure 2–3.
Figure 2–3. Typical gusset configuration
This detail has many advantages over more typical single-gusset-plate details. In addition to avoiding
out-of-plane brace deformation, the detail avoids potential conflict between the composite deck and the
hinge plate as the latter bends as a result of brace buckling. The detail is also highly adaptable to special
conditions, including connections to sloped beams.

2. Design Base Shear and Load Combinations ASCE 7
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM T12.2–1
There are two options in Table 12.2–1 for using SCBF: a pure SCBF, and a SCBF/SMF dual system. For
the purposes of this example, a pure SCBF without the dual system will be used:
R = 6.0 Ωo = 2.0 Cd = 5.0
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are derived in Appendix 1:
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g
The building has a type 2 horizontal irregularity. This requires an increase in diaphragm-to-collector
transfer forces (as illustrated in Design Example 7), but does not affect the SCBF.
The building has type 3 and 4 vertical irregularities. The type 4 irregularity requires that the elements
supporting the braced frame be designed for the special seismic-load combinations (including the
“amplified seismic load”). This is a requirement for SCBF columns regardless of irregularity. It also
requires an increase in diaphragm-to-collector transfer forces, which is also required by the horizontal
irregularity.
The type 3 irregularity precludes the use of the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure per Table 12.6–1.
Because of the type 3 irregularity, the modal response spectrum (MRS) procedure is employed. For
preliminary design, the ELF procedure is employed, with the design to be confirmed using MRS.
Using the MRS procedure, ASCE 7 allows for a reduction in design base shear, with a minimum of 85
percent of the ELF base shear. Thus it is advantageous to utilize MRS. For preliminary ELF design, the
MRS base shear will be assumed to be scaled to 90 percent of the ELF base shear.
2.6 BASE SHEAR
Determine the approximate fundamental building period using Section 12.8.2.1:
Ct = 0.02 and x = 0.75 T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0 02 × 720 75 = 0.49 sec (see discussion below) Eq 12.8–7
Ta = 0.49 sec

The calculation of seismic response coefficient CS is performed using four equations. These equations,
when presented together in a graph of the base shear coefficient versus building period, constitute the
response spectrum for the site. (See Volume 1 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual
for further explanation.) The first equation defines the coefficient as:
S DS 1 00 g
Cs = = = 0.167 g . Eq 12.8–2
R /I e 6 0 /1
/1 0
The coefficient need not exceed:
S D1 0 60 g
Cs = = = 0.204 g . Eq 12.8–3
( R I e )T (6.0 /1.0)0 49
The value of seismic response coefficient, Cs, computed in Equation 12.8–1 must be at least equal to the
following
Cs 0 044 S DS = 0.044(1.00 g 0 044 g . Eq 12.8–5
In addition, for buildings in Seismic Design Category E or F, and those buildings for which the 1.0-second
spectral response, S1, is equal to or greater than 0.6g, the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, must
be at least equal to the following value:
0 5S1 0.5(0.606 g)
Cs = = = 0 05g . Eq 12.8–6
R /I e 6 0 /1 0
Equation 12.8–2 controls.
Cs = 0.167
V = CsW = 0.167(7231 kips) = 1205 kips Eq 12.8–1
V = 1205 kips
The structure qualifies for a redundancy factor of 1.0 through calculation. See Volume 1 of the 2012 IBC
SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual for the calculation methodology.
Load combinations are addressed in Appendix 1 of this volume.

Table 2–1. Vertical distribution of shear §12.8.3

Roof 656 72 70,906 0.174 210
6th 1315 60 116,413 0.286 344
5th 1315 48 91,177 0.224 269
4th 1315 36 66,539 0.163 197
3rd 1315 24 42,683 0.105 126
2nd 1315 12 19,982 0.049 59
Total 7231 407,700 1205
The terms used in this table are defined in Section 12.8.3. The period is assumed to be 1.4 times the
approximate period: 1.4 * 0.49 sec = 0.69 sec; this should be confirmed or adjusted after member sizing.
Since the period = 0.69 > 0.5 sec, the value for k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and
2.0 for T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.095. The distribution of story shear is carried out using:
wx hxk
Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
The horizontal distribution of forces requires consideration of diaphragm torsion. This can be approximated
at this stage of design (prior to selection of brace sizes) by making rough assumptions to be confirmed at
a later stage. The frames on grids A and F are each assumed to resist 50 percent of the north-south seismic
forces, plus 80 percent of the accidental eccentricity. This results in a share of the north-south forces
equal to:
RA = 0.5V + 0.8(V[0.05L]/L) = 0.54V.
The frames on Grids 1 and 5 are designed with a similar assumption, such that each frame is designed for
54 percent of the base shear. This overestimates the effect of accidental eccentricity slightly.
This factor is applied to the force at each story. A more complex layout might require a more in-depth
analysis—possibly modeling—to distribute the forces to each frame for design purposes.

All four frames will be designed to resist the forces in Table 2–2:
Table 2–2. Vertical distribution of shear
Level Fx (kips) Frame Force (kips) Frame Shear (kips)

6th 210 113 113
5th 344 186 299
4th 269 146 444
3rd 197 106 551
2nd 126 68 619
1st 59 32 651
4. Brace Sizing AISC 341
4.1 REQUIRED STRENGTH
The required strength of braces is calculated from the seismic forces in Table 2–2 above. It is common
for designers to neglect the gravity forces in braces, although that approach is not explicitly permitted for
SCBF. Where gravity forces are significant they should be considered. In this case the gravity forces, shared
by four braces and the beam, have been determined to be 4.5 kips for the typical floor condition for the
seismic load combinations. The tension effect of this gravity force is conservatively neglected for design.
Converting the frame shear into a brace shear considering the four braces and the brace angle of
ATAN(12/15) = 38.7 deg, the brace forces are calculated and presented below. The required strength in
compression is calculated adding the gravity force.
Table 2–3. Brace design forces for Frame A
Level Brace Seismic Force (kips) Brace Gravity Force (kips) Pu (kips)
6th 36 0 36
5th 96 4.5 100
4th 142 0 142
3rd 176 4.5 181
2nd 198 0 198
1st 208 4.5 213
The same is done for Frame 1. At the top two stories there are only two braces, instead of the four in
Frame A.

Table 2–4. Brace design forces for Frame 1
Level Brace Seismic Force (kips) Brace Gravity Force (kips) Pu (kips)
6th 72 0 72
5th 191 2 193
4th 142 0 142
3rd 176 2 178
2nd 198 0 198
1st 208 2 210
4.2 SECTION SELECTION
The effective length of the braces is assumed to be the work-point length (19.2 feet), minus some distance
at each end to account for connection size. For member selection purposes the effective length will be
assumed to be 16 feet. To conform to the limit on brace slenderness, the minimum radius of gyration is:
r ≥ 16 ft (12 in/ft)/200 = 0.960 in.
Round HSS will be used. See Blue Book article 08.03.050 for a discussion of the behavior of brace section
types. The availability of sections should be verified. Round HSS must meet the requirements of AISC 341
for highly ductile members:
D/t ≤ 0.038E/Fy = 26.2.
The following brace sizes are to be used for Frame A, based on design strengths tabulated in the Manual
(Table 4–5):
Table 2–5. Brace designs for Frame A
Level Brace Size r (in) kL/r D/t φPn (kips)

6th HSS5.563 × 0.258 1.88 102 23.2 80
5th HSS6 × 0.312 2.26 85 20.6 113
4th HSS7 × 0.375 2.35 82 20.1 183
3rd HSS7 × 0.375 2.35 82 20.1 215
2nd HSS7.625 × 0.375 2.58 74 21.8 215
1st HSS7.625 × 0.375 2.58 74 21.8 215

The following brace sizes are to be used for Frame 1:
Table 2–6. Brace designs for Frame 1
Level Brace Size r (in) kL/r D/t φPn (kips)

6th HSS7 × 0.375 2.35 82 20.1 183
5th HSS7.625 × 0.375 2.58 74 21.8 215
4th HSS7 × 0.375 2.35 82 20.1 183
3rd HSS7 × 0.375 2.35 82 20.1 183
2nd HSS7.625 × 0.375 2.58 74 21.8 215
1st HSS7.625 × 0.375 2.58 74 21.8 215
The sixth-floor brace is substantially oversized to limit unbalanced forces on the intersected beam.
5. Plastic Mechanism Analysis AISC 341
Once the braces are sized, the maximum demands on the rest of the system can be calculated. Two
conditions are considered: the maximum forces that braces can deliver (in either tension or compression),
and the condition after some braces have buckled (which can be critical for certain members).
In order to perform these analyses, three values are required for each brace: the expected tension strength,
the expected compression strength, and the approximate post-buckling strength.
The expected tension strength is: Ry Fy Ag
The expected compression strength is: 1.14Fcre Ag, where Fcre is calculated using the expected yield
strength, Ry Fy in the AISC 360 Chapter E equations in Section E.3.
The post-buckling strength is taken as 0.3 times the expected compression strength (as required in
Section F2.3): 0.3(1.14Fcre Ag) = 0.342Fcre Ag.
The values for these forces for the sections used are shown in Table 2–7.
Table 2–7. Brace capacity forces
Expected Tension Expected Compression Post-Buckling Strength

Brace Size Strength (kips) Strength (kips) (kips)
HSS5.563 × 0.258 236 110 29
HSS6 × 0.312 307 161 42
HSS7 × 0.375 429 275 72
HSS7.625 × 0.375 469 332 87

5.1 CONDITION 1: MAXIMUM TENSION FORCE AND MAXIMUM COMPRESSION FORCE
Figure 2–4 shows the maximum-force condition for Frame A, with the braces removed and the capacity
forces substituted. Assuming a first-mode deformation, all braces in tension are assumed to reach their full
expected tension strength (Ry Fy Ag), and all braces in compression are assumed to reach their full expected
compression strength (1.14Fcre Ag). Lateral forces indicated do not correspond to the calculated base shear.
B C D E
1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag
1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
1.14Fcre Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
1.14Fcre Ag
Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag 1.14Fcre Ag
Figure 2–4. Maximum-force condition for Frame 1
5.2. CONDITION 2: MAXIMUM TENSION FORCE AND POST-BUCKLING COMPRESSION

FORCE
Figure 2–5 shows the post-buckled condition for Frame A, with the braces removed and the capacity
forces substituted. Assuming a first-mode deformation, all braces in tension are assumed to reach their full
expected tension strength (Ry Fy Ag), and all braces in compression are assumed to have degraded to their
nominal post-buckling strength (0.342Fcre Ag).

B C D E
0.342Fcre Ag Ry Fy Ag
Ry Fy Ag 0.342Fcre Ag
Figure 2–5. Post-buckled condition for Frame 1
6. Beam Seismic Forces AISC 341
6.1 INTERSECTED BEAM (SIXTH FLOOR, Frame 1)
The seismic forces on this beam for Conditions 1 and 2 can be calculated considering the brace-capacity
forces from the table above. Condition 1 will have larger axial force; Condition 2 will have a larger flexural
force. Figure 2–6 shows a free-body diagram of the beam.
Condition 1: 1.14 F cre A g R y Fy A g

Condition 2: 0.342 F cre A g

R y Fy A g
Figure 2–6. Free-body diagram of the sixth-floor beam
The diagonal forces are converted to vertical and horizontal forces in order to obtain beam shear, flexure,
and axial forces.

6.1.1 CONDITION 1
The vertical force on the beam is
QV1 = [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]5 sin (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]6 sin (θ6)
= 12.5 kips.
The horizontal force on the beam is
QH1 = [Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]6 cos (θ6)
= 76 kips.
Given the symmetry of the condition, the axial force in each segment of this beam can be taken as
Pu = 1⁄2QH1 = 38 kips.
6.1.2 CONDITION 2
The vertical force on the beam is
QV2 = [Ry Fy Ag − 0.342Fcre Ag]5 sin (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag − 0.342Fcre Ag]6 sin (θ6)
= 15 kips.
The horizontal force on the beam is
QH2 = [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5) − [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]6 cos (θ6)
= 42 kips.
Given the symmetry of the condition, the axial force in each segment of this beam can be taken as
⁄2QH1 = 21 kips.
1
Typically Condition 2 governs. In this case it is unclear which condition governs due to the selection
of similar brace sizes above and below the beam. Use of a significantly smaller brace size at the sixth
floor would result in a much larger vertical force on the beam and may be uneconomical. The forces
above combined with gravity forces are applied to the beam for design. The governing combination from
Appendix 1:
1.22 + 1 0 E + 0 5 L = 1.4 D + 0 5 L + QE Load Combination 5 (modified; see Appendix 1)
The gravity moment is based on
= 1.4 D + 0.5 L
= 1.4 (6 ft * 67.7 psf + 12 ft * 19 psf) + 0.5 (6 ft * 100 psf)
= 1.19 klf
Mu = wg L2/16
= 66.8 ft-kip.
All braced-frame beams are W18 × 50 to provide for uniformity of connections. For brevity, the design of
this beam will not be shown.

6.2 REDISTRIBUTION BEAM (THIRD FLOOR, Frame 1)
For this beam, Condition 2 governs by inspection. Figure 2–7 shows a free-body diagram of this beam. The
story force is assumed to be delivered two-thirds via shear along the beam and one-third via a collector
force on the right-hand side.
R y Fy A g
0.342 FcreA g
0.342 FcreA g
R y Fy A g
Figure 2–7. Free-body diagram of the third-floor beam
In order to calculate the axial force in the beam, the story force delivered to this portion of the frame
corresponding to the Condition 2 forces must be calculated:
F3 = [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]2 cos (θ2) − [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]3 cos (θ3)
= 43 kips.
At the right-hand connection, one-third of this force is delivered:
F3R = 1⁄3F3 = 14 kips.
Figure 2–8 shows a free-body diagram of the right-hand connection.
0.342 FcreA g
F3R
Pu
R y Fy A g
Figure 2–8. Free-body diagram of the right-hand connection of the third-floor beam

The axial force in the beam is
Pu = F3R + [0.342Fcre Ag]3 cos (θ3) − [Ry Fy Ag]2 cos (θ2)

= 296 kips.
The moment is the same as for the beam in the previous section:
Mu = wgL2/16
= 66.8 ft-kip.
The compressive strength can be calculated considering the restraint provided at the top flange by the slab.
As described in Example 7, constrained-axis flexural-torsional buckling is the limiting buckling mode for
this condition. The AISC Seismic Design Manual gives this expression for use in calculating constrained-
axis flexural-torsional buckling for a beam restrained at the top flange (Equation 8–3):
⎛ ⎛ ⎛d⎞ ⎞
2 ⎞
⎜ π E ⎜ Cw + I y ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
2
⎟
⎜ ⎜⎝ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎟ 1
Fe = ⎜ + GJ⎟
⎝ (K L) 2 ⎠ 2
⎛d⎞
z
I x + I y + ⎜ ⎟ Ag
⎝ 2⎠
Using this equation in conjunction with Equation E3–1, the constrained-axis flexural-torsional buckling
strength for the W18 × 50 with top flange continuously braced and the bottom flange braced at 15 ft is
φPn = 359 kips

Pu /φPn = 296 kips/359 kips = 0.83.
From Table 3–10 of the Manual, the flexural strength is
φMn = 258 ft-kips.
For this moment diagram and bracing condition Cb = 3.0. Thus the flexural strength is
φMn = 3.0 * 258 ft-kips ≤ φMp = 379 ft-kips

Mu /φMn = 66.8 ft-kip/379 ft-kips = 0.18
Pu /φPn + 8/9 Mu /φMn = 0.99 . . . OK.
6.3 FIFTH-FLOOR BEAM (Frame 1)
The two examples above (the sixth-floor and third-floor beams) are representative of all the beams in Frame
A, with the even-numbered floors similar to the sixth floor and the odd-numbered floors (and roof) similar
to the third floor.
Frame 1 is similar, except for the in-plane offset at the fifth floor. Due to this, the three beams at the fifth
floor in Frame 1 should be analyzed in a single free-body diagram, as shown in Figure 2–9.

Condition 1:
1.14 FcreAg
Ry Fy Ag Condition 2:
0.342 FcreAg
Condition 1: Condition 1:
Ry Fy Ag Ry Fy Ag
1.14 FcreAg 1.14 FcreAg
Condition 2: Condition 2:
0.342 FcreAg 0.342 FcreAg
Figure 2–9. Free-body diagram of fifth-floor beams (Frame 1)
The seismic forces on this beam for Conditions 1 and 2 can be calculated considering the brace-capacity
forces from Table 2–7. Condition 1 will have larger axial force in the end beams; Condition 2 will have a
larger axial force in the middle beam.
For brevity, the design of these beams will not be shown.
6.3.1 CONDITION 1
The force entering the frame at level 5 is
QH1 = 2[Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]4 cos (θ4) − [Ry Fy Ag + 1.14Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5)
= 474 kips.
This force is distributed axial force on each beam of 474 kips/3 = 158 kips. The right-hand beam has an
axial force at the right end of
QH = [Ry Fy Ag]4 cos (θ4) = 335 kips.
At the left end of the right-hand beam, the axial force is 335 kips − 158 kips = 177 kips. This axial force
controls for the two outside beams (considering the load to be applicable in either direction).
6.3.2 CONDITION 2
The force entering the frame at level 5 is
QH2 = 2[Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]4 cos (θ4) − [Ry Fy Ag + 0.342Fcre Ag]5 cos (θ5)
= 348 kips.
This force is distributed axial force on each beam of 348 kips/3 = 116 kips. Recognizing the equal forces in
each bay, the center beam has an axial force at each end of 1⁄2(116 kips) = 58 kips.

7. Column Seismic Forces AISC 341
7.1 CONDITION 1
Column seismic forces for Condition 1 are shown in Table 2–8. Four columns are shown, with compression
shown as positive forces and tension as negative. The forces are, of course, for one direction of loading.
Table 2–8. Column seismic forces for Condition 1
Column B/1 Force Column C/1 Force Column D/1 Force Column E/1 Force
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th −172 268
5th −177 263
4th −172 −202 298 268
3rd −172 −202 298 268
2nd −647 263 −177 733
1st −647 263 −177 733
Base −941 470 −470 941
These column forces are obtained considering the brace forces from Figure 2–4. In addition, where a beam
supports an unbalanced vertical seismic force, the reactions from this force can be included. (If they are
not included, the summation of vertical seismic reactions may not equal zero.) Here the only beam with
an unbalanced vertical force is the sixth-floor beam, which has a small unbalanced vertical seismic force.
(Because of repetition of brace sizes and equal story heights, other beams have balanced seismic vertical
forces.) The vertical unbalanced force on the sixth-floor beam was calculated in the previous section on
beam forces.
Q = [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]4 sin (θ4) − [Ry Fy Ag − 1.14Fcre Ag]5 sin (θ5)
= 10 kips.
This results in a slight adjustment to the Column 2 and Column 3 forces below the sixth floor.
7.2 CONDITION 2
A similar process is used for Condition 2. (The vertical unbalanced force is shown in the section on beam
forces.) The resulting seismic forces are presented in Table 2–9.

Table 2–9. Column seismic forces for Condition 2
6th −45 268
5th −37 276
4th −45 −62 285 268
3rd −45 −62 285 268
2nd −368 276 −38 606
1st −368 276 −38 606
Base −661 330 −331 661
7.3 OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
Columns should also consider the overstrength factor. These seismic forces are presented in Table 2–10.
Table 2–10. Column seismic forces considering the overstrength factor
6th −91 91
5th −91 91 0
4th −178 −152 152 178
3rd −178 −152 152 178
2nd −646 316 −316 646
1st −646 316 −316 646
Base −906 576 −576 906
7.4 DESIGN SEISMIC FORCES
Columns B/1 and E/1 may use the overstrength forces as a maximum (and thus neglect Conditions 1 and
2). However, in this case the mechanism forces are lower. Thus Columns B/1 and E/1 should be designed
for the maximum of Condition 1 and 2, with the overstrength forces as a maximum. Columns C/1 and D/1
must be designed for the maximum of Condition 1, Condition 2, and the forces considering overstrength.
The seismic forces considered for design are shown in Table 2–11.

Table 2–11. Column seismic forces used for design
6th −172 268
5th −177 272
4th −172 −202 298 172
3rd −172 −202 298 172
2nd −646 316 −316 646
1st −646 316 −316 646
Base −906 576 −576 906
Column sizes will be governed by compression design. The governing combination from Appendix 1:
1.22 + 1 0 E + 0 5 L = 1.4 D + 0 5 L + QE Load Combination 5 (modified)
The design forces for interior columns and the selected sizes (using Table 4–1 of the AISC Manual) are
shown in Table 2–12.
Table 2–12. Column design forces and sizes
Exterior Column Exterior Column Interior Column Interior Column

Level Force (kips) Size Force (kips) Size
6th 21 300
5th 69 W12 × 40 385 W12 × 45
4th 294 491
3rd 341 W12 × 45 570 W12 × 96
2nd 856 640
1st 903 W12 × 96 719 W12 × 96
8. Detailing and Design of Connections AISC 341
The connection of the HSS7 × 0.375 to the roof will be designed. Brace connections are designed to meet
three conditions: the brace yielding in tension, the brace reaching its maximum compression strength,
and the connection rotation associated with a brace buckling and undergoing large axial deformation.
Additionally, the connection must be detailed to accommodate a frame drift of 2.5 percent, either by
providing relative rotation capacity or moment capacity to allow beam or column yielding.

Figures 2–3 and 2–10 show the details of the connection. The gusset plate is slotted to receive the knife
plate. Also, the weld of the knife plate to the brace is wrapped around the end of the brace. This has been
shown to be effective in forestalling net-section rupture (Cheng and Kulak, 2000).
Figure 2–10. Connection detail
8.1 CONDITION 1: BRACE YIELDING
The required tension strength of the connection has been calculated previously:
Ru1 = Ry Fy Ag = 429 kips.

8.1.1 SELECT KNIFE PLATE
Assume a 7⁄8-inch knife plate thickness (tKP). The required width is:
Ru1/[(φFy tKP)] = 11 in.
A 7⁄8-inch × 12-inch knife plate will be used. The plate may be rectangular or shaped as shown in the figure.
8.1.2 BRACE TO KNIFE-PLATE WELD
Assume a 5⁄16-inch weld size (s). The length (Lw) is
Lw ≥ Ru1/[4φ0.6FEXX (0.707 s)] = 15.4 in.
A 16-inch-long weld will be used for both welds. This is greater than 1.3 times the brace diameter
(1.3 * 7 in = 9.1 in), which permits U = 1.0 (AISC 360).
8.1.3 KNIFE PLATE TO GUSSET WELD
The weld of the knife plate to the gusset transfers the brace axial force into the gusset; it also provides
continuity of the gusset across the slot. Thus in lieu of the smaller weld size selected for the knife plate to
the brace, a size sufficient to provide gusset continuity will be used.
Assume a 1⁄2-inch gusset (tg). Based on recommendations by Lehman et al. (2008), the ratio of weld size
to plate thickness is derived considering the expected plate tension strength and the strength of fillet welds
loaded transverse to their axis:
s ≥ (Ry Fy tg)/(2 * 1.5φ0.6FEXX 0.707)

s ≥ 0.82tg
s = 7⁄16 in.
The length (Lw) is
Lw ≥ Ru1/[4φ0.6FEXX (0.707 s)] = 11 in.
A 12-inch weld will be used, providing a moderate over-capacity.
8.1.4 BRACE CHECKS
The brace wall may be checked for shear rupture. However, as the weld size is less than the brace thickness,
by inspection this will not control.
Because the knife plate is welded around the end and U = 1.0, the limit state of brace net section rupture
does not apply.

8.1.5 GUSSET THICKNESS, WIDTH, AND DIMENSIONS
At the end of the weld, the required gusset width is calculated using the assumed thickness:
Ru1/[(φFy tg)] = 19.1 in.
This is less than the maximum Whitmore width:
[2 * Lw tan (45°)] = 24 in.
45 degrees is used for the Whitmore width.
To achieve this width, a rectangular gusset 21 inches horizontal by 13.5 inches vertical will be used. A
3-inch corner clip is made to provide a roughly orthogonal condition at the lap with the knife plate. This
plate provides for the required length of knife-plate-to-gusset weld.
If the gusset is adequate in tension at the end of the knife plate, checks of the vertical and horizontal
sections through the gusset at the beam and column face will show adequate demand-to-capacity ratios.
8.1.6 GUSSET ANALYSIS
The gusset is analyzed in order to obtain design forces for checking web yielding. (Welds are designed to
match the gusset plate capacity.)
The gusset may be analyzed using any convenient methodology. Here the Ricker method is used for
simplicity; the resulting welds at the beam-to-column connection are small and can be neglected in the case
of the WUF-W connection.
Using the Ricker method, the following forces are obtained:
Vub = 193 kips

Vuc = 75 kips
Hub = 241 kips
Huc = 94 kips.
8.1.7 GUSSET TO BEAM AND COLUMN WELDS
These welds are designed to ensure that any ductility demands occur in the gusset plate (which has
substantial ductility) rather than in the welds.
Based on the proportioning rule discussed above for the knife-plate to gusset weld:
s ≥ 0.82tg
Two 7⁄16-inch fillet welds will be used.
8.1.8 BEAM WEB YIELDING
φRn = 1.0twFy(N + 2.5k)

= 461 kips ≥ Vub = 193 kips . . . OK.

8.1.9 COLUMN WEB YIELDING
φRn = 1.0twFy(N + 5 k)
= 317 kips ≥ Huc = 94 kips . . . OK.
8.2 CONDITION 2: BRACE BUCKLING (MAXIMUM COMPRESSION FORCE)
The required compression strength of the connection has been calculated previously:
Ru2 = 1.14Fcre Ag = 275 kips.
This force is used to check web crippling in the beam and column. (By inspection, gusset buckling will not
occur for the gusset plate stiffened by the knife plate.)
The forces from the gusset analysis can be reduced by the factor:
1.14Fcre Ag /Ry Fyg = 275/429 = 0.641.
Thus:
Vub′ = 0.642(193 kips) = 124 kips

′ = 0.642(94 kips) = 60 kips.
Huc
8.2.1 BEAM WEB CRIPPLING
The beam web crippling strength is:

⎡ ⎛ 3⎞ ⎤
⎢ ⎜ N ⎡ t f
⎤ 2
⎟ ⎥ EF
Fy t f
φ n φ ⎢ 0 8t 2f ⎜ 1 + 3 ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥
⎢ d ⎢ t
⎣ w⎦ ⎟⎥ ⎥ tw
⎜⎝ ⎠
⎣ ⎦
φRn 184 kip Vub′ = 124 kips . . . OK.
8.2.2 COLUMN WEB CRIPPLING
The column web crippling strength is:

⎡ ⎛ 3⎞ ⎤
⎢ 2⎜ N ⎡tf ⎤2 ⎟ ⎥ EF
Fy t f
φ n φ ⎢ 0 8t f ⎜ 1 + 3 ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥
⎢ d ⎢⎣ t w ⎥⎦ ⎥ tw
⎜⎝ ⎟⎠
⎣ ⎦
φRn 264 kips ′ = 60 kips . . . OK.
Huc
8.3 CONDITION 3: BRACE BUCKLING (ROTATIONAL DEMANDS)
This condition is satisfied by the detailing of a hinge zone in the knife plate equal to three times the gusset
thickness. This approach has been demonstrated in recent tests (Thornton and Fortney, 2012).
8.4 ACCOMODATION OF FRAME DRIFT
Additionally, there are rotation-capacity requirements for gusseted beam-to-column connections. F2.6b
requires that gusseted beam-to-column connections be detailed to accommodate large drifts. The option

taken in this example is to use a fully welded moment connection (option “b” in the provision). The
beam-to-column portion of the moment connection follows the prescriptive requirements for the Welded
Unreinforced Flange-Welded Web connection of AISC 358. The gusset, welded to both the beam and the
column, provides additional resistance but this is not explicitly considered.
Figures 2–11 and 2–12 show the completed connection detail.
Figure 2–11. Completed connection detail

Figure 2–12. Connection detail
9. Additional Considerations
9.1. BRACE TRANSVERSE DISPLACEMENT
Braces can be expected to undergo significant transverse displacement as a result of buckling and axial
deformation (Tremblay, 2001). In this design, the brace displacement is in the plane of the frame. Thus,
brace buckling will not affect the cladding system.
The braces are exposed, and thus no special detailing of partition walls enclosing the braces is required.
9.2 PROTECTED ZONES
To minimize the chances of premature fracture, braces and gussets should be designated as protected zones,
with a restriction on fasteners and low-toughness welds. (There are regions of the brace that need not be
so designated; see AISC 341 for specific requirements.) The effect of fasteners in the protected zone is
currently being investigated.

9.3 DEMAND-CRITICAL WELDS
Certain welds must be designated as demand-critical, with the corresponding toughness requirements per
AISC 341. These welds include:
• Beam-flange to column-flange welds,
• Column splice welds, and
• Column-to-base-plate welds.
9.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A quality assurance plan is required for this structure. For the SCBF system, the plan should include
verification of the hinge-plate offset dimension complying with the detailing requirements and tolerance.
The following items are not addressed in this example but are nevertheless necessary for a complete design
of the seismic load resisting system:
• Comparison of wind and seismic forces,
• ASCE 7 stability check (ASCE 7 Eq 12.8–16),
• Design of the column base plate connection,
• Design of the column splice,
• Design of lateral bracing of the bracing connection at beam midspan,
• Design of the foundations, and
• Design of the diaphragm system.

Design Example 3
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame
OVERVIEW
Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) is a relatively new system. It was developed in the late 1990s
and has since gained acceptance in the United States as engineers look for a system with high ductility and
energy dissipation. Unlike conventional steel braces, buckling-restrained braces consist of a steel core that
is restrained from buckling by outer casing of concrete, steel, or both. As a result, the steel core will yield
in tension as well as compression. The purpose of the outer casing is to prevent global buckling of the core
only, and it must be kept free of axial forces. The methods to prevent transfer of axial forces to the casing
as well as to provide confinement to the core are fairly specialized. As a result, BRBF in the United States
consists of proprietary braces provided by a steel fabricator or a specialty manufacturer.
The 2005 edition of AISC 341 and ASCE 7 contained the first U.S. code provisions for the design as well as
testing requirements for BRBF. Subsequent editions of ASCE 7 (2010 edition) and AISC 341 (2010 edition)
introduced additional updates. For example, the 2010 edition of ASCE 7 added provisions to estimate
period (Method A) for BRBFs. In addition, the differentiation between BRBFs where beam-column
joints are fixed or pinned has been eliminated and replaced by a single value of R = 8. AISC 341 included
updates of beam-column joint requirements where the connection must either be able to allow rotation
(0.025 radians) or to be designed to resist expected flexural strength of the beams or sum of the columns.

Design Example 3 䡲 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame
OUTLINE
4. Preliminary Sizing
5. Preliminary Analysis and Brace Deformations
6. Iteration and Final Design
• Per Appendix A:
䡩 Office occupancy on all floors
䡩 Located in San Francisco, CA, at the latitude and longitude given
䡩 Site Class D
䡩 120 feet × 150 feet in plan with typical floor and roof framing shown in Figure 3–1
䡩 Six stories as shown in Figure 3–2.

Figure 3–1. Typical floor and roof framing plan
Figure 3–2. Braced-frame elevations

1.2 FLOOR WEIGHTS
Per Appendix A:
Table 3–1. Floor weights per Appendix A

Floor 77.7 15,220 1183
Typical floor 1315
Ext Wall 19 6990 133
Roof 36 15,220 548
Roof 656
W = 5(1315 kips) + 656 kips = 7231 kips.

ACCELERATIONS
Per ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1 for steel buckling-restrained braced frame:
R = 8.0 Ωo = 2.5 Cd = 5.0
2.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g
Ct = 0.03 and x = 0.75 T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0 03 × 72 0 75
= 0.74 sec (see discussion below) Eq 12.8–7
Ta = 0.74 sec

S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long-period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long-period transition occurs at 12 sec
(from Figure 22–12).
1.2
TS=0.60 sec
1 SDS=1.0g
Approximate BRBF Building Period,

Ta=0.74 sec, Sa=0.81g
0.8
T
Too=0.12 sec Calc'ed BRBF Period in y-direction,
Ty=0.87 sec, Sa=0.69g
0.6
Sa=0.4+5.0T
0.4
Calc'ed BRBF Period in
x-direction, Tx=0.97 sec,
Sa=0.62g
0.2
Sa=0.60/T
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 3–3. Design response spectrum for the example building
As shown in Figure 3–3, the design spectral acceleration is greater than TS, so the design spectral
acceleration Sa is 0.81g. It is not required for the engineer to construct the design response spectrum when
using the equivalent lateral force procedure, since the response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of Cs
in Section 12.8.1.1.
The response spectrum demonstrates the effect of the assumptions used in the calculation of the building
period. Values of Ct = 0.03 and x = 0.75 were selected as specified for steel buckling-restrained braced
frames, which result in an approximate period Ta = 0.74 sec. As shown later in this example, drifts are close
to, if not at, the story drift limits of Section 12.12.

The period of the structure can be established through structural analysis of the BRBF. Section 12.8.2,
however, limits the period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta,
where Cu is a factor found in Table 12.8–1. In this case, Tmax = 1.4 × 0.74 = 1.04 sec. For preliminary
design, the approximate period, Ta, will be used to design the BRBF, and the period of the building will
be verified later in the design process. The first mode period of the final design shown in Figure 4–14 was
calculated to be 0.97 sec and 0.87 sec in the longitudinal and transverse direction respectively; therefore,
the initial assumption of T = 0.74 sec is shown to not only be valid, but still quite conservative.
computed including accidental torsion is more than 1.2 times the average story drift.
Extreme torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift computed including
accidental torsion is more than 1.4 times the average story drift. From the 3-D computer
analysis later in this example we can obtain the displacement at the corners of the building.
The following shows the calculation for earthquake load case in X-direction with positive
accidental eccentricity:
Table 3–2. Story displacements, line 1 and line 5, torsional irregularity check
Story δx @ Line 5 δx @ Line 1 δavg δmax/δavg

Roof 1.35 1.10 1.22 1.10
6th 1.19 0.97 1.08 1.10
5th 0.94 0.76 0.85 1.10
4th 0.68 0.55 0.62 1.11
3rd 0.44 0.36 0.40 1.11
2nd 0.22 0.18 0.20 1.11
δmax/δavg < 1.2 → NO TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY
2. Reentrant corner irregularity exists where both plan projections of the structure beyond a
reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the
given direction. The plan projections in longitudinal and transverse directions are 30 feet.
The plan dimensions are 150 feet and 120 feet in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively:
30 ft/150 ft = 20% in the longitudinal direction;

30 ft/120 ft = 25% in the transverse direction → REENTRANT CORNER IRREG. EXISTS

3. to 5. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these horizontal structural
irregularities.
REENTRANT CORNER IRREGULARITY EXISTS

Per Section 12.3.3.4, forces for the connections of diaphragms to vertical
elements and collectors and the design of collectors and their connections
must be increased by 25 percent. If forces for the design of collectors and
their connections are calculated using seismic-load effects including the
overstrength factor, the 25 percent increase is not required.
1a. to 5b. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of the vertical structural irregularities.
1. Simplified Alternative Structural Design Criteria—According to Section 12.14.1.1 this analysis

procedure can be used for BRBF, but not for buildings over three stories—NOT PERMITTED
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis—According to Table 12.6–1, since the structure is less than
160 ft and has only Type 2 horizontal irregularity—PERMITTED
2.7 BASE SHEAR
S DS 1 00
Cs = = = 0.125 Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
but need to exceed
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.101 for T TL Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
0 74 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠

but shall not be less than
0.044 S DS I e = 0.044 ≥ 0 01 Eq 12.8–5
and, for structures where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Cs shall not be less than
0 5S1 0 5× 0 6
= = 0.038 Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
Cs = 0.101
V CsW = 0.101
0 × 7231
3 = 730
30 kips Eq 12.8–1
V = 730 kips
Redundancy Factor is 1.3 unless either 12.3.4.2(a) or 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true, in which case the
Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0. 12.3.4.2(a) and Table 12.3–3 require that for each story resisting
more than 35 percent of the base shear, removal of an individual brace or connection thereto would not
result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor does the resulting system have an extreme
torsional irregularity:
There are total of six BRBs and eight BRBs at each level in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively; thus, by inspection, removal of an individual BRB would not result in more than a 33 percent
reduction in story strength (1/6 = 17%). The second condition needs to be confirmed by rigid diaphragm
analyses by removing of individual braces and checking whether extreme torsional irregularity exists. By
inspection, since brace sizes will be designed to be identical for frames in each direction, the following two
conditions will result in highest torsion:
1. Removal of brace along line 4, or
2. Removal of brace along either line A or line F.
From 3-D computer analysis later in the example, the braces per above were removed and it was confirmed
that extreme torsional irregularity does not exist in either of the above cases. The following shows check of
extreme torsion:

Table 3–3. Story displacements, lines 1, 5, A, and F, extreme torsional irregularity check
Story δx at Line 1 (in) δx at Line 5 (in) δavg (in) δmax/δavg

Roof 1.40 1.11 1.25 1.11
6th 1.25 0.98 1.12 1.12
5th 1.01 0.79 0.90 1.12
4th 0.77 0.59 0.68 1.13
3rd 0.54 0.41 0.48 1.14
2nd 0.32 0.23 0.28 1.16
Story δy at Line A (in) δy at Line F (in) δavg (in) δmax/δavg

Roof 0.89 1.07 0.98 1.09
6th 0.80 0.96 0.88 1.09
5th 0.64 0.77 0.70 1.09
4th 0.47 0.56 0.52 1.09
3rd 0.31 0.37 0.34 1.09
2nd 0.16 0.19 0.17 1.09

Alternatively, the designer can elect to use ρ = 1.3 for simplicity.
See Appendix A for the derivation of combinations based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2SDS = 0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the BRBF are §12.4.2.3

0 9 D 1 0 E = 0 7 D 1 0QE . Load Combo 7 (modified)
Load combinations with overstrength are not used for the BRBFs (although they apply for collectors and at
other conditions outside the BRBFs).


Roof 656 72 78,907 0.18 128
6th 1315 60 128,960 0.29 210
5th 1315 48 100,442 0.22 164
4th 1315 36 72,775 0.16 118
3rd 1315 24 46,213 0.10 75
2nd 1315 12 21,262 0.05 35
Total 7231 448,560 730
The terms used in Table 3–4 are defined in Section 12.8.3. Since the period = 0.74 > 0.5 sec, the value for k
is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for T = 2.5 sec. In this example, k = 1.12. The
distribution of story shear is carried out using
wx hxk
Fx = Cvx V, where, Cvx = n
. Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1

Figure 3–4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute story shear to BRBFs
As shown in Figure 3–4, the center of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the building in
the X direction, but the center of rigidity is 10 feet below the center of mass in the Y direction. This is due
to the layout of the braced frames. To distribute the load to each BRBF, the story shear, Fi, is applied in the
X and Y directions. Per Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the story shear is offset 5 percent to
account for accidental eccentricity. For simplicity, all the BRBs in the X direction are the same, and all the
BRBs in the Y direction are the same. Since they are the same, a generic stiffness, K, is used for all braced
frames.

Table 3–5. Center of rigidity calculation
BF No. Dir x y Rx Ry xRy yRx

A1 Y −75 1K −75 K 0K
A2 Y −75 1K −75 K 0K
F1 Y 75 1K 75 K 0K
F2 Y 75 1K 75 K 0K
1 X −60 1K 0K −60 K
3 X 0 1K 0K 0K
4 X 30 1K 0K 30 K
Sum 3K 4K 0K −30 K
Center of rigidity: Xr = 0 ft, Yr = −30 K/3 K = −10 ft.
Table 3–6. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to BRBFs (X-direction)
X-Direction
BF No. Dir Rx Ry d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Fdirect Ftorsion Facc. tors Ftotal
A1 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi −0.028Fi −0.017Fi −0.045Fi
A2 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi −0.028Fi −0.017Fi −0.045Fi
F1 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi 0.028Fi 0.017Fi 0.045Fi
F2 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.000Fi 0.028Fi 0.017Fi 0.045Fi
1 X 1K −50.00 −50 K 2500 K 0.333Fi −0.019Fi −0.011Fi 0.303Fi
3 X 1K 10.00 10 K 100 K 0.333Fi 0.004Fi 0.002Fi 0.339Fi
4 X 1K 40.00 40 K 1600 K 0.333Fi 0.015Fi 0.009Fi 0.357Fi
Sum 3K 4K 26,700 K
Table 3–7. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to BRBFs (Y-direction)
Y-Direction
BF No. Dir Rx Ry d = x − xr d = y − yr Rd Rd 2
Fdirect Ftorsion Facc. tors Ftotal
A1 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi −0.021Fi 0.229Fi
A2 Y 1K −75.00 −75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi −0.021Fi 0.229Fi
F1 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi 0.021Fi 0.271Fi
F2 Y 1K 75.00 75 K 5625 K 0.250Fi 0.000Fi 0.021Fi 0.271Fi
1 X 1K −50.00 −50 K 2500 K 0.000Fi 0.000Fi −0.014Fi −0.014Fi
3 X 1K 10.00 10 K 100 K 0.000Fi 0.000Fi 0.003Fi 0.003Fi
4 X 1K 40.00 40 K 1600 K 0.000Fi 0.000Fi 0.011Fi 0.011Fi
Sum 3K 4K 26,700 K

The following calculations find the force in BRB along line 4 for shear in the X-Direction:
Ry
Fdirect Fi = 0 33Fi
r
ΣR
Ry
M acc. tor Rx y 6 Fi × 40 K
M acc. tors Fi × ( .05 × 120) = 6 Fi ; Facc. tors = = = 0.009 Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
26,700 K
M tor Rx y 10 Fi × 40 K
M tors Fi × 10 = 10 Fi ; Ftors = = = 0.015Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
26,700 K
Ftotala Fdiirect
r t
+ Facc. tor Fttorsion
i
= 0.357 Fi .
Table 3–6 shows that the maximum design shear for any frame line is 0.357 times the story shear. The rest
of this example focuses on the design of BRBF along line 4.
Table 3–8. Story forces applied to BRBF along line 4
Level FStory (kips) FBF4 (kips) VBF4 (kips)

Roof 128 46 46
6th 210 75 121
5th 164 58 179
4th 118 42 222
3rd 75 27 249
2nd 35 12 261
4.1 BRB LAYOUT
The layout of the lateral system should be well distributed to avoid torsional behavior as well as have
reasonable redundancy. However, many times the layout is constrained by architectural requirements.
For this example, the layout is to illustrate such constraint. Also, the layout of the BRBFs is used for the
diaphragm design example (Example 7). To illustrate the diaphragm design where the lateral system is not
symmetrical, the BRB frames in the X direction are located asymmetrically.
Typical BRB capacity ranges from a minimum of around 50 kips to a maximum capacity upwards of
1400 kips. While using larger BRB can potentially reduce the number of braced bays, larger BRB sizes
result in large overturning forces, which drive up the sizes of the columns, beams, and foundations. Thus,
aside from redundancy considerations, the layout of the BRB frames is often driven by these considerations.
In addition to well-distributed braced bays, AISC 341 commentaries also note that “engineers should
consider effects of configuration and proportioning of braces on the potential formation of building yield
mechanism.” Unlike conventional steel braces, the axial yield strength of BRBs can be set more precisely
by specifying core area as well as limiting the range of material yield strength, which are established by
coupon test. Thus engineers have more control in their design to distribution of yielding over the building
height.

4.2 BRB CONFIGURATION
Similar to the configuration of concentrically braced frames, configuration of the BRB frames can be
V-type, inverted V-type, or single diagonal configuration. Neither X-bracing nor K-bracing is an option for
BRBF.
For V-type and inverted-V-type braced frames, AISC 341 Section F4.4 lists special requirements. This will
be discussed further below.
For certain situations, e.g. tall story heights and wide bays, brace configuration may depend on maximum
lengths that the BRB manufacturers have tested. AISC 341 requires that the design of the BRB be based
on results from qualifying cyclic tests. Existing test data by manufacturers are often used for design, but
interpolation and extrapolation of existing test results needs to be justified. Where the length of the BRBs
exceeds the range of typical tested specimens, project specific tests may need to be performed.
4.3 REQUIRED BRACE AREA AISC 341
Required steel core area of a BRB is given by
Pysc = Fysc Asc with φ = 0.9 Eq F4–1
where
Fysc = specified minimum yield stress of the steel core, or actual yield stress of the steel core as
determined from a coupon test.
Asc = net area of steel core.
For this example, an average Fysc = 42 ksi was used with a tolerance of +/−4 ksi. Thus for the required steel
core area for strength consideration, the lower bound Fysc = 38 ksi was used.
Preliminary core area can be designed.
Pu = Vu /2 braces/cos (θ).
For first-floor brace, Pu = 261 kips/2/ cos (38.7) = 167 kips.
Required core area Asc req’d = Pu /φFysc = 167 kips/(0.9 × 38 ksi) = 4.9 in2. Use Asc = 5 in2.
Table 3–9 summarizes the preliminary core area for BRB frame along line 4:
Table 3–9. BRB core area along line 4
Level Vu Pu Asc Req’d Asc Used

Roof 46 29 0.9 2
6th 121 77 2.3 2.5
5th 179 115 3.4 3.5
4th 222 142 4.2 4.5
3rd 249 159 4.7 5
2nd 261 167 4.9 5

4.4 A NOTE ABOUT MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The engineer should consult with the BRB manufacturer regarding typical range of yield stress for the steel
core. If the BRB manufacturer is pre-selected during the design phase, it is sometimes possible to procure
the material ahead of time and thus have less variability of the yield stress. However, more commonly, the
project is to be competitively bid by various BRB manufacturers; thus, a reasonable range of yield stress
should be used to permit procurement process for brace manufacturers. The range of 38 ksi to 46 ksi is
fairly standard for the industry.
As discussed later in Section 6.2, this material variability needs to be accounted for when the engineer
specifies requirements for the BRBs.
4.5 COMPUTATION OF ADJUSTED BRACE STRENGTH
The adjusted brace strength in tension and compression is ωRy Pysc and βωRy Psyc respectively, where
ω and β, (the strain hardening adjustment factor and the compression strength adjustment factor)
are determined based on measurements from BRB qualification tests corresponding to two times the
design story drift or 2 percent of story height, whichever is larger. Brace deformations at the design
story drift can be obtained from computer analysis as discussed in the section below. Prior to running
a computer analysis, the engineer can estimate initial values for ω and β assuming braces are sized
such that φPysc = Pu, (assuming redundancy factor ρ = 1.0). The deformation of brace at design level
forces would then be Δbx = φ(Δby), where Δby is the deformation of the brace at first significant yield;
2Δbm = 2Cd Δbx = 2Cd(φ)(Δby) = (2)(5.0)(0.9)(Δby) = 9Δby. The corresponding core strain is approximately
9(εy) = 9(Fy /E) = 0.013. This is an approximate value only since the core strain is based on multiple
factors such as the length of core, the effective stiffness of braces, etc. Prior qualification tests by BRB
manufacturers show that β = 1.04 and ω = 1.54 for a core strain of 1.3 percent. For preliminary beam and
column design, these values will be used. After the computer analysis has been performed, the core strain
and whether a minimum 2 percent inter-story drift requirement would control will be confirmed.
4.6 BEAM DESIGN
The beam in a BRB frame acts both as an axial load carrying member and as a flexural member. The axial
load arises because the beam acts as a collector transferring the diaphragm forces to the braces. The flexure
arises because the beam carries gravity loads from the floor and in special geometrical configurations
(chevron) carries the unbalanced load from the compression and tension braces. The beam at the second
floor in the braced-frame bay will be designed in this illustrative example.
4.7 CHECK WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO
The beam in the BRB frames needs to be seismically compact. The beam size at the second floor will be
assumed to be W18 × 65 and its adequacy will be checked.
λ ps ≤ 0 3 E /F
Fy = 7.22 for W18 × 65 λ ps = b f t f = 5 06 . . . OK. T D1.1
Since the axial load in the collector is not known yet, it is conservative to assume that Ca is greater than
0.125 and hence using the minimum limit on the h/tw ratio
Per Table I-8–1
λ ps ≤ 1.499 E Fy = 35 88 for W18 × 65 λ ps = h/

h t w = 35 7 . . . OK. T D1.1
BEAM WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE OK

4.8 FIND MOMENT IN BEAM
The flexure in the beam arises because it carries the tributary gravity loading. In addition, for a chevron-
type configuration, Section 16.4(1) requires that the beam be designed for the net vertical component due to
the BRBs in tension and in compression.
For the current case, the tributary gravity load is wD = 5 ft × 77.7 psf = 388.5 plf. Add 15 psf of loading
from the elevator door as well as the self-weight of the beam. Thus the total dead load on the beam is
388.5 + 15 psf × 12 ft + 65 plf = 633.5 plf.
Similarly, the live load is estimated to be 40 psf × 5 ft = 200 plf.
The ultimate uniformly distributed load under Load Case 5 on the beam is calculated as
u
( 2 0. S DDSS ) D 0.5 L = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1)) × .63 + 0.5 × 0.2 = 1 kip-ft.
If the brace is considered as a location of support for the beam, the ultimate beam moment at mid-span
using the beam formula for a two-span continuous beam is
Mu wu (l )2 /8 = 1 × 152 /8 = . k-ft = 337.5 kip-in

p = 28.13
. k-ft.
The unbalanced load due to the unequal compression and tension capacity of the BRBs are calculated as
Punbaalanced (βωR
Ry Pysc ωRy Pysc ) sin((θ) .
Since the maximum yield is limited to 42 ksi + 4 ksi = 46 ksi and will be confirmed from a coupon test,
Ry Pysc = 46 ksi × Asc. Also, assuming β = 1.04 and ω = 1.54 as presented earlier with Asc = 5 in2 above and
below as shown in Table 3–9:
Punbaalanced = ( .04 × 1.54 × 46 × 5 − 1.54 × 46 × 5)sin(

) (38.66)) .85 kips.
This produces a moment of 8.85 kips × 30 ft/4 = 66.38 kip-ft.
The unbalanced load will act in opposite to the gravity loading. Since the brace was considered as a
location of support, the negative support moment due to gravity will be additive to this moment. Thus the
net design moment is
M u = 66.38 + 28.13 = 94.5 k-ft = 1134.1 kip-in.
4.9 CHECK BEAM FOR COMBINED AXIAL AND FLEXURE DUE TO COLLECTOR ACTION
A capacity based approach to calculate the axial force in the beam in the BRB bay will be followed. This is
done by assuming that the brace capacity in tension and compression are mobilized in the lowermost story
producing a net horizontal shear capacity of
Vu capacity
(β Ry Pysc + ωRy Pysc ) cos((θ) = (368.37 + 354
4.2) cos(38.66) = 287.5
.5 + 276.4 = 564.2 kips.
Part of the axial load in the brace at the lowermost story is due to the seismic inertia of the second floor
mass, while the large majority is due to the inertia of the upper floors, which is carried down through the
braces. If the same capacity-based approach is adopted for the upper floors, the shear immediately above
the second floor is also 564.2 kips since the same braces are used between the second and third level. This
would signify that no inertial load is generated at the second floor, which is incorrect.

While there could be various combinations as to how much of the total shear of 564.2 kips is due to the
inertia of the second floor, it will be seen that for the beam within the braced frame bay only, the maximum
axial load in the beam is unaffected since the axial load based on the brace capacity will finally need to
be delivered by the beam. For beams outside the braced frame bay, this ratio is important and needs to be
substantiated adequately so that the collectors are not under-designed.
For this illustration we will assume that the proportion of shear arising out of the inertia of the second
floor is in the same ratio as the distribution of the equivalent static lateral load presented earlier. Other
distributions such as a uniform distribution or that based on response spectrum analysis should be
considered to bound the axial force outside the braced fame bays.
Hence, the total capacity of 564.2 kips can be split into two parts. The first part has a magnitude of
(249/261) × (276.4 + 287.5) = 263.7 + 274.3 = 538 kips. The second part has a magnitude of 26.2 kips,
where 249 kips is the total shear above the second floor and 261 kips is the total shear below the second
floor obtained from Table 3–8. The 249 kips shear stays within the braced frame bay at the second floor
while the 26.2 kips is collected over the entire diaphragm width at the second floor. The resultant collector
force diagram is shown in Figure 3–5.
600
Force input from upper braces 538.0 kips
400 276.8 k = 263.7 k + 0.17 k/ft x 75 ft
200
Collector Force Dgm.
0
Shear dragged from 2nd floor
@ 26.2k/150 ft = 0.17 k/ft
-200
287.4 kips
Force coming out from lower braces

-400
564.2 kips
-600
0 30 60 90 120 150
Distance along Collector (ft)
Figure 3–5. Collector force diagram along line 4 at second floor
From Figure 3–5 it can be seen that the maximum collector force is 287.4 kips. The beam for this axial load
and a net moment of 1134.1 kip-in presented earlier will be checked.

Determine beam flexural buckling stress (assume that the beam will be braced transversely at the location
of the chevron brace):
K x l x /rx / 7.49 = 48 06
360 /7
K y l y /ry //11 69 = 106.51 . . . governs.
From AISC Table 6–1 for W18 × 65 with an unbraced length about the Y axis equal to 15 ft:
p 10 3 2 67 p 1
φc Pn = 374.5 kips.
The torsional buckling length equals the minor-axis buckling length. Under these circumstances, torsional
buckling need not be checked for an I-shaped member as minor axis buckling has a lower value for design
strength. Also since the flange and web are seismically compact, Qs = Qa = 1.0 and thus will not affect the
nominal compression strength.
AISC design methodology utilizing constrained axis flexural-torsional buckling is illustrated in Examples 2
and 7. The reader is referred to those examples for alternative design approaches.
Calculate the flexural strength of the beam:
Check beam yielding:
φ n
φ
φZ
Z x Fy = 0.9 × 133
33 × 50 = 5985 kip-in .
From Table 6–1 of the AISC:
bx 3 1
b
M nx ) = 2.44 × 10 −3 .
Strength for members under combined loading is calculated in accordance with Chapter H, “Design of
Members for Combined Forces and Torsion” of AISC.
Pu /φPn / 374.5 = 0.77 > 0 2 .

/374
Therefore, using H1-1a
Pu /φPn φM n ) = p Pu + bx
/ ( M u //φ
/9 M u = (287.4 × 2.67 + 1134.1/(12) 2.44)10
)10 3
0.99 1.0 . . . OK.
4.10 SUMMARY OF BEAM DESIGN
A W18 × 65 section can adequately resist the combination of axial and flexural loads. The member is
assumed to have adequate shear strength.
4.11 COLUMN DESIGN
Columns strength is based on following load combinations as listed in Appendix A:
1.22 D 1 0 Em + 0 5 L 1.4 D + 0 5 L 1 0 Emh

0 9 D 1 0 Em = 0 7 D 1 0 Emh .
In determining amplified seismic load, Emh is taken as the forces in all braces corresponding to their
adjusted braced strength. For this example, the column axial forces are based on the BRB reaching adjusted
brace strength at all levels.

Adjusted brace strength in compression is Pbr = βωRy Pysc. Since the maximum yield is limited to
42 ksi + 4 ksi = 46 ksi and will be confirmed from a coupon test, Ry Pysc = 46 ksi × Asc.
The vertical component of this adjusted brace strength is Pbr sin (θ). For the chevron configuration, the
unbalance load at the mid-span of the beam is βωRy Pyscsin(θ) − ωRy Pysc sin (θ) = (β − 1)ωRy Pysc sin (θ)
acting upwards. Half of this unbalanced load is resisted at each end of the beam and reduces the axial force
in the column in compression (and increase the tension load in the column in tension). Thus the column
loads can be reduced by (β − 1)/2ωRy Pysc sin (θ).
Table 3–10 summarizes the design axial forces in the columns.
Table 3–10. Summary of brace core strain calculation
Pysc Reaction
(From From
Brace PEmh = Pbr Unbal. Load Trib. Cum.
Asc Above) ωβRy Pysc sin θ at Beam Area DL L Lr P(1.4D+0.5L) P(1.4D+0.5L+Emh) ΣPu
Level in2 (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (sf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 2 0 0 0 −1.8 900 31 20.0 39.1 37.3 37.3
6th 2.5 92 147 92 −2.2 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 204.5 241.8
5th 3.5 115 184 115 −3.1 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 226.6 468.4
4th 4.5 161 258 161 −4.0 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 271.8 740.2
3rd 5 207 332 207 −4.4 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 317.4 1057.6
2nd 5 230 368 230 −4.4 900 67.7 65.0 114.6 340.4 1398.0
4.12 CHECK WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO
For a column at the first floor, select a W14 × 211 trial section. In accordance with AISC 341 Section F4.5a,
BRB columns shall comply with the width-to-thickness requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile
members.
Flanges of rolled I-shaped sections:
λ hd ≤ 0 300 E Fy = 7.22 bf t f = 5 06 . . . OK. T D1.1
Webs of rolled I-shaped sections:
Pu 1398
Ca = = = 0 50 T D1.1
φc Py 2790
λ hd ≤ 0.77
77 E Fy (2.93 − Ca ) = 45 h /tt w = 11.6 . . . OK. T D1.1
COLUMN WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE OK

4.13 FIND MOMENT IN COLUMN
As discussed in later sections, a brace connection consists of gussets that are welded to beams and columns.
Additionally, beams flanges are fully welded to columns to resist high collector forces. For this example,
the beam-column joints are modeled to be momently connected. Per AISC, it is permitted to neglect
flexural forces resulting from seismic drift. Thus the moment in the columns will be from gravity and
vertical seismic (Ev) only. From previous sections under beam calculations, the uniform load from gravity
plus Ev at the second-floor beam:
wu ( 2 0. S DDSS ) D 0.5 L = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1)) × .63 + 0.5 × 0.2 = 1 kip-ft.
Calculate negative moment at beam ends (fixed-fixed) condition:
Mu wu l 2 /12 = 1 × 30 2 /12 = 75 k-ft = 900 kip-in.
For the “inverted-V” configuration, the unbalanced load from the BRBs counteracts the gravity loads. For
the column moments, this effect will be ignored. For a column at the first floor, the beam end moment will
be resisted by columns above and below. The column base is pinned, and assuming zero moment at the mid
height of second-floor column, the column shear and moment can be calculated as follows:
Mu 75 k-ft
V1u V2u = = = 4.17 kips
H1 0 5 H 2 12 + 6
M1u V1u H1 = (4.17 kips)(12 ) 50 k-ft .
4.14 CHECK COLUMN FOR COMBINED AXIAL AND MOMENT
Check axial strength:
Per AISC Steel Manual, Column Table 4–1, for W14 × 211, kL = 12 ft:
φPn = 2550 kips

Pu /φPn ( / 55 ) = 0.55 < 1.0 . . . OK.
Check flexural strength:
Per AISC Steel Manual, for W14 × 211 with unbraced length = 12 ft:
φM n = 1463 k-ft
M u //φM n ( 5 / 6 ) = 0.05 < 1.0 . . . OK.
Using H1-1a for combined axial and moment:
Pu /φPn φM n ) = 0 60 < 1.0 . . . OK.

/ ( M u //φ
/9
4.15 SUMMARY OF COLUMN DESIGN
Column design is summarized in Table 3–11.

Table 3–11. Summary of column check
Pu φPn Pu /φPn +
Level (kips) Size (kips) Pu /φPn Mu φMn Mu /φMn 8/9[Mu /φMn]
Roof 37 W14 × 68 700 0.06 37.8 431 0.09 0.13
6th 242 W14 × 68 700 0.35 37.5 431 0.09 0.42
5th 468 W14 × 132 1568 0.30 37.5 878 0.04 0.34
4th 740 W14 × 132 1568 0.48 37.5 878 0.04 0.51
3rd 1058 W14 × 211 2550 0.42 37.5 1463 0.03 0.44
2nd 1398 W14 × 211 2550 0.56 50.0 1463 0.03 0.60
5. Preliminary Analysis and Brace Deformations
5.1 BRACE EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS AISC 341
The steel core of a BRB typically consists of a yielding segment, transition zones, and connection zones
where the core exits the casing. The effective stiffness of the BRB is based on these sections in series.
The yielding length, transition zones, and connection length vary among different manufacturers. It is
possible for the designer to control the stiffness by varying the proportions of yield length of the core to the
overall length of the brace. However, a shorter yield length, while increasing the stiffness of the brace, also
forces inelastic strain to occur at a shorter segment thus increasing the ductility demand and reducing the
cumulative energy dissipation capacity. Given the variation discussed above, the structural engineer should
consult with the manufacturer to obtain the effective stiffness of the braces. For this example, the effective
brace axial stiffness is Keff EAsc /Lwp , where Keff is the stiffness modification factor obtained from BRB
manufacturer, and Lwp is the distance between work points.
5.2 ANALYSIS ASCE 7
A three-dimensional computer model is created to analyze the building and to obtain story deflections.
Beam ends are modeled as fixed (see the discussion in a later section). Column bases are modeled as
pinned. The BRBs can be modeled as truss elements with area equals to the BRB core area (Asc) with a
stiffness modification factor (Keff) = 1.43 to capture the effective axial stiffness described above.
5.3 CHECK DEFLECTION
The resulting elastic deflections are given in Table 3–12. The elastic story drifts are the difference in the
elastic deflections at the floor above and below. The predicted inelastic story drift is given by the following
for the fourth floor:
Cd δ xe 5 0 × 0 28
x
= = 1.4 in . Eq 12.8–15
Ie 10
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12–1 based on building system and the occupancy category:
Δ a = 0.020 hssx = 0.020 × 144 = 2.88 in. T 12.12–1
δx < Δa . . . DRIFT IS OK

Elastic Deflection Elastic Story Drift, δxe Inelastic Drift, δx Story Drift Limitation
Story (in) (in) (in) (in)
Roof 1.48 0.17 0.9 2.88
6th 1.31 0.27 1.4 2.88
5th 1.03 0.28 1.4 2.88
4th 0.75 0.26 1.3 2.88
3rd 0.49 0.25 1.3 2.88
2nd 0.23 0.23 1.2 2.88
5.4 ITERATE TO SATISFY DEFLECTION
The drifts were found to satisfy the story drift limits. However, if the inelastic story drift had exceeded the
story drift limit, it would have been necessary to either increase the size of cores to increase the stiffness of
BRBs or discuss with the manufacturer regarding shortening the yield length.
5.5 BRACE DEFORMATIONS AND CONFIRMATION OF EXPECTED BRACE STRENGTH
Depending on the analysis software, brace deformations Δb can be obtained directly from computer analysis
for seismic-load cases to compute drift. The seismic load for drift may be different than for strength since
the redundancy factor ρ = 1.0 for drift and there is no upper limit for period (CuTa) used to calculate drift.
Since the analysis performed is linear elastic, Δbm = Cd Δb where Cd = 5.0 for BRBFs. Corresponding strain
in the core at 2Δbm can be calculated based on ε = 2Δbm/Lysc = 2Cd Δb/Lysc or 10Δb/Lysc.
If braced deformations are not part of the computer analysis output, BRB deformation can be easily
calculated from brace forces Δb = PbraceLwp /Keff EAsc, where Lwp is the distance between work points and Keff
is the stiffness modification factor (discussed in the previous section). Pbrace are brace forces under load
combinations for drift.
BRB yield length, Lysc, and effective stiffness vary among BRB manufacturers, so the structural engineer
should consult with the BRB manufacturer prior to calculating BRB strains. For this example, the yield
length Lysc is based on 0.7 times length between work points, and the stiffness modifier is Keff = 1.43. For
our example, Lwp /Keff = Lysc, thus, ε @ 2Δm = 10[PbraceLwp /Keff EAsc]/Lysc = 10Pbrace/EAsc.
AISC also requires that story drift be based on a minimum of 2 percent of story height. This condition
needs to be checked with the results from computer analysis. Where two times the design story drift is less
than 2 percent of story height, one method to estimate ε at 0.02 times story height is to scale the brace strain
accordingly, i.e. scaled ε = 0.02/(2 × design story drift) × ε at design story drift.

Pbrace ε at 2× Story Drift

from Design (δxe) from Is Drift
ETABS Asc Story ETABS 2Cd × δxe Drift Ratio at Scale Scaled
Story (kips) (in2) Drift (in) (in) Ratio Least 2% Factor ε
6th 29.9 2.0 0.5% 0.17 1.73 1.2% No 1.67 0.9%
5th 72.0 2.5 1.0% 0.27 2.73 1.9% No 1.05 1.0%
4th 108.6 3.5 1.1% 0.28 2.84 2.0% OK 1.00 1.1%
3rd 135.0 4.5 1.0% 0.26 2.63 1.8% No 1.09 1.1%
2nd 151.0 5.0 1.0% 0.25 2.51 1.7% No 1.15 1.2%
1st 159.2 5.0 1.1% 0.23 2.35 1.6% No 1.23 1.3%
β = 1.04 and ω = 1.54 based on core strain of 1.3 percent is conservative for all floors.
5.6 BRACE CONFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION
Brace testing requirements are stated in Section K3 of AISC-341. There are two applicable tests: the first is
a subassemblage test that incorporates end rotations of the brace; the second test may be a uniaxial test.
Displacements are based on brace yield displacement Δby. The actual yield displacement of the brace
should be determined from the test, although an estimate of Δby can be calculated from properties of the
brace (yield strength, yield length, transition zone length, etc.). For this example, Δby is calculated to be
0.2 inches. Δbm is brace deformation taken from analysis and scaled to two times the design story drift or 2
percent, whichever is larger. See Table 3–14.
Is Drift
Ratio
Pbr Asc 2Δbm 2Cd × δxe Drift at Least Scale Scaled
Story (kips) (in2) Δb (in) (in) Ratio 2% Factor 2Δbm
6th 29.9 2.0 0.083 0.83 1.73 1.2% No 1.67 1.39
5th 72.0 2.5 0.160 1.60 2.73 1.9% No 1.05 1.69
4th 108.6 3.5 0.172 1.72 2.84 2.0% OK 1.01 1.75
3rd 135.0 4.5 0.167 1.67 2.63 1.8% No 1.09 1.83
2nd 151.0 5.0 0.168 1.68 2.51 1.7% No 1.15 1.93
1st 159.2 5.0 0.177 1.77 2.35 1.6% No 1.23 2.17

Table 3–15 summarizes the test protocol for the uniaxial test for brace at first floor.
Cycle Deformation (in) Deformation as Ratio of Δby

2 @ Δby 0.2 1.0Δby
2 @ 0.5Δbm 0.54 2.7Δby
2 @ Δbm 1.08 5.4Δby
2 @ 1.5Δbm 1.63 8.2Δby
2 @ 2Δbm 2.17 10.9Δby
Aside from brace axial deformations, the building drifts impose rotations to the ends of the BRBs. The
amount of rotational demand is required for sub-assemblage tests per AISC 341. Brace-end rotations may
be obtained from the computer model. Maximum end rotations of the lower and upper ends of the brace are
summarized in Table 3–16.
Table 3–16. Summary of brace end rotations
Rotation @ Story Drift Rotation at

Rotation 2× Design (δxe) from Is Drift 2× Design
@ δxe Story Drift ETABS 2Cd × δxe Drift Ratio at Scale Drift or 2%
Story (radians) (radians) (in) (in) Ratio Least 2% Factor radians
6th 0.0006 0.006 0.17 1.73 1.2% No 1.67 0.010
5th 0.009 0.009 0.27 2.73 1.9% No 1.05 0.009
4th 0.0012 0.012 0.28 2.84 2.0% OK 1.00 0.012
3rd 0.0011 0.011 0.26 2.63 1.8% No 1.09 0.012
2nd 0.0011 0.011 0.25 2.51 1.7% No 1.15 0.013
1st 0.0011 0.011 0.23 2.35 1.6% No 1.23 0.014
6. Iteration and Final Design
The period of the building can be obtained from the computer model and compared to the period based on
method A. Based on the computer analysis, the first-mode periods in longitudinal and transverse directions
are 0.87s and 0.97s respectively. As shown, the period of the building is higher than that computed by
method A. Since the building is at the descending branch of the spectrum, the resulting base shear will be
slightly less. The BRBs in the transverse direction can also be reduced in size based on the results from the
computer analysis. Iterations can be performed to reduce brace sizes and to optimize the design.

6.1 MEMBER SIZES
After optimization, the final brace design is shown in the figure below. (The numerical values adjacent to
braces represent the steel core area, Asc, i.e. BRB2 has a core area of 2 square inches):
Figure 3–6. Final braced-frame elevations
6.2 BRACE SPECIFICATION
Since BRBFs are proprietary items specified by the engineer and manufactured by the supplier, the engineer
must clearly specify the design requirements and assumptions to the supplier. Construction documents need
to clearly specify the following:
BRB required strength. There are several options to specify BRB. Option one involves specifying a steel
core area (Asc) and a range of acceptable Fysc. Option two involves specifying brace strength (Pysc) , thus
allowing the brace manufacturer to adjust Asc based on Fysc. While option two results in lower overstrength
in the brace, it results in a variation in brace stiffness from the one the engineer has in the computer model.
This may result in different load distribution than in the analysis. For this reason, in the opinion of the
author, it is preferable to use option one.
In addition to brace strength, construction documents should also show i) the permissible range of core
yield strength; ii) the permissible variability of brace stiffness (since brace stiffness is related to core
yielding length and can be manufacturer specific); and iii) the maximum strength adjustment factors (β, ω).

Connections are to be designed such that yielding occurs at the BRB cores. Thus, per AISC 341
Section F4.6c, the diagonal brace connections are designed for 1.1 times the adjusted braced strength
(Pu = 1.1RyβωPysc).
7.1 BRB-TO-GUSSET CONNECTION
Since BRB-to-gusset connections are typically manufacturer-specific and can vary from welded, bolted,
or pinned-type connections, BRB manufacturers will typically design and detail the brace-to-gusset
connections. However, the gusset plate dimensions and subsequently the connections to beams and/or
columns will depend on this detail; thus, some amount of coordination will be required between the design
professional in responsible charge and the BRB manufacturer. At a minimum, the design professional
in responsible charge needs to convey information such as work-point locations and the beam/column
connection configuration in the design documents.
7.2 GUSSET PLATE REQUIREMENTS
The design of gusset plate detail needs to consider local and overall buckling. In addition, lateral bracing of
the gusset plate needs to be consistent with that used in the specimen used in the assemblage test.
7.3 GUSSET CONNECTION TO BEAM AND COLUMN AISC 360
Figure 3–7. Brace connection details

The design of the gusset plate and the connections to column/beams are sometimes delegated to the brace
manufacturer. This is because different manufacturers typically have different BRB end-connection details
that affect the geometry of the gusset. The design of the connection between the beam and the column
is usually the responsibility of the structural engineer of record. Since the design forces on the beam/
column joint typically depend on the assumptions in gusset plate design, the engineer of record needs to
coordinate with the brace manufacturer as well as review calculations by the manufacturer to make sure the
assumptions are consistent.
The gusset connection to beam and columns can be designed using various methods. The Uniform Force
Method is commonly used to design gusset connection and is not part of this example. The reader can refer
to the AISC Steel Manual Part 13 for a discussion of Uniform Force Method.
Per AISC 341 Section F4.6b, where a brace or gusset plate connects to both members at a beam-to-column
connection, the connection shall either be a) a simple connection that allows unrestrained relative rotation
of 0.025 radians between the framing elements being connected, or b) a fixed connection designed to resist
a moment equal to the lesser of 1.1 (LRFD) times expected beam flexural strength (Ry Mp) or 1.1 (LRFD)
times the sum of expected column flexural strengths (ΣRy Fy Z).
Unless collector loads are relatively small, it is often difficult to design the beam-to-column connection
without restraining rotation. In addition, typical welded gusset connection would not allow the relative
rotation described in AISC; thus, the connection is considered fixed. The connection for this example
between the beam and columns consisted of complete joint penetration welds at both beam flanges.
Additionally, the stiffener at the top of the gusset plate increased flexural capacity of the connection.
7.4 COLUMN SPLICES
Per AISC 341 Section D2.5b, the required strength of column splices shall be greater of a) the required
strength of the columns, including that determined from Chapters E, F, G, and H and Section D1.4a or b)
the required strength determined using the load combination with an amplified seismic load. The required
strength need not exceed the maximum load that can be transferred to the splice by the system. In addition,
per AISC 341 Section F4.6d, column splices shall be designed to develop at least 50 percent of the lesser
available flexural strength of the connected member.
Column splices occur above the third floor where columns change sizes from W14 × 211 to W14 × 132.
The required column strength between the third and fourth floors is 740.2 kips. For W14 × 132:
Bf = 14.7 and tf = 1.03. φAf Fy = 681 kips per flange. The splice consists of a complete penetration
weld of the columns flanges. By inspection, the column’s splice is capable of resisting the required
axial load as well as 50 percent of the flexural strength of W14 × 132.
Per AISC 341 Equation F4–2a, the required shear strength of the splice is determined by Vu = ΣMpc /Hc
using LRFD.
Mpc for W14 × 211 = 50 ksi × 390 in3/12 = 1625 k-ft

Mpc for W14 × 132 = 50 ksi × 234 in3/12 = 975 k-ft
Hc = Story height − beam depth − slab thickness = 12 ft − (18 in + 4.5 in)/12 = 10.13 ft
Vu = (1625 k-ft + 975 k-ft)/10.13 ft = 257 kips.
Check shear strength of web of W14 × 132:
φvVn = (φv)(0.6)(Fy)(tw)(d) = (1.0)(0.6)(50 ksi)(0.645 in)(14.7 in) = 284 kips > Vu . . . OK.

7.5 STABILITY BRACING AISC 360
For V-type or inverted-V-type brace configurations, as a minimum, one set of lateral braces is required at
the point of intersection of the braces, unless the beam has sufficient out-of-plane strength and stiffness to
ensure stability between adjacent brace points. The design of stability bracing is beyond the scope of this
example.

Design Example 4
Special Plate Shear Walls
OVERVIEW
Special Plate Shear Walls (SPSW) consist of a plate bounded at the sides by columns, also referred to as
vertical boundary elements (VBE), and at the floor levels by beams, also referred to as horizontal boundary
elements (HBE). The alternate terms for beams (HBE) and columns (VBE) emphasize the boundary
element’s role of resisting the tension field developed in the plate.
Steel plate shear walls have been used as early as the 1970’s in the United States (Anon 1977, Anon 1978a,
Anon 1978b, Troy 1979). The early implementations of these walls in the U.S. were designed so that the
web plates did not buckle under shear loading. To prevent buckling, the web plates had to be thick and
stiffened at intermediate points across a shear panel. This type of system is commonly referred to as a
stiffened steel plate shear wall and is still the preferred behavior in Japan where buckling is not permitted
in the lateral-load-resisting system. Another manifestation of the stiffened steel plate shear wall is the
Composite Steel Plate Shear Wall (C-SPW), which uses concrete to brace the plate.
On the other hand, the fact that web plates have post-buckling capacity has been known and applied for
decades when it comes to plate girders (Basler 1961, Porter 1975). Upon buckling, a diagonal tension field
develops in the plate, which, along with the boundary members, creates a truss-like system that can resist
significant shear. In some ways, SPSW are similar to a plate girder turned vertical. The major difference
between plate girders and SPSW is the greater strength and stiffness of the SPSW column compared to the
plate girder flange (Berman and Bruneau 2004). Unstiffened SPSW design is focused around keeping the
boundary elements elastic while the web plate yields along an inclined tension field.

Design Example 4 䡲 Special Plate Shear Walls
Since the 1980’s, tension field action has been utilized in steel plate shear walls and is the basis of the
AISC 341 provisions for SPSW. Since these systems allow thinner plates and do not require stiffeners,
they are commonly cheaper, and thus have become more popular than their stiffened counterparts in North
America. Steel plate shear walls that utilize the post-buckling capacity of the shear plate are commonly
referred to as thin or unstiffened. U.S. code provisions apply to unstiffened steel plate shear walls that
utilize the post-buckling capacity of the web plate.
Engineers can choose whether to design the SPSW as a dual system with special moment frames (SMF)
capable of resisting 25 percent of the lateral forces (R = 8.0) or as a SPSW with ordinary moment
connections (R = 7.0) (ASCE 7). AISC 341 requires moment connections between the HBE and VBE in
both cases, because they fill out the hysteresis loops (dissipate additional seismic energy), provide lateral
resistance during load reversal (while the tension field in the web plate reverses direction), and add lateral
stiffness.
One of the defining characteristics of SPSW is the significant amount of strength that can be developed
in a short length of wall. SPSW can be especially useful in building configurations with open floor plans
and little room to hide braced frames. Of course, with more slender lateral-resisting elements comes
correspondingly higher overturning forces and a greater likelihood that deflection will control the design.
This example is tailored to the use of unstiffened SPSW in high-seismic regions with all the ductile
detailing requirements implied therein. Stiffened SPSW, composite steel plate shear walls, and low seismic
applications for SPSW are not addressed. See the AISC Design Guide 20 (Sabelli and Bruneau 2006) for
more information on these topics. Other references of note are the MCEER report on design of perforated
steel plate shear walls (Purba and Bruneau 2007), the MCEER report by Vian and Bruneau (2007), which
gives test results for panels with perforations and low-yield-strength steel, the paper by Berman and
Bruneau (2008) which discusses capacity design of VBE’s, and the paper by Qu and Bruneau (2010) which
discusses HBE capacity design.
OUTLINE
1. Building and Special Plate Shear Wall Layout
4. Preliminary Sizing of the Web Plate and Boundary Members
5. Analysis and Design (Iterative)

1. Building and Special Plate Shear Wall Layout
The building is a six-story office building located in San Francisco. The Seismic Design Category is D. See
Appendix A for the following information:
• Building dimensions
• Floor and roof weights
• Latitude and longitude
• Soil type
• Spectral accelerations
• Load combinations including the vertical seismic-load effect
1.2 LAYOUT OF SHEAR WALLS
Figure 4–1 shows the plan location of the shear walls. There are four shear walls oriented in each direction,
making eight walls in total. Figure 4–2 shows a typical wall elevation.
A B C D E F
5 @ 30'-0" = 150'-0"
5C 5D
5
4
A4 F4
4 @ 30'-0" = 120'-0"
Deck
A2 Span F2
2
1
1C 1D
Figure 4–1. Plan layout of shear walls

4'-0"
A B C D E F
15'-0" 15'-0"
P AR AP E T
R OOF
6th F LR
5th F LR
6@ 12'-8"=76'-0"
4th F LR
3rd F LR
2nd F LR
1s t F LR
Figure 4–2. Typical wall elevation
The floor and roof weights are given in Appendix A. The seismic weight is tabulated in Table 4–1.
Table 4–1. Building seismic weight calculation

Floor 75 14,400 1080
Second to Sixth 1218
Ext Wall 20 6885 138
Roof 30 14,400 432
Roof 544
Total Building Weight, W = 5 × 1218 + 544 = 6634 kips
W = 6634 kips


ACCELERATIONS
There are two options in ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1 for using special plate shear walls: a SPSW, and a SPSW/
SMF dual system. The two options are shown in Table 4–2 along with performance factors and height
limitations.
Table 4–2. System factors for SPSW from ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1
Height Limits by Seismic Design

Response Over- Category
Seismic-Force- Mod. Strength Defl.
Resisting System Coef., R Factor, Ωo Amp., Cd B C D E F
B26 SPSW2 7.0 2.0 6.0 NL NL 160 160 100
D13 SPSW—SMF 8.0 2.5 6.5 NL NL NL NL NL
Dual System1, 2
1. Dual system with Special Moment Frames capable of resisting at least 25 percent of prescribed seismic
forces.
2. IBC Section 2205.2 references AISC 341 for detailing requirements (note that IBC 2012 does not adopt
ASCE 7 Chapter 14 as stated in IBC Section 1613.1). In Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C, it is
not required to follow the provisions of AISC 341 if using R = 3, Ωo = 3, and Cd = 3 from part H of
Table 12.2–1.
For the purposes of this example, a special plate shear wall without the dual system will be used. The height
of the structure is 76 feet, 0 inches, which is less than the limit for Seismic Design Category D. The system
factors are:
R = 7.0 Ωo = 2.0 Cd = 6.0
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are calculated in Appendix A based on SS = 1.50g and
S1 = 0.60g to be
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g
2.2 RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Ct = 0.02 and x = 0.75 T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0 02 × 76 0 75
= 0.51 sec (see discussion below) Eq 12.8–7
Ta = 0.51 sec

Develop the design response spectrum using Section 11.4.5:
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for Ts < T < TL Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long period transition occurs at TL = 12 sec
(from Figure 22–12).
1.2
Approximate SPSW Building Period,
Ta=0.51 sec, Sa=1.0g
1 SDS=1.0g
TS=0.60 sec
0.8
Too=0.12 sec
Tmax = 0.71 sec
0.6
Sa=0.4+5.0T
0.4
Calc’ed SPSW
Period, T = 0.92 sec
0.2
Sa=0.60/T
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 4–3. Design response spectrum for the example building
As shown in Figure 4–3, the design spectral acceleration is between To and TS, so the design spectral
acceleration Sa is 1.0g. It is not required to construct the design response spectrum when using the
equivalent lateral force procedure, since the response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of Cs in
Section 12.8.1.1.
The response spectrum demonstrates the effect of the assumptions used in the calculation of building
period. The approximate fundamental period was computed above to be Ta = 0.51 sec. The period of the
structure can also be established through structural analysis of the SPSW. Section 12.8.2, however, limits
the period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta, where Cu is a

factor found in Table 12.8–1. In this case Tmax = 1.4 × 0.51 = 0.71 sec. As shown later in this example, drifts
are close to, if not at, the story drift limits of Section 12.12. Therefore, the maximum period, Tmax, will be
used to design the SPSW and the actual period of the building be verified later in the design process. The
first mode period of the final design shown in Figure 4–15 was calculated to be 0.92 sec; therefore, the
initial assumption of T = 0.71 sec is shown to not only be valid, but still conservative.
Determine if the structure has horizontal irregularities.
computed including accidental torsion is more than 1.2 times the average story drift. An
extreme torsional irregularity exists when the maximum story drift is more than 1.4 times the
average story drift. From the rigid diaphragm analysis presented later in this example:
Fi
δ max
a
= 0.26
K
Fi
δ avg = 0 25
K
F
δ max 0.26 i
a
= K = 1.04 < 1.2 → NO TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY
δ avg Fi
0.25
K
where:
Fi = story shear
K = stiffness of one SPSW (assuming all SPSWs are identical).
2. Reentrant Corner Irregularity—This plan irregularity exists when a reentrant corner has
plan dimensions in both directions that are greater than 15 percent of the overall plan
dimension. The reentrant corner in this structure is 30 feet/150 feet = 20% of the plan width
and 30 feet/120 feet = 25 percent of the plan depth.
→ REENTRANT CORNER IRREGULARITY EXISTS.
3.–5. By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these Horizontal Structural
Irregularities.
HORIZONTAL IRREGULARLY TYPE 2
According to Section 12.3.3.4, because the structure has a horizontal irregularity of Type 2, the forces in
connections of diaphragms to vertical elements, connections of the diaphragm to collectors, connections
of collectors to the seismic-force-resisting system, and the collectors themselves shall be increased by 25
percent unless designed for seismic-load effects including overstrength factor.

By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of the Vertical Structural Irregularities.
Determine which lateral force procedure to use:
1. Simplified Alternative Structural Design Criteria—According to Section 12.14.1.1, this analysis

procedure can be used for SPSW, but not for buildings over three stories—NOT PERMITTED
2. Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis—According to Table 12.6–1, since the building is less than
160 feet tall and only has plan irregularity 2—PERMITTED
2.6 BASE SHEAR
Compute the seismic base shear using Section 12.8.
S DS 1 00
Cs = = = 0 14 Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 7 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
S D1 0 60
Cs ≤ = = 0 12. Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 7 0⎞
0 71 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Also,
Cs 0 044 S DS I e = 0.044(1.0)(1.0) = 0.044 Eq 12.8–5

Cs ≥ 0 01
0 5S1 0 5 × 0 60
Cs ≥ = = 0.044 Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 7 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
Cs = 0.12

V CsW = 0.12
1 × 6634 = 796 kips Eq 12.8–1
V = 796 kips
Redundancy Factor is 1.3 unless either Section 12.3.4.2(a) or Section 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true,
in which case the Redundancy Factor can be taken as 1.0. Since Section 12.3.4.2(a) is satisfied, the
Redundancy Factor is 1.0 for both directions.

See Appendix A for the derivation of load combinations based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2Sds = 0.2.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the SPSW are §12.4.2.3

0 9 D 1 0 E = 0 7 D 1 0QE . Load Combo 7 (modified)
Load combinations with overstrength are not used for the SPSW frame (although they apply for collectors
and at other conditions outside the SPSW frame).
The equation for distributing the shear along the height of the building is shown below. Since the period =
0.71 > 0.5 sec, the value for k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for T = 2.5 sec.
In this example, k = 1.105. The other terms are defined in Section 12.8.3.
wx hxk
Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1


Roof 544 76.0 65,148 0.16 127
6 1218 63.3 119,248 0.29 232
5 1218 50.7 93,189 0.23 181
4 1218 38.0 67,812 0.17 132
3 1218 25.3 43,324 0.11 84
2 1218 12.7 20,141 0.05 39
Total 6634 408,862 1.00 796
As shown in Figure 4–4, the center of mass and center of rigidity coincide at the middle of the building.
To distribute the load to each SPSW, the story shear, Fi, is applied in the X and Y directions. Per
Section 12.8.4.2, the point of application of the story shear is offset 5 percent to account for accidental
eccentricity. The 5 percent offset is 6 feet for the N-S plan dimension of 120 feet and 7.5 feet for the E-W
plan dimension of 150 feet.
5C 5D
A4 F4
6'-0"
S T OR Y
S HE AR ,
Fi
AC C .
C E NT E R OF T OR S ION
MAS S AND 7'-6"
C E NT E R OF
A2 F2
R IG IDIT Y
Y S T IF F NE S S ,
K, TYP
X
1C 1D
Figure 4–4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute story shear to SPSW

Since all of the SPSWs are the same, a generic stiffness, K, is assumed for all walls. Example calculations
of direct shear, Vdirect, the shear in each SPSW due to torsion, Vtors, and the total shear, Vtotal, are given below
SPSW 5D for shear in the X-Direction. The values associated with horizontal distribution of shear for other
walls and for forces in the Y-Direction are tabulated in Table 4–4. The distance from the center of mass in
the N-S direction, Ry, and E-W direct, Rx are used in these calculations.
Ry
Vdirect Fi = 0 25Fi
r
ΣR
Ry
M Fi × ( .05 × 120) = 6 Fi
M Rx y 6 Fi × 60 K
Vtors = = = 0 01Fi
ΣR
Rd
R 2
36900 K
Vtotala Vdiirect
r t
+ Vtors 0 25Fi + 0.01Fi 0 26 Fi
Table 4–4. Rigid diaphragm analysis to distribute shear to SPSW
X-Direction Y-Direction
Wall x y Ryx Rxy Rd 2 Vdirect Vtors Vtotal Vdirect Vtors Vtotal
A2 −75 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi 0 −0.015Fi −0.015Fi
A4 −75 −75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi 0 −0.015Fi −0.015Fi
F2 75 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi 0 0.015Fi 0.015Fi
F4 75 75 K 5625 K 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi 0 0.015Fi 0.015Fi
1C −60 −60 K 3600 K 0 −0.01Fi −0.01Fi 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi
1D −60 −60 K 3600 K 0 −0.01Fi −0.01Fi 0.25Fi −0.012Fi 0.24Fi
5C 60 60 K 3600 K 0 0.01Fi 0.01Fi 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi
5D 60 60 K 3600 K 0 0.01Fi 0.01Fi 0.25Fi 0.012Fi 0.26Fi
ΣRd = 36,900 K
2
Table 4–4 shows that the maximum design shear for any wall is 0.26 times the story shear. The rest of this
example focuses on the design of SPSW 5D. The story shear and cumulative shears for SPSW 5D are given
in Table 4–5.
Table 4–5. Story forces applied to SPSW 5D
Level Incremental Shear (kips) Cumulative Shear (kips)

Roof 33 33
6th 60 93
5th 47 140
4th 34 175
3rd 22 197
2nd 10 207

4. Preliminary Sizing of the Web Plate and Boundary Members
4.1 PRELIMINARY WEB-PLATE DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS AISC 341
The web plate of a SPSW can develop especially large shear capacity even with thin web plates. However,
to promote uniform yielding in web plates along the height of the structure, it is preferred to proportion web
plates to have shear capacities that match the shear demands at each floor. This can result in very thin web
plates. For example, the thickness of the sixth-floor web plate was computed based on a solid web plate, the
computed shear demand, and the equation for shear capacity given in AISC 341-10:
φ n
φ 42 Fy t w Lccff i 2α ) = 2184t w with φ = 0.9
φ0 Eq F5–1
where,
Fy is the web-plate yield strength (assumed to be 36 ksi)

tw is the thickness of the plate to be computed
Lcf = clear distance between VBE = 15 ft × 12 in/ft − 17 in = 163 in (assuming dc = 17 in)
α = angle of inclination of tension field relative to vertical (assumed to be 40°)
( u
ki ) ( n w
)
t w ≥ 0.015 in required thickness for a solid web plate at the sixth floor.
It is shown above that a web plate as thin as 0.015 inches thick would be sufficient to resist the design shear
forces at the sixth floor. However, there are constructability issues associated with using plate material that
thin including weldability, handling, and obtaining suitable steel material. More information about using
thin web-plate material is included in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006) and ICC/SEAOC (2012).
AISC 341 Chapter F5.7 presents two alternatives to the solid plate SPSW including a perforated SPSW
and a corner cut-out SPSW. These alternatives, especially the perforated SPSW, represent a method for
reducing the strength of the plate to allow the use of thicker plate that can be made with more commonly
available material. Furthermore, tests have shown larger buckling loads and improved energy dissipation in
perforated SPSWs as compared to similar strength solid-web SPSWs (Vian and Bruneau 2005). Perforated
SPSWs are selected for this design example.
Design of a perforated SPSW begins with selecting a hole diameter, D, the diagonal hole spacing, Sdiag,
and the angle of hole lines, α. The only restriction given is that the diagonal spacing, Sdiag, shall be at least
1.67D [Section F5.7a(2)]. However, there are some important considerations when selecting these variables.
The ratio of Sdiag/D is an important parameter as it defines the amount of strength reduction compared to the
solid plate. Smaller values of Sdiag/D result in closer-spaced holes and thus more strength reduction. For this
example, use the minimum ratio to maximize the plate thickness, Sdiag/D = 1.67.
USE Sdiag/D = 1.67

(OR SLIGHTLY LARGER AS NECESSARY)

Three criteria are considered here for selecting the hole diameter: the hole diameter used in experiments,
the cost of cutting the holes, and how well the holes can be configured in the wall geometry. The
hole diameter used in the one large-scale test (approximately half scale) of a perforated SPSW was
approximately 8 inches (200 mm) (Vian et al. 2009). Finite element models have been made of a perforated
SPSW with perforation diameters between 2 inches and 12 inches (Purba and Bruneau 2009). Tests on
smaller plates (12 inches × 12 inches or 18 inches × 12 inches) with single perforations were conducted
with hole diameters between 2.4 inches and 6 inches (Roberts and Sabouri-Ghomi 1992).
The cost of cutting the perforations is directly related to the length of cut. Figure 4–5 shows the variation in
the length of cut normalized to area of the web plate for varying hole diameter and spacing ratio. It is clear
that larger hole diameters result in shorter length of cut and thus more economical fabrication. However,
the layout of larger holes (D ≥ 20 inches) in the typical 15-foot-wide × 12-feet-8-inches-tall bay used in
this example can result in configurations that do not develop the tension strip concept illustrated in Figure
C-F5.7 in the commentary. Figure 4–6 shows the perforation layout for four different hole diameters in the
typical bay using a hole orientation angle of 45 degrees, spacing ratio of Sdiag/D = 1.67, and satisfy required
distance [Section F5.7a(2)] between edge holes and web-plate connection to boundary elements of between
D and D + 0.7Sdiag. With the goal of maximizing the hole diameter to improve economy, while selecting
a perforation layout capable of developing well-defined tension strips, a hole diameter of 16 inches is
selected for this example. The 16-inch diameter is also considered reasonable relative to large-scale testing
performed at half-scale on panels with 8-inch-diameter holes.
USE D = 16 in
Figure 4–5. Effect of hole diameter and S/D ratio on length of cut

(a) D = 24" (b) D = 20"
(c) D = 16" (d) D = 12"

Figure 4–6. Four possible hole arrangements for the perforated SPSW with α = 45°
Finally, the angle of the hole lines, α, needs to be selected. Although the specification does not explicitly
restrict the possible hole line angles, there are some good reasons to set the angle equal to 45 degrees.
First, the tension strip will be most effective when the angle is near the angle of inclination of a solid plate
as given by Eq F5–2. The web plate will naturally form a tension field at that orientation, which is usually
between 35 degrees and 45 degrees.

Second, the effective tension strip width, Seff , will reduce as the angle varies away from 45 degrees. This
is demonstrated in Figure 4–7 for angles of 30 degrees and 60 degrees, both of which have an effective
tension strip width, Seff , equal to 87 percent of the diagonal hole spacing, Sdiag. The effective tension strip
width is used in the literature (Purba and Bruneau 2009, Vian et al. 2009) to develop the strength and
stiffness of the panel, so if the angle is not 45 degrees, the effective strip width, Seff , should be used in place
of Sdiag to reduce the strength, stiffness, and expected tension stress in the specification. This is supported
in the literature (Purba and Bruneau 2009, Vian et al. 2009, Purba and Bruneau 2007) in which Sdiag is used
to represent the width of the effective tension strip in the finite element analyses. If the angle is 45 degrees,
the tension strip width is equal to Sdiag. The equation relating the effective tension strip width, Seff , to the
diagonal hole spacing, Sdiag, is given below and plotted for a range of Sdiag/D and angles in Figure 4–8.
Sefff ⎛ Sdiag ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ sin [2(( − )]
D ⎝ D ⎠
To maximize the efficiency of the perforated plate, use α = 45° for this example.
USE α = 45°
Sdiag Seff
Seff
Sdiag
60°
30°
α = 60° α = 30°
Figure 4–7. Possible variations in the angle of holes

Figure 4–8. Effect of varying the angle of holes on effective strip width
The layout of the perforations is now defined and is shown in Figure 4–6(c). Compute the required
thickness of the plates using the following equation. The web plate is designed to resist the full story shear
without consideration of the moment connections, and the equation below implicitly assumes an angle of
the hole lines of, α = 45°.
⎛ D ⎞
Vn 0 42 Fy t w Lccff ⎜ 1 − 0 7 ⎟ with φ = 0.9 Eq F5–3
⎝ Sdiag ⎠
where,
Fy and tw are the yield strength and thickness of the plate respectively
Lcf = clear distance between VBE = 15 ft × 12 in/ft − 17 in = 163 in (assuming dc = 17 in)
D and Sdiag are defined above as the hole diameter and the spacing of the holes along the diagonal
Plate and steel sheet materials that are allowed in AISC 341-10 Section A3.1 include A36 and A1011
Gr. 55. However, use of A1011 SS Gr. 55 may be undesirable because of the larger yield stress. A1011
SS Gr. 30 and A1011 SS Gr. 33 provide a good alternative even though they are not explicitly allowed in the
specification. A1011 SS Gr. 30 and A1011 SS Gr. 33 have been used in construction of SPSWs (Eatherton
2004) and are discussed further in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006) and SEAOC/ICC (2006). For this design
example, it is assumed that A36 steel sheet is available in 1⁄16 inch (0.0625 inch), 14 gage (0.0747 inch),
12 gage (0.1046 inch), 1⁄8 inch (0.125 inch), 10 gage (0.1345 inch), and 3⁄16 inch (0.1875 inch) as suggested
in Sabelli and Bruneau (2006).

Size the web plate at the first floor. Try 3⁄16-inch-thick A36 plate with hole diameter, D = 16 inches,
Sdiag = 28 inches, and angle α = 45°.
Vu = 207 kips From T 4–5
3 ⎛ 16 ⎞
φVn = 0 9 × 0 42 × 36 × × 163 1 − 0.7 ⎟ = 250 kips → OK
16 ⎝ 28 ⎠
φVn = 250 kips
The rest of the web-plate designs are tabulated in Table 4–6.
Table 4–6. Preliminary web-plate design at each level
Design Hole Hole Shear Demand-

Thick., Diameter, Spacing, Capacity, to-
Plate Plate tw D Sdiag Shear, Vu φVn Capacity
Level Mat’l Thick. (in) (in) (in) (kips) (kips) Ratio
6th A36 1/16 0.0625 16 28 33 83 0.40
5th A36 14 ga 0.0747 16 28 93 99 0.94
4th A36 12 ga 0.1046 16 34 140 156 0.90
3rd A36 10 ga 0.1345 16 28 175 179 0.98
2nd A36 10 ga 0.1345 16 34 197 200 0.98
1st A36 3/16 0.1875 16 28 207 250 0.83
4.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARY ELEMENT DESIGN
For boundary element design, AISC 341 Section F5.3 states that boundary members are to be designed for
the forces corresponding to the expected yield strength, in tension, of the web calculated at the angle α. The
definition of the expected yield strength of the web plate is Fy Ry and the expected flexural strength of the
HBE is 1.1Ry Mp (for LRFD). The values of Ry for different materials are given in Table A3.1 and is Ry = 1.3
for A36 plate and sheet.
Figure 4–9 shows the forces in the HBE and VBE due to the application of the expected yield strength of
the plate at angle α and the expected moment strength of the HBE.
F Fy Ry t w → Expected web plate yield strength at angle α

M pe 1.1Ry M p → Expected moment strength of the HBE

Figure 4–9. SPSW divided into parts to show forces

Δ /sinα
Figure 4–10. Components of expected web strength applied to HBE and VBE
(based on Sabelli and Bruneau 2006)
For the design of the HBE and VBE, it is necessary to separate the force, F, into components. Figure 4–10
shows a representative strip of web plate acting at an angle α. Sabelli and Bruneau (2006) present a
derivation of the resulting horizontal and vertical forces acting on the HBE and VBE:
Force Ry Fy t w Δ cos α
F11 = = = Ry Fy t w cos2 α
Length
t Δ
cos α
Ry Fy t w Δ sin α ⎡1 ⎤
F12 = = Ry Fy t w i α α Ry Fy t w ⎢ sin ( )⎥
Δ ⎣2 ⎦
cos α
Ry Fy t w Δ cos α ⎡1 ⎤
F21 = = Ry Fy t w i α α Ry Fy t w ⎢ sin ( )⎥
Δ ⎣2 ⎦
sin α
Ry Fy t w Δ sin α
F22 = = Ry Fy t w sin 2 α .
Δ
sin α

For this design example, the perforations have the effect of reducing the web-plate strength and fixing the
angle of inclination, α. Since the angle of hole lines is 45 degrees, the trigonometric terms in the above
equations simplify to:
1 1
cos2 α sin
i ( ) = sin 2 α = .
2 2
The effect of the perforations on web-plate strength is to reduce the expected yield strength as follows:
⎛ 0 7D ⎞
Solid plate, F Ry Fy t w → perforated plate, F Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟.
⎝ Sdiag ⎠
So the components of the yielding web-plate tension simplify to
1 ⎛ 0 7D ⎞
F11 F12 = F21 F22 = Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟.
2 ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
For the sixth floor, the forces F and Fij are calculated below. All tension field components are given in
Table 4–7.
⎛ D6 ⎞ ⎛ 16 ⎞
F6 Ry 6 Fy 6 t w 6 ⎜ 1 0.7 2 ) 1 0.7 ⎟ = 1.76 kip-in
⎟ (1.3)(36)(0.0625
⎝ S diag −6 ⎠ ⎝ 28 ⎠
1 ⎛ D6 ⎞ 1 ⎛ 16 ⎞
Fij −6 Ry 6 Fy 6 t w 6 ⎜ 1 − 0.7 ⎟ = (1.3)(36)(0.0625
6 5) ⎜ 1 0.77 ⎟ = 0 88 kip-in
2 ⎝ Sdiag−6 ⎠ 2 ⎝ 28 ⎠
Table 4–7. Components of the expected strength of the tension field
Level F (k/in) F11, F12, F22, F21 (k/in)

6th 1.76 0.88
5th 2.10 1.05
4th 3.28 1.64
3rd 3.78 1.89
2nd 4.22 2.11
1st 5.27 2.63
4.4 OVERVIEW OF ROOF AND SIXTH-FLOOR HBE DESIGN
The HBEs are designed for the moments due to vertical force associated with the web-plate yielding, Fij,
and vertical forces associated with the gravity loads. The HBE resists axial compression due to the inward
pull applied to the columns by the yielding web plate in addition to the axial force due to collector forces.
The HBE resists shear associated with the web-plate yielding, expected plastic moment capacity at both

ends, and gravity loads. Figure 4–11 shows the forces acting on the roof HBE and the sixth-floor HBE.
Note the following:
• The roof HBE resists the force of the tension field on one side only. In some cases this will
result in a heavier top HBE than in floors below.
• At intermediate floors, if the plate is the same thickness above and below, the HBE does not
resist vertical forces other than gravity loads. When the plates are of different thickness above
and below, the HBE is designed for the forces associated with the difference.
• The HBE is not required to be designed for end moments unless using a dual system where the
moment frame is to be designed to resist 25 percent of the lateral forces.
Figure 4–11. HBE design forces
For this example, the calculations for the roof HBE and sixth-floor HBE will be presented, then design
information will be presented for all the HBEs. The design process will consist of computing the required
flexural strength, Mu, calculating the required axial strength, Pu, calculating the design flexural strength,
φMn, calculating the design axial strength, φPn, checking the interaction equation of AISC 360-10
Section H1.1, then checking that the design shear strength, φVn, exceeds the required shear strength, Vu.
4.5 FIND THE HBE MOMENT
Assume that the HBE will be laterally braced at mid-span with a beam as shown in Figure 4–1. Find the
moment on the roof HBE for SPSW 5D:
⎧ w ⎫ ⎧⎪ 25 psf D ⎫⎪
⎪ D1 ⎪ 0.13
13 kip-ft D
⎨ ⎬ = 5 ft × ⎨ ⎬= Uniform load due to roof gravity loads
⎪⎩ wL ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ 20 psf Lr ⎪⎭ 0 10 kip-ft Lr
wD2 (6 33 f ll 4 f p p ) 20 0 21 kip f D Uniform load due to exterior wall
F11 6
0 88 12 10 6 kip f QE .

Using load combination number 5, the required design strength for the roof HBE is
L2cf
Mu [1 4( wD1 + wD 2 ) 1. ( F11−6 )] . Load Combo 5 (modified)
4
The equation Mu = wL2/4 to calculate the required moment due to a distributed load is based on work by
Bruneau et al. (2011) that shows that HBEs subjected to end moments and distributed load can develop
in-span plastic hinging unless the beam is designed to resist a maximum moment of wL2/4. The required
design strength for the roof HBE is therefore
(163 )2
M u = [1.4( .13 + 0. ) + 1.. (10.6)] = 511 kip-ft
f.
4
Mu = 511 KIP-FT ROOF HBE
The required design strength for the sixth-floor HBE is similar. The differences are the inclusion of floor
live load per load combination 5 (no floor live load for the roof HBE) and the vertical force associated with
web-plate yielding. The vertical force associated with web-plate yielding is the difference in vertical force
applied by the sixth-floor web-plate yielding and the fifth-floor web-plate yielding. The required design
strength for the sixth-floor HBE is therefore
L2cf
Mu ⎡⎣1 4( wD1 + wD 2 ) + 0 5( wL ) + 1.0[( F11−6 fftt ⎤⎦
F1111−5 )12 in/ft]
4
⎧ w ⎫ ⎧⎪ 65 psf D ⎫⎪
⎪ D1 ⎪ 0.33 kip-ft D
⎨ ⎬ = 5 ft × ⎨ ⎬=
⎪⎩ wL ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ 65 psf L ⎪⎭ 0 33 kip-ft L
wD2 12 67 f ll 20 p f 0 255 kip f D

( 6 )2
M u = [1.4( .33 + 0. 5) + 0.5(0.. ) + 1. (2. )] .
4
Mu = 139 KIP-FT 6TH FLOOR HBE
4.6 FIND THE HBE COMPRESSION FORCE ASCE 7
Next, find the compression force in the roof HBE for SPSW 5D. The roof HBE resists two components of
compression:
1. Compression from the story shear collected to the wall. This can be estimated as the larger
of the diaphragm collector force, Pcollector, or the maximum force that the web plate can
develop, P12.
2. Horizontal reaction from the VBE that resists the inward pull of the tension field, P22.
The compressive load from collecting load to the SPSW is limited by the shear that can be developed at the
top of the panel:
P12 F12−6 Lcf = 0.88 × 163 = 1433 kips.

Compare this load to the collector force: §12.10.1.1

n
∑ Fi
Fpx − roof
r
= i x
n
w px = 127 kips Eq 12.10–1
∑ wi
i x
Fpx − roof
r
0 2 S DSS I e w px = 0 2 × 1 0 × 1 0 × 544 = 109 kips
Fpx− roof
r
= 127 kips
Fpx − roof
r 2 0 × 127
Pcollector = Ωo = = 63 kips .
4 frame
a s 4
The design collector load, Pcollector, is less than the force required to fully yield the web plate (neglecting the
moment connections), P12. The intent of the AISC 341 provisions is clear, in that the boundary elements are
to be able to resist the effects of the expected yield strength of the web plate. The HBE should, therefore, be
designed for the larger of Pcollector or P12 plus the horizontal reaction from the VBE calculated below.
The horizontal reaction from the VBE is the load required to resist the component F22 for the height of the
column tributary to the top beam. This force accounts for the tendency of the columns to bow inward from
tension field action. The HBEs brace the column against this inward pull.
F22−6 = 0.88 kip-in from Table 4–8

h db 12.67 × 12 − 18
P22 F22 = 0 88 × = 59 kips (assuming a W18 beam)
2 2
Pu a P12 , Pcollector } P22 = 143 + 59 = 202 kips
max{
Pu = 202 KIPS ROOF HBE
The process for finding the axial compression force on the sixth-floor HBE is similar. The beam axial force
due to web-plate shear acting along the axis of the beam, P12, is found using the difference between the
web-plate forces above and below. Similarly, the beam axial forces due to the inward pull of the columns,
P22, has a portion due to the web plate above and the web plate below the sixth-floor level.
P12 ( F12−55 − F12

12 6
) Lcf = (1.05 0.88) × 163 = 28 kips
n
∑ Fi
Fpx −6 = i x
n
w px = 248 kips Eq 12.10–1
∑ wi
i x
Fpx −6 0 2 S DSS I e w px = 0 2 × 1 0 × 1 0 × 1218 = 244 kips

Fpx−6 = 248 kips
Fpx −6 2 0 × 248
Pcollector = Ωo = = 124 kips
4 frame
a s 4
h db h db 12.67 × 12 − 18
1
P22 F22−66 + F22
22 5
= (0
(0.88 1.055) × = 129 kips (assume W18 Beam)
2 2 2
Pu a P12 , Pcollector } P22 = 124 + 129 = 253 kips
max{

Pu = 253 KIPS 6TH FLOOR HBE
4.7 SELECT PRELIMINARY SECTION FOR THE ROOF HBE AISC 341
W18 sections are used for the preliminary HBE sections in this example. Choose a W18 × 86 for the roof
HBE. Since the calculations are identical for the remaining HBEs, they are not repeated for the sixth floor
here. For this example it is desired to only have one point of lateral bracing between the columns. Check
the maximum spacing for lateral bracing for this section. Section F5.4c references Section D1.2a for the
lateral bracing requirements associated with moderately ductile members.
E
Lb 0 17ry §D1.2a
Fy
29,000
Lb− max
a
= 0.17 × 1.67 = 259.3 i = 21 ft-7 in
50
The HBE is laterally braced at 7 feet, 6 inches . . . OK.
ROOF HBE LATERAL BRACING IS OK
Since it is necessary for the HBEs to develop plastic hinges for the full mechanism to occur, Section F5.5a
requires that the HBEs meet the section compactness requirements associated with highly ductile members.
The following calculations verify that the roof HBE satisfies those compactness criteria.
⎛ E ⎞
λf ≤ ⎜0 3 = 7.22⎟ λ f = 7.2 . . . OK T D1.1
⎝ Fy ⎠
P 202
Ca = u = = 0 16 T D1.1
φPy 1265
⎡ E E ⎤
λ w ≤ ⎢ 0.7777 (2.93 − Ca ) ≥ 1.49 ⎥ = [51.4 ≥ 35.9] = 51.4
⎢⎣ Fy Fy ⎥
⎦
λ w = 33.4 ≤ 51.4 . . . OK. T D1.1
ROOF HBE WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE OK
Another consideration for the HBE suggested in the AISC Design Guide for Steel Plate Shear Walls
(Sabelli and Bruneau 2006) is to provide an HBE with web that is stronger than the SPSW web plate. The
suggested equation is
t w Ry Fy
t wHBE
H
≥ .
FyHHBE
For A36 web plate and A992 roof HBE, this reduces to
t wHBE
H
≥ 0 94t w for the W18 × 86: 0.48 > [0.94 (0.0625) = 0.06].

ROOF HBE WEB THICKNESS IS OK
Verify that the stiffness of the HBE is sufficient to develop uniform yielding in the web plate per
Section F5.4a:
t w L4
I b ≥ 0.0031
h
⎡ 6 5(155 * 12)4
0.0625
06 ⎤
1530 ≥ ⎢ 0.0031 = 1338 ⎥ .
⎣ (12.67 * 12) ⎦
ROOF HBE STIFFNESS IS OK
4.8 CHECK COMBINED FLEXURE AND AXIAL FOR THE ROOF HBE AISC 360
For a W18 × 86 roof HBE:
KL 1.0 × (7.5 f × 12 i /f )
= = 34 for weak-axis buckling
ry 2 63
KL 1.0 × (12.67
6 f × 12 i f )
= = 20 for strong-axis buckling
rx 7.77
π2 E π 2 29000
Fe = 2
= = 244 ksi Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞ 34.222
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
E
Limit on inelastic buckling, 4.71 = 113
Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
KL E ⎢0.658 F ⎥ F = 45.9 ksi
Because < 4.71 ,F ⎣ ⎦ y Eq E3–2
r Fy cr
φPn 0 90 Fcr Ag = 0.90 × 45.99 × 25 3 = 1045 kips Eq E3–1
φPn = 1045 KIPS
Lp = 9.3 ft Lr = 28.6 ft Eq F2–5 and Eq F2–6

(can also be found in AISC 13th T 3–2)
Lb = 7 ft-6 in, so Lb is less than Lp; therefore,
Mn Z x Fy = 775 Eq F2–2
φM n = 0.9 × 775 = 698 kips.
φMn = 698 KIP-FT

Since Pr /Pc > 0.2:
Pr 8 ⎛ M rx M ry ⎞
+ ⎜ + ⎟ ≤1 0 Eq H1-1a
Pc 9 ⎝ M cx M cy ⎠
Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 202 8 511
+ = + = 0 84 . . . OK.
φPn 9 ⎜⎝ φMn ⎟⎠ 1045 9 698
COMBINED AXIAL AND FLEXURE = 0.84
The calculations for combined flexure and axial force for the sixth-floor HBE is similar to the roof HBE.
4.10 CHECK SHEAR FOR THE ROOF HBE AND SIXTH-FLOOR HBE AISC 360
The shear at the face of the column is the sum of the shears associated with plastic hinging in the beam,
gravity loads, and the effect of the expected yield strength of the tension field. The shear associated with
plastic hinging in the beams is taken from Equation E2.1 in AISC 341. The following calculations show
that the factored beam shear in the roof beam is less than the factored nominal shear capacity.
2 × 1.1Ry M p− roof
r
Lcf Lcf
Vu R
= + F11−6 + 1 4 ( w D1 + w D 2 )
Lcf 2 2
2(1.1)(1.1)(7755 × 12) 163 (0.13 + 0.21) 163
Vu R
= + 0 88 + 1.4
163 2 12 2
Vu R
= 138 + 72 + 3 = 213 kips.
For the W18 × 86:
h E
= 33.4 < 2.24 = 53.9 so: §G2.1
tw Fy
φ n
φ v 0 6 Fy AwCv = 1 0 × 0 6 × 50 × 18.4 × 0.48
48 × 1 0 = 265 kip . . . OK. Eq G2–1
Vu−R = 211 kips < φVn = 265 kips

ROOF HBE SHEAR IS OK
The calculation for the sixth-floor HBE shear load and capacity is similar and is given by the following:
2 × 1.1Ry M p− roof
r
Lcf Lcf
Vu −6 = + ( F11−5 F11−6 ) + [1.4( wD1 + wD 2 ) + 0.5( wL )]
Lcf 2 2
2(1.1)(1.1)(554 × 12) 163 163 /12
Vu−6 = + (1.05 − 0.88) + [1.4(0.33 + 0.25) 0.5(0.33)]
163 2 2
Vu−6 = 99 + 14 + 7 = 119 kips.
Use a W18 × 65 for the sixth-floor HBE:
Vu−6 = 119 kips < φVn = 248 kips

6th-FLOOR HBE SHEAR IS OK

4.11 SIZE THE REMAINING HBEs
Table 4–8 gives the preliminary sizes for the HBEs with key design information. The same calculations
as presented above were carried out for each HBE. Section compactness requirements, lateral bracing,
stiffness, web thickness, and shear were checked, but are not given in Table 4–8.
Table 4–8. Summary of preliminary HBE designs
VBE Max of Combined

Reaction Pcollector or P12 Pu Mu φPn φMn Axial and Shear Demand
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (k-ft) Size (kips) (k-ft) Flexure1 to Capacity
Roof 59 143 202 511 W18 × 86 1045 698 0.84 0.80
6th 129 124 253 140 W18 × 65 699 476 0.62 0.48
5th 180 122 302 373 W18 × 86 1045 698 0.76 0.73
4th 236 122 358 182 W18 × 71 766 524 0.77 0.49
3rd 267 122 389 168 W18 × 71 766 524 0.79 0.48
2nd 317 122 439 334 W18 × 86 1045 698 0.85 0.71
1. Using Eq H1–1a of AISC 360-10.
4.12 VBE DESIGN
Similar to HBEs, the VBEs should be designed to resist the forces associated with the expected yield
strength of the plate (Fy Rytw) acting at an angle α (equal to 45 degrees for this example). A key difference is
that the VBE is subjected to six floors of web plates at their expected yield strength. This is not dissimilar to
the eccentrically braced frame or buckling-restrained braced frames that require the columns to be designed
for the loads associated with each floor’s energy-dissipating element at its capacity. Unlike those systems,
however, columns in SPSW are required to resist considerable moment due to the web-plate tension field
pulling inward, in addition to the overturning forces. In this sense, the columns are doing more work in
SPSW than in other systems, and larger structural sections are often required.
For VBE design, the moment and compression forces are separated and examined individually, and then
interaction is considered in accordance with Chapter H of AISC 360. The design checks for the VBE
include the following:
1. Combined axial and flexure considering (Section F5.3)
• Moment due to expected yield strength of the web plate acting at the angle α in addition to
plastic hinging of HBEs
• Compression/tension due to overturning loads
2. Compactness criteria (Section F5.5a)
3. Minimum moment of inertia requirement (Section F5.4a)
4. Strong-column/weak beam check (Section F5.4b, which references Section E3.4a).

The VBE is subjected to axial force, moment, and shear. The commentary for AISC 341 suggests three
methods for determining the forces acting on vertical boundary elements:
1. Nonlinear push-over analysis—Develop a nonlinear 2D model and conduct push-over analysis

to find maximum axial forces, moments, and shear forces.
2. Indirect capacity design approach.
3. Combined Plastic and Linear Analysis—A capacity-design approach in which the maximum
forces that can be delivered by the HBE and web plates are applied to a model of the column.
The Combined Plastic and Linear Analysis method will be used in this example with some simplifications.
Forces and moments are calculated based on a complete mechanism with all web plates yielding and plastic
hinges at each beam-column connection.
The column compression calculated by the capacity-design approach consists of: downward components
of the web-plate tension field, F21; beam shear due to web-plate tension field, V11; and beam shear due to
plastic hinging, Vp, (shown in Figure 4–12). The forces applied at the roof and sixth floor are given by
F11−66 F21
21 6
= F22−6 = 0.88 kip-in
F11−6 Lcf 0 88 × 163
V11−r = = = 72 kips
2 2
1.1(1.1)(50)186
M pe −r 1.1Ry Fy Z x = = 938 kip-ft
ft
12 in/ft
f
2M p r 2 × 938 × 12 in/ft
f
Vp r
= = = 138 kips.
Lcf 163
The beam shear due to the web-plate tension field at the sixth floor is due to the difference in web-plate
thickness above and below the HBE and is given by
( F11−55 F1111 6 ) × Lcf 88) × 163

(1.05 0.88)
V11−6 = = = 14 kipss .
2 2
The rest of the applied loads and moments used for VBE design are given in Table 4–9.
Table 4–9. Loads on VBE due to web plate and HBE
Tension Field, HBE Plastic Beam Shear Due to Beam Shear Due to
F21 and F22 Hinge, Mpe Hinge, Vp Plate, V11
Level (k-in) (k-ft) (kips) (kips)
Roof — 938 138 72
6th 0.88 671 99 14
5th 1.05 938 138 48
4th 1.64 736 108 20
3rd 1.89 736 108 18
2nd 2.11 938 138 43
1st 2.63 — — —

V 11-r V 11-r M pe-r

F21-6 F
21-6
V p-r F
Vp-r 22-6
V 11-6 M pe-6
V11-6
F F
21-5 21-5
V p-6 V p-6 F 22-5
V 11-5 M pe-5
F21-4 V 11-5 F
21-4
V p-5 V p-5 F 22-4
V 11-4 M pe-4
V11-4
F F
21-3 21-3
V p-4 F 22-3
V p-4
V 11-3 M pe-3
F V11-3
21-2
F
21-2 F22-2
V p-3 V p-3
V 11-2 M pe-2
F21-1 V 11-2
F
21-1
V p-2 V p-2 F 22-1
(a) Axial Loads (b) Axial Loads (c) Loads

on C olumn on C olumn C ontributing to
E xperiencing E xperiencing S hear and
T ens ion C ompres s ion Moment
Figure 4–12. VBE free-body diagrams for the capacity-design approach

4.13 DETERMINE VBE AXIAL FORCES, SHEARS, AND MOMENTS
A 2D model of a single VBE as a continuous beam over interior supports at each floor was used to compute
shears and moments in the VBE. Figure 4–13 shows the resulting shears and moments associated with the
given loading on the 2D model, and Table 4–10 gives the values for moments at various heights along the
column.
M pe-r
163
938
F 22-6
M pe-6
129 390 -281
29
F 22-5
M pe-5 -266
186 710
-31
F 22-4
M pe-4 -164
200
676
F22-3 -64
M pe-3 -206
221
699
F22-2 -87
-268
M pe-2 268
864
-99
F 22-1
-275
-132
C OLUMN C OLUMN
2D MODE L
S HE AR (K IP S ) MOME NT (K -F T )
Figure 4–13. VBE shear and moment due to capacity-design forces

Table 4–10. Maximum moments at three locations for each floor
Moment at Top Max Moment Location of Max Moment at Bottom

of Column, MuT In-Span, MuM In-Span Moment of Column, MuB
Level (k-ft) (k-ft) (fraction of L) (k-ft)
6th 938 −281 0.00 −281
5th 390 −266 0.20 −228
4th 710 −164 0.25 −60
3rd 676 −206 0.31 −37
2nd 699 −268 0.31 −73
1st 864 −275 0.33 0
The axial compression forces can be computed as the sum of the applied axial forces shown in
Figure 4–12b. Table 4–12 tabulates the compression forces at the top of the column, the bottom of the
column, and at the location of maximum moment identified in Table 4–11.
Table 4–11. Axial forces applied to the VBE
Column Compression
Compression Incremental Compression at Location Compression
from Plate, Beam Shear, Column at Top of of Max at Bottom
P21 Vp + V11 Compression Column Moment of Column
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th 117 210 327 210 326 327
5th 140 113 253 440 552 580
4th 219 186 406 766 930 985
3rd 252 129 381 1114 1288 1366
2nd 282 126 408 1492 1687 1774
1st 352 181 532 1955 2190 2306
4.14 SELECT VBE SECTIONS AISC 341
With the moments given in Table 4–10 and the compression forces given in Table 4–11, wide-flange
sections are chosen that satisfy the compactness criteria, that satisfy the minimum moment of inertia, and
that can resist the combined forces. The column is to be spliced above the fourth floor. Choose a W14 × 283
for the first three stories and a W14 × 159 for the upper three stories. The compactness requirements for the

W14 × 283 are verified below to satisfy the criteria for highly ductile members as specified in Section F5.5a
(the procedure for the W14 × 159 is identical):
⎛ E ⎞
λf ≤ ⎜0 3 = 7.22⎟ λ f = 3 89 . . . OK T D1.1
⎝ Fy ⎠
Pu 2306
Ca = = = 0 62 T D1.1
φPy 3749
E
λ w ≤ 1.12
1 (2.33 − Ca ) = 46.1 λ w = 8 84 . . . OK. T D1.1
Fy
VBE WIDTH-THICKNESS
RATIOS ARE OK
Section F5.4a places a minimum on the moment of inertia of the VBE. This limit is intended to require a
stiff enough VBE such that the tension field can develop uniformly across the panel.
0.0031t w h 4 0. (3 16)(12.6 )4
I min = =
L (15 )
I min 1726 i 4
I c = 3840 in 4 . . . OK. §5.4a
VBE MOMENT OF INERTIA IS OK
4.16 CHECK COMBINED FLEXURE AND AXIAL FORCES ON VBE AISC 360
The column must be able to elastically resist the combined moments and axial forces computed above.
The design axial strength, φPn, and design moment strength, φMn, are computed, and then the interaction
equation is checked. This process is conducted for the top of the first-floor column (W14 × 283), and then a
summary of all the interaction equation values is presented in Table 4–13.
KL 1.0 × (12.67
6 f × 12 i /f )
= = 36.5 for minor axis
ry 4.17
π2 E π 2 29,000
Fe = 2
= = 215 ksi Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞ 36.52
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
E
Limit on inelastic buckling, 4.71 = 113
Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
KL E ⎢0.658 F ⎥ F = 45.4 ksi
Because < 4.71 ,F ⎣ ⎦ y Eq E3–2
r Fy cr
φPn 0 90 Fcr Ag = 0.90 × 45.44 × 83 3 = 3404 kips Eq E3–1
φPn = 3404 kips

E
Lp 1.76ry = 14.7 ft Eq F2–5
Fy
(can also be found in AISC 13th T 3–2)
Lb = 12 ft-8 in, so Lb is less than Lp; therefore,
0 9 × 50 × 542
φM n 0 9 Fy Z x = = 2033 kip-ft Eq F2–1
12 in/ft
f
φMn = 2033 kip-ft
The worst case combined axial and flexure might occur at one of three locations: the base of the column,
the maximum moment in the in-span, or at top of the column. All locations were checked and are tabulated
in Table 4–12. The worst case was found to be the top of the first-floor column:
Since Pr /Pc > 0.2:
Pr 8 ⎛ M rx M ry ⎞
+ ⎜ + ⎟ ≤1 0 Eq H1–1a
Pc 9 ⎝ M cx M cy ⎠
Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 1955 8 864
+ = + = 0 95 . . . OK.
φPn 9 ⎜⎝ φM n ⎟⎠ 3404 9 2033
COMBINED AXIAL AND FLEXURE = 0.95
Table 4–12. Interaction equation values
Design Design Interaction Interaction at Interaction

Compression Moment at Top of Location of at Bottom of
Capacity φPn Strength φMn Column Max Moment Column
Level (kips) (k-ft) (kips) (kips) (kips)
6th 1891 1076 0.89 0.40 0.40
5th 1891 1076 0.55 0.51 0.49
4th 1891 1076 0.99 0.63 0.57
3rd 3404 2033 0.62 0.47 0.42
2nd 3404 2033 0.74 0.61 0.55
1st 3404 2033 0.95 0.76 0.68

4.17 STRONG COLUMN—WEAK-BEAM CHECK
Section F5.4b states that the strong-column/weak-beam provisions in Section E3.4a associated with
special moment frames shall be met neglecting the web plate. The capacity-design approach for the VBE
will develop more moment capacity in the VBE than required to satisfy the strong-column/weak-beam
provisions. However, a typical check for the connection of the first-floor HBE to the VBE is provided
below for completeness. The strong-column/weak-beam check can be more critical when column forces are
determined using methods other than the capacity-design approach.
The sum of the projections of column flexural strength to the beam centerline is given by
⎛ P ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 1955 ⎞ ⎤
ΣM *pc ΣZc ⎜ Fyc − uc ⎟ = 2 ⎢542 50 − ⎥ = 28,760
6 k-in.
⎝ Ag ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ 83.3 ⎟⎠ ⎦
The shear on the first-floor HBE is given in Table 4–12 as 181 kips. The eccentricity between the shear
force and the column centerline is half the depth of the column because the moment connection selected is
the WUF-W connection, which uses a plastic hinge at the face of the column.
⎡ ⎛ 16..7 ⎞ ⎤
Σ * Σ( .1Ry Fybb Z b + M uv ) ⎢ .1( .1)(50)(186) + ⎜ 181 ⎥ = 12,764
6 k-in
pb
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎦
ΣM *pc 28,760
= = 2.3 > 1.0 .
ΣM *pb 12,764
The column and beam satisfy the strong-column/weak-beam moment ratio.
5. Analysis and Design (Iterative)
5.1 CHECK DEFLECTION ASCE 7
Calculating deflection requires the use of a 2D computer model. There are multiple ways to model the web
plate, of which two of the most useful are shown in Figure 4–14. The Canadian Steel Code (CAN/CSA
S16-01) recommends the tension strip model. In this model, the web plate is divided into at least ten tension
strips per panel, oriented at the angle α. The tension strip section is merely the tributary width of plate
times the effective thickness of the plate and is pinned at each end. CAN/CSA S16-01 uses this model
to determine the design capacity of the wall as the shear that causes a strip to reach its factored tension
capacity. The elastic 2D model is not appropriate, however, for boundary element design. In order to use the
2D model to design the boundary elements, it would be necessary to account for nonlinearities such as the
plate yielding and plastic hinging of the beams.
Another modeling option is the orthotropic membrane model. The web plate is meshed into a number
of membrane elements. The local axes of these elements are rotated to the angle of inclination, α. The
modulus of elasticity along local axis 1 and the shear modulus are set to zero (or as near zero as the
modeling software allows). The modulus of elasticity along local axis 2 is set to 29,000 ksi for steel. The
membrane thickness is then set to the effective web-plate thickness. Advantages to this type of modeling
include:
1. The angle of inclination, α, can be adjusted without reconfiguring the model geometry.
2. The membrane can be meshed automatically whereas the tension strips have to be added
individually.

ME S H OF
ME MB R ANE
E LE ME NT S
R OT AT E
LOC AL
AXE S
T E NS ION
ONLY
S T R IP
(C AN/C S A
R E C OMME NDS
2 10 MIN)
S E T TO
ZE R O
S T IF F NE S S
OR T HOT R OP IC T E NS ION
ME MB R ANE S T R IP
MODE L MODE L
Figure 4–14. Modeling options to check deflection
For this example, the tension strip model will be used. Because the angle of inclination of the hole lines is
fixed at 45 degrees, it is possible to develop a model that does not need to be adjusted for changes in the
angle of inclination. Also, the 2D tension strip model facilitates nonlinear pushover analysis if desired.
Each panel was split into ten tension strips with the following properties:
Width = spacing between strips = 20.75 inches

Angle = 45°

The effective plate thickness is given by
π⎛ D ⎞
1− ⎜ ⎟
4 ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
tefff = tw . Eq F5–4
π⎛ D ⎞⎛ N r D sin α ⎞
1− ⎜ ⎟ 1−
4 ⎝ Sdiag ⎠ ⎜⎝ Hc ⎟
⎠
For the first floor, the value of the effective plate thickness can be found as
π ⎛ 16 ⎞
1−
4 ⎜⎝ 28 ⎟⎠
tefff = 0.1875 = 0.139 in
π ⎛ 16 ⎞ ⎛ 5(16) 45° ⎞
1− 1−
4 ⎜⎝ 28 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 134
3 ⎟⎠
The effective plate thickness was calculated for the first through sixth floors as 0.139 inch, 0.112 inch,
0.100 inch, 0.087 inch, 0.056 inch, and 0.046 inch. The resulting elastic deflections are given in Table
4–13. The elastic story drifts are the difference in the elastic deflections at the floor above and below. The
predicted inelastic story drift is given by the following for the fifth floor:
Cd δ xe 6 0 × 0 43
δx = = = 2 58 in ASCE 7 Eq 12.8–15
Ie 10
The limit on story drift is given in Table 12.12–1 based on building system and the occupancy category:
Δ a = 0.020 hssx = 0.020 × 152 = 3.004 in ASCE 7 T 12.12–1
δx > Δa → DRIFT IS OK
Table 4–13. Calculated deflection for preliminary design
Elastic Story Predicted Inelastic Story Drift

Elastic Deflection Drift, δxe Story Drift, δx Limitation, Δa
Level (in) (in) (in) (in)
Roof 2.26 0.34 2.04 3.04
6th 1.92 0.43 2.58 3.04
5th 1.49 0.43 2.58 3.04
4th 1.06 0.42 2.52 3.04
3rd 0.64 0.36 2.16 3.04
2nd 0.28 0.28 1.68 3.04

5.2 ITERATE TO SATISFY DEFLECTION
The drifts were found to satisfy the story drift limits. However, if the inelastic story drift had exceeded the
story-drift limit it would have been necessary to either increase the size of HBEs and VBEs to increase the
stiffness of the moment frame, or increase the web-plate thickness. If the capacity-design approach is used,
the column moments are the only parameter not easily calculated by closed-form equations (although they
can be estimated). It is possible, therefore, to create a spreadsheet or Mathcad sheet to carry out most, if not
all, of the required calculations. Using one of these computer tools can significantly simplify the iteration
process.
5.3 FINAL PLATE THICKNESSES AND BOUNDARY MEMBERS
Since all design checks were satisfied, the final design for the web plate, HBEs, and VBE’s are shown in
Figure 4–15.
W18x86
1/16" A36
Plate and
Sdiag=28"
W18x65 14 ga A36
Plate and
W14x159
Sdiag=28"
W14x159
W18x86
Sdiag Typical 12 ga A36
Plate and
6@ 12'-8" = 76'-0"
VBE Splice Sdiag=34"
W18x71
45° Angle 10 ga A36
Typical, Center Plate and
Pattern on Wall Sdiag=28"
W18x71 10 ga A36
Plate and
W14x283
W14x283
Sdiag=34"
W18x86
16" Diameter 3/16" A36
Holes Typical Plate and
Sdiag=28"
15'-0"
Figure 4–15. Final plate and boundary-member design

6.1 PANEL ZONE AISC 360
AISC 341 Section F5.6b(2) references Section E3.6e for a check of the panel-zone shear for the panel
zones next to the top and base HBE of the SPSW. The roof HBE and an HBE at the foundation are expected
to experience larger shear forces because there is web plate on only one side of the HBE. For this design
example, check the column panel zone at the roof HBE (W18 × 86) connection to the VBE (W14 × 159)
including a 1⁄2-inch-thick doubler plate in the column panel zone.
Vu Ff − Vc V + VG = 580 − 126 + 72 + 3 = 529 kips
where,
M pr Ry Z x Fy 1.1(186)50
Ff = = = = 580 kips
p due to flange forces
ho db t fb 18.4 − 0.77
2 M pr 2 × 10,230
Vc = = = 126 kips due to plastic hinges
Lcf 163
F11−6 Lcf
V11 = = 72 kips due to web plate
2
Lcf
VG 1 4 ( w D1 + w D 2 ) = 3 kips due to gravity loads.
2
Pu 210
Since = = 0 09 < 0.75, then LRFD §J10.6
φPy 2335
⎡ 3b t 2 ⎤
0 9 0 60 Fy dc t w ⎢1 + ⎥
cf cf
φRn LRFD Eq J10–11
⎢⎣ d b dc t w ⎥⎦
⎡ 1 )2
3(15.6)(1.19 ⎤
φRn = 0 9 × 0 6 × 50 × 15.0 × (0.745 + 0 5) ⎢1 + ⎥ = 601 kips
⎣ 18 1 .4(15.0)(0.745 + 0.5) ⎦
and the minimum panel zone thickness is determined from Section E3.6e as
(d z wz ) ( .4 − 2 × 0.. ) + ( 5.0 − 2 × 1. )
tmin ≥ = = 0.33
3 in Eq 3–7
90 90
The doubler plate and the column web are both thicker than the minimum thickness.
Vu = 529 kips φRn = 601 kips
tmin = 0.33 in twc = 0.745 in
Use 1⁄2-inch doubler plates following the requirements of Section E3.6e(3) at the panel zone of the VBE at
the connection of the roof HBE.

6.2 HBE-TO-VBE CONNECTION
Section F5.6b requires that the HBE-to-VBE connections satisfy the requirements of Section E1.6b,
beam-to-column connections for ordinary moment frames. Welds shall be in accordance with AISC 358-10
including criteria for removal of backing bars, backgouging, and reinforcement with fillet welds. Weld
access holes shall be in accordance with AWS D1.8 Section 6.10.1.2. Additional requirements for the
connection are given in Section E1.6b.
For this example, the HBE web and flanges will get complete joint-penetration welds to the VBE flange.
Since the HBE web will get a complete joint-penetration weld to the VBE flange, a check of the HBE shear
will suffice. The shear in the HBE is checked in Section 4.10 of this design example.
6.3 PLATE-TO-BOUNDARY ELEMENTS AISC 360
In general, tolerances make it impractical to weld the plate directly to HBEs and VBEs. Either a plate
or angle is required to provide a flat surface against which the plate can be placed and welded. For this
example a plate will be used. The connecting plate is sometimes referred to as a “fish plate.” Section F5.6c
specifies that the connection of the plate to the HBE and VBE shall resist the forces associated with the
expected yield strength of the plate in tension, oriented at the angle α. In this case it is most convenient to
express this force in terms of the effect of the tension field F1 and F2 acting on the connection at the angle
α. Figure 4–16 and the following equations demonstrate the decomposition of the tension field force into
these components.
Figure 4–16. Web-plate-to-boundary-element connection

⎛ 0 7D ⎞
Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟Δ
force ⎝ Sdiag ⎠ ⎛ 0 7D ⎞
F1 = = = Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟ cos α
length
t Δ ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
cos α
⎛ 0 7D ⎞
Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟Δ
force ⎝ Sdiag ⎠ ⎛ 0 7D ⎞
F2 = = = Ry Fy t w ⎜ 1 − ⎟ sin α
length
t Δ ⎝ Sdiag ⎠
sin α
Because the angle is 45 degrees, the two components of force, F1 and F2, are the same. For the first-floor
plate, this becomes
⎛ 0.7(16) ⎞
F1 F2 = 1 3 × 36 × 0.1875 × 1 − cos(45) = 3.72
7 kip-in.
⎝ 28 ⎟⎠
Try a 3⁄16-inch continuous weld on one side and a 3⁄16-inch weld intermittent at 2 inches every 6 inches on the
other side. The equation for weld capacity comes from Section J2 of the LRFD specification and includes a
factor for the angle of loading relative to the longitudinal axis of the weld, θ, which effectively increases the
weld capacity.
15
n EXX
) Aefff Eq J2–5
φRn = 0 75 × 0.6 × 70 ×
1 ⎛ 3 6 3 2⎞
2
(
⎜⎝ 16 × 6 + 16 × 6 ⎟⎠ 1 + 0.5( n 45
45)1 5 ) 7.22 kip-in → OK
Vu = 3.72 kips-in φRn = 7.22 kips-in
At the corners of the panels, it must be decided how to treat the intersection of the two fish plates.
Schumacher, et al. (1999), studied the effect of different ways of joining the fish plates. Figure 4–17 shows
the four types of corner connections tested. All four corner details exhibited similar response and were
found to be acceptable for use in the SPSW system.

Figure 4–17. Corner details tested by Schumacher et al. (1999)—All were found to be acceptable
6.4 COLUMN SPLICE
AISC 341 Section F5.6d references Section D2.5 for splices in the VBE. As stated previously, columns
in the SPSW system do more work than other lateral resisting systems. As shown in Figure 4–13 there is
considerable moment that is developed in the VBE. Figure 4–13 also shows that the maximum moment
occurs at the floor levels, and although it is far from zero at a typical splice height, it should not be
subjected to inelastic demands. For this example the column splice is accomplished with complete joint-
penetration welds at the flanges and web, so the connection will have at least the strength of the smaller
section.
6.5 BASE OF WALL TO FOUNDATION AISC 360
There are different approaches that can be used to anchor the first-floor web plate to the foundation. It is
sometimes preferable to use a wide-flange beam. See the AISC Design Guide 20 for an example (Sabelli
and Bruneau 2006). For this example, a WT is utilized to transfer the significant uplift and shear to the
foundation. The anchor bolts will be designed to resist the combined shear and tension. The AISC Design
Guide 1 (DeWolf and Ricker 1990) suggests that if anchor bolts are used to resist shear, that they either be
designed for friction or include a weld washer. The weld washer allows for the use of oversized holes in the
WT and tolerances in anchor bolt placement, while still encouraging uniform bearing on each bolt.

For an anchor bolt spacing of 12 inches determine the loads to each bolt:
1 ⎛ 0.7(16) ⎞
F11 F12 = 1 3 × 36 × 0.1875 ⎜ 1 − = 2 63 kipps-in
2 ⎝ 28 ⎟⎠
F11 × 12 in spacing
Bolt tension without prying action, Rut = = 15.8 kips
2 bolts
F12 × 12 in spacing
Bolt shear, Vu = = 15.8 kips
2 bolts
Prying action will amplify the bolt tension. Chapter 9 of the AISC Manual 13th Edition gives the method to
determine the added bolt tension due to prying action. A WT section with a 10-inch-wide flange is assumed
(such as the WT sections between WT7 × 30.5 and WT7 × 41).
Bolt gage, g = 6 in
WT flange width, bf = 10.0 in, so a = 2.0 in, and b = 2.8 in, Fu = 65 ksi AISC Manual Part 9
Using 1 ⁄8-inch bolts, a′ = 2.6 in and b′ = 2.2 in, p = 5.6 in.
1
The minimum WT flange thickness to neglect prying action is
Tb ′
4Tb′ 4 × 15.8 × 2.2
tmin = = = 0.65 in.
φpppFu 0.9 × 5.6 × 65
Choose a WT7 × 34 that has a flange thickness of 0.72 inch. Prying action can therefore be neglected.
Try two 11⁄8-inch F1554 Gr. 55 bolts at 12-inch spacing. Ab = 0.99 in2, Fu = 75 ksi. The nominal tensile and
shear stress are obtained from AISC 360 Table J3.2 for threaded parts with threads not excluded from the
shear planes.
φTn 0 75 0.75Fu Ab = 0 75 × 0.75 × 75 × 0 99 = 41

41 8 kips T J3.2
φVn 0 75 0 45Fu Ab = 0 75 × 0.45 × 75 × 0 99 = 25
25 1 kips T J3.2
2 2
⎛ Tu ⎞ ⎛ Vu ⎞
⎜ φT ⎟ + ⎜ φV ⎟ ≤ 1 0 Eq C-J3–5a
⎝ n⎠ ⎝ n⎠
2 2
⎛ 15.8 ⎞ ⎛ 155.8 ⎞
⎜⎝ 41.8 ⎟⎠ + ⎜⎝ 25.1 ⎟⎠ = 0 54
COMBINED TENSION AND SHEAR = 0.54
Figure 4–18 shows the detail at the base of the wall.

WE B PL 3/16
WT 7X34
3/16 2-6
1/8" PL3"X3"
T WO 1-1/8" F 1554
G R 55@ 12"
1/4
F OUNDAT ION
Figure 4–18. Web-plate connection to foundation
Additional design checks for the WT that should be examined include ensuring the stem is stronger than the
SPSW web plate, bolt bearing, bending of the WT between bolts, and local bending of the flange.
6.6 COLUMN CONTINUITY PLATES
Section E3.6f gives requirements for continuity plates. Check whether continuity plates are required at the
connection of the first floor HBE:
Ryb Fyb bbf

tcf 0 8bbf tbf = 1 6 and tcf ≥ = 1.85 in
Ryc Fyc 6
Since the flange thickness of the first floor VBE is, tcf = 2.1 inches, no continuity plates are required at the
first floor. If continuity plates are required, they should conform to the requirements of Section E3.6f .
6.7 COLUMN BASE CONNECTION AISC 360
The VBE, in addition to resisting considerable compression, will experience large uplift forces associated
with seismic forces. Uplift forces can be computed by the capacity-design approach similar to that
employed to determine compression and as shown in Figure 4–12a. It is shown in the AISC Design Guide
20 that tension forces are best calculated using this type of capacity-design approach because it can yield
less uplift than other methods (Sabelli and Bruneau 2006). Vertical forces on the tension column include the
beam shear from plastic hinging, Vp; beam shear from web plate yielding, V11; and the vertical component
of the expected web-plate strength acting on the column, V21. The capacity design approach produces the
uplifts given in Table 4–14.

Table 4–14. Column uplift computed by the capacity design approach
Plate Uplift on Beam Shear due Beam Shear due Incremental Cumulative
Column, V21 to Plate, V11 to Hinge, Vp Uplift Uplift, T
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 0 72 −138 −66 −66
6th −117 14 −99 −202 −268
5th −140 48 −138 −230 −498
4th −219 20 −108 −307 −805
3rd −252 18 −108 −342 −1147
2nd −282 43 −138 −377 −1524
1st −352 0 0 −352 −1876
The uplift at the base of the column is found to be 1876 kips. A similar method can be used to estimate the
maximum shear at the base of the column as:
(h d b ) M pe − 2 (152 i − 18.4 in) 938 k-ft

-
Vu F22−1 + = 2 63 + = 250 kips .
2 h 2 12.67 ft
Try twelve 13⁄4-inch-diameter F1554 Gr. 105 bolts. The nominal tensile and shear stress are obtained from
AISC 360 Table J3.2 for threaded parts with threads not excluded from the shear planes.
φTn 0 75 0.75Fu Ab N b = 0 75 × 0.75 × 125 × 2.41 × 12 = 2033

033 kip
i s T J3.2
φVn 0 75 0 45Fu Ab N b = 0 75 × 0.45 × 125 × 2.41 × 12 = 12200 kip
i s T J3.2
2 2
⎛ Tu ⎞ ⎛ Vu ⎞
⎜ φT ⎟ + ⎜ φV ⎟ ≤ 1 0 Eq C-J3–5a
⎝ n⎠ ⎝ n⎠
2 2
⎛ 1876 ⎞ ⎛ 250 5 ⎞
⎜⎝ 2033 ⎟⎠ + ⎜⎝ 1220 ⎟⎠ = 0 89 .
COMBINED TENSION AND SHEAR = 0.89
The column base plate is designed not to resist moment as reflected by the zero moment at the base of the
column in Figure 4–13. Design checks for the base plate are required, but they are not shown here.

of the seismic-load-resisting system:
• ASCE 7 stability check (ASCE 7 Eq. 12.8–16),

Design Example 5
Eccentrically Braced Frame
OVERVIEW
This example presents design procedures for a six-story Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) office building.
Given its substantial capacity for inelastic energy dissipation, an EBF seismic-force-resisting system is
often used in buildings designed to resist severe earthquakes. This system can be considered a hybrid,
combining the stiffness of a concentrically braced frame with the ductility and energy dissipation capacity
of a moment-resisting frame.
The distinguishing characteristic of an EBF is that at least one end of every brace is connected so as
to isolate a segment of a beam called a link. The link is designed and detailed to sustain large inelastic
deformations without loss of strength. In a well-designed EBF, under severe seismic shaking, inelastic
activity is restricted primarily to the link. It acts as both a ductile fuse and an energy dissipator, limiting
the forces transmitted to the braces and other frame members and permitting development of stable and
predictable hysteretic behavior.
Design requirements for EBF systems are contained in a series of standards. ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, sets the basic loading criteria together with associated lateral
drift limits. ANSI/AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, provides detailed design
requirements relating to materials, framing members, connections, and construction quality assurance
and control. AISC 341 is applied in conjunction with ANSI/AISC 360, Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, and AISC 303, Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges. AISC 360 is the
main specification that provides the design and detailing requirements for all steel buildings. In addition
to these standards, American Welding Society (AWS) standards D1.1, Structural Welding Code and D1.8,
Structural Welding Code Seismic present requirements for welding and fabrication that pertain to EBF
systems. Another useful document is the AISC Seismic Design Manual, which presents EBF design aids
and examples. The International Building Code or IBC refers to ASCE 7 by reference for the determination
of seismic loading and building drift determination.

Design Example 5 䡲 Eccentrically Braced Frame
Single bay EBF configurations can position the link at the ends of the beam as shown in Figure 5–1(a)
and (b), or at the center, as shown in Figure 5–1(c) and (d). For links positioned at the ends of the beam,
AISC 341 Section F3.2 requires the link-to-column connection be designed in accordance with Section
E3.6e. This example positions the links in the center using an inverted-V configuration (Figure 5–1(c))
in one of the primary orthogonal building directions and for comparison, a two-story X (Figure 5–1(d))
configuration in the other. The title figure on the previous page shows an isometric elevation of the selected
EBF configurations.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5–1. EBF configurations: (a) end-link V; (b) end-link two-story X;

(c) center-link inverted-V; (d) center-link two-story X

To accommodate the expected inelastic drift, beam-to-column attachments are fully restrained moment
connections. At locations with an attaching diagonal brace, the connection also includes welded
gusset plates. Although not explicitly illustrated in this example, a similar beam-to-column connection
configuration for a Special Concentric Braced Frame (SCBF) is included in Design Example 2.
In order to reduce the moment in the beam outside of the link, the diagonal braces are connected to the
link with a fully restrained Bolted Flange Plate (BFP) moment connection. The flange plates facilitate
installation of the braces in the field. At the opposite end, away from the link, the brace attachment is
idealized as a pin with bolted connecting elements attaching braces to gussets.
To economize their size and facilitate erection, the columns are spliced at the third and fifth levels. At
the base, the column attachment to the foundation is also idealized as a pin. The column connects to
the foundation with a bolted base plate. Although not illustrated in this example, a similar base-plate
connection configuration for a buckling restrained brace frame is included in Design Example 9.
The beams, braces, and columns used in this example are all ASTM A992 rolled wide-flange sections.
Plates and built-up I-shaped sections are all ASTM A572 Grade 50 material. The beam segments outside of
the links are composite with the concrete slab. Within the link, the slab is not composite.
OUTLINE
4. Preliminary Member Sizing and Analysis
5. Analysis Verification and Member Final Design
6. Design and Detailing of Connections
The subject building is a six-story office located in San Francisco, California. See Appendix 1 for the
following information:
• General information including location latitude and longitude, site class, and risk category;
• Building geometry including plan dimensions, elevation, and axonometric view;
• Assembly weights;
• Floor and roof weights;

• Design spectral response acceleration parameters;
• Seismic Design Category (SDC); and
• Load combinations including the vertical seismic load effect.
1.2 PLAN OF FRAME LOCATIONS AND TYPICAL ELEVATIONS
The figure on the first page of this example and Figure 5–2 show the isometric and plan locations of the
frames, respectively. As shown, there are two frames oriented in each direction, for a total of four frames.
Figure 5–3 shows the typical frame elevations.
Figure 5–2. Typical floor and framing plan

2 3 C D
30’-0” 30’-0”
Roof BM-5
12’-0”
6th BM-5 BM-4
12’-0”
5th BM-3
12’-0”
4th
12’-0”
3rd BM-6
12’-0”
2nd BM-1 BM-2
J-1 12’-0”
Base BR-1
C-1
-Indicates Hinge -Indicates Splice
(a) (b)
Figure 5–3. EBF elevations: (a) inverted-V along Grids A and F; (b) two-story X along Grids 1 and 5
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE DESIGN COEFFICIENTS

AND FACTORS
As indicated in Table 12.2–1, “Design Coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting Systems,”
there are two options for using steel eccentrically braced frames. The first is listed under line B1, “Building
Frame Systems,” and the other is under line D1, “Dual Systems.” For this example, an EBF without a
dual system is used. The following are the listed EBF Response Modification Coefficient, R, Overstrength
Factor, Ωo, and Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd:
R = 8.0 Ωo = 2.0 Cd = 4.0

2.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS
As derived in Appendix 1, the following are the example design spectral response acceleration parameters
for short periods, SDS and 1-sec period, SD1:
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g
2.3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM
The approximate fundamental building period, Ta, is determined in accordance with Section 12.8.2.1 as
follows:
Ct = 0.03 and x = 0.75 (steel eccentrically braced frames) T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0 03 × 720 75 = 0.74 sec (See discussion below). Eq 12.8–7
Ta = 0.74 sec
For assistance in illustrating the design response spectrum curve shown, the following parameters are
provided in accordance with Section 11.4.5:
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
Ts = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
As indicated in ASCE 7 Figure 22–12, the long period transition period, TL, occurs at 12.0 sec. Therefore,
the long period equation for Sa(T > Ts) does not apply.
As indicated in Section 12.8.2, the fundamental period of the structure, T, can be established using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated
frame analysis, or it is also permitted to use the approximate building period, Ta. Furthermore, the
maximum fundamental period, Tmax, shall not exceed the following:
Cu = 1.4(SD1 ≥ 0.4) T 12.8–1

Tmax = CuTa = 1.4(0.74 sec) = 1.04 sec. §12.8.2
Tmax = 1.04 sec
As shown in Figure 5–4, the approximate fundamental building period, Ta, is greater than Ts, but less than
Tmax. At Tmax, the corresponding design spectral acceleration, Sa, is 0.58g. In accordance with Section
12.8.1.1, when using the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure, it is not required to construct the design
response spectrum curve because the accelerations are implicit in the calculation of the seismic response
coefficient, Cs.

1.2
TS = 0.60 sec
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) 1 SDS = 1.0g
Approximate EBF Building
0.8 Period, Ta= 0.74 sec, Sa= 0.81g
To= 0.12 sec
Tmax= 1.04 sec, Sa= 0.58g
0.6
Sa= 0.4+5.0T
0.4
Sa= 0.60/T
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period (Sec)
Figure 5–4. Design response spectrum curve for the EBF building
For this example, the fundamental period, T, as computed in the elastic model analysis (Section 4.8),
exceeds the maximum fundamental period, Tmax. Therefore, Tmax is used in the determination of the seismic
response coefficient, Cs.
2.4 HORIZONTAL IRREGULARITIES
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.2.1 and in conjunction with Table 12.3–1, structures having one or
more of the following shall be designated as having a horizontal structural irregularity:
Type 1a or 1b (Torsional Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the maximum story drift, δmax,
including accidental torsion, is greater than 1.2 times the average story drift, δavg. For this example, the
maximum story drift is assumed to conform with the requirement and then subsequently confirmed in the
rigid diaphragm analysis of Section 3.2.
Type 2 (Reentrant Corner Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the plan projection, pi is greater
than 15 percent of the plan dimension, Li, in the given direction as indicated:
px max < 0.15Lx = 0.15(150 ft) = 22.5 ft T 12.3–1.2
or,
py max < 0.15Ly = 0.15(120 ft) = 18.0 ft. T 12.3–1.2

As indicated in Figure A1–1, the building has a plan projection of 30 feet in both orthogonal directions.
Therefore, the building is irregular and the provisions of Section 12.3.3.4 and Table 12.6–1 apply. For
this type of irregularity, Section 12.3.3.4 requires that diaphragm design forces be increased 25 percent
for diaphragm and collector connections. Also, Table 12.6–1 restricts the permitted structural analysis
analytical procedures.
Type 3 (Diaphragm Discontinuity Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if an open area is
greater than 50 percent of the gross enclosed diaphragm area or if a change in effective diaphragm
stiffness varies by more than 50 percent form one story to the next. As indicated in Appendix A, the gross
enclosed diaphragm area is 15,220 square feet. Per Figure A1–1, the open area at the building’s core is
approximately 600 square feet, much less than half the gross area.
As indicated in Appendix A, the floor is comprised of 31⁄4-inch-thick light-weight concrete fill on a 2-inch
metal deck (rigid), while the roof is simply metal deck (flexible). By inspection, the stiffness of the flexible
roof deck is less than 50 percent that of the rigid floors. Therefore, the building is irregular at the roof, and
as with the Type 2 irregularity, the provisions of Section 12.3.3.4 and Table 12.6–1 apply.
Type 4 (Out-of-Plane Offset Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if there is a discontinuity
in the lateral-force-resistance path. As indicated in Figure 5–2 and 5–3, the EBF configuration provides
vertical continuity with no out-of-plane offsets. Therefore, the building does not have an out-of-plane offset
irregularity.
Type 5 (Nonparallel System Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist where vertical lateral-resisting
elements are not parallel to the to the system’s major orthogonal axes. As indicated in Figure 5–2, the
lateral-resisting frames are positioned parallel to the major orthogonal axes. Therefore, the building does
not have a nonparallel system irregularity.
TYPE 2 AND 3 HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES
2.5 VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
In accordance with Section 12.3.2.2 and in conjunction with Table 12.3–2, structures having one or more of
the following shall be designated as having a vertical structural irregularity:
Type 1a or 1b (Stiffness-Soft Story Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the stiffness of any
story is less than 70 percent of the story above or less than 80 percent of the average stiffness of the three
stories above. For this example, the vertical stiffness of each story is assumed to conform to the requirement
and then subsequently confirmed in the story drift analysis of Section 4.8.
Type 2 (Weight Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist where the effective mass (weight) of any
story is more than 150 percent of any adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need not be
considered. As indicated in Appendix 1, the weight is the same on each story except the roof. Therefore, the
building does not have a weight irregularity.
Type 3 (Vertical Geometric Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist where the horizontal dimension
of the lateral-force-resisting system at any story is more than 130 percent of that for an adjacent story. As
indicated in Figure 5–3, the horizontal dimension (30-feet) of the frame is the same at each level. Therefore,
the building does not have a geometric irregularity.

Type 4 (In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral-Force-Resisting Element Irregularity): The irregularity is

defined to exist where an in-plane offset of the vertical lateral-force-resisting element results in overturning
demands on supporting elements. As indicated in Figure 5–3, the elevation of the frame is not discontinuous
or offset in any manner. Therefore, the building does not have an in-plane discontinuity irregularity.
Type 5 (Discontinuity in Lateral-Strength-Weak-Story Irregularity): The irregularity is defined to exist if the

lateral strength of any story is less than 80 percent of the strength of the story above. For this example, the
lateral story strengths are assumed to conform with the requirement and then subsequently confirmed in the
link strength comparisons of Section 4.4.
In accordance with Section 12.3.4, the Redundancy Factor, ρ, is calculated for each principal axis and is
1.3 unless either Section 12.3.4.2(a) or 12.3.4.2(b) is shown to be true, in which case it can be taken as
1.0. For braced frames, Section 12.3.4.2(a) in conjunction with Table 12.3–3 requires that the removal
of an individual brace would not result in more than a 33 percent reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity (horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b).
Alternatively, Section 12.3.4.2(b) requires at least two bays of framing on each side of the structure in each
orthogonal direction at each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
As indicated in Figures 5–2 and 5–3, one bay of framing is provided on each side of the structure. In each
bay, two braces resist seismic forces. For this example, the removal of one out of the four braces in either
of the two orthogonal directions will only result in a story strength reduction of approximately 25 percent.
Furthermore, the resulting system does not have an extreme torsional irregularity as determined by rigid
diaphragm analysis (Section 3.2). Therefore, in accordance with Section 12.3.4.2(a), the redundancy factor
is 1.0 for each orthogonal direction.
ρ = 1.0
2.7 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE SELECTION
In accordance with Section 12.6 and based on the Seismic Design Category (SDC), structural system,
dynamic properties, and building regularity, the structural analysis shall consist of one of the following
types as permitted in Table 12.6–1:
1. Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Analysis—Structural Characteristics: SDC-D, no applicable

structural irregularities, and structural height not exceeding 160 feet.
2. Spectrum Analysis
3. Seismic Response History Procedures.
USE ELF ANALYSIS

2.8 SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT
Using the importance factor, Ie, determined in Appendix 1, the seismic response coefficient, Cs, shall be
determined in accordance with Section 12.8.1.1, as follows:
S DS 10
Cs = = = 0.125 . Eq 12.8–2
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
The coefficient need not exceed the following:
S D1 06
Cs = = = 0.072. Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
1 04 ⎜
⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
T⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
Also, the coefficient shall not be less than the following:
Cs = 0.044SDSIe = 0.044(1.0)(1.0) = 0.044 ≥ 0.01. Eq 12.8–5
And when S1 ≥ 0.6g, the coefficient shall not be less than the following:
Cs = 0.5S1/(R/Ie) = 0.5(0.6)/(8.0/1.0) = 0.038. Eq 12.8–6
Cs = 0.072
2.9 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR
Using the effective seismic weight, W, determined in Appendix 1, the seismic base shear, V, shall be
determined in accordance with Section 12.8.1 as follows:
V = CsW = 0.072(7231 kips) = 521 kips. Eq 12.8–1
V = 521 kips
2.10 SEISMIC LOAD COMBINATIONS
As derived in Appendix 1 and in consideration of ρ equal to 1.0, the basic seismic load combinations in
accordance with Section 12.4.2.3 are simplified as follows:
.4 D 0 5 L + ρQE 1.4 D + 0 5 L 1 0QE

1.4 Load Combo 5 (modified)
0 77D ρQE = 0 7 D 1 0QE . Load Combo 7 (modified)
Also, as derived in Appendix 1 and in consideration of Ωo, the basic seismic load combinations with
overstrength factor in accordance with Section 12.4.3.2 simply as follows:
1.44 D 0 5 L + ΩoQE .4 D + 0 5 L 2 0QE

1.4 Load Combo 5 (modified)
0 77D ΩoQE = 0 7 D 2 0QE . Load Combo 7 (modified)

3.1 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF LATERAL SEISMIC FORCE
In accordance with Section 12.8.3, the lateral seismic force, Fx, and the vertical distribution factor, Cvx,
induced at any level shall be determined from the following equations:
wx hxk
Fx CvvxV d Cvx = n
Eqs 12.8–11 and 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1
where the vertical weights, w, and heights, h, are summarized in Table 5–1 and the distribution exponent,
k, is interpolated in accordance with Section 12.8.3 as 1.27 for T = 1.04 sec. The corresponding vertical
distribution factors and lateral seismic forces are also summarized in Table 5–1 for each level.
Table 5–1. Vertical distribution of lateral seismic force
Level wi (kips) hi (ft) wi h ik Cvx Fx (kips)

Roof 656 72 149,870 0.188 98
6th 1315 60 238,330 0.299 156
5th 1315 48 179,516 0.225 117
4th 1315 36 124,575 0.156 81
3rd 1315 24 74,438 0.093 49
2nd 1315 12 30,866 0.039 20
Total 7231 797,595 1.000 521
3.2 HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES
In accordance with Section 12.8.4, the seismic design story shear in any story, Vx shall be determined from
the following equation:
n
Vx ∑ Fi Eq 12.8–13
i x
where the portion of seismic base shear, Fi, is distributed to the frames based on the relative lateral stiffness
of the frames and the diaphragm. With respect to the diaphragms, Section 12.3.1.2 permits a concrete-filled
metal deck to be idealized as rigid when there are no horizontal irregularities. As determined previously
in Section 2.4, the building does have a Type 2 reentrant corner horizontal irregularity. However, given
the symmetrical configuration and equivalent frame stiffness, a rigid diaphragm idealization is considered
acceptable.
In Figure 5–2 the center of mass and center of rigidity, by inspection, coincide at the middle of the building.
Therefore, in consideration of Section 12.8.4.1, there is essentially no eccentricity and no corresponding
inherent torsional moment, Mt. However, per Section 12.8.4.2, to account for accidental torsional moments,

Mta, the point of application of the story shear shall be offset a distance equal to 5.0 percent of the dimension
of the structure perpendicular to the direction of applied forces, Li, from the center of mass, as follows:
Mtai = 0.05Ly(Fi) = 0.05(120 ft)Fi = 6.0Fi §12.8.4.2
or,
Mtai = 0.05Lx(Fi) = 0.05(150 ft)Fi = 7.5Fi. §12.8.4.2
To distribute the moment loads to each frame, the seismic base shear, Fxi, is applied in the building’s X and
Y directions. For any given story, each bay of framing has equivalent stiffness, and a generic stiffness, R,
is used to represent the rigidity. A fixed distance, di, is then measured from the respective centroidal axis to
each frame. The seismic design story shear, Vxi, can be determined by summing the direct story shear force,
Vi, inherent torsional force, Vti, and accidental torsional force, Vtai, as follows:
Vxi = Vi + Vti + Vtai Eq 12.8–13 (modified)
where,
Ri M Rd
Vi Fi , Vti = 0, and Vtai = tai i2 i .
ΣR
Ri ΣR
Rd
R
The corresponding story shear rigid diaphragm distributions are shown in Table 5–2. Table 5–3 shows the
corresponding design shear forces for each typical frame.
Table 5–2. Story shear rigid diaphragm distribution
Grid Direction di Rdi Rd i2 Vi Vtai Vxi

A X −75 −75R 5625R 0.50Fi −0.024Fi 0.48Fi
F X 75 75R 5625R 0.50Fi 0.024Fi 0.52Fi
1 Y −60 −60R 3600R 0.50Fi −0.024Fi 0.48Fi
5 Y 60 60R 3600R 0.50Fi 0.024Fi 0.52Fi
ΣRd 2 = 18,450R
Table 5–3. Typical frame seismic design story shears
Level Design Story Shear, Vxi, (kips) Cumulative Shear, (kips)

Roof 51 51
6th 81 132
5th 61 193
4th 42 235
3rd 26 261
2nd 10 271
1st 0 271

With respect to torsional irregularity and using the values from Table 5–2, the maximum and average story
drifts can be determined as follows:
( ) 0.52 Fi
δ max
a
= xi max
a
=
R R
[(Vxi )max + (Vxi )min ] (0.52 + 0. ) Fi 0.50FFi
δ avg = = =
2R 2R R
Therefore, the maximum to average story drift ratio can be determined as follows:
δ max 0.52
a
= = 1.04 < 1.2. T 12.3–1 Type 1a
δ avg 0.50
NO HORIZONTAL TYPE 1a TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY
In accordance with Section 12.3.4.2(a), with the removal of an individual brace, in this case along Grid A,
the resulting frame stiffness, R, is reduced 50 percent. With that reduction, the corresponding modified story
shear rigid diaphragm distributions are shown in Table 5–4. Given the symmetrical nature of the frame, it
can likewise be shown that similar distributions occur with the removal of an individual brace along Grids
F, 1, or 5.
Table 5–4. Modified story shear rigid diaphragm distribution
Grid Direction di Rdi Rd i2 Vi Vtai Vxi

A X −75 −38R 2813R 0.50Fi −0.014Fi 0.49Fi
F X 75 75R 5625R 0.50Fi 0.029Fi 0.53Fi
1 Y −60 −60R 3600R 0.50Fi −0.029Fi 0.47Fi
5 Y 60 60R 3600R 0.50Fi 0.029Fi 0.53Fi
ΣRd 2 = 15,638R
With respect to torsional irregularity, using the values from Table 5–4, the maximum and average story
drifts can be determined as follows:
( ) 0.53Fi
δ max
a
= xi max
a
=
R R
[(Vxi )max + (Vxi )min ] (0.53 + 0. ) Fi 0.50FFi
δ avg = = =
2R 2R R
Therefore, the maximum to average story drift ratio can be determined as follows:
δ max 0.53
a
= = 1.06 < 1.4. T 12.3–1 Type 1b
δ avg 0.50
NO HORIZONTAL TYPE 1b TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY

4. Preliminary Member Sizing and Analysis
4.1 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS AISC 341/360
In accordance with AISC 341 Section A3.1, the specified minimum yield stress of steel to be used for
members in which inelastic behavior is expected shall not exceed 50 ksi. For this design example, steel
material strengths are taken from the AISC Manual Table 2–4 as follows:
Rolled wide-flange sections: ASTM A992, Fy = 50; Fu = 65 ksi

Built-up I-shaped sections and plates: ASTM A572 Grade 50, Fy = 50; Fu = 65 ksi.
Fy = 50 ksi; Fu = 65 ksi
The material ratio of expected yield stress to the specified minimum stress, Ry, is taken from AISC 341
Table A3.1 as follows:
ASTM A992 or A572 Grade 50, Ry = 1.1.
Ry = 1.1
Bolt material strengths are taken from the AISC 360 Table J3.2 as follows:
Shear tab bolts ASTM A325, Fnv = 68 ksi (threads excluded from shear planes)
Flange plate bolts ASTM A490, Fnv = 84 ksi (threads excluded from shear planes).
GROUP A: Fnv = 68 ksi; GROUP B: Fnv = 84 ksi
4.2 PRELIMINARY LINK SIZE AND LENGTH AISC 341
In an EBF system the primary design focus is the link. Optimizing the link can be a challenge due to
member local buckling requirements, geometric constraints, and considerations associated with the strength
of the beam outside of the link. Of primary importance is the link length, e, and its relationship to the
inelastic yielding behavior of the frame.
The design provisions set forth in AISC 341 Section F3 are intended to provide reliable and ductile link
behavior when the link is subjected to seismic loading. In the provisions, the nominal shear strength of
the link, Vn, is determined as the lesser of the shear yielding strength, Vp, or the shear associated with the
flexural yielding strength, 2Mp /e.
In general, when e = 2Mp /Vp, the yield condition is balanced between shear and flexure. For values less than
1.6Mp /Vp, the link behavior is generally controlled by shear, whereas for values greater than 2.6Mp /Vp it is
controlled by flexure. For link lengths between 1.6 Mp /Vp and 2.6Mp /Vp, a combination of shear and flexural
yielding occurs.
Because shear yielding is much more reliable than flexural yielding, it is generally considered advantageous
to keep link lengths short enough to be controlled by shear. With this in mind, a target value of 1.6Mp /Vp is
used for the link length. To achieve this, a lower design value of 1.3Mp /Vp is recommended by Engelhardt

and Popov (1989). This lower value allows some flexibility in changing the link beam size and frame
geometry while still maintaining a final link length consistent with the 1.6Mp /Vp target.
To derive the preliminary link beam shear force, Vr, refer to the inverted-V frame beam, BM-1, shown in
Figure 5–3(a). As shown in the frame free-body diagram of Figure 5–5 and ignoring the nominal effects of
gravity loads, the preliminary shear force, Vr, is estimated in consideration of the cumulative design seismic
shear force, Vi, story height, hst, and frame width, L, as follows:
Vr = V2hst /L = (271 kips)(12.0 ft)/30.0 ft = 108 kips.
For the two-story X configuration and BM-2 shown in Figure 5–3(b), the same preliminary force includes
the cumulative shear is estimated from the two associated stories as follows:
Vr = (V2 + V3)hst /L = (271 kips + 261 kips)(12.0 ft)/30.0 ft = 213 kips.
L/2
e/2
Vi /2 Vr
hst
Vi /2
Vr
Figure 5–5. Inverted-V free-body diagram (cut through the link centerline)
The preceding methodology is repeated for all the corresponding links with the resulting design shear force
Table 5–5. Preliminary link design shear force
Shear, Vr, (kips)

Level
Inverted-V Two-Story X
Roof 20.4 No Link
6th 52.8 73.2
5th 77.2 No Link
4th 94.0 171
3rd 104 No Link
2nd 108 213

For the beam BM-1, assuming a short link governed by shear yielding, the required link area, Atw, is
estimated in consideration of the link design shear strength, φvVn, as follows:
Vr 108 kips
Alw = = = 4 0 in 2 . Eq F3–2 (Modified)
φ v 0 6 Fy 0 9(0.6)50 ksi
Excess capacity in the link segment is an important economic consideration, as the other elements in the
frame are designed to develop the full inelastic link capacity. The beam-to-brace geometric constraint is
also a consideration in that the beam flange must be approximately equal to or wider than the brace flange.
In this example, the braces will be W10 rolled sections. Therefore, in consideration of the required link
area, flange width, and buckling requirements summarized in AISC Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3,
evaluate a W10 × 68 ASTM A992 wide-flange for the beam BM-1 as follows:
Alw = (d − 2tf)tw = [10.4 in − 2(0.77 in)](0.47 in) = 4.16 > 4.00 in2. Eq F3–4
Typically, the most efficient links are deeper sections. However, given the geometric constraints associated
with the fully restrained beam-to-brace moment connection in this example, only shallow W10 and W18
rolled sections have an adequate flange width for the brace attachment. Therefore, in consideration of W10
rolled sections for braces, the minimum required flange width in the second through fifth floors is bf > 10.0
inches. Above the fifth floor, where lighter braces are adequate, the minimum required flange width is
bf > 8.0 inches.
Per AISC 341 Section F3.5b(2), the nominal shear, Vp, and plastic flexural strengths, Mp, are determined
assuming Pr /Pc < 0.15, as follows:
Vp = 0.6Fy Alw = 0.6(50 ksi)(4.16 in2) = 125 kips Eq F3–2

Mp = Fy Z = 50 ksi(85.3 in3) = 4265 kip-in. Eq F3–8
The preliminary link length, e, which will optimize the W10 × 68, is determined as follows:
e = 1.3Mp /Vp = 1.3(4265 kip-in)/125 kips = 44 in. . . . say 48 in.
The preceding methodology is repeated for each link for both frame configurations with the selected link
sizes, nominal shear strength, Vp, and calculated link lengths, e, summarized in Table 5–6.
Table 5–6. Preliminary link sizes, shear strengths, and link lengths
Level
Link Vp (kips) e (in) Link Vp (kips) e (in)
Roof W10 × 68 125 48 No Link — —
6th W10 × 68 125 48 W10 × 68 125 48
5th W10 × 68 125 48 No Link — —
4th W10 × 68 125 48 W18 × 86 243 50
3rd W10 × 68 125 48 No Link — —
2nd W10 × 68 125 48 W18 × 86 243 50

As indicated in Table 5–6, for the inverted-V, a preliminary link size of W10 × 68 is selected for all of the
floors. With a corresponding increase in floor height, somewhat lighter link sections might be expected.
However, for this example, in consideration of buckling width-to-thickness ratios, a lighter W10 × 60,
W10 × 54, or W10 × 49 rolled section cannot satisfy the highly ductile requirement of Section F3.5b(1).
4.3 PRELIMINARY ADJUSTED LINK SHEAR STRENGTH AISC 341
As noted in AISC 341 Section F3.5(a), the diagonal brace and beam segment outside of the link are
intended to remain essentially elastic. Therefore, in accordance with Section F3.3, the link shear strength
is “adjusted” to include the amplification effect of both material overstrength and strain hardening. For the
shear-governed link of beam BM-1, the adjusted shear strength, Vmh, is determined as follows:
Vmh = 1.25RyVp = 1.25(1.1)(125 kips) = 172 kips. §F3.3
The preceding methodology is repeated for each story and each frame configuration with the adjusted
link shear strengths summarized in Table 5–7. As a measure of the link shear strength capacity, Table 5–7
also shows the ratio of the adjusted link shear strength to the design shear force, Vmh /Vr . In order to
economize the link member selection, the ratio should be as close to 1.25Ry as possible, which in this case
is approximately 1.4.
Table 5–7. Preliminary adjusted link shear strength and shear ratio
Level
Vmh (kips) Vmh /Vr Ratio Vmh (kips) Vmh /Vr Ratio
Roof 172 8.4 No Link —
6th 172 3.3 172 2.4
5th 172 2.2 No Link —
4th 172 1.8 334 2.0
3rd 172 1.7 No Link —
2nd 172 1.6 334 1.6
As indicated in Table 5–7, several of the links significantly exceed the optimum ratio. This could
unnecessarily increase the size of the associated braces and columns. Given the limited selection of highly
ductile rolled wide-flange sections with a corresponding compatible flange width, this example considers
the use of built-up I-shaped sections as an effective alternative for these locations. However, the use of
built-up link sections is not without both code and economic considerations. For example, AISC 341
Section F3.5b.(1) requires Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) groove welds to connect the link web to the
flanges. In addition, Section F3.6a(5) classifies these CJP groove welds as demand critical. The AISC 341
demand-critical designation requires specific filler metals (Section A3.4b) and among other requirements, a
weld procedure specification in Section I2.3.
In terms of economy, in consideration of both the plate material and fabrication, the cost of the
built-up shapes can be three to four times that of a rolled wide-flange section (B. Manning, personal
communication). With these considerations in mind, built-up I-shaped link beam sections are deemed
necessary only where the indicated capacity ratios in Table 5–7 exceed 2.0.

4.4 PRELIMINARY BUILT-UP LINK BEAM SIZE AISC 341
As with rolled sections, the built-up I-shapes must satisfy both local buckling and geometric constraints.
For beam BM-3 shown in Figure 5-3(a), the required flange width for geometric compatibility with the
brace is approximately 10.0 inches. In accordance with the exception in AISC 341 Section F3.5b.(1),
the required flange thickness, tf , in consideration of a moderately ductile 10.0-inch flange width, bf , is
determined as follows:
bf 10 in
tf = = = 0 55 in . . . say 5⁄8 in. T D1.1 (modified)
2λ md .2(9.155)
For the same beam, assuming a short link governed by shear yielding, the required link area, Atw, is
estimated in consideration of the link design shear strength, φvVn, as follows:
Vr 77.2 kips
Alw = = = 2 86 in 2 Eq F3–2 (Modified)
φ v 0 6 Fy 0.90(0.6)(50
5 k i)
Using a web thickness, tw, of 1⁄4-inch, the required depth, d, can be determined as follows:
d = (Alw /tw) + 2tf = (2.86 in2/0.25 in) + 2(0.625 in) = 12.69 in . . . say 13.0 in. Eq F3–4 (Modified)
The preceding methodology is repeated for each targeted link in both frame configurations. The preliminary
built-up link beams designations are shown in Figure 5–3, and their associated parameters are summarized
in Table 5–8:
Table 5–8. Preliminary built-up link beam parameters
Depth, d Web, tw Flange bf Flange tf Area, A Weight Z

Designation Beam Size (in) (in) (in) (in) (in2) (plf) (in3)
BM-3 BU13 × 53 13.0 0.25 10.0 0.625 15.4 53 86.0
BM-4 BU12 × 37 12.0 0.25 8.0 0.50 10.8 37 53.6
BM-5 BU9 × 34 9.0 0.25 8.0 0.50 10.0 34 38.0
Additional built-up link beam design parameters including the link shear strength, Vp, moment strength, Mp,
and preliminary link length, e, are summarized in Table 5–9:
Table 5–9. Preliminary built-up link beam parameters and length
Beam Size Shear, Vp (kips) Flexure, Mp (kip-in) Length, e 1.3Mp /Vp (in)
BU13 × 53 88 4299 64
BU12 × 37 83 2678 42
BU9 × 34 60 1900 42

Table 5–10 shows the location and designation of the built-up link beams. In addition, the table indicates
the adjusted link shear strength, Vmh, and associated shear ratios. Although the inverted-V roof link beam
shear ratio exceeds 2.0, given the nominal plate sizes, a further adjustment is deemed unnecessary.
Table 5–10. Preliminary adjusted link shear strength and shear ratio
Level Vmh /Vr Vmh /Vr
Beam Size Vmh (kips) Ratio Beam Size Vmh (kips) Ratio
Roof BU9 × 34 82.5 4.0 No Link — —
6th BU9 × 34 82.5 1.6 BU12 × 37 114 1.5
5th BU13 × 53 121 1.6 No Link — —
With respect to the Type 5 vertical irregularity provision outlined in the Section 2.5 base shear calculations,
Tables 5–7 and 5–10 show the adjusted link shear strengths either remain the same or increase when
compared with that of each story above. Therefore, for this example, there is no vertical discontinuity or
weakness in the frame’s lateral strength (Type 5 vertical irregularity).
4.5 PRELIMINARY NON-LINK BEAM SIZE (2-STORY X) AISC 341/360
As shown in the two-story X configuration of Figure 5–3(b), the beams at the third, fifth, and roof levels
have no associated link. Therefore, they are classified as a beam outside of the link. In accordance with
AISC 341 Section F3.5a, beams outside of the link need only satisfy the width-to-thickness limitations in
Section D1.1 for moderately ductile members.
For beam BM-6, shown in Figure 5–3(b), evaluate a W16 × 26 ASTM A992 wide-flange in consideration of
deflection and serviceability requirements. Determine the minimum beam deep, dmin, as follows:
dmin = L/24 = 30.0 ft(12.0 ft/in)/24 = 15 in < 15.7 in.
The beam is designed as composite (except at the roof) in accordance with AISC 360 Section I5 and is
braced at the third points in accordance with AISC 341 Section D1.2a(a).
USE A COMPOSITE W16 × 26 FOR

NON-LINK BEAMS IN THE TWO-STORY X
4.6 PRELIMINARY BRACE SIZE AISC 341
To derive the preliminary brace axial force, Pr, refer to the inverted-V brace, BR-1, shown in Figure
5–3(a). Using the beam shear and moment diagrams of Figure 5–6 and ignoring the nominal effects of
gravity loads, the downward vertical brace reaction, Rmh, and the moment at the end of the link, Mmh, are
⎛ L ⎞ ⎛ 30 ft ⎞
Rmh Vmh ⎜ = 172 kips ⎜ = 198 ki
k ps
⎝ L e ⎟⎠ ⎝ 30 ft − 4 ft ⎟⎠
⎛ e⎞ ⎛ 4 ft ⎞
M mh Vmh ⎜ ⎟ = 172 kips ⎜ = 344 kip-ft.
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠

(L-e)/2 e/2 (L-e)/2 e/2
Vmh M1 Mr Vmh
R1 Rmh R1
Rmh
V2 V2
V1 V1
Shear Shear
M1
Moment Mmh Moment Mmh

Mr
(a) (b)
Figure 5–6. Beam shear and moment diagrams (cut through the link centerline) for (a) pin-
connected beam and brace connections (b) fully restrained beam and brace connections
Using the geometry shown in Figure 5–5 and the compatible beam and column depths, db and dc,
respectively, the diagonal brace unbraced length, Lb, and angle, β, are calculated by trigonometry as
follows:
2 2
⎛ L e − dc ⎞ ⎛ 30.0 f 4f 0.83 ft ⎞
Lb hstst − d b )2 + ⎜ ⎟⎠ = ( .0 f − 1. f ) + ⎜⎝
2
⎟⎠
⎝ 2 2
= 16.7 ft . . . say 17.0 ft
⎡ h ⎤ ⎡ 12 ft ⎤
a −1 ⎢
β = tan tan −1 ⎢
⎥ = tan ⎥ = 42.7 deg .
⎢⎛ L − e ⎞ ⎥ ⎢⎛ 30 ft − 4 ft ⎞ ⎥
⎢⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎢⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
The required preliminary diagonal brace axial force, Pr, for the brace is calculated using trigonometry as
follows:
Rmh 198 kips

Pr = = = 324 kips .
φc β) .90(sin
( i 42.. )
In this example, the brace and brace end connections are fully restrained (fixed). Therefore, the moment
at the end of the link will be distributed in proportion to the relative stiffness of the diagonal brace and
the beam outside of the link as shown in Figure 5–6(b). For a preliminary estimation, this example uses
approximately 50 percent of the adjusted end moment for brace resistance. The exact brace end moment is
subsequently confirmed using an elastic computational analysis. Therefore, the preliminary required brace
flexural strength, Mr, in the brace BR-1 is determined as follows:
0 50 M mh 0.50
5 (344 kip-ft)
Mr = = = 191 kip-ft .
φb 0 90

Using the AISC Manual Table 6–1 for combined loading with unbraced length, Lb = 17 ft, and AISC
Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3 for local buckling requirements, a W10 × 77 ASTM A992 wide-flange
section is deemed adequate for the preliminary diagonal brace size. In the selection process, the flange
width of the brace, tbf , is confirmed geometrically compatible for attachment to the beam. The preceding
methodology is repeated for each story and each frame configuration with the selected brace sizes
Table 5–11. Preliminary brace sizes
Brace Size
Level
6th W10 × 45 W10 × 45
5th W10 × 45 W10 × 45
4th W10 × 54 W10 × 54
3rd W10 × 77 W10 × 68
2nd W10 × 77 W10 × 68
1st W10 × 77 W10 × 68
As indicated in Table 5–11, the corresponding first-story brace for the two-story X is a size smaller than
that of the inverted-V frame. At this location, the correspondingly larger second-level link beam (W18 ×
86) reduces the moment distribution to the brace, allowing for the reduction in size.
4.7 PRELIMINARY COLUMN SIZE AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3(1)(b), when a column receives force from at least three links,
the seismic force is permitted to be multiplied by 0.88. The reduction represents the diminished likelihood
of simultaneous strain hardening.
Given the configuration shown in Figure 5–3(a) for the inverted-V column C-1, the strain hardening
reduction factor is applicable. As with the downward vertical reaction of the first-floor brace, the first-floor
upward force, Rmh, from the second-floor link is determined as follows:
⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ 4 ft ⎞
Rmh Vmh ⎜ = 172 kips ⎜ = 26.5 kips (upward).
⎝ L e ⎟⎠ ⎝ 30 ft − 4 ft ⎟⎠
As shown in the mechanism model of Figure 5–7, the simultaneously downward column force resulting
from the overturning of the levels above column C-1 is determined from the adjusted link forces at those
levels. Therefore, the total first-floor required column axial load, PEmh, in consideration of the strain
hardening reduction factor, is determined as follows:
PEmh 0 88 (∑ r
roof
3 )
Vmh − Rmhh = 0.88(82.5 + 82 5 + 121 + 172 + 172 − 26.5) kips = 531 kips.

Roof Vmh
6th Vmh
5th Vmh
4th Vmh
3rd Vmh
2nd Vmh
roof
Rmh
3
VVmh
Figure 5–7. Column mechanism model (cut through the link centerline)
The seismic forces are combined with the appropriate proportion of gravity forces to determine the required
column axial load, Pr, as follows:
Pr = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(286 kips) + 0.5(98.0 kips) + 1.0(531 kips) = 980 kips.
As mentioned previously, the applied free-body-diagram methodology is reasonable when pin-ended

members are used. In this example, the beam-to-column connection is detailed as fixed, so for preliminary
estimation purposes, assume approximately 15 percent of the link end moment will be distributed to the
column. The exact column moment is subsequently confirmed with the elastic computational analysis.
Therefore, the required column C-1 flexural strength, MEmh, in consideration of the 0.88 reduction factor, is
0.15(0.88) M mh 0.15(0.88)344 kip-ft

M Emh = = = 50.4 kip-ft .
φb 0 90

Using the AISC Manual Table 6–1 for combined loading with unbraced length, Lb = 11.0 ft, and AISC
Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3 for local buckling requirements, a W12 × 96 ASTM A992 wide-flange
section for the preliminary column size is selected. In the selection process, the flange width of the column,
tcf , is confirmed to be geometrically compatible for the beam attachment. The preceding methodology is
repeated at each splice location with column sizes summarized in Table 5–12 for both frame configurations.
Table 5–12. Preliminary column sizes
Level Column Size

5th to roof W12 × 50
3rd to 5th W12 × 96
1st to 2nd W12 × 96
The preliminary frame configurations with the selected sizes are shown in Figure 5–8.
2 3 C D
30’-0” 30’-0”
Roof BU9x34 W16x26
W12x50
W10x45 12’-0”
W10x45 TYP.
BU12x37
6th BU9x34
W10x45 W10x45 12’-0”

5th BU13x53 W16x26
W12x96
TYP. W10x54
W10x54 12’-0”
W18x86
4th W10x68
W10x77 W10x68 12’-0”

3rd W10x68 W16x26
W12x96 W10x68 12’-0”

W10x77 TYP.
2nd W10x68 W18x86
W10x77 W10x68 12’-0”

Base
(a) (b)
Figure 5–8. Preliminary EBF member sizes: (a) inverted-V along Grid A; (b) two-Story X along Grid 1

4.8 ELASTIC MODELING AND STORY DRIFT DETERMINATION ASCE 7
Using the preliminary beam, brace, and columns sizes, a two-dimensional computer model is generated
for the entire frame. An elastic computational analysis of the model is used to confirm the fundamental
structural period, and the link end moment distribution assumptions, and to determine the elastic deflections
of the frame.
From the analysis of the model, the fundamental period, T, is computed as 1.16 and 1.25 seconds for the
inverted-V and the two-story X, respectively. Both computed periods exceed the maximum fundamental
period, Tmax, confirming that it be used in the determination of the seismic response coefficient, Cs.
In accordance with AISC 341 Section B1, the design story drift and the allowable story drift limit are those
required by the applicable building code. From the analysis of the model, the elastic deflection, δxe, between
the first and second level is computed as 0.348-inch. The allowable story drift limit, Δa, as indicated in
ASCE 7 Table 12.12–1 is calculated in consideration of the story height, hst, as follows:
Δa = 0.020hst = 0.020(12.0 ft)(12 in/ft) = 2.88 in. T 12.12–1
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6, the story deflection, δx, is calculated as follows:
Cd δ xe 4.0(0.348 i )
δ x = Δ 2 − Δ1 = = − 0 = 1.39
39 in < 2 88 in
n. Eq 12.8–15
Ie 10
δx < Δa → DRIFT LIMIT IS SATISFIED
The preceding methodology is repeated for each level and each frame configuration with the story drifts
summarized in Table 5–13. Also included in Table 5–13 is the soft story vertical irregularity check.
Table 5–13. EBF Story drift and soft story parameters
Level
Story Drift, δx (in) δx /0.70 (in) Story Drift, δx (in) δx /0.70 (in)
Roof 1.04 n.a. 1.57 n.a.
6th 1.66 2.37 1.85 2.64
5th 1.88 2.69 1.66 2.37
4th 1.66 2.37 1.44 2.06
3rd 1.60 2.29 1.61 2.30
2nd 1.39 n.a. 1.09 n.a.
As indicated in Table 5–13, the story-drift analysis confirms that there is no soft-story irregularity (Type 1a)
as set forth previously in Section 2.5 (i.e. δx < δx+1/0.7). In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.2.2
exception 1, the top two stories need not be evaluated.

If the story drift were to exceed allowable limits, ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6.1 provides an exception removing
lower limits on the seismic response coefficient, Cs. The exception as outlined in Section 12.8.6.2 allows
the use of seismic design forces based on the computed fundamental period, without the upper limit
specified in Section 12.8.2.
4.9 P-DELTA EFFECTS ASCE 7/IBC
In accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.8.7, P-delta effects shall be considered on story shears, moments,
and drifts when the ratio of secondary moments to primary moments, defined as the stability coefficient, θ,
is greater than 0.10. The stability coefficient is determined as follows:
Px ΔII e
θ= ≤ 0 10 . Eq 12.8–16
Vx hssx Cd
Where, in accordance with Table 5–1, IBC Table 1607.1, and live load reductions specified in IBC Section
1607.10 and 1607.12, the total second floor vertical design loads are determined as follows:
P2 = ΣD + ΣL = 7231 kips + [5(0.035 ksf)(15,220 ft2) + 0.012 ksf(15,220 ft2)] = 10,077 kips.
Therefore:
10,077 kips(2.88 i )(1.0)

θ= = 0.007 ≤ 0 10 . Eq 12.8–16
730 kips(144 in
i )(4.0)
θ ≤ 0.10 → STABILITY COEFFICIENT IS SATISFIED
The preceding methodology is repeated for each level with the total unfactored design loads and the
corresponding stability coefficient, θ, summarized in Table 5–14.
Table 5–14. Total unfactored design loads and stability coefficient
Level Design Loads, Px (kips) Stability Coefficient, θ

Roof 7413 0.05
6th 7947 0.05
5th 8480 0.06
4th 9013 0.06
3rd 9363 0.06
2nd 10,077 0.07
4.10 SECONDARY EFFECTS ASCE 7
As the stability coefficient is less than 0.10 on all floors, in accordance with Section 12.8.7, P-delta
considerations (secondary effects) are not required.

5. Analysis Verification Member Final Design
Using the preliminary selected member sizes and output from the elastic model, specific design provisions
of the EBF are investigated.
5.1 LINK BEAM REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 341
For this example, refer to beam BM-1 shown in Figure 5–3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
link segment is a W10 × 68 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the
beam are shown in Table 5–15.
Table 5–15. Link segment loading for BM-1
Load Dead, D Live, L Seismic, QE

Axial, P — — —
Shear, V 1.20 kips 1.00 kips 102 kips
Moment, M 12.4 kip-ft 7.6 kip-ft 216 kip-ft
From the applied loads, the required axial, Pr, shear, Vr, and moment design strengths, Mu, can be
determined using the applicable load combinations as follows:
Pr = Pu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 0.0 kips

Vr = Vu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(1.2 kips) + 0.5(1.0 kips) + 1.0(102.0 kips) = 104 kips
Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(12.4 kip-ft) + 0.5(7.6 kip-ft) + 1.0(216 kip-ft) = 237 kip-ft.
5.2 LINK BEAM WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b(1), the link shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile members. However, for the flanges of short, shear
dominated links there is an exception for link lengths less than 1.6Mp /Vp. In this case, the flanges
need only satisfy the width-to-thickness requirements for moderately ductile members.
The width-to-thickness ratio for the flanges can be determined as follows:
λ md = 0 38 E /Fy = 0.38 299,000 ksi/ 5 ksi = 9 15.

i 50 T D1.1
Because bf /2tf = 6.58 < λmd, the flanges meet the local buckling requirements.
The width-to-thickness ratio for the web can be determined as follows:
Ca = 0.0 < 0.125 T D1.1

λ md = 2.45 E Fy = (1 − 0 93C
9 Ca ) = 2.455 299,000 k i 50
93 5 k i (1 0) 5 .0. T D1.1

Because ht /tw = 16.7 < λhd, the web satisfies the local buckling requirements.
LINK BEAM WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
Alternatively and in subsequent calculations, the width-to-thickness ratios are investigated using AISC
Seismic Design Manual Table 1–3.
5.3 LINK BEAM STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 341
Per AISC 341 Section F3.5b(2), the nominal shear, Vp, and plastic flexural strength, Mp, are determined in
consideration of the required axial strength as follows:
Pc = Py = Fy Ag = 50 ksi(19.9 in2) = 995 kips Eq F3–6

Pr /Pc = 0.0 < 0.15.
Therefore, use Vp and Mp as determined in the preliminary calculations. In accordance with Section
F3.5b(2), the link design shear strength, φvVn, shall be the lower of the value obtained in accordance with
the limit states of shear yielding in the web and flexural yielding in the gross section. Because for this
example Vp < Mp, shear yielding of the link controls and the design shear strength is determined as follows:
φvVn = φvVp = 0.9(125 kips) = 113 > 104 kips. Eq F3–1
φvVn > Vr, SHEAR YIELDING CONTROLS
5.4 LINK ROTATION ANGLE LIMITATION AISC 341
The link rotation angle is the primary variable used to describe link inelastic deformation. AISC 341 Figure
C-F3.4 defines the link rotation angle as the inelastic angle between the link and the beam outside of the
link under design story drift conditions. In accordance with Section F3.4a, the link rotation angle shall not
exceed 0.08 radians for link lengths of 1.6Mp /Vp or less and 0.02 radians for link lengths of 2.6Mp /Vp or
greater. Linear interpolation is required for link lengths between the two limits. As previously determined,
the second-floor link length for this example is approximately 1.3Mp /Vp. Therefore, the link rotation angle,
γp, in consideration of the plastic story drift angle, θp, is determined as follows:
L
γp θ where: θp = Δp /hst. F C-F3.4
e p
In accordance with Section F3.3, the inelastic link rotation angle is determined from the inelastic portion of
the design story drift as follows:
Δp = δx − δxe = 1.39 in − 0.348 in = 1.04 in.
Therefore,
θp = 1.04 in/144 in = .007 rad

γp = (30 ft/4 ft)(0.007 rad) = 0.05 < 0.08 rad.
γp < 0.08 rad → LINK ROTATION IS SATISFIED

5.5 BEAM OUTSIDE OF THE LINK REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 341/360
According to AISC 341 Section F3.3, the required strength of beam outside of the link must be “adjusted”
for both material overstrength and strain hardening. However, with respect to this segment, the adjusted
shear strength is allowed to be taken as 0.88 times the force to account for the increased strength provided
by a composite slab and recognizing the fact that limited yielding is unlikely to be detrimental to frame
behavior. If there is not a concrete composite slab, a strain-hardening factor of 1.25 should be used as
recommended by Section C-F3.3. As discussed in the overview, for this example, the beam outside of the
link is composite with the concrete slab.
Additional lateral bracing along the length of the beam, if required, is designed per AISC Specification
Appendix 6. If the beam outside of the link is a different section than the link, then it must also satisfy the
width-to-thickness requirements.
For this example, refer to beam BM-1 shown in Figure 5–3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
beam is a W10 × 68 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the beam
are shown in Table 5–16.
Table 5–16. Beam outside of the link loading for BM-1

Axial, P — — 138 kips
Shear, V 7.80 kips 6.70 kips 11.6 kips
In accordance with Section F3.3, the “adjusted” required shear strength, Vmh, is calculated as follows:
Vmh = 0.88(1.25)RyVp = 0.88(1.25)(1.1)(125 kips) = 151 kips.
As outlined in the overview, the brace-to-beam connection is detailed as a fully restrained connection.
Using the methodology described in AISC Seismic Design Manual Example 5.4.3, the adjusted link end
moment will be distributed into the beam outside of the link and the diagonal brace based on amplification
factors. The amplification factor, α, is determined by dividing the adjusted shear strength, Vmh, by the
required link shear force, VQE, reported in Table 5–15 as follows:
α = Vmh /VQE = 151 kips/102 kips = 1.48.
The seismic axial, shear, and moment forces in the beam outside of the link are multiplied by the
amplification factor as follows:
PEmh = αPQE = 1.48(138 kips) = 204 kips

VEmh = αVQE = 1.48(11.6 kips) = 17.2 kips
MEmh = αMQE = 1.48(115 kip-ft) = 170 kip-ft.

Pr = Pu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(0.0 kips) + 0.5(0.0 kips) + 1.0(204 kips) = 204 kips
Vr = Vu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(7.80 kips) + 0.5(6.70 kips) + 1.0(17.2 kips) = 31.5 kips
Mr = Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(11.6 kip-ft) + 0.5(7.60 kip-ft) + 1.0(170 kip-ft) = 190 kip-ft.
5.6 BEAM OUTSIDE OF THE LINK WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
Because the beam outside of the link is the same section as the link, no additional local buckling checks are
required.
BEAM OUTSIDE OF THE LINK WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS
RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
5.7 BEAM OUTSIDE OF THE LINK STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 341/360
Due to the large axial force and bending moment, the beam outside the link is designed as a beam-column
in accordance with the user note of AISC 341 Section F3.5a. The beam outside of the link will be braced at
the column and at the link. Therefore, the unbraced length, Lb, in consideration of the column depth, dc, is
Lb = (L − e − dc)/2 = [30 ft(12 in/ft) − 48 in − 12.7 in]/2 = 150 in.
For the W10 × 68 beam, in accordance with AISC 360 Section F2.2, the limiting yielding unbraced length,
Lp, and the limiting lateral-torsional buckling unbraced length, Lr, in consideration that the coefficient,
c = 1, are determined as follows:
E 29,000 ksi
Lp 1.766ry = 1.76(2.59 in) = 110 in Eq F2–5
Fy 50 ksi
2 2
E Jc ⎛ Jc ⎞ ⎛ 0 7 Fy ⎞
Lr 1 95rtts + ⎜ ⎟ + 6 76 ⎜ ⎟ Eq F2–6
0 7 Fy S x ho ⎝ S x ho ⎠ ⎝ E ⎠
where
I yC w 134 in 4 (3100 in 6 )
rts = = = 2 92 in . Eq F2–7
Sx 75.7 in 3
Therefore:
2 2
29,000 ksi 3.56 4 (1.0) ⎛ 3.56 4 (1.0) ⎞ ⎛ 0.7(50 ksi) ⎞
Lr = 1.95(2.92 i ) + ⎜ ⎟ + 6 76 ⎜⎝ 29,000 ksi ⎟⎠ Eq F2–6
0.7(50 ksi) 75.7 i 3 (9.63
6 i ) ⎝ 75.7 i 3 (9.63 i ) ⎠
Lr = 487 in
Alternatively and in any subsequent calculations, Lp and Lr, are determined from the AISC Manual
Table 3–2, as follows:
Lp = 9.15 ft(12 in/ft) = 110 in Manual T 3–2

Lr = 40.6 ft(12 in/ft) = 487 in Manual T 3–2

In accordance with Section C3, the effective length factor, K, shall be taken as unity. The member
slenderness is determined in accordance with AISC 360 Section E2 as follows:
KL/ry = 1.0(150 in)/2.59 in = 57.9 < 200. §E2
In accordance with Section E3, the elastic buckling stress, Fe, is determined as follows:
Fe = π2E/(KL/r)2 = π2(29,000 ksi)/(57.9)2 = 85.4 ksi. Eq E3–4
In accordance with Section E3, if the yield to elastic buckling stress ratio is less than or equal to 2.25, the
column buckling behavior is considered elastic. The stress ratio is determined as follows:
Fy /Fe = 50 ksi/85.4 ksi = 0.58 < 2.25.
The critical stress, Fcr, is determined as follows:
Fcr = [0.658(Fy /Fe)]Fy = (0.6580.58)50 ksi = 39.2 ksi. Eq E3–2
Alternatively and in any subsequent calculations, Fcr , is determined from the AISC Manual Table 4–22, as
follows:
Fcr = 35.3 ksi/φc = 35.3 ksi/0.9 = 39.2 ksi. Manual T 4–22
The nominal compressive strength, Pn, is determined as follows:
Pn = Fcr Ag = 39.2 ksi(19.9 in2) = 780 kips. Eq E3–1
In accordance with AISC 341 Section A3.2, the strength of the beam outside of the link can be increased
by the expected yield stress ratio, Ry, given the link and the beam are the same member. In accordance with
AISC 360 Section H1.1, the design axial strength of the beam, Pc, is determined as follows:
Pc = RyφcPn = 1.1(0.9)(780 kips) = 772 kips §H1.1

Pr /Pc = 204 kips/772 kips = 0.26. §H1.1
In accordance with AISC 360 Section F2.2, when Lp < Lb < Lr, then the nominal flexural strength, Mn, in
consideration that the lateral-torsional buckling modification factor, Cb = 1.0, is determined as follows:
⎡ ⎛ Lb Lp ⎞ ⎤
Mn Cb ⎢ M p ( M p − .7 Fy S x ) ⎜ ⎟⎥ ≤ Mp Eq F2–2
⎢⎣ ⎝ Lr Lp ⎠ ⎥
⎦
where
Mp = Fy Zx = 50 ksi(85.3 in3) = 4265 kip-in. Eq F2–1
Therefore:
⎧ ⎛ 150 in − 110 in ⎞ ⎫
M n = 1.0 ⎨ 4265 kip i − [4265 kip-in − 0.7(50 ksi)(75.7 in 3 )]
)⎜ ⎬ Eq F2–2
⎩ ⎝ 487 in − 110 in ⎟⎠ ⎭
Mn = 4094 kip-in.

In accordance with Section H1.1, the design flexural strength, Mc, is determined as follows:
Mc = RyφbMn = 1.1(0.9)(4094 kip-in)(1.0 ft/12 in) = 338 kip-ft. §H1.1
Because Pr /Pc > 0.2, the combined beam strength is limited as follows:
Pr /Pc + 8/9(Mr /Mc) = 0.26 + 8/9(190 kip-ft/338 kip-ft) = 0.76 < 1.0. Eq H1–1a
BEAM OUTSIDE OF THE LINK COMBINED FLEXURE AND

COMPRESSION STRENGTH RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
Alternatively and in subsequent calculations the combined strength equations are determined using the
AISC Manual Table 6–1, with Lb = 12 feet and Ry = 1.1, as follows:
p = 1.40 × 10−3 (kips)−1/1.1 = 1.27 × 10−3 kips−1 Manual T 6–1

−3 −1 −3 −1
bx = 2.88 × 10 (kip-ft) /1.1 = 2.62 × 10 (kip-ft) Manual T 6–1
Pr /Pc = pPr = 1.27 × 10−3 kips−1(204 kips) = 0.26.
Because pPr > 0.2, the combined strength is limited by AISC Manual Equation 6–1 as follows:
pPr + bxMrx = 0.26 + 2.62 × 10−3(190 kip-ft) = 0.76 < 1.0. Manual Eq 6–1
5.8 DIAGONAL BRACE REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 314
For this example, refer to beam BR-1 shown in Figure 5–3. As determined in the preliminary analysis, the
brace is a W10 × 77 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the brace
are shown in Table 5–17.
Table 5–17. Diagonal brace loading for BR-1

Axial, P 10.8 kips 8.30 kips 182 kips
As with the beam outside of the link, in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3, the required strength
of brace is “adjusted” for both material overstrength and strain hardening. The adjusted required shear
strength, Vmh, is calculated as follows:
Vmh = 1.25RyVp = 1.25(1.1)(125 kips) = 172 kips.
Using the amplification method described previously, the factor α is determined by dividing the adjusted
shear strength, Vmh, by the required link shear force, VQE, reported in Table 5–15 as follows:
α = Vmh /VQE = 172 kips/102 kips = 1.69.

The seismic axial, shear, and moment forces in the brace are multiplied by the amplification factor as
follows:
PEmh = αPQE = 1.69(182 kips) = 308 kips

VEmh = αVQE = 1.69(5.00 kips) = 8.45 kips
MEmh = αMQE = 1.69(101 kip-ft) = 171 kip-ft.
Pr = Pu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(10.8 kips) + 0.5(8.3 kips) + 1.0(308 kips) = 327 kips
Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(4.10 kip-ft) + 0.5(3.20 kip-ft) + 1.0(171 kip-ft) = 178 kip-ft.
5.9 DIAGONAL BRACE WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5a, EBF braces shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for moderately ductile members. As indicated in AISC Seismic Design
Manual Table 1–3, the W10 × 77 satisfies brace local buckling requirements.
BRACE WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
5.10 DIAGONAL BRACE STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 341/360
As with the beam outside the link, the diagonal brace is designed as a beam-column in accordance with
the user note of AISC 341 Section F3.5a. As mentioned previously, the brace is hinged at the column and
fixed at the link. The combined strength equations are determined using the AISC Manual Table 6–1, with
Lb = 17 feet (as determined in the preliminary design), as follows:
p = 1.54 × 10−3 kips−1 Manual T 6–1

−3 −1
bx = 2.65 × 10 (kip-ft) Manual T 6–1
Pr /Pc = pPr = 1.54 × 10−3 kips−1 (327 kips) = 0.50.
pPr + bxMrx = 0.50 + 2.65 × 10−3 (kip-ft)−1 (178 kip-ft) = 0.97 < 1.0. Manual Eq 6–1
BRACE COMBINED FLEXURE AND COMPRESSION

STRENGTH RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
In accordance with AISC 360 Section G2.1, the brace shear strength is determined in consideration of the
web width-to-thickness ratio. The width-to-thickness ratio is determined as follows:
h/tw ≤ 2.24(E/Fy)0.5 = 2.24(29,000 ksi/50 ksi)0.5 = 53.9 > 14.8. §G2.1

Therefore, with the web shear coefficient, Cv = 1.0, the design shear strength, φvVn, is determined as follows:
φvVn = φv0.6Fy AwCv = 1.0(0.6)(50 ksi)(10.6 in)(0.53 in)(1.0) = 169 kips > 10.4 kips. Eq G2–1
φvVn > Pr, SHEAR STRENGTH IS SATISFIED
Alternatively, the design shear strength, φvVn, is determined using the AISC Manual Table 3–6 as follows:
φvVn = 169 kips > 10.4 kips. Manual T 3–6
5.11 COLUMN REQUIRED STRENGTHS AISC 360
For this example, refer to column C-1 shown in Figure 5–3(a). As determined in the preliminary analysis,
the column is a W12 × 96 wide-flange section. From the computational analysis, the applied loads for the
column are shown in Table 5–18.
Table 5–18. Column loading for C-1

Axial, P 286 kips 98.0 kips 339 kips
Moment, M 4.20 kip-ft 2.20 kip-ft 38.0 kip-ft
As with the beam and brace, in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.3, the column strength must resist the
forces generated by the sum of the adjusted link shear strengths. In Section 4.7 of the preliminary design,
the adjusted column required axial load, PEmh, was determined to be 531 kips. The computational analysis
confirmed that 15 percent of the link end moment, MEmh, or 50.4 kip-ft is distributed to the column.
From the applied loads in axial compression, the required axial, Pr, shear, Vr, and moment design strengths,
Mu, can be determined using the applicable load combinations as follows:
Pr = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(286 kips) + 0.5(98.0 kips) + 1.0(531 kips) = 980 kips
Mu = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4(4.2 kip-ft) + 0.5(2.2 kip-ft) + 1.0(50.4 kip-ft) = 57.4 kip-ft.
From applied loads in axial tension, the required axial, Pr, design strength can be determined using the
applicable load combination as follows:
Pr = 0.7D + 1.0QE = 0.7(286 kips) + 1.0(−531 kips) = −331 kips.
By inspection, the governing load combination is that for axial compression. However, foundation and
anchorage design must also consider the applied loads in axial tension.

5.12 COLUMN WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5a, EBF columns shall comply with the width-to-thickness
requirements of Section D1.1 for highly ductile members. As indicated in AISC Seismic Design Manual
Table 1–3, the W12 × 96 satisfies column local buckling requirements.
COLUMN WIDTH-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
5.13 COLUMN STRENGTH DESIGN AISC 360
As mentioned previously, the column is idealized as a pin base. The combined strength equations for the
W12 × 96 column are determined using the AISC Manual Table 6–1 (Lb = 11.0 ft), as follows:
p = 0.901 × 10−3 kips−1 Manual T 6–1

−3 −1
bx = 1.61 × 10 (kip-ft) Manual T 6–1
Pr /Pc = pPr = 0.901 × 10−3 kips−1 (980 kips) = 0.88.
pPr + bxMrx = 0.88 + 1.61 × 10−3 (kip-ft)−1 (57.4 kip-ft) = 0.97 < 1.0. Manual Eq 6–1
COLUMN COMBINED FLEXURE AND COMPRESSION

STRENGTH RATIOS ARE SATISFIED
6. Design and Detailing of Connections
6.1 LINK END STIFFENER REQUIREMENTS AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b(4), full-depth, double-sided web stiffeners are required at the
diagonal brace ends of each link. The minimum required width, wmin, of each end stiffener is determined as
follows:
wmin = (bf − 2tw)/2 = [10.1 in − 2(0.47 in)]/2 = 4.58 in. §F3.5b(4)
The minimum required thickness, tmin, of each end stiffener is determined as follows:
tmin = 0.75tw ≥ 3⁄8 in = 0.75(0.47 in) = 0.35 in < 3⁄8 in. §F3.5b(4)
PROVIDE FULL-DEPTH, 43⁄4-INCH-WIDE,

DOUBLE-SIDED END STIFFENERS
In order to simplify detailing and fabrication, use the same stiffener thickness as required for the
intermediate stiffeners.

6.2 LINK INTERMEDIATE STIFFENER REQUIREMENTS AISC 341
In accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.5b(4), where e > 5Mp /Vp, full-depth intermediate (within the
link) web stiffeners are not required. For all other conditions, intermediate stiffeners are required, spaced
at intervals in accordance with Section F3.5b(4)(a through c). For this example, with e < 1.6Mp /Vp, the
required intermediate stiffener spacing, s, for a link rotation angle, γp, of 0.08 rad, is determined as follows:
s = (30tw − d/5) = 30(0.47 in) − (10.4 in/5) = 12.0 in. §F3.5b(4)(a)
For a link rotation angle of 0.02 rad or less, the required spacing is determined as follows:
s = (52tw − d/5) = 52(0.47 in) – (10.4 in/5) = 22.4 in. §F3.5b(4)(a)
Interpolating between these limits using the calculated link rotation angle of 0.05 rad, the maximum
spacing between stiffeners is 17.2 inches.
For links where d ≤ 25.0 inches, the stiffeners are required only on one side of the link web. Where
d > 25.0 inches, the stiffeners are required on both sides of the web. The minimum required width, wmin, of
each intermediate stiffener is determined as follows:
wmin = bf /2 − tw = (10.1 in/2) − 0.47 in = 4.58 in. §F3.5b(4)
The minimum required thickness, tmin, of each intermediate stiffener is determined as follows:
tmin = tw ≥ 3⁄8 in = 0.47 in. §F3.5b(4)
For simplification purposes, both the end and intermediate stiffeners will use ½-inch-thick material.
PROVIDE FULL-DEPTH, 43⁄4-INCH-WIDE × 1⁄2-INCH-

THICK, SINGLE-SIDED STIFFENERS SPACED
AT 17 INCHES ON CENTER
6.3 STIFFENER WELD REQUIREMENTS AISC 341/AISC 360/AWS D1.8
With respect to the fillet welds connecting link stiffeners, AISC 341 Section F3.5b(4) requires the strength
in proportion to the horizontal cross-sectional area of the link stiffener, Ast. For welds connecting the
stiffener to the link web, the required strength is Fy Ast. For welds connecting the stiffener to the link flange,
the required strength is Fy Ast /4.
In accordance with AISC 360 Section J2.4, the connecting fillet weld strength, φRn, is determined, in
consideration of the weld size (in sixteenths of an inch), D, and weld length, l, as follows:
φRn = φ0.60FEXX(0.707)Dl/16 = 0.75(0.60)(70 ksi)(0.707)Dl/16 = 1.39Dl kip-in. Eq J2–4 (Modified)
Alternatively, and in subsequent calculations, the fillet weld strength is determined using the AISC Manual
Part 8 as follows:
φRn = 1.39Dl kip-in. Manual Eq 8–2a

In accordance with AISC 341 Section C-F3.5b(4), welds in the k-area of the beam should be avoided.
Appropriately detailed stiffener corner clips avoid the k-area. In accordance with AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.1,
the required minimum corner clip length along the link web, lcw, is determined as follows:
lcw min = 1.5 in + kdes − tf = 1.5 in + 1.27 in − 0.77 in = 2.0 in. AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.1
In accordance with AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.2, the required maximum corner clip length along the link flange,
lcf , is determined as follows:
lcf max = k1 − 0.50tw + 1⁄2 in = 0.88 in − 0.50(0.47 in) + 0.50 in = 1.14 in. AWS D1.8 Clause 4.1.2
Based on the AWS recommendations, 2.0-inch and 1.0-inch-wide clips are provided along the web and
flange, respectively. The link stiffener horizontal cross-sectional area, Ast, in consideration of the flange clip
is determined as follows:
Ast = (w − 1.0 in)t = (4.75 in − 1.0 in)(0.50 in) = 1.88 in2. §F3.5b(4)
The minimum thickness of double-sided fillet welds connecting the stiffener to the link web and flange are
Fy Ast 50 ksi( ..888 in 2 )

Web: Dmin = = = 6.96 sixteen
t ths
2(( .39 kip-in)l 2(( .39 kip-
p in)[10. in
i (0
(0.
0. in i ) 4.0 in
i ]
Fy Ast 50 ksi( ..888 in 2 )
Flange: Dmin = = = 2.25 sixteen
t ths .
4(( )( .39 kip-in)l 3 kip i )(4.75 in − 1.0 i )
4(( )(1.39
In accordance with AISC 360 Table J2.4, the minimum fillet weld size for a 1⁄2 inch thick plate is 3⁄16 inch.
PROVIDE DOUBLE-SIDED, 1⁄2-INCH and 3⁄4-INCH FILLET

WELDS ALONG THE LINK WEB AND FLANGE,
RESPECTIVELY
6.4 BRACE-TO-LINK CONNECTION AISC 360
For this example, refer to joint J-1 shown in Figure 5–4. As determined previously, the applied loads for the
connection are shown in Table 5–19.
Table 5–19. Diagonal brace connection loading for Joint J-1
Load Required Strength

Axial, Pu 327 kips
Shear, Vu 10.4 kips
Moment, Mu 178 kip-ft

As discussed in the overview, the diagonal braces are connected to the link with a fully restrained bolted
flange plate (BFP) moment connection. The BFP moment connection is prequalified per AISC 358
Chapter 7.
In accordance with AISC 360 Section F13.1, the flanges of the brace shall have adequate strength to avoid
the limit state of tensile rupture. The brace tension flange gross area, Afg, is determined as follows:
Afg = bf (tf) = 10.2 in(0.87 in) = 8.87 in2 §B4.3a
Since Fy /Fu = 50/65 = 0.77 < 0.8, then Yt = 1.0.
Using two rows of bolts, the maximum hole size, dmax, is determined as follows:
⎡ ⎛ Yt Fy A fg ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ 1.0(5 k i)8)8.87 in 2 ⎞ ⎤
⎢ A fg − ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎢8.87 in − ⎜
2
⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ Fu ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎝ 65 ksi ⎠ ⎥⎦
d max
a
= = = 1.17 in . §F13.1(a)
2t f 2(( .87 in)
Therefore, a bolt nominal diameter, db, of 1.0-inch with a standard hole is used. The maximum hole size, in
consideration of the hole diameter, dh, is determined as follows:
dmax = dh + 1⁄16 in = 11⁄16 in + 1⁄16 in = 1.13 in < 1.17 in. Table J3.3
In accordance with the Manual Table 7–1, a nominal bolt area, Ab, of 0.785 square inches is used. In
accordance with the preferred spacing requirements of AISC 360 Section J3.3, a longitudinal center-to-
center bolt spacing (pitch), s, of 3db is used. Two rows of bolts are used with a 4.0-inch transverse center-to-
center spacing (gage), g, between rows. In accordance with Section J3.10, a longitudinal bolt edge distance,
Lc, of 2db is used. Finally, in order to provide installation clearance, from the face of the link beam flange to
the first row of bolts, a 7.0-inch clear distance, S1, is used.
In consideration of brace and beam flange compatibility, a flange plate width, bfp, of 10.0-inch is used. The
flange plate is full penetration welded to the beam and must be less than or equal to the flange width. In
consideration of the brace flange thickness, a flange plate thickness, tp, of 1.0-inch is used. In this case, it is
preferable that the plate thickness is at least greater than or equal to the thickness of the brace flange.
PROVIDE 10.0-INCH-WIDE,
1.0-INCH-THICK BOLTED FLANGE PLATES
The flange plates resist both axial and moment loading. The required flange plate strength due to the axial
load, Pfa, and moment, Pff , are determined as follows:
Axial: Pfa = Pu /2 = 327 kips/2 = 164 kips

Mu 178 kip-ft(12 in/ft
/ t)
Moment: Pff = = = 184 kips
p .
d tp 10.6 + 1.0 in
The corresponding total required flange plate strength, Pf , is determined as follows:
Pf = Pfa + Pff = 164 kips + 184 kips = 348 kips.

In accordance with Section J3.6 and J3.10, the controlling shear strength, φRn, per bolt considering bolt
shear and bearing is determined as the minimum of the following:
φRn = φ1.0FnvAb = 0.75(1.0)(84 ksi)(0.785 in2) = 49.5 kips Eq J3–1

φRn = φ2.4Fudbtf = 0.75(2.4)(65 ksi)(1.0 in)(0.87 in) = 102 kips Eq J3–6a
φRn = φ2.4Fudbtp = 0.75(2.4)(65 ksi)(1.0 in)(1.0 in) = 117 kips. Eq J3–6a
Therefore, the number of bolts can be determined as follows:
Pf 348 kips
n= = = 7 03 .
φRn 49.5 kips
PROVIDE EIGHT 1-INCH-DIAMETER A490X

BOLTS WITH STANDARD HOLES
In accordance with Section D3, the net effective area of the flange plate, Ae, in consideration of a shear lag
factor, U = 1.0, is determined as follows:
Ae = AnU = tp[bfp − 2(dh + 1⁄16 in)]U = 1.0 in[10.0 in − 2(11⁄16 in + 1⁄16 in)](1.0) = 7.75 in2. Eq D3–1
In accordance with Section J4.1, the trial flange plate thickness for tensile yielding and tensile rupture is
confirmed as follows:
Pf 348 kips
Tensile Yielding: t p min = = = 0.77 in. Eq J4–1
φFy b fp 0.. (50 ksi)(10
)(10 in)
Pf t p 348 kips( .0)
Tensile Rupture: t p min = = = 0.92 in. Eq J4–2
φFu Ae 0.. 5(65 )(7.75 in 2 )
With respect to block shear in the W10 × 77 brace flange, in accordance with Section J4.3, the gross and
net areas subject to shear, Agv, Anv, respectively, and the net area subject to tension, Ant, are determined as
follows:
Agv = 2[S1 + (0.5n − 1)s]tf = 2{7.0 in + [0.5(8) − 1]3 in}(0.87 in) = 27.8 in2 §J4.3
Anv = 2[S1 + (0.5n − 1)s − (0.5n − 0.5)(dh + 1⁄16)]tf
= 2{7.0 in + [0.5(8) − 1]3 in − [0.5(8) − 0.5](1.13 in)}(0.87 in) = 21.0 in2 §J4.3
Ant = [g − (dh + 1⁄16)]tf = [4 in − (1.13 in)](0.87 in) = 2.50 in2. §J4.3
For the limit state of brace flange block shear rupture, the available strength, φRn, for the limit state of brace
flange block shear rupture in consideration of a uniform tension stress, Ubs = 1, is determined as follows:
φRn = φ(0.60Fu Anv + UbsFu Ant) ≤ φ(0.60Fy Agv + UbsFut Ant) Eq J4–5
= 0.75[0.60(65 ksi)(21.0 in ) + 1.0(65 ksi)(2.50 in )] = 736 kips
2 2
≤ 0.75[0.60(50 ksi)(27.8 in2) + 1.0(65 ksi)(2.50 in2)] = 747 kips

φRn = 736 kips > 348 kips.

Although not shown, some the preceding methodology is repeated to determine the block shear rupture
strength in the 1.0-inch-thick flange plates. For this example, the flange plate block shear rupture strength is
assumed to be more than adequate.
BLOCK SHEAR RUPTURE

STRENGTHS ARE SATISFIED
In consideration of the flange plate slenderness, the radius of gyration, r, is determined as follows:
t 1 0 in
r= = = 0 29 in.
12 12
In accordance with Section E2, the member slenderness, KL/r, using an effective length factor, K = 0.65,
and a lateral unbraced length, L = S1, is determined as follows:
KL/r = 0.65(7.0 in)/0.29 in = 15.7 < 25. §E2
In accordance with Section J4.4, the available strength, φPn, for the limit state of compression yielding is
φPn = φFy bfptp = 0.90(50 ksi)(10.0 in)(1.0 in) = 450 kips > 348 kips. Eq J4–6
FLANGE PLATE COMPRESSION

STRENGTH IS SATISFIED
The vertical component of the flange force, Vf , is determined as follows:
Vf = Pf (sin β) = 348 kips(sin 42.7) = 236 kips.
In accordance with Section J10.2, the web local yielding and crippling strengths of the beam at the flange
plate connection are determined as follows:
Yielding: φRn = φFy tw(5k + lb) = 1.0(50 ksi)(0.47 in)[5(1.27 in) + 1.27 in] Eq J10–2
= 179 kips < 236 kips
⎡ 15⎤
2 ⎢ ⎛ lb ⎞ ⎛ t w ⎞ ⎥ EF EFy t f
Crippling: φ n φ0 80tt w 1 + 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ Eq J10–4
⎢ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ tf ⎠ ⎥ tw
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎛ 1.27 in ⎞ ⎛ 0 47 in ⎞ ⎤ 29,000 ksi(50 ksi)(0 77 in)
15
= 0.75(0.80)(0.47 i )2 ⎢1 + 3 ⎜ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 10.4 in ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 0 77 in ⎟⎠ ⎥ 0 47 in
⎦
= 240 kips > 236 kips.
As indicated, the web local yielding strength is insufficient to satisfy the required flange-.plate strength.
Therefore, web stiffeners are required adjacent to the flange plates. The component portion of the flange-
plate force directed through the stiffener is determined as follows:
Ps = 0.50(Vf − φRn) = 0.50(236 kips − 179 kips) = 28.5 kips.

As determined previously, the link end stiffener width is 4.75-inches. In consideration of 1.0-inch-wide
stiffener corner clips, the minimum thickness of the stiffener to satisfy the required local yielding strength
is determined as follows:
Ps 28.5 kips
tmin = = = 0.17
1 in < 0 5 in .
φFy l 0.. (50 ksi)(4
)( .75 − 1.0 in)
The minimum thickness of double-sided fillet welds connecting the stiffener to the link web and flange are
Ps 28.5 kips
Web: Dmin = = = 2.111 8.00 sixteen
t ths
2(( .39 kip-in)l 2(( .39 kip-in)[10.4 i 2(0.77 i ) 4.0 in]
Ps 28.5 kips
Flange: Dmin = = = 2.73 3.00 sixteen
t ths .
2(( .39 kip-in)l 2(( .39 kip-in)(3.75 in)
LINK END STIFFENERS AND ASSOCIATED

WELDS SATISFY REQUIRED STRENGTHS
Although not shown, some the preceding methodology is repeated to determine the bolted brace shear tab
attachment. For this example, two A325X bolts are determined adequate for the shear tab-to-brace web
connection. In addition, a double-sided, 1⁄4-inch fillet weld is determined adequate for the shear tab-to-beam
flange connection. The final brace-to-beam connection geometry is shown in Figure 5–9.
PL ”x4 ” PL ”x4 ” full

full depth depth intermediate
stiffeners each stiffeners at 17” on
center max., near side
Wide flange
side of web Link, e
side of web
beam
Link, eeff
Beam
centerline
3/16 1/2
typ. 3/16 typ.
1/2
PL ”x4”x0’-6”with Link
typ. centerline
(2)-1” diameter A325X
bolts (bolts not shown)
1/4
1/4
Shims, if required
PL 1”x10”x1’-6” with (8)-1”

diameter A490X bolts, both
sides, (bolts not shown)
Brace
centerline Wide flange brace
Figure 5–9. Brace-to-beam connection, J-1, at the link

6.5 FINAL LINK DESIGN CHECK AISC 341
With the design of the brace-to-beam connection complete, the effective link length, eeff , can be
distinguished from that used in the preliminary design. As shown in Figure 5–9, the preliminary link length,
e, is based on the frame centerline offset and represents the distance between the intersection of the brace
and beam centerlines. The effective link length represents the distance between the brace connections
measured from the edge of the end stiffener. For beam BM-1, shown in Figure 5–3a, the effective link
length, eeff , is determined as follows:
d (b ) d( ) tp 10.4 in 10.6 2(1.. i )

eefff = e + − = 48 i + − = 40.7 in Say 41 in.
a β
tan sin β ttaan(42. ) sin(42. )
The preceding methodology is repeated for each link for both frame configurations with the preliminary
link sizes, e, effective link sizes, eeff , and calculated link capacity ratios summarized in Table 5–20.
Table 5–20. Preliminary link lengths, effective link lengths, and link capacity ratios
Level eefff eefff
e (in) eeff (in) e (in) eeff (in)
M p /Vp M p /Vp
Roof 42 35 1.1 — — No Link

6th 42 35 1.1 42 38 1.1
5th 64 61 1.2 — — No Link
4th 48 41 1.2 50 52 1.3
3rd 48 41 1.2 — — No Link
2nd 48 41 1.2 50 52 1.3
As indicated in Table 5–20, the link capacity ratios are all less than 1.6. In accordance with AISC 341
Section F3.3, a ratio less than 1.6 indicates shear yielding will dominate the inelastic response. If the
links were subject to flexural yielding, the required flexural strength would be calculated at the link end
rather than at the centerline intersection. As all the links are shear-governed, no further flexural redesign
considerations are required. Commentary Section C-F3.5b further discusses considerations associated with
the centerline model analysis.
6.6 ALTERNATIVE BRACE-TO-LINK CONNECTIONS AISC 341
Although this example uses a BFP, there are other options to provide a fully restrained brace-to-link
connection. Alternatives for other connections include a Welded Flange Plate (WFP) or a Welded
Unreinforced Flange (WUF).
Unlike the BFP, a WFP connection is not prequalified per AISC 358. In addition, the SEAOC Seismology
Committee, FEMA 350 Task Group has documented a number of potential concerns with the connection’s
inelastic performance (SEAOC, 2002).

With respect to a WUF connection, geometric compatibility for the CJP groove welds requires that the link-
beam flange width be greater than or equal to that of the brace. In many cases, including this example, to
provide adequate flange width, the link beams would either require oversized rolled wide-flanges or custom
built-up I-shaped sections. Both possibilities would have significant economic implications.
The CJP groove welding associated with a WUF connection also presents an overhead field-weld challenge
that most fabricators would preferably avoid (B. Manning, personal communication). In some cases, to
avoid this condition, a short segment of the brace can be shop welded to the link and subsequently field
spliced (Bruneau, Uang, and Sabelli, 2011). With respect to WUF connection inelastic performance, several
notable link connection fractures occurred in the 2010 to 2011 Christchurch series of earthquakes. At the
time of this publication, the exact cause of the fractures was still being investigated (Clifton et al., 2011).
6.7 BEAM-TO-COLUMN CONNECTION AISC 341
As indicated in Design Example 1, beam-to-column connections in a Special Moment Frame (SMF) must
satisfy beam plastic hinge strength requirements, because the hinge serves as the frame’s structural fuse. In
accordance with the user note in AISC 341 Section F3.5a, these stringent requirements are not needed in an
EBF because the link, not the beam hinge, is the structural fuse. However, beam-to-column connections in
an EBF are required to accommodate significant inelastic drift in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.6b.
Therefore, the connections must satisfy ordinary moment frame beam-to-column connections requirements
as outlined in Section E1.6.
For this example, as discussed in the overview, the moment connection is fully restrained, conforming to
option (b) of Section F3.6b. When in combination with the brace gusset, the connection configuration is
similar to the SCBF beam-to-column connection illustrated in Design Example 2.
6.8 DIAGONAL BRACE-TO-GUSSET CONNECTION AISC 341
As indicated in Design Example 2, the gusset plates in a SCBF must accommodate the inelastic rotation
due to brace buckling. However, as with the beam-to-column connections, the user note in AISC 341
Section F3.5a indicates this stringent requirement is not needed in an EBF because the link, not the
diagonal brace, is the structural fuse. Therefore, in accordance with Section F3.6c, it is considered
unnecessarily conservative to design the connection for the brace buckling strength. The connection is
simply required to resist the adjusted brace strength corresponding to link yielding and strain hardening in
accordance with ordinary concentric braced-frame requirements as outlined in Section F1.6.
For this example, as discussed in the overview, the brace attaches to the gusset with bolted connecting
elements. Although not illustrated in this example, several bolted brace-to-gusset connection design
examples are included in the AISC Seismic Design Manual.
6.9 LINK STABILITY BRACING AISC 341/360
In order to provide stable inelastic behavior, lateral restraint against out-of-plane displacement and twist
is required at each end of the link in accordance with AISC 341 Section F3.4b. The lateral restraint
stabilizes the diagonal bracing and the beam outside of the link. In accordance with Section F3.5c, the
link is considered a protected zone and as such, headed stud anchors cannot be used between the ends. As
determined by Ricles and Popov (1989), the concrete slab alone cannot be relied upon to provide adequate
lateral bracing at the ends of the link. Therefore, the provisions ignore any slab composite action effects
and require supplemental bracing.

For I-shaped sections, Section F3.4b requires bracing for both the top and bottom link flanges. In
accordance with Section D1.2c, the bracing required strength is the same as that required for SMF
expected plastic hinge locations. In addition to requirements for strength, Section D1.2c(a)(3) also refers to
AISC 360 Appendix 6 stiffness requirements. For this example, a schematic representation of the bracing is
shown in plan on Figure 5–2. Although the link bracing design requirements are not explicitly illustrated in
this example, a similar lateral restraint example for a SMF beam is included in Design Example 1.
6.10 INELASTIC STRAIN AND QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS AISC 341/360
As an expected area of inelastic strain, the link is considered a protected zone (AISC 341 Section F3.5c).
In a protected zone, the members are subject to fabrication and attachment limitations as defined in
Section I2.1. These limitations include among other items the attachment of headed stud anchors and
decking that penetrate the flanges of the link.
Inelastic strain is also likely in the column base plate, column splice, and beam-to-column moment
connection welds. Therefore, CJP welds in these regions are to be treated as demand critical in accordance
with AISC 341 Section F3.6a. As outlined previously, CJP groove welds associated with built-up link
beam fabrication are also treated as demand critical. Although not specifically mentioned in Section F3.6a,
for this example, the CJP groove welds connecting the bolted flange plates to the link are also treated as
demand critical.
To provide a reliable ductile seismic response, the EBF is required to meet the quality requirements
outlined in both AISC 341 Chapter J and AISC 360 Chapter N. The building code requires a specific
Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) that is typically prepared by the engineer of record and is part of the contract
documents. Chapter J provides the minimum acceptable requirements for the plan. As the requirements
may incorporate economic and scheduling considerations, the QAP should be provided to the fabricator and
erector as part of the bid documents.
• Design of the collector elements,
• Design of the column splice,

Design Example 6
Multi-Panel OCBF
OVERVIEW
A multi-panel braced frame is a braced frame that has multiple tiers of bracing in one story. It is best suited
for buildings with tall stories that have restrictions on the width of the frame, where steep brace angles or
very long braces lead to a less efficient design.
The behavior of a single-story multi-panel braced frame is different from a multi-story braced frame,
since it does not have out-of-plane supports at each beam-column-brace intersection. The designer must
take special considerations for design beyond those covered by AISC 360, AISC 341, and ASCE 7.
This example demonstrates one method for designing the main components in an ordinary, multi-panel,
concentrically brace frame, but it could be adapted for other multi-panel frames.
The method consists of first sizing the members using AISC and ASCE design requirements for a steel
OCBF, then iterating the design considering the inelastic behavior of the frame. The frame is designed
to control which braced panel will experience concentrated yielding. Another aspect of the design will
consider out-of plane frame buckling.

Design Example 6 䡲 Multi-Panel OCBF
OUTLINE
5. Analysis
6. Final Member Sizes
7. Discussion Topics
The building is a one-story warehouse that will be used for wine storage, public tours, and events. It is
located in San Francisco, CA. The Seismic Design Category is D. The following information is provided:
• Building geometry: 200 feet × 300 feet open floor plan with flat roof.
• Multi-panel braced frames consist of three panels (tiers), 20 feet × 20 feet, with X-brace
configurations, stacked vertically. Building height is 59 feet at the perimeter wall from finish
floor.
• Braced frame layout is doubly symmetric.
• The roof diaphragm qualifies as flexible.
• Storage racks are braced independently from the lateral-force-resisting system.
• There are no mezzanines attached to the exterior walls
• There will be fewer than 300 occupants in the building at a time (Risk Category II)
See Appendix A for the following information:
• Soil type,

1.2 LAYOUT OF BRACED FRAMES
Figure 6–1 shows the plan location of the braced frames. There are four braced frames oriented in the
north-south direction and six braced frames oriented in the east-west direction, making 10 braced frames in
total. Figure 6–2 shows a typical braced frame elevation.
Figure 6–1. Plan layout of braced frames

Figure 6–2. Typical braced frame elevation (frame height is measured from the top of the footing.)
WEIGHTS
Table 6–1. Assembly weights

Roof
Dead Loads Gravity Load Effective2 Seismic Weight
Metal roof deck 4 psf 4 psf

Insulation 2 psf 2 psf
Steel framing 8 psf 8 psf
Ballasted photovoltaic solar system1 6 psf 6 psf
Total Dead Load 20 psf 20 psf
Roof live loads3 Live Load

Ordinary Pitched Roof 20 psf

Exterior Wall
Cladding 7 psf 7 psf

Metal studs 2 psf 2 psf
5
⁄8 in gypsum board 3 psf 3 psf
Miscellaneous 5 psf 5 psf
1. From Borrego Solar, News & Press article “Roof Loads and Solar Energy,” James E. Trant,
June 24, 2010.
2. ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2 describes the loads that are included in the Effective Seismic Weight.
3. From ASCE 7 Table 4–1.
Table 6–2. Roof weights
Assembly Unit Wt (psf) Area (ft2) Weight (kips)

Ext wall 19 30,000 570
Roof 20 60,000 1200
W= 1770
2.1 CLASSIFY THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND DETERMINE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION

PARAMETERS
Multi-panel braced frame systems are not specifically addressed in ASCE 7 Table 12.2–1. For this example,
the systems fit into the concentrically braced frame category. Under footnote j, the building qualifies as an
OCBF, since it is one story with a 59-foot roof height (60 feet from top of the foundation), and the roof
dead load is no more than 20 psf:
R = 3.25 Ωo = 2.0 Cd = 3.25
If the footnote j requirements are not met, the frame is not permitted to be designed as an OCBF. The frame
can then be designed to meet the special concentrically braced frame requirements.
2.2 DETERMINE SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g

Ct = 0.02 and x = 0.75 T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0 02 × 60 0 75 = 0.43 sec (see discussion below) Eq 12.8–7
Ta = 0.43 sec
S D1 0 60
To = 0 2 =02 = 0 12 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
⎛ T⎞
Sa S DS 0 4 + 0 6 ⎟ = 0 4 + 5 0T for T < To Eq 11.4–5
⎝ To ⎠
S D1 0 60
TS = = = 0 60 sec §11.4.5
S DS 1 00
S D1 0 60
Sa = = for T > Ts. Eq 11.4–6
T T
The long period equation for Sa does not apply here because the long period transition occurs at 12 sec
(from ASCE 7 Figure 22–12).
Figure 6–3. Response spectrum
As shown in Figure 6–3, the design building period Ta = 0.43 seconds is between To and TS, so the design
spectral acceleration Sa is 1.0g. It is not required to construct the design response spectrum when using
the equivalent lateral force procedure, since the response spectrum is implicit in the calculation of Cs in
Section 12.8.1.1.
The response spectrum demonstrates the effect of the assumptions used in the calculation of building
period. Values of Ct = 0.02 and x = 0.75 were selected as specified for other structural systems, which result
in an approximate design building period, Ta = 0.43 sec.

The period of the structure can be established through structural analysis of the OCBF. Section 12.8.2,
however, limits the period that can be used to calculate spectral acceleration to a value of Tmax = Cu × Ta,
where Cu is a factor found in Table 12.8–1. In this case Tmax = 1.4 × 0.43 = 0.60 sec. It is recommended
that this period, Tmax, be used to design the OCBF and that the period of the building be verified later in the
design process, because often the period will be governed by Tmax.
The designer should be aware that for a short-period building, such as this one, the ASCE ductility factor,
R, may not be a good representation of the ductility of the system. Some research has shown that short-
period structures tend to exhibit less ductile behavior than predicted by R, although further research is
needed to determine whether or not the overall code design procedure accounts for this by requiring higher
design forces in other ways. Refer to The SEAOC Blue Book article “Development of System Factors.”
By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of these Horizontal Structural Irregularities.
NO HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES
By inspection, the building does not qualify for any of the Vertical Structural Irregularities.
Since the warehouse is Risk Category II and is only one story above the base, all three analysis options in
Table 12.6–1 are permitted: Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis, Modal Response Spectrum Analysis, and
Seismic Response History Procedure. In addition, the building meets all applicable requirements for the
Simplified Alternative Structural Design Criteria in Section 12.14.1.1.
All options are available to the designer. The Simplified Lateral Force Analysis Procedure per Section
12.14.8 will be used in this example to determine the seismic base shear of the building.
USE SIMPLIFIED LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS
2.7 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR §12.14.8.1
FS DS
V= W Eq 12.14–11
R
F = 1.0 for buildings one story above grade plane.
1 0 ×1 0
V= 1770 = 545 kips
3 25
V = 545 kips

2.8 SEISMIC LOAD EFFECT AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
The equations for the Seismic Load Effect for the Simplified Alternative method are the same as for those
of the Equivalent Lateral Force method, except that the Redundancy Factor, ρ, is not included in the
equations (equivalent to ρ = 1.0). Since the derivation of the load combinations in Appendix A of this text
are based on ρ = 1.0 and 0.2SDS = 0.2, they are applicable for this example.
Load combinations of consequence for the design of the OCBF are §12.14.3.1.3
1.22 D 1 0 E + 0 5 L 0 2 S = (1.2 + 0.2 DS

) D + QE 0 5L Load Combo 5 (modified)
= 1.4 D + QE + 0 5 L for this example
0 9 D 1 0 E = (0.9 − 0.2 DS
D + QE
))D Load Combo 7 (modified)
= 0 7D − QE for this example.
Load combinations with overstrength are not used for the OCBF main frame elements, although they
apply for collectors and at other conditions outside the OCBF frame. Since the braces in one panel of
the three vertically stacked panels will tend to yield before the others, it could be argued that after braces
in this panel yield and buckle, the other members in the braced frame become collectors. Commentary
Section C12.4.3 discusses that the overstrength factor is intended to be used for these elements, unless
yielding of other elements relieve its load. When the braces in one panel yield and buckle, the shear
transmitted to the remaining elements in the frame is then governed by the moment capacity of the columns
at the yielded panel and the remaining capacity in the yielded braces, if any. Therefore, the overstrength
factor could apply to the columns. Consideration will be given later to the behavior of the vertically stacked
panels, including determining the governing panel and the moment demand on the column.
Load combinations with overstrength factor for column design are §12.14.3.2.2
1.22 D 1 0 E + 0 5 L 1.4 D + ΩoQE 0 5L Load Combo 5 (modified)

0 99D 1 0 E = 0 7 D ΩoQE . Load Combo 7 (modified)
Fr = Vr = V = 545 kips
For flexible diaphragms, the shear can be distributed to the braced frames based on their tributary area
(Section 12.14.8.3.1). Since the braced frames all have the same tributary area, the horizontal distribution is
as follows:
FE−W = Fr /6 = 90.8 kips (frames in east-west direction)

FN−S = Fr /4 = 136.2 kips (frames in north-south direction)
The rest of this example focuses on the design of braced fame BF-1 at A-8.

Preliminary sizing of the braces, columns, and beams will be based on AISC 341 and AISC 360. The
members will be resized based on a non-linear approach in the “Analysis” section below where a computer
program will be utilized to determine the distribution of seismic and gravity forces in a 3-D framing model
of the building.
4.1 DIAGONAL BRACE DESIGN AISC 341 AND 360
AISC 341 Section F1, which refers to Section D1.1, requires OCBF braces to meet the limiting width-to-
thickness ratios for moderately ductile members. Preliminary sizing will use a seismically compact, square
HSS; however, as discussed in Section 7, research shows improved performance of HSS sections with b/t
ratios lower than code minimum requirements, as the code minimum is not necessarily conservative. The
force in each brace for the seismic load is shown in Figure 6–4.
Brace force = Pu = 68.1 2 = 96.3 kips, tension or compression.
Figure 6–4. Frame BF-1 brace design force

The diagonal brace end connections will be pinned in-plane, and fixed out-of-plane. Refer to AISC 341
Chapter F for connection design requirements. The center connections where the diagonal braces cross will
be fixed in-plane and out-of-plane. The length of the compression brace is L = 14.1 feet, since the tension
brace tends to provide lateral resistance for the compression brace at the center connection. K = 1.0 from
Table 3 in the SEAOC Blue Book article “Concentrically Braced Frames.”
Preliminary brace size is selected as HSS 41⁄2 × 41⁄2 × 3⁄8 based on the design aid Table 4–4 in the AISC Steel
Construction Manual. Fulfillment of the local buckling requirement is confirmed in the design aid Table
1–5b of the AISC Seismic Design Manual. The brace properties are
Ag = 5.48 in2
Ix = Iy = 15.3 in4
rx = ry = 1.67 in
KL/r = 101 < 200 (recommended criterion in E2, User Note)
Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi (A500, Gr. B).
The compression strength of the brace is calculated as
π2 E
Fe = 2
= 28.1 ksi AISC 360 Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
KL E
= 101 < 4.71 = 118
r Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
⎢0.658 F ⎥ F = 23.2 ksi
Fcr ⎣ ⎦ y AISC 360 Eq E3–2
φc n
φc Fcr Ag = 0 9 × 23.2 × 5.48 = 114.4 kips. AISC 360 Eq E3–1
The HSS 41⁄2 × 41⁄2 × 3⁄8 is adequate.
4.2 COLUMN DESIGN AISC 360
The preliminary column design considers axial load only. Column in-plane moments due to brace yielding
in tension and brace inelastic buckling in compression will be addressed in the iteration and final design.
Frame BF-1 has a significant overturning moment, due to the frame’s aspect ratio (3:1) and the relatively
small amount of dead load. Neglecting the dead load of the frame for now, the maximum design
compression force is based on modified Load Combination 5 above with overstrength, and the maximum
design tension force is based on modified Load Combination 7 above with overstrength. The basic design
forces are shown in Figure 6–5, where the cladding loads are all applied conservatively as point loads at the
top of the column.
D ( p ) ( p 6 ) k + 22.8 k = 26
2 .8 kips
L=( p f× f × ft) = 4 kips
Pu 26 8 k + 0.5 × 4 k 0 08 6 k = 856.7 kips, maximum compression Load Case 5
Pu ( . 26. k ) + ( .0 × 408.6 k ) = 798.4 kips, maximum tension Load Case 7

Figure 6–5. Frame BF-1 column design forces
The column unbraced length in the out-of-plane direction is 60 feet, and the compression load is very high.
The unbraced length in the in-plane direction, however, is only 20 feet. The columns could buckle out-of-
plane before the braces reach their intended loads. This idea will be discussed in more detail later in this
example. In order to achieve desirable behavior from the frame, the designer must carefully consider a few
options. Two possible solutions are shown below:
1. Add out-of-plane bracing to the column: This could be tricky, since a large, open floor plan is
required to maximize storage space. One option is to use W12 or W14 frame columns and build
up a relatively shallow vertical truss perpendicular to the frame for the height of the columns to
stiffen the columns against out-of-plane buckling. A complication with this method is that once
the diagonal braces yield and buckle, the orthogonal stiffener truss will need to deform with the
columns without becoming ineffective.

2. Column Orientation: Select a wide flange column and orient it such that the in-plane KL/r is
larger than the out-of-plane KL/r so buckling will occur in-plane of the frame. This option may
require a relatively deep wide-flange section for out-of-plane buckling resistance due to the
height of the column. This option also complicates the connections between the columns and
the beams, and the columns and the braces, since the connections would frame into the column
webs. Even with this option, it is desirable to add out-of-plane stability bracing at the panel
intersections.
For this example, a relatively deep wide-flange section will be used for the preliminary design, oriented
with the column strong-axis for out-of-plane bending moments. Bracing options are discussed in Section 5.
Design for wind is not addressed in this example, but may govern the column out-of-plane requirements. In
a real-life building, the designer should consider wind in the preliminary column sizing, or in the column
out-of-plane bracing.
Preliminary column size is selected assuming that the 20-foot unbraced length governs, since support will
be provided between the panels. The preliminary size is selected as a W21 × 111 based on the equations
of Chapter E. The strong axis of the columns is oriented in the out-of-plane direction for the preliminary
design. Columns of OCBFs are not required to be seismically compact, but the W21 × 111 qualifies. The
column properties are
Ag = 32.7 in2
Ix = 2670 in4
Iy = 274 in4
rx = 9.05 in
ry = 2.90 in
KL/ry = 82.8
Fy = 50 ksi, Fu = 65 ksi (A992)
π2 E
Fe = 2
= 41.7 ksi AISC 360 Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
KL E
< 4.71 = 113
r Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
⎢ F ⎥
Fcr ⎣0.658 ⎦ Fy = 30.3 ksi AISC 360 Eq E3–2
φc n
φc Fcr Ag = 0 9 × 30.3 × 32.7 = 891
89 kips AISC 360 Eq E3–1
φt n
φt Fy Ag = 0 9 × 50 × 32.7 = 1472 kips AISC 360 Eq D2–1
The ratio rx /ry is 3.1 > 60 feet/20 feet = 3.0, which confirms that the column weak axis direction (20-foot
unbraced length) governs the KL/r. Additional out-of-plane column stability requirements will be discussed
later.

4.3 BEAM DESIGN
The beams in this structure below the roof level are redundant and do not carry more than self-weight,
provided that the compression braces do not buckle. There are no provisions in the AISC 341 to address
multi-panel OCBFs, but the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) S16 standard has some requirements
that can be considered. CSA requires the redundant beams for multi-panel X-braced frames to handle
the unbalanced brace forces resulting from the compression brace buckling. For the preliminary design,
the beams will be sized to transfer the entire lateral load from one tension brace to the next, as if the
compression brace does not exist. The cladding is not supported by the beams.
The force in each beam for the seismic load is shown in Figure 6–6.
Figure 6–6. Frame BF-1 beam design force
Pu QE = 136.2 kips, compression

0.0255 klf × (20 ft)2
Mu 1.4 D = 1.4 = 1.75 kip-ft
8
0.025 klf × 200 ft
Vu 1 4 D = 1.4 = 0 35 kips
2

A preliminary size of HSS 6 × 6 × 3⁄8 is selected from AISC Steel Construction Manual Table 4–4, using an
unbraced length of 20 feet. The beam properties are
Ag = 7.58 in2
Ix = Iy = 39.5 in4
rx = ry = 2.28 in
KL/r = 105
Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi (A500, Gr. B)
φc Pn = 149 kips T 4–4 in the Steel Construction Manual
φM n = 54.6 kip-ft T 3–13 in the Steel Construction Manual
Checking the requirements of AISC 360 H1.1:
Pu 136.2
= = 0 91 > 0.2,
φc Pn 149
Pu 8 Mu 8 × 1.75
+ = 0 91 + = 0 94 < 1.0 AISC 360 Eq H1–1a
φc Pn 9 φM n 9 × 54 6
Shear strength exceeds the required strength by inspection. The HSS 6 × 6 × 3⁄8 is adequate.
5. Analysis
After preliminary sizes are selected in accordance with AISC 341 and AISC 360 minimum requirements,
the designer can evaluate the performance of the preliminary structure with a 3-D computer program to
model the building and resize the members as required. A non-linear analysis of the building frame is
recommended to capture the performance of the braced frame members.
5.1 DETERMINE CRITICAL PANEL
The geometry of the vertically stacked multi-panel brace is conducive to brace tension yielding and
inelastic buckling being concentrated in one panel, which is called the critical panel. That is because when
the braces yield and buckle in the critical panel, the tier level shear resistance in that panel is limited, and
the braced frame can no longer develop the shear necessary to yield and buckle the other panel braces.
When inelastic deformations occur in the critical panel under high enough lateral load demands, the column
begins to develop a moment at the interface between the critical panel and the adjacent unyielded panel.
The other panels in the system may not yield.
The critical panel is the panel with the lowest shear resistance. Since all three stacked panels in this
example are identical in geometry and member size, it is not obvious which one will yield and buckle first.
One way to control the location of the critical panel is to arbitrarily boost the brace sizes in the other two
panels, to force the inelastic deformations to occur in the preferred panel.
In this example, the third (top) panel will be designed as the critical panel because the columns in this
panel carry the least gravity and overturning compression forces. During an earthquake the braces in the
critical panel will yield, and the columns will begin to develop moment, as discussed above. Therefore,

less compression in the columns is more desirable to allow for more flexural capacity in the columns at
this panel level. Typically the top panel of vertically stacked multi-panel braced frames will be designed
as the critical panel. In order to make the top panel yield first, the lower two panel braces will be increased
to HSS 41⁄2 × 41⁄2 × 1⁄2, and the top panel braces will be kept as HSS 41⁄2 × 41⁄2 × 3⁄8. See Figure 6–7 for the
preliminary member sizes.
Figure 6–7. Frame BF-1 preliminary member sizes (critical panel at top of frame)
5.2 COLUMN MOMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Since the in-plane moment demands on the column due to inelastic brace deformations cannot be
determined from an elastic analysis, an alternative must be considered. CSA has some guidelines that the
columns should be designed to resist the axial load plus 20 percent of the column plastic moment capacity.
This approach is prescriptive and is not based on the brace deformations for individual systems, nor does it
consider the consequences of the columns yielding after the braces become ineffective.

It is important to understand the failure mechanisms of this type of frame in the final design iteration. When
the braces in the critical panel buckle and yield in an earthquake, their strength may degrade rapidly after a
few cycles. If the braces become ineffective, the columns in that panel must alone carry the shear demand
of that panel. In this example, the axial and moment demands in the columns at the bottom of the critical
panel are very high. If the columns yield in the in-plane direction, an undesirable collapse mechanism can
develop; the columns can become unstable in the out-of-plane direction. (See Figure 6–8 for a graphical
representation of this concept.) A multi-panel braced frame is particularly vulnerable to this mechanism,
since it does not have floors framing in at each level to stabilize the frame at the yield locations. Some
research has been performed on offshore platforms, where the columns are very large, but many full-scale
tests have not yet been performed on multi-panel braced frames in which the columns are allowed to yield.
Figure 6–8. Column yielding and out-of-plane instability

There are a few ways to address this undesirable failure mode. In this example, the columns are designed
to remain elastic after the braces yield and buckle. This results in very large columns, such as for offshore
platforms. A more efficient design may be obtained by allowing the columns to yield, but considering
the strength degradation of the HSS braces, the residual in-plane post-buckling brace strength, and the
P-delta behavior of the columns for out-of-plane stability. The designer must also decide how to effectively
brace the columns after they yield, which is a challenge. This design approach is beyond the scope of this
example.
In order to determine the axial and moment demands in the columns, a structural analysis program is used.
The diagonal braces in the critical (top) panel are assumed to be ineffective; thus, the columns in the top
panel are acting as cantilever elements above the middle panel, as shown in Figure 6–9. The foundation is
assumed rigid, as permitted by ASCE 7 Section 12.7.
Figure 6–9. Cantilever behavior of column

The forces in this analysis model include the frame self-weight, and loads in Combination 5 with
overstrength. The resulting column moment for the preliminary design between the critical (level 3) and
the level 2 panels is 3130 k-ft, with a corresponding axial load of 46 k. The column section W21 × 111 is
checked for beam-column action as follows:
φc n
φc Fcr Ag = 891 kips Previously Calculated
φb py
φb Fy Z y = 0 9 × 50 × 68.2 = 3069 kip-in = 255.8 k-ft. AISC 360 Eq F2–1
The required moment exceeds the weak axis bending strength significantly, which is a consequence
for orienting the column in this direction. The design must be iterated. Another analysis is run using a
W30 × 211 column oriented in strong axis bending in the plane of the frame, which results in a revised
column moment of 2750 k-ft and a revised axial load of 46 k occurring at the bottom of the top panel. The
column axial load is higher in the lower portion of the frame due to overturning forces, but the moment
is small, only 200 k-ft. The column strength is rechecked for the W30 × 211 for the maximum moment
location at the bottom of the top panel:
Ag = 62.2 in2
Zx = 751 in3
rx = 12.9 in
ry = 3.49 in
KL/rx = 37.2, using an unbraced length of 40 feet in the column strong axis direction, based on
the deflected shape in Figure 6–9, when the top panel diagonal braces are considered ineffective.
The column will be braced out of plane in the weak axis direction so strong axis column bucking
governs.
Fy = 50 ksi, Fu = 65 ksi (A992, Gr. B)
π2 E
Fe = 2
= 207 ksi AISC 360 Eq E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
KL E
< 4.71 = 113
r Fy
⎡ Fy ⎤
⎢ F⎥
Fcr ⎣0.658 ⎦ Fy = 45.2 ksi AISC 360 Eq E3–2
φc n
φc Fcr Ag = 0 9 × 45.2 × 62.2 = 2530 kips AISC 360 Eq E3–1
φb py
φb Fy Z x = 0.9 × 50 × 751 = 33,795 kip-in = 2820 k-ft > 2750
7 k-ft AISC 360 Eq F2–1
Checking the requirements of AISC 360 H1.1:
Pu 46
= = 0 02 < 0.2 ,
φc Pn 2530
Pu M 2750
+ u = 0 01 + = 0 99 1.0 AISC 360 Eq H1.1b
2φc Pn φM n 2820
The column section is adequate for strength. However, the columns must now be braced in the weak axis
direction for out-of-plane buckling.

5.3 OUT-OF-PLANE BEHAVIOR
In the previous section, the out-of plane frame behavior was briefly addressed. Ongoing research in this
area indicates that critical panel yielding and buckling does not produce significant out-of-plane moments;
however, the multi-panel braced frame is vulnerable to twisting at the panel intersections even if the
columns remain elastic. The frame is especially vulnerable to this situation now that the column weak axis
direction is oriented in the out-of-plane direction of the frame. For this example, out-of-plane twisting is
addressed by providing “relative” bracing or stiffening along the columns. This can be in the form of a
shallow truss or a stiffener intermittently welded into the column web. The bracing element should comply
with AISC 360 Appendix 6 as a minimum. As mentioned previously, the designer of a real building should
consider that the out-of-plane column bending or bracing requirements may be governed by wind.
Figure 6–10. Out-of-plane column stiffening (not to scale)
5.4 DRIFT CALCULATION ASCE 7
According to footnote c in Table 12.12–1, there is no story drift limit for single-story structures that have
non-structural components designed to accommodate the drift; however, structural separation requirements
must still be met. As an experiment, “story” drifts are calculated for each panel as if they were in a three-
story building, and the results are compared to the Table 12.12–1 limit of 0.025hsx. The drift calculation
is based on the procedure in Section 12.8.6. δxe is calculated by elastic analysis in a structural analysis
program. The results are presented in Table 6–3 for information.
Cd δ xe
δx = = 3 25δ xe Eq 12.8–15
Ie

Table 6–3. Calculated and maximum story drifts
Level δxe (in) δx (in) Limit (in)

Level 1 0.7 2.2 6
Level 2 1.5 4.9 12
Roof 2.58 8.4 18
6. Final Member Sizes
The final member sizes are shown in Figure 6–11.
Figure 6–11. Frame BF-1 final member sizes

7. Discussion Topics
The following topics are discussed, but are not supported by calculations in this example.
Brace Shape and End Conditions: The hysteretic behavior of the braces is closely related to the shape
and the end conditions. In this example, square braces with pinned ends were selected. However, cyclic
loading tests of braced frames demonstrate that braces degrade rapidly after they buckle. Round braces tend
to perform better than rectangular or square braces, but buckling leads to member tearing after a few cycles.
More ductile hysteretic behavior can be achieved with lower brace KL/r values. Some research suggests
that KL/r values of close to 25 provide good ductility. The designer should consider designing beyond the
code minimum with more stout braces and fixed connections to inhibit buckling. In a frame with long brace
spans, this leads to heavy braces.
Wind vs. Seismic Loads: Buildings in some parts of the country may need to be designed for high winds
and high seismic demands. The building in this example has a particularly large projected wind area, and
the forces could be significant, possibly governing the column design. Consideration must be given to the
frame behavior for both loading conditions. The critical panel framing members shall not yield for wind, as
is intended for the seismic response.
Foundations: Multi-panel braced frames tend to have high aspect ratios. They also can have very little dead
load, since they are only supporting loads essentially at the top of the frame. The combination of those two
characteristics results in large uplift forces on the foundation. The designer should consider this, if possible,
when selecting a foundation type. Foundation types such as piles or combined footings may be more
suitable than the isolated pad footings shown in the design example. The frame footings could also be tied
to the adjacent column footings to help resist uplift.
Two-panel or Four-panel Frames: This example uses a three-panel frame with equal panel heights. The
same procedure could apply to multi-panel braced frames with a different numbers of panels or unequal
panel heights. However, the designer should consider some additional ideas when selecting a load-resisting
system and laying out a multi-panel frame. First, the higher the frame aspect ratio, the more vulnerable the
frame is to twisting, and the bracing requirements may be higher. The uplift demands on the foundation
may also be very high. A somewhat free-standing, multi-panel system may not be appropriate where the
frame is required to have a very high aspect ratio. A more economical lateral-force-resisting system could
be selected based on the building height and geometry, the frame layout, the architectural restrictions, and
the soil conditions. Second, different panel heights can complicate the frame in-plane and out-of-plane
behavior. Some additional iteration may be required to determine the critical panel and the appropriate
column moment demand.
One-story or Two-story X-Bracing: In the case where the foundation type and uplift capacity is limited,
but a multi-panel frame is still justified, a wider frame may be selected. The designer may decide to use a
double-wide or two-story, X-brace configuration with three columns instead of the one-story configuration
used in this example. See Figure 6–12. The two-story configuration may not be economical for a situation
where the layout is not governed by the capacity of the foundation, due to the increased slenderness of the
braces.

Figure 6–12. Two-story X-brace configuration (left), and (right) one-story X-brace configuration
Mezzanine: Since the multi-panel braced frame is best suited for a very tall story, there is a chance that a
mezzanine level will be incorporated into the design. The designer needs to decide if the mezzanine level
will be tied in with the multi-panel frame or if it will be independently braced. If it is tied in with the frame,
the designer needs to then consider the mezzanine level in the layout of the panels. This may govern the
number of panels, the panel height, and the frame base. The designer should also consider if the mezzanine
will provide any out-of-plane stability to the frame.
The following items are not addressed in detail in this example but are nevertheless necessary for a
complete design of the seismic load resisting system:
• Design of the foundations,
• Design of the roof members and connections,
• Design of torsional bracing for the multi-panel frames, and
• Design of brace and beam to column connections.

Design Example 7
Metal Deck Diaphragm
OVERVIEW
Diaphragms are the horizontal components of a building—typically the roof and floor elements—that
transfer lateral loads to the vertical elements of the Seismic Force Resisting System (SFRS), which are
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF) in these design examples. Diaphragms also
• Provide gravity support for the structure
• Transfer dead and live loads to beams and/or bearing walls
• Provide lateral support to walls subject to out-of-plane loading
• Provide lateral stability to vertical elements, decreasing the unbraced height of these members
and consequently increasing their capacity to support axial loads
• Allow horizontal framing members supporting gravity loads such as beams and joists to carry
larger loads by providing lateral stability to the compression flanges of these members.
Diaphragms comprise three distinct components: the metal deck or concrete fill and metal deck (in these
examples); the chord elements, which are perpendicular to the applied lateral loading and carry axial
loads caused by the moment in the diaphragm; and the collector elements (also known as drag struts or
diaphragm ties), which are parallel to the applied lateral loading and transfer diaphragm forces along a
lateral-load-resisting line to the vertical elements of the SFRS. These three components are identified for
loading in the east-west direction at the roof in Figure 7–1 and for loading in the north-south direction at
the roof in Figure 7–2. All bays are 30 feet, 0 inches × 30 feet, 0 inches.
COLLECTOR BEAM,
TYP ALONG
GRIDLINES 1, 3, AND 4
METAL DECK
DIAPHRAGM
CHORD BEAM, TYP

ALONG GRIDLINES A,
B, E, AND F
Figure 7–1. Diaphragm components for east-west loading


Design Example 7 䡲 Metal Deck Diaphragm
CHORD BEAM, TYP

ALONG GRIDLINES 1,
2, 4, AND 5
COLLECTOR BEAM,
TYP ALONG
GRIDLINES A AND F
METAL DECK
DIAPHRAGM
Figure 7–2. Diaphragm components for north-south loading
The stiffness of the diaphragm, like the stiffness of any structural element, determines how much it will
deflect. Stiffness is affected by many things, including the size, spacing, and connections of the framing
members, but the factor that contributes the most is the stiffness of the metal deck or concrete fill and metal
deck. A bare metal deck diaphragm is not as stiff as a concrete-filled metal deck diaphragm, and thus a bare
metal deck diaphragm will have higher deflections than the same one filled with concrete.
The diaphragm stiffness also determines how lateral loads are distributed to the vertical elements of the
SFRS. ASCE 7 has three categories for diaphragms depending on their stiffness: flexible, rigid, and semi-
rigid. The more flexible a diaphragm is, the less ability it has to transfer torsional forces. When a diaphragm
can be classified as flexible due to the construction type per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.1 or by calculation
in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.3, it will transfer lateral load to the vertical elements of the
SFRS based on tributary area. Rigid diaphragms are stiff enough to transfer torsional forces to the vertical
elements of the SFRS. A diaphragm can be classified as rigid only if it is one of the construction types
identified in ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.2. A rigid diaphragm distributes lateral loads to vertical elements of the
SFRS based on its relative rigidities. When a diaphragm cannot be classified as flexible or rigid, it is said to
be semi-rigid. A building with semi-rigid diaphragms must be modeled with the stiffness of each diaphragm
taken into account. Per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.2, semi-rigid modeling will most likely be required when
any horizontal irregularity (per Table 12–3.1 of ASCE 7) is present or the span-to-depth ratio of the
diaphragm exceeds three and the diaphragm is constructed of a type that otherwise qualifies as being rigid.
The presence of horizontal irregularities and a span-to-depth diaphragm ratio greater than three impact the
stiffness of the diaphragm in such a way that the rigid idealization is no longer accurate.

Design Example 7 䡲 Metal Deck Diaphragm
The following examples will illustrate how to design diaphragms in accordance with the 2012 IBC to
adequately distribute applied lateral loads to the vertical elements of the SFRS. The first example, 7A, goes
through the design of the roof diaphragm, which is constructed of bare metal deck and can be idealized
as a flexible diaphragm. The second example, 7B, goes through the design of the second-floor diaphragm,
which is constructed of 31⁄4 inches of concrete fill over a 2-inch metal deck and can be idealized as a rigid
diaphragm. Discussions for semi-rigid diaphragm design will be included in Example 7B.

Design Example 7A
Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Diaphragm
OUTLINE
1. Given Information
2. Determination of Diaphragm Forces and Code Discussion
3. Diaphragm Analysis without Openings
4. Diaphragm Analysis at Opening and at Re-entrant Corner
5. Diaphragm Design
6. Chord and Collector Design
7. Collector Connection Design
1. Given Information
1.1 INFORMATION PROVIDED IN APPENDIX 1 AND EXAMPLE 1
• S1 = 1.0g
• SDS = 1.0g
• SD1 = 0.6g
• Ie = 1.0
• R = 8.0
• ρ = 1.0
• Ωo = 2.5
• Six stories with heights as shown in Figure 7A–1
• Wroof = 656 k
• Wfloor = 1315 k for all floor levels
• SFRS = Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF)
07A_Example-07A_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 215 8/16/13 12:05 PM

Design Example 7A 䡲 Bare Metal Deck (Flexible) Diaphragm
Figure 7A–1. Building elevation with story heights
1.2 METAL DECK TYPES AND DIAPHRAGM CAPACITIES
Per XYZ-ES Report #1000 for ACME Steel Deck Company, Roof Deck Diaphragm Capacities:
• vall = 800 plf for 16-gage deck with 11⁄2-inch rib height, four-weld pattern per sheet to supports
with 11⁄2-inch top seam welds at side laps at 24 inches on center for beam spans up to 10 feet.
• vall = 1500 plf for 16-gage deck with 11⁄2-inch rib height, seven-weld pattern per sheet to
supports with 11⁄2-inch top seam welds at side laps at 12 inches on center for beam spans up to
10 feet.
2. Determination of Diaphragm Forces and Code Discussion ASCE 7
2.1 CALCULATION OF DIAPHRAGM FORCES
In order to calculate the diaphragm forces in accordance with Section 12.10, the story shears must be
calculated in accordance with Section 12.8. These are based on the seismic response coefficient, which is
also calculated in accordance with Section 12.8. This is the procedure for calculating diaphragm forces
regardless of the type of analysis used for the vertical elements of the SFRS (Equivalent Lateral Force
Procedure or Modal Response Spectrum Analysis).
Determine the approximate fundamental building period in accordance with Section 12.8.2.1:
Ct = 0.03 and x = 0.75 T 12.8–2

Ta Ct hnx = 0 03 × 720 75 = 0.74 sec Eq 12.8–7

The approximate building period per Equation 12.8–7 will be used in these examples to determine the
seismic response coefficient and thus the story shears. These numbers will differ from the ones used in
Example 3, which utilizes the calculated building period to determine these values.
Determine the seismic response coefficient in accordance with Section 12.8.1.1:
S DS 1 00 ⎡S 0.60 ⎤
CS = = = 0.125 sec ≤ ⎢ D1 = = 0.10⎥ . Eq 12.8–2 and Eq 12.8–3
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞ ⎢ (R
R) ⎛ 8.0 ⎞ ⎥
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠ ⎢T I 0.74 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1.0 ⎠ ⎥
⎝ e⎠ ⎣ e ⎦
Also,
0 5S1 0 5 × 0 60
Cs ≥ 0 01, and Cs ≥ = = 0.0375. Eq 12.8–5 and Eq 12.8–6
⎛ R⎞ ⎛ 8 0⎞
⎜I ⎟ ⎜⎝ 1 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ e⎠
Therefore, Equation 12.8–3 controls, and
V CS W = 0.100
00 × 7231
3 k = 723 k . Eq 12.8–1
Determine the vertical distribution of base shear in accordance with Section 12.8.3:
Table 7A–1. Vertical distribution of shear
Level wi (kips) hi (ft) hk

i i Cvx Fx (kips)
Roof 656 72 78,907 0.18 130
6th 1315 60 128,960 0.29 210
5th 1315 48 100,442 0.22 159
4th 1315 36 72,775 0.16 116
3rd 1315 24 46,213 0.10 72
2nd 1315 12 21,262 0.05 36
Total 7231 448,559 723
The terms used in Table 7A–1 are defined in Section 12.8.3. Since the period = 0.74 > 0.5 sec, the value for
k is interpolated between a value of 1.0 for T = 0.5 sec and 2.0 for T = 2.5 sec. For this building, k = 1.12.
The distribution of story shear is carried out using
wx hxk
. Eq 12.8–11 and Eq 12.8–12
∑ wi hik
i =1

Determine diaphragm design forces in accordance with Section 12.10.1.1:
Table 7A–2. Diaphragm design forces
wpx Fx Fpx Fpx,min Fpx,max Fpx,des

Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 656 130 130 131 262 131
6th 1315 210 227 263 526 263
5th 1315 159 200 263 526 263
4th 1315 116 176 263 526 263
3rd 1315 72 153 263 526 263
2nd 1315 36 132 263 526 263
Fpx,des is the force the will be used for the diaphragm design. All other terms used in Table 7A–2 are defined
in Section 12.10.1.1.
n
∑ Fi
Fpx = i x
n
w px Eq 12.10–1
∑ wi
i x
Fpx shall not be less than: Fpx ,min 0 2 S DS I e w px Eq 12.10–2

Fpx need not exceed: Fpx ,max 0 4 S DS I e w px . Eq 12.10–3
2.2 DISCUSSION OF DIAPHRAGM FORCES VS. STORY FORCES
As illustrated in Figure 7A–2, the diaphragm forces calculated in accordance with ASCE 7 are distributed
differently than the story forces calculated in accordance with the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure of
ASCE 7. The vertical elements of the SFRS are designed for the story forces, which are typically less than
the diaphragm forces (the roof is the only location where they are not). Diaphragm forces are larger because
they are calculated to account for the peak modal response of each story. Story forces do not account
for this because it would be overly conservative to design the vertical elements of the SFRS for the peak
response at each floor, as each floor will experience its peak response at a different time.

ϳϮ
ϲϬ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ,ĞŝŐŚƚ;ĨƚͿ
ϰϴ
ϯϲ
^ƚŽƌǇ&ŽƌĐĞƐ
Ϯϰ ŝĂƉŚƌĂŐŵ&ŽƌĐĞƐ
ϭϮ
Ϭ
Ϭ ϱϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϱϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϯϬϬ
&ŽƌĐĞ;ŬŝƉƐͿ
Figure 7A–2. Comparison of story and diaphragm forces
The minimum diaphragm design force was developed to account for responses due to higher mode effects.
The Response Modification Factor, R, has the most effect on the lower modes of the building, so buildings
with higher R values would unconservatively be designed for low diaphragm forces that would not capture
all of the demands if this minimum were not provided. In this BRBF building, the minimum diaphragm
forces govern at every level because the R value for this type of building is so high.
The maximum diaphragm design force was developed to prevent overly conservative demands on
diaphragms with low R values.
2.3 DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF THE REDUNDANCY FACTOR, ␳
Per Sections 12.3.4.1 and 12.10.1.1, ρ = 1.0 for inertial forces when diaphragm forces are calculated
in accordance with Equation 12.10–1. Engineers should exercise caution when following this code
prescription. In some situations, typically at the roof and occasionally at higher floors, Fpx /Fx < 1.3. If
ρ = 1.3 for the design of all other elements of the SFRS, the diaphragm would actually be designed for a
lower force. Although it is not a code requirement, it is recommended that Fpx be factored up to ρ*Fx.
For this building ρ = 1.0, so the calculated values of Fpx will be used without any alteration.
2.4 INCREASE OF DIAPHRAGM AND COLLECTOR FORCES PER SECTION 12.3.3.4
Per Section 12.3.3.4, if Horizontal Irregularity Types 1a, 1b, 2, 3, or 4 per Table 12.3–1 or Vertical
Irregularity Type 4 per Table 12.3–2 are present in Seismic Design Categories D or higher, diaphragm and
collector forces must be increased by 25 percent. The only exception is if the overstrength factor, Ωo, is
used and these forces exceed the 25 percent increase. In the situation where Ωo > 1.25, the overstrength
level forces govern.
Per Section 12.3.3.4, the connections of diaphragms to vertical elements and collectors in buildings where
these irregularities are present will always be designed for the 1.25 percent increase. In this building,
Horizontal Irregularity Types 1a and 2 are present (per Example 3), so this increase will be applied.
Collectors in buildings having any of these irregularities with only light-framed shear walls acting as the
vertical elements of the SFRS meet Exception 2 of Section 12.10.2.1. Therefore they will be designed for
the 1.25 percent increase, as the overstrength factor does not apply.

2.5 DISCUSSION OF DIAPHRAGM FLEXIBILITY
Per Section 12.3.1.1, untopped steel deck diaphragms in buildings with steel braced frames acting as the
vertical elements of the SFRS can be idealized as flexible. The roof is bare metal deck, and the SFRS
utilizes only BRBF, so this diaphragm will be analyzed using flexible diaphragm assumptions. As briefly
discussed in the Overview, it is assumed that flexible diaphragms cannot transfer torsional forces. Lateral
forces are distributed to the vertical elements of the SFRS based on the tributary area of the diaphragm to
each vertical element.
Flexible diaphragm analysis can easily be used to determine the forces in the vertical elements of the SFRS,
as the distribution can be done by hand (this will be illustrated in Section 3.1 of this design example). Rigid
diaphragm analysis, as discussed in the Overview, accounts for torsional forces imposed on the diaphragm
and the vertical elements of the SFRS. The analysis requires a more in-depth calculation for the distribution
of lateral forces. Typically when rigid diaphragms are present, an analytical model of the building is
used. The lateral forces in the vertical elements of the SFRS can be extracted from this model and used to
calculate the diaphragm forces. This procedure will be illustrated in Design Example 7B.
2.6 OTHER APPROACHES TO DIAPHRAGM DESIGN
There are other approaches to designing diaphragms, such as non-linear response history analysis and
capacity-based design. The National Building Code of Canada, in fact, explicitly requires that diaphragms
be designed to not yield, which means that diaphragms must be designed for the capacity of the vertical
elements of the SFRS.
3. Diaphragm Analysis without Openings

A flexible diaphragm can be idealized as a beam with the vertical elements of the SFRS acting as reaction
points (the BRBFs in this example). The seismic-force tributary to that level is treated as the distributed
load along the beam, calculated by dividing the seismic force by the area of that level. Figure 7A–3 below
illustrates this idealization for the roof diaphragm in the north-south direction, and Figure 7A–4 below
illustrates this idealization for the roof diaphragm in the east-west direction.
Diaphragm force at the roof = Fpx = 131 k per Table 7A–2.
Roof Area = A = 15,220 ft2 per Appendix A
Fpx 131 k × 1000 lbs/ft

f
f px = = = 8 62 psf
A 15,200 ft 2
1034.4 plf
517.2 plf 517.2 plf
RA RF
Figure 7A–3. Diaphragm loading in north-south direction
w1,N S
f px × d1 = 8 62 p 60 ft = 517.2 plf
w2,N S
f px × d 2 = 8 62 p f × 120
0 ft = 1034.4 plf

1293 plf
775.8 plf 775.8 plf
R1 R3 R4
Figure 7A–4. Diaphragm loading in east-west direction
w1,E W
f px × d1 = 8 62 p f 90 ft = 775.8 plf
w2,E W
f px × d 2 = 8 62 psf × 150 ft = 1293 plf
where d = depth of the diaphragm.
The loading along the beam takes into account the distribution of the seismic mass based on the
configuration of the building.
3.1 DIAPHRAGM SHEAR
The shear diagrams for the “beam” in each direction are shown in Figures 7A–5 and 7A–6.
65.5 k
RF 65.5 k
65
RA
Figure 7A–5. Diaphragm shear in north-south direction
18.1 k 23.3 k
22 k
R3
R1 40.1 k
40. 20.7 k
R4
Figure 7A–6. Diaphragm shear in east-west direction
The maximum shears occur at the reaction points, which are the locations of the BRBF. The diaphragm is
designed for the maximum unit shear, which is calculated as the shear along a line divided by the length of
the diaphragm at that line. These diaphragm shear demands are calculated in Table 7A–3.

Table 7A–3. Diaphragm shear demands
V Vcorrected Vdes L v
Gridline (kips) (kips) e (kips) (ft) (plf)
A 65.5 65.5 1.1 72.1 60 1201
F 65.5 65.5 1.1 72.1 60 1201
1 22.0 23.2 1.12 26 90 289
3 58.2 61.4 1.07 65.7 150 438
4 44.0 46.4 1.13 52.4 150 350
V = Calculated diaphragm shear

Vcorrected = Diaphragm shear corrected so the summation of the reactions in each
direction = Fpx = 131 k
e = Eccentricity
Vdes = V*e
L = Diaphragm length
v = Vdes /L
The summation of the reactions, V, in the east-west direction does not equal Fpx = 131 k. This is due
to rounding of the distributed loading. The variable Vcorrected has been introduced to account for this
discrepancy.
The variable e is included to account for accidental torsion. Though ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.2 does not
require that this be accounted for when designing flexible diaphragms, it is recommended that accidental
torsion be considered for the same reason that it is required to be considered in the design of non-flexible
diaphragms, which is to provide capacity in the diaphragm to resist redistribution of loading due to non-
uniform inelastic behavior of the elements of the SFRS.
For the simply supported beam condition in the north-south direction, shifting the mass 5 percent of the
building width to account for accidental torsion creates a 10 percent increase in the reactions. For the more
complex condition in the east-west direction, shifting the center of mass 5 percent of the building length to
account for accidental torsion creates a 12 percent in the reaction at gridline 1, a 7 percent increase in the
reaction at gridline 3, and a 13 percent increase in the reaction at gridline 4.
3.2 CHORD FORCES
As briefly mentioned in the Overview, chord forces develop in boundary members perpendicular to the
applied load as a result of the moment created in the diaphragm. The moment diagrams for the “beam” in
each direction are provided in Figures 7A–7 and 7A–8. These diagrams have not been corrected to account
for rounding as the forces in Table 7A–3 have been. The moment resolves itself as a tension-compression
couple with an arm equal to the depth of the diaphragm at that point. The boundary members can be
thought of as the flanges of the beam with the diaphragm acting as the web to provide shear resistance.
Maximum chord forces will occur at locations of maximum moment and/or at locations where the
diaphragm is fairly shallow.

RA RF
M = 2676.5 k-ft
Figure 7A–7. Diaphragm moment in north-south direction
310.3 k-ft 349.1 k-ft
R1 R3 R4
311.4 k-ft
Figure 7A–8. Diaphragm moment in east-west direction
Based on the moment diagrams for loading in each direction provided in Figures 7A–7 and 7A–8, the chord
forces within the boundary members are:
2676.5 k-ft
P1 P5 = = 22.3 k
120 ft
⎛ 311.4 k-ft 349.1 k-ft ⎞
PB PE = max
a ⎜ , = max(
a 3.5 k , 3.9 k ) = 3 9 k
⎝ 90 ft 90 ft ⎟⎠
310.3 k-ft
PA PF = = 2.1 k
150 ft
As shown in Figure 7–2, there are also chord members along gridlines 2 and 4, which develop because of
the re-entrant corners. The forces in these members are calculated in Section 4.2 of this example.
Distributed lines of lateral load resistance create shorter diaphragm spans, which lead to less moment
developed within the diaphragm. Consequently, chord forces are lower when the lateral-load-resisting
lines are located throughout the building than when they are located at the extremes of the building only.
This concept is illustrated here by the difference in magnitude between the chord forces in the north-south
direction and the chord forces in the east-west direction.
There are no provisions for increasing the forces in chord members in ASCE 7 (i.e. designing for
amplified Ωo level forces or increasing by 25 percent when certain irregularities are present). In Seismic
Design Categories C or higher, collector elements are required to be designed for forces amplified by the
overstrength factor Ωo per ASCE 7 Section 12.10.2.1. Consequently, when members in a line of lateral
resistance act as both chord and collector elements, collector forces almost always govern.
3.3 COLLECTOR FORCES
As briefly mentioned in the Overview, collector members are parallel to the applied diaphragm loading.
Their function is to drag load along the diaphragm into the vertical members of the SFRS. Per ASCE 7
Section 12.10.2.1, collector members and their connections must be designed for the maximum of Ωo*Fx,
Ωo*Fpx, and ρ*Fpx,min, but the force does not need to exceed ρ*Fpx,max. There is an exception for buildings
that have their SFRS comprised entirely of light-framed shearwalls. Collectors and their connections in
these buildings do not have to be designed for forces amplified by the overstrength factor, Ωo.

Table 7A–4 calculates the collector force for each story based on Section 12.10.2.1:
Table 7A–4. Collector forces
Level Ωo*Fx (k) Ωo*Fpx (k) ρ*Fpx,min (k) ρ*Fpx,max (k) Fcollector (k)
Roof 325 325 131 262 262
6th 525 568 263 526 526
5th 398 500 263 526 500
4th 290 440 263 526 440
3rd 180 383 263 526 383
2nd 90 330 263 526 330
Fcollector is the force that will be used for the design of the collector beams and their connections. The
force along each line of lateral resistance from Table 7A–3 will be scaled up to the collector force
of 262 kips at the roof from the diaphragm force of 131 kips calculated in Table 7A–2.
Collector diagrams for each lateral load resisting line in the east-west direction are provided in
Figures 7A–9, 7A–10, and 7A–11 for gridlines 1, 3, and 4, respectively. A collector diagram for
gridlines A and F is provided in Figure 7A–12.

32.5
Collector Force (kips)
17.3 26
21.7

v = 262 vk =/ 131 k *k26
2.5*26 / 90k ft/ 90 ft =plf578 plf
= 722

V = 2.5*26 k = 65 k 21.7
V = 262 k / 131*26 k = 52 k 26 17.3
32.5

(a) Length Along Collector Line (ft)
(b)
Figure 7A–9. Collector diagram along gridline 1

52.6 65.882.1
65.7

v1 v1
= 262 k / 131 kk */ 150
= 2.5*20.4 20.4ftk=/ 150
340 ft
plf= 272 plf 26.323.9

v2 = 2.5*45.3 k / 150 ft = 755 plf 26.3
v2 = 262 k / 131 k * 45.3 k / 150 ft = 604 plf
23.9
65.8 82.1 52.665.7
V=2 2.5*65.7
5*65 7 k = 164
164.33k
V = 262 k / 131 k * 65.7 k = 131.4 k
Length
gth Along
Along Col
Collector
olllectttor
or Line
L (ft)
(
(a) (b)


65.5

38.6 52.4
48.3
v1 =v1
262 k / 131 k k* 27.7
= 2.5*27.7 / 90 ftk =/ 90
769ft plf
= 616 plf 11.1
13.9

v2 = 2.5*24.7 k / 150 ft = 412 plf 11.1 13.9
v2 = 262 k / 131 k * 24.7 k / 150 ft = 329 plf
52.4 38.6 48.3
V=2 2.5*52.4
5*52 4 k = 131 k 65.5
V = 262 k / 131 k * 52.4 k = 104.8 k
Length
gth Along
A
Alon
lon
ng Collector
Co
Coll
olllector Line
L (ft)
(a) (b)

v = 262 k / 131 k * 72.1 k / 60 ft = 2403 plf
V = 262 k / 131 k
* 72.1 k = 144.2 k

36.05 32.5 36.05
17.3 26
21.7

131 k *k26
2.5*26 / 90k ft/ 90 ft =plf578 plf
= 722
V = 262 k / 131 k

* 72.1 k = 144.2 k

V = 2.5*26 k = 65 k 21.7
62 k / 131*26 k = 52 k 36.05 26 17.3
36.05
32.5

(b)
Figure 7A–12. Collector diagram along gridlines A and F
The (a) diagrams show how diaphragm forces are being dragged into the lateral resisting line. When lateral
resisting elements are located at the interior of a building, load is dragged in from both sides of the line, but
at lateral resisting lines located along the exterior of a building, the load along that line is dragged in from
the interior side only. Figures 7A–10(a) and 7A–11(a) occur at the interior of the building, and the loads
being dragged into these lines from either side of the diaphragm are taken from Figure 7A–6. The shear
values used above have been corrected for use with Vdes from Table 7A–3. The (b) diagrams show the actual
distribution of forces along the collector line, which takes into account the unloading of the diaphragm as
the load goes into the vertical element of the SFRS.
The jump in the collector force diagram occurs at the midspan of the BRBF at all of these collector
diagrams because that is where the braces frame into the diaphragm. When braces frame into the diaphragm
at columns (such as in Special Concentrically Braced Frames with X configurations) or in moment-frame
buildings where the load gets transferred directly into the columns, there will be two jumps in the collector
diagram—one at each brace/column within the frame. At shearwall buildings, the lateral load is considered
to be uniformly transferred into the lateral resisting element, so collector diagrams for these buildings will
have different shapes that the ones shown here.

The value of Ωo = 2.5 has been used in determining these collector forces. Per footnote g of ASCE 7
Table 12.2–1, when Ωo ≥ 2.5, it can be reduced by 0.5 for structures with flexible diaphragms. In this
building, the roof diaphragm is flexible, but the floor diaphragms are not. Consequently, the reduction will
not be used in this design example. When all diaphragms in a building are flexible, the 0.5 reduction should
be utilized when possible in order to avoid an overly-conservative design of the collector members and their
connections.
These collector diagrams are for design in accordance with ASCE 7 only. See Example 3 for collector
diagrams within the BRBFs, where the collector forces shown here must be combined with additional axial
and shear loads caused by brace yielding.
4. Diaphragm Analysis at Opening and at Re-entrant Corner
4.1 ANALYSIS AT OPENING
Openings in diaphragms create a concentration of forces at portions of the diaphragm adjacent to them.
Increased shear demand at members along the length of the opening and local chord forces along the top
and bottom of the opening will be developed. Figure 7A–13 shows how forces in the north-south direction
must be transferred around the opening between gridlines C and D just north of gridline 3, creating
additional forces within in the diaphragm that are not accounted for when it is analyzed without the
opening.
EXAGGERATED
DEFLECTED SHAPE
OF THE DIAPHRAGM
AT THE OPENING
dopn'g
Vopn'g Vopn'g
C
3
wopn'g
lopn'g
C D
Figure 7A–13. Forces and deflected shape at diaphragm opening

The distributed load, wopn’g, is equal to the distributed diaphragm loading multiplied by the depth of the
diaphragm at this location, which is 60 feet at this opening. The shear forces that must be transferred
around the opening, Vopn’g are calculated below based on the wopn’g and the opening length, lopn’g as shown
below. Additionally, the local chord forces can be calculated from the moment created by wopn’g and the
depth of the opening, dopn’g as shown below.
wopn g f px × d = 8 62 psf
p f 60 ft
f 517 2 plf
wopn’g lopn’g 517.2 plf 30 fft
Vopn’g = = = 7.76 k
2 2
wl 2 1 517.2 p × (30 ft)2 1
T C= × = × = 5 82 k
8 dopn’g 8 10
The beams along gridlines C and D near the opening and their connections must be designed to drag
this shear force around the opening. The beam along gridline 3.2 between gridlines C and D needs to be
designed for this axial chord force in addition to gravity loads. The beam along gridline 3 between gridlines
C and D is part of the BRBF, and this additional axial load from the local forces must be added to the axial
forces from the collector analysis and from the yielding of the braces. The chord forces are conservatively
based on a simple span moment, but the end connections of the beams along gridlines 3 and 3.2 should be
designed for fixed-end moments created by the distributed loading along the opening.
The shear demands along gridlines C and D will increase to account for the fact that the two openings
located between gridlines 3 and 4 reduce the diaphragm length by 20 feet total. The new shear demands
along these lines are calculated below:
VC VD = VA,des w1 × 30 ft − w2 × 30 ft = 72.1 k − 5 plf × 30 ft 1034 4 plf

plf plf × 30 ft
f = 25 6 k
VC 25.6 k
vC vD = = = 256 plf
d − 20 ft 120 ft − 20 ft
Because these openings are not located near lateral-load-resisting lines in the north-south direction, they do
not have much impact on the shear design of the diaphragm, and the shear demands along the lateral-load-
resisting lines at gridlines A and F still govern.
In the east-west direction, these openings occur along lateral-load-resisting lines. The method for
determining the local chord forces will be the same as for loading in the north-south direction. The new
shear demands along gridlines 3 and 4 are calculated below:
V3,des 65.7 k
v3 = = = 548 plf
150 ft − lopn’g 150 ft − 30 ft
V4 ,des 52.4 k
v4 = = = 437 plf
150 ft − lopn’g 150 ft − 30 ft
These diaphragm shear demands that account for the effects of the openings are 25 percent larger than shear
demands calculated in Table 7A–3, which did not account for the openings.

The collector force diagrams along gridlines 3 and 4 must also be modified to account for the transfer of the
diaphragm force around the opening. Figure 7A–14 shows the actual collector force diagram along gridline
4, including the opening between gridlines C and D. The modified collector diagram along gridline 3 will
be very similar.
46.9 52.4

58.6 65.5

v1 = 262
v1 =k2.5*27.7
/ 131 k * k27.7
/ 60kft/ =601154
ft = 923
plf plf 11.1

13.9

v2 = 2.5*24.7 k / 150 ft = 412 plf 11.1
13.9
v2 = 262 k / 131 k * 24.7 k / 150 ft = 329 plf
52.4 46.9
V=2 2.5*52.4
5*52 4 k = 131 k 65.5 58.6
V = 262 k / 131 k * 52.4 k = 104.8 k
Length Along
long
g Collector
Col
Coll or Line (ft)
(ft
(a) (b)
Figure 7A–14. Collector forces along gridline 4 with opening taken into account
Figure 7A–14a differs from Figure 7A–11a in that the distributed shear being dragged along the line in
Figure 7A–14a is larger around the opening and zero at the opening on the side of the line where the
opening occurs. The distributed shear along the other side of the line is unchanged from what was shown in
Figure 7A–11a. The maximum collector forces in Figure 7A–14b are larger at gridlines C and D than those
calculated in Figure 7A–11b.
As illustrated above, openings in diaphragms can have a significant impact on the members surrounding
them as well as on the diaphragm shear demands. While diaphragm analysis done without considering these
openings is easier to calculate, it is important for the engineer to account for them in order to capture all of
the demands on the elements that are part of the diaphragm.
4.2 ANALYSIS AT RE-ENTRANT CORNER
Similar to openings in diaphragms, re-entrant corners create a concentration of forces at the portions of
the diaphragm near them. Increased shear demand is created within the area of the diaphragm that has the
narrower dimension. Chord forces are also developed at the re-entrant corner that must be dragged back
into the main portion of the building. Figure 7A–15 illustrates how forces in the north-south direction are
transferred at the re-entrant corner along gridline B, creating additional forces within the diaphragm in this
area.

Figure 7A–15. Forces at re-entrant corner
From Table 7A–3 we know that RA = 72.1 k and from previous calculations we know that w1 = 517.2 plf.
Utilizing these values and the dimensions of the re-entrant corner, l = 30 feet and d = 60 feet, the chord
forces created are
Vr c
RA − w1 l = 72.11 k − 517
5 .2 plf × 30 = 56 6 k
Mr c
Vr c
× l = 56.66 × 30 ft = 1698 k-ft
Mr 1698 k-ft
Tr c
Cr c
= c
= = 28.3 k
d 60 ft
These axial chord forces must be accounted for when designing beams along gridlines 2 and 4, and
consideration must be taken to ensure that these axial forces are adequately dragged into the main portion
of the diaphragm beyond the re-entrant corner.

In order for the BRBFs along gridline A to resist loading from their tributary portion of the diaphragm
in the north-south direction, the diaphragm shear to the east of the re-entrant corner must be transferred
to the west of the re-entrant corner. This creates a much higher shear demand along gridline B than was
previously accounted for in the diaphragm analysis done without considering the re-entrant corner. The
diaphragm shear demand along gridline B can be calculated as
VB Vr −c = 56.6 k
VB 56.6 k
vB = = = 943 plf
d 60 ft
Without accounting for the re-entrant corner, the distributed diaphragm shear along gridline B would be
much lower, as it would be determined using the length of the entire diaphragm, which is 120 feet, instead
of the length of the diaphragm at the re-entrant corner.
5. Diaphragm Design
5.1 DESIGN FOR SHEAR DEMANDS
Based on the above calculations done for diaphragm analysis without consideration for openings or re-
entrant corners, with consideration for the openings, and with consideration for the re-entrant corners, the
maximum diaphragm shear demands occur along gridlines A and F.
vu,max = 1201 plf.
Diaphragm capacities must be obtained from a properly certified evaluation report produced by an
accredited service. From the given information of this design example, per XYZ-ES Report #1000 for
ACME Steel Roof Decks,
vall = 1500 plf for 16-gage deck with 11⁄2-inch rib height, 7-weld pattern per sheet to supports with
11⁄2-inch top seam welds at side laps at 12 inches on center for beam spans up to 10 feet.
The diaphragm shear demand must be converted to an allowable value:
vmax = 1201 plf*0.7 = 840.7 plf.
Per Section 2.4 of this design example, the connections of the diaphragm to vertical elements and collector
members must be designed for a 25 percent increase to the calculated diaphragm force. Therefore the actual
diaphragm shear demand is
vmax = 840.7 plf*1.25 = 1050.9 plf < 1500 plf.
The capacity of the chosen deck, based on the attachments to the supporting members, can adequately
transfer diaphragm forces to the collector members and vertical elements of the SFRS.
5.2 BARE METAL DECK DIAPHRAGM CAPACITY
Bare metal deck diaphragm capacities are largely controlled by the type and spacing of fasteners used
to attach the deck to the supporting structure. Just calculating the capacity of these fasteners, however,
will not accurately provide the capacity of a bare-metal deck diaphragm. It is also influenced by the type

and spacing of fasteners used at side seams, the spacing of the supporting members, and the deck profile
(rib height and width, rib spacing, and thickness of steel). When the diaphragm spans long distances
between supports, buckling of the metal deck becomes an issue and may be the governing factor of the
deck capacity. Deck capacities provided in approved testing agency reports are based on a combination
of calculations used within the industry and testing data in order to determine capacities for a variety of
configurations.
5.3 DISCUSSION OF DECK FASTENER DUCTILITY
Bare metal decks can be fastened to the structural steel members supporting it by many different means. In
this design example puddle welds are utilized, but self-tapping screws and powder-actuated fasteners can
also be used as connectors. It is important to note that while welds do provide a stronger connection from
the deck to the supporting members, they are not the most ductile form of attachment. Self-tapping screws
and powder-actuated fasteners have been found to demonstrate more ductility than welds, and thus may be
a more favorable method of attachment.
6.1 DISCUSSION OF ⍀O AND COMBINING FORCES FROM PERPENDICULAR LOADING
As previously discussed in Section 3.2 of this example, chord members are not required by code to be
designed for amplified, Ωo-level forces. This discrepancy between forces levels for chord and collector
members is unclear, as the overstrength factor is provided to prevent non-ductile failure modes.
ASCE 7 does not explicitly require that chord and collector forces be considered to act simultaneously, but
there are cases, such as at cantilevered portions of diaphragms or at discontinuities in the diaphragm, where
it is highly recommended to consider both of these forces in the design of these members.
6.2 COLLECTOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The collector beam along gridline 4 between gridlines B and C will be designed, and for illustrative
purposes its compressive strength will be determined for both the deck parallel condition and the actual
deck perpendicular condition. Only the capacity based on the deck perpendicular will be used for the final
design, as this matches the actual configuration of the building.
When the deck is parallel to the beam, the beam can be considered to be completely unbraced for major
axis buckling and braced only at points where perpendicular beams frame into it for minor axis and
torsional buckling. The initial size chosen is a W18 × 35, and its compressive strength will be calculated in
accordance with AISC 360 Chapter E, “Design of Members for Compression.”
Per AISC 360 Table B4–1, check beam flanges for slenderness:
b E
= 7 06 ≤ 0.38 = 9 15 AISC 360 T B4.1b
t Fy
b E
= 7 06 ≤ 0.56 = 13.49 . AISC 360 T B4.1a
t Fy

Therefore, the flanges of a W18 × 35 are compact for flexure and non-slender for compression. Next, check
the beam web for slenderness:
h E
= 53.5 ≤ 3.76 = 90.55 AISC 360 T B4.1b
tw Fy
h E
= 53.5 ≥ 1.49 = 33.88. AISC 360 T B4.1a
tw Fy
Therefore, the web of a W18 × 35 is compact for flexure but slender for compression. The compressive
strength of this member shall be calculated per AISC 360 Section E7, “Members with Slender Elements.”
But first, Fcr, the flexural buckling stress, must be calculated in accordance with Section E3 of AISC 360.
K x Lx 1 0 × 360 in
= = 51.14
rx 7 04 in
K y Ly 1 0 × 360 in
= = 295 > 200 . This ratio should be less than 200 per AISC 360 E2 User Note.
ry 1.22 in
Therefore, provide a nominal perpendicular beam with a full-depth shear tab connection to the W18 × 35
beam at its mid-span to cut the un-braced length in half:
K y Ly 1 0 × 180 in E
= = 147.5 > 4.71 = 113.4
ry 1.22 in Fy
Π2 E Π2 × 29,000 ksi
Fe = 2
= = 13.1 ksi
⎛ KL ⎞ (147.5)2
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
Therefore, Fcr 0.877 Fe = 11.5 ksi. AISC 360 Eq E3–3
The W18 × 35 beam is composed of compact unstiffened elements and slender stiffened elements, so the
compressive strength is calculated per AISC Section E7:
Aefff
Qs = 1.0 and Qa = where Aeff is based on be
A
b E 29,000 ksi
Because = 7 06 ≤ 0.56 = 0 56 = 28.1, Qs = 1.0.
t f 11.5 ksi
Therefore, φ n
φF
φFcr Ag = 0 9 × 11.5 × 1100 3 in 2 = 106.6 k . AISC 360 Eq E3–1
Because the torsional and lateral restraints are provided at the same locations, minor axis flexural buckling
will govern the compressive strength of the collector. Torsional buckling need not be checked.
As previously mentioned, the capacity of the W18 × 35 beam will be checked for the actual deck
perpendicular condition. The deck running perpendicular to the beam can be assumed to act as continuous
bracing for minor axis buckling, provided Constrained Axis Flexural-Torsional Buckling is checked.

AISC Equation E4–4 for elastic torsional buckling stress is modified as shown below to determine the
compressive strength of a member accounting for Constrained Axis Flexural-Torsional buckling:
⎛ Π2 E (Cw + I y a 2 ) ⎞ 1
Fe = ⎜ + GJ ⎟
⎜⎝ (K z L) 2 ⎟
⎠ I x + I y + a Ag
2
where a = distance from the member centroid to the location of lateral restraint on the minor axis (d/2 for
wide flange beams).
Constrained Axis Flexural-Torsional buckling governs over major axis flexural buckling, so
Fe = ⎜
(
⎛ Π2 × 29,000 ksi × 1140 in 6 + 15.3 × (8.85 ini )2
+ 11
11,
,
)
200 k si × 0 . 506 in 4
⎞
⎟
⎜⎝ (1.0 × 180 in)2 ⎟⎠
1
= 19.76 ksi
510 in + 155.3
4 4
i )2 × 10.3 in 2
(8.855 in
and Fcr = 0.877 × 19.76 ksi = 17.33 ksi . AISC 360 Eq E3–3
Therefore, φ n
φF
φFcr Ag = 0 9 × 17.33 ksi × 10.3
.3 in 2 = 160.7 k . AISC 360 Eq E3–1
As calculated above, Constrained Axis Flexural-Torsional buckling allows for a higher compressive
strength than minor axis flexural buckling (50 percent more capacity in this case), so it should be used to
calculate the compressive strength of a collector beam when the deck runs perpendicular in order to allow
for a more efficiently sized member.
6.3 COLLECTOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH
The flexural strength of the W18 × 35 collector beam will be calculated in accordance with AISC 360
Chapter F, “Design of Members for Flexure.” Because the W18 × 35 beam has compact flanges and a
compact web for flexure, local buckling need not be considered.
Check beam yielding:
n
φM p = 0 9 × 50 k i × 66.5 in 3 = 2992.5 k-in. AISC 360 Eq F2–1
Check beam lateral torsional buckling per Section F2–2 of AISC 360.
For W18 × 35:
Lp = 4.31 ft AISC Steel Manual T 3–2

Lr = 12.3 ft
Therefore Lb > Lr, so M n = Fcr S x Mp AISC 360 Eq F2–3

Where, per AISC 360 Equation F2–4:

2
Cb Π 2 E Jc ⎛ Lb ⎞
Fcr = 1 + 0.078 ⎜r ⎟
⎛ Lb ⎞
2
S x ho ⎝ ts ⎠
⎜r ⎟
⎝ ts ⎠
2
1 0 × Π2 × 29,000 ksi 0.506 × 1 0 ⎛ 180 in ⎞
= 1 + 0.078 ⎜ ⎟ = 25.2 ksi
⎛ 180 in ⎞
2
57.66 3
× 17 3 in ⎝ 1 52 in ⎠
⎜⎝ 1 51 in ⎟⎠
Cb = 1 has conservatively been used in this calculation.
Therefore, φ n
φF
φFcr S x = 0 9 × 25.2 × 5577 6 in 3 = 1306
306 k-in = 108
08.8 k-fft .
6.4 COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR COMBINED LOADING
The capacities for compression and flexure have both been calculated. In order to determine the adequacy
of the W18 × 35, these capacities must be checked in combination against the compressive and flexural
demands.
The axial load on the beam will be taken as a combination the full collector load, which is amplified based
on Section 12.10.2.1 of ASCE 7, calculated considering the opening in Section 4.1 and 30 percent of the
chord force calculated at the re-entrant corner in Section 4.2.
Pu = 46.9 k + 0.3 × 2288 3 k = 55.4 k .
The flexural demand on the beam is due to dead, live, and vertical seismic loads at the roof, which have
been provided in Appendix A. This W18 × 35 beam has 10 feet of tributary roof.
Mu =
(( .2 + 0.2 × 1.0) × )
plf + 0.5 × 200 plf × ( f )2
= 60.1 k-ft
8
The maximum axial load and the maximum flexural load calculated above do not occur at the same location
along the beam. The maximum axial load occurs at the left end, and the maximum flexural load occurs
at midspan. These maximum axial and flexural demands will be checked in accordance with AISC 360
Chapter H.
Pr P 55.4 k
= u = = 0 35 > 0.2 .
Pc φPn 160.7 k
Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 8 60.1 k-ft
Therefore, + = 0 35 + × = 0.84 < 1.0 . AISC 360 Eq H1–1a
φPn 9 ⎜⎝ φM n ⎟⎠ 9 108.8 k-ft

7. Collector Connection Design AISC 360
This design example will check a simple shear tab connection for combined axial and shear loads. When
horizontal and/or vertical loads are larger than the ones present at the end of this collector beam, a stronger
connection will be required. Some commonly used connections for collectors with large forces are shear
tabs with double rows of bolts or welded flanges.
The reactions at this connection are
( .4 × 310 plf + 0.5 × plf ) × 30 ft

Tu = Pu = 55.4 k and Vu = = 8.0 k.
2
Figure 7A–16 provides a detail of this connection.
1/2" SHEAR TAB WITH

5-7/8" DIAMETER
A325N BOLTS
W18X35COLLECTOR
W18X35 COLLECTOR
BEAM
WF COL
PER PLAN
5/16
Figure 7A–16. Collector connection detail

Check Shear Plate Yielding
The 1⁄2-inch shear tab will be checked for combined loading in accordance with Section J4. The axial force
causes a moment in the weak axis of the shear tab due to the eccentricity between the centerline of the
beam web and the centerline of the shear tab.
1 ⎛1 5 ⎞
M uy = 55.4 k × × in + in ⎟ = 22.5 k-in .
2 ⎝2 16 ⎠
The plate will be acceptable for the combined loading if

2 2
⎛ Vu ⎞ ⎛ Pu 8 M uy ⎞
⎜ φV ⎟ + ⎜ φP + 9 × φM ⎟ ≤ 1 0 .
⎝ n⎠ ⎝ n n⎠
Where the shear strength of the plate is
φ n
φ 0 6 Fy th = 1 0 × 0 6 × 50 k i × 0 5 in × 15 in = 225 k , Eq J4–3
the compressive strength of the plate is
φ n
φ
φFcr Ag
KL 1 0 × 4 in E
= = 27.7 ≤ 4.71 = 113.4
r 0 5 in Fy
12
Π E 2
Π2 × 29,000 ksi
Fe = 2
= = 373 ksi Eqs E3–1, E3–2 and E3–4
⎛ KL ⎞ (27.7)2
⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠
⎡ Fy ⎤ ⎡ 50 ksi ⎤
⎢ F⎥ ⎢
∴ Fcr = ⎣0.658 ⎦ Fy = ⎣0.658 373 ksi ⎥
⎦ × 50 ksi = 47.3 ksi
φPn = 0 9 × 47.3 k i × 0.5 × 1155 in = 319 ksi
and the flexural strength of the plate is
t 2d (0.5 in)2 × 15 in
φ n
φ × Fy = 0 9 × × 50 ksi = 42.2 ksi Eq F2–1
4 4
2 2
⎛ 8 k ⎞ ⎛ 55.4 k 8 22.5 k-in ⎞
∴⎜ + + × = 0 42 ≤ 1.0 .
⎝ 225 k ⎟⎠ ⎝ 319 k 9 42.2 k-in ⎟⎠
The 1⁄2-inch × 15-inch shear tab will not fail in yielding under the combined loading.
Check Plate Rupture
Plate rupture is checked based on the net area of the plate for combined axial and shear loading in
accordance with Section J4.
2 2
⎛ Vu ⎞ ⎛ Tu ⎞
⎜ φV ⎟ + ⎜ φT ⎟ ≤ 1 0
⎝ n⎠ ⎝ n⎠
Anet = ⎡⎣ 0 5 in
i × 15 in − 0 5 in
i (7 /8 in i ) ⎤⎦ = 5 in 2 .
i 1/8 in

Using Anet, the capacities of the plate in shear and tension are
φ n
φ 0 6 Ae Fu = 0 75 × 0.6 × 5 i 2
× 65 ksi = 146.3 k
φ n
φ
φA
Ae Fu = 0 75 × 5 i 2
× 65 ksi = 243
3.8 k Eqs J4–2 and J4–4
2 2
⎛ 8 k ⎞ ⎛ 55.4 k ⎞
∴⎜ + = 0 05 ≤ 1.0
⎝ 146.3 k ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 243.8 k ⎟⎠
The 1⁄2-inch × 15-inch shear tab will not fail in rupture under the combined loading.
Check Bolt Shear
Bolt shear for combined vertical and horizontal loading is checked in accordance with Section J3.6. The
plate has been sized to be weaker than the bolts in order to provide a more ductile failure mode.
Ru Pu2 + Vu2 = (8 )2 + (55.4 k )2 = 56 k
and
φ n
φ n Ab = 5 × 0.75 × 48 ksi × 0 6 in 2 = 121.5 k
φF Eq J3–1
C = 0 46 ≤ 1.0 .
DCR
The 57⁄8-inch-diameter A325N bolts will not fail in shear, and the plate will yield before the bolts fail.
Check Bolt Bearing
Bearing strength at bolt holes is checked in accordance with Section J3.10. Bolt bearing will be checked for
loading in the horizontal direction only, as the vertical load is small enough to be neglected.
The beam web, with a thickness of 5⁄16 inch will control over bearing at the 1⁄2-inch-thick shear tab.
The holes are standard size, and deformation at the bolt hole under service loads is a design consideration,
so
φ n
φ 1.2 Lc tFu ≤ φ × 2.4 dtF
t u Eq J3–6a
where
Lc = 2 in − 1/2(7/8 in + 1/8 in) = 1.5 in

t = 5/16 in
Fu = 65 ksi
d = 7/8 in
∴φRn = 0.75 × 1.2 × 1.5 in × 5/16 in × 65 ksi ≤ 0.75 × 2.4 × 7.8 in × 5/16 in × 65 ksi
φRn = 27.42 k ≤ 32 k
φRn = 5 × 27.42 k = 137
3 .1 k
C = 0 41
DCR

Check Weld Strength
The strength of the two 5⁄16-inch fillet welds will be checked in accordance with Section J2.4, and for
simplicity, the vertical loading will be ignored.
φ n
φ 0 6 Fy t w lw
2
φRn = 0 75 × 0.6 × 70 ksi × × 5 /16 × 2 × 15 in = 209 k Eq J2–4 and J2–5
2
C = 0 27
DCR
Check Block Shear
Block shear will be checked in accordance with Section J4.3. As in previous checks, the vertical load can
be neglected, and the connection will be checked for block shear due to the horizontal load only. The beam
web, being thinner than the shear plate, will govern.
φ n
φ( Fu Anv U bs Fu Ant ) ≤ φ(0 6 Fy Agv + U bs Fu Ant ) Eq J4–5
where
Anv = 2 × 5 /166 in × (2 in − 0.5(7 /8 i + 1/8 iin)) = 0.9375 in 2

Ant = 5 /16 i × (15
15 − 2 × 1.5 in − (7.8 in + 1/8 in)) = 3.4375 in
in 2
Agv = 2 × 5 /166 in × 2 in = 1.25 in 2
U bs = 1 0
∴ φRn = 0.75 × (65 × 0.9375

9375 in 2 + 1 0 × 65 ksi × 3.4375
5 2
)≤
0.75(0.6 50 k i 1.25 in 2 + 1 0 × 65 ksi × 3.4375 in 2 )
φRn = 213.33 k ≤ 195
95.7 k
φRn = 195.7 k
C = 0 28.
DCR
Therefore, the simple shear tab connection detailed in Figure 7A–16 is adequate to resist the combined
loading. The calculations were simplified by the fact that the vertical load due to gravity was small enough
to be neglected. When the vertical reaction is significant, Astaneh’s “Design of Shear Tab Connections for
Gravity and Seismic Loads” is a good resource.
8. Items Not Addressed in This Design Example
of the bare metal deck roof diaphragm:
• Design for gravity loads
• Support for out-of-plane wall loading.

Design Example 7B
Concrete-Filled Deck (Rigid) Diaphragm
OUTLINE
1. Determination of Diaphragm Forces and Code Discussion
2. Diaphragm Analysis
3. Diaphragm Design
5. Discussion of Semi-Rigid Diaphragms
1. Determination of Diaphragm Forces and Code Discussion ASCE 7
1.1 DISCUSSION OF TORSION
As mentioned in the Overview, concrete-filled metal decks are allowed to be classified as rigid per
Section 12.3.1.2. This building has Horizontal Irregularity types 1a and 2, so per Section 12.3.1.2, it is
required to model this building to account for the actual stiffness of the diaphragms (semi-rigid modeling).
In order to provide a simplified calculation that can be presented in this design example, however, the semi-
rigid modeling requirement will be ignored, and the concrete-filled metal deck diaphragms in this building
will be assumed to be rigid. A discussion of semi-rigid diaphragm modeling will be presented at the end of
this example.
Rigid diaphragms must be designed to account for torsion, as they are assumed to have adequate stiffness
to distribute torsional loads. Torsion is created when the center of mass (COM) and the center of rigidity
(COR) do not coincide. A moment is induced in the diaphragm equal to the force applied at that level
multiplied by the distance between the COM and the COR, ex. Per Section 12.8.4.2, all non-flexible
diaphragms must include a 5 percent offset of the COM in each direction perpendicular to the applied load
to account for any accidental torsion. This is not a minimum offset. For diaphragms where the COM and
the COR are at the same location, such as in the north-south direction of this building, the value of the
eccentricity due to accidental torsion, ea, which is equal to 5 percent of the building width, will be the total
offset between COM and COR. Where the COM and the COR are not at the same locations, such as for
loading in the east-west direction of this building, the offset from accidental torsion is added to the inherent
torsion, so that the total offset between COM and COR becomes ex ± ea. Figures 7B–1 and 7B–2 illustrate
the torsional effects for loading in each direction.
The accidental torsion is included to account for any non-uniform inelastic behavior of the elements of the
SFRS as well as any uneven distribution of loads. The components of the SFRS must be designed for the
worst-case load effects due to accidental torsion applied in either direction of the actual COM.
07B_Example-07B_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 239 8/16/13 12:05 PM

Design Example 7B 䡲 Concrete-Filled Deck (Rigid) Diaphragm
V2nd
V2nd
COM
COR
COR
-ea +ea
V2nd
Figure 7B–1. Accidental torsion for north-south loading
COR
V2nd
ex
+ea
-ea V2nd
COM
Figure 7B–2. Accidental torsion for east-west loading

Section 12.8.4.3 requires that accidental torsion be amplified when the story drifts at the extremes of the
diaphragm exceed a certain ratio of the average story drift. This torsional amplification factor, Ax, has been
developed for buildings with vertical elements of the SFRS laid out in such a way that large amounts of
torsion will occur. The factor Ax is applied to the 5 percent required accidental torsion, increasing it in order
to account for the fact that buildings with irregular layouts will have more non-uniform inelastic behavior in
the elements of the SFRS.
1.2 FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN RIGID DIAPHRAGMS WITHOUT THE USE OF AN

ANALYTICAL MODEL
One way to design the second floor diaphragm, its chords, and its collectors is to perform a rigid diaphragm
analysis by hand (or with the help of a spreadsheet). A rigid diaphragm is assumed to distribute lateral
load to the vertical members of the SFRS based on the vertical members’ relative rigidities. By calculating
the rigidity of each BRBF and their relative rigidities, the COR can be determined. The COM must also
be calculated, as well the distance between the COM and COR including the effects of accidental torsion.
This type of analysis would be done using the calculated diaphragm forces provided in Table 7A–2 of
Example 7A, and no analytical model of the building would be required.
The results of a hand distribution of forces in a rigid diaphragm for loading in the north-south direction
would be exactly the same as the flexible diaphragm analysis done in Example 7A that included the
5 percent accidental eccentricity, as the BRBFs along gridlines A and F have the same stiffness. The only
difference is that the moment created by the offset between the COM and the COR must resolved by the
BRBFs in the east-west direction. For the flexible diaphragm analysis, resolving this moment was not
required because including accidental eccentricity was not required, but because the accidental eccentricity
must be included for a rigid diaphragm analysis, all forces must be resolved. As shown in Figure 7B–3
below, shear force is developed within gridlines 1, 3, and 4 when performing a rigid diaphragm analysis as
a result of the moment created by the accidental torsion applied in the positive direction.
VT,4
COM
COR V2nd/2+VT,F
V2nd/2-VT,A
VT,3
+ea
V2nd
VT,1
Figure 7B–3. BRBF forces due to positive accidental torsion in north-south direction

1.3 FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN RIGID DIAPHRAGMS WITH THE USE OF AN ANALYTICAL

MODEL
It is more efficient and usually more accurate (provided the modeling assumptions made are correct) to
create an analytical model of a building with rigid diaphragms. When this approach is taken, the designer
can use the forces in the vertical elements of the SFRS determined by the analysis program to calculate
the diaphragm forces. These forces must be scaled up to the level of the diaphragm force calculated in
accordance with Section 12.10.1.1.
2. Diaphragm Analysis
2.1 CALCULATION OF DIAPHRAGM SHEARS
This example will use the results from the analytical model created for Example 3 to calculate the shears in
the second-floor diaphragm. Table 7B–1 provides the section cuts from the ETABS model along each line
of lateral load resistance in the north-south direction for the stories above and below the second floor with
accidental eccentricity applied in each direction. The diaphragm shear along each line is then scaled up to
the diaphragm force calculated in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1.1 from Table 7A–2 of Exam-
ple 7A. Table 7B–2 provides the same information as Table 7B–1 but for loading in the east-west direction.
Table 7B–1. Diaphragm design forces for loading in north-south direction
V1 V2 V1 − V2 = Fpx Fpx,des Vpx,des

Line +/− ex (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
A + 297.39 284.6 12.79 127.1
F + 350.8 337.13 13.67 135.9
Sum + 648.19 621.73 26.46 263 263
A − 350.8 337.13 13.67 135.9
F − 297.39 284.6 12.79 127.1
Sum − 648.19 621.73 26.46 263 263
Table 7B–2. Diaphragm design forces for loading in east-west direction
V1 − V2 = Fpx Fpx,des Vpx,des

Line +/− ex V1 (kips) V2 (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
1 + 174.62 169.7 4.92 43.9
3 + 200.42 188.95 11.47 102.3
4 + 211.38 198.27 13.11 116.9
Sum + 586.42 556.92 29.5 263 263
1 − 190.71 183.19 7.52 67.0
3 − 197.08 186.11 10.97 97.8
4 − 198.47 187.46 11.01 98.2
Sum − 586.26 556.76 29.5 263 263

The story force is much lower than the prescribed diaphragm force at the second floor. The difference
between story force and diaphragm force becomes more pronounced lower in the building for reasons
discussed in Section 2.2 of Example 7A. The fact that the minimum diaphragm force governs per
Equation 12.10–2 of ASCE 7 further highlights this difference, as the high R value for this BRBF building
allows for relatively low design forces in the vertical elements of the SFRS.
Also, the story shears calculated from the analytical model are lower than the second-floor force calculated
in Table 7A–1 of Example 7A. This difference is because the ETABS results are based on a Response
Spectrum Analysis, which produce a different distribution of forces than the Equivalent Lateral Force
Procedure distribution calculated in accordance with ASCE 7 Equations 12.8–11 and 12.8–12. The
Response Spectrum Analysis is also why the story shears differ in the north-south and east-west directions.
The building has different modal responses in each direction, which creates a different force distribution in
each direction.
Regardless of the analysis type used, however, the diaphragms must be designed for forces calculated in
accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1.1.
The internal diaphragm shears can be calculated from the scaled diaphragm shear reactions at each BRBF
line in each direction for positive and negative accidental torsion. An efficient way to do this is to create
a spreadsheet that calculates distributed loads based on the geometry of the diaphragm and the locations
of the braced frames. Using the reactions at the BRBF locations and the distributed loads, the internal
shear diagram can easily be calculated. Figure 7B–4 shows the input that would be used for loading in the
north-south direction with positive eccentricity, and Figure 7B–5 shows the required input for loading in the
east-west direction with positive eccentricity. For both loading directions, input for negative eccentricity is
identical to the input for positive eccentricity except that the frame reactions are different.
'LDSKUDJP6KHDU'LDJUDP 6HFRQG)ORRU/RDGLQJLQ16'LUHFWLRQ
/RDG&DVH (
7RWDO/HQJWK IW
%)/LQH 'LVWIURP:HVW(QGIW 5HDFWLRQN

$
)
7RWDO
'LVW/RDG /RFDWLRQ /HQJWKIW :LGWKIW $UHD 'LVW/RDGNOI

Z $%
Z %(
Z ()
7RWDO
Figure 7B–4. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm shears in north-south direction

'LDSKUDJP6KHDU'LDJUDP 6HFRQG)ORRU/RDGLQJLQ(:'LUHFWLRQ
/RDG&DVH (
7RWDO/HQJWK IW
%)/LQH 'LVWIURP6RXWK(QGIW 5HDFWLRQN

7RWDO
'LVW/RDG /RFDWLRQ /HQJWKIW :LGWKIW $UHD 'LVW/RDGNOI

Z
Z
Z
7RWDO
Figure 7B–5. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm shears in east-west direction
The resultant internal shear diagrams for loading in the north-south direction for positive and negative
eccentricity are shown in Figure 7B–6, and the resultant internal shear diagrams for loading in the east-west
direction for positive and negative eccentricity are shown in Figure 7B–7.
6KHDU'LDJUDPQG)ORRU16/RDGLQJ( 6
6KHDU'LDJUDPQG)ORRU16/RDGLQJ(

127.1k 135.9k

6KHDUNLS
6KHDUNLS

'LVWDQFHIURP:HVW(QGIW
135.9k
127.1k
'LVWDQFHIURP:HVW(QGIW
Figure 7B–6. Diaphragm shears for loading in north-south direction
6KHDU'LDJUDPQG)ORRU(:/RDGLQJ( 6KHDU'LDJUDPQG)ORRU(:/RDGLQJ(

43.9k 49.3k
67k

14.6k

33.3k 49.3k

6KHDUNLS
6KHDUNLS

67.6k 48.9k
87.6k
64.5k

'LVWDQFHIURP6RXWK(QGIW
XWK(QGIW 'LVWDQFHIURP6RXWK(QGIW
WK(QGIW
Figure 7B–7. Diaphragm shears for loading in east-west direction

As previously mentioned, in a rigid diaphragm analysis, forces are developed in the vertical elements of
the SFRS perpendicular to the applied loading to resolve the torsional moment. These forces are presented
in Tables 7B–3 and 7B–4 for the second floor based on the ETABS results from Example 3. Table 7B–3
provides the forces in gridlines A and F caused by loading in the east-west direction scaled up to the
diaphragm-force level using the story shear from Table 7B–1, and Table 7B–4 provides the forces in
gridlines 1, 3 and 4 caused by loading in the north-south direction scaled up to the diaphragm-force level
using the story shear from Table 7B–2.
Table 7B–3. Forces created in north-south direction by loading in the east-west direction
V1 V2 V1 − V2 = Vpx Vpx,des
Line +/− ex (kips) (kips) (kips) Scale Factor (kips)
A + 51.82 51.4 .42 9.94 4.2
F + 51.82 51.4 .42 9.94 4.2
A − 13.27 13.38 −.11 9.94 −1.1
F − 13.27 13.38 −.11 9.94 −1.1
Table 7B–4. Forces created in east-west direction by loading in the north-south direction
V1 V2 V1 − V2 = Vpx Vpx,des
Line +/− ex (kips) (kips) (kips) Scale Factor (kips)
1 + 11.15 9.32 1.83 8.9 16.3
3 + 2.32 1.96 0.36 8.9 3.2
4 + 8.95 7.47 1.48 8.9 13.2
1 − 11.15 9.32 1.83 8.9 16.3
3 − 2.32 1.96 0.36 8.9 3.2
4 − 8.95 7.47 1.48 8.9 13.2
The forces calculated in Tables 7B–3 and 7B–4 will not be used to calculate internal diaphragm shears
in each direction, but they will be included in the design of the diaphragm and its components when
accounting for combined orthogonal effects in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.5.4.
2.2 CALCULATION OF CHORD FORCES
The internal diaphragm moments can also be calculated from the scaled diaphragm shear reactions at
each BRBF line in each direction for positive and negative accidental torsion. An efficient way to do this
is to create a spreadsheet that calculates distributed loads based on the geometry of the diaphragm and the
locations of the braced frames. Internal moments are calculated from one end of the building based on the
BRBF reactions and the distributed diaphragm loading. Because of the torsional moments, the moment
diagram created this way will not equal to zero kip-feet at the other end of the building. This non-zero
moment at the end becomes the unbalanced moment shown in Figures 7B–8 and 7B–9, which is distributed
throughout the diaphragm as the correcting moments based on the tributary diaphragm area along its length.

The internal moments are then summed with the corrected moments to create the final moment diagram for
the diaphragm. Figure 7B–8 shows what input would be used for loading in the north-south direction with
positive eccentricity and Figure 7B–9 shows the required input for loading in the east-west direction with
positive eccentricity. For both loading directions, input for negative eccentricity is identical to the input for
positive eccentricity except that the frame reactions are different.
'LDSKUDJP0RPHQW'LDJUDP 6HFRQG)ORRU/RDGLQJLQ16'LUHFWLRQ
/RDG&DVH (
7RWDO/HQJWK IW 8QEDODQFHG0RPHQW

%)/LQH 'LVWIURP:HVW(QGIW 5HDFWLRQN
$ 6XPPDWLRQ$UHD
)
7RWDO
&RUUHFWLQJ
'LVW/RDG /RFDWLRQ /HQJWKIW :LGWKIW $UHD 'LVW/RDGNOI 0NIWIW
Z $%
Z %(
Z ()
7RWDO
Figure 7B–8. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm moments in north-south direction
'LDSKUDJP0RPHQW'LDJUDP 6HFRQG)ORRU/RDGLQJLQ(:'LUHFWLRQ
/RDG&DVH (
7RWDO/HQJWK IW 8QEDODQFHG0RPHQW

%)/LQH 'LVWIURP6RXWK(QGIW 5HDFWLRQN
6XPPDWLRQ$UHD

7RWDO
&RUUHFWLQJ
'LVW/RDG /RFDWLRQ /HQJWKIW :LGWKIW $UHD 'LVW/RDGNOI 0NIWIW
Z
Z
Z
7RWDO
Figure 7B–9. Spreadsheet input to calculate diaphragm shears in east-west direction
The resultant moment diagrams for loading in the north-south direction for positive and negative
eccentricity are shown in Figure 7B–10, and the resultant internal moment diagrams for loading in the east-
west direction for positive and negative eccentricity are shown in Figure 7B–11.

0RPHQW'LDJUDP6HFRQG)ORRU16/RDGLQJ( 0RPHQW'LDJUDP6HFRQG)ORRU16/RDGLQJ(

J
5671.2 k-ft

5671.2 k-ft

0RPHQWNLSIW
0RPHQWNLSIW

'LVWDQFHIURP:HVW(QGIW 'LVWDQFHIURP:HVW(QGIW
Figure 7B–10. Diaphragm moments for loading in north-south direction
0RPHQW'LDJUDP6HFRQG)ORRU(:/RDGLQJ(
0RPHQW'LDJUDP6HFRQG)ORRU(:/RDGLQJ(
1076.6 k-ft

734.4 k-ft

0RPHQWNLSIW

0RPHQWNLSIW

31.1 k-ft
381.4 k-ft

53.3 k-ft

903.4 k-ft
Figure 7B–11. Diaphragm moments for loading in east-west direction
Based on the moment diagrams for loading in each direction provided in Figures 7B–10 and 7B–11, the
chord forces within the boundary members are
5671.2 k-ft
P1 P5 = = 47.3 k
120 ft
⎛ 903.4 k-ft 1076.6 k-ft ⎞
PB PE = max
a ⎜ , = max
a ( k , 12 k ) = 12 k
⎝ 90 ft 90 ft ⎟⎠
⎛ 381.4 k-ft 31.1 k-ft ⎞
PA PF = max
a ⎜ , = max
a (2.5 k , 0.2 k ) 2.5 k .
⎝ 150 ft 150 ft ⎟⎠
See Section 3.2 of Example 7A for a discussion of chord forces.
2.3 CALCULATION OF COLLECTOR FORCES
Collector forces are calculated for rigid diaphragms in almost the same manner that they are calculated for
flexible diaphragms. The only difference is that the shears caused by loading in the perpendicular direction
due to the torsional moment must be included in the collector diagrams for 100 percent + 30 percent
orthogonal load combinations.
The collector diagrams along gridlines 1, 3, and 4 are shown in Figures 7B–12, 7B–13, and 7B–14
respectively. The collector diagram along gridlines A and F is shown in Figure 7B–15. These diagrams have
been created using the maximum forces caused by positive and negative accidental eccentricity. They have
also been created taking the openings between gridlines C and D into account, which is further discussed
in Section 4.1 of Example 7A. At the second floor, the collector forces are scaled up to 330 kips per Table
7A–4 from the diaphragm force of 263 kips per Table 7A–2.

45.1

89.9k
Collector Force (k)

59.9k 30.1
Collector Force (k)

v = 330 vk =
/263 k * (67+k0.3*16.3k)
2.5*(67k + 0.3*16.3/ k) / 90
90ft ft = 1002
= 1997 plf plf

V = 330Vk=/263
2.5*(67k+0.3*16.3k) = 179.7k
k * (67 k + 0.3*16.3 k) = 90.2 k 30.1
59.9k
(a) 89.9k 45.1

Length Along Collector Line (ft)
(b)
Figure 7B–12. Collector forces along gridline 1

106.9k53.7 64.7
129k
Collector Force (k)

Collector Force (k)

v1 = 330k
v1/ =263k * (14.6k+ +0.3*0.5*3.2k)
2.5*(14.6k 0.3*0.5*3.2k)/ 120ft
/ 120 =ft 314
= 158
plfplf 53.5k
26.8

26.8
v2 = 2.5*(87.6k + 0.3*0.5*3.2k) / 150ft = 1468 plf 53.5k
v2 = 330k / 263k * (87.6k + 0.3*0.5*3.2k) / 150 ft = 737 plf
V=2 2.5*(102.2k+0.3*3.2k)
5*(102 2k+0 3*3 2k) = 258k 129k64.7 53.7
106.9k

V = 330k / 263k * (102.2k + 0.3*3.2k) = 129k
(b)

133.7k 75.9151.1k
67.1
Collector Force (k)

v1 = 330k / 263k * (49.3k + 0.3*0.5*13.2k) / 60 ft = 1072 plf 34.8k
v1 = 2.5*(49.3k + 0.3*0.5*13.2k) / 60ft = 2137 plf 17.5

17.5

v2 = 2.5*(67.6k + 0.3*0.5*13.2k) / 150ft = 1160 plf
34.8k
v2 = 330k / 263k * (67.6k + 0.3*0.5*13.2k) / 150 ft = 582 plf

67.1 133.7k
V=2 2.5*(116.9k+0.3*13.2k)
5*(116 9k+0 3*13 2k) = 302
302.2k
2k 75.9151.1k
V = 330k / 263k * (116.9k + 0.3*13.2k) = 151.7k
Length Along
g Collector Line
L (ft)
(a)
(b)

v = 330k / 263k * (135.9k + 0.3*4.2k) / 60 ft
k / 131 k * 72.1 k / 60 ft = 2403 plf
VV==262
330k
k //131
263kk *
* (135.9k
72.1 k =+144.2
0.3*4.2k)
k * 0.5
= 85.5k
42.8 42.8

36.05 32.5 36.05
17.3 26
21.7
V = 330k /578
263kplf
*
vk =/ 131 k *k26
2.5*26 / 90k ft/ 90 ft =plf
= 722 (135.9k + 0.3*4.2k) * 0.5
V = 262 k / 131 k
= 85.5k
= 262plf
* 72.1 k = 144.2 k

=v 2850

V = 2.5*26 k = 65 k
= 262 k / 131*26 k = 52 k 42.8
36.05 26 17.342.821.7
36.05
32.5

(b)
Figure 7B–15. Collector forces along gridlines A and F


See Section 3.3 of Example 7A for an explanation of the collector diagrams and the use of Ωo for amplified
force levels. Ωo has been applied to the collector forces caused by loading in each direction. Also, see
Example 3 for the design of the beams within the BRBF. These beams must be designed to resist the
collector loading provided in the diagrams above as well as the potential yielding of the braces within the
BRBF.
3. Diaphragm Design
3.1 METAL DECK SELECTION
For concrete-filled metal deck diaphragms, welded shear connectors are typically designed as the
mechanism for shear transfer. The deck and its attachment to the structure, then, do not need to be chosen
for shear strength as they would for a bare-metal deck diaphragm. When concrete-filled metal decks utilize
welded shear connectors, the deck can be sized for gravity loads only. Typically construction loading will
govern, as it is desirable to choose a deck that will not require shoring. Per Section I3.1b of AISC 360, the
deck must adequately support all applied loading prior to the concrete reaching 75 percent of its specified
compressive strength, fc′ .
3.2 DISCUSSION OF CONCRETE PROPERTIES
The welded shear connectors are designed to be the shear transfer mechanism, and so the concrete fill can
be assumed to have adequate in-plane shear strength. The combined deck and concrete fill do need to be
sized to support all applied gravity loads. Also, certain thicknesses of concrete fill help achieve one-hour
and two-hour fire ratings.
Reinforcing should be provided in the concrete fill to prevent cracking and also because manufacturer’s
testing is often performed with a minimal amount of steel reinforcing in the concrete. In order to use the
shear capacity provided by a manufacturer’s testing data, the designer must match, at a minimum, the
concrete properties and the reinforcing steel used in the test specimens. Reinforcing in the concrete fill can
also help increase the flexural capacity of the composite section when negative moments are applied to the
beam. See Sections I3.2b and I3.2d of AISC 360 for discussions on the use of concrete fill reinforcing to
support negative moments.
3.3 SHEAR STUD DEMAND AND CAPACITY
The maximum shear demands along each line of lateral resistance can be calculated from Tables 7B–1 thru
7B–4:
135.9 k + 0.3 × 4.2 k

vA vF = = 2286 plf
60 ft
67 k + 0 3 × 16.3 k
v1 = = 799 plf
90 ft
102 k + 0 3 × 3 2 k
v3 = = 686 plf
150 ft
116.9 k 0.3 13 2 k
v4 = = 806 plf
150 ft

The maximum diaphragm shear force occurs along gridlines A and F and is 2286 plf. This force must
be increased by 25 percent per Section 12.3.3.4 of ASCE 7. See Section 2.3 of Example 7A for further
discussion. The maximum diaphragm design shear becomes 2857.5 plf.
Shear stud capacity can be calculated in accordance with AISC 360 Chapter I. Alternatively, the required
shear stud spacing can be determined from testing provided by deck manufacturers.
For composite beam design, shear studs are also the transfer mechanism between the steel beam and the
concrete fill for gravity loading. When beams are simply supported, the shear force imposed on the shear
connectors is applied in opposite directions from the center of the beam, so for half of the beam span, the
shear demands on the welded studs are additive and for the other half, they act in the opposite direction.
Figure 7B–16 illustrates the shear forces on shear studs supporting gravity loads and diaphragm loads.
CENTERLINE OF BEAM SPAN

SHEAR FLOW FROM
SHEAR FLOW FROM DIAPHRAGM FORCES
GRAVITY FORCES
DIAPHRAGM SHEAR
DIAPHRAGM IS DECREASED
SHEAR IS DECREASED GRAVITY
GRAVITY SHEAR
SHEAR AND DIAPHRAGM
AND DIAPHRAGM
BY GRAVITY SHEAR
BY GRAVITY SHEAR SHEAR
SHEAR AREARE ADDITIVE
ADDITIVE
Figure 7B–16. Shear loading on welded studs at composite beams
Because the maximum shear force for this example occurs along beams that run parallel to the deck, the
gravity loads will be assumed to be fairly minimal. The required shear stud spacing will be determined by
the diaphragm demands only.
The metal deck and fill combination for the second floor has been determined to be 16-gage deck with
2-inch high ribs with 31⁄4-inch lightweight concrete fill having a compressive strength of 3 ksi. The deck
can span 10 feet, 0 inches during construction without requiring shoring, and the 2-inch deck plus 31⁄4-inch
concrete fill has a fire rating of two hours. The concrete fill is reinforced with #3 bars at 18 inches on center
each way located at the mid-height of the concrete thickness.
The shear studs will be 3⁄4 inch diameter and 41⁄2 inches long, which meets the requirements of AISC Section
I3.2c. The load transfer between the steel beam and the concrete shall be taken as the minimum of concrete
crushing, tensile yielding of the steel section, and the shear strength of welded studs. Concrete crushing and
the yield strength of the beam are assumed not to govern, so the spacing of the shear studs will be designed
for the maximum shear demand.
φ n
φ0 5 Asa fc′ Ec ≤ φRg Rp Asc Fu AISC 360 Eq I8–1

where for deck with hr /wr ≥ 1.5,
sc
= 0.44
4 in 2
Ec wc1 5 fc′ 5 pcff )1 5 3000 psi = 2136 ksi
Rg = 1 0
Rp = 0 75
Fu = 65 ksi
φQn = 0 75 × 0.5 × 0.44 i 2

× 3 ksi × 2136 k i = 13.2 k ≤ 0.75
755 × 11.0 0.75
75 × 0 44 2
65 16 1 k
∴ φQn = 13.2 k
Provide shear studs at 24 inches on center for φvn = 13.2 k/2 ft = 6600 plf > vu,max = 2857.5 plf.
4.1 FLEXURAL AND AXIAL DEMANDS
As in Example 7A, the collector beam along gridline 4 between gridlines B and C will be designed at the
second floor. As determined in Figure 7B–14, the maximum axial collector load within this beam is 67.1 k.
Additional axial force from loading in the north-south direction is created from the diaphragm re-
entrant corner. This additional load is 51.45 k, which was calculated using the methodology presented in
Example 7A and the diaphragm shear loading from Figure 7B–4.
Consequently, the total axial load imposed on this collector beam is Pu = 67.1 + 0.3*51.45 k = 82.5 k.
The maximum moment is due to dead and live loads provided in Appendix 1 acting over a tributary width
of 10 feet, 0 inches.
( .4 × 677 plf + 0.5 × 65 plf ) × ( f )2

Mu = = 143.2 k-ft
8
A W18 × 46 beam with bracing at midspan will be used as the second-floor collector at this location. The
axial and flexural demands are higher than in Example 7A, but the composite action from the slab provides
larger flexural capacity and compressive strength of the beam is determined using Constrained Axis
Flexural Torsion, so the beam does not need to be much larger than the one used at the roof.
4.2 COLLECTOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
As stated in the Commentary of AISC 360, there are no guidelines for computing the compressive strength
of a composite beam, which is due to the lack of research and the fact that this would be a complex,
rigorous calculation. In practice, the collector compressive strength is typically determined assuming non-
composite properties because of the reasons stated in the AISC 360 Commentary and because it would be
potentially un-conservative to rely on the concrete fill once the diaphragm has been loaded and the fill has
cracked, losing some of its compressive strength.

The deck braces the top flange of the beam, so the beam will be checked for Constrained Axis Flexural
Torsion. A discussion of Constrained Axis Flexural Torsion is provided in Section 3.3 of Example 7A.
When determining the compressive strength of a member using Constrained Axis Flexural-Torsional
buckling, modify AISC 360 Equation E4–4 for elastic torsional buckling stress:
⎛ Π2 E (Cw + I y a 2 ) ⎞ 1
Fe = ⎜ + GJ ⎟
⎜⎝ (K z L) 2 ⎟
⎠ I x + I y + a Ag
2
where a = distance from the member centroid to the location of lateral restraint on the minor axis (d/2 for
wide flange beams).
Constrained Axis Flexural-Torsional buckling is assumed to govern over major axis flexural buckling, so
(
⎛ Π2 × 29,000 ksi × 1720 in 6 + 22.5 × (9 in)2
Fe = ⎜ + 11
)
,200 k si × 0 .1 .2 2 in 4
⎞
⎟
⎜⎝ (1.0 × 180 in)2 ⎟⎠
1
= 24.6 ksi
712 in + 22.5
4 4
(9 in)2 × 13.5 in 2
and Fcr = 0.877 × 24.6 = 2211 57 ksi. AISC 360 Eq E3–3
Therefore, φ n
φF
φFcr Ag = 0 9 × 21.57 ksi × 133.5 in 2 = 262 k . AISC 360 Eq E3–1
4.3 COLLECTOR FLEXURAL STRENGTH
The flexural strength of the collector will be determined assuming composite action of the beam and the
concrete slab with 3⁄4-inch-diameter × 41⁄2-inch-long shear studs spaced at 24 inches on center.
Determine the horizontal shear force at the interface of the steel beam and the concrete fill over metal deck
in accordance with Section I3.2d of AISC 360 based on the lower of the limit states of concrete crushing,
steel yielding, and the capacity of the shear studs:
Effective width of the concrete on each side of the beam is the minimum of:
• one-eighth of the beam span = 30 feet/8 = 45 inches
• one-half the distance to the center line of the adjacent beam = 10 feet/2 = 60 inches
• distance to the edge of slab (will not govern for this beam).
Therefore, the effective concrete width = 90 inches, as governed by one-eighth of the beam span.
V′ = 5 fc′Ac = 0.85 × 3 k i × 9900 in × 3.25

.25 in = 745.9 k AISC 360 Eq I3–1a
Only the thickness above the metal deck is considered, as concrete contained within the flutes is minimal
and cumbersome to calculate.
V ′ = Fy As = 50 ksi × 13.5 in 2 = 675 k AISC 360 Eq I3–1b

30 ft 13.2 k
V ′ = nΣQn = × = 264 k . AISC 360 Eq I3–1c
2 ft 0 75

Therefore, the strength of the shear studs governs. Table 3–19 of the AISC Steel Manual will be utilized to
determine the flexural strength of this composite W18 × 46.
Y2 Ycon − a / 2
where
Ycon = 2 in
i + 3.25
25 in = 5 25 in
ΣQn 264 k
a= = = 1.15 in
0 85 fc′ b 0 85 × 3 ksi × 90 in
∴ Y2 = 5 25 − 1.15 in/ 2 = 4.675
6 5 in .
Knowing that the concrete has much less strength that the steel, and based on Qn vs. AgFy, assume that the
PNA occurs in the web of the W18 × 46.
264 k 50 ksi × 6 0.605 i + 50 ksi 0 36 in t

605 in 675 k − 50 ksi 6 in 0.605 k i × 0 36 in × t
605 in 50 ksi
∴ t = 1.3 in.
The PNA occurs 1.94 inches from the top of the steel beam, so Y1 = 1.94. Using Table 3–19 and
interpolating between Y2 values of 4.5 and 5 and interpolating between Y1 values of 0.57 and 2.08, the
flexural compressive strength of this W18 × 46 is φMn = 549.6 k-ft.
4.4 COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR COMBINED LOADING
The maximum axial load and the maximum flexural load calculated above do not occur at the same location
along the beam. The maximum axial load occurs at the left end, and the maximum flexural load occurs
at midspan. These maximum axial and flexural demands will be checked in accordance with AISC 360
Chapter H.
Pr P 82.5 k
= u = = 0 31 > 0.2
Pc φPn 262 k
Pu 8 ⎛ M u ⎞ 8 141.6 k-ft
Therefore, + ⎜ ⎟ = 0 31 + × = 0 54
54 1.0 . AISC 360 Eq H1–1a
φPn 9 ⎝ φM n ⎠ 9 549.6 k-ft
Example 7A provides a design for the collector beam connection to the column. The connection at the end
of this W18 × 46 beam will be similarly designed.
5. Discussion of Semi-Rigid Diaphragms
Section 12.3.1 of ASCE 7 explicitly requires semi-rigid modeling of the diaphragm to be considered in
the building analysis when the diaphragm cannot be classified as rigid or flexible. Semi-rigid diaphragm
modeling is also required when diaphragms are of a type that be classified as rigid but horizontal
irregularities exist such that per Section 12.3.1.2 of ASCE 7 they cannot be considered rigid.
The reason for semi-rigid diaphragm modeling is to accurately capture the behavior of the building,
including the effects of the diaphragm. It is especially important when irregularities are present, as they
alter the stiffness of the diaphragm.

Computer analysis programs will allow the designer to choose a semi-rigid diaphragm option. When this
type of diaphragm is chosen, the program will require that the diaphragm in-plane stiffness be provided.
This stiffness is typically based on the thickness of the concrete fill over the metal deck, neglecting the
deck and the portion of the concrete within the deck. Cracked properties should be used for the concrete
where diaphragm shears are large, and industry practice is typically to choose between 0.15 and 0.5 for
the cracked section modification factor. Because this is a wide range of values and because the stiffness of
the diaphragm can greatly impact that load distribution to other elements of the SFRS, it is advised either
to envelope results based on reasonable minimum and maximum cracked section modifier values or to
perform sensitivity studies to determine how much the diaphragm stiffness affects the transfer of forces to
the vertical elements of the SFRS.
As mentioned in the Overview of this example, the stiffness of the diaphragm is largely determined by
the stiffness of the metal deck or concrete fill and metal deck, but it can be impacted by the stiffness of
the other diaphragm components. When the designer is creating a semi-rigid diaphragm model, it may
be important to include the actual axial stiffness of the chord and collector elements. Consequently, the
designer may want to run a sensitivity check to determine whether or not this will impact the behavior of
the building.
of this concrete-filled metal deck roof diaphragm:
• Design for gravity loads,
• Support for out-of-plane wall loading, and
• Semi-rigid diaphragm analysis.

Design Example 8
Special Moment Frame Base Connection
OVERVIEW
This design example is a procedure for the design of a base connection for a Special Moment Frame
(SMF). This example demonstrates a design using a possible anchorage configuration for columns with
moderate expected anchorage forces. In practice, these connections generally consist of a plate welded to a
first-story column at its base, supported by a grout pad, anchored to the foundation using anchoring bolts.
When the base plate and anchor heads are positioned above the surface of the foundation, the connection is
referred to as an Exposed Base Connection. In this case, as in this example, transferred loads are expected
to be resisted entirely by base-plate bearing, plate bending, anchor rods in tension, and grout/concrete
compressive strength. When large overturning moments or tensile forces are expected at the base of the
structure (usually in high-rise buildings), columns can be embedded in the foundation to provide additional
strength. This type of base connection is referred to as an Embedded Base Connection and is not considered
in this design example.
Laboratory testing (e.g. DeWolf and Sarisley 1980; Thambiratnam and Paramasivam 1986; Astaneh et al.,
1992; Fahmy et al., 1999; Burda and Itani 1999; Myers et al., 2009; Gomez et al., 2010), has confirmed that
exposed base connections are susceptible to various failure modes. As a result, efforts have been made to
characterize the strength of Exposed Base Connections under various loading conditions. In this example,
the results from these laboratory tests and pertinent design guidelines are utilized to identify limit states
and determine the strength of each component of the base connection. This example assumes a typical
configuration of an exposed base connection for seismic regions: anchor rods are placed along lines parallel
to and outside the connecting column flanges. The following base connection design is based primarily
on two sources (1) AISC Design Guide 1—Base Plate and Anchor Rod Design (Fisher and Kloiber, 2010)
recommendations, along with ACI 318 Appendix A for anchorage design, and (2) a compilation of test
observations from various studies.
OUTLINE
2. Determine Required Base Connection Strength
3. Design Base Plate and Anchor Rods
4. Base Connection Shear Resistance
5. Design Column-to-Base Plate Weld
6. Shear Resistance Discussion
7. Anchorage

Design Example 8 䡲 Special Moment Frame Base Connection
1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7
The building is a six-story office building located in San Francisco, CA, and the Seismic Design Category
is D. See Appendix 1 for the following information:
• Building dimensions,
• Soil type,
The base connection to be designed connects a W14 × 211 ASTM A992 column section (Fy = 50 ksi,
Fu = 65 ksi) to a reinforced concrete grade beam. The grade beam is 4 feet × 3 feet in cross section and
extends longitudinally in both directions along the axis parallel to the column web (see Figure 8–1). The
grade beam frames into a 4-foot × 4-foot concrete pedestal, level with the grade beam and concentric with
the footprint of the base plate. The ultimate compressive strength of the concrete, fc′ , is 4 ksi. The first-story
height is 12 feet, and the column frames into a W24 × 76 beam above. Relevant section properties for the
column and beam are listed in Table 8–1.
W14 x 211
Grout
Anchor Head
Grade Beam
Base Plate
4 ft General Reinforcement Layers
Figure 8–1. General base connection profile

Table 8–1. Section properties for the column and connecting beam above
Column Beam
bf (in) d (in) tf (in) Zx (in) db (in)
15.8 15.7 1.56 390 23.9
1.2 SERVICE LOADS AT COLUMN BASE
Load Type Axial Force (kips) Shear Force (kips) Moment X-X (k-ft)
Dead 185 0 −3
Live 59 0 −2
Earthquake 4 39 −348
Applied moments about the column weak axis are assumed negligible.
1.3 LOAD CASES
See Appendix 1 for a derivation of load combinations based on SDS = 1.0. The overstrength factor, Ω0, is
determined from Table 12.2–1:
Ω0 = 3.0
The load combinations of consequence for the design of the column base connection are as follows:
.2 D 1 0 Em + 0 5 L 1.4 D + 0 5 L Ω0QE
0 9 D 1 0 Em = 0 7 D Ω0QE .
2. Determine Required Base Connection Strength AISC 341
2.1 DETERMINE REQUIRED AXIAL STRENGTH
Section D2.6a requires that the axial strength be the load calculated using the load combinations of the
applicable building code, including the amplified seismic load as follows:
Pu 0 7 D + Ω0QE = 0 7(185 kip ) + 3.0(4 kips) = 142 kips.
2.2 DETERMINE REQUIRED SHEAR STRENGTH
Section E3.6d requires that the shear strength of the base connection be based on the load combinations
of the applicable building code, including the amplified seismic load. The factored earthquake load, Emh,
is determined by approximating the expected shear corresponding to the plastic moment capacity of the
column. Here, Ry is the ratio of the expected yields stress to the specified minimum yield stress Fy . Mp is the

nominal plastic flexural strength of the column, and LH is the distance from the column base to the bottom
flange of the beam above:
Emh Ry M p ) LH = 2(1 1Ry Fy Z x ) /L

2(1.11R LH
where, taking H as the story height,
db 23.9 in
LH H− = (12 f )(12 i f ) − = 132.05 in .
2 2
Therefore,
Vu 0 7 D + Emhh = 0 7(0 k ) + 2(1.1)(1.1))((50

5 k i)(390 i 3 ) /1
50 132.05 in
Vu = 358 kips.
2.3 DETERMINE REQUIRED FLEXURAL STRENGTH
Section D2.6c requires that the flexural strength of the base connection be at least equal to the lesser of
1.1 Ry Fy Zx or the moment calculated using the load combinations of the applicable building code, including
the amplified seismic load. Assuming the column is adequately designed to resist all load combinations, the
required flexural strength is calculated as follows:
Mu 0 7 D + Ω0QE = 0 7( −3 k f ) + 3.0( −384 k-ft) = −1155 k-ft

ft.
ft
3. Design Base Plate and Anchor Rods
3.1 DETERMINE INITIAL BASE-PLATE DIMENSIONS
The base-plate dimensions are selected to be large enough for the installation of at least four anchor rods,
as required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, 2001). An edge distance of 4 inches
is selected for all sides. An additional 4 inches is added on all sides to provide adequate room between the
column and the anchor washers for anchor installation. Based on these practical constraints, the required
length in the direction of bending long the column web, N, and the required width, B, of the base plate are
estimated as follows:
N d + 2(4.0 i ) + 2(4.0 i ) = 15.7 i + 8.0 i + 8.0 i = 31

31.7 in
B b f + 2(4.0 i ) + 2(4.0 i ) = 15.8 i + 8.0 i + 8.00 i = 31
31 8 inn .
Based on these practical considerations, the initial base-plate dimensions are selected to be N = 32 inches.
and B = 32 inches, with an edge distance of 4 inches.
3.2 DETERMINE BASE-PLATE THICKNESS AND SELECT ANCHOR RODS
The design bearing strength of concrete is first determined using ACI 318 provisions. Concrete
bearing capacity can be increased using the factor A2 /A A1 , which accounts for the beneficial effects of
concrete confinement. The area A1 is the area of the base plate, and the area, A2 is the largest area that is
geometrically similar to the base plate that can be inscribed on the surface of the concrete footing without
going beyond the edges of the concrete. Since the base plate is connected to a 4-foot × 4-foot concrete

pedestal, the dimensions of A2 are taken to be 4 feet × 4 feet. The design bearing strength is determined as
follows:
A2
fp c
5 fc′) ACI 318.10.14.1
A1
φc = 0 65 ACI 318.9.3.2.4
A1 N × B = (32 i ) × (32 i ) = 1024 in 2
A2 = (4
(4 f )(12
1 i /ft
f ) (4 )( i f ) = 2304 in 2
(4 ft)(12
A2 2304 in 2
= =1 5
A1 1024 in 2
f p( )
= (0.65)(0.85)( k i)(
)( .5) 3.315 ksi .
Determine the bearing intensity acting on the base plate as follows:
qmax
a
f p( max ) B = ( .315 ksi)(3 in) 6.08 k-in
1155 k-ft
e Pu =
M u /P = 8 133 ft
f = 97 6 in
142 k
N P (32 in
i ) (142 k )
ecrit
r
= − u = − = 15.3 in.
2 2qmax
a
2 2(106.08 k-in)
AISC Design Guide 1 (Fisher and Kloiber, 2010) provides a “large moment” design procedure for the case
when e > ecrit. The assumed force distribution is shown in Figure 8–2.
ƒ e
x Mu
Pu Pu
T
q
qy
y/2 y/2
N
Figure 8–2. Force distribution at base plate

Determine the distance from the centerline to the anchor rod line, f, as follows:
N ⎛ 32 in ⎞
f = − edge distance = ⎜ − 4 i = 12 in.
2 ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
Determine if the base-plate dimensions are adequate to resist the applied loads as follows:
2
⎛ N⎞ 2( M u Pu f )
⎜⎝ f + 2 ⎟⎠ ≥ qmax
Design Guide 1, Eq 3.4.4
a
2
⎛ 32 in ⎞ 2[113,860
6 k-in
in (142 kips)(12 in)]
⎜⎝ 12 in + 2 ⎟⎠ ≥ 1 .08 k-in
106
784.0 in 2 ≥ 293.4 in 2 .
BASE CONNECTION DIMENSIONS ADEQUATE
Determine the bearing length, Y, and tension in anchor rods due to base plate uplift, Tu :
2
⎛ N⎞ ⎛ N⎞ 2( M u Pu f )
Y f+ ⎟± f+ ⎟ − Design Guide 1, Eq 3.4.3
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ qmax
a
Y = 784.00 i 2
± 784.0 in 2 − 293.4 in 2
Y 50 15 i , 5 85 → Y = 5.85 in
Tu qmax
a
Y Pu Design Guide 1, Eq 3.4.2
Tu = (106.08 k-in)(5.85 i ) − ( kip ) = 478.62 kips.
AISC Design Guide 1 considers yield lines parallel to the edge of the column flange for both compression
and tension side flexure. An examination of damage patterns during experiments suggest that yield lines
may form at an angle to the column flange when anchor rods are placed near the corners of the base plate
only (Gomez et al., 2010). The onset of inclined yield lines may act to reduce the capacity of the plate. To
avoid the onset of inclined yield lines, and to reduce anchor rod and plate hole sizes, four anchor rods are
used to resist tension (n = 4) for a total of eight anchor rods. Figure 8–3 illustrates the differences between
parallel and inclined yield lines.

Anchor Rods
0.95d
Mu Mu
Inclined Yield
d
Lines
Figure 8–3. Comparison between parallel and inclined yield lines
The tension in each rod, Ti , is given by
Tu 478.62 kips
Ti = = = 120 kips.
n 4
Strengths for commonly used anchor rod materials and sizes are tabulated in AISC Design Guide 1
Table 3.1. Anchor rods are selected based on the expected tensile force in each rod due to uplift:
EIGHT 2-INCH ASTM F1554 GRADE 55 ANCHOR RODS

(φRn = 133 kips)
Recommended sizes for washers and base plate holes are listed in Table 2.3. Heavy hex nuts and standard
washers are to be used and fastened to the plate washers. Holes are designed to accommodate setting
tolerances, and washers are sized to cover the entire hole when the anchor rod is located at the edge of the
hole. Sizes are selected based on an anchor rod diameter of 2 inches:
EIGHT 3⁄4-INCH × 5-INCH ASTM A572 GRADE 50 PLATE WASHERS

EIGHT 31⁄4-INCH HOLES
The distance from the center of the holes to the edge of the base plate should be enough such that the entire
washer will be on the base plate if the anchor is located at the edge of the hole. In addition, enough room
between the column and the holes should be provided such that the washer will not come in contact with
the column flange if the anchor is located at the edge of the hole. Considering the column section properties
and the initial base plate size, the assumed edge distance is adequate:
4-INCH EDGE DISTANCE ON ALL SIDES

In AISC Design Guide 1, the preferred material specification for base plates is ASTM A36. However, based
on relatively large demands, the base plate material is selected to be ASTM A572 Grade 50.
AISC Design Guide 1 recommends the designer take the lower of the capacity of the plate in bending
on the tension and on the compression side when determining the strength of the base plate in bending.
However, tests conducted on six large-scale base connection specimens (Gomez, 2011) demonstrated that
characterizing base plate bending strength using the compressive side strength is highly conservative. More
accurate strength predictions were obtained by considering yielding due to bending on the tension side
only. The following strength calculation considers compressive side yielding for completeness, but only the
tension side yielding is considered for design purposes.
Bearing interface:
N 95d 32 in − 0 95(15.7 in)

m= = = 8 54 in Design Guide 1, 3.1.2
2 2
B 0 8b f 32 in − 0.8(15.8 i )
n= = = 9 68 in. Design Guide 1, 3.1.2
2 2
Since Y < max(m, n)
⎛ Y⎞
f p( a m , n) − ⎟
Y ⎜ max(
)
⎝ 2⎠
t p( q)
= 2.11 Design Guide 1, Eq 3.3.15a–2
Fy
⎛ (5.85 in) ⎞
)(5.85 in)) 9.68 in −
( .315 ksi)( ⎟⎠
⎝ 2
t p( q)
= 2.11 = 3 42 in .
50 ksi
Tension interface:
d tf
x f− + Design Guide 1, Eq 3.4.6
2 2
15.77 in 1 56 in
x = 12 in − + = 4 93 in
2 2
Tu x
t p( q)
= 2.11 Design Guide 1, Eq 3.4.7a
BFy
( .62 k )(4.. i )
t p( q)
= 2.11
1 = 2.56 in
i .
( i )(50 k i)
Assuming thickness requirements are based on tension side yielding, the base plate design is as follows:
23⁄4-INCH × 32-INCH × 32-INCH

ASTM A572 GRADE 50 BASE PLATE

3.3 CHECK COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF THE BASE PLATE
The following procedure is used to check that the base-plate thickness is adequate to resist factored
compressive loads. It is based on recommendations from Design Guide 1 Section 3.1. In Appendix A, the
governing load combination considering compression only is as follows:
1.2D
2 1 6L .
Therefore,
Pu = 1.2(185 kips) + 1.6(59 kip ) = 317 kips.
Check minimum base plate area to resist compressive load:
1⎛ Pu ⎞ 1⎛ 317 k ⎞
A( = = ⎜ = 71.72 in 2
q)
2 ⎝ φc 0.85 fc′ ⎟⎠
⎜ k i) ⎟⎠
⎝ (0.65)(0.85)(4 ks
A1 N × B = (32 i ) × (32 i = 1024 in 2 ≥ 71.72 in 2 . . . OK
Check plate thickness required to resist base plate yielding, taking max (m, n, λn′) as the cantilever length:
Pu 317 k
f pu = = = 0.3538 ksi
BN (32 in
i )(32 in
i )
⎧⎪ 4 db f ⎫⎪ Pu ⎧ 4(15.7 in i )⎫
i )(15. in 317 kips
X =⎨ 2⎬
=⎨ 2⎬
⎩⎪ (d b f ) ⎭⎪ A2 ⎩ (15.7 in
i 15.8 in )( 0 in 2 )(1.5)
i ) ⎭ (0.65)( .85)(4 ksi)(1024
φc 0 85 fc′A
A1
A1
X = 0.093
2 X 2 0.093
λ= = = 0.313
1+ 1− X 1 + 1 − 0.093
db f (15.7 i )(15.8 i )
λ λ = (0.269) = 1.23 in
4 4
2 Pu 2( kip )
t p( (m, nn,, λn ′) ( .6 in)
q)
φFy B
BN ( .9)(50 ksi)(32
)(32 in)(32
)(32 in)
t p( q)
= 1.14 in
i < 2.75 in .
BASE CONNECTION ADEQUATE TO RESIST

FACTORED COMPRESSIVE LOADS
3.4 GROUT DESIGN
Based on recommendations in AISC Design Guide 1 Section 2.10, the design thickness of the grout
space between the base plate and the surface of the grade beam should be 11⁄2 inches to 2 inches. It is
also recommended that one or two grout holes, typically 2 to 3 inches in diameter, be provided when

plates are larger than 24 inches so that the grout can be placed properly beneath the plate. Based on these
recommendations, the grout design is as follows:
2-INCH NON-SHRINK GROUT BENEATH PLATE

TWO 2-INCH GROUT HOLES
4. Base Connection Shear Resistance
This section will demonstrate the procedure for designing for shear loading based on recommendations in
AISC Design Guide 1. See Section 6 for further discussion on shear resistance at column bases in Special
Moment Frames.
4.1 SHEAR RESISTANCE THROUGH FRICTION
As recommended in AISC Design Guide 1, the contribution of the shear should be based on the most
unfavorable arrangement of factored compressive loads that is consistent with the lateral force being
evaluated. Based on this, and referring to Appendix A, the following load case governs:
0 9 D 1 0 Em = 0 7 D Ω0QE .
Therefore,
Pu 0 7 D + Ω0QE = 0 7(185 k ) + 3.0(4 k ) = 142 kips.
Shear resistance through friction, φVn , can then be calculated as follows:
φ n
φμ
φμP
μ u Design Guide 1, 3.5.1
φVn ( )
φ fc′A
Ac ACI 349 11.7.5
φ = 0 75 ACI 349 11.7.5
Ac BY = ( i ) × (5.85 in) = .2 in 2
The friction coefficient, μ, is recommended to be 0.4 in Design Guide 1. However, an experimental study
(Gomez et al., 2010) has shown that μ should be taken as 0.45 for steel on grout. Therefore,
μ = 0 45
and,
φ n
φμ
φμP
μPu = ( .75)(0. 5)( kip ) = 48 kips
φVn ( )
φ fc′A
Ac i)(187. i 2 ) = 112
(0. 5)(0.2)(4 ksi)(
(0. 1 kips
48 kips < 112 kips
kip → φVn = 48 kips .
The revised shear load is then as follows:
Vu Vu ,totala − φVn = (358 kip ) − ( kip ) = 310 kips
where Vu,total is the factored shear load calculated in Section 2.2.

4.2 PLATE WASHER BEARING STRENGTH
The deformation at each washer hole at service load is not a design consideration. Thus, the bearing
strength of each washer is as follows:
φRn φ 5lc tF
Fu ≤ φ3 0 dtF
t u AISC 341 Eq J3–6b
φ = 0 75 AISC 341 J3.10
where t is the thickness of the washer, Fu is the specified tensile strength of ASTM A572 Grade 50 material,
d is the nominal bolt diameter, and lc is the clear distance. The calculation of the clear distance, lc , is
calculated using the width of the washer in the direction of loading, Wwasher , and the diameter of the anchor
rod, d, as follows:
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
Wwasher d + in ⎟ 5 in − 2 i + in ⎟
⎝ 16 ⎠ ⎝ 16 ⎠
lc = = = 1.469 in.
2 2
Therefore,
φRn = ( .75)(1.5)(1.469 i )(0.. 5 )(65 ) ≤ (0.755)(3.0)(2.0 in)(0.75 )(65 k i)

φ n
80 56 ki 219 38 ki φ n = 80.56 kips.
φR
The shear load at each washer is the revised shear load, Vu , divided by the total number of anchors, n. Thus,
Vu
≤ φRn
n
310 kips
≤ 80.56 kips
8
75 kips ≤ 80.56 kips.
38.75
PLATE WASHER BEARING STRENGTH

ADEQUATE TO RESIST SHEAR LOAD
4.3 SHEAR STRENGTH OF ANCHOR RODS
The design shear strength of each anchor rod is as follows:
φ n
φ
φFnv Ab AISC 341 Eq J3–1
φ = 0 75
where Fnv is the nominal shear stress when, threads are not excluded from the shear plane, obtained from
Table J3.2, and Ab is the nominal unthreaded body area of the anchor rod.
Thus,
Fnv 0.450 Fu = (0.450)(755 k i) = 33.75 ksi

where Fu is defined as the lower limit of tensile strength specified for ASTM F1554 Grade 55 material.
Therefore,
φRn = ( .75)(33.. 5 )(3.1415 in 2 ) = .52 kips

Vu
≤ φRn
n
75 kips ≤ 79.48 kips .
38.75
SHEAR STRENGTH OF ANCHOR RODS

ADEQUATE TO RESIST SHEAR LOAD
4.4 TENSILE STRENGTH OF ANCHOR RODS CONSIDERING COMBINED TENSION AND

SHEAR
Since anchor rods will be subjected to tension due to uplift as well as shear, the combined effect of tension
and shear should be considered according to AISC 341 Section J3.7. The design tensile strength of a bolt
subjected to combined tension and shear is as follows:
φ n
φ
φFn′t Ab AISC 341 Eq J3–2
φ = 0 75
where Fnt′ is the nominal tensile stress of each anchor rod modified to include the effects of shear stress,
calculated as follows:
Fnt
Fnt′ = 1 3Fnt − f ≤ Fnt . AISC 341 Eq J3–3a
φFnv rv
Here, Fnt is the nominal tensile stress obtained from Table J3.2 of each anchor rod when threads are not
excluded from the shear plane, and frv is the required shear stress. Both values are calculated as follows:
Fnt Fu = (0.755)(755 k i) = 56.25 ksi

0.7755F
(Vu nb ) 38.75 kips
frv = = = 12.31 ksi
Ab 3.1415 in 2
where nb is the total number of bolts.
Therefore,
(56.25 ksi)
Fnt′ = ( .3)(56.25 k i) − ( .34 ksi)) 56.25 ksi
( .75)(33.. 5 k i)
Fnt′ = 45.76
76 k i ≤ 56.25 ksi → Fnt′ = 45.76 ksi
φRn = ( .75)(45.76 )(3.1415 in 2 ) = .83 kips.

4.5 TENSILE STRESS DUE TO TENSION AND BENDING
The stress induced in the anchor rods due to tension and bending is addressed in AISC Design Guide 1. The
following calculations will be based primarily Design Guide 1 guidelines, with some deviations based on
experimental testing (Gomez et al., 2010).
ft ftt + ftb .
The anchor rod tensile stress is calculated as follows:
T 478.71 kips
ftt = = = 38.09 ksi .
nAg (4)(3.1416 in 2 )
The anchor rod bending stress is calculated as follows:
M tb
ftb = .
Zb
The anchor rod bending moment lever arm, lb, is calculated using recommendations from Gomez et al.,
2010 as follows:
lb t p + tgrout
r
= ( i ) + ( in
i ) = 5 in .
The anchor rod bending moment is calculated as follows:
Vu kklb ( kip )(0.5)(5 in)

M tb = = = 96.56 k-in.
nb 8
The anchor rod plastic section modulus, Zb, is calculated as follows:
d b3 (2.0 in)3
Zb = = = 1.333 in 3 .
6 6
Therefore,
M tb 96.56 k-in
ftb = = = 72.42 ksi
Zb 1.333 in 3
ft ftt + ftb = ( .09 ksi) + (72. k i) = 110.51 ksi
φF
Fnt = ( .75)(56.25 ) = 42.19 ksi
ft Fnt
111 ksi 42 ksi.
ANCHOR RODS INADEQUATE TO RESIST

STRESS DUE TO TENSION AND BENDING

Bending stresses are introduced to the anchor rods due to sliding of the base plate on grout and deformation
of the grout. As discussed in Section 6, this is not expected in connections for SMFs. However, a more
conservative approach is to install a shear key as recommended by Design Guide 1. This approach would
eliminate the need for anchor rods alone to resist shear, and prevent the sliding action that will introduce
bending stresses in the rods.
4.6 SHEAR LUG DESIGN
The lateral resistance can be expressed as:
Rn φ fc′A Ab Fy − T ) Vu
Al 1 2(nnA Design Guide 1, 3.5.2
φ = 0 60.
Using this equation, the minimum bearing area of the lug, Al , can be determined as follows:
Vu 1 (nnAb Fy − T ) (358 kip ) − ( .2)[(4)(3.1416 i 2 )(55 k i) (478.72 kips)]

Al ,min = = = 32.83 in 2 .
φ1.3 fc′ (0.60)(1.3)(4 ksi)
Assume the width of the lug, bl , to be 14 inches and the embedment depth past the grout bed, dl , to be
2.5 inches. Thus,
Al bl dl = ( i )(2.5 in) = 35 in 2.
Since the shear lug is not bearing in the direction of a free edge of concrete, the shear strength of concrete
in front of the lug is not considered. The bending moment acting on the lug, Mul , using a cantilever model is
⎛ d ⎞ ⎛ 2 5 in ⎞
M ul Vu G + l ⎟ = (358
5 kip ) 2 i + = 1161 k-in Design Guide 1, 4.9.2
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
where G is the thickness of the grout bed. The section modulus, Zl , and moment capacity, φMnl , for the
shear key is calculated as follows:
bl tl2
Zl =
4
φFy bt 2 (0.9)(50 ksi)(14 in)t 2
φ nl
φFy Zl = = = 135t 2
4 4
M ul ≤ φM nll → t = 2.72 in .
Based on Design Guide 1 Section 3.5.2, it is recommended that the base plate be of equal or greater
thickness than the shear lug. The base plate thickness is 3 inches; thus, a shear lug thickness of 23⁄4 inches.
is acceptable.
Since using heavy fillet welds is the preferred method of attaching the lug to the base plate, fillet welds
will be used along the length of the shear lug at the interface between the lug and the base plate. As in
Example 4.10 in AISC Design Guide 1, the vertical forces are equal and are assumed to act on the welds act
at the weld centers. The shear force per unit length acting on each weld, fv , can be calculated as follows:
Vu (358 kip )
fv = = = 12.79 k-in.
2bl (2)(14
1 i )

Vertical forces are assumed to act at the weld centers due to the bending moment introduced at the
connection between the lug and the base plate. If we assume a weld size, tw , of 11⁄4 inches, these forces per
unit length, fc, may be calculated considering the distance between the forces, s, as follows:
⎛ 1⎞ ⎛ 1⎞
s t + ( ) ⎜ ⎟ ( .25) = (2. 5) + ( ) ⎜ ⎟ ( .25) = 3 58
58 in
⎝ 3⎠ ⎝ 3⎠
M ul (1161 k i )
fc = = = 23.16 k-in .
bl s ( i )(3.58 in)
The resultant of the forces per length acting on each weld, fr , is calculated as follows:
fr fv )2 + ( fc )2 = ( .79 k i )2 + (23. )2 = 26.46 k--in.
The design strength of each 11⁄4-inch fillet weld, assuming the use of an E70 electrode, is calculated in
accordance with AISC 341 Section J2.2 as follows:
φfw
φ φ 6 k i t w = ( .755)(0. )(0.60)( k i)(
)( ..25 ) 2 .84 k-in.
Therefore,
fr fw
and the shear lug is designed as follows:
23⁄4-INCH × 41⁄2-INCH × 14-INCH-LONG SHEAR LUG

1
1 ⁄4-INCH FILLET WELDS, BOTH SIDES, ALONG LENGTH
It is recommended in Design Guide 1 that the shear strength of concrete in front of the lug be considered
when determining the lug embedment depth. The shear strength of concrete is evaluated as a uniform
tensile stress acting on an effective stress area defined by projecting an 45-degree plane from the bearing
edge of the shear lug to a free surface of concrete. In this example, the lug bears in the direction of the
longitudinal axis of the grade beam in which there is no free surface to be examined. Thus, this strength
criterion is neglected analysis. However, in cases where zero net axial load or net tension in the column is
expected at service loads, a potential failure surface that extends at a 45-degree angle from the edge of the
shear lug to the top surface of concrete must be considered. Since net compression is expected at the base
in this example for all load combinations, concrete bearing strength was considered a sufficient design
criterion for lug embedment.
5. Design Column-to-Base Plate Weld
Experimental tests (Myers et al., 2009) conducted using base connection configurations similar to the
connection designed in this example have shown that Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) welds in conjunction
with fillet welds connecting the column to the base plate can sustain deformations that are sufficient for
seismic design. Figure 8–4 illustrates a detail involving a combination of PJP and fillet welds. The fillet
weld and the PJP weld are sized such that the sum of the width of the PJP weld and the throat thickness of
the fillet weld is 25 percent greater than the flange thickness; for an overmatched weld filler material, the
flange may be fully developed in tension. The PJP weld is designed to be installed from the outside flange
face through 80 percent of the flange thickness using E70XX electrodes, beveled at 45 degrees. The weld

at the web is a fillet weld of the same size as the fillet weld on the inside of the flanges, determined below.
These specifications are given to remain consistent with previously mentioned experimental setups and
standard practices for these types of welds. The fillet weld size, wfillet, is determined as follows:
0 80
80t f 0.707
707ww > tf
1 1
wfille
f t
(0.20)t f = i ) = 0.44
(0.20)(1.56 in 4 in.
(0.707) (0.707)
The size of the PJP weld, wpjp , is determined as follows:
wpjp 80t f = (0.80)(1.56 in) = 1.248 .

0.80t
Based on these calculations, the column-to-base plate weld design is shown in Figure 8–4.
1/2-in. Fillet Both Sides
1-1/4-in. PJP
1/2-in. Fillet
Base Plate
Figure 8–4. Column-to-base plate weld detail
Alternatively, a Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) weld detail may be designed to attach the flange to
the base plate. However, experimental research (Myers et al., 2009) indicates that connections with CJP
weld details do no exhibit superior performance when compared to PJP details, primarily due to stress
concentrations introduced at the weld access holes that are required for CJP welds.
In either case, the welds must be treated as demand critical, such that applicable toughness criteria outlined
in the Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2010) are met.

6. Shear Resistance Discussion
Figure 8–5 illustrates the force distribution at the column base due to the applied loading presented in this
example, including the frictional force. Since exposed based connections are generally used in low- to
mid-rise buildings, net axial tension on these connections is highly unlikely. As a limiting case, an applied
loading scenario is examined where zero axial load is present. It can be determined that, in general, shear
resistance through friction provides adequate shear strength for base connections in Special Moment
Frames (SMFs). Results are shown below.
Figure 8–5. Force distribution with zero net axial load
We can assume r = N, the length of the base plate in the direction of loading, to obtain an upper bound for
our analysis. From Figure 8–5, αH is a fraction of the story height, H, which corresponds to the location of
zero internal moment in the column. We can write the required shear strength to resist the applied forces,
Vu , as follows:
Tu N
Vu = .
αHH

The shear resistance through friction, Fr , can be computed by multiplying the resultant bearing force, qmaxY,
which is equal to the total tension due to uplift, Tu , by the coefficient of friction between the base plate
and grout, μ. If we impose that the frictional force be adequate to resist the shear load, we can determine a
constraint on α as follows:
Tu N
Fr μTu ≥ Vu =
αHH
N ( i )
α≥ = = 0.494 .
μH ( .45)(144 in)
The result indicates that if the point of inflection or location of zero internal moment in the column is
located at or above 0.494 times the story height for this limiting case of zero axial load, friction alone will
adequately resist any applied shear load. As history has shown, the seismic response of a SMF at design
loads generally results in first-story columns developing points of inflection at or above one-half the story
height. The implication here is that, for the general case considering applied axial loads, moments, and
typical base plate geometries at SMF base connections, friction between the base plate and grout alone will
resist most, and likely all, of the applied shear load.
7. Anchorage
The design for anchorage to concrete is generally dictated by provisions in ACI 318 Appendix D. This
section will demonstrate an alternative methodology to design anchorages based on proven strut-and-tie
concepts that have been used for similar structural configurations. This methodology may prove simpler
in many cases, allows for simultaneous grade beam design, and may also provide more options for the
designer.
ACI 318 Appendix A provides a method of analysis using strut-and-tie concepts for deep beams. To
perform the strut-and-tie analysis, certain geometric constraints exist. Anchors must be embedded to a
greater depth than the centerline of the lower layer of reinforcement to engage the reinforcement in resisting
anchorage forces. This requires that the lower reinforcement be elevated enough such that adequate cover is
provided beyond the bottom of the anchors. The geometric constraints affect the design process as follows:
the reinforcement locations, anchorage depth, and anchor-plate sizes must be chosen prior to analysis; then,
ties can be sized, and the strength of the grade beam can be checked against the applied anchorage forces. If
the strength of the grade beam is adequate, the design is successful.
Appendix A defines a “D-region” as a region where the usual plane sections assumption is not applicable,
and strut-and-tie design provisions may be employed. Based on the anchorage geometry and Section A.1
guidelines, D-regions exist through the entirety of the grade beam which resists applied anchorage forces.
Figure 8–6 shows the assumed bottle shaped struts that are formed to resist the forces generated in the
grade beam.
An idealized, determinate truss can be constructed by considering struts as uniaxial compression members,
and the longitudinal reinforcement between the struts as uniaxial tension members. Angles formed by struts
are assumed symmetric at each node. The constructed truss is shown in Figure 8–7.
The truss can be made determinate by considering the far ends as a roller and a pin support. Figure 8–8
shows the resulting force distribution and geometry.

Figure 8–6. Struts formed in grade beam due to anchorage forces
Figure 8–7. Idealized truss formed in grade beam resisting anchorage forces

Figure 8–8. Idealized truss layout and force distribution
7.1 DETERMINE DEMANDS
Force demands are determined using standard truss analysis. To perform the analysis, as previously
mentioned, reinforcement locations must be selected. One layer is chosen for both top and bottom grade
beam reinforcement. The upper reinforcement is chosen to be 4 inches from the top surface based on
cover requirements, and since the lower reinforcement must be elevated to provide enough cover for the
extending anchor below, the lower reinforcement is chosen to be 9 inches from the bottom of the grade
beam. Values h, a, and θ are calculated as follows:
N y ⎛ 32 in 5 85 in ⎞
a f+ − = ⎜ 12 in + − = 25.08 in
2 2 ⎝ 2 2 ⎟⎠
h=( i ) − ( i ) – (4 in) = 35 in
⎛ h⎞ ⎛ 35.00 ⎞
a −1 ⎜ ⎟ = tan −1 ⎜
θ = tan = 0.949 = 54.4°
4 .
⎝ a⎠ ⎝ 25.08 ⎟⎠
Section A.2.5 requires that the angle between the axes of any strut and any tie entering a single node shall
not be taken as less than 25 degrees. Since here θ = 54.4 degrees, the truss geometry is permissible.
Reactions at the assumed supports can be determined through statics as follows:
1 1
Ra (T − P) = (478.72 kips − 142 kips) = 112.24 kips
3 3
1 1
Rb (T + 2 P) = [478.72 kips − 2(142 kip )] = 254.24 kipss .
3 3

Forces in each member can be determined through standard truss analysis, and are calculated as follows:
1 1
Fac (T − P) = − (478.72 kips − 142
4 kips) = −138 kips
3 sin(θ) 3( i (0.949))
a (25.07 in)
Fad = (T P) = (478.72 kips − 142 kipss) 80 kips
3h 3(35 i )
1 1
Fbd (T + 2 P) = − (478.72 kips + 2(142 kip )) = −313 kips
3 sin(θ) 3( i (0.949))
a (25.07 in)
Fcb = (T + 2 P) = (478.72 kips + 2(142 ki
k ps)) = 182 kips
3h 3(35 i )
1 1
Fcd (2T + P) = − (2(478.72 kipss) kips
kips) 451 kips
3 sin(θ) 3( i (0.949))
where compression is indicated by a negative value.
7.2 DETERMINE CAPACITY OF STRUTS, TIES, AND NODAL ZONES
ACI 318 provisions require that the struts, ties, and nodal zones (truss joints) meet strength requirements
given in Appendix A. This section will proceed by first determining reinforcement sizes required to meet
tie demands based on the assumed geometry, then strut and nodal zone capacities will be calculated. In
practice, each strut and nodal zone should be analyzed to ensure the strength of the entire truss system
meets the required demands. Here, it is apparent that the most critical strut end and nodal zone exists at (c)
in Figure 8–8. This location will be analyzed in detail, but it should be noted that the remaining nodal
zones may be analyzed in an analogous manner. Figure 8–9 shows the geometry and applied forces at nodal
zone (c).
Figure 8–9. Geometry and applied forces at nodal zone (c)

Figure 8–9 shows that the nodal zone is split into two zones, each resisting a strut that acts on a face of
the nodal zone. The node is split based on the factor α, which is based on the magnitude of the strut forces
acting at the zone, and is calculated as follows:
Fac (136.17 kips)

α= = = 0.234 .
Fac + Fcd (136.17 kips) + (444.62 kips
p)
The height of the nodal zone, hs, is taken as twice the distance from the plate face to the centerline of the
bottom reinforcement. The plate face is chosen to be embedded to a depth of 42 inches, resulting in hs = 6
inches. The length of the anchor plate, ls , is taken as 8.5 inches based on an initial anchor plate footprint
sizing of 81⁄2 inches × 7 inches. Section 9.2.3.6 states that strut-and-tie models and struts, ties, nodal zones,
and bearing areas in such models are to use a strength reduction factor of
φ = 0 75. ACI 318 9.2.3.6
Strength of Ties
According to Section A.4.1, the strength of a nonprestressed tie, Fnt , shall be taken as
φ nt
φ
φAts f y
and
Fu ≤ φFnt
where Ats is the area of the tie and fy is the yield strength of the tie. Thus, the area of each tie, assuming
ASTM A615 grade 60 material, can be computed as follows:
Fac ( kip )
Ats ,ac ≥ = = 3.07 in 2
φff y ( .75)(60 ksi)
Fcb ( kip )
Ats ,cb ≥ = = 4.04 in 2 .
φff y ( .75)(60 ksi)
Ties should be selected based on the required areas and so that the placement of the ties are compatible
with the location of the anchors. Based on the anchorage configuration, one layer of five reinforcing bars
spaced at 8 inches is selected. The resulting bar sizes are selected considering the practical advantage of
having identical longitudinal reinforcement on top and bottom of the cross section. The area of each bar is
Ats ,cb 4.04 in 2

Ab ,n = = = 0.809 in 2 .
5 5
Thus,
USE #9 BARS (AREA = 1.00 IN2) AT 8 INCHES ON

CENTER TOP AND BOTTOM LONGITUDINAL
REINFORCEMENT FOR GRADE BEAM

Strength of Struts
The compressive strength of a strut without longitudinal reinforcement, Fns , shall be taken as the smaller
value of the following equation evaluated at the two ends of the strut:
Fns fce Acs . ACI 318 A–2
Here, Acs is the cross-sectional area at one end of the strut, and fce is the smaller value of the effective
compressive strength of the concrete in strut, given by
fce 5β s′ fc′ ACI 318 A–3
and the effective compressive strength of concrete in the nodal zone is given by
fce 5β n′ fc′ . ACI 318 A–8
According to Section A.3.2.2, for bottle-shaped struts, assuming shear reinforcement will be added to the
grade beam, β s′ is taken as 0.75. According to Section A.5.2.2, for nodal zones anchoring one tie, β n′ is
taken as 0.80. The area of the strut is calculated considering the minimum width of the strut in the plane of
loading, ws , shown in Figure 8–9, and the effective width in the transverse direction, bs. Conservatively, bs
is taken as the sum of the widths of each of the anchoring plates. Anchor-plate footprints are initially sized
at 81⁄2 inches × 7 inches. Thus, the compressive strength of the larger strut is calculated as follows:
Acs ws bs [hs cos(θ) + ( − α )ls sin(θ)](4 × 7 in)

= {(6 )[cos(
)[ (5 )] + (1 − 0. )(8.5 in)[sin(54 4°)]}
] ( i )
= 246.03 in 2
φFns φfce Acs 5β s′ fc′Acs = (0.755)(0.85)(0.755)(4 kksi)(246. in 2 ) 470.54 kips .
It follows that,
Fcd ≤ φFns . . . OK.
Therefore, the strength of the larger strut is adequate to resist the applied loads. The compressive strength
of the smaller strut is analyzed as follows:
Acs ws bs [hs cos(θ) + αls sin(θ)](4 × 7 in)

= {(6 )[cos(
)[ (5 )] + (0. )(8.5 in)[sin(54.4°)]}( i )
= 113.51 in 2
φFns φfce Acs 5β s′ fc′Acs = (0.755)(0.85)(0.755)(4 kksi)(113.5 in 2 ) 143.08 kips
Fac ≤ φFns . . . OK.

Strength of Nodal Zone
The strengths of nodal zones at faces connecting to struts are equivalent to the strengths of the struts at
those locations (excluding the β n′ factor, which acts to increase the capacity at the faces). Therefore, it is
apparent that the strengths at the faces of the nodal zone connecting to struts are adequate to resist the
applied loads. The strength at the face connecting to a tie is analyzed as follows:
Fnn fce Anz ACI 318 A–7

Anz hs bs = (6 ) × (4 × i ) = 168 in 2
φFnn φfce Anz φ β n′ fc′Anz = (0.755)(0.85)(0.80)(4
4 ksi)(168 in 2 ) 342.72 kips
Fcb ≤ φFnn . . . OK.
The strength at the bearing face is analyzed as follows:
Anz ls bs = (8.5 in) × (4 × 7 in) = 238 in 2

φFnn φfce Anz φ β n′ fc′Anz = (0.755)(0.85)(0.80)(4
4 ksi)(238 in 2 ) 485
5.52 kips
T ≤ φFnn . . . OK.
STRENGTHS OF TIES, STRUTS, AND NODAL ZONE AT (C)

ARE ADEQUATE TO RESIST APPLIED LOADS
7.3 DESIGN ANCHOR PLATES
The anchor plates are expected to bend due to bearing against the concrete when anchors are in tension.
Planar cantilever bending is assumed, and the strength of a plate is checked against the bending moment
induced in the plate in a similar fashion as is demonstrated in AISC Design Guide 1 Section 3.3.2 for base-
plate bending. Bending is assumed symmetric, and the cantilever length, x, is the distance that the plate
extends beyond the anchor nut. A standard hex nut for a 2-inch anchor rod has a width, whex, of 3 inches.
The following analysis, assuming A572 Grade 50 anchor plate material, is used to size the thickness of the
anchor plate, tap:
1 1
x (ls − whex ) = (8.5 in − 3 i ) = 2.75 in.
2 2
The moment per unit length to be resisted by the plate can be calculated considering the bearing pressure,
fp , exerted on the bearing area of the plate, Abrg, as follows:
Abrg
r
Ap − Ab = (8.5 in) × (7.5 in
i ) − ( .14 in 2 ) = 60.61 in 2
fpx2 ⎛ T ⎞ ⎛ x2 ⎞
M pl = = ⎜ i ⎟⎜ ⎟.
r ⎠⎝
2 ⎝ Abbrg 2⎠
The nominal bending strength per unit length is as follows:

2
Fy taap
Rn = .
4

Therefore, with φ = 0.9,
M pl ≤ φRn
4 M pl 2Ti x 2 2(120 kip )(2.75 in)2
tap ≤ = = = 0 82
φFy φFy Abrg (0.9)(50 )(60.61 i 2 )
USE 81⁄2-INCH × 7-INCH × 1-INCH

ASTM A572 GRADE 50 ANCHOR PLATES
7.4 DESIGN SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
Grade beam shear reinforcement is designed for the region in the beam where anchorage forces are resisted.
ACI Appendix A requires that certain requirements are met that are consistent with the strut-and-tie analysis
performed. An initial design will be based on minimum requirements for areas of shear reinforcement in
deep beams specified in Section 11.7.4 as follows:
Av min 0 0025bgb s ACI 318 11.7.4.1

Avh ,min 0 0025bgb s2 ACI 318 11.7.4.2
where Av is the vertical reinforcement, Avh is the horizontal shear reinforcement, s is the longitudinal
spacing for vertical reinforcement, and s2 is the vertical spacing for longitudinal shear reinforcement. The
maximum spacing is as follows:
⎛ d gb ⎞
smax s2,max = min ⎜ ,12 in ⎟ = min(9.6 in, i ) = 9 6 in.
in
in)
⎝ 5 ⎠
By setting the spacing s and s2 at 9 inches, it follows that,
Av ,min Avh ,min = 0. 5(36 in)(9 in

i ) .81 in 2
Appendix A dictates that when using a strut-and-tie model, the following equation for shear reinforcement
must be satisfied:
Av Avh
sin(α1 ) sin(
i ( 2
) ≥ 0.003 ACI 318 A–4
bgb s bgb s2
where α1 is the angle between the strut axis and the vertical reinforcement, and α2 is the angle between
the strut axis and the horizontal reinforcement. By setting the vertical reinforcement at a minimum, the
horizontal shear reinforcement can be determined as follows:
⎛ A ⎞ bgb s2
Avh = ⎜ 0.003
003 − v sin( 1 )⎟
⎝ bgb s ⎠ sin(α 2 )
⎛ 0 81 in 2 ⎞ (366 i )( i )
= ⎜ 0.003 − sin(35.6°)⎟ = 0.62 in 2 .
⎝ (36 i )(9 i ) ⎠ sin( 54.4°)

It follows that minimum shear reinforcement is adequate in the vertical and longitudinal directions. Based
on the reinforcement area and spacing requirements, it is determined that #3 stirrups (Area = 0.11 in2)
can be used in the vertical direction spaced at 9 inches, and #3 strands can be used on either side in the
horizontal direction in the configuration shown in Figure 8–10, the final base connection design.
Figure 8–10. Base connection design

Design Example 9
Braced-Frame Base Plate
OVERVIEW
This example shows procedures for the design of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame (BRB) base plates.
This example includes the design of the connection of the Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame gusset to the
base plate and column, the column connection to the base plate, sizing of the base plate, and the connection
of the base plate to the foundation. BRB connections are designed for the ultimate loads that can be
delivered to the connections from the brace based on the brace expected yield strength, strain hardening,
and, when applicable, compression overstrength. This is done such that yielding of the system will occur in
the brace and not in the base plate. That is, a capacity design is performed.
OUTLINE
1. Design Parameters
2. Gusset Plate Design
3. Base Plate Design
4. Foundation Anchorage Design
1. Design Parameters
This design example is based on the information calculated in Design Example 3 (Buckling-Restrained
Braced Frame).
Design Parameters:
Maximum brace size: As = 5.0 in2
Typical bay spacing = 30 ft
Base story height = 12 ft
Fy (BRB) = 42 ksi +/− 4 ksi
Maximum brace yield strength = 46 ksi
β = 1.04
ω = 1.54
Ry = 1.0
Column size = W14 × 211
Sds = 1.0

Design Example 9 䡲 Braced-Frame Base Plate
Material Properties:
Concrete: fc′ = 4000 psi
W-Shapes: ASTM A992; Fy = 60 ksi
Rectangular HSS: ASTM A 500, Grade B; Fy = 46 ksi
Plate: ASTM A 572, Grade 50; Fy = 50 ksi
Anchor Rods: ASTM F 1554 Grade 55; Fy = 55 ksi
Reinforcement: ASTM A615 Grade 60; Fy = 60 ksi
1.2 PIN VS. FIXED BASE DESIGN
This section will provide a discussion on different modeling and design options. Moving forward, the
design of the plate will be done based on a “pin” assumption. Figure 9–1 shows the conceptual force
diagram for the base connection. The vertical component of the brace force will be taken by the anchor
bolts, while the horizontal shear component of the brace force will be resisted by a HSS drag strut.
Pu
Pv
Pu
Figure 9–1. BRB connection force diagram

2. Gusset Plate Design ASCE 7
2.1 BRB CONNECTION TO GUSSET PLATE
The connection of the BRB to the gusset plate varies among brace manufacturers. BRB connections can
be bolted, welded, or pinned. In designing the BRB, all connection types should be considered during the
design phase. The final design of the connection of the BRB to the gusset plate should be provided by the
manufacturer. Typically the design of the gusset plate and its connection to the base plate is provided by the
manufacturer as well; however, it is recommended that the engineer provide minimum weld lengths as part
of the contract documents.
2.2 DETERMINE CONNECTION DESIGN FORCE
The connection of the brace is designed for the maximum force that can be delivered by the brace. During a
seismic event, strain hardening will occur in the brace, which increases the capacity of the brace. Therefore
the capacity of the brace should be increased by the strain-hardening adjustment factor, ω. Additionally, the
brace capacity should be increased by the compression-strength adjustment factor, β, which accounts for
increased capacity of the brace when subject to compression loading. Both β and ω are determined based
on testing of the brace and should be provided by the brace manufacturer. Finally, the brace capacity should
be multiplied by Ry which is the ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum yield stress, Fy
of the brace material. For different member types, values of Ry are given in Table A3.1 of the AISC 341-10
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. In this design example a range of material is considered
from 38 ksi to 46 ksi. The upper value of 46 ksi will be used; therefore, Ry is set equal to 1.0.
The connection should be designed for the maximum tension and compression loads that can be delivered
by the brace. The maximum connection design force under compression is
Puc = βωRy Fy As
Puc = (1.04)(1.54)(1.0)(46 ksi)(5.0 in2)
Puc = 368 k.
The maximum connection design force under tension is
Put = ωRy Fy As
Put = (1.54)(1.0)(46 ksi)(5.0 in2)
Put = 354 k.
2.3 SIZE CONNECTION WELDS
Size connection of weld to the base plate:
Brace Angle:
θ = tan−1(12/15) = 38.6°.
Horizontal component of brace force:
Ph = cos(38.6°)*368 k = 288 k.

The work point for the brace is located at the center-line of the column at the top of the base plate;
therefore, there is no eccentricity between the horizontal component of the force and design weld. Half of
the horizontal force will be taken directly through the gusset plate to the HSS strut, while the other half will
be transferred through the base plate to the HSS; see Figure 9–5 for the HSS connection to the base plate
and gusset. Assuming a two-sided, 1⁄4-inch fillet weld, size weld length:
φ n
φ[0.6 FEXX ( )(D
)( 6)]
φ n
φ[
φ 0.6( k i)( / )( ) × 2 sides
6)]
φRn = 11.1
ᐉ = (288 k/2)/11.1 = 12.9 in → 13-in minimum weld length required.
The vertical component of brace force transferred to the column is
Pv = sin(38.6°)*368 k = 230 k.
Because the work point for the brace is located at the center-line of the column, and the resisting weld
occurs at the face of the column, an eccentricity occurs between the force and the weld that is to be added
to the design force of the weld. The eccentricity of the weld is equal to half of the column depth:
e = 15.7 in/2 = 7.9 in.
Using Table 8–11 in AISC 360-05 for eccentrically loaded weld groups, where the force angle is equal to
zero, determine the size and length of fillet weld required to resist the vertical force component. Since there
is no return weld, the value of k is set equal to zero.
Assuming a two-sided, 3⁄8-inch fillet weld, try a weld length of 20 inches.
e = aᐉ.
Therefore, a = e/ᐉ = 7.9 in/20 in = 0.395 ∼ 0.4.
Using Table 8–11 for a = 0.4, then C = 1.33.
Check the minimum weld length required for the determined C value to confirm the original length
assumption. For LRFD:
ᐉmin = Pu /φCC1D
where: φ = 0.75
C = 1.33
C1 = 1.0 (per Table 8–3 for E70XX electrodes)
D = 12 (D is equal to the number of sixteenths-of-an-inch in the fillet-weld size;
for a two-sided 3⁄8-inch fillet this is equal to 12)
ᐉmin = 230 k/(0.75 × 1.33 × 1.0 × 12)
= 19.2 in < 20 in.
Therefore, the original assumption is acceptable. Use a two-sided, 20-inch-long, 3⁄8-inch fillet weld.

Figure 9–2. Connection weld requirements
3. Base Plate Design
3.1 COLUMN CONNECTION TO BASE PLATE
The connection of the column to the base plate should be designed for the maximum tension values that
can be delivered to the system by the braced-frame system. Table 9–1 shows the forces to the column as
determined in Design Example 3.

Table 9–1. Column design forces
Asc Pysc wβRy Pysc PE = Pbr sinθ* DL LL LLr P(1.4D + 0.5L + E) ΣPuc P(0.7D − E) ΣPut
Level abv. (kips) (kips) (kips) TA (psf) (psf) (psf) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 0 0 0 0 900 31 20 48 48 20 20
6th 2 92 147 92 900 67.7 65 207 255 −49 −30
5th 2.5 115 184 115 900 67.7 65 230 484 −72 −102
4th 3.5 161 258 161 900 67.7 65 276 760 −118 −221
3rd 4.5 207 332 207 900 67.7 65 322 1081 −164 −385
2nd 5 230 368 230 900 67.7 65 345 1426 −187 −572
1st 5 230 368 230 230 1656 −230 −802
*Pbr is equal to the brace force with overstrength
For the connection of the column to the base plate, provide a CJP weld of the column flanges and a fillet
weld for the column web. Per AISC 360 Table J2.5 for tension welds normal to the weld axis, the strength
of the joint is controlled by the base metal. Therefore, the strength of the flange CJP welds will be equal to
the strength of the column flanges:
φRn = φFBM ABM for W14 × 211: bf = 15.8 in and tf = 1.56 in

= 0.9(50 ksi)(2 × 15.8 in × 1.56 in)
= 2218 k.
Therefore, the CJP weld of the flanges is adequate for the transfer of the column tension forces. Provide a
minimum required fillet weld for the column web. For a W14 × 211, the thickness of the web is 1 inch. Per
AISC 360 Table J2.4, the minimum required fillet weld for 1-inch material is 5⁄16 inch. Therefore, for the
column connection to the base plate, provide a CJP weld for both column flanges and a 5⁄16-inch fillet weld
for the column web.
Alternatively, a PJP weld can be considered. If a PJP weld is used, it is recommended that it be toughness
rated. The PJP weld should be sized for the tension demands of the column. From Table 1, the tension for
the column is equal to 802 kips.
φRn = φFw Aw,
From Table J2.5, for a groove weld in tension φ = 0.8, and Fw = 0.6FEXX. Therefore the required area of the
weld is
Aw = 802 k/0.8/(0.6 × 70 ksi)

= 23.8 in2.
The effective area of the weld is equal to the length of the weld times the effective throat thickness.
Therefore, the required throat thickness is equal to
tmin = 23.8 in2/2 flanges/15.8 in

= 0.754 in → 7⁄8-inch effective throat required.

3.2 PLATE MATERIAL SELECTION
For this design example, ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel will be used, which has a yield value of 50 ksi and an
ultimate strength of 65 ksi. In areas of lower seismicity, ASTM A36 Grade 36 steel may be used.
3.3 DETERMINE BASE-PLATE THICKNESS
The base-plate thickness is determined by the maximum tension and compression values that can be
delivered to the plate. For sizing of the base-plate thickness, the values of B and N will be based determined
assuming 11⁄2-inch-diameter anchor rods, which require 31⁄2-inch square washers minimum per AISC 360
Table 14–2. For this example, the value of N will be based on the area of plate directly below the column;
see Figure 9–3.
Figure 9–3. Base-plate dimensions
The critical base-plate cantilever dimension is based on the maximum values of m, n, and λn′. For the
purpose of this design example, λ will conservatively be taken as 1.0. For W14 × 211, bf = 15.8 inches and
d = 15.7 inches.
m = (N − 0.95d)/2 = (28 in − 0.95 × 15.7 in)/2 = 6.54 in

n = (B − 0.8bf )/2 = (22 in − 0.8 × 15.8 in)/2 = 4.68 in
λ λ db f / = ( 15 × 5. /44) = 3.93 in
ᐉ = max(m, n, λn′) = max(6.54 in, 4.68 in, 3.93 in) = 6.54 in
tmin 2P
Pu / 0.9 Fy BN = 6.54
BN 5 in 2 × 1656 kips/ ( .9 × 50 ksi × 22 i 28 i )
28 2.26 in
Use a Grade 50 21⁄2-inch base plate. For the tension check of the plate, see Section 4.3.

4. Foundation Anchorage Design
4.1 SIZE FOUNDATION THICKNESS
Footing sizes will be sized based on the maximum force that can be delivered to the system. From
ASCE 7-05 the maximum tension and compression cases for the foundation design will be
Puc = (1.2 + 0.2Sds) D + 0.5L + E, where Sds = 1.0

Put = (0.9D − 0.2Sds)D − E.
Soil-bearing values to be used in the sizing of footings should be provided by the geotechnical engineer on
the project for the specific site. Alternatively, default lower bound values can be used as provided in Table
1806.2 of the 2010 California Building Code. For the purpose of this design example we will assume a soil
bearing value of 5000 psf under Dead and Live loads, with an allowable one-third increase under seismic
loading. For determination of footing sizes and uplift forces to the foundation, ultimate brace forces are
not required to be used. Instead, the brace demand forces are used to calculate the maximum compression
and tension forces that are delivered to the foundation. Table 9–2 shows the forces as determined in Design
Example 3.
Table 9–2. Foundation design forces
P(1.4D + 0.5L + E) P(0.7D − E)

Asc Pbr PE = Pbr sinθ DL LL LLr At Floor Level ΣPuc At Floor Level ΣPut
Level abv. (kips) (kips) TA (psf) (psf) (psf) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 0 0 0 900 31 20 48 48 20 20
6th 2 29.9 23 900 67.7 65 138 186 19 39
5th 2.5 72 56 900 67.7 65 171 357 −14 25
4th 3.5 108.6 85 900 67.7 65 200 557 −42 −18
3rd 4.5 135 106 900 67.7 65 220 777 −63 −81
2nd 5 151 118 900 67.7 65 233 1010 −76 −156
1st 5 159.2 125 125 1135 −125 −281
Size the footing based on the maximum compression force based on ASD loads. The controlling ASD load
combination for this example will be 1.105D + 0.75L + 0.525E, which is equal to 804 kips:
B = 804 k/ (5000 psf

p f * 1.33) = 1100 99 f → f × 12-ft-squar
ft q are footing.
Determine the foundation thickness based on the punching shear of the footing based on the maximum
compression force per Table 9–2. The punching shear strength of the footing is determined by ACI
Section 11.11.2.1 as
φVc φdbo fc′ ACI Eq 11–33
The critical perimeter bo is one-half the effective depth from a plane halfway between the face of the
column and the edge of the base plate. Assume a footing depth of 3 feet with rebar clear cover of 3 inches
and #8 reinforcing.

Therefore,
d = 36 in − 3 in − 1⁄2 in = 321⁄2 in
and
bo = 2x(0.95dcol + m + d + 0.8bf + n + d) = 207.5 in

φVc = 4 × 0.75 × 32.5 × 207.55 × 4000 p i = 1279
9 k > 1135 k.
steel column
m c
m
2
m
2
critical base plate

section
d
2
c+m+d
critical perimeter
Figure 9–4. Punching shear
Alternatively, a grade-beam system can be used to facilitate transfer of loads in the foundation system
and reduce the size of the square footings. It is recommended that grade beams be used to connect the
foundations in a frame system and facilitate the transfer of the frame shear forces as detailed in Section 4.2.

4.2 TRANSFER OF SHEAR TO THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM
The shear component of the brace force will be resolved in the foundation system through a strap. For this
example a square HSS will be used to provide the strap element.
The HSS section shall be sized based on the maximum horizontal brace force component Ph. Since the HSS
will be slotted and welded to the gusset plate, the reduced section shall be checked assuming a gusset plate
thickness of 11⁄2 inches.
Determine area of steel required for the HSS section:
As = Ph /φFy = 288 k/(0.9 × 46 ksi) = 6.95 in2 → HSS 6 × 6 × 3⁄8.
For HSS 6 × 6 × 3⁄8: As = 7.58 in2. Check HSS reduced section for fracture:
Ae = As − 2x((tgusset + 1⁄8 in) × tHSS)

= 7.58 in2 − 2 × (15⁄8 in × 0.349 in)
= 6.44 in2
φPu = φAe × Fu
= 1.0 × 6.44 in2 × 58 ksi
= 373 k > Ph.
Size the weld of HSS to the gusset. Half of the horizontal load is being transferred directly from the gusset,
while half is transferred through the base plate. Based on the gusset geometry, a starting weld length of
17 inches was selected.
Ph φRn = φ[0.6 FEXX ( )( 16)], where

)(D whe = 17 in
= 0.75[0.6 × 70 k i( 2 / 2)( /16
16)]17 × 4 sides
= 94.6 D
D = 288 k/94.6 = 3.04 → 1⁄4-in fillet weld
Figure 9–5. HSS strap connection


To transfer the shear loads to the concrete, welded headed studs will be used. Assuming 3⁄4-inch diameter
WHSs on each side, determine the number of studs required based on the nominal horizontal shear capacity
of the stud as given in Table 3–21 of AISC 360.
Per Table 3–21 for normal-weight concrete with compressive strength of 4 ksi:
Qn = 21.5 ksi.
Therefore, the number of studs required to transfer the shear to the concrete is
Ph /Qn = 288 k/21.5 ksi = 13.4 studs → place studs at 12 in o.c.
The HSS strut beam can be ended after the forces have been transferred to the slab-on-grade diaphragm.
Alternatively, the HSS strut beam can be extended to the adjacent column. In the case that the adjacent
column is not a seismic column, it is recommended that a horizontal slotted connection be provided to the
adjacent column to eliminate any horizontal force transfer to the column. The slab diaphragm connection
should be checked to confirm transfer to the grade beam foundation through slab dowels; see Figure 9–7 for
slab dowels. The number of dowels required to transfer the shear force through shear friction of the dowel
bars, assuming #5 bars is
φVn = φAvf × fy × μ
where, φ = 0.75
Avf = 0.31 in2
fy = 60 ksi
μ = 1.0 (provide concrete shear key between grade beam and slab)
φVn = 0.75(0.31 in2)(60 ksi)(1.0) = 13.9 k.
Since Ph = 288 k, the number of dowel bars required is
288 k/(13.9 k/bar) = 21 dowel bars → provide two rows of #5 dowel bars at 12 in o.c.
4.3 TRANSFER OF TENSION TO THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM
The anchor bolts shall be sized based on the maximum uplift of the system. For this case the maximum
tension force that can be delivered to the connection is −802 kips as was determined in Table 1.

Pu = 802k
10'' 10''
Figure 9–6. Anchor-force distribution
Treating the base plate as a rigid body, the forces in the anchor rods will be
Pu = 6P1.
Therefore, P = 802 k/6 = 133.6 k per anchor rod. Using Gr 105 rods then,
As_rod = 133.6 k/(0.9 × 105 ksi)

= 1.41 in2
φrod 2 _rod
/π
/π /π = 13 = 1.34 in → use 1½-in-diameter anchor rods.
/π
Check base plate in bending to confirm rigid body assumption for distribution of tension force:
Mu = 2P1 × e
e = 10 in − d/2 − tf/2 = 10 in − 15.7 in/2 + 1.56 in/2 = 2.93 in
Mu = 2(133.6 k) × 2.93 in
= 782 k-in.
For a 21⁄2-inch base plate with anchor spacing of 20 inches:
Z = (20 in)(2.5 in)2/4 = 31.25 in3

σ = Mu /Z = 782 k-in/34.38 in3 = 25 ksi < 50 ksi.

To transfer the anchor-rod loads to the foundation, an embedded plate will be used. The plate is extended
below the bottom layer of reinforcing bars to engage the reinforcing. The reinforcing must extend beyond
the embedded plate long enough to develop the full capacity of the reinforcing bar, or hooks shall be
provided. The reinforcing bars must be adequate to resist the column uplift forces. Therefore the number of
bottom bars required to resist uplift is
802 k / 2 planes / 0.75 / 60 ksi = 8.9 in2 → nine # 8 bars.
Since the reinforcing bars are fully engaged, the Appendix D method is no longer applicable.
Figure 9–7. Foundation anchorage
The anchorage plate should be sized for the bending forces in the plate. The two rows of bolts are located 8
inches from the center line of the plate. The uplift will be resisted through the plate bearing on the concrete;
therefore, the bearing of the plate is equal to the uplift force over the bearing width:
wu = 802 k/16 in = 50.1 k-in

Mu = wuᐉ2/8 = (50.1 k-in)(16)2/8 = 1604 k-in.

The width of the plate will be taken based on the spacing of the anchors plus 3 inches from the centerline
of the bolt. Therefore, the width of the plate is equal to 2 feet, 2 inches. Using a 50 ksi plate, the required
modulus for the plate is
Zx = Mu /0.9/Fy = (1604 k-in)/0.9/50 ksi

= 35.6 in3
Zx = bh2/4 where b = 26 in.
Therefore, the required plate thickness is
t = 35.66 3
4 / 26 in = 2 34 in → use 21⁄2 × 22 × 26-in plate.
Checking the concrete for breakout in tension, with the plate width taken as the distance between the
anchors:
bo = 2 × (20 in + 32.5 in) + 2 × (16 in + 32.5 in) = 202 in

φVc = 4 × 0.75 × 32.5 × 202 × 4000 psi
= 1245 k > 802 k.
• Design of the foundations.

Appendix 1
General Building Information
The following information is used for most of the design examples in this volume and is presented here
to reduce repetition. Design Example 6, which is a one-story industrial building, uses only the location,
site class, and spectral accelerations; it uses a different geometry and roof assembly weight. Each design
example cites this appendix at the points in the design process at which the information is applied.
This appendix contains the following information:
1. General Information
2. Building Geometry
3. Assembly Weights
4. Floor and Roof Weights
5. Design Spectral Accelerations
6. Seismic Design Category
7. Load Combinations
GENERAL INFORMATION
• Office occupancy on all floors
• Located in San Francisco, CA (site location: Latitude 37.783°, Longitude −122.392°).
• Site Class D
• Risk Category II
BUILDING GEOMETRY
• 120-foot × 150-foot centerline dimension in plan with typical floor and roof framing shown
in Figure A1–1. The edge of the deck dimension is approximately 1 foot, 6 inches from the
gridline.
• Six-stories as shown in Figures A1–2 and A1–3.
10_Appendix_1_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 295 8/16/13 12:02 PM

Appendix 1 䡲 General Building Information
Figure A1–1. Typical floor and roof framing plan
Figure A1–2. Building elevation

Figure A1–3. Building axonometric view
ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS
Floor
Floor finish 5.7 psf 5.7 psf

2-in, 18-ga. deck 2.7 psf 2.7 psf
31⁄4-in light-weight concrete fill 39.0 psf 39.0 psf
Steel framing 10.7 psf 10.7 psf
Mechanical / Plumbing / Electrical 4.7 psf 4.7 psf
Ceiling 4.7 psf 4.7 psf
Partitions Under Live Load 10.7 psf 4
Miscellaneous 3.7 psf 3.7 psf
Total Dead Load 67.7 psf 77.7 psf
Office Building Live Loads1 Live Load

Lobbies and stairs = 100 psf 100 psf
Offices = 50 psf + 15 psf partition2 65 psf
Corridors above 1st floor = 80 psf 80 psf

Roof
Built-up roof 6 psf 6 psf

Metal roof deck 4 psf 4 psf
Steel framing 8 psf 8 psf
Mechanical / Plumbing / Electrical 4 psf 4 psf
Ceiling 4 psf 4 psf
Partitions 0 psf 5 psf 4
Roof Live Loads1 Live Load

Ordinary Flat Roof 20 psf
Exterior Wall
Cladding 7 psf 7 psf

Metal studs 2 psf 2 psf
5
⁄8-in gypsum board 3 psf 3 psf
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.
FLOOR AND ROOF WEIGHTS

Floor 77.7 15,220 1183
Typical floor 1315
Ext wall 19 6990 133
Roof 36 15,220 548
Roof 656
Ext wall/Parapet 19 5700 108
W = 5(1315 kips) + 656 kips = 7231 kips.

DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS ASCE 7
USGS web tools can be used to determine the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral
accelerations for 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 found on the USGS website at https://geohazards.usgs
.gov/secure/designmaps/us/application.php to get the SS and S1 values interpolated for this site. The output
values are
SS = 1.50g S1 = 0.60g
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 = Fa SS = 1.0 × 1.50 = 1.50g Eq 11.4–1

SM1 = Fv S1 = 1.5 × 0.60 = 0.90g Eq 11.4–2
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are
2 2
S DS S MS = × 1 50 = 1.00 g Eq 11.4–3
3 3
2 2
SD S = × 0 90 0.60 g Eq 11.4–4
3 M1 3
SDS = 1.00g SD1 = 0.60g
SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY ASCE 7

Risk Category = II T 1.5–1/IBC T 1604.5
Importance Factor = 1.0 T 11.5–1
Short Period Seismic Design Category = D (for SDS = 1.0g) T 11.6–1
1-sec Seismic Design Category = D (for SD1 = 0.60g) 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 = D §11.6

LOAD COMBINATIONS ASCE 7
E = Eh ± E v Eq 12.4–1 and Eq 12.4–2

Eh QE Eq 12.4–3
Ev 0 2 S DS D 0 2 1 0 D = 0 2 D ; therefore, Eq 12.4–4
E ρQE + 0 2 D
Em = Em ± E v Eq 12.4–5 and Eq 12.4–6

Emh ΩoQE Eq 12.4–7
Em ΩoQE ± 0 2 D .
Load combinations of consequence are

§12.4.2.3
1.22 D 1 0 E + 0 5 L 1.4 D + 0 5 L ρQE Load Combo 5 (modified)
0 9 D 1 0 E = 0 7 D ρQE Load Combo 7 (modified)
§12.4.3.2
1.22 D 1 0 Em + 0 5 L 1.4 D + 0 5 L ΩoQE Load Combo 5 (modified)
0 9 D 1 0 Em = 0 7 D ΩoQE . Load Combo 7 (modified)

$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,&&
11_BM_Ads_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 301 8/16/13 12:06 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 Vol4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 Ibc Seaoc SSDM Vol4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 IBC

SEAOC STRUCTURAL/SEISMIC DESIGN MANUAL

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd i 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

International Code Council

First Printing: August 2013

ii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd ii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

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

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 iii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd iii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

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

Appendix 1: General Building Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 v

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd v 8/28/13 5:13 PM

This expanded edition comprises five volumes:

• Volume 1: Code Application Examples

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 vii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd vii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 ix

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd ix 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Anindya Dutta, S.E., Ph.D, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger—Example 3

Kenneth Tam, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger—Example 3

Matthew R. Eatherton, Ph.D., S.E., Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech—Example 4

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xi

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xi 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Anna Dix, S.E., Associate, Liftech Consultants Inc.—Example 6

Katy Briggs, S.E., Project Engineer, Thornton Tomasetti—Example 7

Lindsey Maclise, Associate, Forell/Elsesser Engineers Inc.—Example 9

xii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Production and art was provided by the International Code Council.

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xiii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xiii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xv

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xv 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Englehardt, M. Personal correspondence and notes. 2012.

xvi 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xvi 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2009. “Finite-Element Investigation and Design Recommendations

Roberts, T. M. and Sabouri-Ghomi, S. 1991. “Hysteretic Characteristics of Unstiffened Plate Shear

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xvii

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xvii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Seismology Committee, 2008. SEAOC

Tremblay, R., Archambault, M.-H., Filiatrault, A. “Seismic Response of Concentrically Braced

xviii 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xviii 8/28/13 5:13 PM

Abbreviations used in the “Code Reference” column are

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 xix

00_FM_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd xix 8/28/13 5:13 PM

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4 1

01_Example-01_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 1 8/16/13 12:00 PM

1. Building Geometry and Loads

2. Calculation of the Design Base Shear and Load Combinations

3. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution of Load

5. Element and RBS Connection Design

6. Detailing of RBS Connection

1. Building Geometry and Loads

1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION

2 2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

01_Example-01_2012_IBC_SSDM_V4.indd 2 8/16/13 12:00 PM

Figure 1–1. Typical floor framing plan