Chapter C12
SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR
BUILDING STRUCTURES
C12.3.3.3 Elements Supporting Discontinuous
Walls or Frames
The purpose of the special load combinations is
to protect the gravity load-carrying system against
possible overloads caused by overstrength of the
lateral force-resisting system. Either columns or
beams may be subject to such failure, therefore, both
should include this design requirement. Beams may
be subject to failure due to overloads in either the
downward or upward directions of force. Examples
include reinforced concrete beams, the weaker top
laminations of glulam beams, or unbraced anges of
steel beams or trusses. Hence, the provision has not
been limited simply to downward force, but instead to
the larger context of vertical load. A remaining
issue that has not been fully addressed in this edition
is clarication of the appropriate load case for the
design of the connections between the discontinuous
walls or frames and the supporting elements.
The connection between the discontinuous
element and the supporting member must be adequate
to transmit the forces for which the discontinuous
element was designed. For example, where the
discontinuous element is required to comply with the
special loads specied in Section 12.4.3, as is the case
for steel columns in braced and steel moment frames,
its connection to the supporting member will also be
required to be designed to transmit the same forces.
These same special seismic loads are not required for
shear wall systems and, as such, the connection
between the shear wall and the supporting member
would only need to be designed to transmit the loads
associated with the shear wall and not the special
seismic loads.
C12.3.4 Redundancy
This standard introduces a revised redundancy
factor for structures in Seismic Design Categories D,
E, and F to quantify redundancy. The value of this
factor is either 1.0 or 1.3. This factor has an effect of
reducing the R factor for less redundant structures,
thereby increasing the seismic demand. The factor is
specied in recognition of the need to address the
issue of redundancy in the design. The National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
Commentary Section 5.2.4 explains that this new
revised requirement is intended to quantify the
importance of redundancy. The NEHRP Commen-
tary points out that many non-redundant structures
have been designed in the past using values of R that
were intended for use in designing structures with
higher levels of redundancy. In other words, the use
of the R factor in the design has led to slant in design
in the wrong direction. The NEHRP Commentary
indicates that the source of the revised factor is
Technical Subcommittee 2 of the NEHRP Provisions.
C12.4.3 Seismic Load Effect Including
Overstrength Factor
Some elements of properly detailed structures are
not capable of safely resisting ground-shaking
demands through inelastic behavior. To ensure safety,
these elements must be designed with sufcient
strength to remain elastic. The 0 coefcient approxi-
mates the inherent overstrength in typical structures
having different seismic force-resisting systems. The
special seismic loads, factored by the 0 coefcient,
are an approximation of the maximum force these
elements are ever likely to experience. This standard
permits the special seismic loads to be taken as less
than the amount computed by applying the 0
coefcient to the design seismic forces when it can be
shown that yielding of other elements in the structure
will limit the amount of load that can be delivered to
the element. As an example, the axial load in a
column of a moment-resisting frame will derive from
the shear forces in the beams that connect to this
column. The axial loads due to lateral seismic action
need never be taken as greater than the sum of the
shears in these beams at the development of a full
structural mechanism, considering the probable
strength of the materials and strain-hardening effects
(for frames controlled by beam hinge-type mecha-
nisms this would typically be 2Mp/L, where for steel
frames Mp is the expected plastic moment capacity of
the beam as dened in the AISC Seismic Specica-
tion and for concrete frames, Mp would be the
probable exural strength of the beam, where L is the
clear span length). In other words, as used in this
section, the term capacity means the expected or
median anticipated strength of the element, consider-
ing potential variation in material yield strength and
479
CHAPTER C12 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES
strain-hardening effects. When calculating the
capacity of elements for this purpose, material
strengths should not be reduced by capacity or
resistance factors.
C12.6 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE SELECTION
Table 12.6-1 provides the permitted analysis proce-
dures for all seismic design categories. The table is
applicable only to buildings without seismic isolation
(Chapter 17) or passive energy devices (Chapter 18).
The four basic procedures provided in Table
12.6-1 are Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) analysis
(Section 12.8), modal response spectrum (MRS)
analysis (Section 12.9), and linear response history
(LRH) analysis and nonlinear response history (NRH)
analysis. Requirements for performing response
history analysis are provided in Chapter 16 of the
standard. Nonlinear static pushover analysis is not
provided as an approved analysis procedure in
ASCE 7-05.
The ELF method is allowed for all SDC B and C
buildings, and for all SDC D, E, and F buildings, with
the following two exceptions:
Regular structures with height > 160 ft (48.8 m) and
T > 3.5Ts
Structures with height < 160 ft (48.8 m) and with one
or more of the following irregularities: torsion,
extreme torsion, soft story, extreme soft story,
weight (mass), or vertical geometric.
Ts = SD1/SDS is the period at which the horizontal
and descending parts of the response spectrum
intersect (Figure 11.4-1). The value of Ts will depend
on the Site Class because SDS and SD1 include such
effects. When ELF is not allowed, the analysis must
be performed using modal response spectrum or
response history analysis.
ELF is not allowed for buildings with the listed
irregularities because the procedure is based on an
assumption of a gradually varying distribution of mass
and stiffness along the height and negligible torsional
response. The basis for the 3.5Ts limitation is that the
higher modes become more dominant in taller build-
ings (Lopez and Cruz 1996, Chopra 2007), and as a
result, the ELF method may underestimate the design
base shear and may not correctly predict the vertical
distribution of seismic forces in taller buildings.
C12.7.1 Foundation Modeling
This section provides direction as to how to treat
the interface between the structure and soils. Founda-
480
tion exibility may be included as part of the model
of the structure, but doing so is not required. Where
foundation exibility is not considered, the foundation
elements and the base of the structure may be rigidly
restrained. The rigid restraints should be consistent
with the design of the structure. As an example,
consider a moment frame building without a basement
and with moment-frame columns supported on
footings designed to support shear and axial loads,
i.e., pinned column bases. For such a building, the
base is the level at the top of the footings. If founda-
tion exibility is not considered, the columns should
be restrained horizontally and vertically, but not
rotationally. Consider a moment-frame building with
a basement and the base dened as the level closest to
grade. For this building, horizontal restraint may be
provided at the level closest to grade, as long as the
diaphragm is designed to transfer the shear out of the
moment frame. Because the columns extend through
the basement, they may also be restrained rotationally
and vertically at this level. However, many times it is
better to extend the model through the basement and
provide the vertical and rotational restraints at the
foundation elements, which is more consistent with
the actual building geometry.
C12.8.4.1 Inherent Torsion
Where earthquake forces are applied concurrently
in two orthogonal directions the 5 percent displace-
ment of the center of mass should be applied along a
single orthogonal axis chosen to produce the greatest
effect, but need not be applied simultaneously along
two axes (i.e., in a diagonal direction).
Most diaphragms of light-frame construction are
somewhere between rigid and exible for analysis
purposes, that is, semirigid. Such diaphragm behavior
is difcult to analyze when considering torsion of the
structure. As a result, it is believed that consideration
of the amplication of the torsional moment is a
renement that is not warranted for light-frame
construction.
Historically, the intent of the Ax term was not to
amplify the natural torsion component, only the
accidental torsion component. There does not appear
reason to further increase design forces by amplifying
both components together.
C12.11.2 Anchorage of Structural Walls and
Transfer of Design Forces into Diaphragms
There are numerous instances in U.S. earthquakes
of tall, single-story, and heavy walls becoming
detached from supporting roofs, resulting in collapse
of walls and supported bays of roof framing

(Hamburger and McCormick 1994). The response
involves dynamic amplication of ground motion by
response of vertical system and further dynamic
amplication from exible diaphragms. The design
forces for seismic design category D and higher have
been developed over the years in response to studies
of specic failures. It is generally accepted that the
rigid diaphragm value is reasonable for structures
subjected to high ground motions. For a simple
idealization of the dynamic response, these values
imply that the combined effects of inelastic action in
the main framing system supporting the wall, the wall
(acting out of plane), and the anchor itself correspond
to a reduction factor of 4.5 from elastic response to an
MCE motion and therefore the R value associated
with nonlinear action in the wall or the anchor itself is
3.0. Such reduction is generally not achievable in the
anchorage itself, thus it must come from yielding
elsewhere in the structure, for example, the vertical
elements of the seismic force resisting system (SFRS),
the diaphragm, or walls acting out of plane. The
minimum forces are based upon the concept that less
yielding will occur with smaller ground motions and
less yielding will be achievable for systems with
smaller R factors, which are permitted in Seismic
Design Categories B and C. The minimum R factor in
Seismic Design Category D is 3.25, excepting
cantilever column systems and light-frame walls
MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS
sheathed with materials other than wood structural
panels, whereas the minimum R factors for Categories
B and C are 1.5 and 2.0, respectively.
Where the roof framing is not perpendicular to
anchored walls, provision needs to be made to transfer
both the tension and sliding components of the
anchorage force into the roof diaphragm. Where a
wall cantilevers above its highest attachment to, or
near, a higher level of the structure, the reduction
factor based upon height within the structure,
(1 + 2z/h)/3, may result in a lower anchorage force
than appropriate. In such an instance, using a value of
1.0 for the reduction factor may be more appropriate.
REFERENCES
Chopra, A. K. (2007). Structural Dynamics,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hamburger, R. O., and McCormick, D. L. (2004).
Implications of the January 17, 1994, Northridge
Earthquake on Tilt-Up and Masonry Buildings with
Wood Roofs, Proceedings, 63rd Annual Convention,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Lake
Tahoe, Calif., 243255.
Lopez, O. A., and Cruz, M. (1996). Number of
Modes for the Seismic Design of Buildings,
Earthquake Engrg. and Struct, Dyn., 25(8), 837856.
481