Sunteți pe pagina 1din 53

CFS (COLD FORMED STEEL) BOX FRAME SHEAR WALL DESIGN

APPLICATION

By

Benjamin Mullen

SENIOR DESIGN PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to
The Department of Civil Engineering

Of

SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY

In partial fulfillment of the requirements


For the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Santa Clara, California

Spring 2017
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my faculty advisor, Dr. Reynaud Serrette, for providing me
the resources and guidance through this project. I would also like to thank Barry
Swenson Builder for providing me a set of architectural and structural plans to use
in the design of this project. Brent Woodcock, the Civil Engineering lab manager,
and his lab assistants were great in helping me to set up my frames in the
engineering quad for showing during the senior design tabling session.
iv

PROJECT ABSTRACT
This project focused on a design of a new kind of lateral force resisting system that can be used
in low rise commercial or residential buildings up to six stories, with the goal of reducing the
overall space taken up by traditional lateral force resisting system commonly used in such
buildings. Instead of dedicating parts of the building for shear walls, the system consists of a
box that frames around a window. The application of this system is best used on buildings with
repetitive floor plans with many windows, leaving not much room for entire walls needed for
shear walls that is needed to resist the lateral forces experienced by the building from
earthquakes or strong winds. The box/open frame shear walls were modeled as a portal frame
with a bottom connecting beam. A comparison for seismic response coefficient R, was
determined from the test data of this lateral system. An included design application illustrates
how these shear walls could be implemented in an actual building.
v

Table of Contents

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.................................................................................. i

TITLE PAGE.......................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... iii

PROJECT ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... v

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Issue to Address .......................................................................................................................... 1

Description & Overview ............................................................................................................................ 2

Project Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 3

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 4

Design Overview .................................................................................................................................. 4

Seismic & Wind Lateral ......................................................................................................................... 6

BOX FRAME TEST DATA & ANALYSIS ................................................................... 6

General ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Different Test Setups ......................................................................................................................... 9

Hysteretic Curve Data ........................................................................................................................ 12

Comparison Using ICCES AC322 Criteria ............................................................................................ 15

Comparison to other Configurations .................................................................................................. 17


vi

LIMIT STATES TO CONSIDER .............................................................................. 19

DESIGN APPLICATION ....................................................................................... 20

Selected Building ................................................................................................................................ 20

Existing Lateral System Used .............................................................................................................. 21

Implementation of Box Frames ......................................................................................................... 22

Demand Lateral Loads ........................................................................................................................ 23

Member Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 24

Frame Connections ............................................................................................................................. 26

Design Check ....................................................................................................................................... 28

COMPARISON TO WOOD SHEAR WALLS ........................................................... 29

EFFECTS ON BUILDING COSTS ........................................................................... 30

PROJECT CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 30

REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 31

APPENDICXES........................................................................................................

Appendix A Seismic Load Calculation ...............................................................................................A-1

Appendix B Structural Calculations/Load Paths .............................................................................. B-1


1

INTRODUCTION
Issue to Address
Over the years, the construction of multi-use low rise buildings up to six floors has increased,
especially in increasingly crowded urban areas such as the Bay Area cities like San Jose, CA. The
multi-use buildings often have commercial space on the first floor and apartments from the
second floor up to the top floor. These multi-use buildings are usually constructed using a
podium slab that runs from the basement and up to and including the first floor, and then wood
structural framing starting at the second floor all the way to the top floor as depicted in Figure
1. Figure 2 is an example of a typical low rise multi-use apartment and commercial building
located in San Jose California.

Figure 1: Illustration of podium slab construction. (Atlantic Structural)

Figure 2: Picture taken at San Joses Japan town.


2

One common characteristic among these multi-use low rise buildings is that they often are very
repetitive in their floor plans and exterior window layouts. The exterior of these buildings is
also where most of the lateral resisting system is placed, which usually consists of wood
plywood shear walls with openings cut into them for placement of windows and other exterior
openings that are specified by the architect.

Description and Overview


The main goal of this project was to evaluate a new alternative lateral system for seismic
performance, in addition to show a design example of this new lateral system. A building was
selected and the design was focused on replacing the existing lateral system of wood shear
walls with this new alternative lateral system. This new system created a box like frame
around a window or other exterior opening that acted as a shear wall, replacing the traditional
wood shear wall with openings cut into them, as depicted in the sketch below (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Sketch of Box Frame Concept.

These frame sections are made from cold formed steel using Miteks HFX Hardy frame sections
(see Figure 4) and connecting them together so that they form a box frame. Miteks Hardy
frame system has been used before in residential construction mostly in areas of a building that
are too narrow for the placement of full size shear walls as shown in Figure 5. These Hardy
frame panels come in member widths that range from nine inches all the way to 24 inches, and
so far they have only been used as standalone members that are slotted into the building (see
Figure 5). Only recently has the idea come about to connect these Hardy Frame panels together
to form a Box Frame with two HFX members on the left and right ends with a horizontal HFX
member running across to connect the two column members as shown in Figure 6.
3

Figure 4: Hardy Frame Panel. Figure 5: Current implementation of hardy frame members.

Figure 6: Completed Box Frame.

Project Scope
This project primarily focused on performing a re-design of the exterior lateral resisting system
of an existing, or currently under construction, multi-use podium slab building. In addition, test
data from HFX box frames was analyzed and used to show seismic equivalency to traditional
wood plywood shear walls. Below is a list highlighting all the components that were involved in
this project:
4

Analyzed test data on HFX member connections by creating an envelope curve around
the hysteric curves
Selected a building either completed or under construction and acquired a set of
architectural and structural drawings
Determined the placements of the HFX box frame along the exterior portion of the
building
Determined the demand lateral load by using methods such as the Equivalent Lateral
Force method from the given building data
Sized the HFX members and connections for the given demand loads
Determined the load paths through each of the box frames
Calculated the limit states for the HFX box frame using mechanics and design handbooks
Analyzed final design with computer programs such as SAP and calculated drift to check
that it satisfied the code requirements
Showed seismic equivalency by using methods outlined in ICC-ES AC322

This project did not re-design the entire buildings exterior walls, but rather the re-design was
only on the south side of the building. The main goal was to show how these frames can be
implemented in an actual building rather than focusing on the details of every little thing, such
as the sizing of the nails, plates, and bolts.

DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Overview
The selected building for the design application was the Ohlone project located in midtown of
San Jose, CA on 270 Sunol St. a multi-use residential and commercial building complex currently
under construction. The developer is Green Republic LLC, and a set of architectural and
structural drawings were obtained from Barry Swenson Builders, who is the general contractor
responsible for this project. Below, shown in Figure 7, is a rendering of the building taken from
Green Republics website of the proposed finished project. The buildings design consists of a
concrete podium slab that goes up only to the first level from the underground parking lot.
Above the slab there are four stories of wood framing.

The Ohlone building is a five story high mix-used residential and commercial building consisting
of 800 units of residential housing on 8.25 acres. The building is shaped in almost a perfect
rectangular shape with a courtyard in the middle.
5

Figure 7: Rendering of the building from Green Republic LLC.

From the Key view of the building in Figure 8, the exterior design was only on the south side
elevation of the building, as highlighted in red.

Figure 8: Key plan of the building, focus will be on the southern exterior side.
6

Seismic & Wind Lateral


The design primarily focused on seismic forces rather than wind, due to the target location of
the selected building, which is located in San Jose CA, a seismically active region. Although wind
was considered, the seismic loads governed over the wind loads in this particular region.

The seismic load was calculated using the equivalent lateral force method which is a common
and quick method used to calculate the seismic lateral loads at each level. The ultimate goal
was to demonstrate seismic equivalency to traditional wood shear walls for an R value to equal
6.5.

The current building chosen for the design application used the traditional lateral system, which
is simply wood shear walls with tie back at the edges for shear transfer around the openings. A
continuous rod running from the ground to the top floor is there to help resist the tension
generated by the overturning moments. The goal was to replace the use of wood shear walls
with openings cut into them along the exterior with a cold formed steel frame that would act as
the shear wall.

BOX FRAME TEST DATA & ANALYSIS

General
HFX members were connected together to form a box frame that would be slotted into an area
designed for a window opening, as shown in the illustration below (see Figure 9). The
connections of the HFX sections would either be bolted or welded together in forming the box
frame; however, bolting would often be most common way to connect the box frame together
versus welding in the field due to the extra time and labor involved, not to mention the need
for field weld inspections.
7

Cross-section View of member


Box Frame
Figure 9: Illustration of a box frame with cross-section view of the member.

Since these frames can be stacked or positioned side by side, when designing a lateral system
consisting of these frames, an engineer must consider the load paths through each of the box
frame from the very top box frame all the way down to the connection with the podium slab.
Figure 10 is an illustration showing the loads that a box frame will experience. In addition to the
lateral load at each level, there is also the gravity load from the current and above floors to be
taken into consideration; however, the addition of gravity loads at level was considered to be
quite small compared to the lateral load that these Box Frames will experience. The amount
taken for the gravity load ranged from 5% to 10% of the lateral load during analysis. There is
also the horizontal shear load from the box frame stacked above that was also brought down to
be added to the total lateral loads, as well as the gravity load that the frame above experienced
as illustrated in Figure 12.
8

Figure 10: Load that each frame will experience.

When implemented in a building, these frames can be stacked above and below one another or
positioned side by side in order to increase the capacity (see Figure 11). The lateral loads from
the above floors will accumulate, from the increasing the load demand as you move down to
the lower floors. It is also possible to configure these frames as a two bay portal frame where
there would be a long HFX member connecting three columns together (see Figure 12).
9

Figure 11: Single stacked & single side by side stacked.

Figure 12: Two bay portal frame.

Different Test Setups


There are three different ways to connect the beam and column at the corners of the box
frame (see Figure 13). These are:

1. Node Connection: The beam and column both connect into a stubby and stiff build up
piece called a Node.
2. Beam on Column: The horizontal beam section will rest onto a column section.
3. Beam to Column: The horizontal beam section is connected in a hanging fashion to the
column section.
10

Figure 13: Illustration of the three different types of connections that were tested.

Both the Beam on Column and Beam to Column connections are the same kind of connections,
but simply switched around.

Tests were done on HFX 15 sized members, and below in Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18 are
illustrations of the test setup.
V

78

Alternative
connection details.
Figure 14: Specimen connection test. Overall out-to-out
dimensions the
same as other
specimen shown.
Figure 15: Node and beam to column connection.
11

Figure 16: Complete test setup for specimen connection.

Specimen members were connected together by using two bolts spaced apart. All the bolts
used were 1 1/8 diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 High strength. Each of the specimens are 78
inches high (Figure 14)

MOD 1A: HFX15X78

Figure 17: Beam on Column.


12

MOD 2A: Node connection for HFX15x78

Figure 18: Node Connection.

Hysteretic Curve Data for Connections


The test data was analyzed and an envelope curves were generated for each connection test.
Two of the test curves are shown in Figures 19 and 20.

Figure 19 shows the Hysteresis plot created for beam on column connection. Lateral resistance
force was applied at the very top of the 78 specimen. The ratio of the beam displacement ( )
to the 78 inch height (h) defines the drift ratio.

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
Lateral resistance (V), lbf.

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
-8000
-9000
-10000
-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Drift ratio (D/h), %

Figure 19: Test data for beam on column connection.


13

Figure 20 shows the Hysteresis plot created for the Node connection. Lateral resistance force
was applied at the very top of the 78 specimen. The ratio of the beam displacement ( ) to the
78 inch height (h) defines the drift ratio.

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
Lateral resistance (V), lbf.

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
-8000
-9000
-10000
-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Drift ratio (D/h), %

Figure 20: Test data for node connection.

Both hysteretic plots show that the connection was able to maintain its strength well past a 4%
drift limit and almost all the way to 8%. This would indicate quite a ductile behavior for this
connection which is a desired behavior when designing for seismic resistance.
14

BOX FRAME:

Below is an illustration (see Figure 21) of the full size Box Frame that was recently tested. The
box frame consisted of 12 inch deep beams running horizontal (HFX12) on the top and bottom
with two 15 inch wide columns (HFX15). A single 1 1/8 inch diameter bolt drawn in the red in
Figure 21 was placed in the middle of the columns to model a pinned connection. In the middle,
the box frame had a cyclic load applied, as drawn in the red arrows in Figure 21 below.

Figure 21: Full box frame test specimen.


15

The plot below (see Figure 22) shows the envelope curve that was generated from the Box
Frame test. The graph also indicates that the negative and positive parts of the graph are
overlaid on top of one another, and the average taken from the two curves is shown in the red
curve below. The percent drift was measured at top of frame with respect to the floor.

35,000
30,000
25,000
Lateral resistance V, lbf.

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000 TEST
CURVE
0 Neg.
-14-13-12-11-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Resistance
-5,000
Pos.
-10,000 Resistance
-15,000 Average

-20,000
-25,000
-30,000
-35,000

DRIFT (/h),%
Figure 22: HFX 15 Box Frame envelope curve.
16

Comparison Using ICC-ES AC322 Criteria


Originally, methods outlined in FEMA P-795 were considered to determine seismic equivalency;
however, there was not enough test data available to use P-795, so AC322 was used instead.

Figure 23 summarized the AC322


criteria that must be satisfied in order
to get an R value of 6.5.

The AC322 method involved taking 80%


of the maximum load and drawing a
horizontal line across the envelope
curve. The envelope curve used for the
purposes of seismic equivalency was
generated from overlaying the positive
and negative portions of the envelope
curve generated from the hysteresis
plot and then taking the average of the
two curves, as shown in Figure 23.

The system satisfies an R of 6.5 if its


ultimate drift is greater than 2.8% of
the height, and the ratio of ultimate
drift over ASD drift is greater or equal
to 11. Lastly the ratio of maximum
resistance force over ASD force must be
between 2.5 and 5. For a lateral system
to satisfy all three requirements means
that it has an equivalent R value of 6.5.

Figure 23: R = 6.5 Seismic equivalency criteria.

Shown in the Figure 24, below, is the average curve taken from the Box Frame test. The AC322
method was used on this curve to check that all the three criteria for seismic equivalency were
met. It was concluded with this method that the frames appear to easily satisfy ductility and
code drift requirements for R = 6.5, of a lateral system used in a building.
17

Figure 24: HFX 15 Box Frame Average Curve.

ADDITIONAL FRAME BEHAVIOR COMPARISONS


Testing was done with three different frame configurations. Below, shown in Figure 25, is an
illustration of the three different types of frame configurations that were recently tested.

Figure 25: Illustration showing the three different configurations that were tested.

The three different frame configurations that were tested were the pinned portal frame, fixed
based portal, and box frame which only consisted of adding a bottom beam to the pinned
18

portal frame configuration. At the time of writing this report, some of the details of the tests in
Figure 25 were still considered confidential

The Figure 26, shows the three comparison curves for each of the three different
configurations.

32000
30000
28000
26000
Lateral resistance V, lbf.

24000
22000
20000 HFX Pinned
18000
Portal
16000
14000
HFX Fixed
Base Portal
12000
10000
HFX Box
8000
Frame
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

DRIFT (/h), %

Figure 26: Comparison tests curves for each of the three different configurations.

It is apparent, as shown in the plot above, that by adding the bottom beam to the pinned
connection that it increases the maximum load by 50% from 20,000 lbs up to 30,000 lbs. Adding
the bottom beam also increased the inelastic displacement capacity of the system which drifted
way out to 12% compared to the fixed base portal, which although a bit stiffer, only went up
around 7.5% for the drift ratio. The addition of the bottom beam in the portal frame not only
increases overall load capacity but also it increases stiffness without sacrificing ductility. Its
evident that these frames are able to drift to high displacement while maintaining at least 80%
19

of their max capacity. It is expected that a fixed base box frame will have a higher maximum
load with less inelastic displacement due to the higher stiffness. These box frames can be
stacked and connected using either fixed or pinned type connections.

LIMIT STATES TO CONSIDER


Analysis of the connection shows
that most of the stress will be
concentrated in the end piece of
the member, where the
connections are located as
shown in the finite element
analysis in Figure 27. This end
piece can also be the node in the
node type of connection.

As such, the primary limit states


considered are in the node and
connections.
Figure 27: FEA analysis done on beam over column connection.

Below is a list of all the limit states considered when implementing this system in a design.

Node shear
Local buckling in node
Connection Failure (bolts yielding in tension)

When experiencing seismic loads, the node will be subjected to cyclic loading of compression
and tension reversing back and forth. Depending on the size and aspect ratio of the node, this
could cause local buckling in the middle section or a shear failure. In some cases the 1 1/8
diameter bolts can fail; however, the governing of connection failure will depend on how the
bolts are placed. This fact must be taken into consideration when designing the frame. Spacing
the bolts farther apart will allow for a higher moment capacity, since the distance between is
greater for the force couple. Both Figures 28 and 29 show the commonly expected limit states
for the frame connections.
20

Figure 28: Plane buckling from cyclic loading. Figure 29: Local buckling near connection region.

DESIGN APPLICATION
Selected Building
Below is a typical floor plan for the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the Ohlone mix-used
building (see Figure 30).

Figure 30: Floor Plan of the building.

Shown in Figure 31 below is the structural design data used to calculate the demand loads.
21

Design Data
Roof dead: 18 psf
Roof live: 20 psf
3rd,4th, 5th Floor Live: 40 psf
3rd,4th,5th Floor Dead: 27 psf
Unit Deck Live Load: 60 psf

Seismic:
Risk Category: II
Site Class: D
Ss = 1.50
S1 = 0.60
SDS = 1.00
SD1 = 0.60
Cs = 0.108g
R = 6.5
V = CsW = 0.108W

Figure 31: Basic Design data taken from structural drawings (Sheet S.1).

Existing Lateral System Used


The primary lateral system used in this building was wood plywood sheathing shear walls. Tie
backs had to be used around the window openings to help facilitate shear transfer around the
opening. A long Simpson ATS rod highlighted in red runs continuously from the third floor all
the way up to the fifth floor. See Figure 32 for details.

Figure 32: Details of current lateral system used.


22

Below is a plan showing the placement of shear walls. There were also shear walls placed on
the interior along the corridor, as well as in the interior perpendicular to the horizontally placed
walls (see Figure 33).

Figure 33: Current placement of exterior shear walls are shown in the red lines below.

Implementation of Box Frame


Drawn in red as shown in Figures 34 & 35 is how the frames were orientated along the exterior
of the building. The blue arrows shown in the Figure 34 indicated the level assignment for
calculating the demand lateral load. A combination of a single stacked box frames and stack
box frame on top of portal frame can also be used. Placement of frames and sizing of members
was done by using the minimum separation distance between the windows, as well as the
alignment of the windows.

LEVEL 4

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

Figure 34: Proposed placement of frames along South elevation exterior.


23

Figure 35: Continuation of the south exterior elevation.

Demand Loads
The demand loads were calculated using the common method of equivalent lateral force from
ASCE 7-10. The design was focused on a segment of a building that is 85 ft wide by 213 ft in
length. Below is a table showing summarized values (see Table 1):

Table 1: Seismic calculated demand lateral loads.

Story Fx
Fx Force at each Shear Fx Exterior additional Total Design Total Design Shear
Level Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) Force (kips) (kips)
4 114.17 114.17 28.54 11.42 39.96 39.96
3 209.10 323.27 52.28 32.33 84.60 124.56
2 156.83 480.10 39.21 48.01 87.22 211.78
1 104.55 584.65 26.14 58.46 84.60 296.38

Additional load was added to account for code required accidental eccentricity of 5%. Values
were computed using an Excel spreadsheet, included in the appendix is a more detailed seismic
calculation used to determine the design loads.

The diagram in Figure 36, shows how the lateral force was distributed among the shear walls
that run along the horizontal in the section of the building. The building had a rigid diaphragm;
therefore the lateral loads are equally distributed along each of the shear wall lines as shown by
the dotted red lines in Figure 36. The total lateral load at each level was divided by four; the
additional force due to accidental eccentricity did drastically increase the demand load along
the exterior.
24

This design assumption that the lateral will be equally distributed across the shear wall;
however, may not be the most accurate model since the additional added load from the
accidental eccentricity moment would also be taken up by the shear wall running perpendicular
to the exterior shear. For purpose of simplification, it was assumed that only the horizontally
running shear walls will acts as the primary force couple for the eccentricity moment; however,
in reality this is not truly the case. Instead the actual design loads along the bottom exterior
would be much lower than assumed.

Figure 36: Distribution of load along diaphragm.

Member Sizing
Member sizes are taken out of Miteks Hardy Frame Catalogue. Although HFX members will
come in standard sizes, some custom members will have to be cut to size to fit in. The
capacities for each frame was determined by using the ratio of allowable capacity of each HFX
member to the total capacity obtained when placing the members into a box configuration.
Each HFX members actual capacity was obtained by multiplying the allowable in-plane shear
load by three, the expected minimum HFX factor of safety

Using the computed actual maximum strength or an HFX member, the expected maximum
capacity of a box frame was determined as illustrated in the following example. A single
HFX15x78 member has an actual capacity of 10,000 lbs, and two HFX15x78 members would
ideally have a combined capacity of 20,000 lbs. Test data shows that by placing these members
in a box configuration would additionally increase the capacity to 30,000 lbs, which is a 1.5
times increase in load capacity. So it is assumed that a box frame configuration would yield an
overall 1.5 times increase in capacity from just having only two members. This 1.5 ratio may not
25

be the most accurate since this value was obtained from just one test. More tests are needed
to determine if the 1.5 load capacity increase also applies to other HFX members, such as an
18 or 21 wide; however, since no other test data was available for the other member sizes, it
was assumed that the 1.5 load increase would also apply to other members sizes configured
into a box. This same approach was also used to determine the member sizes for the two bay
portal configurations, which is shown in Appendix B. The predicted capacities for each of the
frames configurations are shown in structural calculation Appendix B. The stacking
configurations and chosen member sizes are shown in both Figure 37 and Figure 38, while the
table to the left shows the chosen member size for the beam and column at each of the levels.

Double Side Stacked


Level Beam (top Column
& bottom)

4 HFX15 HFX18

3 HFX15 HFX18

2 HFX15 HFX18x78
(ends)
HFX21x78
(middle)
1 HFX18 HFX24

Figure 37: Double Side Stacked Configuration.


26

Single Stacked
Level Beam (top Column
& bottom)
4 HFX15 HFX18x78

3 HFX15 HFX18X78

2 HFX15 HFX18X78

1 HFX18 HFX21

Figure 38: Single Stacked Configuration.

Frame Connections
The stacked box frames are connected using two 1 1/8 diameter threaded rods on each side
which run all the way through a node element. The job of the threaded rods is to resist the
tension caused from the overturning moment while the node element is placed there to resist
compression. During a seismic event, the load at the connections will be cyclic (cycling between
tension and compression). Although these frames can be connected together in different ways,
the threaded rod through node is assumed to be one of the better performing ways.

In this design, a wood header beam was placed between the box frames with the job of
resisting part of the shear load between the frames (see Figure 39). The wood beam is
connected to the frames using metal shear tabs that are connected along the length every one
foot. The bolts that connect the frame together as well as the threaded rods that run through
the node are 1 1/8 diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 High strength (see Figure 40). The ASTM
A193 bolts and threaded rods have yield strength of 105 ksi and a tensile strength of 125 ksi
(values taken from portalndbolt.com).
27

Figure 39: Proposed connection between frames.

Figure 40: Detail of how node will connect to frames above and below.

The node elements are made from capping the ends off a short cut piece of an HFX member.
Then a 3/4 thick A36 steel place is welded all around the interior portion as shown in Figure
41. The design will require an 18 wide node; however, larger width nodes such as 21 inch wide
will be needed to connect in the middle between the two bay portal box frames.
28

Figure 41: Detail of node block.

Below are details showing how the frames will possibly integrate with the rest of the structural
parts of the building, see Figures 42 and 43.

Figure 43: Framing beams perpendicular to box frame.


Figure 42: Framing beams parallel to box frame wall.

Design Check
Box frame stacked configurations were built using equivalent cold formed steel sections with
similar moments of inertia in SAP (Structural Analysis Program) and then checked for seismic
drift requirement of 0.025h, where h is the story height. Lateral loads applied to each level of
the stacked frame configuration were calculated by simply dividing the total lateral load
demand along the exterior by the total number of frames along each level. It was assumed that
the two bay portal frames would count as two frames placed next to each other; therefore it
29

was assumed that the demand loads on the two bay portal frames would double. The assumed
distribution of load among the stacked frames was deemed to be conservative.

To satisfy the code requirements for drift of 0.025h, the inter-story drift must be less than 2.7
inches for inelastic. However, elastic drift requires the 2.7 inches to be divided by C d = 4, which
will yield a value of 0.675 inches. The calculated drift values are shown in the table below (see
Table 2).

Table 2 Calculated Drift at each level

Total Drift
Level (in) Inter-story drift (in)
4 3.995 0.695
3 3.3 1.171
2 2.129 1.257
1 0.872 0.872

Unfortunately, the inter-story drift values did not satisfy the 0.675 inch requirement for the
building code. It is not a matter of the frames not being able to handle the applied lateral loads,
but these frames might just be too flexible than what the code allows. Further design
considerations might be needed to address the high drift values, such as increasing thickness or
welding on more plates to increase the stiffness of the members.

COMPARISON TO WOOD SHEAR WALLS


Although there was no included test data for wood shear wall with openings to compare
against the box frames, it is evident from the test data that this box frame lateral system
appears to be much more ductile than its wood shear wall equivalent. These frames are still
able to maintain most of their capacities even out to high drift values of 12%, while wood shear
walls cab exhibit maximum drifts, at peak load, out to 4% to 6%.

The main non-technical advantage over wood shear wall is that these frames can allow for a
larger opening for windows without compromising lateral seismic performance, a limitation for
traditional wood shear walls. It is understood that the larger opening cut into a wood shear wall
in order to accommodate something like a larger window will affect the overall shear wall
behavior and inherent strength of the wood shear wall.
30

EFFECTS ON BUILDING COSTS


Although cost is major factor when it comes to the implementation of a new kind of structural
system within a building, this project primarily focused on analyzing the seismic performance
and practical application of CFS Box Frame lateral systems in a building. Cost is a factor that was
not focused on much in this project. It is also assumed these box frames will not be overly
expensive, although it is expected that each complete frame will definitely cost more than the
materials needed to construct equivalent wood shear walls with openings.

Because of their high lateral performance, it is possible that less of the frames are needed to
provide an equivalent lateral resistance to wood shear walls, which could translate to cost
savings. However, on the contrary, more frames might have to be included in order to satisfy
the drift requirements by code. As mentioned before, further design considerations may be
needed to address this problem of too much drift. Also since these frames can be brought onto
the job site pre-fabricated, the labor involved to install these frames could be less than putting
together wood shear walls with openings in them, meaning lower labor costs. On the design
side, there is also much less detailing that will be involved if these frames are to be
implemented which is another time and money saver.

PROJECT CONCLUSIONS
Overall this Box Frame lateral system is an ideal choice for applications in multi-use low rise
buildings. As the test data indicates, this is a good and viable alternative over a traditional
wood shear wall with holes cut in for window placement. These Box Frame shear wall will help
to free up extra space in the building allowing larger possible openings that can be used to
place larger windows. This lateral system gives architects and designers more flexibility in what
they can have in a building. This Box Frame would be the best solution if the architect had
specified floor to ceiling windows, leaving no room for traditional shear walls with openings.

As far as its performance, this Box Frame system is not only quite strong but it also exhibits a
high level of ductility that is a desired trait in a structural system being designed for seismic
applications. It provides some of the benefits of moment frames without all the extra costs
involved, in fact this box frame system falls somewhere between a shear wall and a moment
frame in terms of its performance, sort of like a hybrid. If there is any potential problem
associated with these Box Frame lateral system it would be flexibility. As mentioned in the
Design Check section, these frames didnt satisfy the code requirement for inter-story drift,
therefore further design considerations would be needed to increase the overall stiffness,
which could be reconfiguring the individual members in the frames to a more accurate way of
modeling and checking things like drift once the design has been completed.
31

REFERENCES
VPRO, Inc. Atlanta Structural Concrete Company - Podium Slabs. EnCon Compannies, n.d. Web.
02 June 2017. <http://www.atlanta-structural.net/index.cfm?action=ViewCategory&Category=180>.

"Renderings." Green Republic San Jose. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 June 2017.
<http://www.greenrepublicsj.com/renderings.shtml>.

"ASTM A193." Portland Bolt. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 June 2017.


<http://www.portlandbolt.com/technical/specifications/astm-a193/>.
A-1

APPENDIX A

Seismic Load Calculation


A-2

DEAD LOAD 27 psf PERIOD (s) => 0.38


LIVE LOAD 0 psf BASE SHEAR (V) k 584.65
DECK LOAD 60 PSF 1/4 V (k) 146.16

ROOF DEAD LOAD 18 PSF


ROOF LIVE LOAD 20 PSF
Don't include live load

LENGTH 213 ft ROOF =>


WIDTH 85 ft 5TH FLOOR
TOTAL AREA 18105 ft^2 4TH FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
Ss 1.5
S1 0.6 TOTAL (KIPS)=>
Sds 1
Sd1 0.6
R 6.5
Cs 0.108
Ct 0.02
HEIGHT OF STORY 9 ft
TOTAL HEIGHT 50 ft
X => 0.75

Vx (total story
LEVEL WEIGHT (kips) HEIGHT WxHx^K Cvx Fx (kips) shear)
ROOF => 4 687990 50 34399500 0.195 114.17 114.17
5TH FLOOR 3 1575135 40 63005400 0.358 209.10 323.27
4TH FLOOR 2 1575135 30 47254050 0.268 156.83 480.10
3RD FLOOR 1 1575135 20 31502700 0.179 104.55 584.65
5413395 176161650
TOTAL (KIPS)=> 5413.395
A-3

F ALONG EXTERIOR ACCIDENTAL TOR. Mta (K-


(K) FT) F (ADDITIONAL) TOTAL DESIGN FORCE
28.54 485.20 11.42 39.96
52.28 1,373.89 32.33 84.60
39.21 2,040.40 48.01 87.22
26.14 2,484.75 58.46 84.60

Vx SHEAR ALONG
EXTERIOR WALL # of Frames along direction lat. shear per frame
39.96 6 6.66
124.56 6 20.76
211.78 10 21.18
296.38 10 29.64
A-4
B-1

APPENDIX B Structural Calculations/ Load Paths


B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8

Limit State Check


B-9
B-10
B-11

Predicting Box Frame Capacity


B-12
B-13

S-ar putea să vă placă și