STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

RESEARCH PROJECT

Report No.
SSRP-08/06 Design Procedures for Innovative Beam
Final
Column Subassemblies to be Used in Regions
of Moderate and High Seismicity

By

Robert E. Englekirk and Jia Wang

Final Report

Department of Structural Engineering

September 9, 2008
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085
 University of California, San Diego
Department of Structural Engineering
Structural Systems Research Project

Report No. SSRP-08/06

Design Procedures for Innovative Beam Column Subassemblies to be Used in

Regions of Moderate and High Seismicity

by

Robert E. Englekirk, Ph.D., S.E., Adjunct Professor

and Jia Wang, Research Associate

Submitted to:

Department of Structural Engineering

University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0085

September 9, 2008
 DISCLAIMER

The opinions, recommendations and conclusions contained within this report are solely those of

the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the project sponsors. This

report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report, the data reduction process, as well as the research report that presents
and analyzed collected data were made possible by a generous grant from the Charles
Pankow Foundation.
Professor Tara Hutchinson developed and managed the test program and served in
the capacity of Principal Investigator.
The construction and demolition of the subassembly specimens was entirely
provided by Industry.

Specimen #1
Contractor: Highland Construction
Material Suppliers:
Reinforcing Steel: Fontana Steel
Specialty Items: Dywidag Systems International
Baugrid Inc.

Specimen #2
Sponsor: Precast Concrete Manufacturers Association of California (Doug Mooradian,
Executive Director)
Contractor: Clark Pacific
Material Suppliers:
Concrete: Clark Pacific Precast (for precast concrete members)
Vulcan Materials Company (concrete)
Reinforcing Steel: Ascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.
Specialty Items: Dywidag Systems International

Specimen #3
Sponsor: All materials, demolition and labor costs funded by MMFX Technologies
Corporation
Labor provided by UCSD
Specialty Items: BarSplice Products, Inc.

ii
Specimen #4
Sponsor: Dywidag Systems International
Contractor: Morley Builders
Material Suppliers:
Concrete: Morley Builders
Reinforcing Steel: Fontana Steel
Specialty Items: Dywidag Systems International

Special thanks to the technical staff of the Powell Laboratories and in particular
Andrew Gunthardt.
Specimen design and details were provided by Englekirk Partners, Inc.
The contribution of Kathy Lee-Choi and Dan Shubin are gratefully acknowledged
and much appreciated.

iii
 ABSTRACT

Concrete high-rise buildings are often seismically braced by special moment

frames. The design procedures and construction methods used to create these frames has
changed little since the late 1970s. However, the time required to construct these
buildings along with the associated cost has almost doubled in the last 15 years. Further,
new materials and concepts have been introduced into the construction vocabulary, most
notably, high strength concrete and reinforcing steels.
The objective of the program was to creatively introduce these new materials and
concepts into our design and construction processes. To this end, four subassembly
specimens were designed and tested so as to demonstrate that the subassembly behavior
could be predicted and that, more importantly, the behavior of these new subassemblies
was considerably better than the solutions developed in the 1970s.
The composition of these proposed systems was accomplished with the assistance
of the Englekirk Center Industry Advisory Board. The objective was to create systems
that cost less, were more easily and reliably constructed, and would perform well at
postyield deformations in excess of 0.05 radian—a threshold considerably above that
attainable by the 1970s systems.
Component and system design procedure are included. The use of force-based
procedures founded on scientific principles as well as displacement based design
procedures, is encouraged.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii
ADOPTED NOTATION ................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1 – COMPONENT BEHAVIOR AND MODELING CONSIDERATIONS ..............1

CHAPTER 2 – SYSTEM DESIGN .........................................................................................6

2.1 Design Considerations .....................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Mechanism Methods ...........................................................................................6
2.1.2 Beam-Column Joints...........................................................................................8
2.2 Code Basis Design Procedure ........................................................................................13
2.3 Scientific Basis – Strength Design .................................................................................15
2.4 Equal Displacement Based Design ................................................................................17

CHAPTER 3 – DESIGN APPLICATIONS – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ..................................22

3.1 Design Problem..............................................................................................................22
3.2 System #1 – Preconstructed Column/Cast-in-Place Floor Reinforced with Dywidag
Ductile Rods & Threadbar (Figure 3.3) Following Code Basis Design ........................24
3.3 System #2 – Super Hybrid System Following Equal Displacement Design..................34
3.4 System #3 – High Strength Steel (MMFX) following Scientific
Basis-Strength Design....................................................................................................46

CHAPTER 4 – DETAILING CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................59

4.1 Beam Transverse Reinforcing Detailing…………………………………….…… .......59
4.1.1 Beam Transverse Reinforcing Requirements....................................................60
4.1.2 Beam Transverse Reinforcing Detailing Examples ..........................................63
4.2 Beam-Column Joint Region Detailing.............................................................................66

v
 4.2.1 Strut and Tie Mechanism Activation ................................................................66
4.2.2 Beam-Column Joint Region Detailing Example― Preconstructed
Column/Cast-in-Place Floor with Dywidag Ductile Rods & Threadbar ..........67

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................68

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Beam-column subassembly geometry ........................................................... 2

Figure 1.2 Shear force versus drift ratio - Specimen #4.................................................. 4
Figure 1.3 Behavior idealization options[1] ..................................................................... 4
Figure 2.3 Mechanisms of shear transfer at an interior joint........................................... 9
Figure 2.4 Forces imposed on an interior beam-column joint ...................................... 10
Figure 2.5 Global shear-drift response of Pankow specimens #2 and #4 ..................... 12
Figure 2.6 DDC connection − shear transfer mechanism ............................................. 13
Figure 2.7 Relationship between base shear and displacement[5] ................................. 16
Figure 3.1 Floor framing plan ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.2 Elevation view ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 3.3 Beam column subassembly – System #1 ..................................................... 24
Figure 3.4 Exterior wall section. ................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.5 Minimum beam width.................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.6 Forces imposed on an interior beam-column joint by DDC[1] ..................... 28

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Experimental data for three beam-column assembly tests[11]

Table 4.1 Comparison of the three systems tested

viii
 ADOPTED NOTATION

A Area, usually subscripted for definition purposes

Act Area of that part of cross section between the flexural tension face and center of
gravity of gross section
As Area of non-prestressed tension reinforcement
Ash Total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement (including cross ties) within
spacing “s” and perpendicular to dimension bc
Astrand Area of PT strand
A1v Area of shear reinforcement
Cs Seismic response coefficient
Ct Building period coefficient
Cu Ratio of maximum allowable period from analysis over the period from simplified
equation
D.R. Drift ratio (Δx/hx) or (Δn/H)
D.L. Drift limit
DDC Dywidag Ductile Connector
DDR Dywidag Ductile Rod
E Modulus of elasticity usually subscripted to identify material
Fv Specified yield strength fy of transverse reinforcement
I Importance factor
Ie Effective moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis,
neglecting reinforcement
Ig Moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting
reinforcement
M Moment in member, usually subscripted to identify loading condition, member, or
stress state
Mcr Cracking moment
Mn Nominal flexural strength at section
Mp, Mp1, Mpr Probable flexural strength of members
P Axial load, usually the probable load

ix
R Numerical coefficient representative of the inherent overstrength and global
ductility capacity of lateral-force-resisting systems, as set forth in Table 16-N or
16-P[9]
Rd Numerical coefficient representative of the global ductile capacity of the lateral
force resisting system, as set forth in Table 104-6 or 104-8. See Figure C105-2[2]
Rg Reaction at the end of beams under factored dead load and live load
RD Reaction at the end of beams under dead load
RO Numerical coefficient, representative of the overstrength inherent in the lateral
force resisting system and given in Tables 104-6 or 104-8. See Figure C105-2[2]
Sa Spectrum acceleration—in./sec.
Sag Spectrum acceleration expressed as a percentage of the gravitational force g
Sd Spectrum displacement
Sv Spectrum velocity
SC Site soils classification
SD1 Spectrum velocity (DBE) at T = 1.0 sec.
SM1 Spectrum velocity (MCE) at T = 1.0 sec.
S1 Base spectrum velocity at T = 1.0 sec.
T Fundamental period of a structure
Tu Ultimate strength of DDC rod
Ty Idealized yielding strength of DDC rod
Vc Shear strength provided by concrete
Vf Shear load − frame
Vjh Component of joint shear strength attributed to the axial load imposed on a
column load
Vn Nominal shear strength of component
Vs Shear strength provided by shear reinforcement
Vu Design base shear (see Figure 10)
VD Design based ultimate base shear
VE Elastic design base shear (see Figure 10)
VM Base shear at system mechanism (see Figure 10)

x
W Weight per floor which corresponds to the mass which is tributary to a bracing
system
a Depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress block
b Width of compression face of member
d Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement
db Diameter of longitudinal bars
dcol Column depth
dp Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of prestressing steel
d' Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of compression
reinforcement
f c' Specified compressive strength of concrete
fr Modulus of rupture of concrete
fy Specified yield strength of reinforcement
h Overall dimension of a member or joint
hn Height of the uppermost level of structure
hx Height of the story being considered
l , lc −c Span length of beam center to center of supporting column

lc Clear span of beam from face to face of supporting column

ld Development length for a bar
n An integer usually applied to number of floors
nstrand Number of PT strands
qD Area dead load, p/ft2
qL Area live load, p/ft2
s Spacing of transverse reinforcement
vjh Joint shear stress
wD Line dead load (area dead load X tributary width)
wL Line dead load (area live load X tributary width)
wg Factored dead and live line load
yt Distance from centroidal axis of gross section, neglecting reinforcement, to
tension face
α Development length ratio of top bar over bottom bar

xi
Г Participation factor
Δu Ultimate displacement of the “nth” level of the structure
Δyi Idealized system displacement at yield
θ Rotation (radian)
θi rotation at first yielding
λo Component or member overstrength factor that describes overstrength expected in
a member
μ Ductility factor
δi Story displacement

ρ Ratio of non-prestressed tension reinforcement, As/bd

φ Curvature, rad./in.; capacity-based reduction factor; strength reduction factor
ω Angular frequency (radian/sec.)

xii
 Chapter 1 – COMPONENT BEHAVIOR AND MODELING
CONSIDERATIONS

Our objective in this chapter is to develop a subassembly model that can be used
to predict the behavior of a building which is to be braced using a ductile moment
resisting frame; or in the current vernacular, a special moment frame.
The subassemblies tested are all of the same geometry (Figure 1.1) and were
developed so as to have essentially the same strength characteristics in spite of the fact
that the reinforcing programs were significantly different. The computation of the
strength and stiffness of the various systems is contained in Chapter 3.
Given the uncertainties associated with predicting and modeling subassembly
stiffness, a bilinear perfectly plastic behavior model has been selected to describe beam
behavior. In the idealization of subassembly and system behavior, it is assumed that the
column and beam-column joint are rigid. This is appropriate for most produced building
systems and where not easily considered.[1]
Experimental results are presented in terms of applied beam load or shear and
measured beam displacement which is often converted to a drift ratio, namely, the
recorded beam displacement divided by the clear span of the beam. Thusly, beam rotation
is viewed as providing a reasonable estimate of story drift.
Consider the case for System #4 (see Figure 3.3). The characteristics of the
Dywidag Ductile Rods (DDR) have through the years varied slightly. Component testing
of the DDR’s used in the reported test suggests the following:
Ty = 150 kips
λoTy = 220 kips

where λo is the overstrength factor, here clearly 1.47, but reasonably rounded off

to 1.5.
The associated beam shears are now developed for a system containing three
ductile rods.

1
 M n = 3(150)(2.5)
= 1125 kip − ft
λo M n = 1688 kip − ft
Vbn = 113 kips
λoVbn = 169 kips

The associated mechanism shear for this subassembly is

λoVcn = λoVbn ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟
l
(1)
⎝h⎠
⎛ 23 ⎞
= 169 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 11 ⎠
= 353 kips

Beam Widths:
System 1 & 4: 21 in.
System 2: 19 in.
System 3: 22 in.

Figure 1.1 Beam-column subassembly geometry

2
 The predicted deflection of the beam associated with a beam shear of 169 kips
( λoVbn ) is one inch (D.R. = 0.83%), assuming that the effective moment of inertia is 35%

of the gross moment of inertia and that the modulus of elasticity is 3600 ksi.
If we consider column deformation based on an effective moment of inertia of
0.7Ig and a rigid panel zone (beam-column joint) following the procedures developed in
Reference 1 (Eq. 3.2.2a) and assuming that the modulus of elasticity of the 9 ksi concrete
in the column were 4800 ksi, we would conclude that the subassembly deflection would
be 5% higher than that associated with beam stiffness only.
Assume then that we adopt the following idealizations,
λo M n
Vb,ideal = (2)
lc
= 169 kips
θi = 0.008 rad . (0.8%)

Compare this with the observed behavior (Figure 1.2). It should be clear that
predicting system stiffness is more a function of design objectives than analytical
exactness. The designer using a force based design procedure might select the stiffer
model, while the designer concerned with predicting displacement might opt for a softer
model. A designer should not immediately select a stiffness consistent with a 2% drift
based on these tests for the tested beam has gone through many cycles of loading before
the 2% drift ratio is reached. It is also important to compare the response reported in
Figure 1.2 with that reported for a concrete beam rigidly connected to its support (Figure
1.3).

3
 Mn

Figure 1.2 Shear force versus drift ratio - Specimen #4

Figure 1.3 Behavior idealization options[1]

4
Comment: An inelastic time history analysis is occasionally asked to confirm
building designs, and this is encouraged. Column models should allow for inelastic
response because current code-based design procedures do not preclude inelastic
behavior in columns. Proposed procedures customarily used and those proposed herein to
design beam-column joints seem to ensure the non-yielding response of these elements;
accordingly, they may be treated as rigid and infinitely strong.
There is a tendency to assume that elastically derived estimates of story drift can
be directly related to postyield beam rotation and accordingly limited by imposing story
drift limits. For example, the beam behavior described in Figure 1.2 suggests that the
attainable level of strong drift is 4%; hence a story drift limit of 2% seems conservative.
Unfortunately, this is not the case for postyield excursions tend to accumulate and the
inelastic story drift and postyield rotation experienced in the beam may be significantly
higher than indicated by an elastic analysis. A design should always strive to provide for
as much inelastic, non-degrading postyield rotation as possible in the beams and columns
of a special moment frame.

5
 Chapter 2 - SYSTEM DESIGN

2.1 Design Considerations

Two design considerations are unique to the innovative systems developed herein:
the process whereby the idealized strength of the system is developed, and the manner in
which the loads imposed on the beam-column joint is resolved. The development of
system strength idealizations is best accomplished using mechanism methods, while the
transfer of loads within the beam-column joint can be confirmed using strut and tie
modeling; however, from a design perspective, the procedure can be reduced to the
prescriptive shear limit states contained in the ACI code[4; Section 21.5.3] through the use of
load transfer enhancement details.

2.1.1 Mechanism Methods

Adjusting the level of provided strength is much more difficult in assemblies
where the transfer mechanisms are best if symmetrically placed. A mechanism
approach[1; Figure 2.1.43]
can be used to define the strength limit state for a system. The
mechanism approach can, by design, entirely discount the impact of dead and live loads
and different seismic moment distributions. In essence, the mechanism approach is the
basis for the moment redistribution allowed by most codes. The mechanism approach
was introduced as plastic design in the 1950s and then was exclusively applied to
indeterminate steel systems. The mechanism approach recognizes that system strength is
based on the load required to produce a mechanism in the system and that first yield, as a
limit state, does not produce indeterminate systems that possess consistent factors of
safety.
If we consider the frame and extracted subassembly described in Figure 2.1, the
strength limit state would be defined by one of the mechanisms shown in Figure 2.2.
Observe that dead and live loads only impact the mechanisms of Figure 2.2a and Figure
2.2b, because in Figure 2.2c, dead and live loads create no external work. The mechanism
of Figure 2.2a does not include a lateral load, so we need only evaluate the likelihood of
the mechanism of Figure 2.2b defining the strength limit state of interest.

6
 Accordingly, let us compare the lateral loads required to create the two
mechanisms (b & c) described in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.1 Frame elevation

(a) Vertical deformation (b) Vertical and lateral deformation

(c) Lateral deformation

Figure 2.2 Subassembly mechanisms

7
 The strength limit states are

Mechanism “c”
External work = Internal work
(3a)
VuE hxθ = 2 M pθ

where Mp is assumed to be the strength of the connector assembly.

Mechanism “b”
External work = Internal work
l l
VuE hxθ + 2( wuD + wuL )( )( ) = 2 M pθ + 2 M P1θ
2 4 (3b)
where Mp1 is the internal strength of the beam, assumed to be a maximum at
midspan.
We would like to know the strength relationship between the required internal
flexural strength (Mp1) and that provided at the ends of the beam (Mp) that would cause
mechanism “c” to be critical.
Define A as
M p1
A= (4)
Mp

Accordingly, Mp1, the strength provided in the interior of the beam must be
greater than AMp to attain our objective—the dominance of the sidesway mechanism.
Accordingly,
l 2 VuE hx
( A + 1) M P > ( wuD + wuL ) + (5)
8 2

l2
Thus, if the strength of the internal plastic hinge ( AM P ) exceeds ( wuD + wuL )
8
and the provided moment capacity at the support is equivalent to, or larger than, M P as

developed by mechanism “c” (Equation 3a), the impact of vertical loads on the design

7
strength provided in the yielding connector may be neglected. See Section 2.1.4.3 of
Reference 1 for applications.

2.1.2 Beam-Column Joints

The seismic load path in a ductile frame flows through the beam-column joint.
The traditional design objective for the beam-column joint has been to treat it as though it
were brittle. And, the objective of a capacity based approach is to create a beam-column
joint that is stronger than the frame beams that drive it. An overstrength factor is used to
create the probable demand ( λo M n ) and thereby attain a conservative design criterion for
the beam-column joint. Further, the strength limit state for the joint is conservatively
approximated. Much of this apparent conservatism is reasonably attributed to the
complexity of the load transfer mechanism within the joint and the uncertainty of the
impact of column axial loads, bond deterioration within the joint, and the reinforcing
program adopted for the joint.
It has been demonstrated that a significant amount of ductility can be developed
in a well designed beam-column joint. See Reference 1, Section 2.3.2, for example. The
fact that ductility exists in the joint should not, however, alter our adopted capacity based
design approach. This is because the alternative approach, that of shared ductility
between beam and beam-column joint, is not reliably predicted. Since the postyield
behavior of the beam is very reliable and not impacted by as many variables, our design
objective should remain to develop the beam based mechanism described in Figure 2.2c.
It is comforting to know, however, that the joint will not fail in a brittle manner if
subjected to an over-capacity demand.
Let us first endeavor to understand how researchers have incorporated conditions
that seem to impact behavior into beam-column joint design procedures.

8
 (a) Primary diagonal strut mechanism (b) Substrut mechanism

(c) Truss mechanism

Figure 2.3 Mechanisms of shear transfer at an interior joint

Forces flow through a joint following a logical path that can be visualized using
strut and tie modeling. Initially, the primary path is along a diagonal strut that links the
load nodes (Figure 2.3a). Also effective is a secondary load path that is concurrently
generated by a bond transfer mechanism which creates a substrut and tie load path as
described in Figure 2.3b. As the diagonal strut described in Figure 2.3a reaches its
strength limit state and the bond stresses required to activate the mechanism of Figure
2.3b deteriorate, the load is shed to a truss mechanism (Figure 2.3c) and a broader
compression field is created. Ultimately this compression field described in Figures 2.3a

9
and Figure 2.3b breaks down as diagonal cracking becomes severe. Now, a (pure) truss
mechanism forms (Figure 2.3c) and the role of transverse reinforcement within the joint
becomes dominant.
The ACI[4] , recognizing the complex nature of this varying load path, has adopted
a fairly simple strength limit state by defining it as a function of the square root of the
strength of concrete. The use of a tension based limit state is probably as rational as any
for it would tend to identify the point at which diagonal cracking causes the compression
field to break down. Initially, the ACI design procedures had required that the transverse
reinforcing program for a beam-column joint develop the shear imposed on the joint,
thereby recognizing the importance of the truss mechanism (Figure 2.3c). This
requirement has been relaxed to one based on providing confinement, and this increases
the required level of transverse reinforcement in direct proportion to the strength of the
concrete. Established strength objectives have been experimentally confirmed (see
Reference 1, Section 2.3).

Figure 2.4 Forces imposed on an interior beam-column joint

Conceptually, the procedures used in the development of an interior joint are

summarized as follows. The driving force is developed in the beam as described in Figure
2.4[1]. The demand imposed on the joint is developed from the probable strength of the
beam.

10
 d'
λo M n1 = λo f y As (d − ) (6)
2

The shear in the column is consistent with the driving mechanism

l1 l
λo ( M n1 + M n2 2 )
lc1 lc 2
λoVc = (7)
hx

The shear imposed on the joint is

V jh = T1 + C2 − Vc ( see Figure 2.4) (8)

The associated shear stress is

V jh
v jh = (9)
bh

The ACI[4] established strength limit state of an interior joint is 15φ f c′ , and the

joint must be confined. This strength limit state currently applies to all concrete strengths,
but its applicability to concrete strengths in excess of 12 ksi has been questioned[11].
The depth of the joint and its relationship to the diameter of the beam bars (h/db)
has been studied presumably to insure the development of the substrut mechanism
(Figure 2.3b). Ciampi[12] feels that this ratio must be between 35 to 40 in order to prevent
slippage. This is virtually impossible and currently the minimum ratio is 25; so we must
conclude that at least some slippage will occur in a conventionally reinforced beam-
column joint subjected to seismic load reversals in the postyield range.
Conditions that impact bond transfer are many. They include
• The load that must be transferred. Should it be the overstrength of the tension
bar ( λo f y ) combined with the yield strength of the compression bar (A’sfy)?

• The effectiveness of bond within an overstrained tensile region of the column.

• The extent to which yield penetration in the joint will reduce the effective
bond strength.
• The amount of axial load imposed on the joint.

11
 The innovative systems tested in this study improve on the efficacy of the load
paths described in Figure 2.3 by significantly improving the bond transfer mechanism
and this is evidenced by the fullness of their hysteresis loops (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5 Global shear-drift response of Pankow Specimens #1 and 2

The load transfer mechanism in systems 1 and 4 that contain ductile rods (DDR’s)
appears to be interrupted by the discontinuity between the ductile rods but this is easily
compensated for with the addition of ties. Figure 2.6 shows how the primary strut
mechanism described in Figure 2.3a is developed during that phase of load transfer prior
to the closing of the compression side gap. In effect, the primary diagonal strut load is
activated by the tension induced in the ties. The efficacy of this type of joint transfer was
demonstrated by tests done in the 1990s at UCSD[1].

12
 Figure 2.6 DDC Connection − Shear Transfer Mechanism

2.2 Code Basis Design Procedure

The design procedure developed herein follows the guidelines contained in
ASCE7-05[3] Chapters 11 and 12. It is assumed that the fundamental period of the
building places its response within the spectrum velocity constant range ( S M 1 = constant).

Site class D is assumed and S1 presumed to be 0.6g.

S M 1 = Fv S1 (Ref. 3; Eq.11.4.2) (10)

= 1.5(0.6)
= 0.9
2
S D1 = S M 1 (Ref. 3; Eq.11.4.4) (11)
3
S
Sa = D1 (Ref. 3; Eq.11.4.6) (12)
T

The design base shear is developed from Eq.12.8.3 of Reference 3 given the
stated conditions.

13
 S D1
Cs = (13)
R
T( )
I
0.6
= ( I = 1.0 assumed )
TR
0.6
= ( R = 8; Ref. 3; Table 12.2.1)
T (8)
0.075
Cs =
T

The minimum base shear is developed from Equation 12.8.6 of Reference 3.

0.5S1
Cs ,min = (Ref. 3; Eq.12.8.6) (14)
R
( )
I
0.5(0.6)
=
8
=0.0375

Accordingly, if the fundamental period exceeds 2 seconds, the minimum base

shear value governs.
The fundamental period of the structure may be determined by analysis. It may
not exceed that value determined by Eq.12.8.7 amplified by the coefficient C u [3; Table 12.8.1]

Tmax = Cu Ct (hn ) x (15)

=1.4(0.016)(hn )0.9
=0.0224(hn )0.9

For the example building design developed in Chapter 3 this corresponds to

Tmax = 0.0224(195)0.9
=2.6 sec.

As a consequence the design base shear is

V = Cs ,minW (16)
=0.0375W

14
2.3 Scientific Basis – Strength Design
The objective here is to describe how a rational design provision, free of
prescriptive overrides, can produce a strength design objective.
The spectrum design criterion proposed by ASCE7-05[3] as developed in Section
2.2 is easily converted to a design spectrum velocity.
S D1 = 0.6 g
Sv = S D1 (61.5) (Ref.7; Eq.A.2)
=37 in./sec.

The spectrum acceleration associated with the capable event is

S M 1 = 0.9 g
Sv , MCE = 55 in./sec.

The spectrum acceleration associated with the design event is

S a = ω Sv (17)
2π Sv
=
T
226
= in./sec.
T
0.58
= g
T

This may be converted to a design base shear following the concepts developed in
Reference 5 (Eq. 4.7.16).
V = 0.8S ag1W (18)
0.8(0.58)W
=
T
0.8(0.58)W
In effect represents a base shear, VE, as developed from a single
T
degree of freedom spectrum. Figure 2.7 describes the relationship between elastic and
inelastic systems. Since we have chosen to base our design on the mechanism strength
limit state, VM, the objective system ductility is
VE
μ= (19)
VM

15
 μ

VE
μ

VE
R

Figure 2.7 Relationship between base shear and displacement[5]

The objective design mechanism strength becomes

0.46
VM = W (20)
μT

The value used to develop the ductility factor μ can be based on the component
model developed in Chapter 1, specifically Figure 1.2. If the design is based on the real
period of the structure as defined by an effective moment of inertia of 0.35Ig then we
might conclude that, based on an idealized yield displacement of one inch (D.R.=0.8%)
and a non-strength degrading displacement objective of 4.5%, μ should be on the order
of 5.5. Observe that this suggests an R value (Section 2.2) on the order of 9.5, since the
ultimate shear capacity of the frame beam (Pu) is 97 kips, ( PM / Pu = 1.75) .

16
 The design mechanism strength base on an R value consistent with current codes
(8/1.75) becomes
0.46
VM = W
4.5T
0.1
≅ W
T

We see that μ is a function of the stiffness assumption. For the case developed in
Figure 1.2 and an objective drift ratio of 2%, μ would become 2.5 and R would become
4.4.
It is fortunate that a building’s response to ground motion is not sensitive to
strength. Performance objectives, as defined by drift and postyield rotation, are not
proportional to strength and remain constant in the range of strengths below which
performance defining characteristics begin to suggest system degradation.

2.4 Equal Displacement Based Design

In this procedure our focus changes to meeting an objective system stiffness
usually specified in terms of a building drift objective. The fundamental assumptions are
that maximum displacements occur when the building responds in the first or
fundamental mode and that the displacement response of a building which enters the
inelastic domain is equal to or less than the response of an equivalent elastic building.
This proposition is valid except for those cases when the seismic action is dominated by
an early impulse.
Thus our first objective is to develop a system whose fundamental period attains
our drift limit (D.L.) objectives.
Δ u = ( D.L.)hn (21)

This can be converted to an objective spectrum displacement

Δu
Sd = (22)
Γ

where the participation factor, Γ , may be approximated by

17
 3n
Γ= (Ref. 1; Eq. 3.1.18a) (23)
2n + 1

where n is the number of levels; obviously, for a tall building, Γ can be assumed
to be 1.5. For a 15-story building Γ is 1.45. Proceed on the basis that the drift limit
(D.L.) is 0.02, Γ is 1.45 and hn is 195 ft.
Δ n = 0.02hn (Eq.21)
= 0.02(195)(12)
= 46.8 in.
Δn
Sd = (Eq.22)
Γ
46.8
=
1.45
= 32.3 in.

The objective spectrum velocity is related to the desired spectrum displacement

by
Sv
ωn = (Ref. 1; Eq. 3.1.9) (Eq.17)
Sd

The angular frequency ( ω ) cannot be less than

37
ωmin =
32.3
= 1.14 rad./sec.

The maximum period is

2π
T= (24)
ω
= 5.5 sec.

The period of a frame-braced building can most easily be developed from beam
theory and specifically from a shear-like response or a sliding of planes (see Reference 1,
Section 3.2.2).

18
 Ts = 0.288 ( Δ s )
0.5
(Ref. 1; Eq. 3.2.1) (25)

where Δ s is the deflection of the system subjected to weight associated with its
seismic mass.
The actual response of buildings subjected to ground motion suggests that
response is a function of initial stiffness; hence, an effective moment of inertia of 0.35Ig
seems appropriate. The deflection of an interior subassembly associated with the beam
flexure only is
Vi hx 2 lc lc 2
δi = ( ( ) ) (Ref. 1; Eq. 3.2.2a) (26)
12 E I be l

Given the following subassembly geometry and stiffness

l
l = 360 in.; lc = 320 in.; ( c ) 2 = 0.79
l
b = 18 in.; hb = 36 in.; hx = 156 in.
Eb = 3600 ksi; I e = 24,500 in.4

A relationship between column shear (Vi) and subassembly drift can be developed
Vi (156) 2 320
δi = ( (0.79)) (Eq.26)
12(3600) 24,500
= 0.0059Vi

Equation 3.2.7a of Reference 1 allows us to convert a story drift into system

deflection and then predict the probable period of the structure. We need first to quantify
the mass tributary to one interior subassembly. This is most easily developed by an
iterative example. Assume that each of the floors in our 15-story example building
(Figure 3.1) weighs 3600 kips. Try a four-bay frame on each façade.

19
 3600
Vi =
8
= 450 kips
δ i = 0.0059Vi
= 2.7 in.

Now the displacement of the system becomes

⎛ n +1⎞
Δs = ⎜ ⎟ nδ i (Ref.1; Eq. 3.2.7a) (27)
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 8(15)(2.7)
= 324 in.

And the fundamental period

T = 0.288( Δ s )0.5 (Ref. 1; Eq. 3.2.1) (Eq.25)
= 0.288(324)0.5
= 5.2sec. < 5.5sec.

Observe this is less than our objective maximum period.

Deciding on beam strength is somewhat speculative. Consider Figure 1.2; would a
beam of half the strength, say λoV = 90 kips , be capable of reaching a drift of 4.5%?
Component testing and induced strain states are not a function of yield strength and this
suggests that beam flexural strength has little impact on system behavior. Accordingly, it
is best to treat strength as a parameter, and concentrate on ensuring that the system has no
premature brittle failure states. A two-level approach seems most appropriate.

Step 1: Select a beam strength that has demonstrated a reasonable level of ductility.

Step 2: Ensure that system strength exceeds demands suggested by other loading
criteria.

Step 3: Confirm that behavior objectives have been met using an inelastic time history
analysis. Treat beam strength as a parameter of interest. Remember that beam

20
 strength will affect end column loads, and too much strength may produce a
brittle system failure.

Were the beam whose behavior is described in Figure 1.2 proposed, system
strength would be
λoVb = 169 kips
⎛ 30 ⎞
λoVc = 169 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 13 ⎠
= 390 kips
∑λ V o c = 8(390)
= 3120 kips
∑λ V
o c
=
3120
W 15(3600)
= 0.058

Reduced to a design base shear coefficient, Cs , (see Eq.17) this becomes

0.058
Cs =
λo
0.058
=
1.75
= 0.033

This is consistent with the objectives of strength based design procedures. The
design examples in Chapter 3 will probe the impact of strength on behavior parameters–
beam rotation and story drift ratios.

21
 Chapter 3 - DESIGN APPLICATIONS – CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
3.1. Design Problem
An office building design is developed in Reference 5 (p. 568). Figure 3.1 and
Figure 3.2 describe the plan and elevation of this building. The objective of this chapter is
to use the design procedures developed in Chapter 2 to design buildings using the tested
systems.

Loading criterion:
Estimated average dead load (mass): 180 psf
Dead load: 110 psf per floor (flat work and finish only)
Live load: 50 psf per floor, reducible to 20 psf

Seismic design criterion:

Ss = 1.5g @ T = 0.2 sec.
S1 = 0.6g @ T = 1.0 sec. (Sv = 37 in./sec.)
Site Class D

Concrete strength:
Beams: 4000 psi.
Columns ≤ 12,000 psi.

Governing code:
IBC 2006[2]
ASCE 7-05[3]
ACI 318-05[4]

22
 N

Figure 3.1 Floor framing plan

Figure 3.2 Elevation view

23
3.2 System #1 – Preconstructed Column/Cast-in-Place Floor with
Dywidag Ductile Rods & Threadbar (Figure 3.3) Following Code
Basis Design

1 3/8” Threadbar

Dywidag Ductile Rod

Figure 3.3 Beam column subassembly – System #1

E-W Direction
Step 1: Determine base shear according to Chapter 2 Code Basis Design Procedures (see
Section 2.2).

First estimate the prescriptive period of the building described in Figure 3.1 and 3.2
Tmax = CuCt ( hn ) x (Eq.15)
=1.4(0.016)(hn )0.9
=0.0224(hn )0.9
= 0.0224(195)0.9
=2.6 sec.

24
 As developed in Section 2.2, when T exceeds 2 seconds, the minimum shear value
governs.
0.5S1
Cs ,min = (Ref 3; Eq. 12.8-6) (Eq.14)
R
( )
I
0.5(0.6)
=
8
=0.0375

As a consequence the design base shear is

V = CsW (Eq.16)
= 0.0375W
W = 0.18(15)(214)(94)
= 54, 000 kips
V = 0.0375(54, 000)
= 2025 kips

Step 2: Size beams & lay out framing following mechanism methods (Section 2.1.1).
Aesthetic and functional needs allow for a 42 inch deep beam (see Figure 3.4).

Design base shear for the building is:

V = 2025 kips

Total moment demand

∑M bu , EW = ∑ Vhx (28)
= 2025(13)
= 26,325 kip − ft

Reduce moment demand to face of the column,

25
 M bu , EW , facel
V= (Eq.1)
(l − hcol )hx
l − hcol
Assume ≅ 0.9
l
∑ M bu,EW , face = ∑ 0.9Vhx
= 0.9(26,325)
= 23, 693 kip − ft.

Now determine the capacity of a ductile rod connected beam. The desired exterior
elevation is described in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Exterior wall section

Ductile rod (DDR) material properties:

Ty = 150 kips
Tu = 220 kips
Tu
λo =
Ty
220
=
150
= 1.5

26
Minimum beam width b min is 16 in. for three ductile rods and 21 in. for four ductile rods,
as shown in Figure 3.5; a slightly wider beam is suggested.

Figure 3.5 Minimum beam width

4(150)(42 − 8)
φ M bn ,Drod = (0.9)
12
= 0.9(1700)
= 1530 kip − ft.

Determine the number of bays assuming identical component strengths for each
beam and each face (See Figure 2.2).

n=
∑M bu , EW , face
(29)
2φ M bn
23,693
=
2(1530)
= 7.7

27
 Use a four-bay frame on each façade to satisfy the strength requirement.
150(8)(42 − 8)(2)(4) ⎤
φ ∑ M n = 0.9 ⎡⎢ ⎥⎦
⎣ 12
= 0.9(3400)(8)
= 24, 480 kip − ft . > 23, 693 kip − ft .

Conclusion: A four-bay configuration should satisfy our strength objective given a 42 in.
deep beam with four ductile rods.

Step 3: Size column considering beam-column joint shear capacity.

The mechanisms of joint shear transfer were discussed in Section 2.1.2.
The limit state for joint shear was established at 15φ f c′ for the interior joint

based upon tests of a fairly standard subassembly (Figure 3.6)–one in which the column
is approximately the same depth as the beam. This limit state is obviously prescriptive
but certainly adequate for conceptual design purposes. A strut and tie model can be used
to confirm the capacity of the joint[4]. See also Figure 2.3.

Figure 3.6 Forces imposed on an interior beam-column joint with DDR[1]

28
 Try 30” x 36”column
2λo M bn
λoVbn = (Eq.1)
l − d col
2(1.5)(1700)
=
30 − 3
= 189 kips
λoVbn l
λoVc = (Eq.7)
hx
189(30)
=
13
= 436 kips
λoV j = 2(4)Tu − λoVc (Eq.8)
= 2(4)(220) − 436
= 1324 kips
λoV j
λo v j = (Eq.9)
bd
1324
=
30(36)

= 1226 psi < 0.85(15) f c′ = 1275 psi

Conclusion: Joint shear is within the limit, propose a 30 in. by 36 in. column;

f c′ = 10, 000 ksi .

Step 4: Design column following strong column-weak beam principle.

Columns not only need to be designed to resist the factored load cases according
to governing building code, but also need to satisfy
6
∑M nc ≥
5
∑ M nb (Ref.7; Eq.21.1) (30)

∑M nc is the sum of the nominal flexural strengths of columns framing into the

joint, and

29
 ∑M nb
is sum of nominal flexural strengths of the beams framing into the joint,
evaluated at the faces of the joint.
6
∑M nc ≥
5
∑ M nb
6
= (2)(1700)
5
= 4080 kip − ft.

M cn ≥ 2040 kip − ft.

N-S Direction
Step 1: Determine the design base shear based on code-based procedures.
Same as in the E-W direction,
V = 2025 kips
Step 2: Size beam and lay out framing following mechanism methods.

Total moment demand

∑M bu , NS = ∑Vhx (Eq. 28)

= 2025(13)
= 26,325 kip − ft.
Reduce moment demand to face of the column,
M bu , NS , facel
V= (Eq. 1)
(l − hcol )hx
l − hcol
Assume ≅ 0.9
l
∑ M bu,NS , face = ∑ 0.9Vhx
= 0.9(26,325)
= 23,693 kip − ft.

Try two exterior and two interior three-bay frames with 3’-6”deep beams. System #1 is
adopted in N-S direction as well.

Minimum beam width ( b min ) is 18 in. for three ductile rods (see Figure 3.5a).

30
For three rods at top and bottom,
⎡ 3(150)(42 − 8) ⎤
∑φ M n , Drod = 0.9 ⎢
⎣ 12
(4)(2)(3) ⎥
⎦
= 27,540 kip − ft > ∑ M bu , NS = 23, 693 kip − ft

Conclusion: The two exterior and two interior three-bay frames should satisfy our
strength objective given 42 in. beam with three ductile rods at top and bottom.

Step 3: Size column considering beam-column joint shear capacity.

The interior joint shear stress (Section 2.1) should be less than φ15 f c ' .

Try a 24′′ × 36′′ column. Check the worst case. See Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7 Interior joint shear stress check

31
 λo ( M b1n + M b1n )
λoVb1n = (Eq.1)
l1 − d col
3(220)(42 − 8)(2)
=
(35 − 3)(12)
= 117 kips
λo ( M b 2 n + M b 2 n )
λoVb 2 n = (Eq.1)
l2 − d col
3(220)(42 − 8)(2)
=
(20 − 3)(12)
= 220 kips
l1 l
λoVb1n + λoVb 2 n 2
λoVcol = 2 2 (Eq.7)
hx
117(17.5) + 220(10)
=
13
= 327 kips
λoV j = T1u + T2 u − λoVcol (Eq.8)
= (3)(220) + (3)(220) − 327
= 993 kips
λoV j
v jh = (Eq.9)
Aj
993
=
24(36)
= 1149 psi < 0.85(15) 10,000 = 1275 psi

Conclusion: Joint shear is within the limit, use a 24 in. by 36 in. column;

f c′ = 10, 000 psi .

Step 4: Design column following strong column-weak beam principle.

Columns not only need to be designed to resist the factored load cases according to
governing building code, but also need to satisfy

32
 6
∑M nc ≥
5
∑ M nb (Re f.7; Eq.21.1) (Eq.30)

6 (3)(150)(42 − 8)(2)
=
5 12
= 3060 kip − ft.
M nc ≥ 1530 kip − ft.

The proposed bracing program is described in Figure 3.8.

Proposed Frames
Frame #1
Columns: 30 in. by 36 in.
Beams: 24 in. by 42 in.
Ductile Rods: 4 top & bottom of each beam
Frame #2
Columns: 24 in. by 36 in.
Beams: 18 in. by 42 in.
Ductile Rods: 3 top & bottom of each beam

Figure 3.8 Bracing program for System #1

33
3.3 System #2 – Super Hybrid System
Now repeat the design problem described in Section 3.1, using the Super Hybrid
System (Specimen #2, see Figure 3.9) following Equal Displacement Based Design
procedures (Chapter 2, Section 2.4).

Figure 3.9 Isometric view — Super Hybrid System

E-W Direction
Step 1: Determine the number of frame bays required using the Equal Displacement
Based Design procedure developed in Section 2.4.

The first objective is to develop a system whose fundamental period attains our drift limit
(D.L.) objectives.
Δ u = ( D.L.)hn (Eq.21)

This can be converted to an objective spectrum displacement

Δu
Sd = (Eq.22)
Γ

34
Where the participation factor, Γ , may be approximated by
3n
Γ= (Ref.1; Eq.3.1.18a ) (Eq.23)
2n + 1
3(15)
=
2(15) + 1
= 1.45

If we proceed on the basis that the objective drift limit is 0.02,

Δ n = 0.02hn (Eq.21)
= 0.02(195)(12)
= 46.8 in.
Δ
Sd = n (Eq.22)
Γ
46.8
=
1.45
= 32.3 in.

The objective spectrum velocity (37 in./sec. – see Section 2.3) is related to the desired
spectrum displacement
Sv
ωn = (Ref. 1; Eq.3.1.9) (Eq.17)
Sd

The angular frequency ( ω ) should not be less than

37
ωmin =
32.3
= 1.14 rad . / sec.
The maximum period is
2π
Tmax =
ω
= 5.5 sec.

The period of the frame braced building is developed by

Ts = 0.288 ( Δ s )
0.5
(Ref.1; Eq.3.2.1) (Eq.25)

35
The deflection of an interior subassembly associated with the beam flexure only is
Vi hx 2 lc lc 2
δi = ( ( ) ) (Re f.1; Eq.3.2.2a ) (Eq.26)
12 E I be l

Given the following subassembly characteristics and a 24 in. by 42 in. beam

l
l = 360 in.; lc = 320 in.; ( c ) 2 = 0.79
l
hx = 156 in.; Eb = 3600 ksi; I e = 0.35 I g = 51,800 in.4

A relationship between column shear and subassembly drift can be developed

Vi (156) 2 320
δi = ( (0.79)) (Eq.26)
12(3600) 51,800
= 0.0027Vi

Each of the floors in our 15-story example building weighs 3620 kips (0.18(214)(94)).
Following the procedure developed in Section 2.4, try a three-bay frame on the North and
South façade. Presuming that Ve is half of Vi
Wf
Vi =
n
3620
Vi =
6
= 603 kips
δ i = 0.0027Vi
= 1.63 in.

Where n is the number of frame bays.

Now the displacement of the system becomes

⎛ n +1⎞
Δs = ⎜ ⎟ nδ i (Re f .1; Eq.3.2.7a ) (Eq.27)
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 8(15)(1.63)
= 196 in.

36
Where n in this case refers to the number of floors.
And the fundamental period
T = 0.288( Δ s )0.5 (Ref. 1; Eq. 3.2.1) (Eq.25)
= 0.288(196)0.5
= 4.0sec. < 5.5sec.

And this is considerably less than our objective period.

Conclusion: Select a three-bay frame on the North and South facades.

The design strength associated with the attainment of Δn (46.8 in.) or the probable
drift of the proposed three-bay structure can be developed as follows.
T = 4.0 sec
ω = 1.57 rad . / sec.
Sv
Sd = (Eq.17)
ω
37
=
1.57
= 23.6 in.
Δ u = ΓSd (Eq.22)
= 35 in.

Figure 2.5 suggests that a component ductility factor of 4 is reasonable and

conservative.
Δu
Δy = (31)
μ
35
=
4
= 8.75 in.

This can be converted into a subassembly drift component through the use of
Eq.3.2.18 of Reference 1.

37
 n
Δn = δi (32)
Γ
Δ
δi = n Γ
n
8.75(1.5)
=
15
= 0.88 in.

Given the subassembly model adopted

δi l
δb = (33)
hx 2
0.88
= (15)
13
= 1.0 in.
3δ EI
M= b (34)
l
( c )2
2
3(1.0)(3600)(51,800)
=
(160) 2
= 21,853 in − kips (1800 ft − kips)

This moment demand corresponds to λo M n (see Figure 1.3). Accordingly the

objective base shear (Vu) would be on the order of
nφ M M
Vu =
(lc / l )λo hx
6(0.9)(1800)
=
0.9(1.25)(13)
= 665 kips
Vu 665
=
W 27, 000
= 0.025

The associated nominal strength of the beam should be

38
 1800
Mn =
λo
1800
=
1.25
≥ 1400 ft − kip
φ M n ≥ 1260 ft − kip

The moment resistance provided by the DDC acting alone is

0.9(2)(150)(42 − 8)
φ M n ,DDC =
12
= 765 ft - kips

Since the elimination of residual drift presumed by causing M PT to exceed M DDC is

speculative, consider a post-tensioning force which is 70% of that provided by the DDC.
φ M n ,PT = (0.7)φ M n ,DDC
= 536 ft -kips

PT strand properties are

Strength: 270 ksi
Diameter: 0.6 in.
Area: 0.217 in.2
Initial nominal strength: 162 ksi
Determine number of PT strands:
φ M n ,PT
Tn =
φ ⎛⎜
d a⎞
− ⎟
⎝ 2 2⎠
536(12)
=
0.9(21 − 4)
= 420 kips (12 strands )

Since the compression load must flow through the 15 inch wide DDC transfer
block (see Figure 3.9). The bearing strength of the grout placed behind the transfer block
should be capable of effecting the transfer.

39
 420
a= = 5.2 in. < 8 in.
0.85(4)(24)
420
f c', grout =
0.9(5)(15)
= 6.2 ksi

Conclusion: a three-bay frame on each façade would satisfy the stiffness and strength
criteria given a 42 in. deep beam with DDC+ 12 (0.6” φ ) strands of post-tensioning.

Step 2: Size column considering beam-column joint shear capacity.

Figure 3.10 Forces acting on a hybrid beam-column joint[1]

To satisfy the prescriptive limit states discussed in Section 2.2[4], limit the
maximum probable shear stress in the joint to φ15 f c ' . Assume a 24 in. by 36 in.

column.

40
 M bn = 850 + 595
= 1445 ft − kip
2λo M bn
λoVbn =
l − d col
2(1.25)(1445)
=
30 − 3
= 134 kips
λV l
λoVcol = o bn (Eq.1)
hx
134(30)
=
13
= 309 kips
λoV jo int = 2(2)λoTn ,Drod + λoTn ,PT − λoVcol (Eq.9)
= 2(2)(1.25)(150) + 1.25(12)(0.217)(162) − 309
= 968 kips
λoV j
λo v j = (Eq.10)
bd
968
=
24(36)

= 1120 psi < φ15 f c′ = 1275 psi

Conclusion: Joint shear is within the limit, use 24 in. by 36 in. column; f c′ = 10, 000 psi .

Step 3: Determine DDC sequential prestressing program to transfer shear at beam-

column interface (See Ref.1; Section 2.1.4.6).
Bottom bolts are installed during the erection of the precast beams and pretensioned so as
to provide a slip critical shear transfer; the upper set of bolts can then be placed to
provide torsional stability but need not be stressed.

Construction phase, loads are

qD = 100 psf
q L = 20 psf

41
 35
Tributary width =17.5ft
2
24(42)(150)
wD = 100(17.5) + ( Figure 3.11)
144
= 2.80 kips / ft
wL = 20(17.5)
= 0.35 kips / ft
wg = 1.2 wD + 1.6 wL (35)
= 3.92 kips / ft
lc − d col
RD = wD ( ) (36)
2
30 − 3
= 2.80( )
2
= 37.8 kips

According to AISC[8] Table 7-16, the design resistance of a 1-1/2 in. A490 bolt
with a pretension of 148 kips and standard hole under single shear is 49.8 kips assuming
a Class A faying surface.
2(49.8) = 99.6 kips > 37.8 kips

Therefore, prestressing the two bottom bolts only will transfer the construction
loads. The two top bolts and strands when tensioned will be available to resist the total
gravity loads and seismic load.
lc − d c
Rg = wg ( ) + λoVbE (37)
2
30 − 3
= 3.92( ) + 134
2
= 186 kips
4(49.8) = 199.2 kips > 186 kips

Hence, prestressing the two top and bottom bolts can resist maximum beam
shears. Note that the PT force adds a clamping force in excess of 400 kips.

42
Step 4: Design column following strong column-weak beam principle.
Columns not only need to be designed to resist the factored load cases according to
governing building code, but also needs to satisfy Equation 30.
6
∑M cn ≥
5
∑ M bn (Eq.30)

For this example frame

6
∑M cn ≥
5
∑ M bn
6
= (2)(1445)
5
= 3468 kip − ft

Given a story height of 13 feet,

M cn ≥ 1734 kip − ft

N-S Direction
Step 1: Determine the number of frame bays required using the Equal Displacement
Based Design procedure developed in Section 2.4.
In the N-S direction, the average span is 30 ft and this is same as in E-W direction. For a
topical discussion see Section 3.2.5 of Reference 1. Accordingly the proposed program
for E-W direction would work for the N-S direction as well, namely, a three-bay frame
on each façade given a 42 in. deep beam with DDC+ PT with 12 strands.

Step 2: Size column considering beam-column joint shear capacity.

Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2. Assume a 24 in. by 36 in. column and follow ACI[4]
Code procedures. See Figure 3.10 and Figure 3.7 for the N-S frame.

43
 2λo M b1n
λoVb1n = (Eq.1)
l1 − d col
2(1.25)(1445)
=
36
35 −
12
= 123 kips
2λ M
λoVb 2 n = o b2n (Eq.1)
l2 − d col
2(1.25)(1445)
=
36
20 −
12
= 213 kips
l l
λoVb1n 1 + λoVb 2 n 2
λoVcol = 2 2 (Eq.7)
hx
35 20
+ 213
123
= 2 2
13
= 329 kips
λoV j = 2(2)λoTn ,Drod + λoTn ,PT − λoVcol (Eq.8)
= 2(2)(1.25)(150) + 1.25(12)(0.217)(162) − 329
= 948 kips
λV
λo v j = o j (Eq.9)
bd
948
=
24(36)

= 1098 psi < φ15 f c′ = 1275 psi

Conclusion: Joint shear is within the limit, use 24 in. by 36 in. column; f c′ = 10, 000 psi .

44
 N

Figure 3.11 Bracing program for System #2

45
3.4. System #3 – High Strength Steel (MMFX) following Scientific
Basis-Strength Design

E-W Direction
Step 1: Determine design base shear according to Scientific Basis-Strength Design
approach.

Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.3,

S D1 = 0.6 g
Sv = S D1 (61.5) (Ref. 7; Eq. A.2)
=37 in./sec.

The spectrum acceleration associated with the design event is

Sa = ω Sv (Eq.17)
2π Sv
=
T
226
= in. / sec.
T
0.58
= g
T

This may be converted to a design base shear following the concepts developed in
Reference 5 (Eq. 4.7.16)
V = 0.8Sag1W (Eq.18)
0.8(0.58)W
=
T
V
μ= E (Eq.19)
VM

The objective design mechanism strength becomes

0.46
VM = W (Eq.20)
μT

46
Step 2: Determine the proper stiffness and ductility for this system based on test results.
The beam column assembly reinforced with MMFX bars (Pankow #3) was tested at the
Powell laboratories at UCSD. Assembly and details are shown in Figures 3.12 through
3.14.
The beam shear vs. drift ratio is shown in Figure 3.15.

Figure 3.12 Beam column subassembly – System #3 (MMFX)

47
 Figure 3.13 Beam elevation #3

MODIFIED FIGURE 3.13

Figure 3.14 Beam-column joint – System #3 plan view

48
 145

Figure 3.15 System #3: Global force-deformation response

System #3 seems to be softer than Systems #1 and #2 (See Figure 1.2 and 2.5).
Especially when compared with the stiffness of a beam acting alone (Figure 1.3) as
opposed to a subassembly.
Pl 3
Δ= (38)
3EI e
Δ
D. R. = (Eq. 21)
l
Pl 2
Ie = (39)
3E ( D.R.)

From Figures 3.12 through 3.15,

l = 10 ft.
E = 3600 ksi
P = 145 kips
22(36)3
Ig =
12
= 85,000 in.4

49
 At a drift ratio of 2%, the effective moment of inertia is
145(120)2
Ie = (Eq.39)
3(3600)(0.02)
= 9,700 in.4

This is a conservative assessment of beam stiffness. An idealization that is more

consistent with the effective moment of inertia used for conventionally reinforced beams
(0.35Ig) suggest an effective moment of inertia on the order of 0.25 Ig and a yield drift of
1%. Based on the attained non strength degrading displacement of 4.5% the ductility
factor, μ , should be 4.5 (See Figure 1.2).
The fundamental period of the MMFX system, based on I e = 0.25I g , would be

larger than that used in the development of the Super Hybrid System.

0.35
TMMFX = TSHS (40)
0.25
= 1.18TSHS
μMMFX = 4.5
μSHS = 4
μ MMFX TMMFX ≅ μSHS TSHS (41)

Designer predilections may vary but consistency is essential.

Here, we adopt the following
I e = 0.25I g
μ = 4.5
T = 4.7 sec.

The design mechanism strength becomes

0.46
VM = W (Eq.20)
μT
0.1
≅ W
T

50
 Thus,
0.1
VM ≅ W
T
0.1
= W
4.7
= 0.021W < 0.0375W (Code basis )
= 1135 kips

Note, however, that the so determined base shear coefficient is developed from
the probable strength of the beam not its ultimate strength (Mu). Consistency is essential
especially since a clear, well-defined yield strength does not exist.
⎛ 145 1 ⎞
The corresponding Ro factor (Figure 2.7) is 1.7 ⎜ ( ) ⎟ based on the
⎝ 95 φ ⎠
mechanism strength reported in Figure 3.15. Accordingly the suggested design base
shear, Vu should be
VM
Vu = (42)
Ro
0.1W
=
1.7T
= 0.012W

Step 3: design yielding and ultimate stress of MMFX based on test results.
Test results identified beam yield and strength (Figure 3.15) as
M yi = 13,700 kip-in. (V = 115 kips )
λo M n = 19, 400 kip-in. (V = 162 kips )

Clearly the idealized yield strength ( M yi ) is arbitrary, but it may be used to develop a

design strength for the MMFX bar. Determine idealized yield stress based on identified
yield strength

51
 M yi
fy = (43)
( d − d ′) As
13,700
=
(30)(3)(1.27)
≅ 120 ksi
λo M n
fu = (44)
(d − d ′) As
19, 400
=
30(3)(1.27)
≅ 170 ksi

These values relate well to the sample stress-strain curve as Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16 MMFX #10 bar stress strain curve

Conclusion: System stiffness will dictate the number of frames required.

Step 4: Determine number of frames required.

In Section 3.3 it was determined that the period should be less than 5.5 seconds if the
drift limit of 2% were to be met. If we assume that Ie=0.25Ig.

52
 0.35
δi = (0.0027Vi ) (Section 3.3)
0.25
= 0.0038Vi
= 0.0038(603)
= 2.3 in.
n( n + 1)
Δs = δi (Eq.27)
2
= 8(15)(2.3)
= 276 in.
T = 0.288( Δ s )0.5 (Eq.25)
= 4.8 sec. < 5.5 sec.

Conclusion: Three-bay frame on each façade will satisfy the stiffness criteria given a
24′′ × 42′′ beam.

Beam strength must be developed in a consistent manner. This requires the

development of a ductility factor which corresponds to δ yi .

13, 700(120) 2
δ byi =
3(3600)(37,500)
= 0.48 in.
D.R. = 0.004
adopting desired ultimate D.R. of 4.5%
4.5
μ=
0.4
≅ 11

Following the procedures developed in section 3.3 using μ = 11, Ro = 1.7 and T = 4.8 sec.

53
 ω = 1.37 rad . / sec.
SV
SD = (Eq.17)
ω
37
=
1.37
= 27 in.
Δ u = ΓS D (Eq.22)
= 1.5(27)
= 40.5 in.
40.5
Δ yn = (Eq.31)
11
= 3.68 in.
Δ yn
δi = Γ (Eq.32)
n
3.68(1.5)
=
15
= 0.37 in.
l
δb = δi ( )
h
30
= 0.37( )
13
= 0.85 in.
3EI e
M yi = δ byi
l2
3(3600)(37,500)(0.85)
=
1202
= 23,800 in.-kips
M yi
Mu =
Ro
23,800
=
1.7
= 14, 000 in.-kips
Mu
φ As =
f y ( d − d ')
14,000
φ As =
120(36)
= 3.24 in.2
As ≅ 3.6 in.2 (3#10 = 3.8 in.2 )

54
Conclusion: Reinforcing the beam with 3-#10 MMFX bars seems appropriate. This
corresponds to an ultimate base shear (Vu) on the order of 2.5%.

Step 5: Size column considering beam-column joint shear capacity.

Refer to Chapter 2 Section 2.1.2, the maximum probable shear stress in the joint should
be less than φ15 f c ' . For forces imposed on joint, see Figure 3.6.

Try 30 in. by 36 in. column

2λo M bn
λoVbn = (Eq.1)
l − d col
2(2030)
=
36
30 −
12
= 150 kips
λV l
λoVcol = o bn (Eq.7)
hx
150(30)
=
13
= 347 kips
λoV j = 2 f u As − λoVcol (Eq.8)
= 2(170)(3)(1.56) − 347
= 1244 kips
λV
λo v j = o j (Eq.9)
bd
1244
=
30(36)

= 1152 psi < φ15 f c′ = 1275 psi

Conclusion: Joint shear is within the limit, use 30 in. by 36 in. column; f c′ = 10, 000 psi .

55
Step 6: Design column following strong column-weak beam principle.
Columns not only need to be designed to resist the factored load cases according to
governing building code, but also need to satisfy:

6
∑M nc ≥
5
∑ M nb (Eq.30)

6 1433
= (2)( )
5 0.9
= 3821 kip − ft
Given the same story height,
M nc ≥ 1910 kip − ft
N-S Direction
For N-S direction, Steps 1 through 5 are similar to E-W direction.
Step 5: Size column considering beam-column joint shear capacity.
Refer to Chapter 2 Section 2.1.2, the maximum probable shear stress in the joint should
be less than φ15 f c ' .

Try 30 in. by 36 in. column, see Figure 3.7:

56
 2λo M b1n
λoVb1n = (Eq.1)
l1 − d col
2(2030)
=
36
35 −
12
= 127 kips
2λ M
λoVb 2 n = o b2n (Eq.1)
l2 − d col
2(2030)
=
36
20 −
12
= 239 kips
l l
λoVb1n 1 + λoVb 2 n 2
λoVcol = 2 2 (Eq.7)
hx
35 20
127 + 239
= 2 2
13
= 355 kips
λoV j = 2 f u As − λoVcol (Eq.8)
= 2(170)(3)(1.56) − 355
= 1236 kips
λV
λo v j = o j (Eq.9)
bd
1236
=
30(36)

= 1144 psi < φ15 f c′ = 1275 psi

Conclusion: Joint shear is within the limit, use 30 in. by 36 in. column; f c′ = 10, 000 psi .

Step 6: Design column following strong column-weak beam principle.

Columns not only need to be designed to resist the factored load cases according to
governing building code, but also need to satisfy

57
 6
∑M nc ≥
5
∑ M nb (Eq.30)

6 1433
= (2)( )
5 0.9
= 3821 kip-ft.
Given the same story height,
M nc ≥ 1910 kip-ft.

See Figure 3.17 for bracing program.

Figure 3.17 Bracing program with System #3

58
 Chapter 4 – DETAILING CONSIDERATIONS

Detailing is essential to the attainment of the strength and deformations attained in

the test program. Two critical regions are discussed: the beam and the beam-column
joint.

4.1. Beam Transverse Reinforcing Detailing

The deformation limit state for beam plastic hinge regions is usually associated
with bar buckling. Bar buckling may be deferred if each beam bar is restrained. Typically
the shell of the beam spalls before the strength limit state is reached (peak strength –
Figures 1.2, 1.3 and 3.15). Thus, the plastic hinge region must be confined to develop the
attainable confined strength of the beam’s core if the strength of the beam is to be
maintained and premature failure to be avoided. Figure 4.1 describes how these concepts
are typically effectuated.

Figure 4.1 Confined concrete, the Remington, Westwood, CA

(Courtesy of Morley Construction Company.)

59
4.1.1 Beam Transverse Reinforcing Requirements
Detailing considerations include bar buckling mitigation, confining the concrete
in the core and shear transfer.
• Shear transfer.
Three beam regions are described, as in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Frame beam elevation

Region 1 is for most systems the plastic hinge region. Shear strength provided by
the concrete will be less effective in this region as crack widths cannot be controlled.
Accordingly, the induced shear demand (λoVn) should be entirely provided by hoop
reinforcement.
φVs > λoVbn (45)

Region 2 is viewed as a region of discontinuity. Here, the shear carried by the

hoops in the plastic hinge region (3/4h) activates the concretes ability to transfer shear.
Most codes suggest that concrete is less effective in this region but this has not been
conclusively demonstrated; nevertheless,
φVs > λoVbn (Eq.45)

Region 3 is often referred to as a beam shear transfer region for cracking is

minimal and restrained and the concrete can participate in the transfer of shear.
φ (Vs + Vc ) > λoVbn (46)

60
 Special detailing is required in the plastic hinge region of the Super Hybrid
System, see Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Beam transverse reinforcing program ― Region 1

• Developing the Concrete within the Core

Concrete strength within the core is considerably increased when the core is
confined. The development of a confining lateral pressure within the compression
zone is recommended. The equivalent fluid pressure should be on the order of
0.09f’c. This concept is described in Figure 4.4. If the compression region (a-
Figure 4.4) becomes large an additional horizontal cross tie may be required.

( λo − 1 )As f y
α=
0.85 f cc' bcore
ΣFt = ΣAsh f yh > 0.09 f 'c bc s

Figure 4.4 Confinement objectives

61
 (SEE DDC
TRANSFER
4” BLOCK
DETAIL)

Figure 4.5 Stabilizing ties ― Super Hybrid System

• Stabilizing Frame Bars

Each bar must be effectively restrained to keep it from buckling prematurely.
Figure 4.6 shows what could happen if the flexural reinforcing bar does not have enough
lateral support.

Figure 4.6 Concrete cover spalling and flexural rebar buckling in beam-column
subassembly tests (courtesy of Englekirk Partners, Inc.)

62
4.1.2 Beam Transverse Reinforcing Detailing Examples
• Shear transfer ― Preconstructed Column/CIP Floor (Systems 1 & 4) with
Dywidag Ductile Rods and Threadbars
2λo M n
VuE = (Eq.1)
lc −c − d col
2(1.5)(1700)
=
30 − 3
= 189 kips
Vu = 1.0VuE + 1.2VD + 0.5VL (Re f 4; Eq (9 − 5)) (47)
30 − 3 30 − 3
= 189 + 1.2(2.8)( ) + 0.5(0.35)( )
2 2
= 237 kips
V
vu = u (Eq.9)
bd
237
=
24(42 − 8)

= 290 psi ≅ 4.6 f c′

Because the plastic hinge would not happen at the beam-column face, the
concrete’s shear resistance can be included in the strength

vc = 2 f c′
= 2 4000
= 126 psi
Vcn = 0.126(24)(42 − 8)
= 103 kips
V
vs bd = u − Vcn
φ
237
= − 103
0.75
= 213 kips
213
vs =
24(42 − 8)
= 0.26 ksi

63
 The required spacing for #5 stirrups with 3 legs is
vs bs = Ash f y (48)
Ash f y
s=
vs b
0.93(60)
=
0.26(24)
= 9 in. on center

Transverse reinforcement shall be provided over the entire length of the beam.
Hoop reinforcing shall be provided in regions 1 and 2 of Figure 4.2. Maximum spacing
between stirrups shall not exceed those specified in Reference 4.

Conclusion: Provide #5 stirrups with 3 legs spaced at a minimum of 9 in. on center.

• Confine Concrete Core ― Super Hybrid System (Section 3.3)

The DDC connector relocates plastic behavior into the beam-column joint;
however, at the beam column interface, the combination of high shear and compressive
stress on the Threadbar still exists ( f sc ≅ 140 ksi ). To prevent a brittle failure at the beam
column interface, confinement should be provided.
According to Figure 4.4 and ACI 318-05[4], the required area of confining ties is

0.09sbc f c′
Ash = (Re f.4; Eq. 21 − 4) (49)
f yt

Tie spacing should not exceed 4 inches.

For the inner ties (Figure 4.5)
0.09(4)(22)(4)
Ash =
60
= 0.53 in.2
Conclusion: Provide #4 hoops with 4 legs at 4 in. on center in region 1 (see detail 4.5).

64
 Restraint of the Threadbars suggests that the proposed restraint (#5@3 in. o.c.) is
adequate.
As f s s
At = ( ) (Re f.1; Eq. 2.1.11b) (50)
16 f yh 4
1.27(140) 4
= ( )
16(60) 4
= 0.19 in.2 < 0.31in.2

Conclusion: The inner tie group of #4 hoops as described in Figure 4.5 should be
adequate.

An option would be to provide restraining plates similar to those shown in Figure

4.7.

Figure 4.7 Flexural rebar laterally supported by restraining plates in

beam column assembly which incorporate DDC or MMFX reinforcing programs.

65
4.2 Beam-Column Joint Region Detailing
Load transfer within beam-column joints is very complicated (Section 2.1.2).
Limiting the shear stress within the joint has long been the accepted solution.[4] A clear
load path within the joint seems advisable to activate a strut and tie mechanism.

4.2.1 Strut and Tie Mechanism Activation

The various struts that are activated in the beam-column joint region (Figure 2.3)
will be significantly stressed when the beam-column joint is cyclically displaced.
Confinement reinforcement should be provided to restrain crack growth. The DDC and
Super Hybrid Systems must also consider activating the primary diagonal strut
mechanism prior to the activation of a compressive load transfer (See Figure 2.6).
Accordingly, the proximate tie sets should be capable of transferring the yield load of the
ductile rod set ( ∑ TDDR ). The strut activation mechanism is described in Figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8 Ductile rod load path within the beam-column joint

66
4.2.2 Beam-Column Joint Region Detailing Example – Preconstructed
Column/CIP Floor with Dywidag Ductile Rod & Threadbars
Following the load path developed in Figure 4.8, it seems reasonable to assume
that the tension load would flow directly to the secondary strut while the compression
load must be drawn back to the node that activates the primary strut. Accordingly, the
number of proximate ties at the DDR as well as those that connect the intermediate nodes
is conservatively provide by
NTDDR
AT =
f yh
3(150)
= (See Figure 3.3)
60
= 7.5 in.2

For four leg sets of #5 bars, this requires six sets or a total of 18 ties within the
joint region plus the area immediately above and below the DDR’s (see Figure 2.6). The
spacing of the internal tie sets becomes
36 − 3
s=
14
≅ 2.5 in. o.c.
4(0.31)(60)
fl =
21(2.5)
= 1.42 ksi > 0.09 f 'c

67
 REFERENCES

[1] Robert E. Englekirk, Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete

Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2003.
[2] International Code Council, International Building Code, 2006 Edition, Falls
Church, Virginia.
[3] American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05), 2005.
[4] American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), ACI 318-99 and ACI 318R-99,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, June, 1999.
[5] Robert E. Englekirk, Steel Structures: Controlling Behavior through Design, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.
[6] G. Warcholik and M.J.N. Priestley, “Structural Systems Research Project: High
Strength Concrete Joint Tests-Series 3,” Report No. TR-98/12, University of
California, San Diego, July 1998.
[7] Robert E. Englekirk, “Design Procedure for Thin Shear Walls in High Seismic
Zones,” SSRP 07/23, Department of Structural Engineering, University of
California, San Diego, 2007.
[8] American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Construction Manual, 13th Edition,
Chicago, IL, 2005.
[9] F.E. Richart, A. Brandtzaeg, and R. L. Brown,” A Study of the Failure of
Concrete Under Combined Compressive Stresses”, University of Illinois
Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 185, 1928, 104 pp.
[10] Farzad Naeim, Seismic Design Handbook, 2nd Edition, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, MA, 2001.
[11] Barbara Chang, Tara C. Hutchinson, Robert E. Englekirk, “Experimental Seismic
Performance Evaluation of Innovative Beam-Column Subassemblies,” SSRP
Report No. 08/01, University of California, San Diego, 2008.
[12] V. Ciampi, R. Eligenhausen, V. Bertero, and E. Popov, “ Analytical Model for
Concrete Anchorages of Reinforced Bars Under Generalized Excitations”, EERC
Report No. UCA/EERC 82/83, University of California, Berkeley, November
1982.

68