NASCC — 2012

SEISMIC JOINTS IN STEEL FRAME

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

Mark Saunders

April, 2012
RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE
OUTLINE

 INTRODUCTION
 SEISMIC JOINT VS EXPANSION JOINT
 TRADITIONAL USE OF SEISMIC JOINTS
 WIDTH OF SEISMIC JOINTS
 WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

OUTLINE-CONTINUED

 LOCATION OF SEISMIC JOINTS

 STRUCTURAL DESIGN ISSUES
 COST ISSUES
 ARCHITECTURAL AND FIRE ISSUES
 CONCLUSIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

INTRODUCTION

 SEPARATIONS BETWEEN ADJACENT BUILDINGS

 SEPARATIONS BETWEEN WINGS OF THE SAME
BUILDING:
• Includes separation of walls, floors, roof, piping, ducts, etc
 JOINTS NEED TO BE:
• Properly sized
• Safe to walk on
• Weather tight
• Fire rated
 COMPLETE SFRS EACH SIDE OF JOINT
 JOINTS ARE COSTLY AND ARCHITECTURALLY
UNDESIRABLE
RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE
SEISMIC JOINT VS EXPANSION JOINT

 SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT

 EXPANSION JOINTS
• Movements caused by shrinkage, creep, or temperature
change
• Movements are uni-directional
• Spaced at regular intervals of length
 SEISMIC JOINTS
• Movements in two orthogonal directions simultaneously
• Locations not based on length or size of floor or roof plate

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

TRADITIONAL USE OF SEISMIC JOINTS

 SEISMIC JOINTS WERE THE SPACE BETWEEN

BUILDINGS
 SEISMIC JOINTS WERE OFTEN EMPLOYED TO:
• SIMPLIFY COMPLEX PLAN CONFIGURATIONS
• PROTECT WEAK FLOOR DIAPHRAGMS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

SIMPLIFY COMPLEX PLAN
CONFIGURATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

WEAK FLOOR DIAPHRAGMS

ELEVATORS STAIRS

10'-0"
SEISMIC
JOINT

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

INADEQUATE WIDTH OF SEISMIC
JOINTS
 EARLY DESIGN RULES OF THUMB FOR WIDTH OF
JOINTS WERE INADEQUATE
 EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE OBSERVATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

WIDTH OF SEISMIC JOINTS

 MAY VARY FROM A FEW INCHES TO A FEW FEET

 LATER BUILDINGS HAVE MUCH WIDER JOINTS
• Code changes
• Lower lateral stiffness of modern buildings
• Recognition by engineers of real lateral drift expectations
 COMPARISON OF SEISMIC JOINT SIZING
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECENT CODES
• Assumptions for following example:
– Two identical 10-story buildings
– Steel Special Moment Frame system
– Seismic Zone 4/ Good soil

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

HISTORY OF SEISMIC JOINT SIZING

CODE CRITERION JOINT WIDTH

1982 UBC Code Drifts 16.2 inches

1988/94 UBC 3Rw/8= 36.5 inches

4.5xCode Drifts
1997 UBC MT=(M1)2+(M2)2 45.8 inches
M based on Cd
2003 NEHRP “avoid damaging 48.6 inches,
2002 ASCE-7 contact under total based on
deflection” (Cd) absolute sum

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

HISTORY OF SEISMIC JOINT SIZING

 ASCE/SEI 7-10 Section 12.12.3 has explicitly restored

the SRSS formulation for building separations similar to
that in the 1997 UBC:

 MT=(M1)2+(M2)2
 M based on Cd

 For the example building this will result in a required

separation of 35 inches.

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

HISTORY OF SEISMIC JOINT SIZING

 BASED ON THE COMPLETE TABLE IN THE PAPER:

• Required stiffness of drift-controlled frames has not changed
dramatically from code to code
• Near-fault zones and other areas where seismicity has
increased require stiffer buildings
• Building separations in older codes were based on calculated
code drift values that were 4 to 8 times smaller than current
• Use of SRSS of the building drifts results in more reasonable
separations.
 THE ABOVE IS FOR SIMPLE CODE-BASED
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

HISTORY OF SEISMIC JOINT SIZING

 FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS MORE

SOPHISTICATED APPROACHES HAVE BEEN USED
FOR MANY YEARS
 KASAI AND JAGIASI PROPOSED USING INELASTIC
SPECTRAL DIFFERENCE METHOD THAT GIVES
LESS CONSERVATIVE RESULTS THAN SRSS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT

 SEPARATE BUILDINGS / SEPARATE OWNERS

• Seismic joints usually unavoidable
 WITHIN A SINGLE BUILDING-AVOID IF POSSIBLE
• Modern analysis techniques may allow good seismic design
without seismic separations
• Different occupancies (I), joint may be economical.
 POSSIBLE TO AVOID IN PHASED PROJECTS
• Define future phase(s) precisely
• Perform analysis for phase 1 alone and with other phases
• Design phase 1 for worst case conditions
• Be aware of code change cycles and apprise Owner of
changes that may affect the future construction

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

TWO-PHASE
CONSTRUCTION

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

ELIMINATION OF SEISMIC JOINTS-
PENALTIES FOR PLAN IRREGULARITIES
 1988 UBC AND SUBSEQUENT CODES INCLUDE
DESIGN PENALTIES FOR PLAN IRREGULARITIES
CONSISTING OF INCREASED DESIGN FORCES
FOR COLLECTORS AND DIAPHRAGMS FOR:
• Torsional Irregularity
• Re-entrant Corners
• Diaphragm Discontinuity (strength and/or stiffness)
• Out-of-plane Irregularity
 THESE PENALTIES ARE OFTEN NOT SEVERE
ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FOR FORCES
DETERMINED FROM APPROPRIATE ANALYSIS.

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

ELIMINATION OF SEISMIC JOINTS

 MODERN DYNAMIC ANALYSIS PROGRAMS ALLOW

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX BUILDING
SHAPES THAT CAN JUSTIFY ELIMINATION OF
SEISMIC JOINTS IN MANY SITUATIONS WHERE
THEY WERE FORMERLY USED.
 STRENGTH DEMANDS AT LOCATIONS SUCH AS
RE-ENTRANT CORNERS AND NARROW
DIAPHRAGM AREAS CAN BE DETERMINED AND
APPROPRIATE DESIGNS CAN BE ESTABLISHED.

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

LOCATION OF SEISMIC JOINTS

 OBVIOUS / INHERENT LOCATIONS OFTEN BEST

• Weak diaphragm locations also have short floor/roof joints
• Mechanical, stair, elevator shafts can be part of the joint
• Re-entrant corners help to hide wall joints architecturally
 WHERE THERE ARE FUNCTIONAL CHOICES
LOCATIONS CAN BE SELECTED FOR EASIEST
CONCEALMENT AND LOWEST COST.

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

SEISMIC JOINT LOCATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

SEISMIC JOINT LOCATIONS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

STRUCTURAL DESIGN ISSUES

 FRAMING OF JOINTS:
• Separate columns each side of joint (Double Column)
• Floor cantilevered from nearby columns (Cantilever Floor)
• Seated connections

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

DOUBLE COLUMN EXAMPLE

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

CANTILEVER FLOOR EXAMPLE

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

STRUCTURAL DESIGN ISSUES

 SEATED CONNECTIONS
• Teflon or similar sliding surfaces
• Travel distance should be determined very conservatively
• Restraint systems not recommended unless design impact and
its effects can be accurately determined

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

SEATED CONNECTION

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

COST ISSUES

 COST OF LAND FOR JOINTS BETWEEN URBAN

TALL BUILDINGS
• 4 ft. wide joint, 100 ft. long between 40 story buildings may
cost: $200x100x40x4=$3.2M in lost building area.
 COST OF INTERNAL JOINTS: $150-$200/LIN. FT.
• Additional structure
• Joint covers for floors, roofs, walls
• Flashing and sealing
• Fire blankets
• Duct and piping movement devices
• Design costs

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

ARCHITECTURAL AND FIRE ISSUES

 ARCHITECTS DON’T LIKE JOINTS

• Require significant design effort
• Expensive
• Unattractive
 ARCHITECTS MAY PREFER UNIFORM WIDTH OF
JOINT FOR FULL HEIGHT OF BUILDING
 JOINT COVERS INCREASE IN COST AND
DECREASE IN AVAILABILITY WITH SIZE
 WEATHER TIGHTNESS AND FIRE RATING
CRITICAL

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

JOINT COVER AND FIRE BLANKET

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

CONCLUSIONS

 SEISMIC JOINTS HAVE BEEN USED FOR MANY

YEARS
 WIDTH OF JOINTS HAS INCREASED WITH
KNOWLEDGE
 JOINTS ARE UNDESIRABLE BECAUSE OF COST
AND APPEARANCE
 MODERN COMPUTER ANALYSIS MAY JUSTIFY
ELIMINATING JOINTS

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

CONCLUSIONS

 SEISMIC JOINTS REQUIRE CAREFUL DESIGN BY

ALL DESIGN TEAM MEMBERS TO ASSURE:
• STRUCTURAL FUNCTION
• WEATHER TIGHTNESS
• FIRE SEPARATION
• ACCEPTABLE APPEARANCE
• PERFORMANCE OF PLUMBING, HVAC, AND OTHER
SERVICES THAT CROSS THE JOINT

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE