2021 Seaoc SSDM v3

101584953
101584953
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/ ®
Seismic Design Manual

EXAMPLES FOR CONCRETE
Vo l u m e 3
BUILDINGS
Copyright © 2021 SEAOC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Accessed by Adam Miller ([email protected]), (-) Order Number #101584953 on Jul 12, 2023 04:53 AM (CDT) pursuant to License Agreement with
SEAOC. No further reproduction, no
2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 1 2/15/23 10:36 AM

101584953
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved. This publication
or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Structural
Engineers Association of California.
“The International Building Code” and the “IBC” are registered trademarks of the International Code
Council.
Publisher
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
1215 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501
E-mail: [email protected]; Web address: www.seaoc.org
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional
member organizations (Southern California, Northern California, San Diego, and Central California).
SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in
keeping with SEAOC’s stated mission:
Empower our members and Member Organizations to advance the people, practice, and
position of structural engineering.
Editor
International Code Council. The International Code Council is the leading global source of model codes
and standards and building safety solutions that include product evaluation, accreditation, technology,
codification, training and certification. The Code Council’s codes, standards and solutions are used to
ensure safe, affordable and sustainable communities and buildings worldwide.
888-ICC-SAFE (888-422-7233) www.iccsafe.org
Disclaimer
While the information presented in this document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC, ICC, ICC/
SKGA, NCSEA nor their member organizations, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who
have contributed to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal
liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations included in this publication. The information provided in this manual does not
necessarily reflect the opinions of ICC/SKGA in all aspects. The material presented in this publication
should not be used for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its
accuracy, suitability, and applicability. Users of information from this publication assume all liability
arising from such use.
First Printing: February 2023
ISBN: 978-1-959851-04-2 (soft cover)

978-1-959851-05-9 (PDF download)
T028685
ii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Suggestions for Improvement

Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to the following:
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

Don Schinske, Executive Director
1215 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 447-1198; Fax: (916) 444-1501
E-mail: [email protected]
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document is accurate. In
the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC website at
www.seaoc.org and on the ICC website at www.iccsafe.org.
SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may issue written errata.
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 iii

101584953
iv 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Table of Contents
Preface to the 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface to Volume 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
How to Use This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Design Example 1
Reinforced Concrete Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Design Example 2
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Design Example 3
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Design Example 4
Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Design Example 5
Pile Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Design Example 6
Pile Foundation for SMRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Design Example 7
Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Design Example 8
Reinforced Concrete Ductile Coupled Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 v

101584953
vi 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Preface to the 2021 IBC SEAOC

Structural/Seismic Design Manual
The IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, throughout its many editions, has served the purpose
of illustrating good seismic design and the correct application of building-code provisions. The manual has
bridged the gap between the discursive treatment of topics in the SEAOC Blue Book (Recommended Lateral
Force Requirements and Commentary) and real-world decisions that designers face in their practice.
The examples illustrate code-compliant designs engineered to achieve good performance under severe
seismic loading. In some cases simply complying with building-code requirements does not ensure good
seismic response. This manual takes the approach of exceeding the minimum code requirements in such
cases, with discussion of the reasons for doing so.
This edition comprises four volumes:
• Volume 1: Code Application Examples

• Volume 2: Examples for Light-Frame, Tilt-Up, and Masonry Buildings
• Volume 3: Examples for Concrete Buildings
• Volume 4: Examples for Steel-Framed Buildings
In general, the provisions for developing the design base shear, distributing the base-shear-forces vertically
and horizontally, checking for irregularities, etc., are illustrated in Volume 1. The other volumes contain
more extensive design examples that address the requirements of the material standards (for example, ACI
318 and AISC 341) that are adopted by the IBC. Building design examples do not illustrate many of the
items addressed in Volume 1 in order to permit the inclusion of less-redundant content.
Each volume has been produced by a small group of authors under the direction of a manager. The
managers have assembled reviewers to ensure coordination with other SEAOC work and publications, most
notably the Blue Book, as well as numerical accuracy.
This manual can serve as a valuable tool for engineers seeking to design buildings and building components
for good seismic response.
Rafael Sabelli and Katy Briggs

Project Managers
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 vii

101584953
viii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Preface to Volume 3
Volume 3 of the 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual illustrates the design requirements
for reinforced concrete shear wall and moment-frame seismic systems, parking garages, foundation
systems, and diaphragm and collectors.
The design examples in this volume are governed by standards developed by the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) in ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, and by modifications to
that document included in the 2021 IBC. The design examples in this volume approach the solution based
on the ductility expectations for the system/component and based on the desired seismic response. In most
examples there are several mechanisms that can be utilized to achieve the desired ductility and required
resistance, and in each example the author has chosen the appropriate option. The alternatives and the
reasons for not choosing them are discussed where applicable.
The examples follow the recommendations provided in the SEAOC Blue Book and other SEAOC
recommendations. They are intended to assist designers in developing structures and components of
structures that achieve good seismic performance. This manual is not intended to be a building code, nor is
it intended to provide an exhaustive list of all detailing and design approaches.
Seven of the design examples have been included in past editions of this manual and are updated in this
edition: reinforced concrete shear wall, reinforced concrete shear wall with coupling beams, reinforced
concrete special moment frame, reinforced concrete parking garage, pile foundation, pile foundations at a
special moment resisting frame, and design of concrete diaphragm and collector. A new example for the
design of a reinforced concrete ductile coupled wall system has been added to this volume. This new design
example utilizes a system that is introduced in ASCE 7-22.
Katy Briggs
Volume 3 Manager
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 ix

101584953
x 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Acknowledgments
Volume 3 of the 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly
qualified structural engineers, chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering
practice and seismic design. The authors are
Joe Maffei, S.E., Ph.D., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Joe is an expert on the seismic evaluation, design, and retrofitting of structures. He has directed a range
of projects, including those using innovative solutions and advanced methods of evaluation. Joe has
received awards including a Fulbright Fellowship to New Zealand, where he completed his Ph.D. degree,
and a postdoctoral scholarship to Japan. He served as Director for EERI and SEAONC, and in 2015 he
was elected as a fellow of SEAOC. The American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete
Institute have appointed Joe to committees writing structural code provisions. www.maffei-structure.com
Karl Telleen, S.E., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Karl has 19 years of experience, including seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete and steel buildings,
design and peer review of new structures, and wind and seismic analysis of solar arrays. He completed a
Fulbright Fellowship in Switzerland in 2010, and he was selected as an EERI Housner Fellow in 2017.
Karl served as Director and Treasurer of SEAONC, and he co-authored papers in the journals Earthquake
Spectra, Concrete International, and the ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.
www.maffei-structure.com
Martin Neuenschwander, Ph.D., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Martin has 13 years of research experience in structural engineering, including structural fire engineering
and seismic evaluation of existing concrete and steel buildings. He holds a Ph.D. from ETH Zurich,
Switzerland, and was awarded a Postdoctoral Research Fellowship of the Swiss National Science
Foundation that he completed at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center at UC Berkeley.
Martin authored papers in several peer-reviewed journals, including the ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Construction and Building Materials, and ACI Materials Journal.
Jon P. Kiland, S.E., IDA Structural Engineers—Original Author of Example 3

Jon has 40 years of experience as a structural design and consulting engineer in Northern California. His
practice has included extensive experience in seismic analysis and evaluation of existing buildings, the
design of new construction, and the seismic strengthening and rehabilitation of existing building projects.
He is a Past President of the Structural Engineers Association of California and Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California, and a Fellow Member of both organizations. His current committee
assignments include the ASCE 7-22 Seismic Sub-Committee (SSC), and TC-2 General Provisions task
committee of SSC. www.ida-se.com
Mehran Pourzanjani, S.E., F. SEAOC, Senior Principal, Saiful/Bouquet Structural Engineers—

Example 3
Mehran has 40 years of experience designing a wide spectrum of structures, from institutional and public
buildings to healthcare, regional malls, high-rise structures, and evaluation and strengthening of existing
buildings. Mehran has served as the President of SEAOSC and a Board Director for SEAOC. Additionally,
he has served as the past-chair of the SEAOC Seismology Committee, a member of ACI 318H Seismic
Provisions Sub-Committee, and ASCE 7-22 Seismic Subcommittee’s TC-4 group. He continues to serve on
SEAOC’s Standards Committee. Mehran has participated in university research through codification for the
design and seismic performance of concrete elements. Additionally, as the chair of the SEAOC seismology
committee, he spearheaded the development and publication of the 2009 SEAOC Blue Book and was the
main author of the “Reinforced Concrete Structures” section in the book.
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xi

101584953
Jeremiah LeGrue, S.E., City of Eugene—Example 4

Jeremiah has over 20 years of structural engineering experience. He is a graduate of Oregon State
University and Stanford University. Prior to joining the City of Eugene as a Structural Plans Examiner, he
worked for 17 years as a consulting structural engineer. His experience includes work as both designer and
peer reviewer for new buildings and seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings using both IBC
and ASCE 41-based approaches. www.eugene-or.gov
Stephen Harris, S.E., Independent Structural Engineering Consultant—Examples 5 and 6

Stephen Harris has practiced structural engineering for over 35 years. He is a graduate of the University of
California at Davis and a registered Structural Engineer in California and Hawaii. His experience includes
design of new structures, seismic strengthening of existing structures, design of pile foundation systems,
and building code development. He has served as Director and Treasurer of SEAONC.
Badri K. Prasad, S.E., President, OLMM Consulting Engineers—Example 7

Badri has over 30 years of experience leading design teams for the structural engineering of major
new buildings, including healthcare facilities, courts, airports, schools, and seismic retrofits. His areas
of expertise include the structural design of complex buildings of all types and materials, seismic
rehabilitation of existing buildings for enhanced seismic performance, design execution, and project
management. He has published and presented papers at several seminars and is also one of the authors of
Guide to the Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors, published by National Council of Structural
Engineers Association (NCSEA). www.olmm.com
Rahul Sharma, P.E., S.E., Project Engineer, Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.—Example 8

Rahul works on the design and analysis of both new and existing buildings. He is passionate about
developing complex problem-solving skills and generally takes on challenging projects. Rahul also gets
involved in several standard committees such as the ASCE 7 Seismic Subcommittee, the Building Seismic
Safety Council’s (BSSC) Provision Update Committee (PUC), and the SEAONC and SEAOC Seismology
Committee.
Nicolas Rodrigues, P.E., S.E., Principal, Miyamoto International—Peer Reviewer Examples 3 and 8
Nic has enjoyed designing concrete structures for nearly 20 years, in many markets. Most notably, Nic
has designed high-rise towers both internationally and domestically, including the tallest concrete-only
tower on the west coast. Nic is honored to have served SEOAC as the chair of seismology, and chair of
seismology concrete subcommittee, member of ER-ICC committee, and as a contributing author to the
SEAOC Blue Book and previous Design Manual examples. Most recently, Nic volunteered for ACI as a
voting member of the 318H subcommittee (Seismic Provisions) for the 2019 ACI code.
Production and art were provided by the International Code Council. SEAOC would specifically like to
thank and acknowledge Sandra Hyde, PE and Kathy Osmus for their assistance in the publication of the
2021 SSDM.
xii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
References
Standards
American Concrete Institute. ACI 318: Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2019.
American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria
for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, Virginia, 2017.
for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 1. Reston, Virginia, 2018.
for Buildings and Other Structures, Supplement 3. Reston, Virginia, 2021.
for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, Virginia, 2022.
International Code Council. 2021 International Building Code (IBC). Washington, D.C., 2021.
Other References
Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A.M.M., and Bryson, M., 2007, Test of High-Rise Core Wall: Effective
Stiffness for Seismic Analysis, ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, Farmington,
Michigan, September-October 2007.
AISC, 2003, Design Guide 18—Steel-framed Open-deck Parking Structures, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
ASCE/SEI 41-17, 2017, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, Structural
Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 1971, Plastic Design in Steel, A Guide and Commentary, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, New York.
ATC, 1996, ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
CRSI, 1996, Rebar Design and Detailing Data—ACI., Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute,
Schaumberg, Illinois.
Elwood, Kenneth J., Joe Maffei, Kevin A. Riederer, and Karl Telleen, 2009, Improving Column
Confinement Part 1: Assessment of design provisions, Concrete International, Volume 31, No. 11,
pages 32–48, November 2009.
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xiii

101584953
Elwood, Kenneth J., Joe Maffei, Kevin A. Riederer, and Karl Telleen, 2009, Improving Column
Confinement Part 2: Proposed new provisions for the ACI 318 Building Code, Concrete
International, Volume 31, No. 12, pages 41–48, December 2009.
Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council (ATC-43 project) for the Partnership for Response and Recovery. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Report No. FEMA-306, Washington, D.C., 1999.
FEMA, 1998, FEMA 306/307, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Ghosh, S. K., 1998, Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997 UBC, Building
Standards, May-June, pp. 20–24. International Conference of Building Officials, Washington,
D.C.
Guzman T. and M. Abell. (2012, April 17). Modeling cracked shear-wall behavior. Retrieved from
https://wiki.csiberkeley.com/x/AoBF
Jirsa, J.O., L.A. Lutz, and P. Gergely, 1979. Rationale for Suggested Development, Splice, and
Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension, Concrete International: Design &
Construction, Vol. 1, No. 7, July 1979, pp. 47–61.
MacGregor, J.G., 1992, Second Edition, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
Maffei, Joe, 1996, Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls—Beyond the Code, SEAONC Fall Seminar
Proceedings. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, San Francisco, California,
November, 1996.
McCormac J.C.. 1992, Design of Reinforced Concrete, Third Edition, Harper Collins College
Publishers, New York, New York.
Nilson, A.H. and Winter, G., 1966, Design of Concrete Structures, Tenth Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, New York.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2017, Tall Buildings Initiative: Guidelines
for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Version 2.03, University of California,
Berkeley, California, May, 2017.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1992, Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Design for
Seismic Resistance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1993, Stability of Ductile Structural Walls. ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 90, No. 4, July-August 1993.
Reese, L.C., Isenhower, W.M., Wang, S-T, 2006, Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep
Foundations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Schotanus, M. IJ., and Maffei, J.R., 2007, Computer Modeling and Effective Stiffness of Concrete
Wall Buildings, Proceedings of the International FIB Symposium on Tailor Made Concrete
Structures: New Solutions for Our Society, CRC Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, May 2007.
xiv 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
SEAOC Blue Book, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural
Engineers Associate of California (SEAOC), Seventh Edition, Sacramento, California.
SEAOC Blue Book, 2008, Concrete slab collectors, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
SEAOC Blue Book, 2019, Reinforced Concrete Structures (Article 09.01.010). Recommended
Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Associate of California,
Sacramento, California, First Printing, September, 2019.
Standards New Zealand, 1995, Concrete Structures Standard: Part 2—Commentary on the Design
of Concrete Structures (NZS 3101: Part 2)., May 1995, p. 84.
Structurepoint. 2018, SPcolumn Version 10.00: Design and Investigation of Reinforced Concrete
Column Sections, STRUCTUREPOINT, Skokie, Illinois.
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xv

101584953
xvi 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
How to Use This Document
Equation numbers in the right-hand margin refer to the one of the standards (e.g., ACI 318, ASCE 7 or
IBC). The default standard is given in the heading of each section of each example; equation numbers in
that section refer to that standard unless another standard is explicitly cited.
Abbreviations used in the “Code Reference” column are
§ – Section T – Table
F – Figure Eq – Equation
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xvii

101584953
xviii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Design Example 1
Reinforced Concrete Wall
OVERVIEW
The structure in this design example is an eight-story office with load-bearing reinforced concrete walls as
its seismic-force-resisting system. This design example focuses on the design and detailing of one of the
30-foot 6-inch-long walls running in the transverse building direction.
The purpose of this design example is twofold:
1. To demonstrate the design of a solid reinforced concrete wall for flexure and shear, including
bar cut-offs and lap splices.
2. To demonstrate the design and detailing of wall boundary zones.
The design example assumes that design lateral forces have already been determined for the structure and
that the forces have been distributed to the walls of the structure by a hand or computer analysis. This
analysis has provided the lateral displacements corresponding to the design lateral forces.
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 1

101584953
Design Example 1 ■ Reinforced Concrete Wall
OUTLINE
1. Building Geometry and Loads
2. Load Combinations for Design
3. Preliminary Sizing of Wall
4. Flexural Strength at Base of Wall
5. Flexural Strength and Lap Splices over Height of Wall
6. Shear Strength of Wall
7. Shear Friction (Sliding Shear) Strength of Wall
8. Detailing of Wall Boundary Elements
1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7
1.1 GIVEN INFORMATION
This design example follows the general building code requirements of the 2021 International Building
Code (2021 IBC) and ASCE/SEI 7-16. For structural concrete design, the 2021 IBC references the
American Concrete Institute Building Code (ACI 318), as indicated in Section 1901.2. This example
follows the requirements of ACI 318-19. Discussions related to the SEAOC Blue Book recommendations
refer to the document Recommended Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary (SEAOC, 1999)
as well as the Blue Book Seismic Design Recommendations articles on specific topics (SEAOC, 2019), as
applicable.
Figure 1-1 shows the typical floor plan of the structure. The design and analysis of the structure is based on
a response modification coefficient, R, of 5 (ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1) for a bearing wall system with special
reinforced concrete shear walls. The deflection amplification factor, Cd, is 5. The SEAOC Blue Book (2019,
Article 09.01.010) expresses the opinion that the R-value should be the same for concrete bearing-wall
systems (R = 5) and walls in building frame systems (R = 6), which may be justified based on detailing
provisions. The SEAOC Blue Book argues that placing gravity-load frame reinforcement in concrete walls
to artificially create a building frame does not necessarily improve ductility, provided that the detailing
for the concrete walls addresses the requirements for confinement and distribution of reinforcement. The
authors of this design example agree with the SEAOC Blue Book on this topic. To be consistent with the
current code requirements though, this design example uses R = 5.
Mapped spectral response acceleration values from ASCE 7 maps (Figures 22-1 through 22-8) are
S1 = 0.65
SS = 1.60
Site Class D
Risk Category II
2 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

101584953
Seismic Design Category D
Redundancy factor, ρ = 1.0
Seismic importance factor, I = 1.0
Concrete strength, f c' = 5000 psi
Steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi
Figure 1-1. Floor plan
1.2 DESIGN LOADS AND LATERAL FORCES
Figure 1-2 shows the wall elevation and shear and moment diagrams. The wall carries axial forces PD
(resulting from dead load including self-weight of the wall) and PL (resulting from live load), as shown
in Table 1-1. Live loads have already been reduced according to IBC Section 1607.12. The shear, VE, and
moment, ME, resulting from the design lateral earthquake forces are also shown in Table 1-1. The forces are
from a linear static analysis.

101584953
Figure 1-2. Wall elevation, shear, and moment diagram
Table 1-1. Design loads and lateral forces
Level PD (kips) PL (kips) VE (kips) ME (kip-ft)

Roof 193 37 84 0
8 388 72 244 928
7 573 108 414 3630
6 758 144 595 8210
5 945 181 785 14,800
4 1130 217 987 23,500
3 1310 253 1220 34,400
2 1540 290 1420 48,000
1 73,000

101584953
For this design example, it is assumed that the foundation system is rigid, and thus the wall is considered to
have a fixed base. The fixed-base assumption is made here primarily to simplify the example. In an actual
structure, the effect of foundation flexibility and its consequences on structural deformations should be
considered.
The analysis uses effective section properties for the stiffness of concrete elements. Example 2 includes a
discussion of effective section properties for use in analysis.
Using the fixed-base assumption and effective section properties, the horizontal displacement at the top
of the wall corresponding to the design lateral forces is 1.24 inches. This displacement is needed for the
detailing of boundary zones according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.1, which is illustrated in Part 8 of the
design example.
2. Load Combinations for Design ASCE 7
2.1 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Equations 6 and 7 of Section 2.3.6 are the seismic design load combinations to be used for concrete.
1.2D + 1.0E + L + 0.2S

0.9D + 1.0E
Load combinations for nonseismic loads for reinforced concrete are given in Section 2.3.1, Equations 1
through 5.
2.2 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE FORCE
The term E in the load combinations includes horizontal and vertical components according to
Equations 12.4-1 and 12.4-2 of Section 12.4.2:
E = Eh + Ev Eq 12.4-1
E = Eh − Ev Eq 12.4-2
where Eh and Ev are defined according to Equations 12.4-3 and 12.4-4 of Section 12.4.2.1 and Section
12.4.2.2 as follows:
Eh = ρQE Eq 12.4-3
Ev = 0.2SDSD Eq 12.4-4a
Substituting this into the seismic-load combinations results in
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + L + 0.2S

(0.9 − 0.2SDS)D + ρQE
Since there is no snow load, S = 0. Section 2.3.6 permits the load factor on L in the above combination to be
reduced to 0.5 where the unreduced design live load is less than or equal to 100 psf, with the exception of
garages or areas occupied as places of public assembly. Because this example building is an office building,
the reduced factor on L is applicable.

101584953
Given Site Class D and SS = 1.60, from Table 11.4-1, Fa = 1.0
SMS = FaSS = 1.60 Eq 11.4-1

SDS = (2/3)SMS = 1.07 Eq 11.4-3
With SDS = 1.07, ρ = 1.0, and a live load factor of 0.5, the governing load combinations for this design
example become
1.41D + QE + 0.5L
0.686D + QE
2.3 ACTIONS AT BASE OF WALL
For the example wall, the dead and live loads cause axial forces only, and the earthquake forces produce
shear and moment only. The second of the above combinations gives the lower bound axial force. Because
the axial force is less than that which would cause the balanced strain condition, the second of the above
load combinations will be the more critical for the flexural strength of the wall.
The governing axial force at the base of the wall is thus
Pu = 0.686PD = 0.686(1540 kips) = 1060 kips
The governing moment and shear at the base of the wall is
Mu = ME = 73,000 kip-ft
Vu = VE = 1420 kips
3.1 SHEAR STRESS AND REINFORCEMENT RATIO RULES OF THUMB
The dimensions and required number of walls in a building can be selected by limiting the average shear
stress in the walls, corresponding to factored lateral forces, to between 3 ffcc' and 5 ffcc' . Walls with
higher levels of shear stress are permitted by ACI 318, but shear stress within the range suggested leads to
more easily constructible detailing for shear strength, sliding shear, and boundary confinement. For taller
buildings with significant influence of higher modes, PEER Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic
Design of Tall Buildings (PEER, 2017) recommends limiting shear stresses to the range of 2 ffcc' to 3 ffcc'
for preliminary design.
For the example wall, the maximum factored shear force equals 1420 kips. Using a 3 ffcc' criterion, for a
wall length of 30 feet 6 inches, the wall thickness equals
1,420,000 lb
= 18.3 in
(
366 in 3 5000 psi )
Assume b = 20 inches.
Detailed shear design for calculated demands is discussed in Section 6.

101584953
3.2 MINIMUM THICKNESS TO PREVENT WALL BUCKLING SEAOC Blue Book
For structures with tall story heights, the designer should check that the wall thickness exceeds lu /16 where
lu is the unsupported height or length of the wall, whichever is shorter. The SEAOC Blue Book Commentary
(1999, C407.5.6, p. 198) recommends that “the wall boundary thickness limit of lu /16 be applied at all
potential plastic-hinge locations, regardless of whether boundary zone confinement is required.” ACI
318 Section 18.10.6.4(b) has a less restrictive requirement in this regard, which requires that the flexural
compression zone have width at least equal to hu /16 (where hu is equivalent to lu for walls in compression)
only in locations where special boundary elements are required. Section 18.10.6.4(c) also requires a
minimum compression zone width of 12 inches for special boundary elements of wall piers designed to
have a single critical section for flexure and axial loads.
For the example wall, the clear height at the first story is 17 feet.
Recommended thickness = lu /16 = 17(12)/16 = 12.8 in < 20 in . . . OK
3.3 LAYOUT OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT ACI 318
Based on brief calculations and the preliminary sizing considerations discussed here, the wall section and
reinforcement layout shown in Figure 1-3 is proposed for the base of the wall.
Figure 1-3. Layout of vertical reinforcement at wall base
The reinforcement layout addresses the following issues:
• Vertical bars are spaced longitudinally at 9 inches on center for ease of construction.
• The maximum permissible center-to-center spacing of vertical bars is 14 inches in boundary

regions of walls where confinement is needed, according to ACI 318 Sections 18.7.5.2 and
18.10.6.4 (f). This means that at the ends of the 20-inch-thick wall, three bars are used as shown
in Figure 1-3.
• The minimum requirements for longitudinal reinforcement at the end of wall segments per ACI
318, Section 18.10.2.4 are satisfied.
ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.1 specifies a minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.0025 for both vertical and hori-
zontal reinforcement of structural walls. For the proposed layout, at the center portion of the wall’s length
ρv = As /bs = 1.58 in2 / (9 in × 20 in) = 0.0088 > 0.0025 . . . OK

101584953
4. Flexural Strength at Base of Wall ACI 318
4.1 REINFORCEMENT CONSIDERED “EFFECTIVE”
As required by ACI 318 Section 18.10.5.1, all “developed longitudinal reinforcement within effective
flange widths, boundary elements, and the wall web shall be considered effective.” Thus, the vertical
reinforcement in the web of the wall and axial force contributions to the flexural strength of wall sections
may not be neglected.
The 1995 and earlier editions of ACI 318 and the 1991 and earlier editions of the UBC required wall
boundaries to carry all moment and gravity forces. This practice results in higher flexural strengths in walls,
which can lead to poor earthquake performance because it makes shear failure more likely to occur. By
ACI 318 Section 18.10.5.1, this design practice is no longer permitted.
Wall flexural strength can be computed by hand calculations, spreadsheet calculations, or a computer
program such as spColumn (American Structurepoint, 2018). All three calculation approaches are
demonstrated in the following sections and are based on an assumed strain distribution and an iterative
calculation procedure.
4.2 ASSUMED REINFORCEMENT STRAIN
For cyclic loading, all vertical reinforcement along the wall can be assumed to yield in either tension or
compression. This assumption simplifies the hand calculation of moment capacity and is used in the hand
calculations shown in Part 4.4.
Alternatively, the reinforcement strain can be assumed to be directly proportional to distance from
the neutral axis, as discussed in ACI 318 Section 22.2.1.2. This assumption is used in the spreadsheet
calculations demonstrated here and is also used by the spColumn computer program.
The assumption of all reinforcement yielding results in a slightly greater flexural strength compared to the
strain assumption of Section 22.2.1.2, but the difference is not significant. The two possible assumed stress
distributions are illustrated in Figure 1-4.
Figure 1-4. Steel stress and neutral axis depth

101584953
In calculating flexural strength, it is necessary to determine the neutral axis depth, c, as shown in
Figure 1-4. A typical calculation of flexural strength is based on the following steps:
1. An initial estimate of c.
2. Calculation of the steel reinforcement tensile and compressive forces.
3. Balancing the forces to calculate the concrete compressive force, Cc = (Pn + ΣTs − ΣCs).
4. Calculation of the stress block length, a, which corresponds to Cc.
5. Calculation of c equal to a/β1, and a reiteration of steps 1 through 4, if necessary.
4.3 STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR
ACI 318 Section 21.2 gives the requirements for determining the strength reduction factor φ. For reinforced
concrete sections with flexure and axial force, the value of φ depends on whether the section is tension-
controlled or compression-controlled.
ACI 318 Section R21.2.2 defines the conditions for compression- and tension-controlled sections.
The definitions depend on the strain values at the cross sections at nominal strength. For Grade 60
reinforcement, sections are compression controlled if the net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel, εt,
is less than or equal to the yield strain, εty = 0.002, when the concrete in compression reaches its assumed
strain limit of 0.003. Sections are tension controlled if εt is greater than or equal to εty + 0.003 = 0.005 when
the concrete in compression reaches its assumed strain limit of 0.003.
For tension-controlled sections, φ is 0.9. For compression-controlled sections (without spiral

reinforcement), φ is 0.65. When εt is between the yield strain εty = 0.002 and εty + 0.003 = 0.005, the value
of φ is linearly interpolated as indicated in Section R21.2.2 and as shown in Figure R21.2.2b.
4.4 HAND CALCULATION
The calculation of moment strength is based on the free-body diagram shown in Figure 1-5.
The strength reduction factor, φ, is determined according to ACI 318 Section 21.2. Considering the
moderate amount of reinforcement in the wall section and relatively small (less than 0.10f c' A) axial force, it
is reasonable to assume that the net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel, εt, is greater than 0.005 when
the concrete in compression reaches its assumed strain limit of 0.003. Thus, the section is tension controlled
as defined in Section R21.2.2. With this assumption, φ is equal to 0.9 per Section 21.2. (We will verify this
assumption and modify the value of φ if required in the subsequent design steps.)
Pn = Pu /φ = 1060 kips / 0.9 = 1180 kips

101584953
Figure 1-5. Free-body diagram for flexural strength
The iterative calculation of neutral axis depth and flexural strength is shown in Tables 1-2 and 1-3.
Table 1-2. First iteration for c and Mn
Reinforcement
Force Bars As (in2) As fy (kips) x (in) As fy*x (kip-in)
CS1 3 #11 4.68 –281 3 –843
CS2 12 #11 18.7 –1120 34.5 –38,600
TS3 54 #8 42.7 2560 183 468,000
TS2 12 #11 18.7 1120 332 372,000
TS1 3 #11 4.68 281 363 102,000
Pn 1180 183 216,000
Cc −3740 22.0 –82,300
0 1,040,000 = Mn (kip-in)
86,400 = Mn (kip-ft)
Table 1-3. Second iteration for c and Mn
Reinforcement
Force Bars As (in2) As fy (kips) x (in) As fy*x (kip-in)
CS1 3 #11 4.68 –281 3 –843
CS2 10 #11 15.6 –936 30 –28,100
TS3 54 #8 42.7 2560 183 468,000
TS2 12 #11 18.7 1120 332 372,000
TS1 3 #11 4.68 281 363 102,000
Pn 1180 183 216,000
Cc −3920 23.0 –90,200
0 1,040,000 = Mn (kip-in)
86,600 = Mn (kip-ft)

101584953
First iteration, assume c = 62 in
Therefore, fifteen #11 bars yield in compression, fifty-four #8 bars (all web vertical bars) plus fifteen #11
bars yield in tension. (Assume all reinforcement yields in either tension or compression.)
Solve for Cc to balance forces.
Cc = 3740 kips
Calculate a corresponding to Cc.
a = Cc / (0.85f c' b) = 3740 kips / [0.85(5 ksi)20 in] = 44.0 in
Calculate c.
c = a/β1 = 44.0 in / 0.80 = 55.0 in
Second iteration, assume c = 55 in
Therefore, thirteen #11 bars yield in compression, fifty-four #8 bars plus fifteen #11 bars yield in tension.
Neglect force in two #11 bars located at x = 57 inches. Therefore, centroid of ten #11 bars is at x = 30
inches. Assume all other reinforcement yields.
Solve for Cc to balance forces.
Cc = 3920 kips
Calculate a corresponding to Cc.
a = Cc / (0.85 f c' b) = 3920 kips / [0.85(5 ksi)20 in] = 46.1 in
Calculate c.
c = a/β1 = 46.1 in / 0.80 = 57.6 in solution converged
This results in Mn = 86,600 kip-ft.
Now check the assumption that the section is tension controlled. Using the strain compatibility for the
section of the wall, the tensile strain in the extreme tension steel can be calculated as follows:
0.003 0.003
εt = (lw − 3 in − c) = (366 in − 3 in − 57.6 in ) = 0.0159 > 0.005
c 57.6 in
Therefore, φ = 0.9.
φMn = 0.9(86,600 kip-ft) = 77,900 kip-ft > Mu = 73,000 kip-ft . . . OK
4.5 SPREADSHEET CALCULATION
The approach used in Part 4.4 to calculate flexural strength can be done on a spreadsheet or by hand.
A more generally applicable spreadsheet to calculate wall flexural strength can also be created. Such a
spreadsheet is shown in Figure 1-6.

101584953
Figure 1-6. General spreadsheet to calculate flexural strength

101584953
This spreadsheet is set up so that each individual layer of reinforcement is represented by a spreadsheet
row. The input variables are at the top of the spreadsheet. The user adjusts the input value of the neutral axis
depth, c, on the spreadsheet until the tension and compression forces on the section are balanced.
The spreadsheet gives a design moment capacity, φMn, of the selected section equal to 78,100 kip-ft,
approximately the same as that calculated by hand in the previous section.
4.6 SOFTWARE CALCULATION
Computer software tools are also available to design wall sections for combined flexural and axial forces.
The example wall section is analyzed using the program spColumn, and the flexural strength obtained is
approximately the same as that calculated by the hand and spreadsheet methods. The printed screen output
from spColumn is shown in Figure 1-7.
Figure 1-7. Analysis of wall section by spColumn

101584953
5. Flexural Strength and Lap Splices over Height of Wall ACI 318
5.1 BAR CUT-OFFS
ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3(a) addresses the development of flexural reinforcement and states: “Except at
the top of a wall, longitudinal reinforcement shall extend at least 12 feet above the point at which it is no
longer required to resist flexure but need not extend more than ld above the next floor level.”
Applying the bar cut-off requirement to the example wall, the flexural strength is reduced in two steps over
the height of the wall: above Level 5 and above Level 7. The dimensions of the wall section and the number
of vertical bars are unchanged at these transitions—only the bar size is reduced. The selection of vertical
reinforcement sizes and cut-offs is shown in the wall elevation of Figure 1-8. A summary of flexural
reinforcement and flexural strength over the wall height is given in Table 1-4.
Figure 1-8. Wall elevation

101584953
Table 1-4. Boundary and vertical web reinforcement
Vertical Bars Each Axial Force Design Flexural

Location Boundary Web Vertical Bars Pu = (0.9 – 0.2SDS)PD Strength, φMn
Level 1 – Level 5 15 #11 54 #8 1060 kip 78,100 kip-ft
The flexural strengths for each reinforcement arrangement are calculated using the spreadsheet procedure
described in Part 4.5.
The moment demand above Level 5 is checked by the following calculation. For simplicity, the moment
diagram is assumed to be linear over the building height. This addresses higher mode dynamic response
effects according to the recommendations of Paulay and Priestley (1992, Figures 5-28 and 5-29).
Height of reinforcement cut-off above base = 51 ft + 2-ft 9-in lap splice = 53.75 ft
Height after subtracting 12-ft bar extension = 53.75 ft – 12 ft = 41.75 ft
Moment demand Mu at the base of the wall = 73,000 kip-ft
Overall wall height, hw = 95.3 ft
Moment demand at h = 41.75 based on linear = (73,000)(95.3 − 41.75)/95.3 = 41,019 kip-ft
moment diagram < 59,000 . . . OK
Similarly, the moment demand above Level 7 is checked by the following calculation:
Height of reinforcement cut-off above base = 73-ft 2-in + 1-ft 8-in lap splice = 74.8 ft
Height after subtracting 0.8lw bar extension = 74.8 − 12 = 62.8 ft
Moment demand at h = 50.4 based on linear = (73,000)(95.3 − 62.8)/95.3 = 24,895 kip-ft
moment diagram < 39,900 . . . OK
The calculations for bar cut-off locations are illustrated in Figure 1-9.
The wall reinforcement ratio, ρv, shall be not less than 0.0025 per ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.1. For the top
levels of the building with #6 @ 9-inch web vertical bars, ρv is calculated as
ρv = 2(0.44 in2) / (9 in)(20 in) = 0.00489 > 0.0025 . . . OK

101584953
Figure 1-9. Calculation of required flexural strength at bar cut-off locations
5.2 LAP SPLICE LENGTH
The lap splices of the vertical reinforcement are shown in the wall elevation of Figure 1-8.
Lap splice lengths are calculated according to ACI 318 Section 25.5. This section indicates that Class B
tension lap splices are to be 1.3 times the tension development length, ld, from ACI 318 Section 25.4.2.
For cases with ample cover and spacing between bars or where reinforcement exists to provide Atr > 0, the
more explicit calculation per ACI 318 Section 25.4.2.4 will result in smaller ld than calculations per ACI
318 Section 25.4.2.3. The following are sample calculations for the two lap-splice conditions that occur for
the vertical bars just above the 5th floor.

101584953
Lap splices of the #7 @ 9-inch vertical bars of the wall web
The calculation of ld is according to ACI 318 Equation 25.4.2.4a:
⎛ 3⎞ f y ψ ψ ψ⎛ ⎞
t e s
ld = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ db Eq 25.4.2.4a
⎜40⎟ λ f cʹ ⎛ cb + K tr⎜ ⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ db ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
Because the vertical bars in the wall web are in the outside layer, there is no transverse reinforcement that
“crosses the potential plane of splitting,” so Atr = 0. Thus, Ktr = 0.
Clear cover for these bars is specified on the drawings as 11⁄2 inches. The distance cb is defined in ACI 318
as the smaller of (a) the distance from center of a bar or wire to the nearest concrete surface, and (b) one-
half the center-to-center spacing of bars or wires being developed. In this case, cb equals the cover
measured from the center of the bar: 1.5 in + 0.875 in / 2 = 1.94 inches.
The term (cb + Ktr) / db equals 2.22, which is less than the upper limit of 2.5 from ACI 318 Section 25.4.2.4.
Other input values to Equation 25.4.2.4a are
ψt = 1.0 (vertical bars)

ψe = 1.0 (uncoated reinforcement)
ψs = 1.0 (#7 bars or larger)
λ = 1.0 (normal weight concrete)
db = 0.875 in
⎛ 3 60,000 psi (1.0)(1.0)(1.0) ⎞
ld = ⎜ ⎟⎟ db = 28.7 db
⎜ 40 1.0 5000 psi (2.22)
⎝ ⎠
The required length for a Class B lap splice equals
1.3(28.7db) = 37.3(0.875 in) = 2 ft 9 in
Lap splices of the #10 vertical bars within boundary ties
The calculation of lap splice length for vertical boundary bars is similar, except that the ties around the bars
cross the potential plane of splitting and provide a transverse reinforcement area, Atr, that can reduce the
required lap splice length.
ACI 318 defines Atr as the “total cross-sectional area of all transverse reinforcement within spacing s that
crosses the potential plane of splitting through the reinforcement being developed.” The quantity n is the
number of bars or wires being spliced or developed along the plane of splitting. The interpretation of how
to determine Atr and n is not entirely clear from ACI 318, but Figure 1-10, adapted from Jirsa et al (1979)
and the commentary to the New Zealand concrete code (Standards New Zealand, 1995), depicts potential
splitting planes and corresponding values for Atr /n.

101584953
Figure 1-10. Determination of Atr /n for calculation of lap-splice length

(adapted from Figure 4 of Jirsa et al [1979] and Figure C7.5 of Standards New Zealand [1995])
As can be deduced from Jirsa et al, case (b) governs where spacing between bars is relatively large, as is the
case for the boundaries of the example wall. Therefore,
Atr /n = At = 0.20 in2
Ties around the boundary bars are spaced at 8 inches on center, as shown in Figure 1-8, so s = 8 in
40 Atr 0.20 in 2 (40)

K tr = = = 1.00 in
sn (8 in )(1)
Clear cover is specified as 11⁄2 inches to the tie, so
cb = 1.5 in + 0.5 in + 1.27 in / 2 = 2.64 in
The term (cb + Ktr)/db equals 2.87, which is greater than the upper limit of 2.5 from ACI 318 Section
25.4.2.4, so the value input into ACI 318 Equation 25.4.2.4a is 2.5.
db = 1.27 in
⎛ 3 60,000 psi (1.0)(1.0)(1.0) ⎞
ld = ⎜ ⎟⎟ db = 25.5db
⎜ 40 1.0 5000 psi (2.5)
⎝ ⎠
The required length for a Class B lap splice equals
1.3(25.5db) = 33.1(1.27 in) = 3 ft 6 in
5.3 SPLICES IN PLASTIC-HINGE REGIONS
At locations where yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur, ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3(b)
requires the development lengths of longitudinal reinforcement to be 1.25 times the values calculated for fy
in tension.

101584953
For the example wall, yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is expected (and designed to occur) at the base
of the wall where the bending moment is the highest. (See Figure 1-2.) This is the intended plastic-hinge
region of the wall.
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3(c), lap splices of flexural reinforcement in boundary regions are not permitted
in plastic-hinge regions of walls. The no lap splice region extends at least one story height (or 20 feet,
whichever is less) above and one development length below the critical section where yielding is expected
to occur as a result of lateral displacements. As indicated in 1999 Blue Book Sections C402.7 and C404.3,
lap splices in plastic-hinge regions are likely to slip unless they are surrounded by confining ties. Even
well-confined lap splices that do not slip are undesirable in plastic-hinge regions because they concentrate
yielding over a shorter length of the flexural reinforcement than occurs if lap splices are not present.
Paulay and Priestley (1992) note that splices in plastic-hinge zones tend to progressively unzip, and
that attempting to mitigate the problem by making lap splices longer than required is unlikely to ensure
satisfactory performance.
Mechanical splices
Only properly designed mechanical splices are allowed as splices in plastic-hinge regions. Ideally, the
mechanical splices should be able to develop the breaking strength of the bar. As a minimum, mechanical
splices must be Type 2 splices according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3(d), Section 18.2.7, and Section
25.5.7 if they are to be used in plastic-hinge regions. SEAOC recommends that mechanical splices be
staggered so that no more than one-half of the reinforcement is spliced at one section, and the stagger is not
less than 2 feet. Staggering of the splices is not required by ACI 318.
Plastic-hinge length and zone in which to exclude lap splices
The equivalent plastic-hinge length, lp, of a wall section can be taken as 0.2lw + 0.07M/V where M/V is the
moment to shear ratio at the plastic-hinge location (ATC, 1999).
For the example wall, lp is calculated as:
lp = 0.21lw + 0.07M/V = 0.2(30.5 ft) + 0.07(73,000 kip-ft/1420 kips)

= 6.1 ft + 3.6 ft
= 9.7 ft
Equivalent plastic-hinge lengths, as calculated above, can be used to relate plastic curvatures to plastic
rotations and displacements. The actual zone of yielding and nonlinear behavior typically extends beyond
the equivalent plastic-hinge length.
For this design example wall, the expected zone of yielding is taken as equal to approximately
2lp (19.4 feet), and lap splices are avoided over this height.
In the design example, lap splices are excluded over the first two stories (i.e., over a height of 28.8 feet) as
shown in the wall elevation of Figure 1-8. Because of potential construction difficulties in using continuous
vertical bars from the foundation through Level 3, an option to use mechanical splices can be specified as
shown in Figure 1-8.
It might also be a reasonable design [and in accordance with the no lap splice region specified in ACI 318
Section 18.10.2.3(c)] to exclude lap splices over the first-story height of 17.1 feet and to have lap splices
above the 2nd floor. In this case, however, the lap splices at the 2nd floor would be in a location where
“yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur” from seismic displacements. Thus, the 2nd-floor
lap splices would need to be to be designed for 1.25fy in accordance with ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3(b).

101584953
6. Shear Strength of Wall ACI 318
The SEAOC Blue Book (2019, Article 09.01.010) recommends that “the most ideal ductile design for shear
walls is to promote their flexural responses.” To ensure this, the shear capacity of the wall must be sufficient
to develop the flexural strength of the wall. ACI 318 code requirements now include shear amplification
factors to achieve this objective.
Shear demand
ACI 318 Section 18.10.3.1 prescribes using an amplified design shear force, Ve. This design approach
provides shear strength to develop the wall flexural strength and is consistent with the Blue Book
recommendations. Two factors amplify the shear demand from linear analysis, Vu, to the amplified design
shear force, Ve:
Ve = ΩvωvVu ≤ 3Vu Eq 18.10.3.1
The load factors, Ωv and ωv, account for flexural overstrength developing in the plastic-hinge region and
shear amplification because of inelastic dynamic effects (higher modes).
ACI 318 Section 18.10.3.1.3 gives the following equation for the shear amplification factor, ωv.
ωv = (1.3 + ns/30), for buildings over 6 stories, where ns = number of stories

= (1.3 + 8/30) = 1.57
As indicated in the Blue Book, the ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted triangular distributions of
lateral forces.
ACI 318 Table 18.10.3.1.2 prescribes the overstrength factor, Ωv, based on the upper bound of flexural
strength, taken as the “probable flexural strength,” Mpr, defined in ACI 318 Section 18.6.5.1.
Mpr is calculated using a strength-reduction factor φ = 1.0, reinforcement strength 1.25fy, and the load
combination of ASCE 7 Section 2.3.6 that results in the greatest flexural strength (in this case corresponding
to greater axial force). Table 1-5 shows the probable flexural strength along with the nominal flexural strength
for comparison. The nominal flexural strength is that which is provided to meet the minimum required
flexural strength; the probable flexural strength is that which is considered for calculating shear demand.
Table 1-5. Flexural strength comparison
Quantity Axial Force Considered Reinforcement Strength Flexural Strength

Probable strength Pu = 1.41PD + 0.5PL = 2320 kips 1.25 fy = 75 ksi Mpr = 120,000 kip-ft
Nominal strength Pu = 0.686PD = 1060 kips fy = 60 ksi Mn = 86,800 kip-ft
At the base of the wall, the magnified shear demand Ve is calculated as
Ve = ΩvωvVu = (120,000 kip-ft / 73,000 kip-ft)1.57(1420 kips) = 3665 kips
where according to ACI 318 Table 18.10.3.1.2, the overstrength factor is taken as Ωv = max{Mpr /Mu, 1.5}.

101584953
Shear capacity
ACI 318 Section 11.5 gives shear strength provisions for walls designed for nonseismic lateral forces such
as wind or earth pressure. ACI 318 Section 18.10.4 gives shear strength provisions for walls designed for
seismic forces.
(
Vn = Acv α c λ f cʹ + ρt f y ) Eq 18.10.4.1
The subject wall has a ratio of hw/lw greater than 2.0, so ac = 2.0. For normal weight concrete, λ = 1.0.
Therefore,
(
Vn = Acv 2(1.0) f cʹ + ρt f y )
Because this design example provides nominal shear strength to exceed the shear corresponding to flexural
strength, a strength-reduction factor, φ, of 0.75 can be used and the shear capacity per ACI 318 Equation
18.10.4.1 is
(
φVn = 0.75(20 in )(366 in ) 2(1.0) 5000 + ρt (60, 000 psi) = (776 + 329,000ρt ) kips )
For the shear demand of 3670 kips, the required amount of horizontal reinforcement is calculated
ρt = (3670 kips − 776 kips) / 329,000 = 0.0088

Try #7 @ 6 inches on center each face
ρt = 2(0.60 in2) / (6 in)(20 in) = 0.0100 > 0.0088 . . . OK
This amount of shear reinforcement is provided over the bottom story of the wall. For the other stories, the
recommended amount of horizontal reinforcement, based on the amplified shear demand Ve, is calculated
as shown in Table 1-6. For all stories of the building, the overstrength factor, Ωv = Mpr /Mu, is that value
calculated at the base plastic hinge of the wall. Likewise, the value of ωv remains constant for all stories of
the building.
Table 1-6. Horizontal reinforcement
Horizontal
Level VE (kips) Vu* (kips) Reinforcement ρt φVn (kips)
Roof 84 217 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
8 244 630 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
7 414 1070 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
6 595 1540 #5 @ 12 inches E.F. 0.00258 1627
5 785 2030 #5 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00517 2478
4 987 2550 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00733 3192
3 1220 3150 #6 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.00733 3192
2 1420 3670 #7 @ 6 inches E.F. 0.01000 4070

101584953
ACI 318 Equation 18.10.4.1 is used to calculate shear capacity:
8 Acv f cʹ = 8(20 in )(366 in ) 5000 = 4140 kips > 4070 kips
Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend equations for shear strength that are somewhat different from ACI
318 Equation 18.10.4.1 and in which the shear strength at plastic-hinge zones is taken to be less than that
at other wall locations. FEMA 306 (ATC, 1999) also gives equations for wall shear strength. For the wall
design in this design example, the Paulay and Priestley shear-strength equations result in nearly identical
amounts of horizontal reinforcement as ACI 318 Equation 18.10.4.1.
7. Shear Friction (Sliding Shear) Strength of Wall ACI 318
At construction joints and flexural plastic-hinge zones, walls can be vulnerable to sliding shear failure.
Typically, low-rise walls are more vulnerable. If construction joint surfaces are properly prepared according
to ACI 318 Section 26.5.6.1(c), taller walls should not be susceptible to sliding shear failure.
Sliding shear can be checked using the shear friction provisions of ACI 318 Section 22.9. Shear strength is
computed by Equation 22.9.4.2.
Vn = Avf fy (μ) Eq 22.9.4.2
μ is the coefficient of friction, which is taken as 1.0λ, assuming there is a construction joint at the first story
with the surface roughened to 1⁄4-inch amplitude, where λ = 1.0 for normal weight concrete.
Avf is the amount of shear-transfer reinforcement that crosses the potential sliding plane. For the wall in
this design example, all vertical bars in the section are effective as shear-transfer reinforcement (ACI 318
Section R22.9.4.2). At the base of the wall:
Avf = 30(1.56 in2) + 54(0.79 in2) = 89.5 in2
Section 22.9.4.5 indicates that “permanent net compression” can be taken as additive to the force Avf fy;
thus, the lower bound axial force, 0.686PD, can be included in Equation 11-25.
Vn = (Avf fy + 0.686PD)(μ) = [(89.5 in2)(60 ksi) + 1060 kips](1.0) = 6430 kips
Section 22.9.4.4 requires that the shear friction strength not be taken greater than the smallest of 0.2f c' λ,
(480 + 0.08f c' )Ac, or 1600Ac, where Ac is the concrete area. For the example wall with f c' = 5000 psi, the
(480 + 0.08f c' )Ac criterion governs.
Vn ≤ [480 + 0.08(5000 psi)](20 in)(366 in) = 6442 kips > Vu* = 3665 kips . . . OK
By inspection, the sliding shear capacity at higher story levels of the building is also adequate.

101584953
8. Detailing of Wall Boundary Elements ACI 318
8.1 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS

Boundary elements at the edge of structural walls are designed according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2.
For the example wall, the need for special boundary elements is determined according to ACI 318 Section
18.10.6.2, which applies to walls that are effectively continuous from the base of the structure to the top of
the wall and designed to have a single critical section for flexure and axial forces. Rearranging Equation
18.10.6.2(a) gives a limit for the depth of the neutral axis. If this limit is exceeded, boundary zone detailing
is required:
lw
c≥ Eq 18.10.6.2
600(1.5δu /hw )
The quantity δu /hw shall not be taken less than 0.005.
The neutral-axis depth, c, should be calculated for the axial load case that results in the largest value of c
(i.e., the case with higher axial force). Therefore,
Pu = 1.41PD + 0.5PL + 1.0QE = 2320 kips
Using the same procedure as in Part 4.5, the depth of the compression zone is determined to be
c = 75 inches.
δu is the design displacement defined in ACI 318 Section 2.3. The commentary (ACI 318 Section 2.3
defining terminology) indicates that the displacement is calculated considering “modification factors
to account for expected inelastic response.” Thus, the design displacement corresponds to Cd times δxe,
according to ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6, Equation 12.8-15. The term δxe is the elastic displacement of the
top of the wall corresponding to the design seismic force. For this building, δxe is 1.24 inches; Cd is the
deflection amplification factor, equal to 5 per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. Therefore,
Cd δ xe 5(1.24 in )
δu = design displacement = = = 6.2 in
IE 1.0
δu /hw = 6.2 / [(95.4)(12)] = 0.0054 δu /hw ≥ 0.005 does not govern
lw 366
= = 75 in ≤ c = 75 in
600(1.5δu /hw ) 600(1.5)(0.0054)
Therefore, special boundary elements are not required. Please refer to Example 2 for further discussion in a
case where special boundary elements are required.
8.2 DETAILING WHERE SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED
Where special boundary elements are not required, Section 18.10.6.5(b) requires the following detailing
consideration:
If the maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the wall boundary exceeds 400/fy,
boundary transverse reinforcement shall satisfy Sections 18.7.5.2(a) through (e) over the
distance calculated in accordance with Section 18.10.6.4(a). The vertical spacing of transverse
reinforcement at the wall boundary shall be in accordance with Table 18.10.6.5(b). For a
reinforcement steel Grade 60, Table 18.10.6.5(b) requires the vertical spacing of the transverse
reinforcement not exceed the lesser of 8 inches and 8db of the smallest primary flexural
reinforcing bars, except the spacing shall not exceed the lesser of 6 inches and 6db within a
distance equal to the greater of lw and Mu /4Vu above and below critical sections where yielding
of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur as a result of inelastic lateral displacements.

101584953
In this example, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio for fifteen #8 bars in the boundary region of the wall at
the top floor is
15 Ab (15)(0.79 in 2 )
ρ= = = 0.010
tw (1.5 in + 6(9 in ) + 1.5 in ) (20 in)(57 in)
which is greater than 400/fy = 0.00667.
Therefore, boundary ties per Section 18.10.6.5 are required at the top story and at all other stories that have
a higher reinforcement ratio.
The minimum width of the boundary element is determined based on the requirements of
Section 18.10.6.4(a): “The boundary element shall extend horizontally from the extreme compression
fiber a distance not less than the larger of c − 0.1lw and c/2.”
c − 0.1lw = 75 in − 0.1(366 in) = 38.4 in . . . governs

c/2 = 75 in / 2 = 37.5 in
For the wall in this design example, #4 tie sets are provided enclosing the 15 longitudinal bars at each end
of the wall. The tie sets have a tie leg located at each of the longitudinal bars, as shown in Figure 1-11. The
ties create a boundary element that extends 58 inches horizontally from the extreme compression fiber.
(58 in > 38.4 in . . . OK)
ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.5(b) requires 6-inch maximum tie spacing in regions “above and below critical
sections where yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur as a result of inelastic lateral
displacements.” In other regions, 8-inch maximum tie spacing is required. For the example wall, in the
region of potential yielding at the base of the wall, the spacing limit of 6 inches governs over 6db for #11
longitudinal bars. Similarly, outside the yielding region, the spacing limit of 8 inches governs over 8db for
the smallest longitudinal boundary bars (#8). The SEAOC Blue Book (1999, Section 402.12) requires 6-inch
maximum tie spacing, but only requires boundary ties “at potential plastic-hinge regions.” For the example
wall, the potential plastic-hinge region occurs at the base and extends over the first one to two stories, as
discussed in Part 5.3 of this example. For this example, the boundary ties are spaced at 6 inches on center
over the first two stories, satisfying the Blue Book and ACI requirements. Boundary ties are then spaced at
8 inches on center over the remaining height of the wall, satisfying the ACI requirement. The spacing of the
boundary ties is indicated in Figure 1-8.
Figure 1-11. Boundary reinforcement at wall base

101584953
Design Example 2
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams
OVERVIEW
The structure in this design example is a six‑story office building with reinforced concrete walls as its
seismic‑force‑resisting system. The example focuses on the design and detailing of one of the reinforced
concrete walls. This is a coupled wall running in the transverse building direction. The example assumes
that design lateral forces have already been determined for the building and that the seismic moments,
shears, and axial forces on each of the wall components are given from computer analysis.
The purpose of this design example is to illustrate the design of coupling beams and other aspects of
reinforced concrete wall design.

101584953
Design Example 2 ■ Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams
OUTLINE
4. Coupling Beam Strength and Diagonal Reinforcement
5. Flexural Reinforcement of Wall Piers
6. Plastic Mechanism Analysis
7. Shear Reinforcement of Wall Piers
8. Detailing of Wall‑Pier Boundary Elements
9. Detailing of Coupling Beams
This design example follows the general building code requirements of the 2021 International Building
Code (2021 IBC) and ASCE/SEI 7. For structural concrete design, the 2021 IBC references the American
Concrete Institute Building Code (ACI 318), as indicated in Section 1901.2. This example follows the
requirements of ACI 318-19. Discussions of the SEAOC Blue Book recommendations refer to the document
Recommended Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary (SEAOC, 1999) as well as the Blue Book
Seismic Design Recommendations articles on specific topics (SEAOC, 2019), as applicable.
The wall to be designed is one of several reinforced concrete walls in the building. The design and analysis
of the structure is based on a response modification coefficient, R, of 5 (ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1) for a
bearing‑wall system with special reinforced concrete shear walls. The deflection amplification factor, Cd,
is 5. The SEAOC Blue Book (2019, Article 09.01.010) expresses the opinion that the R-value should be
the same for concrete bearing wall systems (R = 5) and walls in building frame systems (R = 6), which
may be justified based on detailing provisions. The SEAOC Blue Book argues that placing gravity-load
frame reinforcement in concrete walls to artificially create a building frame does not necessarily improve
ductility, provided that the detailing for the concrete walls addresses the requirements for confinement and
distribution of reinforcement. The authors of this design example agree with the SEAOC Blue Book on this
topic. To be consistent with the current code requirements though, this design example uses R = 5.
Mapped spectral response acceleration values from ASCE 7 maps (Figures 22-1 through 22-8) are:
S1 = 0.65
SS = 1.60
Site Class D

101584953
SDS = 1.07
Risk Category II
Seismic importance factor, I = 1.0
Concrete strength, fc' = 6000 psi
Steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi
The wall elevation, a plan section, and the design forces are shown in Figure 2-1. A linear static analysis of
the wall for lateral forces, using a computer analysis program, gives the results shown in Figure 2-2, which
shows the moments and shear for each coupling beam (i.e., wall spandrel) and the moments, shear, and
axial forces for each vertical wall segment (i.e., wall pier).
Lateral story displacements corresponding to effective section properties are also shown on the figure.
In the analysis model, the member stiffness used is 30 percent of the gross member stiffness for the
walls and 10 percent of the gross member stiffness for the coupling beams. The recommendations for
member stiffness assumptions are based on Section 5.3 of Paulay and Priestley (1992). ASCE/SEI 41‑17
recommends an effective stiffness of 35 percent of the gross member stiffness for walls. Tests of moment
curvature analysis predict variations in stiffness, depending on axial load, section geometry, reinforcement
ratio, and loading history (Adebar et al 2007, Schotanus and Maffei 2007).
In this design example, the displacement output is used in Part 8.2 for determining the need for special
boundary elements. In an actual building design, the displacements would also need to be considered for
(a) design of elements not part of the lateral‑force‑resisting system, (b) building separations, and (c) P−Δ
analysis.
Gravity loads are not included in the computer model. Gravity effects are added separately by hand
calculations.

101584953
Figure 2-1. Wall elevation, plan section, and design forces

101584953
Figure 2-2. Results of ETABS computer analysis (kips, inches)

101584953
Load combinations for reinforced concrete are discussed in detail in Part 2 of Design Example 1. As in that
example, the governing load combinations become
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + L + 0.2S

(0.9 – 0.2SDS)D + ρQE
Because there is no snow load, S = 0. As indicated in Section 2.3.6, the load factor on L in the above
combination is permitted to equal 0.5 since the given structure is an office building with Lo = 50 psf per
ASCE 7 Table 4-1.
With SDS = 1.07, ρ = 1.0, and a live load factor of 0.5, the governing load combinations for this design
example are
1.41D + QE + 0.5L
0.686D + QE
The forces shown in Figure 2-2 correspond to QE.
For walls with diagonally reinforced coupling beams, the required wall thickness is often dictated by the
layering of the reinforcement in the coupling beam, described in Part 9 of this example. For the subject
wall, a wall thickness, bw, of 16 inches will be tried.
Although not required by code, the SEAOC Blue Book (2019, Article 09.01.010) recommends rotation
limits of 0.03 to 0.05 radians for confined coupling beams unless higher values can be justified by testing
specimens that have aspect ratios and reinforcement similar to those to be used in the design. Rotation
limits can affect the proportioning of walls so that coupling beams are not too short relative to wall piers.
This design example assumes that the building walls and coupling beams have been proportioned to satisfy
this requirement. This can be checked using the displacements δu from Table 2-12 and calculating the
corresponding coupling beam rotation θcb as described in Part 6 of this example.
4. Coupling Beam Strength and Diagonal Reinforcement ACI 318
4.1 REQUIREMENT FOR DIAGONAL REINFORCEMENT
Code requirements for the diagonal reinforcement of coupling beams (ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4) are
based on the clear length‑to‑overall‑depth ratio for the coupling beam, ln /h, and on the level of shear stress
in the coupling beam.
For the wall in this design example, ln /h = 72 in / 72 in = 1.00 for the typical coupling beam, and
ln /h = 72 in / 120 in = 0.60 for the coupling beams at the second floor.
(
As shown in Table 2-1 (5th column), the shear does not exceed 4λ f cʹ Acw, where Acw = bw h and λ = 1.0 )
for normal weight concrete.

101584953
Therefore, diagonal reinforcement is not required by ACI 318. Designing the coupling beams without
diagonal reinforcement, using horizontal reinforcement to resist flexure and vertical stirrups to resist
shear, might lead to cost savings in the labor to place the reinforcing steel.
In this design example, however, diagonal reinforcement is used in all of the coupling beams of the wall
because research results show that diagonal reinforcement improves coupling beam performance, even at
lower shear stress levels, as discussed in the SEAOC Blue Book (1999, Section C407.7), and uniform and
consistent yielding up the height of the structure results in better overall performance.
Table 2-1. Coupling beam forces and diagonal reinforcement
Grid Vu h Diagonal Avd α Vn φVn

Line Level (kips) (in) Vu /(bwh ffcc' )(1) Bars (in2) (degrees) (kips) 10 ffcc' Acv (kips) φVn /Vu
C-D Roof 106 72 1.2 4 #7 2.41 37.9 177 892 133 1.26
C-D 6th 228 72 2.5 4 #10 5.07 37.9 374 892 280 1.23
C-D 5th 313 72 3.5 4 #11 6.25 37.9 460 892 345 1.10
C-D 4th 148 72 1.7 4 #8 3.14 37.9 232 892 174 1.18
C-D 3rd 126 72 1.4 4 #7 2.41 37.9 177 892 133 1.06
C-D 2nd 200 120 1.3 4 #8 3.14 53.1 301 1487 226 1.13
D-E 4th 223 72 2.5 4 #10 5.07 37.9 374 892 280 1.25
D-E 3rd 318 72 3.6 4 #11 6.25 37.9 460 892 345 1.09
D-E 2nd 284 120 1.9 4 #10 5.07 53.1 486 1487 365 1.28
Note:
1. Diagonal bars are required per ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.2 when this ratio exceeds 4 and ln /h < 2.
4.2 DESIGN OF DIAGONAL REINFORCEMENT
Diagonal reinforcement is provided in the coupling beams according to Equation 18.10.7.4.
φVn = φ2 Avd f y sin α ≤ 10 f cʹ Acw Eq 18.10.7.4
Each group of diagonal bars must consist of at least four bars per ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(b). The
calculation of the required diagonal reinforcement is shown in Table 2-1.
The angle, α, of the diagonal bars is calculated based on the geometry of the reinforcement layout, as

101584953
As discussed in Part 9 of this design example, ACI 318 provides different options for the detailing of
coupling beams, and each option may require a number of preliminary design iterations to determine
required bar sizes and the lateral dimensions of the diagonal bar group. Preliminary design iterations are not
shown in this design example.
The provided diagonal bars are shown in Figure 2-4. The diagonal reinforcement provides both the
shear and flexural resistance for the coupling beam. The vertical component of the bar forces provides
resistance to shear per Equation 18.10.7.4. The horizontal component of the bar forces provides resistance
to the moment, equal to Vln /2 at each end of the coupling beam. As can be derived from the geometry
of the beam, Equation 18.10.7.4 automatically provides adequate shear strength in the coupling beam
corresponding to the flexural forces.
Figure 2-3. Geometry of coupling-beam diagonal bars

101584953
Figure 2-4. Diagonal bars provided in coupling beams
5. Flexural Reinforcement of Wall Piers ACI 318
The design of the vertical wall segments for flexure is carried out following the procedures and
recommendations given for conventional “solid” walls. This is shown in Part 4 of Design Example 1.
From Figure 2-2, the critical wall segments (i.e., those with the highest moments or earthquake axial forces)
include the wall pier at the fourth floor on line D, and the wall piers at the base on lines C and E. The
20‑foot-long wall pier on line D at the base is also checked.
5.1 CRITICAL MOMENTS AND AXIAL FORCES
As can be seen from Figure 2-1, the gravity loads on each wall pier are not concentric with the centroid of
the wall‑pier cross section. Therefore, gravity‑load moments must be considered in the design of flexural
reinforcement. The dead and live loads (except wall self‑weight) in Figure 2-1 act at the column grid lines
and have an eccentricity, eDF, with respect to the section centroid, as given in Table 2-3. (The calculation
of weights and section centroids, eDF and eDW, is not shown.) The wall self‑weight provides additional dead
load at each level, equal to the values given in Table 2-2.

101584953
Table 2-2. Dead load from wall self‑weight
Line C Line D Line E

Sum of Wall Eccentricity, Sum of Wall Eccentricity, Sum of Wall Eccentricity,
Level Weight (kips) eDW (ft)(1) Weight (kips) eDW (ft)(1) Weight (kips) eDW (ft)(1)
Above 6th 26 2.06 26 −2.06 0
Above 5th 53 2.06 53 −2.06 0
Above 4th 79 2.06 79 −2.06 0
Above 3rd 106 2.06 132 −3.71 26 −2.06
Above 2nd 132 2.06 185 −2.65 53 −2.06
At base 166 2.03 252 −1.94 86 −2.00
Note:
1. eDW = distance between centroid of weight and centroid of wall section.
The calculation of the factored forces on the critical wall piers is shown in Table 2-3. In this table, gravity
moments are calculated about the section centroid using the gravity loads acting at the column centerline, PDF
and PL, plus the dead load from wall self‑weight, PDW. Earthquake moments, ME, are taken from Figure 2-2.
Loads are factored according to the combinations discussed in Part 2 of this design example, giving
two cases for each wall pier: minimum axial force and maximum axial force. The minimum axial force
case is based on the combination of Eh with 0.686D, and the maximum axial force case is based on the
combination of Eh with 1.41D + 0.5L.
Considering that larger axial compression generally increases flexural strength, potentially governing
combinations are shown as shaded areas in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3. Calculation of factored axial forces and moments on critical wall piers
Minimum Maximum
Axial Axial
PDF eDF PDW eDW PL Direction PE ME MD ML See
Level Line (kips) (ft) (kips) (ft) (kips) of Force (kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Pu Mu Pu Mu Figure
4th D 471 +4.13 79 -2.06 48 west -646 -4246 1782 198 -269 -3024 153 -1634 2-6(d)
4th D 471 +4.13 79 -2.06 48 east 646 4246 1782 198 1023 5469 1446 6859 2-6(d)
1st C 962 -4.13 166 2.03 110 west 1120 -2874 -3636 -454 1894 -5368 2765 -8228 2-6(a)
1st C 962 -4.13 166 2.03 110 east -1120 2874 -3636 -454 -346 379 525 -2480 2-6(a)
1st E 962 +4.13 86 -2.00 110 west -825 -2934 3801 454 -106 -326 707 2653 2-6(c)
1st E 962 +4.13 86 -2.00 110 east 825 2934 3801 454 1544 5441 2358 8520 2-6(c)
1st D 962 0 252 -1.94 110 west -295 -9283 -489 0 538 -9619 1472 -9972 2-6(b)
Notes:
PDF = dead load distributed over floor area, which acts at the column line.
eDF = distance between PDF and centroid of wall section.
PDW = dead load from wall self-weight.
eDW = distance between PDW and centroid of wall section.

101584953
5.2 DESIGN OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT
The program spColumn (American Structurepoint, 2018) is used to design the reinforcement in each
wall pier. Figure 2-5 shows a wall section with the typical layout of vertical reinforcement. Typical
reinforcement in the “column” portion of the wall piers is eight #9 bars, and typical vertical reinforcement
in the wall web is #6 bars at 12 inches on each face. The spColumn results of Figure 2-6 show that this
reinforcement is adequate in all locations. Figure 2-6b shows that the typical reinforcement provides
adequate flexural strength to the 20‑foot‑long wall pier on line D. The points in these figures indicate
the (Mu , Pu ) coordinate of each critical force. The factored PM interaction diagram is obtained using the
corresponding strength reduction factor φ per ACI 318 Section 21.2, as discussed in the previous design
example.
Figure 2-7 shows the vertical reinforcement provided in the wall piers to satisfy flexural strength
requirements. The vertical reinforcement at the fourth‑floor piers is increased to eight #10 bars for both
columns and #7 bars at 12 inches at the wall webs. The reasons for this will be discussed in Part 6 of this
design example.
Figure 2-5. Section through wall pier in vicinity of line C

101584953
a.
b.
Figure 2-6. spColumn results for design of vertical reinforcement

101584953
c.
d.
Figure 2-6 (continued). spColumn results for design of vertical reinforcement

101584953
Figure 2-7. Elevation showing vertical wall reinforcement
5.3 SPLICES OF REINFORCEMENT
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3(c), lap splices of vertical reinforcement in wall boundary regions are not
permitted in potential plastic-hinge regions of concrete structures. This is discussed in Part 5.3 of Design
Example 1 and in the Blue Book (1999, Section C404.3). For this wall example, plastic hinging is expected
(and designed to occur) at the base of each wall pier at the ground floor and in the coupling beams.
Plastic hinging may also be possible above the wall setback, in the fourth-floor wall piers. (This will be
investigated in more detail in Part 6 of this design example.)
Figure 2-7 shows the vertical wall reinforcement and the location of lap splices. The lap splices of the
vertical reinforcement are located to avoid the potential plastic‑hinge regions in first‑floor and fourth‑floor
wall piers, which are shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10 in Parts 6.2 and 6.3, respectively.
Any bars with development lengths that are in potential plastic‑hinge locations are required by ACI 318
Section 18.10.2.3(b) to be designed for 1.25fy.

101584953
6. Plastic Mechanism Analysis SEAOC Blue Book
This part of the design example presents a plastic analysis methodology that is not a code requirement. It is
included to assist the reader in understanding the post-elastic behavior of coupled structural walls and how
they can be analyzed for seismic forces when elements of the wall are yielding.
Plastic analyses are not required by ASCE 7 or ACI 318, but they are recommended in the SEAOC Blue
Book to (a) establish shear demand corresponding to flexural strength and (b) identify potential plastic-
hinge regions where special boundary and splicing requirements may be necessary. Because there is a trend
toward nonlinear analysis methods, the engineer’s ability to use plastic analyses will become increasingly
important. The first three chapters of the textbook Plastic Design in Steel (ASCE, 1971) summarize the
basic principles and methods of plastic design.
The following is an illustration of plastic analysis for the reinforced concrete walls and coupling beams of
this design example.
6.1 PROBABLE FLEXURAL STRENGTH
The “probable flexural strength,” Mpr, will be determined in calculating shear demands according to the
Blue Book recommendations. As defined in ACI 318 Section R18.6.5, Mpr is calculated assuming a tensile
stress in the longitudinal bars of 1.25fy and a strength reduction factor, φ, of 1.0. For the purposes of this
plastic analysis, we will neglect earthquake axial forces in calculating Mpr for each wall pier and assume
an axial force of 1.2PD + 0.5PL. In reality, the wall pier with earthquake axial tension will have a decreased
flexural strength, while the wall pier with earthquake axial compression will have an increased flexural
strength. These effects tend to cancel out, so our plastic analysis will give an acceptable estimate of (a) the
governing mechanism of response and (b) the shear corresponding to the development of a mechanism at
probable flexural strength. Table 2-5 shows Mpr values for the critical wall piers based on the spColumn
results shown in Figure 2-8.

101584953
a.
b.
Figure 2-8. spColumn calculation of probable flexural strength Mpr (fy = 75 ksi,  = 1.0)

101584953
c.
Figure 2-8 (continued). spColumn calculation of probable flexural strength Mpr (fy = 75 ksi,  = 1.0)
Table 2-5. Approximate probable flexural strengths of wall piers for plastic analysis
Reinforcement Axial Force

of Column Reinforcement Considered Mpr
Level Grid Line Portion Web 1.2PD + 0.5PL kips (kip-ft) See Figure
4th C 8 #9 #6 @12 684 10,886 2-8(a)
4th D 8 #10 #6 @12 684 7273 2-8(a)
1st C 8 #11 #6 @12 1409 13,614 2-8(a)
1st D 8 #9 #6 @12 1512 27,886 2-8(b)
1st E 8 #9 #6 @12 1313 9784 2-8(a)
4th C 8 #10 #7 @12 684 12,769 2-8(c)
4th D 8 #10 #7 @12 684 8576 2-8(c)

101584953
6.2 MECHANISM WITH HINGING AT BASE OF WALL PIERS
The preferred behavior of the wall occurs when plastic hinges occur at the base of the wall piers and in
the coupling beams. This produces the desirable situation of flexural yielding, energy dissipation, and
avoidance of shear failures.
Table 2-6 shows calculations of the shear strength of the preferred plastic mechanism, which has plastic
hinges forming at the base of each wall pier and in each coupling beam, as shown in Figure 2-9. The
equivalent plastic-hinge length at the pier base, lp, is taken equal to 5 feet.
The plastic-hinge length is used in the calculation of external work shown in Table 2-6. The calculation is
not sensitive to the value of lp assumed, since lp /2 is subtracted from hi, the height above the base. In this
case, the value of 5 feet is taken as one-half the wall length of the external wall piers. Although the central
pier is longer, it is assigned the same plastic-hinge length.
Plastic lateral story displacements, Δi, increase linearly with height above the midpoint of the base plastic
hinges. The value of Δi is arbitrarily set equal to 1.00 foot at the roof. The external work equals the sum of
each lateral story force, Fxi, times Δi.
The plastic rotation angle of the wall piers, θ, equals the roof displacement divided by the roof height above
the midpoint of the plastic hinge. Thus, θ = 1.00/85.5. The plastic rotation angle and internal work of the
coupling beams can be calculated as
lc
θcb = θ
ln
where
ln = clear length of the coupling beam

lc = distance between centroids of wall pier sections
Internal work = Σ(θcbMpr) for each end of each coupling beam

= Σ(θcb1.25Vn ln /2)
= Σ(θ1.25Vn lc /2)
= Σ(θ1.25Vn lc) for each coupling beam (sum of 2 ends)
The internal work of the base plastic hinges equals the sum of Mpr times θ for each of the three base plastic
hinges. The summation of the internal work is shown in Table 2-6. Equating internal work with external
work gives the solution of V = 2199 kips.

101584953
Table 2-6. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging at base and in all coupling beams(1)
External Work
Level hi (ft) hi − lp /2 (ft) Δi (ft) Fxi /V Work/V (ft)
R 88 85.5 1.000 0.254 0.254
6th 74 71.5 0.836 0.240 0.201
5th 60 57.5 0.673 0.195 0.131
4th 46 43.5 0.509 0.149 0.076
3rd 32 29.5 0.345 0.104 0.036
2nd 18 15.5 0.181 0.058 0.011
Sum 1.000 0.708
Internal Work, Coupling Beams
Grid Line Level 1.25Vn (kips) lc (ft) Work (kip-ft)
C-D Roof 222 21.5 56
C-D 6th 467 21.5 117
C-D 5th 576 21.5 145
C-D 4th 289 21.5 73
C-D 3rd 222 21.5 56
C-D 2nd 377 21.5 95
D-E 4th 467 21.5 117
D-E 3rd 576 21.5 145
D-E 2nd 608 21.5 153
956
Internal Work, Wall Piers θ = 1.00/85.5
Grid Line Level Mpr (kip-ft) Work (kip-ft)
C base 13,614 159
D base 27,886 326
E base 9784 114
600
V = (Int. Work, Coupling Beams + Int. Work, Wall Piers)/(Ext. Work/V) = (956 + 600)/0.708 = 2198 kips
Note:
1. See Figure 2-9 for illustration of hinge locations.

101584953
Figure 2-9. Mechanism with plastic hinges at base of wall
6.3 MECHANISM WITH HINGING AT FOURTH FLOOR
Table 2-7 shows calculations of the shear strength of another possible plastic mechanism, shown in
Figure 2-10, which has plastic hinges forming at the fourth-floor wall piers and only in the coupling beams
at the fifth, sixth, and roof levels. This plastic mechanism is less desirable than a mechanism with hinging at
the base because energy dissipation is concentrated in fewer yielding locations and because plastic rotations
in the wall piers would need to be much greater to achieve the same roof displacement.
As in the previous calculation, plastic lateral story displacements, Δi, increase linearly with height above
the midpoint of the base plastic hinges, and Δi is set equal to 1.00 foot at the roof. For this mechanism, the
plastic rotation angle of the wall piers, θ, equals 1.00/39.5. The plastic analysis solution, based on equating
internal and external work, gives V = 2155 kips. Because this is less than 2198 kips, the mechanism having
plastic hinging at the fourth floor governs (i.e., it is more likely to form than the preferred base mechanism
shown in Figure 2-9).

101584953
Table 2-7. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging at fourth-floor piers(1)
External Work
Level hi (ft) hi − lp /2 (ft) ∆i (ft) Fxi /V Work/V (ft)
Roof 42 39.5 1.000 0.254 0.254
6th 28 25.5 0.646 0.240 0.155
5th 14 11.5 0.291 0.195 0.057
4th 0.000 0.149 0.000
3rd 0.000 0.104 0.000
2nd 0.000 0.058 0.000
Sum 1.000 0.466
Internal Work, Coupling Beams
Grid Line Level 1.25Vn (kips) lc (ft) Work (kip-ft)
C-D Roof 222 17 95
C-D 6th 467 17 201
C-D 5th 576 17 248
Sum 544
C 4th 10,886 276
D 4th 7273 184
Sum 460
Note:
1. See Figure 2-10 for illustration of hinge locations.

101584953
Figure 2-10. Mechanism with plastic hinges at fourth-floor wall piers
To help prevent plastic hinging in the fourth-floor piers, their flexural strength can be increased.
Reinforcement of the column portions of these wall piers is increased to eight #10 bars and to #7 at
12 inches in the wall webs. Table 2-8 shows revised internal work calculations. The solution gives
V = 2330 kips. Because this is greater than 2198 kips, the preferred mechanism (i.e., hinges at the base)
now governs.
The calculation of the governing plastic limit load, V, depends on the assumed vertical distribution of
lateral forces, which in actual seismic response can vary significantly from the inverted triangular pattern
assumed. Thus, the difference between V = 2198 kips and 2330 kips does not absolutely ensure against
plastic hinging in the fourth-floor wall piers.
Additionally, nonlinear response-history analyses by computer generally show less predictability of yield
locations than plastic analyses imply. For the wall of this design example, a response-history analysis might
show some wall-pier yielding both at the base and at the fourth floor. Interaction of the wall with other
walls in the structure and with gravity framing can also influence the mechanism of yielding.
Plastic analyses are simpler to carry out and understand than most other analysis methods, particularly
nonlinear response-history analyses, and they offer valuable insight into the seismic performance of a
structure. For this design example, the plastic analyses indicate that strengthening the fourth-floor piers will
protect the upper stories above the setback against high ductility demands and make it more likely that the
preferred mechanism will form.

101584953
Table 2-8. Plastic mechanism calculations assuming plastic hinging at fourth-floor piers—

revised for stronger piers at fourth floor

C 4th 12,769 323
D 4th 8576 217
Sum 540
In this part, the wall piers will be designed for shear. The ACI 318 approach, which is now generally
consistent with the Blue Book recommendations on this topic, will be illustrated using amplified shear
demands from the plastic mechanism analysis that exceed the shear corresponding to the flexural strength.
Shear demand
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.3.1, the shear demand from analysis with factored load combinations, Vu, is
amplified by an overstrength factor, Ωv, and a factor to account for inelastic dynamic (shear) effects, ωv, to
obtain the design shear force, Ve.
Table 18.10.3.1.2 specifies Ωv in terms of Mpr /Mu, which is clear for a cantilever wall with a single location
of yielding at the base (as in Example 1), but it is less clear for a system of coupled walls (as in this
example) where there are multiple locations of yielding with different ratios of Mpr /Mu. In this case, we
use the plastic mechanism analysis from Section 6 to calculate an effective overstrength factor, Ωv*. The
applicable overstrength factor is Ωv* = Vp /Vu = 2199/930 = 2.36, where Vp is the base shear from the plastic
mechanism analysis and Vu is the base shear from linear lateral load analysis.
ACI 318 Section 18.10.3.1.3 gives the following equation for the shear amplification factor, ωv, that
accounts for inelastic dynamic effects:
ωv = 0.9 + n/10, for buildings up to six stories, where n = number of stories

= 0.9 + 6/10 = 1.5
As indicated in the Blue Book, the ωv factor is derived for analysis using inverted triangular distributions of
lateral forces. If a response spectrum analysis is carried out, a somewhat lower ωv factor can be justified in
some cases.
At the base of the wall, the magnified design shear demand, Ve, is calculated according to ACI 318 Equation
18.10.3.1 as
Ve = wvΩv*Vu = 1.5(2.4)(930 kips) = 3348 kips,

but Ve need not be greater than 3Vu = 2790 kips → Ve = 2790 kips
in which case, the cap on the multiplied effect of the overstrength and shear amplification factors governs.

101584953
Shear capacity
Because this example is designing for the nominal shear strength to exceed the shear corresponding to
flexural strength, a strength reduction factor, φ, of 0.75 can be used (see ACI 318 Section 21.2). In order to
calculate the shear capacity, ACI 318 Equation 18.10.4.1 is used:
(
φVn = Acv α c λ f cʹ + ρt f y ) Eq 18.10.4.1
In Equation 18.10.4.1, wall shear strength depends on ac, which depends on the ratio hw /lw.
Per Section 18.10.4.2, the ratio hw /lw is taken as the larger of that for the individual wall pier and for the
entire wall.
Overall wall hw /lw = 88 ft / 54 ft = 1.63

11-feet-long × 8-feet clear-height pier hw /lw = 8 ft / 11 ft = 0.73
20-feet-long × 8-feet clear-height pier hw /lw = 8 ft / 20 ft = 0.40
Thus, the value hw /lw = 1.63 governs for all wall piers. The coefficient, ac, varies linearly from 3.0 for
hw /lw = 1.5 to 2.0 for hw /lw = 2.0.
ac = 3.0 - 1.0(1.63 - 1.5) / (2.0 - 1.5) = 2.74
Inserting all known quantities gives an expression for the shear capacity per shear wall length as a function
of the horizontal reinforcement.
fVn = 0.75(16 in)(lw)[2.74(1.0) 6000 + rt(60,000 psi)] = lw[2.547 kip-in + (720 kip-in)rt]
For the design shear demand of 2790 kips over the net wall length of 42 feet (504 inches) at the first floor,
the required amount of horizontal reinforcement is calculated:
fVn = 504(2.547 + 720ρt) = 1283.7 + 362,880ρt ≥ Ve = 2790 kips

ρt = (2790 kips − 1283.7 kips) / 362,880 = 0.00415
Try #5 bars at 8 inches on center each face.
ρt = 2(0.3068 in2) / [(8 in)(16 in)] = 0.004794 ≥ 0.00415 . . . OK
For the other stories of the building, the shear demands are magnified from the linear analysis results by the
same proportion as for the first floor (i.e., by applying ACI 318 Equation 18.10.3.1 considering the effective
overstrength factor, Ωv*, from the plastic mechanism analysis and the shear amplification factor, ωv, per
ACI 318 Section 18.10.3.1.3). The recommended amount of horizontal reinforcement can be calculated as
shown in Table 2-9.
The last column of Table 2-9 also shows the check for concrete strut compression failure within the wall
web. This failure mode limits the overall shear capacity of a wall to 8 ffcc' Acv in each wall pier segment per
ACI 318 Section 18.10.4.4 and is independent of the ratio of horizontal (shear) reinforcement.

101584953
Table 2-9. Design for shear by the Blue Book recommendations
Vu Ve lw net Horizontal Vn φVn

Level (kips) (kips) (in) Reinforcement ρt (kips) (kips) Ve*/fAcv ff c'
6th 236 708 264 #5 @ 8 inches E.F. 0.004794 2111 1584 2.9
5th 459 1378 264 #5 @ 8 inches E.F. 0.004794 2111 1584 5.6
4th 641 1922 264 #6 @ 8 inches E.F. 0.006903 2646 1984 7.8
3rd 779 2337 504 #5 @ 8 inches E.F. 0.004794 4031 3023 5.0
2nd 876 2627 504 #5 @ 8 inches E.F. 0.004794 4031 3023 5.6
1st 930 2791 504 #5 @ 8 inches E.F. 0.004794 4031 3023 6.0
8. Detailing of Wall-Pier Boundary Elements ACI 318
Boundary elements at the edges of structural walls are designed according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.
This section provides two alternative criteria for determining where special boundary elements are
required, each of which could be applied to the example wall, depending on whether the wall is
considered as a whole or if each wall pier is considered independently.
If considered as a whole, the example wall is not “designed to have a single critical section for flexure
and axial loads.” It is, instead, designed to have plastic hinging in the coupling beams and at the base
of each wall pier, as shown in Part 6. Considering the wall as a whole, the need for special boundary
elements should be determined according to ACI 318 Sections 18.10.6.1 through 18.10.6.5. Per this
interpretation, the evaluation of special boundary elements by the gross-section-stress criteria is shown
in Part 8.1.
Alternatively, if the wall piers of the example wall are considered independently, then ACI 318
Section 18.10.6.2 can be interpreted to apply because each wall pier is continuous and is designed to
have a single critical section (i.e., the plastic hinge) at the base of the wall pier for flexure and axial
forces. Using this interpretation, the evaluation of special boundary elements based on neutral-axis
depth is shown in Part 8.2. Detailing of the boundary elements is covered in Parts 8.3 and 8.4.
8.1 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS: STRESS-BASED APPROACH
ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.3 requires structural walls to have special boundary elements at boundaries and
edges around openings where the maximum extreme fiber compressive stress corresponding to factored
forces, including earthquake effects, exceedst 0.2 fc'. The special boundary element is permitted to be
discontinued where the calculated compressive stress is less than 0.15 fc'. Stresses are calculated for the
factored forces using a linearly elastic model and gross section properties. The stress at the left extreme
fiber is calculated as
fL = Pu /Ag − MuX0 /Ig
and at the right extreme fiber as
fR = Pu /Ag + Mu (Wall length − X0)/Ig

101584953
These stresses are compared to the limit 0.2 fc' = 0.2(6000 psi) = 1.20 ksi. The stress analysis for this
example is performed as shown in Table 2-10. The results are shown in Figure 2-11. The shaded area in
the figure indicates where special boundary elements are required.
Table 2-10. Stress analysis for special boundary element requirement by ACI 318
Line C:
Minimum Maximum
Minimum Axial Maximum Axial Axial Axial
Xo (to Wall
Pu Mu Pu Mu Ag the left) Length fL fR fL fR
Level Direction (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kip-ft) (in2) lg (in4) (in) (in) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
W 225 -1064 357 -1490 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 0.32 −0.15 0.46 −0.20
6th
E 14 300 145 -126 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.06 0.08 0.09 0.03
W 582 −2608 858 −3509 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 0.79 −0.36 1.09 −0.45
5th
E −85 1009 191 107 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.24 0.20 0.06 0.11
W 1023 −3791 1446 −5179 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.22 −0.45 1.69 −0.59
4th
E −269 1349 153 -39 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.39 0.20 0.07 0.06
W 1302 −2452 1872 −4330 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.07 −0.01 1.70 −0.21
3rd
E −287 −836 283 -2714 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 0.05 −0.32 0.68 −0.52
W 1557 −3327 2274 -5693 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.36 −0.11 2.16 −0.35
2nd
E −284 −805 433 -3171 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 0.04 −0.31 0.84 −0.56
W 1894 −5365 2765 -8221 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.92 −0.44 2.89 −0.74
1st
E −346 383 525 -2473 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.23 −0.06 0.74 −0.35
Line D:
Minimum Maximum
Xo (to Wall
4
Level Direction (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kip-ft) (in2) lg (in ) (in) (in) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
W 14 −300 145 126 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.08 −0.06 0.03 0.09
6th
E 225 1064 357 1490 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.14 0.13 0.01 0.08
W 724 −3380 1000 −4290 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.01 −0.48 1.32 −0.58
5th
E −228 1780 48 880 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.47 0.32 −0.16 0.23
W 1300 −4890 1720 −6280 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.57 −0.59 2.04 −0.73
4th
E −546 2450 −124 1060 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.74 0.34 −0.27 0.20
W 1640 −2800 2210 −4680 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.28 0.05 1.92 −0.14
3rd
E −627 −492 −57 −2370 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.16 −0.39 0.48 −0.58
W 1950 −3870 2670 −6240 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 1.64 −0.07 2.45 −0.31
2nd
E −678 −267 38 −2640 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.24 −0.36 0.56 −0.60
W 2370 −6600 3250 −9460 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 2.39 −0.52 3.36 −0.82
1st
E −826 1610 45 −1250 2304 3,590,000 61.5 132 −0.69 0.02 0.28 −0.27

101584953
Table 2-10. Stress analysis for special boundary element requirement by ACI 318 (continued)
Line E:
Minimum Maximum
Xo (to Wall
Level Direction (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kip-ft) (in2) lg (in4) (in) (in) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
134 −647 646 1350 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.21 −0.07 −0.04 0.56
3rd
772 4170 1280 6170 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.65 1.19 −0.90 1.82
−190 −193 470 2290 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.04 −0.12 −0.34 0.68
2nd
1350 4550 2010 7040 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.49 1.52 −0.79 2.32
−460 −1580 350 1400 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 0.17 −0.53 −0.18 0.44
1st
1900 6800 2710 9780 2304 3,590,000 70.5 132 −0.78 2.22 −1.13 3.19
Figure 2-11. Compressive stresses (ksi) and required locations of special

boundary elements according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.3

101584953
8.2 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS: NEUTRAL AXIS APPROACH
Considering each wall pier independently and assuming that plastic hinging occurs at the base as shown in
Figure 2-9, there are three wall piers to be evaluated, shown in the first three rows of Table 2-11.
Given the possibility of plastic hinging at the fourth floor, as shown in Figure 2-10, wall piers at lines C and
D are also evaluated using wall height and relative displacement between the fourth floor and the roof. This
is shown in the last two rows of Table 2-11.
Table 2-11. Requirement for special boundary element by ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2.
Wall Load Pu Mu Vu Ve c Mn hw δxe δu
Pier Direction (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kips) (in) (kip-ft) (ft) (in) (in) lw/(600∗1.5δu/hw) δc/hwcs(1) 1.5δu/hwcs(2)
Assuming plastic hinging at the base, per Figure 2-9.
Line C W 2765 −8221 198 594 31.1 14,199 88 1.66 8.30 18.7 0.037 0.012
1st-Roof
E 525 −2473 198 594 20.8 8869 18.7 0.038 0.012
Line D W 1472 −9972 512 1535 41.2 25,056 88 1.66 8.30 33.9 0.032 0.012
1st-Roof
E 2061 8594 512 1535 49.6 29,163 33.9 0.030 0.012
Line E W 707 2646 221 664 23.4 9664 46 0.556 2.78 29.1 0.037 0.008
1st-4th
E 2358 8513 221 664 27.2 12,887 29.1 0.037 0.008
Assuming plastic hinging at the 4th floor, per Figure 2-10.
Line C W 1446 −5179 260 779 20.0 10,591 42 1.10 5.50 13.4 0.038 0.016
4th-Roof
E 153 −39 260 779 18.8 8830 13.4 0.038 0.016
Line D W 153 −1637 381 1142 18.8 8830 42 1.10 5.50 13.4 0.038 0.016
4th-Roof
E 1446 6855 381 1142 20.0 10,591 13.4 0.038 0.016
Notes:
1. ACI 318 Eq 18.10.6.2b
2. Criteria (iii) of ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2b
According to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2, boundary zone detailing is required if
lw
c≥ Eq 18.10.6.2a
600(1.5δu /hw )
where the quantity δu /hw shall not be taken less than 0.005. In this formulation, we solved Equation
18.10.6.2a for the compression depth to better illustrate the boundary element criterion.
The compression depth, c, should be calculated for the axial force case that results in the largest value of c.
Therefore,
Pu = 1.41PD + 0.5PL + 1.0QE
Using the same procedure as in Part 5.2, the depth of the compression zone is determined for each wall pier.

101584953
If special boundary elements are required according to Equation 18.10.6.2a, then Equation 18.10.6.2b
must also be evaluated, as shown in the last two columns of Table 2-11. Equation 18.10.6.2b estimates the
mean top-of-wall drift capacity at 20 percent lateral strength loss (Section R18.10.6.2) and must exceed 1.5
times the design drift demands per ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2b item (iii). Alternatively, item (ii) of Section
18.10.6.2b could be satisfied instead of item (iii); item (ii) is a more conservative, simplified formulation of
item (iii).
The term δu is the design displacement defined in ACI 318 Section 2.3, taken at the top of the wall (the roof
level). The commentary (ACI 318 Section R2.3) indicates that the displacement is calculated considering
“modification factors to account for expected inelastic response.” Thus, the design displacement
corresponds to Cd times δxe according to ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6. The term δxe is the elastic displacement
corresponding to the design loads, using effective section properties. For the example wall, δxe at each level
is shown in Figure 2-2 and the deflection amplification factor Cd is equal to 5.
The calculations in Table 2-11 show that special boundary elements are required at the locations shaded in
Figure 2-12.
Figure 2-12. Required locations of special boundary elements according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6

101584953
8.3 DETAILING OF SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Whether the approach of ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2 or Section 18.10.6.3 is used, boundary elements are
detailed according to Section 18.10.6.4. This section uses the results of Part 8.2 and provides detailing for
where special boundary elements are required.
The minimum width of the boundary element is determined based on the requirements of Section
18.10.6.4(a): “The boundary element shall extend horizontally from the extreme compression fiber a
distance not less than the larger of c − 0.1lw and c/2.”
As defined in ACI 318 Section 2.2, c is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis
calculated for the factored axial force and nominal flexural strength resulting in the largest neutral axis
depth. In applying these requirements to the example wall, the wall piers with the largest neutral axis depth
govern the design.
Where special boundary elements are required, they are extended vertically from the critical section a
distance not less than the larger of lw or Mu /4Vu per ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.2(b), as shown in Figure 2-12.
At doorways, the extent of boundary element reinforcement is limited to the height of the doorway. At the
base of line D where the required vertical extent of boundary element reinforcement is greater than the first
story height, boundary element reinforcement is provided over the height of the doorways on both the first
and second stories.
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.4(d), the boundary element transverse reinforcement at the wall base shall
extend into the support at least ld of the largest longitudinal reinforcement in the special boundary element,
or at least 12 inches when the special boundary element terminates on a footing or mat.
The calculation of required width and vertical extent of the special boundary elements is shown in
Table 2-12.
Table 2-12. Required width and vertical extent of special boundary elements
Minimum Width of Boundary Minimum Extent of

Element Boundary Element
Governing c − 0.1lw c/2 Provided lw Mu Provided

ft
Wall Pier Boundary c (in) (in) (in) Width (in) Figure (ft) 4Vu Extent (ft)
Line C, 1st-Roof Column 31.1 17.9 15.5 69.5 2-13a 11 10.37 18
Line E, 1st-4th Column 27.2 14.0 13.6 69.5 2-13a 11 9.62 18
Line C, 1st-Roof Doorway 20.8 7.6 10.4 15.0 2-13a 11 3.12 8*
Line E, 1st-4th Doorway 23.4 10.2 11.7 15.0 2-13a 11 2.99 8*
Line D, 1st-Roof Doorway 49.6 25.6 24.8 51.0 2-13b 20 4.20 16*
Line C, 4th-Roof Column 20.0 6.8 10.0 33.5 2-13c 11 4.99 14
Line D, 4th-Roof Column 20.0 6.8 10.0 33.5 2-13c 11 4.50 14
Line C, 4th-Roof Doorway 18.8 5.6 9.4 15.0 2-13c 11 0.04 8*
Line D, 4th-Roof Doorway 18.8 5.6 9.4 15.0 2-13c 11 1.07 8*
* Extent limited to height of door opening(s).

101584953
Figure 2-13. Boundary ties required by the ACI 318 procedure
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.4(f), boundary ties are arranged such that:
1. The horizontal spacing between laterally supported longitudinal bars (12 inches in this case)
does not exceed the lesser of 14 inches and two-thirds of the boundary element thickness (12
inches in this case).
2. The length of hoop legs (24 inches in this case) does not exceed two times the boundary
element thickness (24 inches in this case).
3. Adjacent hoops overlap (12 inches in this case) at least the lesser of 6 inches and two-thirds the
boundary element thickness (12 inches in this case).

101584953
The required area of boundary ties is calculated according to ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.4(g) as the greater of:
Ash = 0.09 sbc f cʹ/f yt and Ash = 0.3( Ag /Ach − 1)( f cʹ/f yt )( sbc )
Calculations of Ash are given in Table 2-13, corresponding to section cuts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,

and I through the boundary element zones, as shown in Figure 2-13. The table also lists the gross
cross-sectional area of the special boundary elements, Ag, pertaining to the section cuts and the
cross-sectional area of the confined concrete within the ties of the boundary elements, Ach, needed
as input to evaluate the required transverse reinforcement for special boundary elements as per ACI
318 Table 18.10.6.4(g).
Table 2-13. Required boundary zone ties by the ACI 318 procedure
Ash Ash
Section bc s Ag Ach Ash = 0.09sb fc'/fyt Ash = 0.3(Ag /Ach - 1)( fc'/fyt)(sbc) Required Tie Provided
Cut(1) (in) (in) (in2) (in2) (in2) (in2) (in2) Legs (in2)
A 21.0 4 1328 1120 0.76 0.47 0.76 3 #5 0.92
B 14.0 4 1328 1120 0.50 0.31 0.50 2 #5 0.61
C 69.5 4 1328 1120 2.50 1.55 2.50 9 #5 2.76
D 14.0 4 816 700 0.50 0.28 0.50 2 #5 0.61
E 50.0 4 816 700 1.80 0.99 1.80 6 #5 1.84
F 21.0 4 752 616 0.76 0.56 0.76 3 #5 0.92

G 33.5 4 752 616 1.21 0.89 1.21 4 #5 1.23
H 14.0 4 240 196 0.50 0.38 0.50 2 #5 0.615
I 14.0 4 240 196 0.50 0.38 0.50 2 #5 0.615
Note:
1. See Figure 2-13.
Blue Book recommendations
ACI 318 Table 18.10.6.4(g), which specifies the required area of confining reinforcement for special
boundary elements of walls, is similar to the requirements for special moment-frame columns in Table
18.7.5.4. For special moment-frame columns, the SEAOC Blue Book (2009, Article 09.05.010) recommends
an alternative equation that accounts for axial load and effectiveness of confining reinforcement, based on
detailing:
Ash = 0.2kn k p ( Ag /Ach )( f cʹ/f yt ) sbc
where kn = [0.6 + 0.4(n/nls)][(hx + 12)/20]
(hx + 12)/20 ≥ 1.0
n = total number of longitudinal bars in the column cross section
nls = number of longitudinal bars that are laterally supported by the corner of hoops or by
seismic hoops or crossties that are ≥ 135 degrees
hx = center-to-center horizontal spacing of crossties or hoop legs
kp = Pu /Ag fc' ≥ 0.2
A similar expression has also recently been added to the requirements for special moment-frame
columns in ACI 318 Table 18.7.5.4.

101584953
Neither ACI 318 nor the Blue Book provides a comparable recommendation for confinement of special
wall boundaries because it is difficult to quantify the axial load on a wall boundary. However, Elwood et al.
(2009) recommend an alternative formulation of the kp term for use with wall boundary elements, based on
the expected strain demand:
kp = 120(c/lw)(δu /hw)
Elwood et al suggest that an upper limit on kp may be appropriate to avoid congestion of ties but do not
provide a recommendation for the upper limit.
This recommendation for boundary confinement could be checked as well. For this design example, the
requirements of ACI 318 are followed.
8.4 DETAILING WHERE SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED
Where special boundary elements are not required, ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.5(b) requires the following
detailing consideration for reinforcement steel grades of 60 ksi:
If the maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the wall boundary exceeds 400/fy, boundary
transverse reinforcement shall satisfy 18.7.5.2(a) through (e) over the distance calculated in
accordance with 18.10.6.4(a). The vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement at the wall
boundary shall not exceed the lesser of 6 inches or 6db in regions within the greater of lw and
Mu/4Vu above and below critical sections where yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely
to occur as a result of lateral displacements. In other regions, maximum tie spacing shall not
exceed the lesser of 8 inches or 8db.
At the doorway end of walls where vertical reinforcement is #6 bars at 12 inches on center:
2(0.44 in ) 400
ρ= = 0.0046 < = 0.00667
12 in (16 in ) fy
Therefore, no boundary ties are required.
At the doorway end of walls where vertical reinforcement is #7 bars at 12 inches on center:
2(0.60 in ) 400
ρ= = 0.00625 < = 0.00667
12 in (16 in ) fy
Therefore, no boundary ties are required.
At column end of walls with eight #9 longitudinal bars:
8(1.0 in ) 400
ρ= = 0.0139 > = 0.00667
24 in (24 in ) fy
Therefore, #4 at 8 inches on center ties are used as a minimum tie throughout the columns. The same ties
are used for the column portion of the wall pier D at the first three floors, although ties are not strictly
required by the code since this portion is not a wall boundary.
Figure 2-12 shows the location of the boundary ties provided to satisfy ACI 318 Section 18.10.6.5.

101584953
9. Detailing of Coupling Beams ACI 318
9.1 DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF DIAGONAL REINFORCEMENT
The diagonal bars must be developed for tension into the wall piers. By ACI 318, bars are required to
have a development length of ld. For coupling beams, however, ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.5(b) requires an
increase of 25 percent in the development length. Paulay and Priestley (1992) recommend increasing the
development length by 50 percent instead of 25 percent. Following the ACI 318 requirement, the bars are
extended a distance of 1.25ld beyond the face of the supporting wall pier, as shown in Figures 2-15 and
2-17, where ld is the development length of a straight bar as determined under ACI 318 Section 25.4.2.
9.2 OPTIONS FOR CONFINEMENT OF COUPLING BEAMS
ACI 318 Sections 18.10.7.4(c) and (d) provide two options for confinement of diagonal bars in coupling
beams. The first option (c) provides transverse reinforcement around each of the two groups of diagonal
bars individually, while the second option (d) provides transverse reinforcement confining the entire beam
cross section. The second option was introduced in the 2008 edition of ACI 318 and tends to result in
more easily constructible reinforcement layouts. Both options are discussed for comparison in this design
example.
9.3 OPTION 1: TIES AROUND DIAGONAL BARS
In the first option, per ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(c), “diagonal bars shall be enclosed by transverse
reinforcement having out-to-out dimensions not smaller than bw /2 in the direction parallel to bw and bw /5
along the other sides.” This design example assumes that these ties are #4, and the recommended layering
of reinforcement in the coupling beams is shown in Figure 2-14. The proposed layering corresponds
to a clear cover of 1 inch in the coupling beam and 13⁄8 inches in the wall pier. The layering shown in
Figure 2-14 results in a diagonal bar cage with lateral “core” dimensions of 9.0 inches by 14.5 inches,
measured outside-to-outside of the ties. Ties extend over the portion of the diagonal bars within the
coupling beam length, as shown in Figure 2-15.

101584953
Figure 2-14. Section through coupling beam showing layering of reinforcement
Under the requirements of ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(c), the required transverse reinforcement around
diagonal bars shall satisfy ACI 318 Sections 18.7.5.2(a) through (e), with Ash not less than the greater of
Expressions (i) and (ii) shown on the following page. The transverse reinforcement shall have spacing
measured parallel to the diagonal bars satisfying Section 18.7.5.3(c) and not exceeding six times the
diameter of the diagonal bars, and shall have spacing of crossties of legs of hoops measured perpendicular
to the diagonal bars not exceeding 14 inches.

101584953
Section 18.7.5.3(c) requires a maximum tie spacing not exceeding
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞
so = 4 + ⎜ ⎟ where 4 in ≤ so ≤ 6 in Eq 18.7.5.3
⎝ 3 ⎠
hx is the maximum horizontal spacing of hoop legs on all faces of the member
In this example,
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞ ⎛ 14 − 14 ⎞
4+⎜ ⎟ = 4 + ⎜ 3 ⎟ = 4.0 in . . . governs
⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
6db = 6(1.00 in) = 6.0 in (for #8 diagonal bars)
Thus,
s = 4.0 in is chosen as the required spacing
Expressions (i) and (ii) of Section 18.10.7.4(c) must be checked in each direction.
Ash = 0.3( sbc f cʹ/f yt )[( Ag /Ach ) − 1]

Ash = 0.09 sbc f cʹ/f yt
The quantity Ag is calculated assuming the minimum cover per Section 7.7 around each group of diagonal
bars. For walls with #11 bars and smaller, without exposure to weather, this minimum cover equals 3⁄4 inch.
Thus,
Ag = [9.0 + 2(0.75)][14.5 + 2(0.75)] = 168 in2
and
Ach = 9.0(14.5) = 131 in2
For the required area of steel in the vertical direction, bc = 9 in:
Ash = 0.3[(4 in)(9 in)(6 ksi) / 60 ksi](168/131 − 1) = 0.305 in2

Ash = 0.09(4 in)(9 in)(6 ksi) / 60 ksi = 0.324 in2 . . . governs
For steel in the horizontal direction, bc = 14.5 in:
Ash = 0.3[(4 in)(14.5 in)(6 ksi) / 60 ksi](168/131 − 1) = 0.491 in2

Ash = 0.09(4 in)(14.5 in)(6 ksi) / 60 ksi = 0.522 in2 . . . governs
A single #4 tie around the six diagonal bars provides two tie legs in each direction; thus, Ash = 0.40 in2.
Using a #4 perimeter tie with one #4 horizontal crosstie provides Ash = 0.22 in2 in vertical direction and
Ash = 0.60 in2 horizontal direction.

101584953
Per Section 18.10.7.4(c), crossties shall not be spaced more than 14 inches on center. For the heaviest
diagonal reinforcement of six #11 bars, the center-to-center dimension of the #11 bars is given as 12
inches in Figure 2-15. The center-to-center hoop dimension in this direction thus equals 12 inches plus one
diameter of a #11 bar plus one diameter of a #4 tie, equal to 12.0 + 1.40 + 0.5 = 13.9 inches. Since this is
less than 14 inches, a crosstie is not needed.
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(c), confinement around the diagonal bars is required at the intersection
of the diagonals, either by continuing the ties through this intersection or by providing “alternatively
configured reinforcement satisfying the spacing and volume ratio requirements of the transverse
reinforcement along the diagonals.” This is provided by a combination of hoops and crossties at the
intersection.
Figure 2-15. Elevation showing detailing of a coupling beam
Per ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(c), “additional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement shall be distributed
around the beam perimeter with total area in each direction not less than 0.002bws and spacing not
exceeding 12 in.”

101584953
For #4 at 6 inches transverse (vertical) bars:
0.002bws = 0.002(16 in)(6 in) = 0.192 in2 ≤ 0.40 in2 . . . OK
For 14 #4 longitudinal (horizontal) bars:
0.002bws = 0.002(16 in)(11.5 in) = 0.368 in2 ≤ 0.40 in2 . . . OK
The Blue Book (1999, Section 402.13) requires that the reinforcement parallel to the longitudinal axis of the
beam be at least #3 in size, spaced at not more than 12 inches on center. The reinforcement transverse to the
longitudinal axis of the beam must be at least #3, spaced at not more than 6 inches on center.
Figure 2-15 shows the recommended parallel and transverse reinforcement: 14 #4 bars longitudinally and
#4 ties at 6 inches transversely, which also meets the ACI 318 requirements.
Per the Blue Book recommendations (2019, Article 09.01.010), the longitudinal reinforcement is extended 6
inches into the wall pier, as shown in Figure 2-15. Longitudinal reinforcement is not developed for tension
because it is undesirable to increase the probable moment strength of the coupling beam beyond that
provided by the diagonal bars.
9.4 OPTION 2: TIES AROUND ENTIRE BEAM
In the second option, per ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(d),
transverse reinforcement shall be provided for the entire beam cross section satisfying
Sections 18.7.5.2(a) through (e), with longitudinal spacing not exceeding the smaller of 6 in.
and six times the diameter of the diagonal bars, and with spacing of crossties or legs of hoops
both vertically and horizontally in the plane of the beam cross section not exceeding 8 in.
In this example for #8 diagonal bars, the maximum tie spacing permitted by ACI 318 is the smaller of
6 inches or 6db = 6(1.00 in) = 6.0 inches. However, to satisfy the volume ratio requirements of ACI 318
Section 18.10.7.4(d) calculated next, a spacing of s = 4.0 inches is chosen for design.
ACI 318 Section 18.10.7.4(d) requires that Expressions (i) and (ii) be checked to determine the minimum
area of transverse reinforcement in each direction.
Ash = 0.3( sbc f cʹ/f yt )[( Ag /Ach ) − 1]

Ash = 0.09sbc f cʹ/f yt
For the coupling beams at the second floor in this example,
Ag = (16 in)(120 in) = 1920 in2
and
Ach = (14 in)(118 in) = 1652 in2

101584953
For the required area of steel in the vertical direction, bc = 14 in:

For steel in the horizontal direction, bc = 118 in:

In the vertical direction, a single #4 tie around the beam cross section provides two tie legs; thus, Ash =
0.40 in2. A vertical crosstie is provided as well since the spacing of crossties or legs of hoops in the plane of
the beam cross section must be limited to 8 inches. Together this provides 0.60 in2, which is greater than the
required 0.504 in2.
In the horizontal direction, the two legs of the #4 tie plus 14 #5 horizontal crossties provide a total of Ash =
4.7 in2, which satisfies the required 4.25 in2. This arrangement also satisfies the 8-inch maximum spacing
between crossties or legs of hoops.
For the coupling beams at other floors, performing these same calculations with the beam depth of
72 inches results in the same design as above, except that the shallower beam requires fewer horizontal
crossties (8 rather than 14) to maintain a similar spacing and satisfy transverse reinforcement area
requirements.
Figures 2-16 and 2-17 show the resulting reinforcement layout for this design example. ACI 318
Section 18.10.7.4(d) permits hoops configured per ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.3, consisting of a stirrup having
seismic hooks at both ends and closed by a crosstie. In accordance with ACI 318 Section 18.7.5.2(c),
consecutive crossties are alternated end for end along the longitudinal reinforcement. Per ACI 318 Section
18.7.5.2, each crosstie and each hoop leg must engage a longitudinal bar of equal or larger diameter, so #4
longitudinal bars are placed around the perimeter of the beam at the ends of each crosstie and hoop leg.
In accordance with the Blue Book recommendations (2019, Article 09.01.010), the longitudinal
reinforcement is extended 6 inches into the wall pier, as shown in Figure 2-17. Longitudinal reinforcement
is not developed for tension because it is undesirable to increase the probable moment strength of the
coupling beam beyond that provided by the diagonal bars.

101584953
Figure 2-16. Section through coupling beam showing layering of reinforcement

101584953
Figure 2-17. Elevation showing detailing of a coupling beam

101584953

101584953
Design Example 3
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame
OVERVIEW
Concrete frame buildings, especially ones with older, non-ductile frames, have frequently experienced
significant structural damage in earthquakes. A number have collapsed. Following the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake, special requirements for ductile concrete frames were introduced in the code.
Today these ductile frames are designated as SMRF (special moment-resisting frames). All reinforced
concrete moment-frame structures built in Seismic Design Category D, E, or F locations must be SMRF as
required by ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. Ordinary moment-resisting frames (OMRF) are prohibited in Seismic
Design Category C, D, E and F locations, and intermediate moment-resisting frames (IMRF) are prohibited
in Seismic Design Category D, E, and F locations.
This example illustrates the seismic design of a seven-story concrete SMRF. A conceptual elevation of
the building is shown. This is a reinforced concrete office building with the typical floor plan shown
in Figure 3-1. The building has seven stories with a SMRF on each perimeter wall. A typical building
elevation is shown in Figure 3-2.
This design example follows the general code requirements of the 2021 International Building Code (2021
IBC), which adopt ASCE 7 and ACI 318 by reference. The example also includes occasional discussions
referencing the 2009 edition of the SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design Recommendations (SEAOC Blue
Book Seismic Design Recommendations, 2009, Article 09.01.010 “Reinforced Concrete Structures”).

101584953
Design Example 3 ■ Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame
1 2 2.3 3 3.5 4 4.7 5 6

120' – 0"
24' – 0" 24' – 0" 24' – 0" 24' – 0" 24' – 0"
F.O. SLAB
TYP 6' – 0" 12' – 0" 6' – 0"
30" × 30" CONC
CORNER COL’S
TYP
E
30" × 36" CONC

PERIMETER
COLS’S, TYP
D
C.7
TYP PERIMETER
CONC SMRF
8" P.T. SLAB
BEAMS
24" × 24" SQ
INTERIOR COLS’S,
TYP
B.3
Figure 3-1. Typical floor plan

Note: Elevator, stair, and shaft openings are not shown on the plan.
Figure 3-2. Typical frame elevation, line A

101584953
OUTLINE
Determine the controlling seismic parameters and the seismic forces to design structural elements per the
following outline:
1. Determine Site Ground Motion
2. Establish Design Base Shear Coefficient
3. Determine Redundancy Factor
4. Determine Combined Effect of Horizontal and Vertical Earthquake-Induced Forces
5. Calculate Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces
6. Establish Frame Nodal and Member Forces
7. Perform Analysis of the Frame and Evaluate Frame Drifts
8. Design SMRF Beam
9. Design SMRF Column
10. Perform Joint Shear Analysis
11. Detail Beams and Columns
12. Foundation Design Considerations and Detailing
GIVEN INFORMATION
The building has a floor system consisting of post-tensioned flat plate slabs. Vertical loads are carried
by the slab, interior columns, and the perimeter frame system. The underside of the slab will be exposed
architecturally. Use of perimeter SMRF provides for flexibility and voluminous interior spaces.
Seismic and site data:
Mapped spectral response accelerations

(from Chapter 22 of ASCE 7 or SEAOC website Seismic Design Map Tool ) ASCE 7
SS = 1.25 at 0.2-second response §22.0
S1 = 0.64 at 1.0-second response
Ie = 1.0 (Occupancy Category II) §11.5.1 and T 1.5.2
Site Class C

101584953
Seismic Loading Criteria(1)
Average story weights for seismic design loads are assumed to be distributed over the floor plate area:
Roof loads:
Material Roof (psf)

Roofing 5.0
Concrete slab 100.0
Girders 15.0
Columns 9.0
Partition walls (seismic)(3) 5.0
Curtain wall 3.0
MEP 2.0(2)
Miscl. 1.0(2)
Total dead for seismic 140.0
Lr (roof live load) 20(5)
Typical floor loads:
2nd–5th Floors 6th–7th Floors

Material (psf) (psf)
Floor covering 1.0 1.0
(4)
Concrete slab 100.0 100.0
Girders 27.0 15.0
Columns 18.5 18.5
Partition walls (seismic)(3) 10.0 10.0
Curtain wall 5.0 5.0
MEP 2.0(2) 2.0(2)
Miscl. 1.5(2) 1.5(2)
Total dead for seismic 165.0(2) 153.0(2)
L (floor live load) 50(5) 50(5)
Structural material specifications are given as follows:

Concrete f c' = 4000 psi (normal weight)
Reinforcing A706, ( fy = 60 ksi) for longitudinal bars in special moment frames. Please note that
A706 Grade 80 ksi is also permitted by ACI 318 Section 20.2.2.4.
Reinforcing A615, Grade 60 ( fy = 60 ksi) for stirrups and bars other than located in special moment
frames. It should be noted Grade 80 ksi is also permitted for stirrups by ACI 318 Section 20.2.2.4.

101584953
Notes:
1. Customarily, different loading criteria are developed for gravity and seismic design of buildings. The
loading criteria presented for this example are intended for seismic design; however, the same loading
criteria are used for gravity loading calculations in this example for simplicity. This approach can lead to
underestimating loading for gravity design of elements in some instances. It is best to develop separate
loading criteria for gravity and seismic loading. In general, loading conditions for the design of buildings
should be carefully evaluated and developed as they serve as the basis of design for the building.
2. A distributed MEP and misc. loading on the order of 5 psf is often considered for gravity design in office
buildings. This distributed loading is intended to capture the loading impact of various MEP loading
conditions, including impact of localized concentrated MEP loads on elements such as slabs and beams.
Often the same MEP distributed loading is used for seismic mass calculations. However, this loading
may be reduced in some instances for seismic mass calculation, as the average calculated MEP mass
when distributed over the entire floor area will likely be less than the uniform loading considered for
gravity design. This reduced MEP loading, if used, should ideally be justified through calculations. In
this example, an MEP and misc. distributed loading of 3.0–3.5 psf is used, which has presumably been
justified through calculations for the building. It should be noted that in addition to distributed MEP
loading, the weight of mechanical units on the rooftop or on the floors, where they occur, needs to be
considered in seismic mass calculations per ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2.
3. For partition loading, ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2 prescribes a minimum live loading of 15 psf for gravity
design and 10 psf for seismic mass calculations.
4. Customarily, a ceiling loading on the order of 5 psf is considered for office buildings, but in the case
of this example, it is assumed that the underside of the post-tensioned slab will be left exposed and a
ceiling will not be added at any time in the future.
5. The code allows for roof and floor live load reduction, depending on the tributary area of the element
considered. In this example, live load reduction has not been implemented for simplicity. It should be
noted that designers at times elect to use higher live loads or forgo live load reduction for the design of
some elements in the office buildings such as slabs and beams. This provides for more versatility for
those instances where higher loading capacity may be required in the future.
1. Site Ground Motion ASCE 7-16 §11.4
The maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for short periods, SMS, and at
1.0-second period, SM1, adjusted for site class effects, shall be determined by ASCE 7 Equations 11.4-1 and
11.4-2.
Fa = 1.2 T 11.4-1
Fv = 1.4 T 11.4-2
SMS = FaSS = (1.2)(1.25g) = 1.5 Eq 11.4-1
SM1 = Fv S1 = (1.4)(0.64g) = 0.90 Eq 11.4-2
Five-percent-damped design spectral response acceleration at short periods, SDS, and at 1.0-second
period, SD1, adjusted for site class effects, shall be determined by Equations 11.4-3 and 11.4-4.
SDS = 2/3 SMS = (2/3)(1.5) = 1.0 Eq 11.4-3

SD1 = 2/3 SM1 = (2/3)(0.90) = 0.60 Eq 11.4-4

101584953
2. Design Base Shear Coefficient ASCE 7-16 §12.8
The coefficients for a reinforced concrete special moment frame building per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1:
Response modification factor, R = 8 T 12.2-1

System overstrength factor, Ω0 = 3
Deflection amplification factor, Cd = 5.5
The approximate fundamental building period, per ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2.1, is
Ta = Ct hnx = (0.016)(86 ft)0.9 = 0.88 sec Eq 12.8-7
Alternately,
Ta = 0.1N = 0.1(7) = 0.7 sec Eq 12.8-8

Therefore, use Ta = 0.88 sec
Per ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2, it is permitted to calculate an upper limit period of Cu × Ta provided that it is
confirmed through the analysis of the building that the building period equals or exceeds this upper limit.
Once confirmed, this upper limit period can then be used for calculating seismic base shear for the strength
design of the lateral system. In the case of this example, the calculated Ta is conservatively used without an
increase, allowed by ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2.
The seismic base shear, V, in a given direction shall be determined in accordance with the following
equation:
V = CsW Eq 12.8-1
The calculation of seismic response coefficient, Cs, shall be
S DS 1.0
Cs = = = 0.125 Eq 12.8-2
⎛R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 1.0 ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
From ASCE 7 Section 11.4.6, TS = SD1 / SDS = (0.60/1.0) = 0.60 sec < Ta = 0.88
Therefore, Cs is in the velocity range controlled by Equation 12.8-3 (see following calculations).
Calculation of TL = 8 per ASCE 7 Figures 22-14 through 22-17.
Cs need not exceed the following:
S D1 0.6
Cs = = = 0.085 for T ≤ TL Eq 12.8-3
⎛R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
T ⎜ ⎟ 0.88 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝ 1.0 ⎠

101584953
or
S D1TL
Cs = for T ≥ TL Eq 12.8-4
2⎛ R ⎞
T ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠
The value of seismic response coefficient, Cs, shall be not less than
Cs = 0.044 S DS I e = 0.044 ≥ 0.01 Eq 12.8-5
In addition, for buildings located where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6, the value of the seismic response
coefficient, Cs, shall be not less than
0.5S1 ( 0.5 )( 0.6 )

Cs = = = 0.043 Eq 12.8-6
⎛R⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞
T ⎜ ⎟ 0.88 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ie ⎠ ⎝ 1.0 ⎠
Figure 3-3A. Desgin response spectra shape per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.6

101584953
Figure 3-3B. Typical response spectrum
Therefore, ASCE 7 Equation 12.8-3 controls the base shear calculation for this building, and the seismic
coefficient is thus
V = CSW = 0.085W
3. Redundancy Factor ASCE 7-16 §12.3.4.2
In structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, ρ shall be 1.3 unless one of the following two
conditions is met, whereby ρ is permitted to be taken as 1.0:
a. Each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear in the direction of interest shall
comply with ASCE 7 Table 12.3-3.
b. Structures that are regular in plan at all levels, provided that the seismic-force-resisting systems
consist of at least two bays of seismic-force-resisting perimeter framing on each side of the
structure in each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
Based on the above, this building has a ρ equal to 1.0.
4. Combined Effect of Horizontal

and Vertical Earthquake-Induced Forces ASCE 7-16 §12.4.2
E = Eh + Ev Eq 12.4-1
E = Eh − Ev Eq 12.4-2
Eh = ρQE Eq 12.4-3
Ev = 0.2 S DS D Eq 12.4-4
Seismic load combinations for strength design
1.2D + 0.5L + E = (1.2 + 0.2(1.0))D + 0.5L + ρQE = 1.4D + 0.5L + ρQE §2.3.6 (Comb. 6)
0.9D ± E = (0.9 − 0.2(1.0))D − ρQE = 0.7D ± ρQE §2.3.6 (Comb. 7)

101584953
5. Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces §12.8.3
In this part, the seismic forces on the concrete frame are determined.
5.1 STORY MASSES (WEIGHTS) ARE CALCULATED IN TABLE 3-1
Table 3-1. Calculation of building and story weights
Level Area (sf) Wi (psf)* Wi (kips)*

Roof 10,800 140.0 1,512
7th 10,800 153.0 1,652
6th 10,800 153.0 1,652
5th 10,800 165.0 1,782
4th 10,800 165.0 1,782
3rd 10,800 165.0 1,782
2nd 10,800 165.0 1,782
Total 75,600 11,945
Note:
* These weights are provided information for this design example and not for discussion.
5.2 BASE SHEAR AND VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHEAR
Using the results of Part 2, the base shear is
V = 0.0852W = 0.0852(11,945 kips) = 1,018 kips
The vertical distribution of shear is determined from ASCE 7 Equations 12.8-11, 12.8-12, and 12.8-13:
Fx = CvxV Eq 12.8-11
wx hxk
Cvx = n
Eq 12.8-12
∑ w hk
i =1 x x
k = a distribution exponent related to the building period as follows:
k = 1.0 for 0.5-sec period or less

k = 2.0 for 2.5-sec period or more
For Ta between 1.0 and 2.5 seconds, use linear interpolation to determine k. Therefore, k = 1.19 seconds.
⎛ 0.88 − 0.5 ⎞
k = 1.0 + ⎜ ⎟ = 1.19
⎝ 2.5 − 0.5 ⎠

101584953
Table 3-2. Vertical distribution of shear
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

wx Σwx wx hxk ΣFx
Level (kips) (kips) hx (ft) h (ft) wx hxk n
∑ i=1wx hxk Fx (kips) (kips)
Roof 1512 1512 86 12 303,113 24% 246 246

7 1652 3164 74 12 277,013 22% 225 471
6 1652 4817 62 12 224,420 18% 182 653
5 1782 6599 50 12 187,362 15% 152 805
4 1782 8381 38 12 135,161 11% 110 915
3 1782 10,163 26 12 86,045 7% 70 985
2 1782 11,945 14 14 41,191 3% 33 1018
Totals 11,945 1,254,305 100% 1018
V = 1018
6. Frame Nodal and Member Forces
The longitudinal frame along line A is designed in this example. The dead and live loads on the perimeter
beams are determined using a tributary width of 15 feet. The gravity loads (including self weight) applied
to the beams in the frame analysis are summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Beam gravity loads for analysis
Framing Level Dead Load (plf) Live Load (plf)

Roof 2100 300
7 2295 750
6 2295 750
5 2475 750
4 2475 750
3 2475 750
2 2475 750
Notes:
1. Live load reduction as allowed by code has not been used for this example. The designer has decided to
design floor framing with a minimum 50 psf live load to provide for more versatility by accounting for
slightly higher loading.
2. A minimum partition live load of 15 psf is required to be included. In this example, the partition loads
were lumped into dead load as part of the seismic loading criteria and the same loading criteria are used
for beam gravity loading for simplicity. Refer back to the notes for the seismic loading criteria earlier in
the example for additional information.

101584953
A torsional analysis of the building using a 5 percent accidental torsion (using an eccentricity equivalent to
5 percent of the perpendicular building dimension), as required by ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.2, gives results
such that all frames on the four faces of the building resist torsional shears of approximately 2 percent of
the base shear. Thus, the seismic forces in the frame analysis were increased by 2 percent to account for
accidental torsion (per ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.2). Each line of perimeter frames should be designed to resist
a base shear of 52 percent of the total building design base shear, V.
A two-dimensional frame analysis is performed for the frame along line A. The frame forces are determined
from story forces above. Forces are distributed to frame nodes in proportion to their location along line A.
Thus, at longitudinal frames with six columns, 10 percent of the story force is applied to end column nodes
and 20 percent of the story force is applied to the interior column nodes. The force distribution at transverse
frames with five columns is 12.5 percent to exterior column nodes and 25 percent to interior column nodes.
The frame nodal loads for longitudinal and transverse frames are summarized in Table 3-4. Frame joint and
member numbers are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
Given the availability of capable commercial analysis softwares, performing a three-dimensional elastic
dynamic analysis of the complete building is commonplace. However, using these softwares requires a
thorough understanding of dynamic response spectra modal analysis. For the purpose of this example, the
Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) analysis was used, which is generally a more conservative analysis.
Table 3-4. Column nodal forces for analysis
Long. Frame Long. Frame Trans. Frame Trans. Frame

End Column Interior Col. End Column Interior Col.
Story Forces Node Forces Node Forces Node Forces Node Forces
Level (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 246 12.8 25.6 16.0 32.0
7 225 11.7 23.4 14.6 29.2
6 182 9.5 18.9 11.8 23.7
5 152 7.9 15.8 9.9 19.8
4 110 5.7 11.4 7.1 14.3
3 70 3.6 7.3 4.5 9.1
2 33 1.7 3.5 2.2 4.3
Total 1018 52.9 105.9 66.1 132.4
The loads shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3-4 add to 52 percent of the design base shear. The loads in
columns 5 and 6 also add to 52 percent of the total design base shear. To account for torsion, as required
by ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.2, a load factor of 1.04 × 50 percent = 52 percent was used to define the frame
nodal loads. This problem was solved on a two-dimensional frame program. Any elastic finite element
analysis program could be used, including those with three-dimensional dynamic analysis capability.

101584953
Figure 3-4. Computer model of the frame on line A
Figure 3-5. Computer model of the frame on line A with beam and column sizes

101584953
7. Analysis and Evaluation of Frame Drifts
Under ASCE 7 Section 12.12.1 and Table 12.12-1, allowable story drifts, Δa, are limited to 0.020hsx for
drifts corresponding to the maximum inelastic response displacement δx. Under ASCE 7 Section 12.8.6.
Cd δ xe 5.5δ xe
δx = =
Ie 1.0
Table 3-5 summarizes the calculations of the allowable frame drifts.
Table 3-5. Allowable story deformations and displacements
Sum Sum
Total Story Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable Analysis
Height Height δx Σδx δxe Σδxe δxe Drift
Story (ft) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) DCR
Roof 86 12 2.88 20.64 0.524 3.755 2.608 0.44
7 74 12 2.88 17.76 0.524 3.231 2.376 0.65
6 62 12 2.88 14.88 0.524 2.707 2.034 0.76
5 50 12 2.88 12.00 0.524 2.183 1.637 0.75
4 38 12 2.88 9.12 0.524 1.659 1.245 0.75
3 26 12 2.88 6.24 0.524 1.135 0.85 0.78
2 14 14 3.36 3.36 0.611 0.611 0.444 0.73
The frame analysis is thus performed using a standard frame analysis program. Columns, beams, and grade
beams are sized to meet allowable drift limits and strength requirements. Member section properties are
chosen to represent the cracked structure. In accordance with ACI 318 Section 6.6.3.1.1, 70 percent of the
gross section properties are used for columns and 35 percent of gross section properties are used for beams
to estimate the contribution of cracked sections on the frame behavior. For modeling purposes, the stiffness
of frame beams poured monolithically with slab shall be based on the “T” section per ACI 318. In this
example, the beams have been modeled as rectangular for simplicity. In the case of this example, the joints
were simply modeled as rigid. It is common for the joint stiffness to be modeled at 100 percent rigidity (i.e.,
providing rigid offsets for beams and columns at the joints); however, designers could consider flexibility in
the modeling of joints as needed to be conservative. It should be noted that ACI 318 Section 6.6.3.1.2 also
allows that all members of the frames be modeled at 50 percent of gross sectional stiffness as an alternative
to Section 6.6.3.1. In addition, Appendix A of ACI 318 and in particular Section A.8 and Table A.8.4
provide guidelines and informative commentary for effective stiffnesses modeling of various members in
the building. These effective stiffnesses can also be an excellent alternative. However, whichever method is
used, it is important to be consistent with it for all members and not mix values from different methods.

101584953
Selected sections are 30 × 30 corner columns, 30 × 36 interior perimeter columns, 24 × 40 beams, and
60 × 48 foundation grade beams. The designer must size a frame that meets drift limitations and also meets
strength criteria. For the design of this frame, the controlling parameters were frame stiffness and strength
of beams. Using the member sizes chosen, frame analysis gives the lateral story displacements, shown
in Table 3-5. The frame analysis gives δxe deflections; thus, the comparison is made using δxe deflections,
and the ρ factor equal to 1 is used in the deflection analysis per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.4.1. It is important
to remember that inelastic δx deflections should be compared to allowable drift limits in Section 12.12.1
of ASCE 7. The grade beams at the bottom of the frame are intended to provide restraint at the base of
the frame columns. The stiffness of the grade beams shall be in consideration of the approach taken for
the design of the grade beams (please see discussion about the grade beam design in Part 12 at the end of
this example). If the grade beams are designed to experience plastic hinging, per design approach 1 noted
in Part 12, then the stiffness of the grade beams shall be modeled similarly to SMRF beams above. If the
grade beams are designed to force hinging at the base of frame columns, per the second design approach
noted in Part 12 of this example, then a slightly higher stiffness for the beams may be justifiable, such as 50
percent of gross sectional properties.
As can be determined from the information in Table 3-5, story drifts are determined to be within allowable
limits. The iteration between frame stiffness and member strengths has resulted in a frame design with
conservative drifts. The designer must iterate between frame analysis and member section design. The
designer should include joint shear strength calculations to ensure adequacy of joint shear.
8. Beam Design
8.1 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The next procedure is frame member design. Frame beams are designed to support gravity loads and resist
seismic forces. Beams are sized to limit frame drift and to resist the corresponding moment with a nominal
strength φMn. The φ factor for bending analysis is 0.90. The controlling load combinations are given in
Section 2.3.6 and are summarized below.
1.2D + Ev + Eh + 0.5L =
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρQE + 0.5L §2.3.6 (Comb. 6)
Thus,
1.2D + 0.2(1.0g)D + 0.5L + ρQE =

1.4D + 0.5L + ρQE
Alternately,
0.9D − 0.2SDSD + ρQE =

(0.9 − 0.2SDS)D + ρQE §2.3.6 (Comb. 7)
Thus,
0.9D − 0.2(1.0g)D − ρQE =

0.7D − ρQE

101584953
8.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAME BEAMS
The nominal beam strength is calculated using the following formula and ignoring compression steel for
simplicity:
⎛ a⎞
φM n = φAs f y ⎜ d − ⎟ ≥ M u
⎝ 2⎠
Chapter 18 and ACI 318 Sections 18.6 and 18.7 include the required code provisions for design of concrete
SMRF beams under the 2021 IBC.
The probable flexural strength, Mpr , is calculated per ACI 318 Section 18.6.5.1 using 1.25fy for the
reinforcing steel stress. Recalculating the beam strength using φ = 1.0 gives
⎛ a pr ⎞
M pr = 1.25 As f y ⎜ d − ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
The shear strength of the beam, φVn, must be designed to be greater than required to resist Ve due to Mpr at
both ends of the beam plus shear from gravity loads. L is the distance from column face to column face. For
this example, the distance is L = 24 feet minus 36 inches = 21 feet from the center of column to the center
of column. The φ factor for shear analysis is 0.75 per ACI 318 Section 21.2.1. Thus, the ultimate shear load
is calculated as
⎛ + M pr − (− M pr ) ⎞ wfactored gravity L
Ve = ⎜ ⎟+ ≤ φVn
⎝ L ⎠ 2
φVn = φVc + φVs
d
φVc = 0; φVs = 0.75 Av f y
s
Under ACI 318 Section 18.6.5.2, the shear contribution from concrete, Vc, is considered to be zero when
both of the following conditions occur: (1) the earthquake-induced shear force represents more than one-
half the total shear force and (2) the factored axial compressive force is less than Ag f c' /20.
In the region of plastic hinges, transverse ties are required to resist shear forces.
Maximum spacing of ties cannot exceed: ACI 318 §18.6.4.4
1. d/4.
2. 6db or written six times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal reinforcement for Grade 60
reinforcement.
3. 5db or written five times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal reinforcement for Grade 80
reinforcement
4. 6 inches
An example beam design for beam 48 in the frame elevation shown in Figure 3-4 is reflected here. The
controlling load combinations including seismic forces are Equations 6 and 7. Depending on the direction
of seismic inertial force, seismic moments add with gravity moments at one beam end and subtract at the
other end.

101584953
Beyond regions of potential plastic hinges, stirrups with seismic ties are required at a maximum spacing of
d/2 throughout the length of the beam under ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.6. The exception to this is where the
longitudinal reinforcing is spliced per Section 18.6.3.3, in which case hoops shall be spaced the lesser of
d/4 or 4 inches over the splice length.
Diagrammatic shear and moment diagrams are shown in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-6. Moment and shear diagrams for beams
A review of the moment and shear diagrams for gravity loads and seismic loads (Figure 3-6) will help
the designer realize that seismic moment and negative gravity moment at beam ends will be additive for
top reinforcement design and subtractive for bottom reinforcement design. Because seismic moment is
usually considerably greater than gravity moment, the reinforcement design will be controlled by load
combinations including seismic loads; however, greater amounts of top reinforcement will be required than
bottom reinforcement. Because the frame behavior produces beam moments as depicted in Figure 3-6, load
combination 6 will maximize negative moments for top reinforcement design, and load combination 7 will
maximize positive moments for bottom reinforcement design.
An example calculation for beam 48 (Figure 3-4) is as follows:
From the frame analysis, load combination 6, the negative moment is Mu = −790 kip-ft. For a beam with b
= 24 inches and h = 40 inches, d = 37 inches.

101584953
Per ACI 318 Section 18.6.2.1, beam Lclear shall be larger than 4 × d or stated differently, d = 37 inches
shall be less than beam Lclear/4 = (24 feet × 12 inches - 36 inches/2 - 30 inches/2)/4 = 255 inches/4 =
63.75 inches . . . OK
Also per Section 18.6.2.1, b = 23 inches shall be larger than 0.3h = 0.3 × 40 inches = 12 inches or minimum
10 inches.
Try five #9 top bars, A = 5.00 in2.
Per ACI 318 Section 9.6.1.2, As, the minimum shall be not less than
3 f cʹ 3 4000 psi
As ,min = bw d = (24 in)(40 in) = 3.04 in 2 ≤ 5.00 in 2
fy 60,000 psi
and not less than
200bw d 200(24 in )(37 in )

As ,min = = = 2.96 in 2 ≤ 5.00 in 2 . . . OK
fy 60,000 psi
Per ACI 318 Section 18.6.3.1, As maximum is limited to 0.025bwd:
As,max = 0.025(24 in)(37 in) = 22.20 in2 . . . OK
Nominal moment strength is calculated as follows:
(5.00 in )(60,000 psi)

a= = 3.68 in
0.85(4000 psi)(24 in )
⎛ 3.68 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = (0.90)(5.00 in 2 )(60,000 psi) ⎜ 37 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
= 791 kip-ft ≥ 790 kip-ft . . . OK
From the frame analysis, load combination 7, the positive moment is Mu = 705 kip-ft.
Try five #9 bottom bars, As = 5.0 in2.
When calculating the positive moment capacity of the beam, a “T” section beam with the flange in
compression should be considered. This will yield higher positive Mpr and therefore higher shear demands
in the beam. The flange width of the “T” section beam is per Section 6.3.2 of ACI 318.
b = the beam width plus slab one side equal to minimum of 1/12 span; 6× the slab thickness; or one-
half the distance to the next beam web
b = 48 in; 24 in + [min of 24 in, 6(8 in) = 48 in, or 78 in]
(5.00 in )(60,000 psi)
a= = 1.84 in
0.85(4000 psi)(48 in )
⎛ 1.84 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = (0.90)(5.00 in 2 )(60,000 psi) ⎜ 37 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
= 812 kip-ft ≥ 705 kip-ft . . . OK
Thus, the beam 48 (Figure 3-4) design will have five #9 top bars and five #9 bottom bars.

101584953
ACI 318 Section 18.6.3.2 requires that positive moment strength (i.e., bottom reinforcing) at the joint face
shall be not less than 50 percent of negative moment strength at the joint face and that neither the positive
nor negative moment strength along the beam shall be less than one-fourth of the strength at either joint
(end). This requirement is satisfied in this example. However, the 2009 SEAOC Blue Book recommends
that the top and bottom reinforcing in the frame beams be nearly equal.The reason for this is that unequal
top and bottom reinforcing may lead to unidirectional hysteretic behavior, strain accumulation, and thus
residual deformation. Furthermore, the 2009 SEAOC Blue Book recommends that maximum longitudinal
reinforcing ratios ρ in the frame beams be limited to about 1.5 percent to promote more ductility in the
frame beams. ACI 318 allows a maximum ρ of 2.5 percent per Section 18.6.3.1.
8.3 BEAM SKIN REINFORCEMENT
If the overall depth of a beam exceeds 36 inches, longitudinal skin reinforcement shall be distributed along
both side faces of a beam for a distance h/2 from the tension face per ACI 318 Section 9.7.2.3. The skin
reinforcement shall be spaced a distance s per ACI 318 Section 24.3.2 (Table 24.3.2).
⎛ 40,000 ⎞ 2 fy
s = 15 ⎜ ⎟ − 2.5cc ; f s =
⎝ fs ⎠ 3
⎛ 40,000 ⎞
= 15 ⎜ ⎟ − 2.5(3 in) = 7.5 in
⎝ 40,000 ⎠
but not greater than
⎛ 40,000 ⎞
12 ⎜ ⎟ = 12 in
⎝ fs ⎠
Per the commentary to Section 9.7.2.3, the skin sizes are typically #3 to #5 or welded wire fabric with a
minimum 0.1 inch square per foot depth of the beam. It is spacing of the bar rather than the size of the skin
reinforcing that is of importance. Accordingly, use three #4 @ 6.8 inches each side of the beam (five equal
spacings each side of the beam). If the skin reinforcing is developed at the joints, then their contribution
to Mpr must be accounted for. Therefore, it is preferred that minimal skin bar sizes be used and for the skin
bars not to be developed at the joints so they do not contribute to Mpr.
8.4 BEAM SHEAR DESIGN
The design shear force, Ve , is determined from consideration of the forces on the portion of the member
between faces of the joints per ACI 318 Section 18.6.5. For shear design, the designer allows for plastic-
hinge formation, which will produce shear forces greater than those from frame analysis.
+ M pr − (− M pr ) wgravity L
Ve = +
L 2
It should be noted that per Section 18.7.3 of ACI 318, where the flange of a “T” beam is in tension,
the reinforcing in the portion of the slab tributary to the beam, as determined per ACI 318 (per Section
6.3.2), shall be included in the calculation of beam moment capacity. In this example, this contribution
is ignored for simplicity. However, it should be noted that doing so underestimates the moment capacity
of the beam. This in turn underestimates the shear demand for the shear strength design of the beam,
since frame beams need to be designed to develop their plastic moment capacity in shear. In addition, this
approach underestimates the beam moment strength demand when checking the strong column-weak beam
provisions per ACI 318.

101584953
(5.00 in 2 )[(1.25)(60,000 psi)]

−a = = 4.60 in
0.85(4000 psi)(24 in )
⎛ 4.60 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
− M pr = (5.00 in 2 )[(1.25)(60,000 psi)] ⎜ 37 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ = −1084 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 in ⎠ ⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
(5.00 in 2 )[(1.25)(60,000 psi)]
a= = 2.30 in
0.85(4000 psi)(48 in)
⎛ 2.30 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
M pr = (5.00 in 2 )[(1.25)(60,000 psi)] ⎜ 37 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 1120 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 in ⎠ ⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
Shear from dead load is calculated from load combination 6.
Beam clear length L = 24 feet – 36 inches/2 – 30 inches/2 = 21.25 feet at end bays:
⎛ 21.25 ft ⎞
Vgravity = [(1.40)(2475 plf ) + (0.5)(750 plf )] ⎜ ⎟ = 40.8 kips
⎝ 2 ⎠
Therefore,
(1084 kip-ft + 1120 kip-ft )

Vu = + 40.8 kips = 144.5 kips
21.25 ft
The design shear, Ve , is thus the sum of the shear from the plastic end moments plus the gravity shear.
Seismic stirrups at the plastic-hinge regions are calculated as shown here. The plastic-hinge region is a
distance of 2d from the column face.
Try #5 ties with three vertical legs at 6-inch spacing over the 2d length (74 inches). Transverse
reinforcement should be proportioned to resist shear, assuming Vc = 0 when both of the following
conditions occur (ACI 318 Section 18.6.5.2):
a. The earthquake-induced shear force calculated in accordance with Section 18.6.5.1 represents
one-half or more of the maximum required shear strength within those lengths.
b. The factored axial compressive force including earthquake effects is less than Ag f c' /20.
Therefore, the shear contribution of concrete shall be ignored. Please note that 2009 SEAOC Blue Book
Article 09.01.010 recommends that the contribution of concrete to shear strength shall be conservatively
ignored in the potential beam hinge regions even where not dictated by ACI 318. The reason for this is that
hinging of the frame beams is a likely possibility in the event of an earthquake, thereby compromising the
shear strength of the concrete in the beams in this region.
φVn = φVc + φVs

φVc = 0
φAv f y d 0.75(3)(0.31 in )(60,000 psi)(37 in )
φVs = = = 258 kips ≥ 144.5 kips . . . OK
s 6
ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.2 requires that stirrups shall be arranged to provide lateral support for primary
flexural reinforcing in potential hinge regions of the beam in accordance with ACI 318 Sections 25.7.2.3
and 25.7.2.4. Therefore, use three legs of #5 stirrup ties at 6-inch spacing at plastic-hinge regions at beam
ends to satisfy this requirement.

101584953
It should be noted that Grade 60 reinforcement bar is used in this example for shear stirrups; however,
Grade 80 ksi reinforcing is also permitted per ACI 318 Section 18.2.6.1 for shear reinforcing. Additionally,
per Section 18.6.4.7 of ACI 318, where axial load in the beams exceeds Ag f c' /10, hoops satisfying Sections
18.7.5.2 through 18.7.5.4 shall be provided along the lengths given in Section 18.6.4.1. Although the
axial loads in the beam are less than Ag f c' /10, #5 vertical stirrups are used to provide for more effective
confinement for the compression block zone of the beam, which occurs at top and bottom of the beam as
the seismic moment reverses. 2009 SEAOC Blue Book Article 09.01.010 discusses the issue of confinement
for compression block of the beam in more detail.
Confinement tie required for the beam per the 2009 SEAOC Blue Book recommendation: Ash = (0.09∗4/60)6
in × 21 in = 0.76 in2 per 6-inch spacing which is less than the provided three legs of #5 @6ʺ O.C. Ash
provided = 0.91 in2; therefore, OK.
The shear load between columns 2d from column face is calculated as follows:
⎛ 2 ⎞ (2)(40 in )
Vu = 144 kips − 40.4 kips ⎜ ⎟ = 118.6 kips
⎝ 21.25 ⎠ 12
Seismic stirrups in the beam between plastic-hinge regions are calculated as follows. Try #5 ties at 8-inch
spacing:
(0.75)(2)(0.31 in 2 )(60,000 psi)(37 in)

φVs = = 129 kips ≥ 118.6 kipps . . . OK
8 in
Use 6-inch stirrup spacing across the beam. Maximum tie spacings are d/4 or six times the smallest
longitudinal bars or 6 inches per ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.4 in plastic-hinge regions defined as two times the
beam depth from the columns. Outside the hinge regions, spacing can be d/2 per ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.6.
For this beam, d/4 is 9.25 inches and six times the bar diameter is 6.75 inches. Therefore, 6 inches is OK
at plastic-hinge regions and across the beam outside-hinge regions. It should be noted that per ACI 318
Section 18.6.3.3, where longitudinal reinforcing is spliced, hoops shall be spaced the lesser of d/4 or 4
inches. Thus, it would make sense from a practicality standpoint that the same hoop configuration required
over the potential hinge regions of the beams be carried out for the entire length of the beam and the
spacing of the hoop be reduced to 4 inches o.c. over the longitudinal splice length. Please note that per ACI
318 Section 18.6.3.3, splices are not allowed within the frame joints, nor within a distance twice the beam
depth from the face of the joint, nor within a distance twice the depth of the beam from critical section
where flexural yielding is expected due to lateral loads.
Therefore, the final design for beam 48 is a 24-inch-wide by 40-inch-deep beam with five #9 top bars, five
#9 bottom bars, three legs of #5 stirrup ties at 6-inch spacing at plastic hinges, and two legs #5 stirrup ties
at 6-inch spacing between hinges. Side bars are three #4 each side. Side bars are not developed at the joints
at each end of beam to avoid contributing to Mpr and thus resulting into increases in beam shear demand.
8.5 DESIGN OF ALL FRAME BEAMS
Following these same procedures and using the forces from the frame analysis, the Frame A beam designs
for flexural strength are shown in Table 3-6.

101584953
Table 3-6. Beam member longitudinal reinforcement design

Bar
b h d Bar No. Bar Area As a φMn Bending
Member Mu, i Mu, j (in) (in) (in) Location Bars Size (in2) (in2) (in) (k-ft) Results DCR*
Level 2
48 790 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 1.00
705 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.87
49 769 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
675 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
50 763 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.96
671 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
51 757 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.96
666 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.82
52 752 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.95
Level 3
53 760 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.96
687 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.85
54 770 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
673 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
55 769 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
674 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
56 767 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
675 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.83
57 767 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.97
Level 4
58 723 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.91
659 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.81
59 745 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94
651 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.80
60 744 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94
650 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.80
61 745 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94
651 48 40 37 Bottom 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 1.84 812 OK 0.80
62 742 24 40 37 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 791 OK 0.94

101584953
Table 3-6. Beam member longitudinal reinforcement design (continued)
Bar
Level 5
63 602 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.86
538 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.94
64 630 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.90
536 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.93
65 629 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.90
535 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.93
66 630 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.90
536 48 36 33 Bottom 5 5 #8 0.79 3.95 1.45 574 OK 0.93
67 622 24 36 33 Top 5 5 #9 1.00 5.00 3.68 701 OK 0.89
Level 6
68 455 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 0.87
379 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.88
69 485 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
385 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.89
70 485 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
384 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.89
71 485 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
385 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.33 431 OK 0.89
72 469 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #9 1.00 4.00 3.92 523 OK 1.00
Level 7
73 374 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.89
298 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.90
74 410 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.98
309 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.94
75 408 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.97
308 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.94
76 408 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.97
309 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #7 0.60 2.40 1.01 329 OK 0.94
77 387 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 3.10 419 OK 0.92

101584953
Table 3-6. Beam member longitudinal reinforcement design (continued)
Bar
Roof
78 257 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.61
189 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.44
79 286 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.68
208 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.48
80 282 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.67
207 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.48
81 282 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.67
210 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.49
82 249 18 34 31 Top 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 1.86 419 OK 0.59
210 42 34 31 Bottom 4 4 #8 0.79 3.16 4.13 431 OK 0.49
Note:
* DCR = demand to capacity ratio.
With longitudinal beam reinforcement proportioned as indicated in Table 3-6, the plastic moment Mpr and
shear design is as follows. Note that Mpr is calculated including contribution of perimeter reinforcement.
VU, (gravity) is calculated as the factored combination of D + L loads. In this example contribution of skin
reinforcement is not included as skin reinforcing is intentionally not developed at the frame joints to avoid
contributing to the beam moment capacity.
VU, (gravity) = 1.40D + 0.50L from the seismic load combination 6.
Table 3-7. Beam member shear reinforcement design

Mem Bar As apr Mpr Vpr VU, GR Vu φVc Ties # Tie Avs s φVs φVn
ID As T&B (in2) (k-ft) (k) (k) (k) (k) Legs Size (in2) (in) (k) (k) Result DCR*
Level 2
48 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
49 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
50 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
51 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
52 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120

101584953
Table 3-7. Beam member shear reinforcement design (continued)
Level 3
53 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
54 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
55 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
56 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
57 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
Level 4
58 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
59 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
60 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
61 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
62 1.00 5.00 4.60 1,084 103 42 145 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 258 258 OK 0.56
1.00 5.00 2.30 1,120
Level 5
63 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 229.5 229.5 OK 0.54
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
64 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 229.5 229.5 OK 0.54
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
65 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 229.5 229.5 OK 0.54
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
66 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 229.5 229.5 OK 0.54
0.79 3.95 1.82 792
67 1.00 5.00 4.60 959 81 42 123 0.0 3 #5 0.93 6.0 229.5 229.5 OK 0.54
0.79 3.95 1.82 792

101584953
Table 3-7. Beam member shear reinforcement design (continued)
Level 6
68 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 3 #4 0.6 6.0 139 139 OK 0.71
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
69 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 3 #4 0.6 6.0 139 139 OK 0.71
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
70 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 3 #4 0.6 6.0 139 139 OK 0.71
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
71 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 3 #4 0.6 6.0 139 139 OK 0.71
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
72 1.00 4.00 4.90 714 61 39 100 0.0 3 #4 0.6 6.0 139 139 OK 0.71
0.79 3.16 1.66 596
Level 7
73 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.52
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
74 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.52
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
75 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.52
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
76 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.52
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
77 0.79 3.16 3.87 574 48 39 87 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.52
0.60 2.40 1.26 456
Roof
78 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.44
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
79 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.44
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
80 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.44
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
81 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.44
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
82 0.79 1.86 3.87 574 41 32 73 0.0 3 #4 0.6 5.0 167 167 OK 0.44
0.79 4.34 1.66 596
Note:
* DCR = demand to capacity ratio.

101584953
Having satisfied the design for both bending and shear, the final beam designs are thus chosen as shown in
Table 3-8.
Table 3-8. Final beam designs
Shear Reinf.
Width Depth Long. Reinf. Long. Reinf. Skin Shear Reinf. in between Hinge
Level (in) (in) Top Bottom Reinf. Hinge Regions Regions*
None 3 legs 3 legs
Roof 18 34 4 #8 4 #8
Req’d #4 Ties @ 5 in #4 Ties @ 5 in*
None 3 legs 3 legs
7 18 34 4 #8 4 #7
None 3 legs 3 legs
6 18 34 4 #9 4 #8
3 #4 3 legs 3 legs
5 24 36 5 #9 5 #8
each side #5 Ties @ 6 in #5 Ties @ 6 in*
3 #4 3 legs 3 legs
4 24 40 5 #9 5 #9
3 #4 3 legs 3 legs
3 24 40 5 #9 5 #9
3 #4 3 legs 3 legs
2 24 40 5 #9 5 #9
* Hoop spacing shall be reduced to 4 inches o.c. over the length where longitudinal reinforcing is spliced.
Figure 3-7. Represents a beam at Level 2 showing dimensions and reinforcement

101584953
9. Column Design
9.1 STRONG COLUMN CALCULATION
Columns should be designed to ensure that the plastic hinges are located in the beams (i.e., strong column-
weak beam behavior) and to resist column shears. To assure strong column-weak beam behavior, columns
must be designed to have nominal bending strengths 120 percent stronger than beams per ACI 318 Section
18.7.3.2. This is achieved by summing the Me of columns above and below a joint and comparing the result
with the sum of Mg for beams on both sides of a joint.
ΣMnc ≥ (6/5)ΣMnb ACI 318 §18.7.3.2
The controlling girder location occurs at Levels 2, 3, 4, and 5. The girders are 24 inches × 40 inches with
five #9 bars at the top and five #9 bars at the bottom.
Calculation of moment strength of −Mnb (negative at beam tops at interior column joints) is as follows:
(5.00 in )(60,000 psi)

a= = 3.68 in
0.85(4000 psi)(24 in )
⎛ 3.68 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = (0.90)(5.00 in 2 )(60,000 psi) ⎜ 37 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
= 791 kip-ft
Mn = 791/0.9 = 879 kip-ft
Calculation of moment strength of Mnb (positive at beam bottoms at interior column joints) is as follows:
b = 48 in
(5.00 in )(60,000 psi)
a= = 1.84 in
0.85(4000 psi)(48 in )
⎛ 1.84 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
φM n = (0.90)(5.00 in 2 )(60,000 psi) ⎜ 37 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
= 812 kip-ft
Mn = 812/0.9 = 902 kip-ft
It should be noted that per ACI 318 Section 18.7.3.2, in a “T” section beam where the slab is in tension
under the moments at the face of a joint, slab reinforcing within an effective width defined in accordance
with Section 6.3.2 shall be included in the calculation of Mnb. This will yield higher Mnb if ignored and
can potentially underestimate the weak beam-strong column requirements at a joint and in addition, yield
higher unaccounted shear demands in the beam. In this example, the contribution of slab reinforcing in
tension has been ignored for simplicity’s sake, but in practice they shall be considered as otherwise this
approach can be unconservative. For design purposes, the reinforcing at the top of the beam can be adjusted
as required to account for the presence of reinforcing in the slab for moment-demand cases where tension
occurs on top of the beam.
Therefore, at interior columns
6 6
ΣM nb = (879 kip-ft + 902 kip-ft ) = 2137 kip-ft
5 5

101584953
Therefore, at corner columns
6 6
ΣM nb = (902 kip-ft) = 1082 kip-ft
5 5
The girder moments are resisted by two column sections, the column above the joint and the column below
the joint. The required column strengths, Mnc , for interior columns are given here.
1
M nc = (1924 kip-ft ) = 962 kip-ft
2
or at corner columns
1
M nc = (974 kip-ft ) = 487 kip-ft
2
Please note that per Section 18.7.3.1 of ACI 318, where the column is discontinuous above the connection
and the factored axial load in the column (Pu) with load combinations including seismic effect (E) are less
than Ag f c' /10, the strong column-weak beam requirements need not be satisfied. This is typicallly the case
with frame columns and beams at the roof level.
9.2 FORCES ON COLUMNS DUE TO FACTORED LOAD COMBINATIONS
For column design, load combinations 6 and 7 per ASCE 7 Section 2.3.6 are used. Also, because
strength design is used, the effect of the vertical seismic component, Ev, must be included. Load
combinations 6 and 7 are given here. Tables 3-10 and 3-11 provide axial forces and moments on the
columns of Frame A for load combinations 6 and 7, respectively.
1.2D + 0.5L + 1.0E = 1.2D + 0.2D + 0.5L + 1.0QE = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.0QE §2.3.6 (Comb. 6)
0.9D − 1.0E = 0.9D − 0.2D − 1.0QE = 0.70D − 1.0QE §2.3.6 (Comb. 7)
9.3 DESIGN OF COLUMN FOR BENDING STRENGTH
ACI 318 Section 18.7.4.1 requires the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of columns to be between 1 and
6 percent. The design of columns is usually performed by calculating a column axial force-moment
capacity (P-M) interaction diagram. The major points used to construct such a diagram are φPn for
compression, (φPb, φMb) at the balanced point, φMn for pure moment, and φTn for pure tension. The φ factor
for column calculations is 0.65 for tied columns and 0.70 for spiral-tied columns meeting requirements in
accordance with ACI 318 Section 21.2.2. In accordance with ACI 318 Section 21.2.2, the φ factor may be
increased linearly to 0.9 for columns or other axial load-carrying members as φPn decreases from 0.10f c' Ag
(or φPb, whichever is less) to zero.
The equation for φPn is given in ACI 318 Section 22.4:
φPn = 0.80φ[0.85f c' (Ag − Ast) + fy Ast ] Eq 22.4.2.2
Note that φ = 0.65 for members with axial compression and flexure (not with spiral shear reinforcement)
per ACI 318 Section 21.2.2.

101584953
Table 3-9. Column loads from computer model for load combination 6
Column Member No. Mu Bottom

(See Figure 3-4) Pu (kips) Vu (kips) (kip-ft) Mu Top (kip-ft)
1 17 59 597 −284
CORNER
2 32 41 235 −256
30×30
3 48 39 224 −237
4 60 32 207 −172
5 61 23 145 −129
6 45 12 14 −135
7 21 5 −75 −20
8 598 111 1076 −596
9 507 104 625 −627
10 420 96 562 −589
11 333 84 539 −471
12 248 68 421 −391
13 158 47 185 −381
14 70 25 39 −260
15 596 107 1036 −565
16 510 105 630 −628
17 425 97 570 −600
−484
INTERNAL 30×36
18 339 86 550
19 254 70 434 −403
20 163 50 201 −402
21 72 28 52 −283
22 595 105 1018 −550
23 509 105 633 −625
24 424 98 572 −600
25 338 86 551 −485
26 254 70 436 −404
27 163 51 203 −407
28 72 28 47 −279
29 554 106 1029 −562
30 476 108 654 −643
31 399 101 593 −620
32 321 89 569 −503
33 242 72 452 −419
34 156 53 218 −425
35 69 29 54 −289
36 542 61 584 −338
CORNER
37 448 68 414 −400

30×30
38 353 63 367 −384

39 261 56 357 −321
40 178 49 300 −290
41 108 40 179 −297
42 45 28 91 −249

101584953
Table 3-10. Column loads from computer model for load combination 7
Column Member No. Mu Bottom

(See Figure 3-4) Pu (kips) Vu (kips) (kip-ft) Mu Top (kip-ft)
1 391 −65 −626 357
CORNER
2 316 −59 −349 358

30×30
3 243 −56 −328 343

4 173 −50 −315 280
5 114 −42 −258 246
6 67 −32 −134 252
7 28 −20 −46 189
8 237 −113 −1086 608
9 207 −106 −633 639
10 175 −100 −583 611
11 143 −88 −561 495
12 110 −71 −444 412
13 72 −52 −209 413
14 33 −27 −50 281
15 267 −106 −1036 566
16 230 −104 −628 626
17 192 −98 −570 600
−86 −551
INTERNAL 30×36
18 154 484
19 116 −70 −435 403
20 75 −50 −202 405
21 34 −27 −48 281
22 268 −104 −1017 549
23 231 −105 −634 626
24 193 −98 −570 600
25 154 −86 −550 484
26 116 −69 −435 404
27 75 −50 −202 403
28 34 −27 −51 282
29 281 −104 −1020 550
30 237 −107 −646 631
31 196 −98 −571 599
32 155 −86 −546 480
33 115 −69 −430 399
34 74 −49 −194 393
35 34 −26 −43 267
36 −137 −55 −555 266
CORNER
37 −99 −50 −301 297

30×30
38 −62 −45 −264 278

39 −28 −39 −248 214
40 −4 −30 −188 174
41 4 −20 −59 180
42 4 −4 30 81

101584953
Calculation of the balanced point is determined by using 0.002 strain for reinforcing steel at yield and
0.003 for concrete strain at crushing in accordance with ACI 318 Section 21.2.2. By summing forces
and moments, the balanced axial load and moment (φPb, φMb) can be determined. The nominal moment
strength is determined by using 0.002 strain for steel yielding and by calculating tension forces and
compression forces such that they add up to 0. The resulting moment is thus φMn, where φ = 0.9.
The equation for tension members is
φTn = φFy Ast
Note that φ = 0.9 for members with axial tension and axial tension with flexure per ACI 318 Section 21.2.2.
The designer may use a commercial program to develop a P-M diagram for the column axial load-moment
interaction, including effects for slenderness of columns. From the frame analysis for Frame A, the
controlling load cases are summarized in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11. Critical column loads for Frame A
Column Member No. Size Load Comb. Pu Vu

(See Figure 3-4) Level Location (in) Equation (kips) (kips) Mu (kip-ft)
8 1 perimeter 30 × 36 6 598 111 1076
8 1 perimeter 30 × 36 7 237 -113 -1086 GOVERNS
36 1 corner 30 × 30 6 542 61 584
36 1 corner 30 × 30 7 -137 -55 -555 GOVERNS
Column 8 represents the controlling load combination for a column in compression and column 36
represents the controlling load combination for a column in tension.
Using the program, check 30 × 36 interior column 8 with twenty #10 bars around the perimeter. The
resulting P-M diagram is shown in Figure 3-8. Note Pu max is 598 kips and Pu min is 237 kips. Mn min is
approximately 2130 kip-ft at Pu = 237 kips. This value of Mn min should be used for strong column-weak
beam calculations.
Check 30 × 30 corner column 36 with twenty #10 bars around the perimeter. The resulting P-M diagram is
shown in Figure 3-9. Pu max is 542 kips and Pu min is −137 kips. Mn min is approximately 1430 kip-ft at
Pu = −137 kips. This value of Mn min should be used for strong column-weak beam calculations.
When checking strong column-weak beam, the column flexural strength should be the minimum value
of φMn considering the range of possible axial loads. By comparing the design loads against the column
P-M diagrams of Figures 3-8 and 3-9, it can be determined that both columns have adequate strength; see
Table 3-12.

101584953
Figure 3-8. Column P-M diagram for 30-inch × 36-inch interior column
Figure 3-9. Column P-M diagram for 30-inch-square corner column

101584953
Table 3-12. Column axial and flexural design strengths
Size φPn at M = 0 φPb φMb φMn at P = 0

Column (in) (kips) (kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft)
Interior 30 × 36 2640 680 2230 1720
Corner 30 × 30 2320 470 1660 1380
Both column sections achieve 120 percent of beam moment strength and thus have adequate strength
to develop the plastic moments of beams. φMn for interior columns is approximately 1750 kip-ft at
Pu = 237 kips (minimum flexural strength at column 8). For end columns, φMn is approximately 1200 kip-ft
at Pu = −137 kips.
6
ΣM nc ≥ ΣM nb
5
ΣMnc, interior = 2(2130 kip-ft) = 4260 kip-ft ≥ 2137 kip-ft . . . OK
ΣMnc, end = 2(1430 kip-ft) = 2860 kip-ft ≥ 1082 kip-ft . . . OK
It is assumed by ACI-318 that the design of columns to be 120 percent greater in flexural strength than
girders will cause plastic-hinge formation to occur in the beams. Since that is what is required in ACI 318,
it is what is shown in this example.
However, the 120 percent increase in column moment capacity relative to the beam flexural strengths at
a joint does not ensure that plastic hinging is avoided in the frame columns in all cases. Inelastic analysis
has demonstrated that higher moments are possible in frame columns due to the inelastic response of
the frame.These higher moment demands in the columns are commonly referred to as column “moment
magnification” and could potentially lead to the formation of a story mechanism. This topic is discussed
in 2009 SEAOC Blue Book Article 09.01.010, which recommends an approach to address this condition.
Specifically, the 2009 SEAOC Blue Book recommends that the total frame story column nominal flexural
strength below a level be greater than total frame beams nominal flexural strength at the level. With this
approach, the column strengths are not required to be evaluated at each individual column-beam joint,
but for comparison purposes with the ACI provision, the SEAOC recommendation can be expressed as
approximately ΣMc / ΣMb ≥ 2 at the joints of the frame as opposed to 1.2 (i.e., 6/5) prescribed by the ACI.
Naturally, larger columns should be anticipated if the SEAOC-recommended approach is utilized. It should
be noted that this approach is above and beyond the ACI code requirement and as such is not the standard
of practice and should be considered optional.
The yielding elements in the frame are the beam plastic moments located at beam ends followed by column
plastic moments at column bases. Where all unyielding aspects of the frame are designed to be stronger
than the yielding elements, the anticipated frame yield behavior is more likely to occur. Thus, the shear
design of beams, columns, and joints; column flexural strengths; and foundation elements are all designed
to have adequate strengths to resist the anticipated flexural yield mechanism of the frame.
Attention should be given to the end columns of the frames and the interior columns of frames with unequal
beam spans on either side. Due to the inelastic response of the frame, these types of columns will be subject
to higher axial loads than those indicated by the analysis. The reason is that when formed, the plastic hinges
in the end bay beams will generate additional shear and thus additional axial loading in the end columns
and this is not reflected in the elastic analysis. Such additional axial loading is also possible in columns
with uneven beam spans on either side. However, in such columns the additional inelastic axial loading is

101584953
relatively less because of the opposing moments generated by the beams on either side of such columns.
This will reduce the associated net inelastic shear imposed onto the column and thus result in relatively less
additional axial loading in the column. Because of the additional inelastic axial loading, some designers
will consider higher axial loading both downward and upward in these columns. One way to conservatively
estimate the upper bound axial loading limit due to inelastic response of frame is to assume plastic hinging
of the beams over the height of the frame. However, while this approach may be practical for buildings with
few stories, it will be overly conservative for buildings with a higher number of stories. When considering
such upper bound inelastic axial loading in the column, it would be appropriate to also consider more
realistic higher capacity for the frame column in line with performance-base design. The designer should
exercise proper judgment for designing such columns. The 2009 SEAOC Blue Book Article 09.01.010
discusses this topic in more detail.
The corner columns at the intersection of orthogonal frames are required to be designed per ASCE 7
Section 12.5.4 for 100 percent of the load applied in one direction plus 30 percent of the load generated
by orthogonal direction lateral forces. This loading condition can readily be captured if a 3D model with
100 percent loading plus 30 percent loading in orthogonal direction is used. These corner columns need
to be evaluated for biaxial bending due to the two orthogonal direction frame beams and the associated
axial loading. Also attention must be given to the reinforcing detailing in such columns given the potential
of reinforcement for the orthogonal beams clashing inside the column joint. The corner column in this
example would be subject to such design process; however, for simplicity and illustrative purposes, only
loading due to one direction frame is considered here.
9.4 DESIGN OF COLUMNS FOR SHEAR STRENGTH
Columns must be designed for shear strength, Ve , required by ACI 318 Section 18.7.6 and for the special
transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318 Section 18.7.5.4. The design shear force, Ve , shall be
determined from the consideration of the maximum forces that can be generated at the faces of the beam-
column joints at the ends of beams framing into the joint. The beam-column joint forces are determined
using the highest force generated by one of the three methods below:
1. The column shear, Ve , can be determined using the maximum probable moment strengths, Mpr ,
of the column at the top and the bottom of the column between joints, including the associated
axial loads on the column (with axial load selected to be consistent with the maximum flexural
strength of the column).
2. The column shear, Ve , need not exceed that determined based on the probable moment strength,
Mpr , of the beams framing into the joint.
3. Ve shall be not less than the factored shear determined from analysis.
It is likely that the second method will control the shear design of the column in most cases. At the columns
in the first story, the controlling case is from column top moments based on Mpr of beams and column
bottom moments based on Mpr of the column calculated with associated axial loads.
For the interior column, 30 × 36, at stories one and two, the maximum shear needs to be determined from
maximum shear that can be transferred from beam strength, Mpr , as shown here.
Interior column at first story
Clear height of column = 14 feet − 3 feet = 11 feet

101584953
Mpr of beams framing into top of column is based on negative moment from one beam and positive moment
from the other beam.
ΣMpr = 1084 kip-ft + 1120 kip-ft = 2204 kip-ft
Distribution of beam moments to columns is in proportion of 4EI/L of columns below and above the joint.
Since columns are continuous, 4EI is constant, and moments are distributed based on 1/L of columns. The
lower column has a height of 14 feet 0 inches and the upper column has a height of 12 feet 0 inches. The
lower column will have a moment at its top, determined as follows:
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 11 ft ⎟ 2204 kip-ft(9 ft)
M pr ,top = ΣM pr ,beams ⎜ ⎟= = 992 kip-ft
⎜ 1 + 1 ⎟ (20 ft )
⎜ 11 ft 9 ft ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The lower column could develop a maximum of Mpr at its base. The moment, Mpr, for the column is
determined using a reinforcement yield strength of 1.25Fy or 75 ksi. Mpr determined for an axial load
of 1200 kips is approximately 2930 kip-ft.
The shear, Ve , is determined as follows based on column clear height:
(992 kip-ft + 2930 kip-ft )

Ve = = 356 kips
11
This value is compared with frame analysis Vu = 113 kips (see Table 3-11, column 8); thus, Ve controls.
Interior column at second story
Clear height of column = 12 ft − 3.33 ft = 8.67 ft
Mpr of beams framing into top and bottom of column is based on negative moment from one beam and
positive moment from the other beam.
Σ Mpr, above = 1084 kip-ft + 1123 kip-ft = 2207 kip-ft

Σ Mpr, below = 1084 kip-ft + 1123 kip-ft = 2207 kip-ft
The second story column will have moments above and below. The column will have probable moments as
shown here:
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ 8.67 ft ⎟
M pr ,col = ΣM pr ,beams ⎜ ⎟ 2207 kip-ft = 1104 kip-ft
⎜ 1 + 1 ⎟
⎜ 8.67 ft 8.67 ft ⎟
⎝ ⎠
thus, column shear, Ve , is determined as follows based on column clear height
(1104 kip-ft + 1104 kip-ft )

Ve = = 254.7 kips
8.67 ft
This value is compared with frame analysis Vu = 106 kips (column 9); thus, Ve controls.
The tabulated calculation of column shears is shown in Table 3-13.

101584953
Table 3-13. Calculation of column shear forces, Ve
Col. −Mpr +Mpr Dist. M at −Mpr +Mpr Dist. M at

Col. at Clear (Joint (Joint ΣMpr ΣMpr Col. (Joint (Joint ΣMpr ΣMpr Col. Ve at
Grid Level/ Height Above) Above) at to Top Below) Below) at to Bot. ΣM Col.
Lines Story (ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Joint Col. (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) Joint Col. (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips)a,b
1, 6 1 11 0 1,123 1,123 0.450 505 0 0 0 1 1,800 2,305 210
2 9 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 0 1,123 1,123 0.538 604 1,166 130
3 9 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 1,123 125
4 9 959 0 959 0.5 480 0 1,123 1,123 0.5 562 1,041 116
5 9.5 614 0 614 0.5 307 959 0 959 0.5 480 787 83
6 9.5 495 0 495 0.5 248 614 0 614 0.5 307 555 58
7 9 0 596 596 1 596 495 0 495 0.5 248 844 94
2,3,4,5 1 11 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.450 993 0 0 0 1 1,400 2,393 218
2 9 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.538 1,187 2,291 255
3 9 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 2,207 245
4 9 959 794 1,753 0.5 877 1,084 1,123 2,207 0.5 1,104 1,980 220
5 9.5 614 516 1,130 0.5 565 959 794 1,753 0.5 877 1,442 152
6 9.5 495 395 890 0.5 445 614 516 1,130 0.5 565 1,010 106
7 9 574 596 1,170 1 1,170 495 395 890 0.5 445 1,615 179
Notes:
a. Vu appears to govern at floors 5 and 6.
b. Ve for column shear at the base of the column should be based on the maximum Mpr of the column at the
base under the full range of potential axial compression and/or tension forces (worst case).
Special transverse reinforcement is required to be in accordance with ACI 318 Sections 18.7.5.4 and
18.7.5.2.
The total cross-section area of rectangular hoop reinforcement shall be not less than that required by Table
18.7.5.4:
Ash ⎛ Ag ⎞ fʹ
= 0.3 ⎜ − 1⎟ c
sbc ⎝ Ach ⎠ f yt
Ash fʹ
= 0.09 c
sbc f yt
Pu
0.2k f kn
f yt Ach
Transverse reinforcement shall be spaced at distances not exceeding (1) one-fourth minimum member
dimension, (2) six times the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement for Grade 60 reinforcing, five times
the diameter of longitudinal reinforcing for Grade 80 reinforcing, and (3) s0 as defined by Equation 18.7.5.3
but not more than 6 inches o.c. and need not be closer than 4 inches o.c.
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞ ⎛ 14 − 6 ⎞
s0 = 4 + ⎜ ⎟ = 4 + ⎜ 3 ⎟ = 6.67 in ≥ 6 in
⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

101584953
The transverse reinforcement should extend beyond any joint face a distance lo equal to the larger of (1) one
member (column) depth at location where flexural yielding will occur, (2) one-sixth of the column clear
span, or (3) 18 inches per ACI 318 Section 18.7.5.1.
Table 3-14 shows calculations for special transverse reinforcement.
Table 3-14. Special transverse reinforcement in columns
Col. bc bc No. Size

Size Eq. b d Trans Long f c' fyt Ag Ach s Ash Legs Bars
30 × 36 21-3 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 1080 832 6 0.966
21-4 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
21-3 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 1080 832 6 0.966

21-4 30 36 26 32 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
30 × 30 21-3 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 900 676 6 1.074

21-4 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
21-3 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 900 676 6 1.074

21-4 30 30 26 26 4000 60,000 6 0.972 6 #4
Calculations for the required shear reinforcement are shown in Table 3-15.
Table 3-15. Shear strength at first story
Shear Shear
Vu Ve b d f c' fy φVc Av s φVs φVn
Col. (kips) (kips) (in) (in) (psi) (psi) (kips) (sq in) (in) (kips) (kips) DCR
30 × 36 111 356 30 33 4000 60,000 97 1.2 6 306 403 0.88
30 × 30 68 238 30 27 4000 60,000 0 1.2 6 245 245 0.97

101584953
The final column design at the first level is summarized in Table 3-16.
Table 3-16. Final column design at first level
Long. Stirrups Trans. Stirrups

Long. Stirrups Beyond Trans. Stirrups Beyond
Longitudinal Within Yielding Yielding Zones, Within Yielding Yielding Zones,
Column Reinforcement Zones, lo lo Zones, lo lo
30 × 36 20 #10 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches
30 × 30 20 #10 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches 6 #4 @ 6 inches
The column design may be used for the full-height columns, or the reinforcement can be reduced slightly
at the upper portion of the frame. Since the longitudinal reinforcement is 2.8 percent, the longitudinal
reinforcement could be reduced in upper stories but not to less than 1 percent.
Figures 3-10 and 3-11 show the column cross-section with dimensions and reinforcement indicated.
Figure 3-10. 30 × 36 column

101584953
Figure 3-11. 30 × 30 column
10. Joint Shear Analysis
Beam-column joints of frames must be analyzed for joint shear in accordance with ACI 318 Section 18.8
and Table 18.8.4.3. The shear forces from analysis and the joint strength are calculated in Table 3-17. φ =
0.85. A free body diagram for calculating joint shears is provided in Figure 3-12.
Table 3-17. Joint shear analysis
Joint Nominal
Beam Vpr Beam Mpr Beam Plastic Shear Joint
(kips) from (k-ft) from T & B Shear (Ve) Stress Aj Strength
Element Location Table 3-7 Table 3-7 reinf. (kips) Limit (in2) (kips) Results
1084
Int. Column Level 3 103 5-#9 540 φ15 f cʹ A j 1080 871 OK
1120
1084
End Column Level 3 103 5-#9 270 φ12 f cʹ A j 900 580 OK
1120
1084
Int. Column Level 2 103 5-#9 557 φ15 f cʹ A j 1080 871 OK
1120
1084
End Column Level 2 103 5-#9 279 φ12 f cʹ A j 900 580 OK
1120

101584953
Figure 3-12. Frame joint shear analysis
11. Detailing of Beams and Columns
11.1 BEAM REINFORCEMENT
Beams should be detailed with top, bottom, and side reinforcement, as shown in Figures 3-7, 3-13, and
3-14. Beam shear tie reinforcement shall meet the spacing requirements of ACI 318 Section 18.6.4 and
shall be provided over a distance 2d from the faces of columns. The tie spacing shall not exceed (1) d/4; (2)
6db for Grade 60 bar and 5db for Grade 80 bar of the smallest primary flexural reinforcing bars, excluding
longitudinal skin reinforcement; and (3) 6 inches. These requirements result in a 6-inch-maximum tie
spacing: however, from analysis, ties are required per Table 3-8. Per Table 3-8, three legs of either #4 or
#5 ties spaced at 5 inches or 6 inches o.c. are required, depending on the location along the frame beam.
For ties between beam hinge regions, ties are required at d/2 spacing; however, analysis may dictate tighter
spacing of ties to satisfy shear demand. As was noted previously, for practicality reasons, it may make sense
that the hoop configuration and spacing required over the potential hinge regions be carried throughout
the length of the beam if not overly excessive. This same tie configuration can then also be used at closer
spacing over the length where the longitudinal reinforcing splices occur as discussed here.
Longitudinal beam bars should be spliced away from the beam-column joints and a minimum distance
of 2h from the face of the columns, per ACI 318 Section 18.6.3.3. At the Level 2 beams for this example,
the beam clear spans are approximately 21 feet and 2h = 2(40 inches) = 80 inches = 6 feet 8 inches. The
designer might consider splicing beam longitudinal reinforcement at the quarter-span, one-third-span, or
half-span locations (Figure 3-14). However, commonly frame beam longitudinal bars are spliced at beam
mid-span. In this case, the quarter-span locations would not be away from hinge regions; however, the
one-third or mid-span locations would be acceptable. Increased shear reinforcement is required at the lap
splice locations per ACI 318 Section 18.6.3.3. The maximum spacing of ties in these regions shall not
exceed d/4 or 4 inches. In this case, the beam mid-point is the best location for lap splices. The #9 top bars
or #9 bottom bars with splices based on Sections 18.8.5.1 through 18.8.5.3 of ACI 318 would have a splice
length of 70 inches and 54 inches, respectively, for top and bottom bars. Longitudinal reinforcement can
be shipped in approximately 60-foot lengths on trucks; thus, two locations of longitudinal beam lap splices
may be required in the frame along Line A, conceivably on the two interior spans. Per ACI 318 Section
18.8.2.3, where longitudinal beam reinforcing extends through a beam-column joint, the depth of the joint
parallel to the beam shall be a minimum 20db for Grade 60 ksi reinforcing and 26db for Grade 80 ksi, where
db is the diameter of the largest flexural reinforcing in the the beam. In addition, the joint depth parallel

101584953
to the beam shall be a minimum of half the beam depth (h/2), generating the joint shear. The largest bar
is #9; thus, 20db = 22.5 inches, 36 inches. Also, the deepest beam, h, is 40 inches; thus, h/2 = 20 inches
< 36 inches. The joint length satisfies all the ACI requirements. Figure 3-13 shows beam-column joint
reinforcement at both an exterior span and interior spans. Beam enforcement at interior spans is shown in
Figure 3-14. An enlarged interior beam-column joint reinforcement diagram is shown in Figure 3-15, and a
beam-column corner joint at the roof is presented in Figure 3-16.
Figure 3-13. Beam and beam-column joint reinforcement at exterior span
Figure 3-14. Beam reinforcement at interior spans

101584953
Figure 3-15. Interior beam
Figure 3-16. Beam-column corner joint at roof
11.2 COLUMN REINFORCEMENT
Column splices should occur at column mid-story heights (or within the center half of the column heights)
per ACI 318 Section 18.7.4.4. Additionally, per Section 18.7.4.3, longitudinal reinforcement in the column,
shall be selected such that 1.25 ld ≤ lu/2, where ld is the development length of the column longitudinal
reinforcing and lu is the unsupported height of the column. For #10 reinforcing in the column, 1.25ld = 1.25
× 46 in = 57 in or 4 ft 9 in > 9 ft/2 = 4 ft 6 in. Therefore, increase column strength to 5000 psi concrete to
reduce #10 development length to satisfy ACI 318 Section 18.7.4.4. Special transverse reinforcement is
required per ACI 318 Section 18.7.5 over a length lo above and below beams at spacing not greater than (1)
the column depth, (2) one-sixth the column clear span, or (3) a maximum of 18 inches. For this example,
the column depth (which is 36 inches) would control. For column sections between the locations where
special transverse reinforcement is required, the spacing requirements of ACI 318 Section 18.7.5.3 governs
(6 inches maximum). The column tie configuration and type shall conform to ACI 318 Section 18.7.5.2.

101584953
12. Foundation Considerations
The foundation system should ideally be capable of resisting column base moments sufficient to cause
plastic hinges to be located in the beams and column bases only. If the plastic-hinge location is forced
into the column base, the foundation elements need not be designed for yielding or ductility since in
that instance the foundation is not expected to experience a measurable inelastic deformation. This is
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. The foundation should also be adequate to keep soil
pressures within allowable values and ensure frame overturning stability. In some instances in buildings
with no basements, grade beams are introduced at the bottom of the frame columns to provide restraints
for the frame column bases. This is particularly important where the foundation type utilized is incapable
of effectively resisting the moment-induced rotational demands at the base of fixed-frame columns.
An example of this would be footing foundations where grade beams are required to resist the moment
demands at the base of frame columns. Absent the grade beams, the footings would be subject to rotation
or tilting and would thus be less effective in restraining the column base rotation. The footing rotation
would then result in additional unintended lateral displacement in the frame above. Where grade beams
are introduced at the bottom of the frame columns, the column base moment will be resisted by the grade
beams and the footings will then resist the axial reactions from the columns. This helps to provide restrain
at the bottom of the frame columns. Given this approach, the grade beams should be modeled as part of the
frame for lateral analysis purposes. Where the frames are analyzed this way, the design of the grade beams
is possible in one of two ways:
1. One approach would be to design the frame base columns to satisfy strong column-weak beam
requirements (per ACI 318 Section 18.7.3.1), considering the moments induced by the grade
beams. In this approach, the column above the grade beams alone must satisfy the strong
column-weak beam requirements by resisting the sum of the Mpr moments induced by the grade
beams at the base of the column. In this case, hinging in the grade beams should be expected
similar to the frame beams above.
2. Another possible approach is to design the grade beams to resist the probable moment capacity
of columns (i.e., column plastic moment capacity, Mpr) or Omega-level moments in the grade
beams from analysis. The idea here would be to force the plastic hinging into the base of the
column. Given this, it is best to capacity design the grade beams for the larger of column plastic
moment capacity, Mpr, or Omega-level forces in the grade beam to ensure plastic hinging is
confined to the base of the columns. This way the grade beams will remain protected with
minimal inelastic demand, if any, in a seismic event. This is important given that the grade
beams are buried in the ground and damage to them due to a seismic event cannot be readily
detected. This design approach is preferable to the first design approach where hinging in the
grade beams would be expected in a larger seismic event.
Regardless of the design approach selected, the grade beams are subject to design and detailing
requirements for frame beams per ACI 318 Section 18.13.3. This includes designing the shear strength of
the beams to develop the beam plastic moment capacity.
If the grade beams are designed to hinge (the first design approach), then the stiffness of the grade beams
shall be modeled similarly to frame beams on levels above (Figure 3-17). For the second design approach
where grade beams are designed to remain essentially elastic, a higher stiffness for the beams is justifiable,
such as 50 percent of gross sectional properties.
The design of the foundations shall conform to the requirements of Section 18.13 of ACI 318. Figure
3-18 shows the detailing of the connection of the frame column to the foundations in accordance with the
requirements of ACI 318 Section 18.13.2.

101584953
Commentary
Deformation compatibility should be checked at building interior columns and at slab-column connections
per ACI 318 Section 18.14. Specifically, punching shear reinforcing requirements at the column-slab
interface, due to lateral displacement of the building, shall be investigated, and reinforcement shall be
added as required per ACI 318 Section 18.14.15. Commonly, punching shear reinforcing is added in the
slab at the slab-column interface in the form of a series of strips of steel plates, each holding a row of
headed studs welded above, or other forms of shear reinforcement to satisfy compatibility requirements.
The building period in this example was calculated using the approximate fundamental period method per
code. A dynamic analysis may be performed considering the structure geometry, element stiffness, and
story masses to determine eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The dynamic analysis results may be used as long
as the fundamental period of the structure is not greater than 140 percent of the approximate fundamental
period (ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2). If a mathematical model of the building is used to determine the period,
the designer should keep in mind that nonseismic elements can add stiffness in the building and thus cause
the actual fundamental period of the structure to be shorter.
Engineering judgment should be exercised in assessing the period of the building as it can affect the force
levels and the deformations experienced in the building in a seismic event differently. The fundamental
period of a building will also shift as a result of a seismic event as the earthquake works the building over.
As a result, an appropriate conservative approach in determining a period range for assessing and designing
the lateral system and other elements of the building can be insightful, depending on whether strength or
deformations are being designed or evaluated in the building.
Reinforced concrete SMRF frames can provide very ductile seismic systems for buildings with highly
desirable performance characteristics. The yielding mechanisms can be predicted and the seismic
performance will be ductile. Care should be taken to assure adequate shear strength at beams, columns,
frame joints, and grade beams to assure that ductile flexural yielding will occur as anticipated. Care
should also be taken with lap splices, with detailing of reinforcement, and with specified couplers, if
used. Longitudinal reinforcement should be ASTM A706, which has more ductility than ASTM A615
reinforcement.

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 111
L1 L2
EQ EQ
AS REQUIRED BY AS REQUIRED BY AS REQUIRED BY AS REQUIRED BY

ANALYSIS BUT NOT LESS THAN ANALYSIS BUT NOT LESS THAN ANALYSIS BUT NOT LESS THAN ANALYSIS BUT NOT LESS THAN
CONCRETE LARGER OF L1/3, L2/3 OR "2D" LARGER OF L1/3, L2/3 OR "2D" LARGER OF L1/3, L2/3 OR "2D" LARGER OF L1/3, L2/3 OR "2D"
COLUMN
STIRRUP TYPE 'A'
STIRRUP TYPE 'A' STIRRUP TYPE 'B' STIRRUP TYPE 'A'
LENGTH = 2D LENGTH = 2D
STIRRUP TYPE 'A' STIRRUP TYPE 'B' STIRRUP TYPE 'A' HOOPS PER ZONE A
LENGTH = 2D LENGTH = 2D AT 4" O.C.
WHERE LAP SPLICE OCCURS SLAB-ON-GRADE
PER PLAN

A BARS
FIRST FLOOR
BEAM DEPTH "D"
B BARS MAKE "B" BARS

3" OF STYROFOAM, TYP BUNDLE CONTINUOUS WHEN L2<25
W/ A BARS
FOUNDATION
SKIN REINFORCING
WHERE REQUIRED
TYP
PER ACI 319-19

SECTION 9.7.2.3
BEAM SPAN
Design Example 3
(WHERE OCCURS)
WITHIN MIDDLE THIRD OF

■
STIRRUP CONFIGURATION & SPACING :

LOCATE LONG. REBAR SPLICES
ZONE A:
CONFIGURATION: HOOPS PER ACI 318-19. PRIMARY LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING SHALL HAVE LATERAL SUPPORT PER SECTIONS 25.7.2.3 & 25.7.2.4 OF ACI 318-19.
THE SPACING OF TRANSVERSELY SUPPORTED FLEXURAL REINFORCING BARS SHALL NOT EXCEED 14". SKIN REINFORCING REQUIRED BY SECTION 9.7.2.3 NEED
NOT BE LATERALLY SUPPORTED.
SPACING: a) d/4, b) 6", c) FOR GRADE 60, 6db OF THE SMALLEST PRIMARY FLEXURAL (SKIN REINF. EXCLUDED), d) FOR GRADE 80, 5db OF THE SMALLEST PRIMARY FLEXURAL (SKIN
REINF. EXCLUDED). IF AXIAL LOAD IN BEAM IS GREATER THAN F'cAg/10, SEE ACI 318 SECTION 18.6.4.7 FOR TRANSVERSE REINFORCING REQUIREMENTS.
ZONE B:
CONFIGURATION: STIRRUPS WITH SEISMIC HOOKS AT BOTH ENDS
SPACING: d/2
NOTES:
1. CONNECTION OF THE COLUMN TO THE FOUNDATION IS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY AND IS PER FIGURE 3-19.
Figure 3-17. Grade beam detail
2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

111
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame
101584953
2/15/23 10:37 AM
101584953
Figure 3-18. Column to foundation connection detail

101584953
Design Example 4
Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage
OVERVIEW
In performing seismic analysis and design, engineers identify and distribute seismic forces to elements
(e.g., walls and frames) that are part of the structure’s seismic-load-resisting system (SLRS). Through the
incorporation of a response modification factor, R, seismic design procedures assume that the SLRS will
yield in the design seismic event. Accordingly, these elements are detailed to remain intact, stable, and
capable of energy dissipation through repeated cycles of post-elastic deformation. Many of the design
examples in the Structural/Seismic Design Manual focus on the design and detailing of SLRS elements.
For most wood and steel structures, it is reasonable to assume that elements that are not designated as
part of the SLRS do not participate meaningfully in the seismic response of the structure. Typical steel
beam-column connections are assumed to be pinned (i.e., not capable of creating frame action). In wood
buildings, the lack of a sufficiently rigid load path prevents partition walls that are nominally connected to
the diaphragm from engaging in lateral resistance. Consequentially, there are no special requirements for
the design and detailing of non-SLRS elements in these structures.
However, the materials and methodology of cast-in-place reinforced concrete construction result in rigid
connections between SLRS elements and elements that are not analyzed as part of the SLRS. This along
with the high stiffness-to-strength ratio of reinforced concrete results in conditions where the design
seismic event induces shears and moments in excess of the elastic capacity in non-SLRS elements.
The primary purpose of this design example is to illustrate the design and detailing of secondary frame
members (i.e., beams and columns that are not part of the SLRS) in concrete buildings. This example could
have consisted of a series of isolated elements with demands selected to illustrate specific code principles

101584953
Design Example 4 ■ Reinforced Concrete Parking Garage
and no continuity to relate one example element to the next. However, the example is aligned with the
Manual’s approach of presenting real-world design processes by framing the example in the context of a
building. A parking garage was selected because parking garages often exhibit geometric characteristics
that exacerbate the seismic demands imposed on secondary framing members, especially gravity columns.
• Parking garages do not need ceiling space to route mechanical ductwork, so floor-to-floor
heights can be less than in other buildings. Floor-to-floor heights may be even less at columns
supporting ramps. Short columns such as these are significantly stiffer than full-height columns,
resulting in larger demands induced by inelastic deformation of the structure.
• Vertical circulation (stairs and elevators) may be located at the exterior of the building to
provide users with direct access to the street. Where this is the case, there may be a cost savings
to construct stairs and elevators with steel framing, so the parking garage does not have a stiff
shear core like other concrete buildings often do.
• There is also less need to keep the weather out of a parking garage and often a desire to provide
clear interior site lines for the safety of users, so parking garages may have only the minimum
amount of shear wall necessary to resist lateral demands.
The example structure is a five-level concrete parking garage with post-tensioned slabs and beams,
conventionally reinforced concrete columns, and special reinforced concrete shear walls. It resembles a
series of switch-back stair flights with central ramps bounded by flat landings at each end. The exterior
columns span a full story height between parallel ramps. Interior columns have spans of varying height
between crossing ramps. The combination of short column spans at the ramps and a relatively flexible
building can result in design challenges for the secondary framing members.
The composition and configuration of the example structure poses several design considerations in addition
to the secondary framing members. In the interest of providing a thorough treatment of selected aspects of
the building analysis and design, the following have been included:
• Lateral analysis of the structure includes the effects of the ramps (more than half of the
structure’s floor area is sloped).
• Diaphragm design considers the ramp geometry (each floor plate is split down the middle and
discontinuous).
• Collector design is illustrated for locations where there are no beams, and collectors must be
created within the shallow floor slab.
• The presence of post-tensioned concrete members has been incorporated in the design of
secondary framing members, diaphragms, and collectors.
This example does not address the design and detailing of the concrete shear walls. For a treatment of
concrete shear wall design, the reader is referred to Design Examples 1 and 2 in this volume.

101584953
Figure 4-1. 3D model of example structure
OUTLINE
3. Lateral Analysis
4. Slab, Beam, and Column Design
5. Wall and Ramp Forces
6. Provisions for Secondary Frame Members
7. Diaphragm Analysis
8. Diaphragm Design
9. Collector Design

101584953
Seismic design coefficients for the IBC are determined using ASCE 7 Section 11.4.2 and a hazard tool such
as the SEAOC/OSHPD’s tool at seismicmaps.org. The value of S1 was determined from a ground motion
hazard analysis in accordance with ASCE 7 Sections 11.4.8 and 21.1.
Input parameters:
Site Class D
Risk Category II
Hazard tool output:
Ss = 1.531g; SMS = 1.531g; SDS = 1.020g
S1 = 0.702g; SM1 = 1.052g; SD1 = 0.702g
The example structure is classified as a bearing-wall system with special reinforced concrete shear walls.
Additional discussion of the SLRS classification is provided in Part 3.1. Seismic design parameters have
been computed in accordance with the referenced ASCE 7 sections as follows:
Seismic importance factor, I = 1.0 §11.5.1
Seismic Design Category D §11.6
Response modification factor, R = 5 T 12.2-1
System overstrength factor, W0 = 2.5 T 12.2-1
Deflection amplification factor, Cd = 5 T 12.2-1
Reliability and redundancy, r = 1.0 §12.3.4.2
Structural material properties:
Concrete strength (slabs, beams, and walls), f cʹ = 5000 psi
Concrete strength (columns), f cʹ = 6000 psi
Mild reinforcement yield stress, fy = 60 ksi
P/T tendon ultimate stress, fu,PT = 270 ksi
P/T tendon effective force = 26.8 kips

101584953
The example building is rectangular in plan and measures 180 feet east-west by 120 feet north-south (see
Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3). There are four above-grade parking levels spaced at 11 feet (132 inches) from
slab to slab. As shown in Figure 4-4, the east landings, denoted Level 1.0, Level 2.0, etc., are located at full
intervals of 132 inches from grade, and the west landings, denoted Level 0.5, Level 1.5, etc., are located at
intermediate elevations. A vehicle entering the structure at grid line 9 would ascend beginning at the base of
the south ramp and continue clockwise through the structure until it reached Level 4.0. A flat extension of
Level 4.0 is present above the south ramp between grid lines 6 and 8.
Gravity framing consists of 6.5-inch-thick one-way P/T slabs and ramps spanning east-west supported by
16-inch by 36-inch P/T beams. The beams frame into columns and walls on grid lines A, B, and C. At the
base level, the south ramp is a sloped slab-on-grade bounded by 8-inch-thick concrete retaining walls on
lines 1, A, and B. An 8-inch retaining wall on line 2 between grid lines B and C marks the transition from
slab-on-grade to elevated post-tensioned slab construction.
Columns are 24 inches square at the exterior and 30 inches square on line B. Their spans vary throughout
the structure due to the sloping ramps. Column spans on grid line B are shown in Table 4-1 for the column
below the listed level. Note that the table includes the column extensions above the highest ramp level on
grid lines 6 and 7 that support the flat section of Level 4.0. On grid lines A and C, spans are variable below
the first ramp level and are a constant 132 inches from level to level above that. At grid line A, the lowest
level column spans are equal to the grid line B column spans below Level 0.5. At grid line C, sum the grid
line B column spans below Level 1.0. For example, the lowest level grid line A and C column spans on grid
line 5 are 33 inches and 99 inches, respectively.
Table 4-1. Slab-to-slab column spans on grid line B (inches)
Grid Line 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Level 0.5 66 55 44 33 22 11 N/A
Level 1.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
Level 1.5 132 110 88 66 44 22 N/A
Level 2.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
Level 2.5 132 110 88 66 44 22 N/A
Level 3.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
Level 3.5 132 110 88 66 44 22 N/A
Level 4.0 N/A 22 44 66 88 110 132
Extension N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 11 N/A
Top Elevation 462 473 484 495 528 528 528

101584953
Figure 4-2. Level 3.0–3.5 plan
Figure 4-3. Base plan

101584953
Figure 4-4. Section at grid line B
1.2 MATERIAL WEIGHTS
Ramps and landings:
6.5-in P/T slab: 81 psf
16-in × 36-in beams @ 22 ft o.c.: 22 psf
Misc.: 3 psf
Total: 106 psf
Walls:
20-in walls: 250 psf
Columns:
30-in × 30-in columns (line B): 940 lb/ft
24-in × 24-in columns (lines A and C): 600 lb/ft
1.3 LIVE LOADS ASCE 7 CHAPTER 4
ASCE 7 Table 4.3-1 lists the minimum uniform live load for parking garages accommodating passenger
vehicles as 40 psf.
Section 4.10.1 imposes additional point loads of 3000 pounds over an area of 4.5 inches by 4.5 inches and
2250 pounds per wheel for passenger vehicle garages. For a concrete garage, the point loads establish the
required punching shear capacity of the floor slab but do not govern the design of the beams or columns. It
is assumed that the example structure does not accommodate truck and bus parking (see Section 4.10.2).
Live loads may not be reduced for design of slabs or beams in parking garages; however, Section 4.7.4
allows a 20 percent live load reduction for columns supporting two or more levels.

101584953
1.4 SEISMIC MASS §12.7.2
The seismic mass for each level of the example structure is determined as follows:
Table 4-2. Summation of seismic mass
Slab: [(90 ft)(120 ft) – (44 ft)(60 ft)](106 psf) 865 kips
Walls: (1/2)(30 ft + 30 ft + 22 ft + 22 ft)(11 ft)(250 psf) 140 kips
Level 0.5
Cols: (1/2)(14 × 600 plf + 7 × 940 plf)(11 ft) 80 kips
Total: 1080 kips
Slab: (90 ft)(120 ft)(106 psf) 1145 kips
Level 1.0 Walls: (1/2)(30 ft + 30 ft + 22 ft + 22 ft)(11 ft)(250 psf) 140 kips
through
Level 3.5 Cols: (1/2)(14 × 600 plf + 7 × 940 plf)(11 ft) 80 kips
Total: 1365 kips
Slab: (90 ft)(120 ft)(106 psf) 1145 kips
Level 4.0 Walls: (1/4)(30 ft + 30 ft + 22 ft + 22 ft)(11 ft)(250 psf) 70 kips

Cols: (1/4)(14 × 600 plf + 7 × 940 plf)(11 ft) 40 kips
Total: 1255 kips
Total: 10,525 kips
Basic load combinations for strength design are listed in Section 2.3.1. Seismic load combinations are
listed in Section 2.3.6. The latter combinations include the overstrength factor, W0. The following load
combinations are used in this example:
1.4D §2.3.1 (Comb. 1)

1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) §2.3.1 (Comb. 2)
1.2D + Ev + Eh + L + 0.2S §2.3.6 (Comb. 6)
0.9D - Ev + Eh §2.3.6 (Comb. 7)
1.2D + Ev + Emh + L + 0.2S §2.3.6 (Comb. 6)
0.9D - Ev + Emh §2.3.6 (Comb. 7)
Exception 1 of Section 2.3.1, which allows the live load factor in combination 6 to be reduced to 0.5 for
occupancies with design live load of 100 psf or less, does not apply in this example because the structure is
a garage.

101584953
For load combinations 6 and 7 without the overstrength factor:
Eh = ρQE Eq 12.4-3
For those combinations with overstrength factor:
Emh = Ω0QE Eq 12.4-7
For all combinations:
Ev = 0.2SDSD Eq 12.4-4a
3. Lateral Analysis ASCE 7
3.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM §12.2.1
As noted in Part 1.1, the structure is a bearing-wall system with special reinforced concrete shear walls.
Seismic design coefficients are listed in Table 12.2-1. These values have been provided in Part 1.1 of this
design example.
Design of the concrete shear walls is beyond the scope of this example. The author acknowledges that a
case could be made for classifying the structure as a building frame system with special reinforced concrete
shear walls. This would result in R = 6 instead of R = 5, reducing the seismic demand on the shear walls
and other building components. However, the purpose of the example is to illustrate secondary framing
member design, not shear wall design. Both the bearing-wall system and the building frame system have
a deflection amplification factor, Cd = 5. Selecting the R = 5 bearing-wall system results in larger induced
seismic forces on the secondary frame members and helps fulfill the intent of the design example.
3.2 HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES §12.3.2.1
Horizontal structural irregularities include eccentric distributions of mass and rigidity that result in torsional
responses to seismic forces (Types 1a and 1b), reentrant corners that produce locally amplified seismic
forces (Type 2), differences in diaphragm stiffness that affect the distribution of seismic forces to vertical
elements of the SLRS (Type 3), out-of-plane offsets of vertical SLRS elements that result in vertical and
lateral seismic forces on horizontal elements (Type 4), and nonparallel vertical SLRS systems that prevent
the correct application of the equivalent lateral force procedure (Type 5). These irregularities are described
in Table 12.3-1.
Evaluating the presence of torsional irregularities requires comparison of story drift values at opposite ends
of the structure. A three-dimensional analytical model of the example structure was used to determine if
torsional irregularities are present. See Part 3.9 for a description of the analytical model.
The commentary to Section 12.3.2.1 notes that torsional irregularities can exist even in symmetric
structures. The example structure appears symmetric in plan (see Figure 4-2), but the plan view can be
deceptive. The shear walls on lines 1 and 9 and on lines A and C are the same thickness and length and are
located in corresponding framing bays on opposite ends of the structure. However, the diaphragms intersect
each shear wall at a different elevation (see Figure 4-4), resulting in different lateral displacements when
subjected to equal story shear forces.

101584953
The ratio of the maximum story drift at one end of the structure to the average story drift value for the two
ends of the structure, δmax /δavg , was computed at each level using the analytical model described in Part 3.9.
The largest value of this ratio was 1.18 for the north-south analysis direction. For comparison, an analytical
model with flat floor slabs at each level (i.e., neglecting the intermediate landings and the ramps) was also
analyzed. For this model, δmax /δavg = 1.04. The example structure does not have a torsional irregularity.
However, the ramps do have a measurable effect on its torsional response.
ASCE 7 states that reentrant corner irregularities exist where plan projections in both directions beyond
a reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the overall plan dimension. The commentary describes
winged plan configurations such as cruciform and H-shaped diaphragms as examples of irregular structures.
Diaphragm discontinuities exist where there is “an abrupt discontinuity or variation in stiffness.” ASCE
7 provides two examples: a cutout of more than 50 percent of the gross diaphragm area and a change in
effective stiffness of more than 50 percent from one story to the next. The commentary illustrates a third
example: a diaphragm that is partly rigid and partly flexible (see Figure C12.3-1).
Evaluating the presence of reentrant corner and diaphragm discontinuity irregularities, which depend on
the shape of the diaphragm at each story, is complicated for the example structure because sloped ramps
comprise approximately 73 percent of the gross diaphragm area (i.e., from line 2 to line 8). Identifying
the diaphragm elements that constitute a “story” is difficult where the entire diaphragm system is
interconnected and the majority is not level.
The example structure does not have reentrant corners in accordance with the conventional definition.
However, each intersecting ramp and landing pair exhibits similarities to an L-shaped diaphragm. If viewed
this way, the projections are 50 percent and 73 percent of the plan dimension for the landing and ramp,
respectively. This neglects that the landings are each connected to two ramps and the ramps each connect to
opposite landings. Neither the landings nor the ramps form wings that project from the building. Therefore,
it was determined that the example structure may experience localized amplification of diaphragm forces
similar to a building with reentrant corners, but it does not have a reentrant corner irregularity.
Assessment of diaphragm discontinuities is made ambiguous by the lack of a quantitative definition of

“abrupt discontinuity or variation in [diaphragm] stiffness” in ASCE 7 Table 12.3-1. Three examples are
provided (two in Table 12.3-1 and one additional in Figure C12.3-1). The use of the word “including” in
the table implies that these are not intended to be all-inclusive. The example structure does not meet the
criteria in any of the Section 12.3.2.1 examples. First, the ramp area should not be treated as a diaphragm
opening because the diaphragm is interconnected and able to transfer forces through the ramps. Second,
even though it is difficult to define diaphragm “stories” for the example building, there is no difference in
stiffness from any diaphragm element to the corresponding elements above and below. And third, as the
ramps and landings are composed of the same material and have the same thickness; there is no basis for
idealizing one portion as rigid and another as flexible.
However, the ramps do create a discontinuity that abruptly occurs at lines 2 and 8, resulting in a stiffness
variation relative to a diaphragm without ramps. A uniformly loaded member has a flexural stiffness, K,
proportional to:
d 3t
Ka
l4

101584953
Given:
d – constant depth
t – constant thickness
l – constant spanning length
For the ramps:
d = 60 ft
l = 132 ft
The stiffness of two ramps, Kramps, is one-fourth the stiffness of a solid diaphragm of the same overall
dimensions, Ksolid .
(60 ft)3t
K ramps ∝ (2)
(132 ft ) 4
(120 ft)3t
K solid ∝
(132 ft ) 4
Consequently, the example structure is determined to have a Type 3 diaphragm discontinuity horizontal
irregularity.
This has two effects on the analysis and design of the example structure: a 1.25 factor must be applied
to diaphragm design loads and the diaphragm must be modeled as semi-rigid. See Parts 3.5 and 3.6 for
additional discussion.
The shear walls are continuous and parallel to the orthogonal axes of the building, so out-of-plane offsets
(Type 4) and nonparallel systems (Type 5) are not present.
3.3 VERTICAL STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITIES §12.3.2.2
Vertical structural irregularities are listed in Table 12.3-2. The stiffness, mass, and geometry of each story
are identical, so soft-story (Types 1a and 1b), weight (Type 2), and vertical geometry (Type 3) irregularities
are not present. There are no in-plane discontinuities in the shear walls (Type 4). The strength of the shear
walls at each story is not computed as part of this example; however, there is no reason for it to be less at
any level than at the level above. Therefore, weak-story irregularities (Types 5a and 5b) are not present.
3.4 PROHIBITED IRREGULARITIES §12.3.3.1
Structures with Type 5b vertical irregularities (i.e., extreme weak story) are not permitted in Seismic
Design Category D. Additionally, structures with Type 1b horizontal irregularities or Type 1b or 5a vertical
irregularities are not permitted in Seismic Design Category E or F. Structures with Type 3 horizontal
structural irregularities are permitted in Seismic Design Category D.

101584953
3.5 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS §12.3.3.4
Structures in Seismic Design Categories D through F with Type 3 horizontal irregularities must comply
with Section 12.3.3.4. This section requires that collectors and the connections of diaphragms and
collectors to vertical elements of the seismic-load-resisting system be designed for 1.25 times the forces
determined from Section 12.10.1.1. Collectors and their connections that are designed for the overstrength
factor are exempt from this requirement. See Part 9.2 for application of this factor.
Per Section 12.10.2.1, collector elements in Seismic Design Categories C through F and their connections
must be designed for the overstrength factor except in light-frame construction. Therefore, the 25 percent
increase applies only to diaphragm connections in this example.
3.6 DIAPHRAGM CLASSIFICATION §12.3.1
Diaphragms are classified as semirigid unless they can be idealized as flexible or rigid per Section 12.3.1.1
or 12.3.1.2. The example structure utilizes concrete diaphragms, which do not meet the requirements of
Section 12.3.1.1 and cannot be considered flexible. Section 12.3.1.2 permits concrete diaphragms to be
idealized as rigid if the span-to-depth ratio is less than three and no horizontal irregularities are present.
However, the structure has Type 3 horizontal irregularities. Therefore, the diaphragms cannot be classified
as flexible or rigid per Sections 12.3.1.1 and 12.3.1.2, respectively.
Section 12.3.1.3 allows for diaphragms to be classified as flexible if diaphragm deflection exceeds two
times the average drift of the adjoining vertical elements. Based on the conventional classification of
concrete diaphragms as rigid, this calculation was not attempted for the example structure.
Thus, the diaphragms are classified as semi-rigid, which increases the complexity of the analytical model.
Part 3.9 includes additional discussion of the model, including incorporation of semi-rigid diaphragm
elements.
3.7 REDUNDANCY §12.3.4
The redundancy factor, r, is unity for drift calculations, design of collectors and other members subject to
amplified seismic loads, and design of diaphragms using loading per Equation 12.10-1.
This example is limited to design of secondary frame members, diaphragms, and collectors, so r = 1.0 has
been used as indicated in Part 1.1 of this design example.
For the design of other elements (i.e., the shear walls for the example structure), r is determined in
accordance with Section 12.3.4.2. Because the example structure is not regular, r = 1.3 unless each story
resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear complies with Table 12.3-3. The example structure is a
shear wall building, and all of the walls have height-to-length ratios less than one. Table 12.3-3 classifies
the lateral-force-resisting elements as “other” and indicates there are “no requirements.” Therefore, r = 1.0
for design of the shear walls.
3.8 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE §12.6
Table 12.6-1 lists permitted analytical procedures based on seismic design category, building type, building
period, and structural irregularities. The example structure is located in Seismic Design Category D, is
less than 160 feet tall, and has only a Type 3 horizontal irregularity. Therefore, the equivalent lateral force
analysis procedure is permitted.

101584953
3.9 STRUCTURAL MODELING IBC §1604.4, ASCE 7 §12.7.3
The most significant consideration in the creation of an analytical model for the example structure is
whether and how to incorporate the sloped ramps. For the example structure specifically, modeling the
ramps is arguably a building code requirement. However, the code does not generally require sloped
elements to be included in analytical models. For example, it is common practice to model sloped roofs
with flexible diaphragms as flat and address overturning forces and the design of sloped elements through
supplemental analyses. In the case of this design example, there are analytical advantages to including the
ramps in the structure model.
As noted in Part 3.5, approximately 73 percent of the example structure’s diaphragm is sloped. IBC
Section 1604.4 states “Load effects on structural members and their connections shall be determined by
methods of structural analysis that take into account equilibrium, general stability, geometric compatibility
and both short- and long-term material properties,” and “The total lateral force shall be distributed to the
various vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system in proportion to their rigidities, considering
the rigidity of the horizontal bracing system or diaphragm.” An analytical model that excludes the ramps
alters the geometric relationship of most of the diaphragm to the columns and walls that provide its gravity
and lateral support and does not meet the “geometric compatibility” requirement of IBC Section 1604.4.
Additionally, neglecting the ramps alters the rigidities of the diaphragm and shear wall elements. In short,
the example structure responds to seismic forces differently from a building with the same plan dimensions,
slabs, and shear walls but with flat, continuous diaphragms at Levels 1 through 4. The quantitative evidence
of this is provided in the discussion of torsional irregularities in Part 3.2.
ASCE 7 Section 12.7.3 modeling requirements are as follows:
• Structures with horizontal irregularities of Types 1a, 1b, 4, or 5 require 3D modeling. The
example structure does not fall under this criterion; however, a 3D ETABS model has been
used to accurately represent the ramp geometry and the resulting effects on wall and column
stiffness.
• Structures with diaphragms that are not classified as rigid or flexible shall include
representation of the diaphragm’s stiffness characteristics. The diaphragms are defined as
ETABS shell elements, having in-plane and out-of-plane degrees of freedom.
• Properties of concrete elements shall be based on cracked sections; see ACI 318
Sections 6.6.3.1.1 and 6.6.3.1.2. It is permissible to approximate cracked section properties
through a reduction factor applied to the moment of inertia of each element as shown in ACI
318 Table 6.6.3.1.1.
For slab and wall elements, ETABS implements property modification factors applied to the shell
stiffnesses, denoted f11, f22, etc. (Guzman and Abell, 2012). Depending on the orientation of the element,
shell property modifiers act as multipliers on the quantities GA, EI, or EA. Wall elements are typically
oriented with the local-1 axis parallel to the orientation of the wall in plan and the local-2 axis parallel to
the global-Z (vertical) axis. Therefore, the f12 modifier affects GA (the in-plane shear stiffness), and the f22
modifier affects EI (the in-plane flexural stiffness). The m12 modifier on the slab element stiffness affects
out-of-plane (i.e., vertical) flexural stiffness. Compression due to post-tensioning prevents cracking in the
slab due to in-plane flexure, so a reduction of in-plane stiffness is not warranted. Modification factors used
in the ETABS model are listed in Table 4-3.

101584953
Table 4-3. ETABS section property modifiers
Element Properties Modification Factor

Columns M2, M3 0.70
Beams M3 0.35
Walls f12, f22 0.35
Slabs m12 0.25
3.10 PERIOD DETERMINATION §12.8.2
For purposes of determining the seismic response coefficient, the approximate structural period, Ta , is
estimated in accordance with Section 12.8.2.1.
Ta = Ct hnx Eq 12.8-7
where
hn = 44 ft (overall height of the structure)
and the coefficients Ct and x are determined from Table 12.8-2 as follows for “all other structural systems”:
Ct = 0.02
x = 0.75
resulting in
Ta = (0.02)(44 ft)0.75 = 0.342 sec
3.11 SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT §12.8.1.1
The seismic response coefficient, Cs, is calculated as follows:
S DS
Cs = Eq 12.8-2
( R /I )
where
R=5
I=1
as provided in the given information.

101584953
Thus,
1.02 g
Cs = = 0.204 g
(5/1)
The value of Cs need not exceed
S D1 0.70 g
Cs = = = 0.409 g Eq 12.8-3
T ( R /I ) (0.342)(5/1)
and Cs shall be not less than
Cs = 0.044SDS I ≥ 0.01g Eq 12.8-5

Cs = (0.044)(1.02g)(1.0) = 0.045g
or
0.5S1 (0.5)(0.70 g )
Cs = = = 0.07 g Eq 12.8-6
( R /I ) (5/1)
Therefore,
Cs = 0.204g
3.12 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR §12.8.1
V = CsW = (0.204)(10,525 kips) = 2147 kips Eq 12.8-1
3.13 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEISMIC FORCES §12.8.3
Story shears at each level of the structure, Fx , are determined as follows:
where
wx hxk
Cvx = n
Eq 12.8-12
∑ i=1wi hik
for T < 0.5 s, k = 1
Story shears based on hand calculations and the ETABS model are presented in Table 4-4. The ETABS
model computes story masses from the modeled elements, resulting in more mass at Level 4.0 and a
20 percent greater story shear at Level 4.0. The overall mass and story shear for the ETABS model are
within 5 percent of the hand-calculated values.

101584953
Table 4-4. Seismic force distribution
wi hi wi hik Fx ETABS
Level (k) (ft) (k-ft) Cvx (k) (k)
Level 4.0 1255 44.0 55,220 0.209 449 541
Level 3.5 1365 38.5 52,553 0.199 428 421
Level 3.0 1365 33.0 45,045 0.171 367 367
Level 2.5 1365 27.5 37,538 0.142 305 308
Level 2.0 1365 22.0 30,030 0.114 244 247
Level 1.5 1365 16.5 22,523 0.085 183 185
Level 1.0 1365 11.0 15,015 0.057 122 123
Level 0.5 1080 5.5 5,940 0.023 48 49
Swi = 10,525 Σwi hik = 263,863 SFx = 2147 2241
4. Slab, Beam, and Column Design ACI 318
As noted in the Commentary, the requirements of ACI 318 Section 18.14 for “Members not designated as
part of the lateral force resisting system” are intended to provide slabs, beams, and columns with sufficient
ductility to undergo flexural yielding while subjected to the design seismic displacement without loss
of gravity-load-carrying capacity. This produces a strength requirement and a ductility requirement for
secondary framing members that are largely, but not entirely, independent. The strength requirement is that
these elements must have adequate capacity to resist the design forces associated with load combinations
1, 2, 6, and 7. This is the subject of Part 4 of the design example. The ductility requirement consists of the
detailing provisions of ACI 318 Section 18.14.3 and is addressed in Part 6.
Design of post-tensioned (P/T) structures is typically performed using computer software that balances
loads, optimizes tendon profiles, and selects reinforcement based on design loading and code requirements.
It is common practice to treat the gravity design of P/T slab-and-beam systems as a floor-by-floor exercise
using software that accounts for the stiffness of supporting walls and columns but does not consider the
overall geometry of the structure.
Beams and slabs must be designed to resist forces due to load combinations 6 and 7, which include seismic
loads; however, the seismic components of these load combinations are typically not significant for long-
span beams. Therefore, the omission of seismic load effects from the P/T beam design does not often result
in members with inadequate strength. But it can affect the measures necessary to achieve ductile detailing,
as shown in Part 6.
The members shown in Figure 4-5 have been selected to demonstrate these principles. Post-tensioned
concrete design is beyond the scope of this example. Therefore, the P/T design steps have been omitted and
the discussion in Part 4 is limited to demands and capacities with an emphasis on values and results that are
most relevant to the design of secondary frame members, especially columns.
One such value is Mpr , defined in ACI 318 Section 2.2 as the probable flexural capacity of a frame element
based on tensile steel stress of 1.25fy , f = 1.0, and factored axial loads. ACI 318 does not provide direction
for computing Mpr of prestressed members. Axial loads on members must be included in the determination

101584953
of Mpr , so neglecting the effect of prestressing does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the code.
However, for most building applications, it is impractical to determine the stress state of unbonded tendons
in an element subjected to inelastic seismic displacements.
Section 20.3.2.4.1 provides an approximate method to calculate the unbonded tendon stress at ultimate
strength based on empirical findings and limited information about the member under consideration. This
results in an “ultimate” P/T tendon stress of 200 ksi.
This design example uses an “ultimate” tendon stress of 270 ksi, corresponding to the ultimate strength
of the P/T tendons and has not included the 1.25 factor of ACI 318 Section 2.2 that is applied to mild
reinforcement.
It is important to understand that Mpr is not used to design the P/T frame members. As will be shown in
Part 6, the example building contains columns that are subject to large seismic shear demands. Mpr values
for the P/T slabs and beams provide an upper limit on the seismic shear that the columns must resist to meet
the ductility requirements of ACI 318 Section 18.14.
Figure 4-5. Members selected for gravity design

101584953
4.1 POST-TENSIONED SLAB
The slab has been designed for the governing effects of the live loads listed in Part 1.3. A computer analysis
shows that the slab requires P/T tendons spaced at 2 feet on center and #4 top reinforcement at 12 inches
on center at the beam lines. Design of distributed slab reinforcement in both directions to resist diaphragm
shear forces is shown in Part 8.1. Bottom reinforcement at the beam lines consists of distributed slab
reinforcement (i.e., #4 at 16 inches on center). The slab reinforcement is shown in Figure 4-6. Probable
flexural capacities at the beam lines are computed as follows for a 1-foot-wide slab:
For negative moment:
(270 kips)(0.153 in 2 )(1 tendon )

PPT = = 20.7 kips/ft
2 ft
As = 0.19 in2/ft
d = 5.25 in
b = 12 in
20.7 kips + (1.25)(0.19 in 2 )(60 ksi)
a= = 0.69 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(12 in )
⎛ 0.69 in ⎞
M pr
−
(
= 20.7 kips + (1.25)(0.19 in 2 )(60 ksi) ⎜ 5.25 in −
⎝ 2 ⎠
)
⎟ /(12 in/ft) = 14.3 kip-ft/ft
For positive moment:
As = 0.14 in2/ft
d = 5.25 in
b = 12 in
(1.25)(0.14 in 2 )(60 ksi)
a= = 0.21 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(12 in )
⎛ 0.21 in ⎞
M pr
+
= (1.25)(0.14 in 2 )(60 ksi) ⎜ 5.25 in − ⎟ /(12 in/ft) = 4.5 kip-ft/ft
⎝ 2 ⎠
Figure 4-6. P/T slab reinforcement
4.2 POST-TENSIONED BEAMS
Moment diagrams for beams and columns on grid lines 2 through 5 are shown in Figure 4-7. Beam end
moments and shears for four beams at the south ramp are summarized in Table 4-5. Values for load
combinations 6 and 7 are listed twice: the gravity component only and with seismic forces included. This
is because ACI 318 Section 18.14 requires that seismic shear forces based on member flexural capacity be
substituted for QE in combinations 6 and 7.

101584953
Table 4-5. Beam forces (units of kips and kip-ft)
Comb. 6 Comb. 7 Comb. 6 Comb. 7

Comb. 2 (Gravity) (Gravity) (Seismic) (Seismic)
Line/ Grid
Level Line V M V M V M V M V M
2/3.5 A 121 997 119 984 47 389 124 1042 52 446
2/3.5 B 113 1025 112 1012 44 400 115 1034 48 421
2/1.5 A 124 1057 123 1041 48 410 126 1094 52 462
2/1.5 B 115 1043 114 1029 45 406 117 1069 48 445
5/3.5 A 123 1063 122 1050 48 416 124 1097 50 463
5/3.5 B 124 1098 123 1085 49 430 125 1135 51 479
5/1.5 A 124 1087 123 1073 49 424 125 1120 51 471
5/1.5 B 124 1097 123 1084 49 429 125 1132 51 477
The following observations can be made:
• Load combination 6 produces design forces that are about 5 percent higher than combination 2.
The seismic shear and moment should be included in design, but they do not greatly affect the
outcome for long-span beams.
• Beam shear and moment vary less than 10 percent between grid lines 2 and 5 and between
Level 3.5 and Level 1.5. Two-dimensional modeling for design of “typical” beams is
reasonable.
Flexural capacity
Figure 4-8 shows the typical beam elevation used throughout the example structure. Fifteen P/T tendons
are located at the geometric centroid of the effective T-section, 25.75 inches from the bottom of the beam.
Mild reinforcement consists of four #9 top bars located 33 inches from the bottom of the beam and two #9
bottom bars centered 3 inches from the bottom of the beam. Probable flexural capacities at the beam ends
are computed as follows:
Negative:
x = 25.75 in
PPT = (270 kips)(0.153 in2)(15 tendons) = 620 kips
As = 4.0 in2
Preinf = Treinf = (4.0 in2)(1.25)(60 ksi) = 300 kips
b = 16 in
620 kips + 300 kips
a= = 13.5 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(16 in )
⎛ 13.5 in ⎞
M pr
−
= (620 kips + 300 kips) ⎜ 25.75 in − ⎟ + (300 kips)(33 in − 25.75 in )
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 19,655 kip-in = 1640 kip-ft

101584953
Figure 4-7. Beam and column moment diagrams: (a) line 2; (b) line 3; (c) line 4; (d) line 5
Figure 4-8. P/T beam reinforcement

101584953
For positive flexure, the beam is analyzed as a T-section per ACI 318 Section 6.3.2. The overhang on each
side is limited to one-half the clear distance to the next web or eight times the slab thickness (i.e.,
MIN[8tf , 0.5(22 ft - 1.33 ft)] = 52 in). The effective flange width, beff , may not exceed one-fourth of the
beam span (i.e., beff < (0.25)(56.25 ft)(12 in/ft) = 169 in).
Thus
beff = (2)(52 in) + 16 in = 120 in < 169 in
The positive moment capacity is found as follows:
As = 2.0 in2
Preinf = Treinf = (2.0 in2)(1.25)(60 ksi) = 150 kips
b = 120 in
620 kips + 150 kips
a= = 1.5 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(120 in )
M pr
+
= (620 kips+150 kips)(35.25 in − 25.75 in ) + (150 kips)(25.75 in − 3 in)
= 10,727 kip-in = 890 kip-ft
4.3 COLUMNS
Columns on grid lines A and C are 24 inches square. On grid line B, the columns are 30 inches square.
Columns must be designed for the axial, flexural, and shear loads of load combinations 2, 6, and 7. Design
for axial and flexural loads is presented here. Design for shear has been deferred to Section 6 because the
seismic forces of ACI 318 Section 18.14 govern.
Design forces
Factored gravity forces in the columns supporting the south ramp on grid lines 2 and 5 below Levels 1.5
and 3.5 are given in Table 4-6. Note that these are the columns directly below the beams considered in
Part 4.2. The following observations can be made:
• Gravity forces induce significant shears and moments in all columns except where beams frame
into both sides at the same elevation (i.e., the column on grid lines 2/B and 8/B).
• Due to the long-span beams framing into one side at the tops of columns 2A and 5A, gravity
moments are largest at Level 3.5 and axial loads are small compared to lower levels.

101584953
Table 4-6. Column forces (units of kips and kip-ft)
Comb. 2 Comb. 6 (Gravity)

East-West North-South East-West North-South
Col LVL P V M V M P V M V M
2/A 3.5 135 0 7 150 684 135 0 6 148 676
2/A 1.5 412 2 14 108 483 410 2 14 105 475
2/B 3.5 268 5 30 3 16 267 5 31 3 15
2/B 1.5 797 8 43 31 231 794 8 42 29 219
5/A 3.5 136 1 4 160 763 135 1 4 158 754
5/A 1.5 409 0 4 84 475 409 0 3 83 469
5/B 3.5 275 19 43 3 744 274 19 42 3 735
5/B 1.5 818 3 5 15 739 815 3 5 15 732
Comb. 7 (Gravity) Comb. 6 (Seismic)

2/A 3.5 54 0 2 59 267 139 6 28 157 716
2/A 1.5 165 1 5 40 186 422 11 111 112 483
2/B 3.5 107 2 13 1 6 273 15 62 13 65
2/B 1.5 318 3 16 11 80 815 38 321 51 378
5/A 3.5 55 0 2 63 299 137 7 30 165 788
5/A 1.5 165 0 1 32 185 413 11 123 86 483
5/B 3.5 110 7 17 1 291 274 25 58 23 798
5/B 1.5 327 1 2 7 291 817 20 198 24 797
Comb. 7 (Seismic)
East-West North-South
Col LVL P V M V M
2/A 3.5 50 6 26 67 308
2/A 1.5 154 10 112 47 194
2/B 3.5 100 12 57 11 55
2/B 1.5 297 33 309 33 240
5/A 3.5 53 7 28 70 332
5/A 1.5 160 11 121 36 199
5/B 3.5 110 13 32 22 358
5/B 1.5 326 19 197 16 356

101584953
Flexural design
Interaction diagrams for the design of these columns are shown in Figure 4-9. Column sections are shown
in Figure 4-10. The 24-inch-square columns on grid line A are reinforced with twelve #9 longitudinal rebar
below Level 2.5. Due to the increased gravity moment at Level 3.5, the reinforcement consists of eight #10
rebar on the outside face of the column in addition to eight #9 rebar.
Reinforcement for typical 30-inch-square columns on grid line B consists of twelve #10 longitudinal rebar.
Twelve #8 rebar are provided for the column on grid line 2/B.
Figure 4-9. Column interaction diagrams

101584953
Figure 4-10. Column reinforcement
Flexural capacity
Probable flexural capacities shown in Table 4-7 have been computed from interaction diagrams generated
with fy = 75 ksi and f = 1.0. Load combination 6 has been used to determine the axial load because it
produces larger values of Mpr than load combination 7.
Table 4-7. Probable moment capacity for columns on grid lines 2 and 5
Column Level Reinf. Axial Load (kips) Mpr (kip-ft)

2/A Level 3.5 Eight #9 + Eight #10 139 1350
2/A Level 1.5 Twelve #9 422 950
2/B Level 3.5 273 1050
Twelve #8
2/B Level 1.5 815 1500
5/A Level 3.5 Eight #9 + Eight #10 137 1350
5/A Level 1.5 Twelve #9 413 950
5/B Level 3.5 274 1450
Twelve #10
5/B Level 1.5 817 1800

101584953
5. Wall and Ramp Forces
Shear forces in the wall elements from the ETABS model output are provided in Table 4-8. Axial and
shear forces in the ramp elements are provided in Table 4-9. The tabulated values are the maximum forces
computed at the ends and middle of each ramp. The larger axial forces for the east-west analysis indicate
that the ramps act similar to diagonal bracing in transferring load from one level of the structure to another.
The shear forces in the north-south direction indicate that the ramps behave as diaphragms spanning
horizontally between grid lines 2 and 8.
Table 4-8. Maximum seismic shear forces in wall elements (kips)
North-South East-West
Line 1 Line 1 Line 2 Line 9 Line A Line A Line B Line C
LEVEL (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in) (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in)
Level 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 290 150 N/A N/A 290
Level 3.5 350 N/A N/A N/A 490 N/A N/A N/A
Level 3.0 N/A N/A N/A 640 N/A N/A N/A 560
Level 0.5 520 350 260 N/A 860 260 520 N/A
Table 4-9. Maximum seismic axial and shear forces in ramp elements (kips)
RAMP Axial Shear Axial Shear
Level 4.0 150 130 100 80
Level 3.5 190 130 280 90
Level 3.0 140 110 130 70
Level 2.5 130 100 260 90
Level 2.0 110 90 120 50
Level 1.5 70 80 160 70
Level 1.0 60 130 170 50

101584953
As noted in the Overview, this example does not address the design and detailing of the concrete shear
walls. For a treatment of concrete shear wall design, the reader is referred to Design Examples 1 and 2 in
this volume.
The 280-kip axial force in the ramp at Level 3.5 is roughly 30 percent of the story shear at that level (960
kips for Level 3.5 and above). However, the resulting stress,
280 kips
f ramp = = 60 psi ,
(60 ft )(6.5 in )(12 in/ft )
is approximately 1.2 percent of the concrete compressive strength and is offset completely by pre-
compression stress (170 psi as shown in Section 8c). Therefore, axial forces in ramps are neglected.
Design of the ramps (and slabs) as diaphragms, chords, and collectors is the subject of Parts 8 and 9.
6. Provisions for Secondary Frame Members ACI 318 §18.14
ACI 318 Section 18.14 establishes strength and detailing requirements for beams, columns, and beam-
column joints that are not designated as part of the structure’s seismic-load-resisting-system (i.e., secondary
frame members). The design procedure for secondary beams and columns is as follows:
Step 1: Design member for the forces of all appropriate ASCE 7 load combinations, including load
combinations 6 and 7.
Step 2 (optional): Determine whether the member remains elastic at the factored combination of
gravity forces and seismic forces associated with the design seismic displacement, du .
Step 3: Determine whether ACI 318 beam or column detailing provisions apply to the member.
Step 4: Comply with the minimum reinforcement and other detailing provisions of Section
18.14.3.2 or 18.14.3.3 as determined by Steps 2 and 3.
Step 5: If required by Section 18.14.3.2 or 18.14.3.3, design transverse reinforcement to comply

with the shear strength requirements of Section 18.6.5 or 18.7.6.
Steps or parts thereof may be performed out of order. For example, it often makes sense to determine
the amount of shear reinforcement required for strength (Step 5) before verifying that the prescriptive
minimum reinforcement (Step 4) has been provided. However, it is necessary to determine the longitudinal
reinforcement in all members (Steps 1 and 4) before completing Step 5.
These steps are shown in Figure 4-11 and the corresponding code provisions are summarized in Table 4-10.
Members that remain elastic at the design displacement must meet the detailing requirements of Section
18.14.3.2. If the induced forces exceed the member strength or if the designer elects not to evaluate induced
seismic forces, then the detailing requirements of Section 18.14.3.3 apply.
Secondary beam and column designs are shown in Parts 6.1 and 6.2. Beam-column joint detailing is shown
in Part 6.3.

101584953
Table 4-10. Provisions for secondary frame members per §18.14.
Member Strength Member Type Requirements

Longitudinal reinforcement per Sec. 18.6.3.1.
Transverse reinforcement throughout the length at
Beam spacing not to exceed d/2.
[Sec. 18.14.3.2(a)] If P > 0.10A f ', hoops per Sec. 18.7.5.2 are required
u g c
with spacing not to exceed the lesser of 6db of the
smallest enclosed longitudinal bar and 6 inches.
Longitudinal reinforcement per Sec. 18.7.4.1.
Shear strength per Sec. 18.7.6.
Spiral reinforcement per Sec. 25.7.3 or hoops per Sec.
Member has sufficient Column 25.7.4 over the full length of the column with spacing
strength to resist factored [Sec. 18.14.3.2(b)] not to exceed the lesser of 6db of the smallest enclosed
combination of induced longitudinal bar and 6 inches.
seismic and gravity forces Transverse reinforcement per Sec. 18.7.5.2(a) through
(Sec. 18.14.3.2) (e) provided over a length, defined in Sec. 18.7.5.1,
from each joint face.
Satisfy Sec. 18.14.3.2(b).
Concrete cover per Sec. 18.7.5.7.
Column with
Pu > 0.35P0 Transverse reinforcement (spiral or hoops) equal
[Sec. 18.14.3.2(c)] to one-half the amount required by Table 18.7.5.4
provided over a length, defined in Sec. 18.7.5.1, from
each joint face.
Joint
Satisfy Chapter 15.
[Sec. 18.14.3.2(d)]
All cases Material requirements of Sec. 18.2.5 through 18.2.8.
[Sec. 18.14.3.3(a)] Splice requirements of Sec. 18.2.7 and 18.2.8.
Beam Satisfy Sec. 18.14.3.2(a).

[Sec. 18.14.3.3(b)] Shear strength per Sec. 18.6.5.
Induced seismic forces
not evaluated or exceed Longitudinal reinforcement per Sec. 18.7.4.
member capacity Transverse reinforcement per Sec. 18.7.5.
Column
(Sec. 18.14.3.3)
[Sec. 18.14.3.3(c)] Shear strength per Sec. 18.7.6.
Joint reinforcement per Sec. 18.8 (column hoops/ties to
continue through joint unless confined).
Joint
Satisfy Sec. 18.4.4.1.
[Sec. 18.14.3.3(d)]

101584953
Figure 4-11. Section 18.14 design procedure for beams and columns
6.1 DESIGN AND DETAILING OF SECONDARY BEAMS §18.14.3
Review of process:
Step 1: Design of the beam longitudinal reinforcement
Design of the beam longitudinal reinforcement for ASCE 7 load combinations 1, 2, 6, and 7 has been
completed in Part 4.2. Shear reinforcement design was not performed in Part 4.2 but will be addressed now
in Step 5. This is common practice where shear strength design per Section 18.6.5 is required.
Step 2: Evaluation of induced seismic demands at the design displacement
Evaluation of induced seismic demands at the design displacement has not been performed. As discussed in
Part 4, the post-tensioned concrete design model does not include seismic forces. This has negligible impact
on the design of the slab and beams to resist load combinations 6 and 7, but it does mean that induced
seismic demands have not been evaluated for the purpose of determining detailing provisions.
Step 3: Determination of member type
The P/T beam members are beam elements.
Step 4: Detailing provisions
Detailing provisions require that Sections 18.14.3.3(a) and 18.14.3.3(b) be met. Axial stress is checked to
determine if transverse hoop reinforcement is required.

101584953
Step 4a: Material and splice requirements §18.14.3.3
Secondary elements are required to conform to the same material standards listed in Section 19.2.1 as
special moment frames and special structural walls. It is assumed that these requirements are satisfied via
the project specifications.
• Section 19.2.1.1: minimum f cʹ = 3000 psi.
• Section 19.2.1.1: maximum f cʹ = 5000 psi for lightweight concrete.
• Section 20.2.2.5: ASTM A706 reinforcement or ASTM A615 with testing to show that actual
yield strength does not exceed fy by more than 18 ksi and the ratio of actual tensile strength to
actual yield strength is at least 1.25.
• Section 20.2.2.4: maximum fyt = 100 ksi.
• Section 20.2.2.4: maximum fy and fyt = 60 ksi (80 ksi for welded deformed wire).
Section 18.14.3.3 also requires that mechanical and welded splices conform to the requirements of special
moment frames and shear walls specified in Sections 18.2.5 through 18.2.8.
Step 4b: Longitudinal reinforcement §18.6.3
Beams are required to meet the following minimum and maximum longitudinal reinforcement
requirements:
⎛b d ⎞
As ,min = MAX ⎡⎣ 200, 3 f cʹ ⎤⎦ ⎜ w ⎟
⎜ fy ⎟
⎝ ⎠
and
r < 0.025
Therefore,
⎛ (16 in )(33 in ) ⎞ 2
As,min = MAX ⎡⎣ 200, 3 5000 ⎤⎦ ⎜ ⎟ = 1.9 in
⎝ 60,000 psi ⎠
and
As,max = (0.025)(16 in)(33 in) = 13.2 in2
The four #9 top reinforcement and two #9 bottom reinforcements provided in Part 4.2 satisfy the criteria.
Step 4c: Transverse reinforcement §18.14.3.2(a)
Hoops are required if Pu > 0.10Ag fc'.
The effective post-tensioning force is:
Pu = (15 tendons)(26.8 kips/tendon) = 402 kips

101584953
Gross area of the effective T-beam is:
Ag = (2)(6.5 in)(52 in) + (16 in)(36 in) = 1252 in2
Therefore,
Pu 402 k
= = 0.064 < 0.10
Ag f cʹ (1252 in 2 )(5 ksi)
Hoops are not required and the maximum stirrup spacing is 16 inches.
Step 5: Shear strength §18.6.5
The shear strength requirement of Section 18.6.5 must also be met.
It is worth noting that the beams must meet the material provisions of Sections 18.2.5 through 18.2.8 and
the shear strength requirement of Section 18.6.5 only because induced seismic forces were not evaluated.
It is not likely that the induced seismic forces would result in yielding of the long-span beams present in
the example structure. If that were shown to be the case, only the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
requirements of Section 18.14.3.2(a) would apply. However, not all concrete beams will remain elastic at
the design displacement and it better serves the example to illustrate the application of these provisions.
The beam must be proportioned to resist the design seismic shear force, Ve , resulting from application of the
probable flexural capacities at the beam ends in combination with factored gravity loads.
M pr
−
+ M pr
+
Ve =
ℓu
Using the beam capacities computed in Part 4.2
1640 k-ft + 890 k-ft

Ve = = 44 kips
60 ft − 3.25 ft
From Table 4-5, the maximum factored gravity shear from load combination 6 is 123 kips and the minimum
factored gravity shear from load combination 7 is 44 kips.
Per Section 18.6.5.2, if the seismic shear exceeds one-half of the factored shear demand and Pu < 0.05Ag fc',
the shear capacity must be calculated with Vc = 0. Post-tensioning produces an axial stress of 0.064Ag fc', so
this provision does not apply in the example. However, Ve is approximately equal to the gravity shear for
load combination 7, so Section 18.6.5.2 would likely apply to the transverse reinforcement design for load
combination 7 for a non-P/T beam.
The factored shear demand is
Vu = 123 kips + 44 kips = 167 kips §2.3.6 (Comb. 6)
For load combination 7
Vu = 44 kips + 44 kips = 88 kips §2.3.6 (Comb. 7)

101584953
For prestressed concrete (Sec. 22.5.8)
⎛ Vd⎞
Vc = minimum of ⎜ 0.6 λ f cʹ + 700 u ⎟ bw d ; T 22.5.8.2
⎝ Mu ⎠
(
0.6 λ f cʹ + 700 bw d ; )
or 5λ f cʹ bw d
Check Equation 22.5.8.2(a)

Vu d p (160 kips)(25.75 in )
= = 0.21 < 1.0
Mu (1640 k-ft )(12 in/ft )
( )
Vc = 0.6 5000 + 700(0.21) (16 in )(33 in ) = 100 kips . . . controls
Check Equation 22.5.8.2(b)
( )
Vc = 0.6 5000 + 700 (16 in )(33 in ) = 392 kips
Check Equation 22.5.8.2(c)
5λ f cʹ bw d
= 5 5000 (16 in )(33 in )
= 190 kips
Equation 22.5.8.2(a) controls. Try #4 stirrups at 6 inches on center:
Av f yt d
Vs = Eq 22.5.8.5.3
s
2(0.19 in 2 )(60 ksi)(33 in )
Vs = = 125 kips
6 in
resulting in
fVn = (0.75)(100 kips + 125 kips) = 170 kips > 167 kips . . . OK
Check minimum shear reinforcement per ACI 318 Section 9.6.3.3:

Check the greater of
bw (16 in )
Av = 0.75 f cʹ
f yt
= 0.75 5000
60 ksi
( )
= 0.014 in 2 . . . controls
b (16 in )
Av = 50 w = (50) = 0.013 in 2 . . . OK
f yt 60 ksi
Check maximum shear reinforcement per Section 22.5.1.2:
Vs < 8 5000 (16 in )(33 in ) = 299 kips
Check maximum stirrup spacing per Sections 9.7.6.2.2
Vs < 4 5000 (16 in )(33 in ) = 149 kips

101584953
Therefore,
3h
smax = = 27 in . . . so the maximum spacing of 16 inches per §18.14.3.2(a) governs.
4
There are no specific requirements for the placement of hoops (as opposed to open stirrups) in secondary
beams with Pu /Ag f cʹ < 0.10. Section 18.6.4, which specifies regions of moment frame beams that require
hoops, is not referenced by Section 18.14.3.2 or 18.14.3.3(b). Therefore, stirrup spacing and placement is
dictated by design loading and the requirements of Chapter 18.
The region of the beam for which stirrups spaced at 16 inches on center is adequate is determined as
follows. The lower bound Vc of Section 22.5.5.1 is used instead of Section 22.5.8.2 because Mu has not
been determined at intermediate locations.
Vc = 2 f cʹ bw d = 2 5000 (16 in )(33 in ) = 75 kips
2(0.19 in )(60 ksi)(33 in )

Vs = = 47 kips
16 in
fVn = (0.75)(75 kips + 47 kips) = 92 kips
Seismic shear Ve is constant over the beam span. However, the gravity shear varies linearly and is zero near
mid-span. From this linear relationship, the distance from the end of the beam to the location where stirrups
at 16 inches on center are adequate is found by
⎛ 56.75 ft ⎞
x = (167 kips − 92 kips) ⎜ ⎟ = 17.3 ft
⎝ 123 kips + 123 kips ⎠
Provide thirty-five #4 stirrups at 6 inches on center at each end of the beam and provide #4 stirrups at 16
inches on center for the remainder.
The example has assumed an abrupt transition from reinforcement designed per Section 18.6.5 to the
minimum transverse reinforcement. A more efficient design may be result if stirrup spacing gradually
transitions from 6 inches to 16 inches.
6.2 DESIGN AND DETAILING OF SECONDARY COLUMNS
Review of process:
Step 1: Design of the column longitudinal reinforcement
Design of the column longitudinal reinforcement for ASCE 7 load combinations 1, 2, 6, and 7 has been
completed in Part 4.3. Similar to beams, shear reinforcement design was not performed in Part 4.3 and will
be addressed in Step 5.
Step 2: Evaluation of induced seismic demands at the design displacement
Evaluation of induced seismic demands at the design displacement is performed for all columns. For
reasons that are explained in sections addressing steps 3 and 5, the Level 3.5 columns on the exterior grid
lines (i.e., Columns 2/A and 5/A) are designed to remain elastic at the induced seismic force.

101584953
Detailing provisions will vary, depending on the outcome of step 2. Even though some columns are treated
like beam elements for the shear strength requirement, they all meet the prescriptive requirements of
column elements. Shear reinforcement spacing requirements are checked in step 5, where applicable, for
bookkeeping reasons.
Step 2a: Determine induced seismic forces in columns at design displacement §18.14.3.2(c)
Induced seismic forces for the columns have been evaluated based on the design displacement (i.e., the
static displacement, ds , multiplied by the deflection amplification factor du = Cd ds = 5ds).
It is possible to compute the induced forces by scaling static displacement values that are output by
ETABS and multiplying the stiffness matrix of each element by the design displacements. To achieve
consistent results, the engineer must use the same stiffness matrix that ETABS used to compute the static
displacements, including element length, reduced section properties, shear stiffness terms, and rigid end
zone offsets. The process requires several steps and is prone to error. An equivalent approach is to scale the
forces computed by ETABS by the deflection amplification factor. The resulting induced seismic forces in
combination with gravity forces are shown in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11. Maximum column forces at design displacement (units of kips and k-ft)
1.4D + L + QE (du) 0.7D + QE (du)

2/A 3.5 155 30 121 188 876 34 30 117 99 467
2/A 1.5 465 47 504 140 515 110 46 495 75 226
2/B 3.5 302 55 191 53 265 72 52 173 51 256
2/B 1.5 899 158 1442 139 1014 213 153 1416 121 875
5/A 3.5 145 36 134 193 924 45 35 132 98 469
5/A 1.5 434 55 603 103 539 140 55 601 52 255
5/B 3.5 274 49 122 108 1050 110 37 97 106 606
5/B 1.5 820 93 970 60 1062 322 91 967 52 621
Step 2b: Check flexural yielding at induced seismic forces §18.14.3.2(c)
The interaction diagrams shown in Figure 4-12 indicate that column 2/B at Level 1.5 is the only column
that yields at the induced seismic axial and flexural forces. This is due to a large seismic moment that
occurs where the column is restrained by the retaining walls on lines 2 and B.

101584953
Figure 4-12. Column interaction diagrams with seismic forces determined at design displacement
Step 2c: Design columns 2/A and 5/A at Level 3.5 for shear at induced seismic forces
Shear design for Level 3.5 columns is as follows. Because flexural yielding does not govern, f = 0.60 has
been used per Section 21.2.4.
For columns 2/A and 5/A,
Vu = 190 kips
Try #5 ties with three legs at 5 inches on center.
Vc = 2 6000 (24 in )(21.5 in ) = 80 kips

101584953
and
Av f yt d 3(0.31 in )(60 ksi)(21.5 in )

Vs = = = 240 kips
s 5 in
Resulting in
fVn = (0.60)(80 kips + 240 kips) = 192 kips > 190 kips . . . OK
Check minimum shear reinforcement per ACI 318 Section 10.6.2.2:
⎛ (24 in )(5 in ) ⎞ 2
Av > MAX ⎡⎣0.75 6000 , 50 ⎤⎦ ⎜ ⎟ = 0.12 in . . . OK
⎝ 60 ksi ⎠
Check maximum shear, Vs, from reinforcement per Section 22.5.1.2:
Vs < 8 6000 (24 in )(21.5 in ) = 320 kips
Check maximum tie spacing per Section 10.7.6.5.2:
Vs > 4 6000 (24 in )(21.5 in ) = 160 kips
Therefore,
d
smax = = 5.4 in
4
Provide #5 ties with three legs at 5 inches on center.
Step 3: Determination of member type §18.14.3.2, §18.14.3.3
The columns are column elements. However, a case can be made that the Level 3.5 exterior columns are
loaded, designed, and reinforced more like beam elements and should be treated as such for the purpose of
step 5.
Column stresses due to axial and flexural loads for load combination 6 are summarized in Table 4-12.
Columns 2/A and 5/A at Level 3.5 stand out as having flexural stress values that are more than 15 times the
corresponding axial stress values. In Section 2.3, ACI 318 defines beams as “members subjected primarily
to flexure and shear” and columns as “members used primarily to support axial compressive load . . .”
Quantitative criteria for distinguishing beams from columns are not provided.
This contrasts with earlier ACI 318 provisions for secondary frame members that assigned detailing
provisions based on Pu /Ag . However, that methodology was not without its faults. First, different load
combinations could produce different values of Pu /Ag . While the provisions for larger values of Pu /Ag were
generally more conservative, there were instances (similar to Section 18.6.5 in the 2019 edition) where a
low value of Pu /Ag produced a more rigorous design. Second, a designer could decrease Pu /Ag by enlarging
the dimensions of the member without changing its fundamental role in the structure.
The current provisions emphasize that beams resist flexural loads and columns resist axial loads. Part
4.3 shows that additional flexural reinforcement is provided at the Level 3.5 exterior columns due to
the columns being subjected to increased gravity moment from one-sided long-span beam connections.

101584953
Table 4-12. Design Step 3: column axial stress for load combinations 6 and 7
Col LVL b × h (in) Pu (k) Pu /Ag (psi) Mu (k-ft) M u/S (psi)

2/A 3.5 24 × 24 139 240 716 3730
2/A 1.5 24 × 24 422 730 483 2520
2/B 3.5 30 × 30 273 300 65 170
2/B 1.5 30 × 30 815 910 378 1010
5/A 3.5 24 × 24 137 240 788 4100
5/A 1.5 24 × 24 413 720 483 2520
5/B 3.5 30 × 30 274 300 798 2130
5/B 1.5 30 × 30 817 910 797 2130
The added flexural reinforcement increases the Mpr of these columns by 50 percent relative to Level 1.5
columns (see Table 4-7). Meanwhile, the large gravity moment counteracts induced seismic moment,
making it less likely that the column will yield in double curvature as assumed by Section 18.7.6.
Therefore, it is reasonable to apply the beam detailing provisions of Section 18.14.3.2(a) and exempt these
columns from the shear strength requirement.
Summary of Design Steps 2 and 3
The outcomes of steps 2 and 3 and requirements for steps 4 and 5 are shown in Table 4-13. The Level
3.5 columns on grid line A are not required to meet the step 5 shear-strength requirements. Except for the
engineer verifying the minimum reinforcement requirements of Section 18.14.3.2, the columns’ design is
complete. The other columns must meet the shear-strength requirements of Section 18.7.6. These columns
have not yet been checked against the induced seismic shear. Except for column 2/B, which yields in
flexure, their classification with respect to step 2 is premature. However, it is shown in Table 4-18 that
the shear strength required for step 5 exceeds that required for step 2, so complying with Section 18.7.6
provides a non-yielding design at the induced shear.
Table 4-13. Column detailing and shear strength requirements
Step 2: Step 4: Step 5:

Col LVL Yields at QE (du) Detailing Shear Strength
2/A 3.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) n/a
2/A 1.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6
2/B 3.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6
2/B 1.5 Yes §18.14.3.3(c) §18.7.6
5/A 3.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) n/a
5/A 1.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6
5/B 3.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6
5/B 1.5 No §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6

101584953
Step 4: Columns 2/A and 5/A at Level 3.5—detailing requirements §18.14.3.2(b)
ACI 318 Section 18.14.3.2(b) references Section 18.7.4.1 for longitudinal reinforcement. Per Table 4-7,
columns 2/A and 5/A at Level 3.5 have eight #10 bars and eight #9 bars for a total Ast = 18.2 in2. These
columns are 24 inches square. Therefore, the longitudinal reinforcement meets 0.01 < Ast /Ag < 0.06.
Maximum tie spacing is given by Section 18.14.3.2(b) as the lesser of 6db or 6 inches. Additionally,
Sections 18.7.5.2 (a) through (d) require hoop reinforcement with compliant bends and ties in accordance
with Sections 25.7.2.2 and 25.7.2.3, and Section 18.7.5.2(e) requires tie legs to be spaced at a maximum of
14 inches over a length, ℓ0, at each end of the member. Columns 2/A and 5/A, which have #5 ties with three
legs at 5-inch spacing, meet these requirements over the full length of the columns. Therefore, the value of
ℓ0 has not been determined explicitly.
This completes the design and detailing of these columns.
Step 4: Other columns—detailing and shear strength requirements §18.14.3.2(b), §18.14.3.3(c)
Except for column 2/B at Level 1.5, the columns do not yield in flexure at the design displacement.
Therefore, the columns except for 2/B at Level 1.5 must satisfy Section 18.14.3.2(b), and column 2/B at
Level 1.5 must satisfy Section 18.14.3.3(c). There is considerable overlap between these requirements, so
the remainder of this section has been organized to reduce repetition as follows:
• Longitudinal reinforcement is checked per Section 18.7.4.1.
• Minimum shear reinforcement and maximum spacing are checked per Sections 18.7.5.2(a)
through (e).
• Additional requirements, including the balance of Sections 18.7.4 and 18.7.5, are listed for
column 2/B at Level 1.5.
Step 4a: Longitudinal reinforcement §18.7.4.1
Longitudinal reinforcement complies with the relationship 0.01Ag < Ast < 0.06Ag , as shown in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14. Column longitudinal reinforcement per ACI 318 Section 18.7.4.1
Size Ag 0.01Ag 0.06Ag Long. Ast

Column (in) (in2) (in2) (in2) Reinf. (in2)
2/A & 5/A 24 × 24 576 5.8 34.6 12-#9 12.0
2/B 30 × 30 900 9.0 54.0 12-#8 9.5
5/B 30 × 30 900 9.0 54.0 12-#10 15.2

101584953
Step 4b: Transverse reinforcement §18.14.3.2(b)
Comparing the induced seismic shears (Table 4-11) and the column capacities (Table 4-18), all of the
columns have sufficient shear strength to resist the induced seismic shear force. Per Section 18.14.3.2(b),
all of the columns, except 2/B at Level 1.5, must comply with Sections 18.7.5.2(a) through (e). These
requirements were discussed previously for the line A columns at Level 3.5. The same reasoning and results
apply to the other columns. Therefore, the design of the columns is complete.
Step 4c: Detailing requirements for column 2/B at Level 1.5 §18.14.3.3(c)
The column 2B at Level 1.5 yields at the induced seismic moment. To simplify the bookkeeping and better
illustrate the differences between Section 18.14.3.2(b) and Section 18.14.3.3(c), it has been detailed to
comply with Sections 18.7.4.1 and 18.7.5.2(a) through (e), which incorporate Section 18.7.5.1. The final
requirements for this column are to comply with the material specifications of Section 18.14.3.3(a) and with
the remaining requirements of Sections 18.7.4 and 18.7.5.
Material specifications for members that yield at the induced seismic forces are listed in Part 6.1. The same
requirements apply to column 2/B.
Section 18.7.4 has the following additional requirements:
• Section 18.7.4.2: At least six longitudinal bars; column 2/B has 12 bars.
• Section 18.7.4.3: 1.25ℓd < 0.5ℓu ; for #8 reinforcement and 6000 psi concrete, 1.25ℓd = 37 in
and 0.5ℓu = 48 in.
• Section 18.7.4.4: Reinforcement lap splices shall be designed as tension lap splices, located
at the mid-height of the column, and enclosed in ties complying with Sections 18.7.5.2 and
18.7.5.3. Lap splices have not been included in the design example; however, the full length of
the column has compliant ties.
Section 18.7.5 has the following additional requirements:
• Section 18.7.5.2(f): Each longitudinal bar must be enclosed and hx < 8 in. This does not apply
to column 2/B because Pu < 0.3Ag fc'.
• Section 18.7.5.3: Transverse reinforcement spacing must be less than (a) one-fourth of the
minimum column dimension, (b) 6db , and (d) s0 = 4 + (14 - hx)/3.
hx = 8, in so the maximum reinforcement spacing is 6 inches on center.
• Section 18.7.5.4: The amount of transverse reinforcement shall comply with Table 18.7.5.4. For
rectilinear hoops, Pu < 0.3Ag fc' and fc' < 10,000 psi, equations (a) and (b) must be satisfied.
Ash ⎛ Ag ⎞ fʹ ⎛ 900 in 2 ⎞ ⎛ 6 ksi ⎞

> 0.3 ⎜ − 1⎟ c = 0.3 ⎜ 2
− 1⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 0.007 T 18.7.5.4(a)
sbc ⎝ Ach ⎠ f y ⎝ 729 in ⎠ ⎝ 60 ksi ⎠
Ash fʹ ⎛ 6 ksi ⎞
• > 0.09 c = 0.09 ⎜ ⎟ = 0.009 . . . governs T 18.7.5.4(b)
sbc fy ⎝ 60 ksi ⎠

101584953
Transverse reinforcement required for shear strength is designed in Step 5 and consists of four #5 ties at 6
inches on center (see Table 4-18). This produces
Ash (4)(0.31 in 2 )
= = 0.008 . . . no good
sbc (6 in )(27 in )
By observation, ties at 5 inches on center are acceptable for column 2/B at Level 1.5.
Step 4: Shear reinforcement summary
Shear reinforcement for the members designed here is shown in Figure 4-13. Table 4-15 summarizes the
ACI 318 sections used to determine the column shear reinforcement.
Table 4-15. Design reference for column shear reinforcement
Max Tie
Col LVL Design Basis Shear Demand Min Av Spacing Ties Provided
2/A 3.5 §18.14.3.2(b) Comb. 6 w/ Cd × VE §10.6.2.2 §10.7.6.5.2 3-#5 at 5 in o.c.
2/A 1.5 §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6 §10.6.2.2 §18.14.3.2(b) 4-#4 at 6 in o.c.
2/B 3.5 §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6 §10.6.2.2 §10.7.6.5.2 4-#5 at 6 in o.c.
2/B 1.5 §18.14.3.3(c) §18.7.6 §18.7.5.4 §18.7.5.3 4-#5 at 5 in o.c.
5/A 3.5 §18.14.3.2(b) Comb. 6 w/ Cd × VE §10.6.2.2 §10.7.6.5.2 3-#5 at 5 in o.c.
5/A 1.5 §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6 §10.6.2.2 §18.14.3.2(b) 4-#4 at 6 in o.c.
5/B 3.5 §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6 §10.6.2.2 §10.7.6.5.2 4-#5 at 6 in o.c.
5/B 1.5 §18.14.3.2(b) §18.7.6 §10.6.2.2 §10.7.6.5.2 4-#5 at 4 in o.c.

101584953
Figure 4-13. Beam and column shear reinforcement

101584953
Step 5: Shear strength §18.7.6
The shear strength requirement of Section 18.7.6 applies to all column elements. Beam elements that have
been designed to resist induced seismic force are not required to meet Section 18.6.5.
Section 18.7.6 requires column design shears to be “determined from the maximum forces that can
be generated at the faces of the joints at each end of the member.” This calculation is conventionally
performed for an isolated column element and takes the form
M pr ,top + M pr ,btm
Ve =
ℓu
where Mpr,top and Mpr,btm are the maximum moments that can be generated at the top and bottom of the
column, respectively. ℓu is the column clear span. Ve increases as ℓu decreases. Therefore, the largest values
of Ve are expected to occur in the column with the shortest clear span. Theoretically, very large design
shears may result where clear spans are small, such as at the ramps of parking structures.
The following calculations first address the cases where ℓu is a reasonable value for a building column
following the conventional approach of ACI 318. For the design example, such columns occur on lines
A and C and at 2/B and 8/B. An unconventional but acceptable approach will be introduced later in this
section to solve the short-column problem.
Step 5a: Conventional approach for column shear strength
The example structure contains columns of varying clear spans as indicated in the building description
and in Table 4-1. Clear spans for the north-south direction equal the slab-to-slab span minus the 36-inch
beam depth. In the east-west direction, clear spans equal the slab-to-slab span minus the slab thickness
of 6.5 inches. Column clear spans on lines A and C and at 2/B and 8/B are 96 inches in the north-south
direction and 126 inches in the east-west direction. The column at 5/B has a 30-inch clear span in the north-
south direction and a 60-inch clear span in the east-west direction. This column is also addressed in the
alternative analysis that follows. It is included here because the conventional approach is valid for the east-
west direction and to illustrate the difference between the two approaches for the north-south direction.
Section 18.7.6 states, “the member shears need not exceed those determined from joint strengths of the
transverse members framing into the joint.” That is, Ve for the column need not exceed the shear based
on the moments that occur at the top and bottom of the column when the beams framing in are at their
probable flexural capacities.
Values of Mpr based on the probable moment strength of the columns subjected to factored axial loads are
provided in Table 4-7. Typically, if column flexural capacity governs the determination of Ve ,
Mpr,top = Mpr,btm = Mpr,col
resulting in
M pr ,col
Ve = 2
ℓu
The moment induced in a column due to flexural yielding of beams framing into the column is determined
from the free-body diagrams shown in Figure 4-14. Where the column is continuous through the joint,

101584953
the moment is distributed between the members above and below the joint in proportion to their flexural
stiffness. The moment in the column below the joint is
⎛ ℓa ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞
M pr ,col = ⎜ ⎟ Σ ⎜ M pr ,bm + Vbm ⎜ + ⎟
ℓ
⎝ b + ℓ a⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎟⎠ ⎠
where
ℓa and ℓb are the clear span of the column above and below the joint, respectively. The term
⎛ ℓa ⎞
⎜ ⎟ is the relative stiffness of the column below the joint. If the column does not extend
⎝ ℓb + ℓa ⎠
above the joint (i.e., if ℓa = 0), then this term is replaced with (1.0).
Mpr,bm is the probable moment capacity of the beam. For a single-sided connection, Mpr,bm should be taken
as the larger of the positive or negative moment capacities. For a two-sided connection, the positive yield
moment occurs on one side of the connection and the negative yield moment occurs on the other.
Vbm is the shear at the beam plastic hinge that occurs simultaneously with Mpr,bm. In two-sided connections,
the gravity components of Vbm produce offsetting moments, but the seismic components are additive.
hcol and hbm are the width of the column and height of the beam in the plane of the connection. The
⎛ hcol hbm ⎞
quantity ⎜ 2 + 2 ⎟ is the distance from the centerline of the column to the plastic hinge in the beam
⎝ ⎠
and is the eccentricity through which Vbm acts, causing additional moment in the column.
Framing configurations used to compute column moments based on beam or slab flexural capacity are
shown in Figure 4-15 and Figure 4-16 for the north-south and east-west directions, respectively. The Mpr of
the column is used for the bottom joint where columns are embedded in the 8-inch retaining walls on lines
2, A, and B and at the column bases. Where the retaining wall is parallel to the direction of induced shear,
it restrains the column; where it is perpendicular, it is assumed that there is no restraint at that level and the
column length is taken from the base of the structure.
North-south moments are produced by the P/T beams, and east-west moments are produced by the slab. In
the following equations, column moments are written Mtop and Mbtm . Mpr denotes beam or slab moments. At
one-sided connections, M pr −
is used because it results in a greater column end moment than M pr +
. V denotes
total shear in the beam at the plastic hinge. Ve denotes seismic shear in the beam and is used at two-sided
connections where gravity shear components cancel. The shear component in the slab is insignificant and
has been ignored.
For the north-south direction:
Recall from Parts 4.2 and 6.1 for the P/T beams:
M pr
−
= 1640 kip-ft
M pr = 890 kip-ft
+
V = 167 kips
and
Ve = 44 kips

101584953
Column 2/A at Level 1.5 (one-sided; spans to base; column extends 8 feet above joint and 13.5 feet below
joint):
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 24 in 36 in⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ (167 kips) ⎜ + ⎟
⎛ 8 ⎞⎛ − ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2 2 ⎜ ⎠⎟
M top =⎜ ⎟ ⎜ M pr + V ⎜ + ⎟ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ ⎜1640 k-ft + ⎜ ⎟ = 770 k-ft
⎝ 8 + 13.5 ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 8 + 13.5 ⎠ ⎝ ⎟⎠ 12 in/ft ⎝ ⎠
Mbtm = Mpr,col = 950 kip-ft
Column 5/A at Level 1.5 (one-sided; spans to base; column extends 8 feet above joint and 10.8 feet below
joint):
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 24 in 36 in⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ (167 kips) ⎜ + ⎟
⎛ 8 ⎞⎛ − ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2 2 ⎜ ⎠⎟
M top =⎜ ⎟ ⎜ M pr + V ⎜ + ⎟ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ ⎜1640 k-ft + ⎜ ⎟ = 880 k-ft
⎝ 8 + 10.8 ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 8 + 10.8 ⎠ ⎝ ⎟⎠ 12 in/ft ⎝ ⎠
Column 2/B at Level 3.5 (two-sided at top and bottom; terminates at top joint; equal span above and below
bottom joint):
⎛ − ⎛h h ⎞⎞
M top = ⎜ M pr + M pr
+
+ 2Ve ⎜ col + bm ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 30 in 36 in⎛ ⎞ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ 2(44 kips) ⎜ + ⎜⎟⎟
M top = ⎜1640
⎟ k-ft + 890 k-ft + ⎝ 2 2 ⎜⎠⎟
⎜ ⎟ 12 in/ft ⎜ ⎟ = 2770 k-ft
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ − ⎛h h ⎞⎞
M btm = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ M pr + M pr
+
+ 2Ve ⎜ col + bm ⎟ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 30 in 36 in⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ 2(44 kips) ⎜ + ⎟
⎛1⎞ ⎝ 2 2 ⎜⎠ ⎟
M btm = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜1640
⎟ k-ft + 890 k-ft +
⎜ ⎟ = 1390 k-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎟⎠ 12 in/ft ⎝ ⎠
Column 2/B at Level 1.5 (two-sided at top; restrained by wall at bottom; equal span above and below joint):
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ − ⎛h h ⎞⎞
M top = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ M pr + M pr
+
+ 2Ve ⎜ col + bm ⎟ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 30 in 36 in⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ 2(44 kips) ⎜ + ⎟
⎛1⎞ ⎜1640
⎟ k-ft + 890 k-ft + ⎝ 2 2 ⎜⎠ ⎟
M top = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 1390 k-ft
⎝2⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 12 in/ft ⎝ ⎠

101584953
Column 5/B at Level 3.5 and Level 1.5 (beams on opposite sides; equal spans above and below joint). The
gravity components of V cancel similar to the two-sided condition:
⎛ ⎞ 30 in 36 in⎛ ⎞ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ( 44 kips ) ⎛⎜ + ⎜⎟ ⎟
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ − ⎛h h ⎞⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜1640
⎟ k-ft + ⎝ 2 2 ⎜⎠ ⎟
M top = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ M pr + Ve ⎜ col + bm ⎟ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 880 k-ft
2
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 12 in/ft ⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 30 in 36 in⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ (44 kips) ⎜ + ⎟
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ + ⎛ hcol hbm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 2 2 ⎜⎠⎟
M btm = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ M pr + Ve ⎜ + ⎟ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜890 k-ft + ⎜ ⎟ = 510 k-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎟⎠ 12 in/ft ⎝ ⎠
For the east-west direction:
An effective slab width of eight times the thickness is used (similar to one-sided T-beam design per ACI
Section 6.3.2), resulting in
M pr
−
= (8)(6.5 in )(14.4 k-ft/ft ) / (12 in/ft ) = 62 k-ft
and
M pr
+
= (8)(6.5 in )(3.6 k-ft/ft ) / (12 in/ft ) = 16 k-ft
Columns 2/B and 5/B at Level 3.5 and column 5/B at Level 1.5 (two-sided; equal spans above and below
joint):
M top = (0.5)( M pr
−
+ M pr
+
) = (0.5)(62 k-ft + 16 k-ft ) = 40 kip-ft
Mbtm = Mtop = 40 kip-ft
Columns 2/A, 2/B, and 5/A at Level 1.5 (two-sided at top with equal spans above and below joint;
restrained by wall at bottom):
M top = (0.5)( M pr
−
+ M pr
+
) = (0.5)(62 k-ft + 16 k-ft ) = 40 kip-ft
Mbtm = Mpr,col
Column seismic shear forces based on column and beam moments are shown in Table 4-16 and Table 4-17.
Beam and slab moments produce smaller shears than column moments. The difference is especially
significant at the short columns at 5/B. Shears produced by slab moments are significantly less than shears
resulting from beam moments.

101584953
Table 4-16. Column seismic design shear, Ve—north-south direction
Column Capacity P/T Beam Capacity

Column Level ℓu (in) Mcol Ve Mtop Mbtm Ve
2/A 1.5 162 950 140 770 950 127
2/B 3.5 96 1050 262 2770 1390 520
2/B 1.5 96 1500 380 1390 1500 361
5/A 1.5 129 950 180 880 950 170
5/B 3.5 30 1450 1160 880 510 560
5/B 1.5 30 1800 1440 880 510 560
Table 4-17. Column seismic design shear, Ve—east-west direction
Column Capacity P/T Slab Capacity

Column Level ℓu (in) Mcol Ve Mtop Mbtm Ve
2/A 1.5 126 950 180 40 950 94
2/B 3.5 60 1050 420 40 40 16
2/B 1.5 126 1500 290 40 1500 147
5/A 1.5 126 950 180 40 950 94
5/B 3.5 60 1450 580 40 40 16
5/B 1.5 60 1800 720 40 40 16
Table 4-18 and Table 4-19 summarize the shear reinforcement design for the columns. The design shear
demand, Vu , is the maximum shear demand from the following sources:
• Table 4-6, fulfilling the deferred shear design for Step 1.
• Table 4-11, to verify that the columns remain elastic at the induced seismic shear for Step 2.
• Table 4-16 or Table 4-17, the required shear strength per Section 18.7.6 for Step 5.
The induced seismic shear force governs for column 2/A. Otherwise, shear forces from Section 18.7.6
govern.
The concrete shear strength is calculated from ACI 318 Equation 22.5.6.1:
⎛ Pu ⎞
Vc = 2 ⎜1 + ⎟⎟ λ f cʹbw d
⎜ 2000 Ag
⎝ ⎠

101584953
Steel strength is calculated as
Av f yt d
Vs = ≤ 8 f cʹbw d
s
and
fVn = 0.75(Vc + Vs)
Shear reinforcement design is shown in Table 4-18.
The short column at 5/B has the maximum allowable transverse reinforcement, resulting in Vs = 8 f cʹ , and
is still overstressed by about 10 percent. This result is typical for the short ramp columns. Assuming it is
not possible to enlarge the columns without affecting parking space in the structure, the designer may elect
to require higher concrete strength for the ramp columns (e.g., 7000 psi at 56 days). Alternatively, the short
column approaches shown here may be utilized to produce designable column shear forces.
Table 4-18. Column shear reinforcement design
Col LVL Pu Ag Reinf. Av s b d Vc Vs fVn Vu

2/A 1.5 422 576 4-#4 0.76 6 24 21.5 110 160 200 140
2/B 3.5 273 900 4-#5 1.24 6 30 27.5 147 340 370 260
2/B 1.5 815 900 4-#5 1.24 6 30 27.5 190 340 400 360
5/A 1.5 413 576 4-#4 0.76 6 24 21.5 110 160 200 170
5/B 3.5 274 900 4-#5 1.24 4 30 27.5 147 510 490 560
5/B 1.5 817 900 4-#5 1.24 4 30 27.5 190 510 520 560
Figure 4-14. Free-body diagram at beam-column joints

101584953
Figure 4-15. Beam-column joints at Level 1.5
Figure 4-16. Slab-column joints at Level 1.5
Step 5b: Full-height modeling approach for short column shear §18.7.6
The following approach is applicable to any building geometry. The applied forces are based on beam
flexural capacity and are conservative.
Columns 3/B, 4/B, and 5/B have been modeled over their full height using the RISA-2D finite element
program (see Figure 4-17). Except for the bottom segments, which are shorter at lines 3 and 4, the columns
at 3/B and 4/B are similar to the columns at 7/B and 6/B, respectively.

101584953
Rigid elements have been used to model the beam-column joints. At 3/B, the beams overlap, and at 4/B
there is an 8-inch clear span between columns. Rigid vertical elements have been defined over the extent of
the joint at these locations because it is not reasonable to expect unique rotations to develop in short clear
spans without significant damage. The clear spans between rigid joints are 74 inches at 3/B and 52 inches at
4/B. As noted previously, clear spans at 5/B are 30 inches.
Horizontal rigid elements extend 33 inches from the column centerline in each direction to account for
additional moment due to shear forces occurring at the plastic hinge. This matches the free-body diagram of
Figure 4-14.
Lateral restraint is provided at each joint. For columns 3/B and 4/B, single lateral restraints are provided at
the mid-height of the two-sided joints. At column 5/B, the beams are sufficiently spaced so as to undergo
independent rotation. Each beam joint is restrained independently.
Moments and vertical shears are applied at each beam; moments are applied at the column bases. Beams
to the right of the column are assumed to yield in negative flexure and have M = M pr −
= 1640 kip-ft
and V = Vgravity + Ve = 123 kips + 44 kips = 167 kips applied. For beams on the left side of the column,
M = M pr +
= 890 kip-ft and V = Vgravity - Ve = 123 kips - 44 kips = 79 kips are applied. The column base
moment is M = 1800 kip-ft per Table 4-7. Computed shears are shown in Table 4-19. Shears at the top level
have been omitted because it has been previously established that Section 18.7.6 need not be checked at
Level 3.5 and above.
The maximum shear force occurs at column 5/B and is 510 kips, which is less than the capacity of 525 kips
shown in Table 4-18.
Figure 4-17. FEM model for full-height column method

101584953
Table 4-19. Column design shear: full-height column method
Col LVL Vu (kips)

3/B 1.5–3.5 330
3/B Below 1.5 260
4/B 1.5–3.5 440
4/B Below 1.5 270
5/B 1.5–3.5 510
5/B Below 1.5 270
Step 5c: Simplified pushover approach for short column shear §18.7.6
As previously noted, Section 18.7.6 allows the moments applied to the column to be limited by the capacity
of the beams (or other transverse elements) framing into the column. This limit has been applied to the
conventional approach and the full-height approach in the previous sections. A reasonable extension of this
method is to use a pushover analysis to determine the column shear forces that occur when the structure is
deformed to the target displacement. This alternative has been included for illustrative purposes. Because
the language of Section 18.7.6 specifically references the Mpr of transverse members as a limit to the
applied column moments, the following approach is believed to fulfill the intent of the code, but is not in
strict compliance with its wording.
The pushover method can be simplified for the example structure. The long-span beams sustain a
negative gravity moment of approximately 1000 kip-ft at the column faces for load combination 6. The
probable negative moment capacity is M pr −
= 1640 kip-ft. Therefore, the beams are expected to yield in
negative flexure with an additional applied seismic moment of 640 kip-ft. However, when the beam on
one side of the ramp column yields in negative flexure, the applied moment at the beam framing opposite
is M - = 1000 kip-ft - 640 kip-ft = 360 kip-ft. That is, the beam framing opposite has not only failed
to reach M pr
+
, it is still in negative flexure. The seismic beam shear corresponding to this condition is
Ve = 2(640 kip-ft) / (60 ft - 3.25 ft) = 23 kips.
Moments and shears have been applied to the full-height column models used in this section. M pr −
has been
-
applied to the right-side beam, and M has been applied to the left side. The right- and left-hand shears
are 146 kips and 100 kips, respectively. Moments have not been applied at the column bases because the
columns are not expected to yield in flexure. Column bases have been fixed and the moment reactions
computed by the program. The resulting column shears are shown in Table 4-20.
Table 4-20. Column design shear: simplified pushover method
Col LVL Vu (kips)

3B 1.5–3.5 185
3/B Below 1.5 280
4/B 1.5–3.5 240
4/B Below 1.5 220
5/B 1.5–3.5 150
5/B Below 1.5 200

101584953
The results computed by this method may be nonconservative because the model represents only the
initiation of yielding in the beams. Application of additional seismic force will decrease the applied
moment on the left beam, increasing shear in the column. However, if a full push-over analysis was
performed, the expectation is that the structure would reach the target displacement prior to a plastic hinge
forming in the left beam, so the shear force in the column would be less than that computed for the full-
height column.
A further point of interest occurs when seismic moment in the left-hand beam equals 1000 kip-ft, resulting
in zero applied moment on the left side. The stress-state in the column is similar to that produced by the
one-sided joints at lines A and C. M pr
−
is applied at the top and bottom of a column with a 96-inch clear
span.
The seismic beam shear corresponding to this state is
1000 k-ft + 640 k-ft

Ve = = 29 kips
60 ft − 3.25 ft
the resulting column moments are
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ (123 kips + 29 kips)(33 in ) ⎞

M col,top = M col,btm = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜1640 k-ft + ⎟ = 1029 kip-ft
2
⎝ ⎠⎝ 12 in/ft ⎠
and the column design shear is
(2)(1030 k-ft )(12 in/ft )

Ve = = 258 kips
96 in
This is 10 to 70 percent greater than the shears computed by the simplified pushover method with M - = 360
kip-ft and 20 to 50 percent less than the values computed with the full-height method using M pr
+
.
This approach demonstrates that shear at intermediate level ramp columns is less than the shear computed
for an equivalent one-sided column up until the point where stress-reversal occurs in the left-hand beam.
Therefore, the short-column effect that causes large shear forces in the conventional and full-height
approaches does not manifest until significant positive moment occurs in the left-hand beam. If the designer
can show that target displacement is achieved prior to development of such moment, it may be possible to
reduce the amount of shear reinforcement provided at ramp columns.

101584953
6.3 BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
ACI 318 Section 18.14.3.2(d) states that joints of frame members that do not yield at induced seismic
forces shall satisfy the provision of Chapter 15. Where frame members yield at induced seismic
forces or induced seismic forces are not evaluated, Section 18.14.3.3(d) states that joints shall satisfy
Section 18.4.4.1.
Chapter 15 contains joint detailing provisions (Section 15.3) and joint shear strength provisions
(Section 15.4). Section 18.4.4.1 references several of the detailing provisions in Section 15.3 but does
not reference strength provisions. The joint strength provisions for special moment frames are in Section
18.4.7, which is not referenced by Section 18.4.4.1 or 18.14.3.3. There is a code path via Section 15.4
requiring a joint shear strength check where frame members remain elastic at induced seismic forces;
however, there does not appear to be a code path resulting in a joint shear strength check via Section
18.14.3.3(d) or 18.4.4.1 where the frame members yield at induced seismic forces. This appears to be an
oversight.
Because the P/T beams were not checked using induced seismic forces, the provisions of Section
18.14.3.3(d) will be used for joint design. However, the joints will be shown to satisfy Chapter 15 in
addition to satisfying Section 18.4.4.1.
Joint shear detailing requirements §15.3, §18.4.4
Section 15.3 requires the following:
• Section 15.3.1.2: Joint reinforcement consisting of ties, spirals, or hoops must conform
to Section 25.7.2, 25.7.3, or 25.7.4, respectively. This requirement overlaps Section
18.14.3.2(b) for the column transverse reinforcement and is satisfied by continuing the column
reinforcement through the joint.
• Section 15.3.1.3: At least two layers of transverse reinforcement shall be provided within the
depth of the beam. The beams are 36 inches deep and the reinforcement spacing is less than 6
inches in all cases, so this requirement is satisfied.
• Section 15.3.1.4: Spacing of joint transverse reinforcement shall not exceed 8 inches; this is
satisfied by the maximum tie spacing of 6 inches in Section 18.14.3.2(b).
Additionally, Section 18.4.4.1 requires the following:
• Section 18.4.4.2: The strut and tie model is required if beam depth exceeds twice the column
depth. The beams are 36 inches deep and the exterior columns are 24 inches deep, so this
provision does not apply.
• Section 18.4.4.3: Longitudinal beam reinforcement that terminates within the joint is required
to continue to the far face of the column and be developed in tension. Figure 4-8 shows the
beam reinforcement extended to the far face of the joint. The beam reinforcement consists of #9
rebar, which has a development length per Equation 18.8.5.1 of
(60,000 psi)(1.125 in )
ℓdh = = 13 in
(65)(1.0) 6000 psi
so the hooked rebar is fully developed at the far edge of the 24-inch-deep exterior columns.

101584953
• Section 18.4.4.4: The joint reinforcement must be spaced in accordance with Section 18.4.3.3.
These spacing requirements are less rigorous than Section 18.14.3.2(b), so the column
transverse reinforcement satisfies the requirement.
• Section 18.4.4.5: Applies where the beam reinforcement is headed, which is not the case for the
example structure.
The requirements of Sections 15.3 and 18.4.4.4 have been satisfied at the beam column joints by continuing
the column transverse reinforcement through the joints. The column depth is adequate to develop the beam
reinforcement in tension.
Joint shear strength §15.4
Section 15.4 gives the joint shear strength as a function of joint geometry in Table 15.4.2.3. All the beam
column joints at the example structure are unconfined by transverse beams. The beams are discontinuous at
the beam-column joints except where the ramp “landings” occur at grid lines 2 and 8. The columns do not
extend above Level 3.5. Two conditions will be considered:
• Exterior column at Level 3.5: column = other; beam = other; confined = no; Vn = 12λ f cʹ A j
• Interior column at Level 3.5: column = other; beam = continuous; confined = no; Vn = 15λ f cʹ A j
Level 1.5 columns are continuous, which results in greater capacity but does not affect the joint shear
demand. Interior columns are larger than exterior columns and have larger joint strength. Therefore,
separate checks have not been performed where results can be inferred from these conditions.
Per Section 15.4.2.2, f for shear is taken from Section 21.2.1.
Joint shear demand is based on either factored load analysis or beam nominal moment capacity. In this case,
nominal moment capacity has been used (note that the 1.25 factor is not applied to Mn in Section 15.4.1.1).
Joint shear results from forces transferred through the joint by the beam reinforcement. Therefore, only
the mild beam reinforcement is considered. Also, shear in the column above the joint has been neglected
(which is true at the top of the structure and conservative at lower levels).
Beam top reinforcement consists of four #9 bars, resulting in
Vu = (4)(1.0 in2)(60 ksi) = 240 kips
at single-sided conditions. Beam bottom reinforcement consists of two #9 bars, so joint shear demand at
continuous conditions is Vu = 360 kips.
Since the shear demand is not based on limit state analysis, f = 0.60 per Section 21.3.4.1.
For exterior columns
φVn = (0.60)(576 in 2 )(12)(1.0) 6000 psi = 320 kips > 240 kips . . . OK
And for interior columns with continuous beams
φVn = (0.60)(900 in 2 )(15)(1.0) 6000 psi = 630 kips > 360 kips . . . OK

101584953
7. Diaphragm Analysis ASCE 7 §12.10.1.1
Diaphragm inertial forces listed in Table 4-21 have been calculated as follows:
n
∑ Fi wi
Fpx = i =nx Eq 12.10-1
∑ i= xwi
but not less than
Fpx,min = 0.2SDS Iwx Eq 12.10-2
and not greater than
Fpx,max = 0.4SDS Iwx Eq 12.10-3
Table 4-21. Diaphragm inertial forces

n
wi Fi
∑ i= xFi wi Fpx,min Fpx,max Fpx
n
Level (k) (k) ∑ i= xwi (k) (k) (k)
Level 4.0 1300 466 466 265 530 466
Level 3.5 1420 445 477 290 579 477
Level 3.0 1420 381 443 290 579 443
Level 2.5 1420 318 411 290 579 411
Level 2.0 1420 254 379 290 579 379
Level 1.5 1420 191 348 290 579 348
Level 1.0 1420 127 316 290 579 316
Level 0.5 1130 51 231 230 461 231
For a conventional building analysis, it is often reasonable to scale the seismic force in each element, QE ,
by the ratio Fpx /Fx for the level at which the element occurs to determine the corresponding diaphragm
force. However, the presence of ramps in the example structure makes this difficult because seismic forces
may be transferred from level to level by the ramps instead of by the walls. Therefore, a second lateral
analysis was performed with the Fpx values from Table 4-21 input as story shears. The resulting shear
forces at the slab-wall interfaces are shown in Table 4-22. Because the ETABS model neglects transfer
of shear from the slab-on-grade to the underlying soil via friction, interface shear forces for Level 0.5 are
overestimated and are not addressed in this example.
Forces and moments in the ramps are shown in Table 4-23. Axial forces are in the long direction of the
ramps (i.e., east-west). Shear forces are transverse to the ramps (i.e., north-south). Moments are about the
60-foot width of the ramps. The tabulated forces are the maximum values computed at grid lines 2, 5,
and 8.

101584953
Table 4-22. Seismic shear forces at slab-wall interfaces (kips)
Line 1 Line 1 Line 2 Line 9 Line A Line A Line B Line C
LEVEL (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in) (20-in) (8-in) (8-in) (20-in)
Level 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 290 150 N/A N/A 320
Level 0.5 −400 570 560 N/A −200 530 1040 N/A
Table 4-23. Maximum seismic forces at the ramps (kips and kip-ft)
RAMP P (k) V (k) M (k-ft) P (k) V (k) M (k-ft)
Level 4.0 180 170 4300 90 80 4640
Level 3.5 230 170 4230 360 120 4520
Level 3.0 210 170 3520 130 110 5450
Level 2.5 200 190 3720 380 140 4800
Level 2.0 200 180 3060 150 90 5350
Level 1.5 150 180 2600 250 130 3270
Level 1.0 130 280 3820 220 100 3750
8. Diaphragm Design ACI 318
8.1 SHEAR DESIGN §18.12
For the north-south direction, the maximum diaphragm shear, Vu = 490 kips, occurs on grid line 9 at
Level 2.0. The depth of the diaphragm at this location is the overall width of the structure, Ddiaph = 120 ft,
resulting in
490 kips
vu = = 4.1 klf
120 ft

101584953
The nominal shear strength of a reinforced concrete diaphragm is given as
(
Vn = Acv 2λ f cʹ + ρt f y ) Eq 18.12.9.1
where
l = 1.0 for normal-weight concrete

Acv is the gross area of the diaphragm cross section
rt is the ratio of transverse reinforcement to gross concrete area
Additionally, per Section 18.12.9.2,
Vn ≤ 8 Acv f cʹ
Per ACI 318 Section 18.12.7.1, minimum reinforcement ratio for diaphragms shall comply with
Section 24.4, and reinforcement spacing shall not exceed 18 inches. Section 7.6.1.1 specifies rmin = 0.0018
for slabs where Grade 60 deformed bars are used as reinforcement.
Try #4 rebar at 16 inches on center.
As 0.19 in 2
ρt = = = 0.00183 > 0.0018 . . . OK
Acv (6.5 in )(16 in )
On a per lineal foot basis,
(
vn = (6.5 in )(12 in ) 2 5000 psi + (0.00183)(60,000 psi) = 19.6 klf )
Verify
vn ≤ 8 Acv f cʹ = 8(6.5 in )(12 in ) 5000 psi = 44.1 klf . . . OK
Section 21.2.4 specifies that the resistance factor, f, for shear for elements that resist seismic forces in
special moment frame and special shear wall structures is 0.60 unless the elements are governed by flexure.
Therefore,
fvn = (0.60)(19.6 klf) = 11.8 klf > 4.1 klf . . . OK
Provide #4 reinforcement at 16 inches on center each way.
8.2 CHORD AND COLLECTOR REINFORCEMENT ACI §18.12.7.5, §18.12.7.6
Chord and collector reinforcement that is confined by transverse ties undergoes less spalling and
demonstrates better performance when subjected to cyclic loading. However, ties are often undesirable in
thin slabs due to clear cover limitations and from a constructability standpoint. Chord and collector design
in this example fulfills the design criteria such that transverse reinforcement is not required, as will be
shown in subsequent sections.
Section 18.12.7.5 states that diaphragm chord and collector elements with compressive stress exceeding
0.2fc' (0.5fc' if the design force includes the overstrength factor) require transverse reinforcement per Section
18.10.6.4.

101584953
Section 18.12.7.6 requires transverse reinforcement unless the chord or collector reinforcement is spaced at
least three bar diameters center-to-center, but not less than 1.5 inches, and has a minimum concrete cover of
two and one-half bar diameters, but not less than 2 inches.
For a 6.5-inch-thick slab, the clear cover requirement is satisfied by #10 and smaller rebar.
8.3 DIAPHRAGM CHORD DESIGN
The maximum moment in the ramp determined by analysis is Mchord = 5450 kip-ft at Level 3.0 (see
Table 4-23). All tabulated moments are about the width of the ramp (i.e., Ddiaph = 60 ft). The critical design
moment results from diaphragm forces applied in the east-west direction, suggesting that it is due to force
transfer between levels, not flexure of the ramps due to their own inertial forces.
Chord design considering P/T force §18.12.7.2
Precompression force due to unbonded tendons is permitted to resist diaphragm forces. The slab tendons
are spaced at 2 feet on center, resulting in a precompression force of 13.4 klf, or
(13.4 klf )
f PT = = 170 psi
(6.5 in )(12 in )
The maximum stress due to Mchord is
M chord (6)(5450 k-ft )(12 in/ft )

f chord = = = 120 psi < 170 psi
Sdiaph (6.5 in )(60 ft ) 2 (12 in/ft ) 2
Therefore, no portion of the diaphragm is in tension, and additional chord reinforcement is not required.
Chord design neglecting P/T force
The following chord design, which neglects the effects of precompression, is provided for completeness.
The chord force at lines A and B is
M chord 5450 k-ft

Tchord = Cchord = = = 90 kips
Ddiaph 60 ft
The required reinforcement is
Tchord (90 kips)

As = = = 1.7 in 2
φ fy 0.9(60 ksi)
Chord design does not utilize the overstrength factor, so the compressive stress limit of Section 18.12.7.5 is
0.2fc'. Ties are not required for the chord reinforcement if
Cchord (90 kips)

Wchord > = = 14 in
0.2 f c tdiaph 0.2(5000 psi)(6.5 in )
ʹ

101584953
Try three #7 chord bars (As = 1.8 in2) at 8 inches on center. Using #7 rebar, the minimum spacing of 3db
is 2.6 inches, satisfying Section 18.12.7.6. The width of the chord element is 2 × 8 in = 16 in, satisfying
Section 18.12.7.5. Therefore, the chord reinforcement does not require ties. The chord force should be
recomputed using center-to-center depth, thus:
5450 k-ft
Tchord = Cchord = ∼ 90 kips . . . OK
60 ft − (16 in ) / (12 in/ft )
Provide three #7 chord bars at 8 inches on center.
9. Collector Design ASCE 7 §12.10.2
Collectors are elements that transfer diaphragm forces to vertical elements of the SLRS primarily through
tension or compression. They are required where the force to be transferred from the diaphragm to the
walls exceeds the shear capacity of the diaphragm over the length of the wall or capacity of the slab-wall
interface. It is not necessary to provide collectors solely because the total length of the diaphragm exceeds
the length of vertical elements of the SLRS.
In Seismic Design Categories C through F, the overstrength factor must be applied to collector forces
determined via Section 12.8 (equivalent lateral force procedure), Section 12.9 (modal response spectrum
procedure), Equation 12.10-1 (Fpx), or Equation 12.10-2 (Fpx,min ). The overstrength factor is not required for
collector forces determined from Equation 12.10-3 (Fpx,max ) or in structures consisting of light-framed shear
walls. The 1.25 factor required by ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.4 for irregular structures is not applied when
the overstrength factor is used. Diaphragm forces computed in this example are determined from Equation
12.10-1; therefore, the overstrength factor is applied to collector forces.
The following calculations illustrate alternative collector and shear transfer design methodologies.
Diaphragm design for grid line 9 at Level 2.0 has previously shown (Section 8.1) that #4 reinforcement at
16 inches on center is adequate to resist shear forces in the slab. However, that calculation was based on
the overall slab width of 120 feet. The slab-wall interface is 30 feet long, resulting in a shear demand of
vu = (490 kips) / (30 ft) = 16.3 klf. Similarly, at grid line A at Level 1.5, the diaphragm shear over the length
of the building is less critical than at the grid line 9 location. However, the shear at the slab-wall interface is
vu = (420 kips) / (22 ft) = 19 klf. In both cases, the shear force that must be transferred to the wall exceeds
the diaphragm shear capacity established in Part 8.1 as fvn = 11.8 klf. Therefore, additional diaphragm
reinforcement is required.
9.1 DIAPHRAGM STRENGTHENING AT GRID LINE 9
The beams on grid line 9 north and south of the wall could be used as collector elements. However, for
illustrative purposes additional reinforcement has been provided to strengthen the slab so that a collector
element is not necessary.
Recall that
vu = (490 kips) / (30 ft) = 16.3 klf
Verify that the required capacity is less than the maximum permissible capacity for the diaphragm per
ACI 318 Section 18.12.9.2:
vu = 16.3 klf < φ8 Avc f cʹ = (0.6)(44.1 klf ) = 26.5 klf . . . OK

101584953
Try additional reinforcement consisting of #4 rebar at 16 inches on center.
(0.19 in 2 )
ρt = 0.00183 + = 0.00366
(6.5 in )(16 in )
This results in
( )
φvn = (0.6)(6.5 in )(12 in ) ⎡ 2 5000 + (0.00366)(60,000 psi) ⎤ = 16.9 klf > 16.3 klf . . . OK
⎣ ⎦
Provide additional #4 rebar at 16 inches on center.
The slab stress contours shown in Figure 4-18 indicate that the region of high stress extends approximately
70 feet in the north-south direction and 10 feet in the east-west direction.
Figure 4-18. Slab stress contours at Level 2.0
9.2 SHEAR TRANSFER DESIGN AT GRID LINE 9 ACI 318 §22.9.4
Shear from the ramps and landings is transferred to the walls via shear friction dowels oriented
perpendicular to the slab-wall interface, so
V = mAvf fy Eq 22.9.4.2

101584953
where
m is the coefficient of friction in accordance with Section 22.9.4.2. For surfaces that are intentionally
roughened (required for diaphragm construction joints per Section 18.12.10.1) and normal-weight concrete,
m = 1.0.
The resistance factor for shear friction, f, is 0.75 per Section 21.2.1. Section 21.2.4, which specifies
f = 0.60 for members resisting seismic forces such as the diaphragms and shear walls, does not apply
because the shear interface is not a member.
Per Section 22.9.4.4, for normal-weight concrete placed monolithically or with an intentionally roughened
surface, Vn ≤ MIN [0.2 f cʹ, 480 psi + 0.08 f cʹ, 1600 psi] Ac where Ac is the surface area of the slab-to-wall
interface.
Recall from Part 3.5 that ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.4 requires an additional 1.25 factor for shear transfer
to vertical elements of the SLRS due to the presence of a Type 3 horizontal irregularity in the structure.
Therefore, for shear transfer from the Level 2.0 slab to the 30-foot-long wall at line 9,
Vu = (1.25)(490 kips) = 610 kips.
Inverting (Equation 22.9.4.2), the reinforcement required per foot of wall is
Vu 610 kips
Avf ≥ = = 0.45 in 2 / ft
φμf y Lwall 0.75(1.0)(60 ksi)(30 ft )
Select #7 dowels at 15 inches on center, resulting in As = 0.48 in2 /ft.
Verify that Section 22.9.4.2 is satisfied:
MIN [0.2 f cʹ, 480 psi + 0.08 f cʹ, 1600 psi] = 880 psi
fVn,max = (0.75)(880 psi)(6.5 in)(30 ft)(12 in/ft) = 1544 kips > 650 kips . . . OK
Section 22.9.5.1 requires that shear friction reinforcement be developed on both sides of the shear plane.
The development length for a #7 bar with standard hook in 5000 psi concrete is given by ACI 318
Section 25.4.3 as
0.02 f y (0.02)(60, 000 psi)

ℓdh = db = (0.875 in ) = 14.8 in
f cʹ 5000 psi
for normal-weight concrete. Therefore, the #7 dowels can be developed into the 20-inch-thick wall with
standard hooks.
The dowels must extend into the slab a distance ℓd determined from Section 25.4.2.3 as follows:
⎛ 3⎞ f y ψ t ψ e ψ⎛s ⎞
ℓd = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ db Eq 25.4.2.3(a)
⎜40⎟ f cʹ ( cb + K tr⎜ ) ⎟
⎜ ⎟ db ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎠

101584953
where
ψt = ψe = ψs = 1.0
cb = 3.25 in
Ktr = 0 in
dh = 0.875 in
cb + K tr 3.25 in + 0 in
= = 3.7 > 2.5
db 0.875 in
Therefore,
⎛ 3 ⎞ ⎛ 60,000 psi ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
ℓd = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (0.875 in ) = 22 in
⎝ 40 ⎠ ⎜⎝ 5000 psi ⎟⎠ ⎝ 2.5 ⎠
and the overall length of the dowels is 37 inches, not including the hooked end.
Provide #7 dowels at 15 inches on center.
A partial plan showing the required reinforcement at Level 1.5 is shown in Figure 4-19.
Figure 4-19. Partial plan at line 9

101584953
9.3 SLAB COLLECTOR DESIGN AT GRID LINE A
Grid line A at Level 1.5 has been selected to illustrate the methodology because it produces an elegant
solution that is applicable at line A at Level 4.0 and line C at all levels. The same methodology can be
used for the Vu = 580 kip and Vu = 500 kip shears at grid line A at Level 3.5 and Level 2.5, but more
reinforcement is required.
The collector diagram for grid line A at Level 1.5 is shown in Figure 4-20. The maximum collector force
occurs at the west end of the wall and is
⎛ 420 kips ⎞
Twest = Cwest = ⎜ ⎟ (112 ft ) = 260 kips
⎝ 180 ft ⎠
The collector force at the east end of the wall is
⎛ 420 kips ⎞
Twest = Cwest = ⎜ ⎟ (46 ft ) = 110 kips
⎝ 180 ft ⎠
Including the overstrength factor, the collector design forces are
Tu,west = Cu,west = W0QE = (2.5)(260 kips) = 650 kips
and
Tu,west = Cu,west = W0QE = (2.5)(110 kips) = 280 kips
Two load cases are considered for collector design: Tu,west + Cu,east and Tu,east = Cu,west , corresponding to
seismic forces oriented east-to-west and west-to-east, respectively. By inspection, the former load case
governs for the collector reinforcement design due to the significantly larger tension force, Tu,west ; however,
both load cases are investigated.
In practice, collector reinforcement may be varied with demand and terminated when no longer required.
For clarity of presentation, however, this example assumes collector reinforcement is continuous for the full
length of the structure.
There are no beams on grid line A, so collector elements must be incorporated into the slab. The width of
the collector element is arbitrary, provided that eccentricity introduced due to the width of the collector is
accounted for in the design (SEAOC Seismology Committee, 2008). Transverse reinforcement is required
per ACI 318 Section 18.12.7.5 if the compressive stress in the collector element exceeds 0.5fc'. (This limit
is used instead of 0.2fc' because collector forces include the overstrength factor.) Slab precompression,
previously computed as fPT = 170 psi, is deducted from the allowable compression stress, resulting in the
following expression for the minimum width based on the west collector force.
Cu 650 kips
Wcomp > = = 43 in
(0.5 f cʹ − f PT )tslab ( (0.5)(5000 psi) − 170 psi ) (6..5 in )
Wcomp is associated with transfer of compression forces through the collector. A different width may
be selected for transfer of tension forces in order to avoid congestion of the reinforcement. Again,

101584953
precompression force, FPT = (170 psi)(6.5 in)(12 in/ft) = 13.3 klf, may be included in the design of the
collector. Based on an arbitrarily selected width of Wtens = 12 ft from the inside face of the wall, the
required area of steel to resist tension forces in the west collector is
Tu − Wtens FPT 650 kips − (12 ft )(13.3 klf )

As = = = 9.1 in 2
φf y (0.9)(60 ksi)
A portion of the required reinforcement may be placed in line with the wall. The remainder is distributed
across the width of the collector element. In this case, for the 20-inch-thick wall, four bars in line with the
wall will result in a reasonable bar spacing of 4 inches. Therefore, four #10 bars are specified centered
on the wall for As,inline = 5.1 in2. It has been previously shown in Part 8.2 that #10 bars are the largest bars
permitted in a 6.5-inch slab without transverse reinforcement. The balance of the required reinforcement is
(9.1 in2 - 5.1 in2) / (12 ft) = 0.33 in2 /ft, which can be satisfied by providing #6 bars at 16 inches on center
for As,dist = 4.0 in2.
The geometry of the collector element produces a moment due to the eccentricity between the collector
and wall. This moment is resolved through shear forces in the diaphragm perpendicular to the collector and
bending in the plane of the diaphragm. These forces are shown on the free-body diagram in Figure 4-21.
The required flexural strength of the diaphragm is
Mu = Tdist etens + Cdist ecomp - VLwall
Where Tdist is the portion of the tension collector force resisted by As,dist, Cdist is the portion of the
compression collector force resisted by the slab outside the wall, and V is the shear capacity of the
diaphragm. Tension force is assumed to be proportional to reinforcement and compression force
proportional to width. Precompression force is subtracted from tension and added to compression. It is
appropriate to neglect the contribution of the concrete to V because the collector element is in tension. Also,
if different widths are selected for tension and compression, it is conservative to base V on the smaller
width; thus, for the typical slab shear reinforcement determined in Part 8.1:
V = frt fy Av (Wcomp - Wwall)

V = (0.60)(0.00183)(60 ksi)(6.5 in)(43 in - 20 in) = 9.8 kips
For the load combination of Tu,west + Cu,east ,
⎛ 4 in 2 ⎞
Tdist = ⎜ 2 ⎟(
650 kips − (12 ft )(13.3 klf ) ) = 220 kips
⎝ 9.1 in ⎠
and
⎛ 23 in ⎞
Cdist = ⎜ ⎟ ( 280 kips + (43 in )(13.3 klf ) / (12 in/ft ) ) = 170 kips
⎝ 43 in ⎠
For Tu,east + Cu,west ,
⎛ 4 in 2 ⎞
Tdist = ⎜ 2 ⎟(
280 kips − (12 ft )(13.3 klf ) ) = 50 kips
⎝ 9.1 in ⎠

101584953
and
⎛ 23 in ⎞
Cdist = ⎜ ⎟ ( 650 kips + (43 in )(13.3 klf ) / (12 in/ft ) ) = 370 kips
⎝ 43 in ⎠
The eccentricities are
(12 ft )(12 in/ft ) (20 in )

etens = + = 82 in
2 2
and
43 in
ecomp = = 21 in
2
Slab moment for Tu,west + Cu,east and Tu,east + Cu,west, respectively, is given by
Mu = (220 kips)(82 in) + (170 kips)(21 in) - (9.8 kips)(22 ft)(12 in/ft) = 19,000 kip-in
and
Mu = (50 kips)(82 in) + (370 kips)(21 in) - (9.8 kips)(22 ft)(12 in/ft) = 9300 kip-in
Provide three #7 rebar at each end of the wall to resist Mu .
As = 1.8 in2
d = 21.5 ft = 258 in
(1.8 in 2 )(60 ksi)
a= = 3.9 in
(0.85)(5 ksi)(6.5 in )
⎛ 3.9 in ⎞
φM n = (0.9)(1.8 in 2 )(60 ksi) ⎜ 258 in − ⎟ = 24,900 kip-in > 19,,000 kip-in . . . OK
⎝ 2 ⎠
Provide four #10 in-line and nine #6 distributed reinforcement. Provide three #7 dowels at each end of the
wall.
Figure 4-20. Collector diagram, line A

101584953
Figure 4-21. Free-body diagram, grid line A
9.4 SHEAR TRANSFER DESIGN AT GRID LINE A
If a portion of the diaphragm force is transferred directly to the wall via the in-line reinforcement in tension
and direct bearing in compression, the diaphragm and shear transfer interface need only be designed for
the remaining force. Assuming tension forces are distributed in proportion to the collector reinforcement
and compression forces are distributed in proportion to collector area, Vu for diaphragm and shear transfer
design is computed as follows:
For the Tu,west + Cu,east load case:
⎛ 5.1 in ⎞ ⎛ 20 in ⎞
Vu = 420 kips − ⎜ ⎟ (260 kips) − ⎜ ⎟ (110 kips) = 220 kips
⎝ 9. 1 in ⎠ ⎝ 43 in ⎠
For the Tu,east + Cu,west load case
⎛ 5.1 in ⎞ ⎛ 20 in ⎞
Vu = 420 kips − ⎜ ⎟ (110 kips) − ⎜ ⎟ (260 kips) = 240 kips
⎝ 9.1 in ⎠ ⎝ 43 in ⎠
Although the Tu,west + Cu,east load case governs the collector design by a large margin, the Tu,east + Cu,west load
case governs diaphragm and shear transfer design due to a larger proportion of compression force carried in
the slab.
The 1.25 factor of ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3.4 applies to the shear transfer force. The required shear transfer
reinforcement is
Vu 1.25(240 kips)
Avf ≥ = = 0.30 in 2 /ft,
φμf y Lwall 0.75(1.0)(60 ksi)(22 ft )
or #6 dowels at 18 inches on center.
The required diaphragm strength is vu = (240 kips) / (22 ft) = 10.9 klf. The typical diaphragm reinforcement
of #4 at 16 inches on center results in fvn = 11.8 klf, which is adequate.
Provide #6 dowels at 18 inches on center.
A partial plan showing the required reinforcement at Level 1.5 is shown in Figure 4-22.

101584953
Collector design can be performed following the same procedure at Level 3.5 and Level 2.5. Since four
#10 is the maximum practical in-line reinforcement, additional distributed reinforcement is necessary. Due
to the larger collector forces and greater proportion of distributed in-line force, additional shear transfer
dowels and additional diaphragm shear reinforcement are also required at these locations.
Figure 4-22. Partial plan, grid line
Figure 4-23 shows the typical shear transfer at the slab-wall interface at line 9 and line A. Because the
slab span is parallel to the wall at line 9, additional dowels have not been provided for transfer of gravity
forces to the wall. However, the wall on line A is a bearing wall. The slab bears on the wall, and slab top
reinforcement is developed into the wall to resist gravity forces.
Figure 4-23. Shear transfer at slab-wall interfaces

101584953
Summary
Design and detailing of secondary beams and columns in a reinforced concrete parking garage have been
demonstrated. ACI Section 18.14 lists the requirements for secondary frame members, which must conform
to a subset of requirements for special moment-resisting frame members, depending on whether they yield
at the design seismic displacement.
Except for the shear strength requirements of ACI Sections 18.6.5 and 18.7.6, all of the requirements
referenced in Section 18.14 for beams and columns can be met through detailing. For example, all
secondary members must meet minimum standards for longitudinal reinforcement and must have transverse
reinforcement spaced more closely than in structures without seismic loads. Secondary members need not
conform to transverse reinforcement requirements in beams (Section 18.6.4) and strong column-weak beam
(Section 18.7.3). Joint shear strength requirements are present but less rigorous than for special frames. The
shear strength requirements are the only requirements that potentially require members to be designed to
resist forces larger than those determined by analysis.
The conventional approach to shear-strength design provided in ACI Section 18.7.6 considers the members
as isolated elements subjected to moments at each end. However, the design shear resulting from this
approach tends to infinity as the member clear span decreases. This is problematic for short columns such
as occur at the ramps of parking garages. An alternative approach, which models the full-height column, is
provided. This approach results in finite shear values, even for very short column spans.
Diaphragm and collector design have also been shown for the example structure. Collector elements are
required where the diaphragm shear strength and shear friction are not adequate to transfer lateral forces
directly to the vertical elements of the seismic-load-resisting system. The design example illustrates both
cases. Diaphragm shear-strength and shear-friction capacity are increased near line 9 to transfer inertial
forces directly to the wall via shear. Collector elements are provided in the slab at line A to transfer inertial
forces to the wall as tension and compression forces.

101584953
Design Example 5
Pile Foundation
OVERVIEW
The structure in this design example is a parking garage with five elevated levels. It includes post-tensioned
one-way slabs and post-tensioned beams. It resists lateral loads with its perimeter reinforced concrete
moment-resisting frames. This design example includes the design of the pile foundation to resist vertical
and lateral loads.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the selection of the appropriate pile length and capacity as well
as the design and detailing of pile reinforcing.
OUTLINE
3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length
4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcing
5. Building Base Shear Resistance
6. Lateral-Loading Analysis
7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction
8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing
9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap
10. References
The following information is given:
SDS = 0.93g
Site Class D
Pile grout strength, f c' = 5 ksi

Pile cap and slab-on-grade concrete strength, f c' = 4 ksi
Reinforcing steel yield strength, fy = 60,000 psi

101584953
Design Example 5 ■ Pile Foundation
Building base shear, each perimeter line = 1130 kips, including accidental torsion
Overall building plan dimensions: 249 ft × 186 ft
Concrete slab-on-grade thickness: 5 in
Figure 5-1 shows the foundation plan.
Figure 5-1. Foundation plan
1.2 DESIGN VERTICAL LOADS
Design loads for several foundation categories are given in Table 5-1. The live loads have been reduced by
20 percent, as permitted by IBC Section 1607.12.1.3 (Exception) and Section 1808.3.

101584953
Table 5-1. Loading at various support conditions
Number Dead Load (D) Live Load (L) Seismic Load (E)
Condition Each (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 8 5 10 0
Typical exterior 12 340 94 0
Frame interior 20 260 40 0
Frame end 8 230 54 280
Typical interior 14 590 182 0
Interior girder 8 930 271 0
1.3 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The surficial soils at the site are soft alluvial deposits, underlain by denser, old alluvium. The geotechnical
engineer has recommended a pile foundation in order to reduce settlements to an acceptable level.
Liquefaction is not expected at the site. The geotechnical engineer has indicated that piles will develop their
resistance through skin friction and end bearing and has provided a chart of allowable capacity vs. depth for
16-inch diameter drilled piles, reproduced in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2. Geotechnical pile capacity vs. depth, from geotechnical report

101584953
The structural engineer may select the depth most appropriate for the design within the range of 30 to 55
feet, yielding allowable capacities of 76 to 160 tons. The geotechnical engineer has noted that a one-third
increase in allowable loads is permitted for load combinations, including wind or seismic. This is allowed
by IBC Section 1806.1 for the alternative basic load combinations.
2. Load Combinations for Design IBC, ASCE 7
2.1 COMBINATIONS FOR GEOTECHNCAL DESIGN
Geotechnical design is accomplished using the alternative basic load combinations for allowable stress
design (Section 1605.2). These combinations are consistent with the traditional approach to geotechnical
design, permitting the use of increased allowable stresses for short-term loading. This approach is
appropriate for geotechnical design because the allowable loads are determined based on the limitation
of settlements. Since settlements occur over time, use of higher allowable loads for transient loads is
appropriate. The applicable load combinations for this design are
D + L Eq 16-1
D + L + E/1.4, where E is positive and acts downward Eq 16-5
0.9D + E/1.4, where E is negative and acts upward Eq 16-6
2.2 COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Structural design of the piles is accomplished using the basic load combinations for load and resistance
factor design of ASCE 7 (Section 1605.1).
The applicable load combinations for this design (simplified to omit inapplicable load types) are
1.4D ASCE 7 §2.3.1, Eq 1

1.2D + 1.6L ASCE 7 §2.3.1, Eq 2
1.2D + Ev + Eh + 1.0L + 0.2S ASCE 7 §2.3.6, Eq 6
(The load factor for L, f1, is 1.0 for parking garages.)
0.9D - Ev + Eh ASCE 7 §2.3.6, Eq 7
Note that Ev is defined as 0.2SDS in Section 12.4.2.2 of ASCE 7.
3. Determination of Optimal Pile Capacity and Length IBC

3.1 NUMBER OF PILES PER LOCATION—GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Table 5-2 shows the load combinations for geotechnical design for each pile group using the alternative
basic load combinations for allowable stress design per Section 2.1. See Figure 5-1 for the locations of the
various support conditions indicated.

101584953
Table 5-2. Load combinations for geotechnical design
Dead Live Seismic D+L D + L + E/1.4 0.9D - E/1.4

Number Load (D) Load (L) Load (E) Eq 16-1 Eq 16-5 Eq 16-6
Condition Each (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 8 5 10 0 15 15 4.5
Typical exterior 12 340 94 0 434 434 306
Frame interior 20 260 40 0 300 300 234
Frame end 8 230 54 280 284 484 7
Typical interior 14 590 182 0 772 772 531
Interior girder 8 930 271 0 1201 1201 837
The structural engineer can assess the relationship between the number of piles required at each location
vs. the pile demand loads. Doing so can minimize the pile cost by employing fewer deeper piles where
feasible. The engineer should use a single pile length for the project in order to simplify interpretation of
the in-situ confirmatory load tests.
First, consider the relative values of the combined load for the frame ends. The seismic load combination
(484 kips) is more than one-third greater than the gravity load combination (284 kips). Thus, this category
of foundation will be controlled by the seismic load combination. Dividing the seismic load combination
(484 kips) by 1.33 provides an equivalent gravity design load of 363 kips. A single pile at this location
would need an allowable capacity of 182 tons, which exceeds the permitted range. Two piles at this location
would need a capacity of 91 tons each.
Next, consider the typical exterior condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 434 kips. A single
pile at this location would need an allowable capacity of 217 tons, which again exceeds the permitted
range. Two piles at this location would need a capacity of 109 tons each, and three piles would need a
capacity of 72 tons each.
Consider the typical interior condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 772 kips. A single pile at
this location would need an allowable capacity of 386 tons, which again exceeds the permitted range. Two
piles at this location would need a capacity of 193 tons each, three piles would need a capacity of 129 tons
each, and four piles at this location would need a capacity of 97 tons each.
Lastly, consider the typical interior girder condition. Here, the gravity load combination yields 1201 kips.
Three piles at this location would need capacity of 200 tons each, four piles at this location would need
capacity of 150 tons each, five piles at this location would need capacity of 120 tons each, and six piles
would need capacity of 100 tons each.
Considering a capacity of 130 tons provides for an efficient design. Increasing the capacity beyond this
point does not decrease the number of piles significantly, while decreasing the capacity will require
more piles (due to the typical interior caps all changing from three piles to four). Select this capacity
and determine the required length of 47 feet from the geotechnical engineer’s capacity chart, shown in
Figure 5-3.

101584953
Figure 5-3. Geotechnical pile capacity vs. depth, with selected depth and capacity
Round up the required length to an even number and specify a depth of 48 feet for the piles. This results in a
total of 170 piles.
Use 16-inch-diameter × 48-foot-long reinforced concrete piles, spaced at three diameters (4 feet) apart.
The number of piles used at each pile group size is shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Number of piles required for each condition
Condition Piles per Group

Stair support 1
Typical exterior 2
Frame interior 2
Frame end 2
Typical interior 3
Interior girder 5

101584953
4. Preliminary Pile Vertical Reinforcement IBC
4.1 MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT
Minimum reinforcing for cast-in-place concrete piles is indicated in Chapter 18.
Section 1810.2.4.1, which applies only to Site Classes E and F, requires a minimum longitudinal reinforcing
ratio of 0.005 throughout the pile length in order to avoid explicit design due to free-field earthquake-
induced soil strains. It is good practice to provide this minimum reinforcing regardless of the site class.
Use #9 continuous center bar.
Section 1810.3.9.4.2 defines a “minimum reinforced length” for cast-in-place concrete piles, which is
defined by four factors: (1) half the pile length, (2) 10 feet, (3) three pile diameters, and (4) the distance
from the top of the pile to the point below which the required moment strength remains below the pile
cracking moment. For this provision, the IBC defines the design cracking moment (fMn in Section
1810.3.9.1) as 3 ffcc' Sm (where Sm is the elastic section modulus), which is 40 percent of the cracking
moment, Mcr , computed according to Sections 19.2.3.1 and 24.2.3.5 of ACI 318. This last computation
implies that the moments be determined based on a laterally loaded pile analysis. For practical purposes
and in almost all cases, the first requirement (half the pile length) will be the controlling requirement.
Proceed on this basis and confirm subsequent additional computations.
Within the minimum reinforced length, a minimum of four longitudinal bars are required, with a minimum
reinforcing ratio of 0.005. In order to maintain a reasonably circular cage and to maintain more uniform
flexural resistance for loading in any direction, a minimum of six #6 bars is recommended.
Use six #6 bars throughout the reinforced length. (See Figure 5-6.)
4.2 LIMITING LOADS
Allowable stresses on pile structural sections are limited by Section 1810.3.2.6. However, these limits may
be exceeded and the structural capacity computed by normal means (i.e., in accordance with ACI 318)
provided that there is a geotechnical investigation for the project and the piles will be tested in-situ. Both
of these conditions are satisfied in this example, so the structural capacity will be computed according to
ACI 318. Note that Section 1810.3.1.1 requires the use of “approved strength design methods” for the
structural design of piles in all cases except where bending moments exceed those resulting from accidental
eccentricities.
5. Building Base Shear Resistance IBC
5.1 DISTRIBUTION THROUGH GROUND LEVEL SLAB
The building base shear is imparted along the perimeter lines at the locations of the moment-resisting
frames with a value of 1130 kips per frame in each direction. This shear includes the effect of accidental
torsion. A total base shear of 2260 kips is then a conservative assessment of the total loading at the
foundation level. Excluding the eight single piles that support the stairs, this results in an average shear per
pile of 2260/168 = 13.5 kips per pile. This simple analysis ignores the additional resistance due to passive
pressure on the pile caps and presumes that all the piles resist the lateral load equally. Subsequent sections
of this example provide additional refinement.

101584953
5.2 PASSIVE PRESSURE ON CAPS
The geotechnical engineer has indicated that it is appropriate to incorporate resistance due to passive
pressure of 350 pcf on the sides of the caps acting in parallel with the resistance of the piles. This pressure
is developed at a displacement equal to 0.5 percent of the caps’ vertical dimension. Since the caps in this
example are 40 inches deep, the passive pressure is mobilized at a deflection of 0.2 inch. For each foot of
cap width, the resulting resistive force on the sides of the cap is 350 pcf(3.33 ft)2 /2 = 1.94 kips.
5.3 PILE GROUP EFFICIENCY
Piles spaced at less than eight diameters apart in the direction of the lateral load will be more flexible,
because they share the soil that resists their lateral movement. Consideration of this behavior is required
by Section 1810.2.5 of the IBC. This requirement is based on research on the behavior of piles under
lateral loading by various investigators and documented by Reese, et al. (2006). The preferred method of
addressing the softening of the soil surrounding pile groups is to reduce the stiffness of the p-y curve used
in the laterally loaded pile analysis. The computed p-modification factor may be used directly as input in
the commonly used laterally loaded pile analysis program LPILE. Table 5-4 indicates the p-modification
factors for conventionally arranged pile groups of sizes employed in this example, spaced at three
diameters.
Table 5-4. Computed p-modification factors for groups of various numbers of piles in standard
formations, with three-diameter spacing, according to formulae presented in Reese, et al. (2006)
p-Modification
N Piles per Group x y Average
2 83% 93% 88%
3 78% 78% 78%
5 77% 77% 77%
Rather than using differing p-modification factors for pile groups of various sizes, use an average value for
both directions of loading based on the distribution of pile group sizes in this example. The average value
used is 84 percent.
6. Lateral-Loading Analysis IBC
6.1 PILE LATERAL STIFFNESS
The flexural stiffness of piles is dependent on their axial loading. For most of the piles in this example, all
loading is due to gravity. For the pile groups at the frame ends, loading includes seismic effects and can
vary, depending on the direction of the seismic loading. For the purpose of this example, consider three
loading cases: gravity, seismic up, and seismic down. Table 5-5 shows the load combinations for structural
design, for each type of foundation. Since the number of piles in each pile group is now known, the loads
are presented on a per-pile basis.

101584953
Table 5-5. Computed factored axial loads per pile for various support types
Piles per 1.4D 1.2D + 1.6L 1.2D + Ev + Eh + 1.0L + 0.2S 0.9D - Ev + Eh

Condition Group (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Stair support 1 7 22
Typical exterior 2 238 279
Frame interior 2 182 188
Frame end 2 161 181 326 -58
Typical interior 3 275 333
Interior girder 5 260 310
For the purpose of stiffness calculations, consider three cases:
Minimum load (maximum uplift): -58 kips

Moderate gravity loading: 240 kips (average of all except stair support columns)
Maximum loading: 326 kips
For each of these cases, compute the elastic pile stiffness in a moment-curvature analysis:
Pu = -58 kips: EI = 1.57 million kip-in2

Pu = 240 kips: EI = 6.7 million kip-in2
Pu = 326 kips: EI = 9.03 million kip-in2
Use these values in the laterally loaded pile analysis to compute the pile flexural demands and shear
developed at a given displacement.
6.2 CONSISTENT LATERAL DEFORMATIONS
Because the ground floor slab is tied to the pile caps and grade beams and the slab is relatively rigid
in-plane, consider that all piles are subject to the same lateral displacement. Each pile resists shear
based on this displacement and its stiffness, which depends on its reinforcing and the applied axial load.
The displacement employed in this analysis is a matter of judgment but should be consistent with the
displacement used in the development of the passive pressure on the sides of the caps. Therefore, the
LPILE analyses should be performed at the same deformation (0.2 inch) that was used to develop the
passive pressure recommendations.
The LPILE analyses result in differing shears and moments at the various axial loads due to the stiffness
variation, as shown in Table 5-6. The LPILE analyses are performed considering fixed-head pile behavior
since the pile reinforcing is developed into the caps.
Table 5-6. Axial load, moment, and shear for selected design points
Design Points Pu (kips) Mu (kip-in) Vu (kips)

Minimum -58 326 12.0
Moderate 240 675 18.2
Maximum 326 821 20.5

101584953
6.3 RESISTANCE OF TOTAL BASE SHEAR
Resistance to the total base shear in the building’s transverse direction will be investigated. For this
analysis, consider the passive pressure acting on the faces of the two-pile and larger pile caps and the main
grade beams. Consider the pile resistance for all caps except the single pile caps and the two-pile caps
oriented perpendicular to the load. These caps are not able to restrain the tops of the piles from rotation.
They will not truly be able to produce pile head fixity. As such, they will be considerably more flexible
under lateral loading and may be conservatively ignored. Similarly, the contribution of the passive pressure
on the single pile caps at the stair supports and on the minor grade beams should be ignored due to their
lower stiffness. Table 5-7 shows the resistance developed at the 0.2-inch displacement recommended by the
geotechnical engineer, based on the contribution of the caps and piles under consideration.
Table 5-7. Lateral resistance due to passive pressure and pile bending
Grid Lines
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Minimum 2 2
No. of piles at
each loading Moderate 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
condition
Maximum 2 2
Cap face width (ft) 7 32 14 32 36 50 50 50 50 50 36 32 14 32 7
Resistance @
(kips) 261 244 27 244 252 279 279 279 279 279 252 244 27 244 261
0.2 in
The sum of the resistance is 3450 kips, which exceeds the required base shear of 2260 kips (1130 kips per
frame). This indicates that the required resistance can be developed at a lower deformation, but that the
analysis is conservative.
The analysis assumes that the ground floor slab will be required to distribute the shear among the piles and
caps. The maximum shear in the slab occurs immediately inside grid line 1 (or 15).
Vu = 1130 k - 261 k = 869 k = 4.7 kip/ft
This shear is resisted by the ground floor slab, which is 5 inches thick and reinforced with #3 @ 18 inches
on center.
( )
ϕVn = 0.75 ⎡(12)(5) 2 4000 + (0.11)(60,000)(12 /18) ⎤ = 9.0 kip/ft . . . OK
⎣ ⎦
So, the slab is adequate to transfer the shear. It is also necessary to attach the grade beam to the slab to
transfer the same shear using embedded dowels crossing the interface. Using #4 dowels at 12 inches on
center
ϕVn = 0.75[(m = 0.6)(0.2)(60,000)] = 5.4 kip/ft . . . OK
The #4 connecting dowels are shown in Figure 5-6.

101584953
7. Check of Axial-Moment Interaction ACI 318

7.1 ACI 318 REQUIREMENTS
The axial-flexural design is based on the typical approach outlined in Chapters 10 and 22 for columns, with
the proviso that, per IBC Section 1810.2.1, the soil is considered to brace the pile laterally for the purpose
of axial loading. Although the pile section is reinforced with a circular, continuously wound bar, this is not
a “spiral” in conformance with the requirements for columns in Sections 22.4.2.5 and 25.7.3. Commentary
to Section 25.7.2.3 indicates that a circular, continuously wound bar is considered as a tie if it does not
conform to Section 25.7.3. The limiting axial load, per Table 22.4.2.1, is
Po = 0.85 fc'(Ag - Ast) + fy Ast = 1002 kips Eq 22.4.2.2

ϕ = 0.55 for uncased cast-in-place or drilled or augered piles T 13.4.3.2
Pn,max = 0.80Po for deep foundation members with ties conforming to Chapter 13 T 22.4.2.1
ϕPn,max = (0.80)(0.55) Po = 441 kips
7.2 CONTROLLING DESIGN POINTS
The capacity in the interaction analysis is limited by this maximum value, resulting in a truncated curve,
which is due primarily to the limiting factor of 0.8 and the strength reduction factor of 0.55 for uncased cast-
in-place drilled or augered piles. The resulting interaction diagram with design points indicated is shown in
Figure 5-4.
All points are within the interaction diagram, so the proposed reinforcing is acceptable.
Use six #6 vertical bars.
Figure 5-4. Axial-moment interaction with axial load limited per ACI 318

101584953
8. Design of Transverse Reinforcing IBC, ACI 318

8.1 IBC DETAILING REQUIREMENTS
Transverse confining reinforcing is required within the top three diameters of the pile (4 feet) by IBC
Section 1810.3.9.4.2. This requirement points to Sections 18.7.5.2 through 18.7.5.4 of ACI 318, with a
notation that the reinforcing ratio need not exceed half of that required in ACI 318 Table 18.10.6.4 (g).
Reduced transverse reinforcing is also required within the remainder of the reinforced length. A summary
of the requirements is shown in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8. Transverse reinforcing requirements
Transverse Reinforcing for 16-inch Cast-in-Place Piles; SDC D, Site Class D

Requirement Reference
Spiral or tie size #3 minimum IBC 1810.3.9.4.2
Spiral or tie spacing Smaller of ACI 318 18.7.5.3
1/4 pile diameter (4 in)
Or 6db of #6 bar (4.5 in)
Volumetric ratio rs = 0.12f c' /f ACI 318 Table 18.10.6.4(g)
(half permitted)
The minimum spiral size of #3 and maximum spacing of 4 inches results in a volumetric ratio of 0.011 for
the 16-inch-diameter pile. For the materials in this example, the required volumetric confinement ratio per
ACI 318 is 0.12 × 5/60 = 0.010, and the IBC permits the use one-half of this value as a minimum. However,
the minimum tie size and maximum spacing will control the design.
Note that ACI 318 Table 18.10.6.4(g) also includes another formula, which is a repeat of Equation 25.7.3.3.
This equation would require considerably heavier confinement. However, IBC Section 1810.3.2.1.2
specifically excludes this requirement for piles. Note also that this clause was deleted from Chapter 18A
of the CBC (California Building Code). Thus, the heavier confinement requirements of ACI 318 Equation
25.7.3.3 do indeed apply for DSA (Division of the State Architect) and HCAI (Department of Health Care
Access and Information) in California.
Transverse reinforcing is also required outside of the confined length, but within the minimum reinforced
length. For this reinforcing, the tie spacing may be relaxed to 12 longitudinal bar diameters (9 inches), half
the pile diameter (8 inches), or 12 inches. In this example, the reinforcing spacing outside of the confined
length will not be relaxed for ease of cage alignment during placement.
Use #3 @ 4 inches spirals throughout the reinforced length.
8.2 CHECK PILE MOMENT VS. DEPTH FOR REINFORCED LENGTH IBC
After having completed the LPILE analysis, confirm that the depth where the flexural demand exceeds the
cracking moment does not exceed half the pile length. For the piles in this example, the cracking moment
(as defined by the IBC) is
⎛ ⎞ d⎛ 4⎞
⎜ π⎟⎛⎜ ⎜⎞⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ 2⎜ ⎟ ⎛ d ⎞
φM n = 3 f cʹSm where Sm = ⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎜⎠ ⎟ / ⎜ ⎟ Eq 18-5
⎝ ⎠4 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ⎛ 16 ⎞4 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 16 ⎞
3 5000 ⎜ π ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ / ⎜ ⎟ = 85 kip-in
⎜ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎝ ⎠

101584953
As shown in Figure 5-5, the deepest point in the pile where the moment exceeds the cracking moment is
165 inches (13 feet 9 inches), which is significantly less than half the pile length.
Figure 5-5. Moment vs. depth from LPILE, with cracking moment shown

101584953
8.3 CHECK PILE SHEAR CAPACITY ACI 318
The largest shear developed in the piles is Vu = 20.5 kips. Confirm that the piles’ structural shear capacity
exceeds this amount according to Chapters 21, 22 and 25. Section 22.5.2.2 indicates that b may be taken as
the diameter and d may be taken as 0.8 times the diameter of a circular cross section.
ϕ = 0.75 T 21.2.1
ϕVn = ϕ[Vc + Vs ] Eq 25.1.1
( )
= 0.75 ⎡(16)(0.8)(16) 2 5000 + (2)(0.11)(60,000) ( (0.8)(16) / 4 ) ⎤ = 53.4 kips . . . OK
⎣ ⎦
9. Development of Vertical Bars into Cap ACI 318

9.1 DEVELOPMENT OF STRAIGHT BARS
In most designs, straight bar development is computed using Section 25.4.2.3 of ACI 318. In the case of
the connection of the pile bars into the cap or grade beam, it is possible to take advantage of the greater
spacing between the bars and the greater edge distance (from the bars to the edge of the cap) to employ the
formulation in Section 25.4.2.4.
3 fy ψt ψeψ s
ld = d Eq 25.4.2.4a
40 λ f ′  cb + K tr  b
c
 d 
 b 
Here, cb is the lesser of one-half the center-to-center bar spacing and the distance from the center of the
bar to the edge of the cap concrete. Since the edge distance is very large, the center-to-center bar spacing
controls. Ktr , which incorporates the effect of confinement reinforcing, may be ignored. The maximum
permitted value of cb /db is 2.5. For the #6 bars in this example, db is 0.75, meaning that the smallest center-
to-center spacing between bars that will result in the maximum benefit is
(1 / 1/2)(2.5)(0.75) = 3.75 in
Figure 5-6. Center-to-center spacing of six bars in a 16-inch pile with 3 inches of clear cover
For the geometry of the pile reinforcing in this example, the applicable distance is 4¼ inches, allowing the
use of cb /db of 2.5. The resulting development length in the pile cap or grade beam, based on 4 ksi concrete,
is then computed
⎡⎛ 3 ⎞ ⎛ 60,000 ⎞ ⎛ (1.0)(1.0)(0.8)(1.0) ⎞ ⎤
ld = ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (0.75) = 17.1 in Eq 25.4.2.4a
⎣⎝ 40 ⎠ ⎝ 4000 ⎠ ⎝ 2.5 ⎠⎦
Use 19-inch (1 foot 7 inches) bar extensions to allow for installation tolerance (see Figure 5-7).

101584953
9.2 DEVELOPMENT OF HEADED BARS
Where more or larger vertical bars are required, there may not be sufficient room in the pile cap to develop
the bars without hooks. Hooks are inconvenient to use because the pile head will be within the drilled hole
until the caps are excavated; headed terminators are preferred. The development length for headed bars is
specified in ACI 318 Section 25.4.4.
9.3 EMBEDMENT OF PILES INTO CAP
Section 1810.3.11 of the IBC requires that piles be embedded into the caps and grade beams they support
by a minimum of 3 inches. In order to account for installation tolerances, a specified embedment of 4
inches is recommended.
9.4 DESIGN OF GRADE BEAMS
Section 1810.3.12 of the IBC requires that grade beams that resist shear and flexure due to seismic demands
comply with ACI 318 Section 18.13.3, which requires that the grade beams be detailed per ACI 318 Section
18.6 (as beams in special moment resisting frames) or be designed to remain elastic per the amplified load
combinations in ASCE 7.
Example 6 in this volume addresses the design of grade beams for these requirements.
9.5 SUMMARY OF DESIGN
Figure 5-7 shows the connection of the slab-on-grade to the grade beam. Figure 5-8 shows a summary of
the reinforcing and dimensional requirements for the pile.
Figure 5-7. Grade beam detail showing connection to slab-on-grade

101584953
Figure 5-8. Pile detail showing dimensions and reinforcing

101584953
10. REFERENCES
Reese, L.C., Isenhower, W.M., and Wang, S.-T. (2006). Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep
Foundations, pp. 521–528

101584953

101584953
Design Example 6
Pile Foundation for SMRF
OVERVIEW
The structure in this design example is the same as the one in Example 5—a parking garage with five
elevated levels. However, this design example is focused on the foundation for one of the special moment-
resisting frames. There are several approaches to designing pile foundations that support special moment-
resisting frames. This example addresses the following alternative approaches:
1. Continuous stiff grade beam designed for amplified seismic loads.
2. Continuous grade beam designed to resist column base moments through grade beam and pile
flexure and detailed for ductility.
3. Individual pile caps at each column designed to resist column base moments through axial load
distribution, with grade beams for continuity only.
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the analysis and design of the foundation system for each of
these cases, including modeling, design of pile caps and grade beams for shear and flexure, as well as
detailing of reinforcing.
OUTLINE
1. Given Information
2. Case I: Moments Resisted by Continuous Stiff Grade Beam
3. Case II: Moments Resisted by Grade Beam and Pile Flexure
4. Case III: Moments Resisted by Pile Axial Loads
1. Given Information ASCE 7
1.1 PROJECT SEISMIC DATA
The following information is given about the site and building:
SDS = 0.93g
Site Class D
Response Modification Factor R = 8
Overstrength factor Ω0 = 3
Pile grout strength, f c' = 5 ksi

Pile cap and grade beam concrete strength, f c' = 4 ksi
Column concrete strength, f c' = 5 ksi
Reinforcing steel yield strength, fy = 60,000 psi

101584953
Design Example 6 ■ Pile Foundation for SMRF
1.2 FRAME LOADING AND GEOMETRY
Building base shear, each perimeter line = 1130 kips, including accidental torsion
Overall building plan dimensions: 249 ft × 186 ft
End column loads (Grid lines 5 and 11): D = 230 kips; L = 54 kips; E = 280 kips
Column base moment: ME = 1300 kip-ft
Interior column loads (Grid lines 6 through 10): D = 260 kips; L = 40 kips; E = 0 kips
Column base moment: ME = 1500 kip-ft
Figure 6-1 shows the frame elevation, including the beams, columns, grade beams, and piles. Figure 6-2
shows a plan of a typical frame column at the lowest level.
Figure 6-1. Frame elevation

101584953
Figure 6-2. Lowest level frame column detail
2. Case I: Moments Resisted by Continuous Stiff Grade Beam IBC, ACI
2.1 MODELING
Because of the significant stiffness of the grade beam in this case, the frame analysis should incorporate a
fixed base for each column. The column base moments may then be applied to a continuous-beam analysis
incorporating pin and roller supports at the pile locations, which are immediately under each column.
2.2 LOADING
The design is based on the requirements in IBC Section 1810.3.12, Grade Beams. For Seismic Design
Categories D, E and F, grade beams are required to comply with the provisions of ACI 318 Section 18.13.3,
or be designed to resist the seismic load effects, including overstrength, in accordance with ASCE 7 Section
2.3.6 or 2.4.5. Note that provisions of Chapter 18 of both the IBC and ACI 318 are applicable, so be sure to
pay attention to which Chapter 18 is being referenced.
Design and detailing according to ACI 318 Section 18.13.3 is covered in Case II (Section 3) of this
example. Section 2.2 covers design for amplified loads in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 2.3.6 (LRFD)
or 2.4.5 (ASD).
The amplified load combinations in Section 2.3.6 are as follows:
1.2D + Ev + Emh + L + 0.2S

0.9D − Ev + Emh
The definition of Emh in Section 12.4.3 is the loading due to the seismic load, QE, increased by the
overstrength multiplier, Ω0, but need not exceed the capacity-limited horizontal seismic load effect, Ecl ,
defined in Section 11.3, as the maximum force that can develop in the element as determined by a rational
plastic mechanism analysis.

101584953
Since the columns supported by this foundation are reinforced concrete elements, turn to ACI 318 for
further guidance, which defines the probable moment strength, Mpr , as the moment produced by a tensile
stress of at least 1.25Fy and a strength reduction factor, ϕ, of 1.0. While Mpr may be computed through
a nonlinear moment-curvature analysis, it is normally taken as the nominal moment computed in the
traditional manner using a value of Fy increased by 25 percent.
This analysis pertains only to the flexure and shear in the grade beam due to the column moments, so there
is no need to be concerned with the axial loads, except as they affect the column’s flexural strength.
The maximum flexural strength in moment-frame columns will generally occur at the maximum axial load.
This will not be the case for very heavily loaded columns (loads above the balance point).
The maximum factored loads on the columns in this example are as follows:
Compression end column: Pu = 1.2(230 k) + 0.2(0.93)(230 k) + 3(280 k) + 54 k + 0 = 1213 kips

Tension end column: Pu = 0.9(230 k) − 0.2(0.93)(230 k) − 3(280 k) = −676 kips
Interior columns: Pu = 1.2(260 k) + 0.2(0.93)(260 k) + 3(0 k) + 40 k + 0 = 400 kips
Figure 6-3 shows the nominal-strength interaction diagram for the columns along with the maximum axial
loads and resulting moment strengths for these two cases. The loads are below the balance point, so it is
appropriate to take these values as the probable moment strength. Another approach would be to simply
take the moment at the balance point for this design.
Figure 6-3. Probable strength column interaction diagram

101584953
The resulting column design moments are then as follows:
Compression end column: Mpr = 2768 kip-ft

Interior columns: Mpr = 2202 kip-ft
Tension end column: Mpr = 1103 kip-ft
Another approach for determining the design moments on the grade beam is simply to take the column base
moments from the superstructure design and apply the overstrength factor to these values. The resulting
amplified moments are as follows:
End columns: Ω0ME = 3(1300 kip-ft) = 3900 kip-ft

Interior columns: Ω0ME = 3(1500 kip-ft) = 4500 kip-ft
These values are significantly higher than those computed based on the column strength. Note also that the
magnitudes are reversed, since the elastic moments are higher in the interior columns, while the capacity-
based moments (which incorporate the higher strength caused by the larger axial loads due to overturning)
are higher in the end columns. The remainder of the design is based on the Mpr values.
At the end of the grade beam, the grade beam moment is equal to the applied column moment, while at the
interior columns, the grade beam moment is half the column moment on each side. Figure 6-4 shows the
design moment and shear diagrams.
Figure 6-4. Grade beam moment and shear diagrams for design

101584953
2.3 PILE DESIGN
Pile design for Case I is covered in Design Example 5. Note that there is no code requirement to design the
piles for the amplified loads.
2.4 LONGITUDINAL GRADE BEAM DESIGN ACI 318
The grade beam section in this case must be wide enough to accommodate two 16-inch piles spaced at 3
diameters apart (4 feet). This design example uses a section that is 6 feet 6 inches wide and 4 feet high.
Figure 6-5 shows a typical section through the grade beam. The distance from the extreme compression
fiber to the steel centroid, d, is indicated as 41 inches; the width, b, is 78 inches.
ACI 318 Section 18.13.3 requires that the smallest cross-sectional dimension of the grade beam must be at
least the smaller of the column spacing divided by 20 (in this case, 10.8 inches) or 18 inches and that the
spacing of closed ties must be no more than half the smallest cross-sectional dimension or 12 inches.
Figure 6-5. Grade beam section

101584953
Now design the section for flexure due to the moment adjacent to the end column of 2768 kip-feet = 32,216
kip-inches. Compute the required coefficient of resistance
Ru M 32,216 kip-in
Rn = = 2
= = 0.273 ksi
ϕ ϕbd (0.9)(78 in )(41 in ) 2
Compute the required reinforcing ratio, ρ
0.85 f cʹ ⎛ 2 Rn ⎞ 0.85(4) ⎛ 2(0.273) ⎞

ρ= ⎜⎜1 − 1 − ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜1 − 1 − ⎟ = 0.00475
fy ⎝ 0.85 f cʹ ⎠ 60 ⎝ 0.85(4) ⎟⎠
Steel required, As = 0.00475(41)(78) = 15.2 in2.
Use ten #11 Top & Bottom; As = 15.6 in2.
Now design for the maximum shear in the grade beam.
The maximum shear occurs at the left side of the first column, with a value of 281 kips.
ϕVn = ϕ(Vc + Vs) ≥ Vu = 281 kips
First, compute the strength provided by the concrete section alone.
ϕVc = 0.75(2) ( )
f cʹ = 4000 (b = 78 in )(d = 41 in ) = 303 kips Eq 22.5.5.1
This strength exceeds the applied shear of 281 kips. However, a minimum amount of shear reinforcing is
required by ACI 318 Section 9.6.3.1 for cases where Vu > 0.5ϕVc = 151.5 kips. There are exceptions to this
requirement for shallow members, slabs, one-way joists, and steel-fiber-reinforced elements, but these do
not apply here. The minimum reinforcing steel area per unit length is specified in Table 9.6.3.3 as the
b b
greater of 0.75 ffcc' w and 50 w . In this case, 0.75 ffcc' is 47.4, which is less than 50, so the minimum
f yt f yt
⎛ bw ⎞
steel area is 50 ⎜ = 50(78/60,000) = 0.065. For 2-leg #5 closed ties, the required maximum spacing is
⎜ f yt ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
then (2)(0.31)/0.065 = 9.5 inches. This is less than the maximum stated in Section 18.13.3 of 12 inches.
Use two #5 @ 9 inches.
Note that previous editions of ACI 318 included footings in the list of members in which this minimum
reinforcing did not apply. However, that is no longer the case, so the minimum amount of shear reinforcing
applies.
There are no additional requirements for confining reinforcement that apply to this case.
2.5 TRANSVERSE GRADE BEAM DESIGN ACI 318
The local portion of the grade beam directly under the end columns must be designed to resist transverse
bending where the column load is resisted by a pair of piles, which are located 2 feet on each side of the
column centerline. This design example uses the strut-and-tie method of ACI 318 Chapter 23. Figure 6-6
shows the strut-and-tie geometry of the condition to be investigated.

101584953
Figure 6-6. Grade beam transverse section showing strut-and-tie geometry
Begin by defining the forces involved. The diagonal struts are oriented at 63 degrees from the horizontal
(27 degrees from vertical). The force in each diagonal strut is
1213 kips
Fus = = 681 kips
2 cos( 27)
The force in the horizontal tie is
Fut = (681 kips)cos(63) = 309 kips
Next, check the strut at the node. The width of the strut is made up of two components, as indicated in
Figure R23.2.6b. The variables wt and lb are shown in Figure 6.5a. The width of the strut and the tie may be
taken as the width of the column above, which is 24 inches.
ws = wt cos(63) + lb sin(63) = 4.1 + 14.2 = 18.3 in
The area of the node is this width multiplied by the tie width
Anz = (24)(18.3) = 439 in2
The effective compressive nodal stress is
fce = 0.85(bc)(bn)( fc' )= 0.85(1.0)(0.8)(4) = 2.72 ksi Eq 23.9.2

101584953
The resulting nodal design strength is then
ϕFnn = ϕfceAnz = (0.75)(2.72)(439) = 896 kips > 681 kips . . . OK
For the strut design, recognize that the strut is considered as laterally restrained according to Section
23.5.3(b) because the perpendicular end of the grade beam is more than half the strut width from the edge
of the strut. This allows the strut to be categorized as type (c) of Table 23.4.3(a). The area of the end of the
strut is the same as the area of the nodal zone:
Acs = Anz = 439 in2
The effective compressive strut stress is
fce = 0.85(bc)(bs)( fc' ) = (1.0)(0.75)(4) = 2.55 ksi Eq 23.4.3
The resulting nodal design strength is then
ϕFns = ϕfceAns = (0.75)(2.55)(439) = 840 kips > 681 kips . . . OK
The required area of tie reinforcement is computed per Section 23.7.
Fut 309 kips

Ats = = = 6.9 in 2
ϕf y 0.75(60 ksi)
Use transverse bars at the same spacing as the #5 ties (9 inches o.c.) so that these bars can be installed
between the sets of ties. Note that the horizontal portions of the closed ties are not used as shear
reinforcing, so we can count them as part of the tie reinforcing. By adding four #11 tie bars and
considering that there are also four #5 horizontal closed ties adjacent, the total amount of tie reinforcing is
4 × (1.56 in2 + 0.31 in2) = 7.48 in2.
Use four #11 bottom tie bars at the pairs of piles at each end of the grade beam.
We must ensure that the tie bars are developed within the length indicated as lanch in Figure 6-6. The
development length for #11 bars with headed ends in 4 ksi concrete is 21 inches, which is less than the
available 24 inches.
At the end of the grade beam where the piles resist uplift, a similar transfer must occur, but the struts and
ties are reversed in their orientation. In order for this to occur, the pile vertical bar extensions and the
column dowels must be extended to close to the opposite faces of the cap, as shown in Figure 6-7. This
produces a geometry exactly opposite that shown in Figure 6-6. Since the strut-and-tie methodology is
entirely linear, there is no need to compute the tie requirements for the top bars explicitly; simply multiply
the tie requirement computed for the bottom tie by the ratio of the maximum applied tension load to the
maximum applied column compression load.
⎛ 676 k ⎞ 2 2
Ats( top ) = ⎜ ⎟ 6.9 in = 3.8 in
⎝ 1,213 k ⎠
Use four #9 top tie bars at the pairs of piles at each end of the grade beam.

101584953
Figure 6-7. Grade beam transverse section showing vertical bar extensions
3. Case II: Moments Resisted by Grade Beam and Pile Flexure ACI 318
3.1 MODELING
The grade beam in Case II is more flexible than in Case I. The piles are located in two-pile caps at
each column, with the piles oriented along lines perpendicular to the frame. The caps are connected by
continuous grade beams, which are designed for the applied moments from the columns. The geometry of
this case is shown in Figure 6-8.
Figure 6-8. Partial frame elevation

101584953
Unlike Case I, the flexibility of the grade beam can affect the frame design, so the flexibility of the grade
beam should be included in the superstructure frame model. The foundation flexibility can affect frame
stiffness and the distribution of loads in the superstructure. The foundation flexibility can be modeled by
including the grade beam and piles explicitly in the superstructure model or by including spring supports to
represent the grade beams and piles.
The approach in this example is to apply the column fixed-base moments to a continuous beam component
model, which includes the grade beam and pile flexural stiffnesses. Use the results of this component model
to determine the shears and moments for grade beam and pile design and to compute the rotational spring
values to import into the frame design. Redesign of the frame incorporating these springs is not included in
this example. The approach included here is conservative for the grade beam and pile design.
3.2 LOADING
Case II is designed for the specified seismic loads (not amplified as in Case I) and provides detailing
according to ACI 318 Section 18.13.3. Because the loads are not amplified, they remain reduced by the
same R-factor of 8, for which the frame was designed. Therefore, it is necessary that the grade beams and
piles provide the ductility and toughness implied by this R-factor.
The factored moments on the columns are those indicated in Section 1.2 of this example. These moments
are applied to a continuous beam with spring supports at each pile support location. The spring supports are
developed by considering the stiffness of the piles, including both the structural stiffness and the support
of the soil. This is accomplished through an LPILE analysis, considering the varying axial loads at the
frame ends and middle columns indicated in Design Example 5. The axial pile loads to be considered in
computing the pile stiffness are then
Tension end column: Pu = -58 kips

Interior columns: Pu = 188 kips
Compression end column: Pu = 326 kips
Now run LPILE considering a moment of 500 kip-inches in concert with the axial loads noted, which
produce different flexural stiffnesses, as indicated in Design Example 5. The value of 500 kip-inches is
arbitrary but is within the range of moments developed at the design displacement in Design Example 5.
The LPILE results and rotational stiffness values are presented in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Rotational stiffness at 500 kip-inches
Axial Load Slope at Pile Head Rotational Stiffness Stiffness of 2 Piles

(kips) (radians) (kip-in/radian) (kip-in/radian)
-58 0.00946 52,854 105,708
188 0.00185 270,270 540,541
326 0.0022 227,273 454,545

101584953
Incorporate these rotation stiffness values in a continuous beam analysis to determine the moments and
shears in the grade beam and piles.
Determine a preliminary design for the grade beams for the analysis. Considering that the grade beams will
take the majority of the demand (compared to the piles) and that grade beams are generally expected to be
more lightly reinforced than columns, consider a grade beam section larger than the columns: 36 inches
wide and 42 inches deep. Incorporate this elastic section, with a flexural stiffness modifier of 0.5, in the
analysis.
Figure 6-9 shows the resulting shear and moment diagrams. The moments and additional axial loads on
each pair of piles are also shown at each node. Note that the pile moments are dramatically affected by the
stiffness values computed in this section.
Figure 6-9. Grade beam moment and shear diagrams for design
3.3 PILE DESIGN
The piles in this case must resist the loads from Design Example 5, as well as the added axial loads and
moments produced by the flexibility of the grade beam.
In Design Example 5, note that when the load on the frame is pushing to the right, the moments induced by
the piles resisting lateral shear causes tension on the right side of the piles. However, in that same load case
with a flexible foundation, the pile caps will rotate clockwise, which induces moments that cause tension
on the left side of the piles. In other words, the moments due to direct shear and those due to cap rotation in
a flexible-base moment frame will always counteract! So, there is no need to consider adding the moments
computed in this analysis to those computed in Design Example 5. However, in order to not take direct
advantage of the counteraction, subtract these newly computed moments from those determined in Design
Example 5.

101584953
It will be necessary to recheck the piles from Design Example 5 for the augmented axial loads. These loads
will add directly. The worst-case axial loads, including those from frame overturning in Design Example 5
and those due to grade beam flexure computed in this example, are
Tension: -58 kips - 110 kips/2 piles = -113 kips

Compression: 326 kips + 97 kips/2 piles = 375 kips
Now reconsider the design points on the interaction diagram from Design Example 5 with these updated
axial loads. Figure 6-10 shows the updated axial loads on the interaction diagram from Design Example 5,
indicating that the tension design point is slightly outside the envelope. Therefore, increase the reinforcing
in the pile from six #6 to six #7. The extreme tension and compression design points are plotted on the
interaction diagram for the heavier reinforcing in Figure 6-11, indicating an acceptable design.
Use 16-inch diameter piles with six #7 longitudinal bars.
Figure 6-10. Pile axial-moment interaction diagram for piles

from Design Example 5 with updated axial loads

101584953
Figure 6-11. Pile axial-moment interaction diagram for piles with heavier reinforcing
3.4 GRADE BEAM DESIGN
Check the grade beam section used in the preliminary analysis, which is 3 feet wide and 3.5 feet high. The
distance from the extreme compression fiber to the steel centroid, d, is 37 inches; the width, b, is 36 inches.
First, verify that the grade beam dimensions comply with ACI 318 Section 18.6.2.1, which requires that the
beam depth does not exceed one-fourth of the clear span. The center-to-center span of the beam is 18 feet.
The pile caps are each 4 feet wide, so the clear span is 14 feet. The beam depth, d, of 37 inches does not
exceed 14 feet / 4 = 3.5 feet (42 inches).
Next, design the section for flexure due to the moment adjacent to the end column of 1278 kip-feet =
15,336 kip-inches. Compute the required coefficient of resistance.
Ru M 15,336 kip-in
Rn = = 2
= = 0.346 ksi
ϕ ϕbd (0.9)(36 in )(37 in ) 2
Compute the required reinforcing ratio, r,
0.85 f cʹ ⎛ 2 Rn ⎞ 0.85(4) ⎛ 2(0.346) ⎞

ρ= ⎜1 − 1 − ⎟= ⎜1 − 1 − ⎟ = 0.00609
f y ⎜⎝ 0.85 f cʹ ⎟⎠ 60 ⎜⎝ 0.85(4) ⎟⎠

101584953
Use six #11 top & bottom; As = 9.4 in2.
Now design the transverse reinforcing in the grade beam.
ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.4 indicates the maximum spacing of transverse reinforcing cannot exceed d/4 =
9.25 inches, 6db = (6)(1.41) = 8.5 inches, or 6 inches. The least of these is 6 inches, which controls. Section
18.6.4.2 requires that the center-to-center spacing of transversely supported bars cannot exceed 14 inches.
The width of 36 inches, less 6 inches for cover each side, divided by 14 is more than 2, so three spaces are
needed, which requires four vertical legs of transverse reinforcing. The minimum reinforcing is then four
#3 @ 6 inches spacing.
The maximum shear occurs at the left side of the first column, with a value of 101 kips. However, the
transverse reinforcing must also comply with ACI 318 Section 18.6 (beams of special moment frames).
Section 18.6.5.2 requires that Vc be considered 0 for this design.
So, the shear strength of the minimally reinforced section is
nAv Fy d (4)(0.11)(60)(37)
ϕVn = 0.75 = 0.75 = 122 kips
s 6
This value exceeds the design example load.
Use four #3 @ 6-inch spacing.
The length over which this confinement is required is specified in Section 18.6.4.1 as at least two beam
depths from each end of the clear span. In this case, this is the entire beam length.
The grade beam design is shown in Figure 6-12.
Figure 6-12. Grade beam section

101584953
4. Case III: Moments Resisted by Pile Axial Loads ACI 318
4.1 MODELING
In Case III, the moments at the bases of the columns are resisted by axial loads in the piles, rather than
flexure of the grade beams and piles. At each cap location, the applied moment is resisted by the axial-
force couple created by two pairs of piles, separated by 8 feet. Each cap can be addressed separately, with
statics computed manually. In this case, there are four piles per cap, rather than two, so the pile loads due
to gravity and due to direct frame overturning are reduced by half. Additional axial loads are applied to the
opposing pairs of piles in each cap due to the pile cap moments.
The geometry of this case is shown in Figure 6-13.
Figure 6-13. Partial frame elevation
The loads on the individual piles are tabulated in Table 6-2, including the gravity loads, the global
overturning loads, and the local overturning loads at each cap. Figure 6-14 shows the directions of the
individual seismic loads involved.
Table 6-2. Individual pile loads
Loads per Cap Loads per Pile Loads per Pile Loads per Pile
Direct Direct Seismic Total

Dead Live Seismic Dead Live Seismic Column Load from Seismic
Load (D) Load (L) Load (E) Load (D) Load (L) Load Moment Moment Load (E) 1.2D + L + E 0.9D – E
Condition (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips/pile) (kips/pile) (kips/pile) (kip-ft) (kips/pile) (kips/pile) (kips/pile) (kips/pile)
Frame
interior 260 40 0 65 10 0 1500 93.75 93.75 181.75 –35.25
Frame
end 230 54 280 57.5 13.5 70 1300 81.25 151.25 233.75 –99.5

101584953
Figure 6-14. Seismic reactions
Investigate the behavior of each cap and design the cap for flexure and shear. The extreme values of
factored shear at each end of each cap (due to the reactions on two piles) are Vu = 2 × 233.75 = 468 kips,
acting upward from compression reactions in the piles, and Vu = 2 × 99.5 = 199 kips, acting downward from
tension reactions in the piles. The moments produced by these shears are computed by multiplying these
shears by the distance to the cap centers, which is 4 feet. For bottom steel, Mu = 4 ft × 468 kips = 1870
kip-ft. For top steel, Mu = 4 ft × 199 kips = 796 kip-ft.
Note that while these are pile caps, and not grade beams, it is reasonable to apply the grade beam
requirements to this design; therefore, the caps should either be allowed to yield along with the frame or
should be designed for amplified loads and remain elastic. These two approaches are illustrated in Cases I
and II in this design example. For the remainder of this case, follow the approach of designing for reduced
loads and detailing for ductility (similar to Case II).
The trial cap dimensions are the same as those employed in Case I for the grade beam.
Now design the worst-case cap for positive flexure (bottom reinforcing) due to the moment 1870 kip-feet =
22,440 kip-inches. Compute the required coefficient of resistance.
Ru M 22,440 kip-in
Rn = = 2
= = 0.190 ksi
ϕ ϕbd (0.9)(78 in)(41 in) 2
0.85 f cʹ ⎛ 2 Rn ⎞ 0.85(4) ⎛ 2(0.190) ⎞

ρ= ⎜⎜1 − 1 − ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜1 − 1 − ⎟ = 0.00326
fy ⎝ 0.85 f cʹ ⎠ 60 ⎝ 0.85(4) ⎟⎠
Note that this amount is slightly less than the minimum required by ACI 318 Section 9.6.1.2.
3 f cʹ 200
ρmin = or
fy fy
In this case, the latter requirement applies, with a value of r = 0.00333.

101584953
Use twelve #9 bottom; As = 12 in2.
Design for negative flexure (top reinforcing) due to the moment 796 kip-feet = 9552 kip-inches. Compute
the required coefficient of resistance.
Ru M 9552 kip-in
Rn = = = = 0.081 ksi
ϕ ϕbd 2 (0.9)(78 in)(41 in) 2
0.85 f cʹ ⎛ 2 Rn ⎞ 0.85(4) ⎛ 2(0.081) ⎞

ρ= ⎜⎜1 − 1 − ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜1 − 1 − ⎟ = 0.00137
fy ⎝ 0.85 f cʹ ⎠ 60 ⎝ 0.85(4) ⎟⎠
Note that this amount is also less than the minimum required by Section 9.6.1.2. Again, the value of r =
0.00333 applies. Or, as an alternative, a value 1/3 greater than that required by analysis can be employed,
which in this case is 0.00183.
Steel required, As = 0.00183(78)(41) = 5.85 in2. Choose to keep the quantity of top bars equal to that of the
bottom bars.
Use twelve #7 top; As = 7.2 in2.
Next, design the transverse reinforcing according to ACI 318 Section 18.6.4.4, which indicates the
maximum spacing of transverse reinforcing cannot exceed d/4 = 9.25 inches, 6db = (6)(1.0) = 6 inches, or
6 inches. The least of these is 6 inches, which controls. Section 18.6.4.2 requires that the center-to-center
spacing of transversely supported bars cannot exceed 14 inches. The design example width of 78 inches,
less 6 inches for cover each side, divided by 14 is more than 5, so at least six spaces are needed, which
requires seven vertical legs of transverse reinforcing. The minimum reinforcing is then seven #3 @ 6-inch
spacing.
The maximum shear occurs due to downward loading at the right side of the column in grid line 11, with
a value of 468 kips. However, the transverse reinforcing must also comply with Section 18.6 (beams of
special moment frames). Section 18.6.5.2 requires that Vc be considered 0 for this design.
So, the shear strength of the minimally reinforced section is
nAv Fy d (7)(0.11)(60)(41)
ϕVn = 0.75 = 0.75 = 237 kips
s 6
This value is less than the required load. Increasing the bar size by a factor of 468/237 = 1.98 will result in
sufficient capacity. The required bar area is then 0.11 in2 × 1.98 = 0.217 in2. This is larger than a #4 but not
by much. If you increase the number of legs from 7 to 8, you can use an area of 7/8 × 0.217 in2 = 0.19 in2,
which is less than a #4 bar.
Use eight #4 @ 6-inch spacing.
A transverse section of the cap is shown in Figure 6-15.

101584953
Figure 6-15. Transverse section of cap
Note that there are also other means of computing the required shear reinforcing. It is also possible to
compute the required shear as the maximum that can be developed due to flexure of the cap. You can
approximate the probable moment as 1.25 × 12.0/10.6 × 1870 kip-feet = 2646 kip-feet. The shear developed
at the column center would be 2646 kip-feet/4 feet = 662 kips. In this case, the probable moment is larger
than the shear that was computed based on the loads, so this is not advantageous.
It is also necessary to consider transverse bending in the cap, similar to that shown in Case I Section 2.5.
These calculations are not repeated here.

101584953

101584953
Design Example 7
Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector
OVERVIEW
Diaphragms are horizontal or sloped systems acting to transfer lateral forces to the vertical lateral-force-
resisting system (LFRS). The purpose of the diaphragm is to (1) transfer inertial mass to the vertical LFRS,
(2) provide restraint to gravity as well as prevent the LFRS from buckling, and (3) facilitate connection
of various components of the vertical LFRS with appropriate strength and stiffness so that the building
responds as intended in design.
In this design example, the four-story concrete building has a big opening in the center of the floor
diaphragm. The purpose of this example is to demonstrate a simplified approach to find the demands on
the diaphragm (using a rigid diaphragm assumption) and collector based on the 2021 IBC. Design of
diaphragm chords and collectors and detailing of these elements is also included in this example.
In Section 6 of this example, the diaphragm demands obtained from the simplified approach are compared
with the demands obtained by modeling the diaphragm as a semirigid element using a shell element.
Conclusions based on the results are presented at the end of Section 6.
OUTLINE
2. Determination of Diaphragm Demands
3. Determination of Diaphragm Shears and Chord Forces for Building with Large Opening
4. Design of Diaphragm Reinforcement for Diaphragm with Large Openings
5. Collector Design
6. Comparison of Diaphragm Force and Chord Force Using Rigid Diaphragm Assumption and
Hand Calculations vs. Computer Model Analysis with Semirigid Diaphragm Assumption
GENERAL INFORMATION
Site Class D
Risk Category IV
4-story concrete building with a penthouse on the roof
Concrete flat slab system with shear walls and collector beams at the perimeter
Concrete compressive strength, f c' = 4000 psi for concrete slab, beams, columns, and shear wall
Reinforcing steel strength, f c' = 60,000 psi

101584953
Design Example 7 ■ Design of Concrete Diaphragm and Collector
Typical flat slab reinforcing is No. 5 at 12″ on center each way, top and bottom
Governing codes: 2021 IBC, ASCE 7-16, and ACI 318-19
COMPUTER MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

A computer program is used to calculate the self-weight of the concrete slabs, beams, girders, columns,
and shear walls. The following are the modeling assumptions incorporated into the computer model for the
lateral-load-resisting system analysis:
• The concrete shear walls were assigned a stiffness modifier of 0.35 to model cracked section
properties.
• All nodes at the foundation level for gravity columns are assigned pinned supports.
• All nodes at the foundation level for shear walls are assigned fixed supports.
• Seismic mass source is defined as from “Dead Load.”
• It is assumed that the building has neither vertical nor horizontal irregularities.
• Diaphragm is assumed to be rigid diaphragm.
• Floor plan has typical dimension of 49′-10″ × 138′-6″ with typical floor and roof framing, as
• Four stories with a penthouse level, as shown in Figures 7-1 to 7-5.
Figure 7-1. Typical floor framing plan

101584953
Figure 7-2. Penthouse framing plan

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4
2
1
6
3
8
5 PH
14'-1"
L4
11'-0"
L3
10'-3"
L2
13'-1"
L1
Z
12'-0"
BASE
X
Figure 7-3. Building elevation at grid line A

101584953
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
4
2
1
6
3
8
5
PH
L4
L3
L2
L1
Z
BASE
X
Figure 7-4. Building elevation at grid line D
Figure 7-5. Building elevation at grid line 1

101584953
Figure 7-6. Building 3D view

101584953
1.2 ASSEMBLY WEIGHTS
Typical Floor
Dead Loads Gravity Load Effective3 Seismic Weight
7¼-inch NW concrete slab self-weight — —
Concrete columns and beams self-weight — —
Concrete walls 10-inch-thick self-weight — —
Mechanical / Plumbing / Electrical 5 psf 5 psf
Ceiling and flooring 10 psf 10 psf
2
Partitions 10 psf 4
Miscellaneous 5 psf 5 psf
Total Superimposed Dead Load 20 psf 30 psf
Note: Shear walls, slabs, and columns are modeled with their self-weight included in the computer
program. Superimposed mass/gravity load indicated above is applied as superimposed dead load
in the model.
Building Live Loads1 Live Load

Operating rooms/Laboratories = 60 psf 60 psf
Partitions2 15 psf
Penthouse Roof
4½-inch NW concrete slab self-weight — —
Concrete columns and beams self-weight — —
Concrete walls 10-inch-thick self-weight — —
Mechanical / Plumbing / Electrical 5 psf 5 psf
Roofing 6 psf 6 psf
Roof Live Loads1 Live Load

Flat Roof 20 psf

101584953
Exterior Wall5
Cladding 7 psf 7 psf
Metal studs 3 psf 3 psf
Insulation 2 psf 2 psf
5/8-inch gypsum board 3 psf 3 psf
Notes:
1. From ASCE 7 Table 4.3-1.
2. ASCE 7 Section 4.3.2 specifies a 15 psf live load where partitions will be erected or rearranged.
3. ASCE 7 Section 12.7.2 describes the loads that are included in the Effective Seismic Weight.
4. Per Section 12.7.2, 10 psf is included for partitions where partition load is required per ASCE 7
Section 4.3.2.
5. Exterior wall load 20 psf is applied where there are no perimeter shear walls; where there are
perimeter shear walls, 10 psf uniform load is applied on the wall to account for finish.
1.3 FLOOR AND ROOF WEIGHTS
The following are the total seismic weights tributary to each floor level, as calculated by the computer
program:
WPenthouse = 608 kips

W4th Floor = 1155 kips
W3rd Floor = 1206 kips
W2nd Floor = 1248 kips
W1st Floor = 1286 kips
ΣW = 5503 kips
Seismic weights are equal for both the north-south and east-west directions.
2. Determination of Diaphragm Demands
2.1 DESIGN SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS ASCE 7
The SEAOC/OSHPD internet-based web tool (seismicmaps.org) can be used to determine the maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) spectral accelerations at 0.2 sec (SS) and 1.0 sec (S1) based on the longitude
and latitude of the site. The longitude and latitude can be entered into the web application to get the SS and
S1 values. The output values are:
SS = 1.928g S1 = 0.696g

101584953
For Site Class D, so the factors to modify the MCE spectral accelerations are:
Fa = 1.0 T 11.4-1
Fv = 1.7 T 11.4-2
Per Table 11.4-2, for structures in Site Class D and S1 ≥ 0.2g, a ground motion hazard analysis is required
unless the exception requirements of Section 11.4.8 are satisfied. Exception 2 of Section 11.4.8 states that
for a structure on Site Class D with S1 ≥ 0.2g, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required provided that
the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Equation 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts
and taken equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Equation 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T >
1.5Ts or Equation 12.8-4 for T > TL.
SMS = FaSS = 1.0 × 1.928 = 1.928g Eq 11.4-1

SM1 = FvS1 = 1.7 × 0.696 = 1.183g Eq 11.4-2
The spectral accelerations to be used in design are
2 2
S DS = S MS = × 1.928 = 1.285 g Eq 11.4-3
3 3
2 2
S D1 = S M 1 = × 1.183 = 0.789 g Eq 11.4-4
3 3
SDS = 1.285g SD1 = 0.789g
2.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY ASCE 7
Risk Category IV T 1.5-1

Seismic importance factor, Ie = 1.5 T 1.5-2
Short-period Seismic Design Category D (for SDS = 1.285g) T 11.6-1
1-sec Seismic Design Category D (for SD1 = 0.789g) T 11.6-2
According to Section 11.6, the seismic design category is the more severe of the two results of Tables
11.6-1 and 11.6-2. Both resulted in Seismic Design Category D, so
Seismic Design Category (SDC) = D §11.6
2.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS ASCE 7
E = Eh ± Ev Eq 12.4-1 and Eq 12.4-2

Eh = rQE Eq 12.4-3
Ev = 0.2SDS D = 0.2 × 1.285D = 0.257D Eq 12.4-4
E = rQE ± 0.257D
Em = Emh ± Ev Eq 12.4-5 and Eq 12.4-6

Emh = W0QE Eq 12.4-7
Em = W0QE ± 0.257D

101584953
Load combinations of consequence are
1.2D + 1.0E + 0.5L = 1.457D + 0.5L ± rQE §2.3.6 (Comb. 6, modified)

0.9D + 1.0E = 0.643D ± rQE §2.3.6 (Comb. 7, modified)
1.2D + 1.0Em + 0.5L = 1.457D + 0.5L ± W0QE §2.3.6 (Comb. 6, modified)

0.9D + 1.0E = 0.643D ± W0QE §2.3.6 (Comb. 7, modified)
2.4 DESIGN BASE SHEAR ASCE 7
Determine the approximate building period:
Ta = Ct(hx)x = 0.02(61)0.75 = 0.44 sec Eq 12.8-7
East-west direction:
T = 0.37 sec (from computer model analysis)
North-south direction:
T = 0.19 sec (from computer model analysis)
Check the upper limit: §12.8.2
For SD1 = 0.789g, Cu = 1.4 T 12.8.1

T shall not exceed (Cu)(Ta) = (1.4)(0.44) = 0.616 sec
For this example, the building period as calculated in the computer analysis is allowed in accordance with
Section 12.8.2. However, the approximate fundamental period Ta = 0.44 sec calculated in this section can
also be used as an alternative, and this value is used for base shear calculation.
For bearing wall system, special reinforced concrete shear wall T 12.2.1
R=5
Ω0 = 2.5
Cd = 5
Design base shear is based on equivalent lateral force procedure §12.8.1
V = CsW Eq 12.8-1
where
S DS 1.285
Cs = = = 0.3855 . . . governs Eq 12.8-2
⎛R⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ I ⎠ ⎝ 1.5 ⎠

101584953
The seismic response coefficient need not exceed
S D1 0.789
Cs = = = 0.538 for T ≤ TL Eq 12.8-3
⎛R⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎞
T ⎜ ⎟ 0.44 ⎜ ⎟
⎝I⎠ ⎝ 1.5 ⎠
The seismic response coefficient shall be not less than
Cs = 0.044SDS Ie = 0.0848 > 0.01 Eq 12.8-5
In addition, for structures located where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g, Cs shall be not less than
0.5S1 0.5(0.789)
Cs = = = 0.118 Eq 12.8-6
⎛R⎞ ⎛ 5 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝I⎠ ⎝ 1.5 ⎠
In this example, the user-defined seismic coefficient Cs = 0.3855 is used in the computer program and is
applied in both directions to simplify the base shear calculation.
V = CsW = 0.3855(5503 kips) = 2121 kips
2.5 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES ASCE 7
The design base shear must be distributed to each floor level, as follows:
where
wx hx k
Cvx = n
Eq 12.8-12
∑ wi hi k
i =1
and
k = 1.0 for T ≤ 0.5 sec

= 2.0 for T ≥ 2.5 sec
= interpolated value between 1.0 and 2.0 for 0.5 sec < T < 2.5 sec
In this example, k = 1.0 for both directions.
Determination of Fx is shown in Table 7-1.

101584953
Table 7-1. Determination of Fx
Level i wi (kip) hi (ft) wx*hx k (kip-ft) wx*hx k / Σwi*hi k Fx (kip)* Ftotal (kip)
PH 608 60.57 36,827 0.205 434 434
4th 1155 46.49 53,696 0.298 632 1066
3rd 1206 35.49 42,801 0.238 505 1571
2nd 1248 25.08 31,300 0.174 368 1939
1st 1286 12 15,432 0.086 182 2121
Sum 5503 180,056 1.00 2121
* In order to simplify, values in this column have been slightly rounded off.
This hand calculation of story shear distribution matches with the computer model analysis results.
2.6 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN FORCES ASCE 7
The diaphragm design forces must be designed to resist seismic forces from the structural analysis, but
shall be not less than that determined in accordance with the Section 12.10.1.1 requirements as follows:
n
∑ Fi
i= x
Fpx = n
w px Eq 12.10-1
∑ wi
i= x
The diaphragm design force at each level need not exceed
Fpx = 0.4SDS Iewpx = 0.4(1.285)(1.5)wpx = 0.771wpx
and the diaphragm design force at each level shall be not less than
Fpx = 0.2SDS Iewpx = 0.2(1.285)(1.5)wpx = 0.3855wpx
Determination of Fpx is shown in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2. Determination of Fpx
Fpx Fpx Effective

Fx Ftotal wpx Σwi Fpx Min. Max. Fpx
Level i (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) l = Fpx /Fx
PH 434 434 608 608 434 234 469 434 1.00
4th 632 1066 1155 1763 698 445 891 698 1.10
3rd 505 1571 1206 2969 638 465 930 638 1.27*
2nd 368 1939 1248 4217 574 481 962 574 1.56
1st 182 2121 1286 5503 496 496 992 496 2.73
Sum 2121
* In order to simplify, this value has been slightly rounded off.

101584953
Once the story shear force Fx is obtained, the story force is factored by l to get the code-required
diaphragm force Fpx. This method of scaling by l can be used only for buildings without irregularities.
For buildings with irregularities, follow the procedure described in Section 6.3.
2.7 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN FORCES ALTERNATIVE METHOD
The diaphragm design forces for concrete diaphragms can also be calculated per the alternative design
provisions of Section 12.10.3. The diaphragm design forces for Level 3 are presented here:
C px
Fpx = w px Eq 12.10-4
Rs
where
Cpx is the diaphragm design acceleration coefficient

Rs, the diaphragm design force reduction factor = 1.5 T 12.10-1
According to Table 12.10-1, Rs for cast in-place concrete diaphragms shall be 2 where the diaphragm
yielding mechanism is flexure controlled and 1.5 where it is shear controlled. In this example, an Rs of 1.5
is used.
Cpx at any height of the building can be determined from linear interpolation between the diaphragm design
acceleration coefficient at base Cp0 and Cpi , the diaphragm design acceleration coefficient at 80 percent of
the structural height when hi < 0.8hn or between Cpi and the diaphragm design coefficient at roof Cpn. For
the diaphragm under consideration, hx /hn = 35.49/60.57 = 0.59 < 0.8. Therefore, interpolate between Cp0
and Cpi to determine Cpx.
Cp0 = 0.4SDSIe = 0.4(1.285)(1.5) = 0.771 Eq 12.10-6
and Cpi shall be the greater of Eq 12.10-8 and Eq 12.10-9
Cpi-1 = 0.8Cp0 = 0.8(0.771) = 0.6168 Eq 12.10-8

Cpi-2 = 0.9Tm1Ω0Cs Eq 12.10-9
where
Ω0 = 2.5
Cs = 0.3855
Tm1 = 1 + zs /2(1 - 1/N) Eq 12.10-13
Tm1 is the modal contribution factor that depends on the mode shape factor zs (1 for a shear wall building
per Section 12.10.3.2) and the story in consideration, N. N = 3 for Level 3.
Tm1 = 1 + 1/2(1 - 1/3) = 1.333
Therefore,
Cpi-2 = 0.9 × 1.333 × 2.5 × 0.3855 = 1.156 . . . governs

101584953
Therefore, Cpx can now be determined by linearly interpolating between Cp0 and Cpi from Figure 12.10-2.
(0.5859 − 0)(1.156 − 0)
C px = + 0 = 0.847
(0.8 − 0)
The diaphragm design force:
0.847
Fpx = w px = 0.565w px = 681.39 kips . . . governs
1.5
The diaphragm design forces shall be not less than:
Fpx = 0.2SDS Iewpx = 0.2(1.285)(1.5)wpx

= 0.3855wpx Eq 12.10-5
Note that the diaphragm force obtained using Section 12.10.3 for Level 3 is 6 percent more than that from
Section 12.10.1. This can be attributed to the fact that Section 12.10.3 considers significantly greater elastic
level forces. It also includes the anticipated overstrength and the diaphragm deformation capacity leading
to a different distribution of diaphragm force over the height of the building when compared to Section
12.10.1.
The following sections will consider the forces obtained by using Section 12.10.1 to design the diaphragm,
chord, and collector.
3. Determination of Diaphragm Shears and Chord Forces

for Building with Large Opening
In this example, earthquake load in the east-west direction (along the longitudinal direction) is used for
illustration purposes.
From computer analysis, in order to obtain the diaphragm force at the third-floor level for walls on grid
lines A and D, subtract the cumulative story shear in each wall at the third-floor level from the cumulative
story shear in the corresponding wall at the fourth-floor level. These values calculated in this example
represent the resulting shears with the mass displaced +5 percent from the center of mass to account for
accidental torsion per the code requirement.

101584953
Figure 7-7. Cumulative story shear wall forces by level—wall on grid line A
Figure 7-8. Cumulative story shear wall forces by level—wall on grid line D

101584953
Figure 7-9. Plan view of third-floor diaphragm loading
F3rd Story (Line A) = 1009 kips − 739 kips = 270 kips

F3rd Story (Line D) = 635 kips − 442 kips = 193 kips
3.1 DETERMINATION OF DIAPHRAGM SHEARS ACI 318
In order to compute the diaphragm shear force at the third-floor level, the diaphragm is analyzed as a
simply supported beam with pinned supports representing the shear walls along grid lines A and D. The
diaphragm opening is ignored in this calculation. The resulting shear diagram based on the beam model is
used to determine the total diaphragm shear along the length of the diaphragm.
Figure 7-10. Beam model of diaphragm in the east-west direction
Known values:
RA = F3rd Story (Line A) = 270 kips

RD = F3rd Story (Line D) = 193 kips

101584953
The reaction RA is much larger than RD due to torsion.
L = total diaphragm length = 49.83 ft
Using statics to solve for unknown values w1 and w2 (trapezoidal load distribution is assumed to account for
torsion):
⎧ ⎛ ⎫w1 + w2 ⎞ L = R + R
⎪ ⎜⎝ ⎪ 2 ⎟⎠ A D
⎨ ⎬ L 1
⎪ w⎪2 L ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ + ( w1 − w2 ) L ⎛⎜ L ⎞⎟ = RD L
⎩ ⎭ ⎝2⎠ 2 ⎝3⎠
Solve for w1 and w2:
⎧
⎪
w
⎫ = 13.92 klf
⎪ 1
⎨ ⎬
⎪
⎩ w
⎪ = 4.66 klf
⎭ 2
The diaphragm will be checked (1) along grid line D and (2) along grid line A.
Figure 7-11. Shear diagram of the diaphragm in the east-west direction
Applying the l factor to the distributed load gives the diaphragm force Fpx. For the third story, l = 1.27.
The maximum diaphragm demands on a per-foot basis are calculated as
(1) vD = lVD /LD = (1.27)(193 kips)/138.5 ft (diaphragm depth) = 1.77 klf

(2) vA = lVA/LA = (1.27)(270 kips)/90.5 ft (diaphragm depth) = 3.79 klf . . . governs
The design in-plane shear strength of the 7¼-inch-thick concrete floor slab is calculated using ACI as
follows:
(
φVn = φAcv 2λ f cʹ + ρt f y ) Eq 12.5.3.3

101584953
where
f = 0.60 §21.2.4
It is assumed here that f for the shear walls will be 0.60. Hence, per Section 21.2.4.2, f for the diaphragm
will also be equal to 0.60.
Acv = gross area of concrete bounded by diaphragm web thickness and depth per ACI 318
Section 12.5.3.3
l = 1.0 for normal-weight concrete per ACI 318 Section 19.2.4.3
For a 7¼-inch-thick concrete slab (ignoring reinforcing steel),
(
φ Vn = 0.60(7.25 in )(12 in/ft ) 2 × 1× 4000 psi + 0 (1 k/1000 lb) = 6.60 klff )
f Vn > vA = 3.79 klf,; slab is OK for diaphragm shear demands
3.2 DETERMINATION OF CHORD FORCES
The flexural behavior of the diaphragm in resisting lateral loads causes tension and compression to develop
in the diaphragm chords. Using the beam model as shown in Figure 7-12, the chord forces T1 and C1 along
grid lines 1 and 8 are calculated as a function of the flexural moment in the diaphragm and the depth of the
diaphragm perpendicular to the direction of loading.
Figure 7-12. Moment diagram of the diaphragm in the east-west direction
Chord force T1 and C1:
Mmax = 2899 kip-ft based on trapezoidal loading shown in Figure 7-10 (occurs at a distance of 22 feet from
grid line A)
Provide chord reinforcement over a distance of 4 feet from grid lines 1 and 8:
D1 = 138.5 ft − 4 ft = 134.5 ft

101584953
(Dimension should be measured from center-to-center of the chord elements.)
M ⎛ 2899 k-ft ⎞
T1 = C1 = λ = (1.27) ⎜ ⎟ = 27.37 kips
D1 ⎝ 134.5 ft ⎠
Chord force T2 and C2 around opening, along grid lines 3 and 5:
Due to the presence of a large opening in the diaphragm, chord forces T2 and C2 on grid lines 1 and 3 due to
moment M must be checked in the analysis, as shown in Figure 7-14.
These chord forces occur due to local bending of the diaphragm segments on either side of the opening. The
loading on these segments is calculated based on the relative mass of the two segments. The chord forces
T1/C1 and T2/C2 are calculated using the corresponding diaphragm depths D1 and D2, and the resulting
values are compared with the semirigid diaphragm analysis in Section 6.
Figure 7-13. Plan view of the third-floor diaphragm load distribution around the opening
⎛ 36.5 ft ⎞
w1ʹʹ = (13.92 klf ) ⎜ ⎟ = 3.67 klf
⎝ 138.5 ft ⎠
⎛ 54 ft ⎞
w1ʹ = (13.92 klf ) ⎜ ⎟ = 5.43 klf
⎝ 138.5 ft ⎠
⎡ ⎛ 28 ft ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 36.5 ft ⎞
w2ʹʹ = ⎢(13.92 klf − 4.66 klf ) ⎜ ⎟ + 4.66 klf ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ = 2.60 klf
⎣ ⎝ 49.83 ft ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 138.5 ft ⎠
⎡ ⎛ 28 ft ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 54 ft ⎞
w2ʹ = ⎢(13.92 klf − 4.66 klf ) ⎜ ⎟ + 4.66 klf ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ = 3.84 klf
⎣ ⎝ 49.83 ft ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 138.5 ft ⎠
Consider the segment diaphragm next to the opening between grid lines 1 and 3 and grid lines A and B.
The goal is to find the moment at the fixed end in Figure 7-14—the moment at grid line 3/B acting on the
diaphragm is resisted by a couple, which consists of a compression chord force at grid line 3 and a tension
chord force at grid line 1.

101584953
1 3
36.5'
RB M
B w2''
A w1''
RA 1-3
Figure 7-14. Free-body diagram of third-floor diaphragm segment adjacent to opening
Draw the free-body diaphragm as shown in Figure 7-14 in order to calculate the magnitude of moment “M”
acting at grid line 3/B.
Known:
w1 in = 3.67 klf
w2 in = 2.60 klf
RA1-3 = Reaction of the shear wall, over the length from grid line 1 to grid line 3
Length of shear wall along grid line A, from grid lines 1 to 3 = 36.5 ft
Total length of shear wall along grid line A = 96.17 ft
Total shear force on shear wall on grid line A = 270 kips at third level (from computer analysis)
RA1-3 = (270 kips)(36.5 ft) / (96.17 ft) = 102.5 kips

R1A-B = Reaction of the beam, along grid line 1, from grid line A to B (this is primarily due to torsion)
R1A-B = 1.0 kip (from computer analysis, negligible)
Unknown:
M = Moment-causing compression force at grid line 3/B. This moment is resisted by a chord-force couple
T2 and C2, acting at grid lines 1 and 3, respectively.
RB = Resisting force at grid line B acting on diaphragm segment
Solve:
T2, C2: Chord-force couple that is resisting moment “M”; assume reinforcement will be provided over a
distance of 4 feet from grid lines 1 and 3 and between grid lines A to B.
Take moment about point B/3:
⎛ 21.83 ft ⎞ ⎛ w1ʹʹ − w2ʹʹ ⎞ ⎛2⎞

RA1−3 (21.83 ft ) − w2ʹʹ (21.83 ft ) ⎜ ⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⎟ (21.83 ft ) ⎜ ⎟ (21.83 ft ) − M = 0
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎟
⎠ ⎝3⎠

101584953
Solving the equation,
M = 1447 kip-ft
D2 = 36.5 ft − 4 ft = 32.5 ft
M ⎛ 1447 k-ft ⎞
T2 = C2 = λ = (1.27) ⎜ ⎟ = 56.5 kips at grid lines 1 and 3 between grid lines A to B
D2 ⎝ 32.5 ft ⎠
(The same force is used at grid lines 5 and 8; this is conservative as the chord forces are smaller at this
location.)
Note that this hand calculation of chord force is usually conservative; see Section 6 for a comparison of
results using the above procedure with the results obtained by modeling the diaphragm as a semirigid
element.
4. Design of Diaphragm Reinforcement for Diaphragm

with Large Openings ASCE 7
The additional slab reinforcement required to resist the chord forces is calculated as follows:
Along grid lines 1 and 8 (between grid lines A and B):
Chord force Ttotal = T1 + T2 = 27.4 kips + 56.5 kips = 83.9 kips (for magnitude of T1 force, see calculations
in Section 3.2)
Ttotal 83.9 k
As = = = 1.55 in 2
φf y (0.9)(60 ksi)
Therefore, provide ten #4 at the slab edge, As provided = 2.0 in2.
This reinforcement can be reduced, based on the bending moment producing primary chord forces T1 and
C1, since it decreases between grid lines B and D.
Along grid lines 1 and 8 at grid line C:
Moment at grid line C, M = 2263 kip-ft
Chord force:
M ⎛ 2263 kip-ft ⎞
Tc = Cc = λ = (1.27) ⎜ ⎟ = 21.4 kips
D1 ⎝ 134.5 ft ⎠
Tc 21.4
As = = = 0.4 in 2
φf y (0.9)(60 ksi)
Therefore, provide two #4 at the slab edge, As provided = 0.4 in2 between grid lines C and D.
Along grid lines 3 and 5:
Chord force T2 = 56.5 k (see calculations in Section 3.2)

101584953
T2 56.5 k
Required As = = = 1.05 in 2
φf y (0.9)(60 ksi)
Provide six #4 bars over the 4-foot width of the slab; see Figures 7-15 and 7-16 for reinforcement details
along grid lines 3 and 5.
Provided As = (0.2 in2)(6) = 1.2 in2.
Figure 7-15. Chord reinforcement detail at opening

101584953
Figure 7-16. Chord reinforcement plan for seismic force in east-west direction
5. Collector Design
5.1 COLLECTOR FORCE ASCE 7
The collector beams at grid lines A and D on the third floor shall be designed for the diaphragm force level
load. Take the collector at grid line D as an example:
F3rd floor (Line D) = 193 kips (see calculations in Section 3)

Fpx = lF3rd floor (Line D) = 1.27(193 kips) = 245 kips
Calculate the distributed diaphragm and shear wall resistance forces as follows:
vdiaphragm = Fpx /Ldiaphragm = (245 kips)/(138.5 ft) = 1.77 klf

vwall = Fpx /Lwall = (245 ki[s)/(66.5 ft) = 3.68 klf
FC3 = (vdiaphragm − vwall)(L1−3) = (1.77 klf − 3.68 klf)(36.5 ft) = −69.7 kips
FC6 = (vdiaphragm)(L1−6) − (Vwall)(L1−3)
= (1.77 klf)(108.5 ft) − (3.68 klf)(36.5 ft) = 57.7 kips

101584953
Figure 7-17. Collector force diagram
Per collector diagram in Figure 7-17, the maximum axial force on the collector beam is
Tu = Cu = 69.7 kips
In structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F, collector elements and their

connections, including connections to vertical elements, shall be designed to resist the maximum
of the following: §12.10.2
1. Ω0Fx (where Fx per Section 12.8 or 12.9.1)
2. Ω0Fpx (where Fpx per Equation 12.10-1)
3. Collector force based on Equation 12.10-2, Fpx = 0.2SDS Iewpx
In accordance with Table 12.2-1, Ω0 = 2.5; the collector force is calculated as:
1. Ω0Fx = 2.5(69.7 kips)/(1.27) = 137 kips (collector design force)
2. Ω0Fpx = 2.5(69.7 kips) = 174 kips (collector design force) . . . governs
3. 0.2SDS Iewpx = 0.2(1.285)(1.5)(1206 kips)/2* = 191.0 kips**; collector design force = 80.5 kips
wpx shall be the weight tributary to each of the two collector lines in the direction being considered. To
simplify for this example, assume the weight tributary to collector at grid line D is approximately one-half
of the total diaphragm weight. For wpx calculation, see “Floor and Roof Weights” in Section 1.
*
Force is divided by a factor of two, as there are two lines of resistance (along grid lines A and D).
**
This force represents the diaphragm load along grid line D. Calculate collector force similar to the
procedure described in Section 5.1.

101584953
5.2 DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
The load combination used for the collector design as shown in Section 2.3 is 1.457D + 0.5L + Ω0QE,
where Ω0QE is as the collector force from Section 5.1, calculated based on code provisions.
5.3 COLLECTOR BEAM DESIGN
Flexure
The flexural demand on the collector beams is due to the gravity loading, designed for 1.2D + 1.6L.
Collector beam size: 21 inches × 24 inches on grid line D.
Per the load table in Part 1, on typical floors,
Total superimposed dead load = 20 psf
7¼-inch normal weight concrete slab = (150 pcf)(7.25 in/12) = 91 psf
ΣDL = 111 psf = 0.111 ksf
Tributary dead load to the beam:
(wgravity DL)u = (0.111 ksf)(7.5 ft)DL + (0.15 kcf)(24 in/12)(21 in/12)Beam self-weight = 1.36 klf
(wgravity LL)u = (0.06 ksf)(7.5 ft) = 0.45 klf
(Mgravity)u = 1.2D + 1.6L = [(1.2)(1.36 klf) + (1.6)(0.45 klf)](24)2/8 = 169.3 kip-ft
(As)req’d = 1.6 in2
Provide four #9 bars at the bottom, (As)prov’d = 4.0 in2 > (As)req’d, . . . OK
For the seismic loading, design for 1.457D + 0.5L + Ω0QE:
(Mgravity)u = 1.457D + 0.5L = [(1.457)(1.36 klf) + (0.5)(0.45 klf)](24 ft)2/8 = 159 kip-ft
Pu = ±175 kips (see Section 5.1)
The collector beam is designed as beam-column element; an interaction diagram has been created for the
collector, as shown in Figure 7-18.

101584953
Figure 7-18. Collector beam P-M diagram
In summary, use four #9 bars at the bottom, four #8 bars at the top, and two #8 bars on each side for the
collector beam. For reinforcement detail, see Figure 7-19.

101584953
Figure 7-19. Collector beam and diaphragm chord reinforcement detail
Note that special transverse reinforcement in accordance with ACI 318 Section 18.12.7.6 is required for
collector elements with compressive stresses exceeding 0.2f c' . The special transverse reinforcement shall
be permitted to be discontinued at sections where the calculated compressive stress is less than 0.15f c' .
Note that because the axial load has been amplified by the overstrength factor, Section 18.12.7.6 states that
the limit of 0.2f c' shall be increased to 0.5f c' , and the limit of 0.15f c' shall be increased to 0.4f c' . To check if
special transverse reinforcing is required:
Fc = Pu /Ag = 174 kips / (21 in)(24 in) = 0.35 ksi < 0.5f c' = 2 ksi
Also, Fc /f c' = (0.35 ksi)/(4 ksi) = 0.088 < 0.15f c'
Therefore, special transverse reinforcement is not required. The collector beam should also be checked and
designed for shear force, which is not included in this example.

101584953
6. Comparison of Diaphragm Force and Chord Force Using Rigid

Diaphragm Assumption and Hand Calculations vs. Computer Model
Analysis with Semirigid Diaphragm Assumption
6.1 CASE STUDIES
The object of this study is to compare the results from the semirigid diaphragm analysis to that of rigid
diaphragm analysis and draw some conclusions.
Case 1: Semirigid Diaphragm without Opening
In order to model the semirigid diaphragm, the same building used in the rigid diaphragm example is used
for comparison. The diaphragm at the third level is used for this study.
Modeling assumptions:
• Diaphragm is modeled as semirigid using a shell element with a fine mesh.
• Diaphragm out-of-plane stiffness is not considered (i.e., diaphragm is restrained for out-of-plane
displacements).
• Actual thickness of the concrete slab is used in the semirigid model without any stiffness
modifiers.
Figure 7-20. Case 1: Resultant F22 force diagram on the diaphragm
Figure 7-20 shows the semirigid diaphragm that represents the 7¼-inch-thick concrete slab. In this
example, the ETABS computer program has been used to model the semirigid diaphragm. It should be
noted that the user can use any other suitable computer program to model the semirigid diaphragm and to
obtain internal diaphragm demands. “Section Cuts,” as defined in the ETABS program, has been used to
calculate diaphragm internal demands.

101584953
Draw Section Cut “1–1” across the diaphragm as shown in Figure 7-20. The program then calculates the
internal diaphragm demands based on the model definition. This includes the diaphragm mass, tributary
wall load, self-weight, and superimposed dead load, with the semirigid diaphragm defined. The lateral load
defined in this model is in the east-west direction (longitudinal direction), with the center of mass displaced
to account for positive 5 percent eccentricity. Note that the force calculated by the program for the analysis
is based on the story shear force distribution, and therefore the results must be scaled by the λ factor as
explained in Section 2.6 in order to get the code-defined diaphragm force for design.
The internal chord force at the Section Cut “1–1” is given in the following table by the ETABS program.
This is the force that is acting in the local axis “2” direction and is due to the diaphragm flexure.
To obtain the chord force from the program, select “Display,” then “Member Forces/Stresses Diaphragm,”
then “Shell Stresses/Forces,” then choose the appropriate load case, then select “Forces” under component
type, then “F22” under component, and finally select “At all Joints” under stress averaging.
Figure 7-21. Case 1: Section-Cut forces on the diaphragm
From the table, the integrated chord force along the Section Cut F22 = 17.6 kips at a distance of 30 feet
from grid line A over a distance of 6 feet beyond grid line 1. If chord reinforcement is provided over a
distance of 6 feet at both sides of the diaphragm near grid line 1 and grid line 8, the effective diaphragm
depth D = 138.5 ft − 2(6 ft/2) = 132.5 ft.
l = 1.0 (assumed)

101584953
Therefore, the maximum chord force is
T = C = lF22 = 1.0(17.6 kip-ft) = 17.6 kips
Case 2: Rigid Diaphragm without Opening
The model in Case 1 is revised by defining the diaphragm as rigid. The ETABS program is used to run
the analysis to obtain the story shears. As described in Section 3.1, the reactions at grid lines A and D are
calculated for the rigid diaphragm at the third level.
RA = F3rd Story (Line A) = 321 kips

RD = F3rd Story (Line D) = 187 kips
L = total diaphragm length = 49.83 ft
Using hand calculation and beam model assumption with a distributed load as shown in Figure 7-22, solve
for w1, w2 and Mmax:
w1 = 18.3 klf
w2 = 2.12 klf
Mmax = 3217 k-ft (maximum moment at a distance of 21 feet from grid line A)
Figure 7-22. Beam model of diaphragm in the east-west direction
Effective diaphragm depth D = 138.5 ft − 2(6 ft/2) = 132.5 ft
l = 1.0
Therefore, the maximum chord force
max M 3217 k-ft

T1 = C1 = λ= (1.0) = 24.3 kips
D 132.5 ft

101584953
Conclusion:
It is observed that for the case without openings in the diaphragm, the chord forces obtained using
simplified rigid diaphragm analysis are about 38 percent greater than those obtained from the semirigid
model. The simplified beam model generally produces conservative results.
6.2 CASE STUDY—DIAPHRAGM WITH OPENINGS
The object of this study is to compare the results from the semirigid diaphragm analysis to that of rigid
diaphragm analysis and draw some conclusions.
Case 1: Semirigid Diaphragm with Opening
Figure 7-23. Case 3: F22 Force diagram on the diaphragm
Draw Section Cuts 1–1, 2–2, 3–3, and 4–4 across the diaphragm as shown in Figure 7-23, based on the
observation of peak value locations. The program then calculates the internal diaphragm demands based on
the model definition as described in Case 1.
At Section Cut 1–1:

The integrated chord force along Section Cut F22 = 39.5 kips (tension) at a distance of 22 feet from grid line
A over a distance of 6 feet beyond grid line 1. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a distance of 6
feet at both sides of the diaphragm, near grid line 1 and grid line 8, then:
Effective diaphragm depth D = 138.5 ft -2(6 ft/2) = 132.5 ft
l = 1.27 (see calculation in Section 2.6)
T = C = lF22 = 1.27(39.5 kips) = 50.1 kips (at grid line 1)

101584953

The integrated chord force along the Section cut F22 = −41 kips (compression) at a distance of 21.5 feet
from grid line A over a distance of 4 feet beyond grid line 3. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a
distance of 4 feet at the edge of diaphragm near grid line 3, then:
T = C = lF22 = 1.27(41 kips) = 52.1 kips (at grid line 3)

The integrated chord force along the Section Cut F22 = 23 kips (tension) at a distance of 21.5 feet from grid
line A over a distance of 4 feet beyond grid line 5. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a distance of
4 feet at the edge of diaphragm near grid line 5, then:
T = C = lF22 = 1.27(23 kips) = 29.2 kips (at grid line 5)

The integrated chord force along the Section Cut F22 = −12.8 kips (compression) at a distance of 22 feet
from grid line A over a distance of 6 feet beyond grid line 8. If the chord reinforcement is provided over a
distance of 6 feet at the edge of diaphragm near grid line 8, then:
T = C = lF22 = 1.27(12.8 kips) = 16.3 kips (at grid line 8)
Case 2: Rigid Diaphragm with Opening
The chord force using hand calculation with rigid diaphragm assumption is illustrated in Section 3-2:
The resulting chord force at grid lines 1 and 8, between grid lines A to C: T = C = 27.37 kips + 56.5 kips =
83.87 kips (compared with 50.1 kips at grid line 1 and 16.3 kips at grid line 8 from the semirigid diaphragm
analysis).
The resulting chord force along grid lines 1 and 8 at grid line C: T = C = 21.3 kips (compared with 16.3
kips at grid line 1/C from the semirigid diaphragm analysis).
The resulting chord force at grid lines 3 and 5: T = C = 56.5 kips (compared with 52.1 kips at grid line 3,
29.2 kips at grid line 5 from the semirigid diaphragm analysis).

101584953
6.3 CALCULATION OF DIAPHRAGM DEMANDS
Calculation of Diaphragm Demands for Fpx Loads
As noted earlier, the following procedure may be used to correctly calculate the diaphragm demands due to
code-prescribed Fpx forces per ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1.1:
1. Define static load case A using ASCE 7 equation 12.8-12 (triangular load distribution of story
shear Fxi).
2. Calculate load case B = Fpi − ρFxi at each level (Fpi is the diaphragm force required by Equation
12-10-1).
3. Define load combination: Load case A + Load case B for each level.
4. Run analysis for center of mass and positive and negative eccentricity for load combinations
defined in step 3 for each level and for each direction of loading.
5. After analysis, internal diaphragm forces could be obtained by drawing Section Cuts, as shown
in Section 6.1, or using the simplified approach (rigid diaphragm assumption), as shown in
Section 3.1, for the design of diaphragm chords and collectors.
Conclusion
By comparing the results from cases 1 and 2 of Section 6.2, the following observations can be made:
a. The results obtained by drawing the free-body diaphragm for the rigid diaphragm case for
calculating the chord force at grid line 3 compares well (9 percent difference) with that
obtained from the semirigid analysis (56.5 kips vs. 52.1 kips). However, the hand calculation
overestimates the chord force at grid line 1 (by 70 percent) between grid lines A to B when
compared with the results from semirigid diaphragm analysis (83.8 kips vs. 50.1 kips). At grid
line 1/C, the hand calculation overestimates the chord force by 39 percent when compared with
the results from the semirigid diaphragm analysis (21.3 kips vs. 15.3 kips). The user has to use
his or her judgment before using the simplified approach.
b. Use of the l scale factor to amplify the results from the story force (Fx) to obtain diaphragm
story shears is appropriate only for buildings without any irregularities (horizontal and vertical)
as defined in ASCE 7. For buildings with and without irregularities, the correct way to obtain
the diaphragm story shears is to use the procedure outlined in Section 6.3.
c. For buildings without irregularities and a well-distributed lateral-load-resisting system and with
simple geometry, the simplified approach using the rigid diaphragm assumption (procedure as
shown in the design example) may be used to calculate the diaphragm and collector demands.
However, the rigid diaphragm idealization requirements per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.1.2 should be
satisfied.
d. Results obtained from the semirigid diaphragm are very sensitive to the size of the finite
element mesh that is used to model the diaphragm. The user is cautioned to avoid using odd-
shaped elements when modeling the diaphragm, and the use of a finer mesh is recommended
around the diaphragm openings.

101584953
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his deep gratitude and sincere appreciation to Ms. Yixia Liu, P.E., Project
Engineer, TTG Engineers, San Francisco, CA, for her great help in preparing and checking this example.
Thanks are also due to Dr. Theodore Zsutty for reviewing this example. His input was invaluable and is
much appreciated. Finally, the author wishes to express his sincere thanks to the following persons for their
help during the preparation of this example:
Dr. Rahul Rana S.E. IMEG Corp., Pasadena, CA

Mr. Dhawal Agarwal S.E. IMEG Corp., Pasadena, CA
Mr. Syed Hasanain Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA
Mr. Sriram Sankaranarayanan P.E. OLMM Consulting Engineers, San Francisco, CA

101584953

101584953
Design Example 8
Reinforced Concrete Ductile Coupled Walls
OVERVIEW
This design example is intended to illustrate design requirements for ductile coupled wall systems, a new
lateral-force-resisting system defined in ACI 318-19 (ACI 318) and ASCE 7-22 (ASCE 7). In addition,
this example illustrates several ACI 318-required concepts associated with the use of using A706 Grade 80
reinforcing for walls.
Reinforced concrete coupled shear walls consist of shear walls connected by coupling beams. In an
earthquake, the coupling beams can act as additional energy dissipating elements and provide higher energy
dissipation compared to uncoupled (isolated) walls. This greater ductility of coupled walls in seismic-
resistant design has been recognized in the engineering community for some time (Bertero 1977). For
many years, both Canadian and New Zealand building codes recognized both coupled shear wall systems
and isolated shear wall systems. While the ACI 318 committee understood the value of coupled walls for
some time, the committee did not recognize the ductile coupled wall as a separate system prior to the 2019
version of the ACI 318. A FEMA P-695 (Tauberg et al. 2019) study demonstrated that a higher R-factor
of 8 can be used for ductile coupled shear walls. Based partially on this work, this system has been added
to Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-22. While not yet included in the 2021 California Building Code, SEAOC is
satisfied that there has been enough research and study of this R-factor and recommends its immediate use.
The main difference in seismic behavior between coupled and uncoupled walls is in the source of
inelasticity. In uncoupled walls, usually a single critical section is designed to yield. This section is often
located at the base or near the base of the wall. In coupled walls, the coupling beams provide the primary
source of inelasticity, increasing the overall energy dissipation compared to the single critical section of an
uncoupled wall.

101584953
Design Example 8 ■ Reinforced Concrete Ductile Coupled Walls
OUTLINE
4. Coupling Beam Strength and Diagonal Reinforcement
5. Flexural Reinforcement of Wall Piers
7. Detailing of Wall-Pier Boundary Elements
8. Detailing of Coupling Beams
9. Design and Detailing Considerations
Figure 8-1. Shear wall elevation

101584953
Figure 8-2. Typical floor plan
The design building is an eight-story reinforced concrete building. It is a square in plan with perimeter
dimensions of 129 × 129 feet. The lateral-force-resisting system is formed by a perimeter coupled concrete
wall as shown in Figure 8-2. An elevation view of a representative wall is shown in Figure 8-1. The
floor diaphragm consists of an 8-inch concrete slab transferring the seismic load from the floors to each
perimeter wall. Design information about the building is given here.
Occupancy: Office
Location: Downtown San Francisco
SS = 1.60g
S1 = 0.65g
Site Class D
SDS = 1.07
Risk Category: II
Concrete strength, fc' = 6000 psi
Reinforcement yield strength, fy = 80 ksi (A706)

101584953
The building was analyzed using the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) procedure. Table 8-1 shows seismic
and gravity forces acting on selected walls of interest.
Table 8-1. Pier forces
Gravity Loads
Story Fx Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3
DL LL DL LL DL LL
Roof 201k 47k 3k 51k 4k 20k 2k
8th 176k 96k 9k 104k 10k 40k 5k
7th 152k 142k 15k 155k 17k 60k 8k
6th 128k 189k 21k 207k 24k 80k 12k
5th 105k 237k 27k 259k 30k 100k 16k
4th 80k 284k 34k 310k 36k 121k 19k
3rd 57k 332k 40k 360k 42k 142k 23k
2nd 33k 397k 46k 431k 49k 169k 27k
1.3 MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
1.3.1 CAPTURING P-DELTA BEHAVIOR IN ANALYSIS
P-delta (P-Δ) has the effect of increasing the drifts and element forces in a building compared to what is
calculated in a first order elastic analysis. The P-Δ effect is generally more of a concern for moment frame
buildings rather than concrete wall buildings. However, it is likely that the P-Δ effect will have an influence
on tall buildings using the coupled wall lateral system, which are usually designed to the drift limit. Since
coupled shear wall buildings tend to drift more than uncoupled shear wall buildings, P-Δ may influence the
design of these buildings. The calculation of P-Δ is beyond the scope of this design example.
1.3.2 EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS OF A COUPLING BEAM
Reinforced concrete members designed for high seismic loads will behave nonlinearly due to cracking,
spalling and crushing of concrete, and yielding of reinforcement. To account for the nonlinearity and
softening behavior, linear analysis uses effective stiffness of the members as a proxy. The following
paragraphs summarize the effective stiffness of a coupling beam section, Ie, as a fraction of the gross
moment of inertia of a section, Ig.
New Zealand Standard 3101 (NZS 2017): For an Ultimate Level Service (comparable to MCE) event, the
New Zealand Standard requires use of 0.60Ig, given that the coupling beam is diagonally reinforced. For
serviceability, this standard requires using 0.75Ig.

101584953
Paulay and Priestley (Paulay 1992): Paulay and Priestley provide two equations: one for diagonally
reinforced coupling beams and the other for conventionally reinforced coupling beams.
2
⎡ ⎛h⎞ ⎤
I e = 0.4 I g / ⎢1 + 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beam
⎢⎣ ⎝ ln ⎠ ⎥⎦
2
⎡ ⎛h⎞ ⎤
I e = 0.2 I g / ⎢1 + 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ Conventionally Reinforced Coupling Beam
⎢⎣ ⎝ ln ⎠ ⎥⎦
PEER TBI 2.0 (PEER 2017) and LATBSDC (LATBSDC 2020): These two documents recommend an
effective flexure stiffness equal to 0.07(ln/h)Ig (PEER Table 4-3). This stiffness was determined based on
trends observed from over 100 test specimens (Taubery, 2019). The FEMA P-695 (Taubery, 2019) studies
performed to validate concrete ductile coupled wall systems used these values for their models.
For this example, the recommendation from PEER TBI 2.0 and LATBSDC are used. The stiffness
modification factors applied in the model are:
⎛l ⎞ ⎛8⎞
Coupling Beam at Second Floor: 0.07 ⎜ n ⎟ I g = 0.07 ⎜ ⎟ I g = 0.14 I g PEER T 4-3
⎝h⎠ ⎝4⎠
⎛l ⎞ ⎛8⎞
Coupling Beam at Regular Floor: 0.07 ⎜ n ⎟ I g = 0.07 ⎜ ⎟ I g = 0.28 I g PEER T 4-3
⎝h⎠ ⎝2⎠
The stiffness modifier recommended by PEER TBI 2.0 and LATBSDC include the slab contribution to
effective stiffness due to its effective width and axial restraint.
A comparison study of the forces in the coupling beams with different stiffness modifiers is shown below.
The concrete modifiers for coupling beams vary from standard to standard and this study was done to
provide insight on the effect these modifiers have on the load distribution to the piers and coupling beams.
Both models use shell elements. The two models have the following stiffness modifiers, which follow the
recommendations from PEER TBI and ACI 318, respectively.
Model 01
Wall Modifier: 0.7Ig

Coupling Beam at Second Floor: 0.14Ig
Coupling Beam at Regular Floor: 0.28Ig
Model 02
Wall Modifier: 0.35Ig

Coupling Beam at Second Floor: 0.35Ig
Coupling Beam at Regular Floor: 0.35Ig
Comparison plots of the axial force and moment in Pier 1 and shear force and moment in third-story
spandrel between grid lines D and E are shown in Figures 8-3 and 8-4.

101584953
Figure 8-3. Comparison of Pier 1 forces

101584953
Figure 8-4. Comparison of third-story spandrel forces
As shown in the plots in Figures 8-3 and 8-4, the stiffness modifiers affect the force distribution in the wall
piers and spandrels. The forces are comparable at the top of the coupled wall, but large discrepancies can
be seen near the bottom. The percent difference at the base of Pier 1 is 21.3 percent, 1.4 percent, and 33.5
percent for axial force, shear force, and moment. The percent difference in the level 2 spandrel is 169.4
percent, 52.4 percent, and 51.8 percent for axial force, shear force, and moment. While this study is not
an exhaustive study on stiffness modifiers for modeling concrete structures, it indicates that variations
in modifiers can lead to differences in design. It can be observed that smaller modification factors on the
coupling beams results in less force (shear and moment) in the coupling beam and more force (shear and
moment) in the piers. Coupling beam designs using these lower modification values are likely to yield at
lower forces and this could provide more overall energy dissipation.

101584953
A Structure magazine article, “Effective Stiffness for Modeling Reinforced Concrete Structures” by
SEAONC Seismology Concrete Subcommittee (Wong et al. 2017), summarized modification factors
prescribed by different building codes. This design example follows the recommendations from PEER TBI
2.0 and Tauberg et al. (2019).
1.3.5 AXIAL FORCE DUE TO SEISMIC LOADS IN WALL PIERS
One major difference between coupled walls and uncoupled walls is the earthquake axial demand in the
wall piers. Coupled walls tend to see a large axial force due to seismic loads and this should be accounted
for by the designer. While engineers may not be too concerned about axial loads for uncoupled walls, axial
loads should be considered for coupled walls.
Furthermore, linear analysis does not capture the force redistribution between the coupled wall piers
after onset of inelastic behavior. As the wall begins to behave nonlinearly, the tension wall pier tends to
soften and sheds load to the compression pier. This phenomenon has been observed in experiments and
is sometimes referred to as the tension shift (Moehle et al. 2012). This effect is not considered in linear
analysis and is not addressed in ACI 318.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DUCTILE COUPLED WALLS IN ACI 318

AND ASCE 7
ACI 318 presents requirements for the design and proportioning of a structural system to qualify as a
ductile coupled wall system. The requirements are based on studies performed on coupled shear walls,
which investigated the amount of energy dissipation based on different variables. This research was internal
work done by the committee and is summarized in S.K. Ghosh’s SEAOC paper on this topic (Ghosh 2019).
ACI 318 Section 18.10.9 provides design and detailing requirements for ductile coupled walls. Section
18.10.9.2 requires the aspect ratio of the individual wall piers to be greater than 2.0 and to meet the
applicable design and detailing requirements for special structural walls. Sections 18.10.9.3(a) and (b)
require the coupling beam aspect ratios to be greater than 2 at all levels of the building and less than 5 for at
least 90 percent of the levels of the building. Section 18.10.9.3(c) requires the coupling beam reinforcement
to be adequately developed for 1.25fy in tension at both ends of each coupling beam.
ASCE 7 features ductile coupled reinforced concrete shear walls as line items in Table 12.2-1 under
Bearing Wall Systems, Building Frame Systems, and Dual Systems with Special Moment Frames. The
system has an R and Cd of 8 and Ω0 of 2.5. There are no maximum height limits for Seismic Design
Category (SDC) C and lower, nor for dual systems. For bearing wall and building frame systems, the limits
are 160 feet and 100 feet, respectively, for SDC D, E, and F. These limits can be further increased to 240
feet and 160 feet, respectively, per Section 12.2.5.4 if the building satisfies the requirements of this section.
In addition, Section 11.2 imposes a minimum height limit of 60 feet in the definition of a ductile coupled
wall (Table 12.2, footnote q). This limit is to ensure an adequate degree of coupling and energy dissipation
provided by the coupling beams (Ghosh 2019).
1.5 USE OF HIGH STRENGTH REINFORCEMENT IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS
ACI 318 extends the use of Grade 80 and Grade 100 reinforcement to special seismic systems. Per Table
20.2.2.4(a), longitudinal bars shall be A706, while transverse reinforcement (both for support/confinement
and for shear strength) are permitted to be A615. Section 20.2 presents requirements on high-strength
reinforcement uniform elongation and deformation geometry. These requirements are beyond what is
specified in relevant ASTM standards and the engineer should include them in their General Notes. More
discussion on the use of high-strength reinforcement in seismic areas is provided in Chen et al. (2020).

101584953
The requirements related to high-strength reinforcement are further extended in Chapter 18 in sections
related to each lateral system. For structural walls, the limits are tightened on spacing of transverse
reinforcement. Table 8-2 shows the transverse reinforcement spacing limits for coupled wall elements.
Lastly, rebar strength in shear friction capacity calculation is limited to 60 ksi per Table 20.2.2.4(a).
Table 8-2. Transverse reinforcement requirement for A706 Gr. 80
Spacing of transverse reinforcement—

Element minimum of: Reference
Special Boundary Elements 6 in 5db — Table 18.10.6.5(b)
Coupling Beams—diagonal 6 in 6db* — Sec. 18.10.7.4(d)
Coupling Beams—conventional 6 in 5db d/4 Sec. 18.6.4.4
* While the code does not require it, the authors of this example recommend that the spacing be limited to
5db to be consistent with spacing requirements for other elements, as well as experimental testing (Weber-
Kamin et al. 2019).
The engineer shall always check all load combinations as prescribed by the governing building code. The
governing load combinations for lateral design in this design example are:
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρE + f1L + 0.2S

(0.9 - 0.2SDS)D + ρE
With SDS = 1.280g, ρ = 1.00, and a live load factor of 0.5, the governing load combinations become
1.46D + E + 0.5L
0.64D + E
3. Preliminary Sizing of Wall ACI 318
For walls with less than 14-inch thickness, the coupling beam reinforcement can get congested and difficult
to install. Details of these coupling beams should be carefully inspected to ensure feasibility. However, with
the new requirements in ACI 318-19 on shear amplification, it is unlikely that walls will be designed this
thin. Based on the large variation in axial force in the end piers, the overstrength factor Ωv (as defined in
ACI 318 Section 2.2, which is different from ASCE 7 overstrength) is expected to be relatively high. The
axial load that provides the highest value for Ωv should be used for its calculation, as discussed in the ACI
318 commentary. As such, for preliminary sizing, the wall can be in proportion to 3Vu, which is an upper
limit on wall design shear. The size is then selected to satisfy Section 18.10.4.4.
Vu = 476 kips
Ve = 3 × Vu = 1428 kips Eq 18.10.3.1
φVn = φ8 f c Aw §18.10.4.4
ʹ

101584953
assume φVn = Ve and rearrange:

Ve
φ
b= (Aw = b × lw, where b is the wall thickness and lw is the wall length)
8 f cʹlw
use φ = 0.75 per §18.10.4.6 (Note: φ = 0.60 per Section 21.2.4.1 no longer applies; see
Section 18.10.4.6)
b = 25.6 in
For this project, a preliminary wall thickness of 26 inches is chosen.
4. Coupling Beam Strength and Diagonal Reinforcement ACI 318
4.1 DIAGONAL COUPLING BEAMS VERSUS CONVENTIONAL COUPLING BEAMS
ACI 318 requires that the coupling beams for ductile coupled shear walls have an aspect ratio (ln/h)
of at least 2 at all levels and a maximum of 5 in at least 90 percent of building levels. Further, Section
18.10.7 specifies that coupling beams with aspect ratios greater than or equal to 4 shall be detailed as
special moment frame beams. For aspect ratios between 2 and 4, the designer has an option to detail the
coupling beam as either diagonally reinforced or conventionally reinforced. Moehle et al. (2012) present
recommendations on detailing preference. Although not required by ACI 318, their recommendation is that
Vu ln
coupling beams in this aspect ratio range with f cʹ > should be designed as diagonally reinforced
bw d h
whereas coupling with lower shear demands can be detailed as special moment frame beams.
4.2 DESIGN OF CONVENTIONAL REINFORCEMENT
Coupling beams with an aspect ratio, ln/h, greater than or equal to 4 shall be designed similarly to special
moment frame beams. Thus, these beams are designed for flexure yielding and capacity protected against
shear failure. The shear capacity of concrete is taken as zero for the beam plastic-hinge region. For this
example, the coupling beam on the third floor between grid lines C and D is designed.
Mu = 561 kip-ft
Try (6) #8 ASTM A706 Gr. 80 bars top and bottom
⎛ a⎞
φM n = φAs Fy ⎜ d − ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
As = 6 × 0.79 in = 4.74 in2
2
(4.74 in 2 )(80 ksi)

a= = 2.86 in
0.85(6 ksi)(26 in )
⎛ 2.86 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ft ⎞
φM n = (0.9)(4.74 in 2 )(80 ksi) ⎜ 22 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 585 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 in ⎠

101584953
Check if flexure reinforcment meets minimum and maximum requirements in Sections 9.6.1.2 and 18.6.3.1.
3 f cʹ 3 6000 psi
As ,min = bw d = (26 in)(22 in) = 1.66 in 2 < 4.74 in 2
fy 80,000 psi
200 200
As ,min = bw d = (26 in )(22 in ) = 1.43 in 2 < 4.74 in 2
fy 80, 000 psi
As,max = 0.02bwd = 0.02(26)(22) = 11.44 in2 > 4.74 in2
Calculate the proabable flexure strength of the beam. The probable moment should account for the effective
slab width when in compression and reinforcement in the slab in effective width when in tension.
(4.74 in 2 )(80 ksi × 1.25)

a+ = = 2.45 in
0.85(6 ksi)(38 in )
⎛ 2.45 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ft ⎞
M pr+ = (4.74 in 2 )(80 ksi × 1.25) ⎜ 22 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 821 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 in ⎠
The effective flange width is calculated per Table 6.3.2.1.

⎧
⎪ 6h = 6 × 8 in = 48 in
⎪
beff = min ⎨ sw / 2 = 154 in / 2 = 77 in
⎪ 8 ft × 12 in / ft
⎪ln / 8 = = 12 in
⎩ 8
Assume (2) #5 bars are located within the effective width
(4.74 in 2 + 2 × 0.31 in 2 )(80 ksi × 1.25)

a− = = 4.04 in
0.85(6 ksi)(26 in )
⎛ 4.04 in ⎞ ⎛ 1 ft ⎞
M pr− = (4.74 in 2 + 2 × 0.31 in 2 )(80 ksi × 1.25) ⎜ 22 in − ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 892 kip-ft
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 12 in ⎠
Calculate the required shear demand on the beam
M pr − + M pr +
VE = + Vgravity
ln
2 M pr 798 kip-ft + 892 kip-ft
= = 211 kips
ln 8 ft
⎛ 8 ft ⎞
Vgravity = [(1.45)(750 plf ) + (0.5)(375 plf )] ⎜ ⎟ = 5 kips
⎝ 2 ⎠
VE = 211 kips + 5 kips = 216 kips
Try #4 Gr. 80 closed hoop with (2) crossties at 4 inches o.c.
φAv f y d 0.75(4 × 0.20 in 2 )(80 ksi)(22 in )

φVn = φVs = = = 264 kips
s 4
Since this beam’s depth is less than 36 inches, skin reinforcement is not required per Section 9.7.2.3.

101584953
4.3 DESIGN FOR DIAGONAL COUPLING BEAMS
Coupling beams with an aspect ratio, ln/h, less than 2 and a shear demand, Vu, greater than 4λ f cʹ Acw
are required to be designed with diagonal reinforcement. The diagonal bars are designed for the beam’s
shear demand. Implicitly, the moment demand is automatically accounted for, as noted in the ACI 318
commentary. This can be visualized by considering the diagonal reinforcement as a truss and calculating
equilibrium through intersection of diagional reinforcement. The coupling beam on the second floor
between grid lines D and E is worked out in detail. Per Section 21.2.4.4, the strength reduction factor is
f = 0.85 for diagonally reinforced coupling beams.
Vu = 203 kips
Vu 203 kips × 1000 lb/kip
= = 2.1 (Note: this coupling beam could have been detailed as a
bw h f cʹ (26)(48) (6000 psi) convention coupling beam as well.)
Try (4) #9 bars in each diagonal bundle.
fVn = f2Avd fy sin α = (0.85)(2)(4 × 1.0 in2)(80 ksi) sin(25.1) = 231 kips
The demand is below the capacity of the coupling beam and therefore, the design is acceptable. Equation
18.10.7.4 requires that we check the maximum shear allowed; thus:
⎛ 1 kip ⎞
Vn = 272 kips < 10 f cʹ Acw = 10 6000 psi(26 × 48) ⎜ ps
⎟ = 967 kip
⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
5. Detailing of Coupling Beams ACI 318
5.1 DETAILING OF CONVENTION COUPLING BEAM
Coupling beams with an aspect ratio, ln/h, greater than or equal to 4 shall be designed and detailed as
special moment frame beams in accordance with Section 18.10.7.1. A plastic-hinge region is defined as
twice the beam depth from the face of the wall pier, and more stringent detailing provisions are required in
this location.
In the plastic-hinge region, hoops are required per Section 18.6.4.1. The first hoop shall be spaced 2 inches
from the face of the wall pier per Section 18.6.4.4. The hoop spacing shall not exceed the lesser of these
three values:
d 22 in
= = 11 in
2 2
6 in
5db = 5(1 in) = 5 in
For this example, #5 hoops at 4 inches are used and satisfy the spacing requirements in the plastic-hinge
region.
Outside of the plastic-hinge region, stirrups with seismic hooks at the ends are permitted. In this example,
hoops are used the entire length of the beam.
Per Section 18.10.2.5, longitudinal reinforcement in coupling beams develops 1.25 times the value
calculated for development length of reinforcement in tension, per Section 25.4.2.4, in the wall pier.

101584953
Figure 8-5. Conventional coupling beam elevation
Figure 8-6. Conventional coupling beam section

101584953
5.2 DETAILING OF DIAGONAL COUPLING BEAM
Diagonal coupling beams can be designed with either of the two options in Section 18.10.7.4. One option
uses transverse ties around just the diagonal bars with additional minimum transverse reinforcement around
the perimeter of the beam, and the other option uses ties and crossties around the entire beam. For this
example, the latter option is used for the second floor beam between grid lines D and E. This detailing
option is chosen here as it is typically easier to build.
Section 18.10.7.4 recommends that the longitudinal spacing of ties should not exceed the lesser of 6 inches
and 6db of the smallest diagonal bar. However, to be more consistent with requirements in ACI 318 for
other elements with Grade 80 reinforcement, the longitudinal spacing of ties is limited to 5db as well. For
#9 diagonal bars, the longitudinal spacing should be not more than 6 inches. However, for this example,
spacing of ties 4 inches on center is chosen to satisfy the requirements in Section 18.10.7.4.
The required section-sectional area of transverse reinforcement, Ash, shall be at least the greater of (i) and
(ii) in Section 18.10.7.4(a). For this example, in the vertical direction
f cʹ 6000 psi
0.09 sbc = 0.09(4)(24) = 0.648 in 2
f yt 80, 000 psi
⎛ Ag ⎞ fʹ ⎛ 1248 in 2 ⎞ 6000 psi
0.3sbc ⎜ − 1⎟ c = 0.3(4)(24) ⎜ 2
− 1⎟ = 0.28 in 2
A
⎝ ch ⎠ yt f ⎝ 1104 in ⎠ 80, 000 psi
And in the horizontal direction
f cʹ 6000 psi
0.09 sbc = 0.09(4)(46) = 1.242 in 2
f yt 80, 000 psi
⎛ Ag ⎞ fʹ ⎛ 1248 in 2 ⎞ 6000 psi
0.3sbc ⎜ − 1⎟ c = 0.3(4)(46) ⎜ 2
− 1⎟ = 0.54 in 2
A
⎝ ch ⎠ yt f ⎝ 1104 in ⎠ 80, 000 psi
where
Ag = (26)(48) = 1248 in2

Ach = (23)(45) = 1035 in2
Use an outer #4 tie and (5) #4 crossties in the horizontal direction and (2) #4 crossties in the vertical
direction.
Each crosstie shall engage a longitudinal bar of equal or greater diameter. These longitudinal bars are not
intended to develop into the wall piers as the SEAOC Blue Book (2019) recommends that they extend only
6 inches past the coupling beam, and Figure R18.10.7b shows the bars do not develop.

101584953
5.3 DETAILING OF DIAGONAL COUPLING BEAM
Architectural requirements sometimes nessicatate doors be located near the end of walls, which causes
narrow wall piers. A structural concern for these narrow piers, when placed next to coupling beams, is that
the coupling beam reinforcement cannot get developed within the pier width. Per Section 18.10.2.5(b), the
bars in a reinforced coupling beam need a development length of at least 1.25 times the development length
of reinforcement in tension per Section 25.4.2.4. For coupling beam 02, this required length is calculated
here.
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 3 f y ψt ψeψ s ψ g ⎟
ld = d Eq 25.4.2.4a
⎜ 40 λ f ʹ ⎛ c + K ⎞ ⎟ b
c b tr
⎜⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ db ⎠ ⎠
ψt = 1.0
ψe = 1.0
ψs = 1.0
ψg = 1.15 (Note: ψg is a factor added to ACI 318 to
account for the reinforcement grade.)
40 Atr 40(2 × 1.27 in 2 )
K tr = = = 4.23 (Note: Ktr is determined based on the vertical
sn 6 in × 4 boundary element bars in the adjacent wall pier.)
cb + K tr
= (3 + 4.23) / 1.27 = 5.69 (Note: value limited to 2.5 per Section 25.4.2.4.)
db
⎛ 3 80, 000 psi (1.0)(1.0)(1.0)(1.15) ⎞
ld = ⎜ (1.128 in ) = 40.2 in
⎜ 40 (1.0) 6000 psi 2.5 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
1.25ld = 1.25(40.2 in) = 50.25 in
For this case, the development length of straight bars exceeds the length of the narrow wall pier. Headed
bars can be used to reduce the required development length these bars. The require length is recalculated
below if headed bars where used instead of straight bars.
⎛ f y ψ e ψ p ψ o ψ c ⎞ 1.5
ldt = ⎜ ⎟ db but not less than 8db and 6 in
⎜ 75 f cʹ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
ψe = 1.0
ψp = 1.6 (conservative)
ψo = 1.0
ψc = 1.0
⎛ 80, 000 psi (1.0)(1.6)(1.0)(1.0) ⎞
ldt = ⎜ ⎟⎟ (1.128 in)) = 24.9 in
⎜ 75 6000 psi
⎝ ⎠
1.25ld = 1.25(24.9 in) = 31.1 in
Horizontal distance = 31.1 in cos(25.1) = 28.2 < 35 in Okay for 3-foot pier.
One concern using headed bars in narrow piers is the potential for concrete breakout, especially if a large
quantity of bars with large diameters is used. This may be partially mitigated by staggering the heads in the
pier.

101584953
Figure 8-7. Diagonal coupling beam elevation
Figure 8-8. Diagonal coupling beam section

101584953
6. Flexural Reinforcement of Wall Piers ACI 318
6.1 DESIGN OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT
The wall piers need to be designed for the moment and axial forces at their critical sections. The critical
wall section is the location where the wall is likely to start yielding. For all three wall piers, the critical
section is located at their base. The longitudinal reinforcement can be reduced along the height of the wall
in accordance with Section 18.10.2.3. For this example, the base flexure reinforcement is considered for
Pier 2. (Pier 3 has its own discussion as it is designed based on requirements of Section 18.10.8.) This
calculation is checked using a P-M interaction diagram generated by SPColumn. Note that at the time of
writing, SPColumn as well as other commercial software did not support rebar yield strength higher than
80 ksi. As such, Mpr requiring 1.25fy was calculated using a spreadsheet verified against software for lower
steel strength. The engineer should verify that software does not limit yield strength of reinforcement. In
general, coupled walls, and especially end piers, tend to experience high axial demand in both compression
and tension due to the seismic force. These axial forces can have a big impact on the longitudinal
reinforcement in the wall.
Note that maximum spacing of web ties per Section 18.10.6.4(i) is 12 inches. As such, for constructability
reasons, it may be advantageous to space web horizontal reinforcement at 12 inches.
Summary of the design is found in Table 8-3 and Figure 8-9:
Table 8-3. Piers 1 and 2 reinforcement summary
Pier Boundary Bars Web vertical Horizontal

1 12-#10 #8 @12 in E.F. #9 @12 in E.F.
2 12-#11 #9 @12 in E.F. #9 @12 in E.F.
Figure 8-9. Pier reinforcement

101584953
Pier 1:
PD = 720 kips
PL = 47 kips
PE = ±1349 kips
ME = 9252 kip-ft
Load Combination (0.9 - 0.2SDS)D + E
Pu+ = (0.9 - 0.2 × 1.07)(720 k) + 1349 = 1843 kips
Pu- = (0.9 - 0.2 × 1.07)(720 k) - 1349 = -855 kips
Mu = 9252 kip-ft
Load Combination (1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + E
Pu+ = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1.07)(720 k) + 0.5(47) + 1349 = 2390 kips
Pu- = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1.07)(720 k) + 0.5(47) - 1349 = -307 kips
Mu = 9252 kip-ft
Table 8-4. Design forces for Pier 1
Loading Capacity Overstrength

Pu Mu fMn Mpr
DCR Wv
kips k-ft k-ft k-ft
1843 9252 18,724 0.49 22,781 2.46
-855 9252 9518 0.97 14,159 1.53
2390 9252 20,303 0.46 24,133 2.61
-307 9252 11,558 0.80 16,119 1.74
max 2.61
Where Ωv = Mpr /Mu and Mpr is calculated based on the wall’s moment capacity with longitudinal
reinforcement having a yield stress of 1.25fy.
Figure 8-10. P-M interaction for Pier 1

101584953
For Pier 2:
PD = 776 kips
PL = 47 kips
PE = ±452 kips
ME = 9551 kip-ft
Pu+ = (0.9 - 0.2 × 1.07)(776 k) + 452 = 984 kips
Pu- = (0.9 - 0.2 × 1.07)(776 k) - 452 = 80 kips
Mu = 9551 kip-ft
Pu+ = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1.07)(776 k) + 0.5(47) + 452 = 1573 kips
Pu- = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1.07)(776 k) + 0.5(47) - 452 = 669 kips
Mu = 9551 kip-ft
Loading Capacity Overstrength

Pu Mu fMn Mpr
DCR Wv
kips k-ft k-ft k-ft
984 9551 13,995 0.68 17,558 1.84
80 9551 10,703 0.89 14,469 1.51
1573 9551 15,890 0.60 19,336 2.02
669 9551 12,848 0.74 16,500 1.73
max 2.02

101584953
For Pier 3:
PD = 286 kips
PL = 27 kips
PE = ±898 kips
ME = 540 kip-ft
Pu+ = (0.9 - 0.2 × 1.07)(286 k) + 898 = 1094 kips
Pu- = (0.9 - 0.2 × 1.07)(286 k) - 898 = -702 kips
Mu = 540 kip-ft
Pu+ = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1.07)(286 k) + 0.5(27) + 898 = 1316 kips
Pu- = (1.2 + 0.2 × 1.07)(286 k) + 0.5(27) - 898 = -480 kips
Mu = 540 kip-ft
Pier 3 is designed according to Section 18.10.8, which references special moment frame column
requirements of Sections 18.7.4, 18.7.5, and 18.7.6. These sections correspond to flexural and transverse
reinforcement and shear strength. Section 18.10.8 offers an alternative to special moment frame column
design using requirements specifically developed for wall piers. However, given expected higher ductility
demands on ductile coupled shear wall (R = 8) rather than R = 6 for a conventional shear wall, special
moment frame column provisions are deemed more appropriate. In addition, while not required by the
code, the pier is designed to satisfy the strong-column/weak-beam (SCWB) provisions of Section 18.7.3.1.
The ductile coupled wall system relies on flexural yielding of coupling beams. Hence, in the opinion of the
authors, SCWB may help with forcing the plastic hinge into the beam. It should be noted that SCWB does
not guarantee the pier will not yield.
Use (14) #10 bars for the design.
Loading Capacity
Pu Mu fMn
DCR
kips k-ft k-ft
1094 540 1588 0.34
-702 540 760 0.71
1316 540 1317 0.41
-480 540 1019 0.53

101584953
7. Shear Reinforcement of Wall Piers ACI 318
7.1 ACI 318 REQUIREMENTS
Section 18.10.3 requires that the shear demand on structural walls, Vu, needs to be amplified as shown in the
following equation:
Ve = ΩvωvVu ≤ 3Vu
This approach is similar to the SEAOC Blue Book (2019) recommendations and the New Zealand standard
code (NZS 2017). Ωv is a factor accounting for the flexural overstrength of the wall. This factor applies
only to walls with an aspect ratio greater than 1.5 and is calculated as a ratio of Mpr /Mu, which is consistent
with a load combination that would produce the largest ΩvVu. For walls analyzed through linear analysis,
Vu and Mu are essentially the same for all load combinations that include seismic loads; the largest Ωv will
correspond to Mpr consistent with the largest compressive force on the wall.
The factor ωv accounts for dynamic amplification and variation in effective height due to higher modes. It
applies only to walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2.0 and is a function of the number of stories, ns. Two
equations are presented in ACI 318, one for buildings with six stories or less and one for buildings over six

101584953
stories. ωv has an upper limit of 1.8. The product of Ω and ω is capped at 3. The shear demand in Pier 2
between the first and second floors from linear analysis is
Vu = 476 kips
Mpr = 19,336 kip-ft
Mu = 9551 kip-ft
M pr
Ωv = = 2.02
Mu
ns
ωv = 1.3 + = 1.57 < 1.8 (ns = number of stories = 8)
30
Ve = ΩvωvVu = (2.02)(1.57)(476 kip) = 1510 kips < 3(476 kips) =1428 kips
The required shear demand does not need to exceed the 3Vu limit, so for this example, 3Vu governs. Since
the wall is capacity designed, f is allowed to be taken as 0.75 per Section 18.10.4.6. At this location, #9
bars at 12 inches on center, each face, are used for the shear design. The shear capacity is calculated as:
⎛ 1 kip ⎞
( ) (
Vn = α c λ f cʹ + ρt f yt Acv = 2(1.0) 6000 psi + (0.00641)(80, 000 psi) (26 × 120) ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
)
⎛ 1 kip ⎞
= 2083 kips > 8 Acv f cʹ = 8(26 × 120) 6000 psi ⎜ ⎟ = 1933 kips
⎝ 1000 lb ⎠
This example limits Vn to 8Acv fc'c for shear capacity of the wall pier. ACI 318 allows each wall pier to
have a shear capacity up to 10Acv fc'c as long as the sum of all wall segments does not exceed 8Acv fc'c .
fVn = (0.75)(1933 kips) = 1450 kips
7.2 SHEAR FRICTION AT HORIZONTAL WALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS
Shear friction capacity is calculated at the construction joint between the foundation and base of Pier 2.
Per Table 20.2.2.4(a), the reinforcement design strength value is limited to 60 ksi. This cap was proposed
because it was unclear whether the high-strength reinforcement would in fact yield. This has been recently
confirmed by Ahn (2020), who tested both specimens with 60 ksi and 80 ksi reinforcement and found that
the shear friction capacity was similar. Based on measurements, it was confirmed that the stresses in 80 ksi
reinforcement did not exceed those in 60 ksi.
Shear friction capacity is dependent on the area of steel crossing the shear plane and preparation of the
joint. The shear friction can be further increased by permanent net compression per Section 22.9.4.5. Given
very low net compression of 80 kips, this increase is negligible and is not considered here.
Shear friction is calculated per Section 22.9.4.2 with limits from Table 22.9.4.4.
Vn = μAvf fy
where
μ = 1.0 for roughened concrete

Avf represents all bars crossing the shear plane

101584953
For Pier 2, reinforcement crossing the shear plane consists of (8) #11 and (4) #9 for each boundary element
and (8) #9 for web reinforcement.
Avf = 2(8 × 1.56 in2 + 4 × 1.00 in2) + 8 × 1.00 in2 = 40.96 in2
Vn = 1.0 × 40.96 in2 × 60 ksi = 2458 kips
Vn cannot be taken greater than:
Vn,max = min(0.2fc'Ac,(480 + 0.08fc')Ac,1600Ac)
Note that the limit should be calculated with fc' of the element with lower strength. For this calculation, it is
assumed that the foundation is poured with 4000-psi concrete.
Vn,max = min(0.2 × 4000 psi × 3120 in2, (480 + 0.08 × 4000 psi) × 3120 in2, 1600 × 3120 in2)
Vn,max = min(2496 kips, 2496 kips, 4992 kips)
Vn,max is greater than calculated Vn, and hence does not limit it. The f factor for shear friction is the same as
for direct shear.
fVn = (0.75)(2458 kips) = 1844 kips > Vu = 576 kips
Hence, shear friction does not govern the design and the longitudinal bars remain unchanged.
8. Detailing of Wall-Pier Boundary Elements ACI 318
8.1 REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
Hence, shear friction does not govern the design and the longitudinal bars remain unchanged.
For walls and piers with an aspect ratio greater than 2, Section 18.10.6.2 or 18.10.6.3 can be used to check
whether special boundary elements are required in the wall piers. Section 18.10.6.2 utilizes a displacement-
based approach and Section 18.10.6.3 utilizes a stress-based approach. The displacement-based approach in
Section 18.10.6.2 is checked. This approach applies to walls with an aspect ratio hwcs/lw ≥ 2.0 and designed
for a single critical section. The calculations are done for the base of Pier 2.
Boundary reinforcement: (12) #11
Web reinforcement: #9 @ 12 in E.F.

1.5δu l δ
Special boundary elements (SBE) are required when ≥ w where u shall not be less than 0.005.
hwcs 600c hwcs
δu 1.76 in × 8
= = 0.014 > 0.005
hwcs 85 ft × 12 in/ft
1.5δu l 120 in
= 1.5(0.014) = 0.021 > w = = 0.005
hwcs 600c 600(37.0 in )

101584953
Since SBEs are required, the transverse reinforcement in the SBE shall extend above and below the critical
section at least the greater of the wall length, lw, and Mu/4Vu. An exception to this requirement is at the wall
base, where the SBE needs to extend at least ld of longitudinal bar or 12 inches based on requirements in
Section 18.10.6.4(j). Per Section 18.10.6.2(b)(ii), the width of the wall, b, shall also be at least:
b ≥ 0.025lcw = 0.025(120)(37) = 10.5 in < 26 in
8.2 DETAILING OF SPECIAL BOUNDARY ELEMENTS
The depth of the boundary zone of Pier 2 shall be at least the greater of:
c - 0.1lw = 37 - 0.1 × 120 = 25 in

c 37
= = 18.5 in
2 2
The boundary element length is 26 inches.
The required spacing of the transverse ties must meet the requirements similar to special moment frame
columns except the transverse spacing limit of Section 18.7.5.3(a) shall be one-third of the least dimension
of the boundary element. For the boundary element in the pier, the following transverse tie spacing is the
lesser of the quantities calculated here from Section 18.10.6.4(e) and Section 18.7.5.3.
1 1
(least boundary element dimension ) = (21.9 in ) = 7.3 in
3 3
5db = 5(1.27) = 6.4 in
⎛ 14 − hx ⎞ ⎛ 14 − 8 ⎞
4+⎜ ⎟ = 4+⎜ ⎟ = 6 in
⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎝ 3 ⎠
Transverse boundary element ties are spaced at 6 inches on center.
The amount of transverse reinforcement is determined per Table 18.10.6.4(g) from the following inequality.
⎛ Ag ⎞ fʹ f'
Ash/sbc shall be greater than the maximum of 0.3 ⎜ − 1⎟ c and 0.09 cc .
⎝ Ach ⎠ f yt f yt
⎛ Ag ⎞ fʹ ⎛ 693 in 2 ⎞ 6 ksi
0.3 ⎜ − 1⎟ c = 0.3 ⎜ 2
− 1⎟ = 0.0088
A
⎝ ch ⎠ yt f ⎝ 498 in ⎠ 80 ksi
fʹ 6 ksi
0.09 c = 0.09 = 0.0068
f yt 80 ksi
With s equal to 6 inches and bc equal to 20.73 inches, it then follows that Ag is 1.09 in2. This holds for both
the width and depth of the boundary element, since both the thickness and boundary length are 26 inches.
#5 ties with (2) #5 crossties can be used in both directions.
Section 18.10.6.4(i) requires that crossties with seismic hooks be provided for the web reinforcement with a
spacing not more than 12 inches on center. The 135-135 crosstie requirement is a new addition to the 2019
edition of ACI 318.
Section 18.10.6.4(k) requires that the horizontal reinforcement extends its development length not less than
6 inches into the boundary element core.

101584953
Figure 8-13. Pier 2 SBE detail
9. Design and Detailing Considerations
9.1 COUPLING BEAMS CONGESTION CONSIDERATIONS
Rebar congestion can be a concern in coupled shear walls, particularly in coupling beams or wall boundary
zones. Several strategies can be used to mitigate potential construction and concrete consolidation issues.
Various options for the shear wall concrete mix design can be considered. Concrete with smaller aggregate
or pea gravel (for example, 3/8 inch or 1/2-inch maximum) can be specified to promote improved concrete
flow and consolidation. Admixtures can be added to the concrete to make it more workable and improve
flow. Self-consolidating concrete can be specified; however, there may be a cost premium and formwork
may need to be watertight, which may impact construction costs and schedule. This topic is typically
considered “means and method” and falls under the purview of the contractor but it can be helpful for the
structural engineer to provide guidance. It is important to engage in discussions with the contractor and the
concrete supplier to ensure that proposed concrete mix designs are feasible for the project.
Another strategy for addressing congestion is the use of high-strength reinforcement (Grade 80, Grade 100)
in lieu of Grade 60 reinforcement. Refer to Table 20.2.2.4(a) for permitted usages and applications of high-
strength reinforcement.
Where possible, engineers should avoid having a horizontal construction joint in the coupling beam at
the bottom of the slab elevation, which would result in a cold joint in the coupling beam. If this cannot be
avoided, a shear calculation across the plane of the cold joint can be conducted to evaluate shear friction
capacity.

101584953
Membership
At the heart of the International Code Council’s rich history is our connection with our members. The Code Council and its
members work together to create safer homes, buildings, and communities by promoting and maintaining the International
Codes® (I-Codes®). Members benefit from top-notch professional development, innovative products and services, timely
industry news, and valuable networking opportunities while lending their own expertise to the code development process.
Membership Categories
Code officials, fire officials, architects, engineers, designers, and building safety professionals are all valued members
of the Code Council. The Code Council offers several membership categories to meet your needs.
Government/Municipality - Includes agencies, departments & units engaged in administration, formulation, implemen-
tation and/or enforcement of laws, ordinances, rules/regulations relating to public health, safety and welfare.
Starting at $145/year
Corporate - An organization such as an association, society, testing lab, institute, company, or manufacturer, interested
in the purposes and objectives of the Code Council.
$600/year
Individual
g Professional – An individual who is interested in the purposes and objectives of the Code Council.
g Participating – An individual who participates in and supports the vision and mission of the organization.
Participating Members do not qualify for all member benefits.
g Student - is enrolled in classes or an equivalent to at least 3 credit hours of classroom instruction per week.
Professional $185/year | Participating $60/year | Student $55/year
Member Benefits
As a member, you can expect nothing less than world-class service and invaluable benefits such as:
Unlock the I-Codes with a FREE Digital Codes Premium subscription (based on member category).
Receive 10-25% off code books, specialized publications and training materials.
Take advantage of discounts on expert training and educational programs so you can earn CEUs.
Receive discounts on certification exams, exam resource materials and certification renewals.
Showcase your membership with a digital badge on social media and your resume.
Access technical support to answer your code-related questions (based on membership category).
Learn more about membership at Apply today at iccsafe.org/join-icc

iccsafe.org/about-membership
22-21170
22-21170_MEM_General_FLR_FINAL.indd 1 3/4/22 11:59

AM
101584953
codes.iccsafe.org
Go Digital and Enhance Your Code Experience

ICC’s Digital Codes is the most trusted and authentic source of model codes and standards, which conveniently
provides access to the latest code text from across the United States.
Unlock Exclusive Tools and Features with Premium Complete

Search over 1,400 of the latest codes Saved Search allows users to save search
and standards from your desktop or mobile criteria for later use without re-entering.
device.
Organize Notes and thoughts by adding Copy, Paste and Print

personal notes, files or videos into relevant Copy, paste, PDF or print any code section.
code sections.
Share Access by configuring your license to Highlight and Annotate any code book content
share access and content simultaneously with to keep you organized.
others (code titles, section links, bookmarks
and notes).
Advanced Search narrows down your search Bookmark and tag any section or subsection
results with multiple filters to identify codes of interest.
sections more accurately.
Stay Connected on the Go with our New Premium Mobile App

• View content offline
AVA I L A B L E O N AVA I L A B L E O N
• Download up to 15 Codes titles
App Store Google Play
• Utilize Premium tools and features
Monthly and Yearly Premium Subscriptions are available for:

International Codes® | State Codes | Standards | Commentaries
Start your FREE 14-Day Premium trial at codes.iccsafe.org/trial

Learn how to use this powerful tool at codes.iccsafe.org
22-22109

101584953
S. K. Ghosh Associates LLC,

Seismic and Building Code Consulting
S. K. Ghosh Associates LLC (SKGA) serves as a
technical resource on structural codes and standards.
Our technical support includes:
• Publications – various code support materials to aid in the learning and
comprehension of specific codes.
• Code Masters – a condensed explanation of difficult code requirements on a
particular structural topic in a durable reference tool.
• Seminars – continuing education (with PDH).
• Computer Programs – tools that make code-compliance quick and simple
with intuitive interfaces, easy-to-use workflow, and detailed output reports.
• Seismic and Building Code Consultancy – on code compliance and other
aspects of structural design.
Learn more about our robust list of services and support

material at skghoshassociates.com or call 847-991-2700.
20-18946

101584953
SEAOC Wind
Design Manual
Design Examples for Wind Forces on Buildings and
Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Based on the 2018 IBC and ACSE/SEI 7-16
The Wind Design Manual provides examples on wind force design

that illustrate the practical requirements of provisions in ASCE/
SEI 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for
Buildings and Other Structures. Practicing structural engineers,
trained designers, building department engineers, other plan
review agencies, professors and students, can all learn from these
examples of code-compliant designs engineered to achieve good
performance under wind loading.
Developed by the Wind Design Manual Task Group of the
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the
publication draws on the expertise of invited authors from various
parts of the United States. The Wind Design Manual is intended
for nationwide use, with example problems that apply to a variety
of geographic areas. All are presented in a format similar to the
SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manuals.
A wide range of topics is covered:

• General topics (4 examples) • Buildings (3 examples)
• Specific topics (2 examples) • Solar Photovoltaic systems (7 examples)
Order Now! https://www.seaoc.org/page/2018WDM

SEAOC Members are eligible for the ICC member discount when they log-in and order
through the SEAOC website.
ICC Members and non-members can order Item 9000S18 at shop.iccsafe.org
20-18719
2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 279 2/15/23

4/28/20 10:40 AM
20-18719_BofB_SEAOC_Wind_Dsn_AD_Final.indd 1 8:42 AM
101584953

2021 Seaoc SSDM v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Seaoc SSDM v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Seaoc SSDM v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

101584953

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/ ®

Seismic Design Manual

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 1 2/15/23 10:36 AM

First Printing: February 2023

ISBN: 978-1-959851-04-2 (soft cover)

ii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 2 2/15/23 10:36 AM

Suggestions for Improvement

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

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

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 iii

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 3 2/15/23 10:36 AM

iv 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 4 2/15/23 10:36 AM

Preface to the 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 v

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 5 2/15/23 10:36 AM

vi 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 6 2/15/23 10:36 AM

Preface to the 2021 IBC SEAOC

This edition comprises four volumes:

• Volume 1: Code Application Examples

Rafael Sabelli and Katy Briggs

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 vii

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 7 2/15/23 10:36 AM

viii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 8 2/15/23 10:36 AM

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 ix

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 9 2/15/23 10:36 AM

x 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 10 2/15/23 10:36 AM

Joe Maffei, S.E., Ph.D., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Karl Telleen, S.E., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Martin Neuenschwander, Ph.D., Maffei Structural Engineering—Examples 1 and 2

Jon P. Kiland, S.E., IDA Structural Engineers—Original Author of Example 3

Mehran Pourzanjani, S.E., F. SEAOC, Senior Principal, Saiful/Bouquet Structural Engineers—

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xi

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 11 2/15/23 10:36 AM

Jeremiah LeGrue, S.E., City of Eugene—Example 4

Stephen Harris, S.E., Independent Structural Engineering Consultant—Examples 5 and 6

Badri K. Prasad, S.E., President, OLMM Consulting Engineers—Example 7

Rahul Sharma, P.E., S.E., Project Engineer, Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.—Example 8

xii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 12 2/15/23 10:36 AM

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xiii

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 13 3/3/23 9:00 AM

xiv 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 14 3/3/23 9:00 AM

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xv

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 15 3/3/23 9:00 AM

xvi 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 16 2/15/23 10:36 AM

How to Use This Document

Abbreviations used in the “Code Reference” column are

2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3 xvii

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 17 2/15/23 10:36 AM

xviii 2021 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 3

2021_SEAOC_SSDM_V3.indd 18 2/15/23 10:36 AM

1. Building Geometry and Loads ASCE 7

Figure 1-1. Floor plan

1.2 DESIGN LOADS AND LATERAL FORCES

Figure 1-2. Wall elevation, shear, and moment diagram

Table 1-1. Design loads and lateral forces

2. Load Combinations for Design ASCE 7

2.2 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE FORCE

SMS = FaSS = 1.60 Eq 11.4-1

2.3 ACTIONS AT BASE OF WALL

3. Preliminary Sizing of Wall

3.1 SHEAR STRESS AND REINFORCEMENT RATIO RULES OF THUMB

3.2 MINIMUM THICKNESS TO PREVENT WALL BUCKLING SEAOC Blue Book

Recommended thickness = lu /16 = 17(12)/16 = 12.8 in < 20 in . . . OK

3.3 LAYOUT OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT ACI 318

Figure 1-3. Layout of vertical reinforcement at wall base

ρv = As /bs = 1.58 in2 / (9 in × 20 in) = 0.0088 > 0.0025 . . . OK

4. Flexural Strength at Base of Wall ACI 318

4.1 REINFORCEMENT CONSIDERED “EFFECTIVE”

4.2 ASSUMED REINFORCEMENT STRAIN

Figure 1-4. Steel stress and neutral axis depth