SK ASCE

Cover photo courtesy of Susan Dowty, S.E., S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc.

Seismic Design Using Structural Dynamics based on 2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE/SEI 7-10

ISBN: 978-1-936039-24-1

Copyright 2014 S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. and International Code Council

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This publication is a copyrighted work owned jointly by S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. (SKGA) and the International Code Council, Inc (ICC). Without advance written permission from the copyright owners, no part of this book may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including, without limitation, electronic, optical or mechanical means (by way of example, and not limitation, photocopying or recording by or in an information storage retrieval system). For information on permission to copy material exceeding fair use, please contact: SKGA: 334 Colfax St., Unit E, Palatine, IL 60067. Phone 1-847-991-2700 ICC:

Publications, 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478. Phone 1-888-ICC-SAFE (422-7233).

The information contained in this document is believed to be accurate; however, it is being provided for informational purposes only and is intended for use only as a guide. Publication of this document by SKGA and the ICC should not be construed as SKGA and the ICC engaging in or rendering engineering, legal or other professional services. Use of the information contained in this workbook should not be considered by the user to be a substitute for the advice of a registered professional engineer, attorney or other professional. If such advice is required, it should be sought through the services of a registered professional engineer, licensed attorney or other professional. Trademarks: “International Code Council,” the “International Code Council” logo and the “International Building Code” are trademarks of the International Code Council, Inc.

First Printing (Based on ACI 318-11): April 2014 PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ……………………………….…..……………………………… v Acknowledgements….…………….……………………………...….… vi Chapter 1: Modal Response Spectrum Analysis: Background and Implementation……………..………………………………….1 Chapter 2: Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures for Earthquake Forces ………………….………………………. 68 Appendix A: Member Forces from Modal Analysis ...……………. 151 References ……………………..……………………………………. 167

Seismic Design Usign Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

iii

iv

Seismic Design Usign Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

PREFACE This publication addresses the methods by which a designer may comply with the seismic design requirements of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC)/2015 IBC/ASCE 710: Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (ASCE 7-10 Section 12.8), Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (ASCE 7-10 Section 12.9), or Seismic Response History Analysis (ASCE 7-10 Chapter 16). The procedures in ASCE 7-10 Section 12.9 and Chapter 16 are more complicated than the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure, but are required to be used under certain conditions of irregularity, occupancy, and height. Over the years, many questions have been asked about code provisions concerning these procedures and this publication has been created to answer these questions and demystify the application of the code with respect to modal response spectrum analysis. Although ASCE 7-10 (the 2012 and the 2015 IBC) formally recognizes modal response spectrum analysis as well as seismic response history analyses, the modal response spectrum analysis is more common in design office usage and is therefore the primary subject of this publication. The background and details are explained in the first half (Chapter 1) of this publication where a step-by-step analysis procedure is given, and a three-story, one-bay frame example is solved entirely manually to illustrate application of the procedure. The second half (Chapter 2) of this publication is devoted exclusively to the detailed design of a 20-story reinforced concrete building that utilizes a dual system consisting of specially detailed shear walls and frames for earthquake resistance. Modal response spectrum analysis is used as the basis of design. Design utilizing the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure is also illustrated because it is basically a prerequisite to design using the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Procedure. A key feature of this 20-story design example that would be of particular interest to users is the design of reinforced concrete shear walls by the procedure in the 2011 edition of ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI 318-14 is the reference standard for concrete design and construction in the 2015 IBC. However, it is still under development. A 45-day public comment period is expected to commence around May 15, 2014 and publications is not expected until late fall, 2014. SKGA plans to update Part 2 of this publication to ACI 318-14, once that standard gets finalized, and issue a second printing based on ACI 318-14. ACI Committee 318 undertook a major reorganization effort following the publication of ACI 318-11, which is now about to culminate in ACI 318-14.Thus the update to Chapter 2 of this publication will be more challenging than it would have been in the absence of the extensive reorganization. The resulting update, however, would be highly valuable because it will steer the reader through a large part of the reorganized ACI 318-14.

Seismic Design Usign Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Parts of this publication are influenced by an earlier book (Ghosh, S.K., Domel, Jr., A.W., and Fanella, D.A., Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake and Wind Forces, Publication EB 113.02D) from the Portland Cement Association, an organization to which the senior author owes much gratitude. This publication started out as a version, modified for the 2000 IBC, of an earlier publication: Seismic Design Using Structural Dynamics (1997 UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Officials. Dr. Madhu Khuntia, formerly of S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc., contributed much to the 1997 UBC publication. Dr. Kihak Lee, Saravanan Panchacharam, and Dr. David Fanella, formerly of S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. played key roles in the first IBC update. The 2000 IBC edition of the publication was subsequently updated to conform to the provisions of 2006 IBC/2009 IBC/ASCE 7-05. Dr. Jaehong Kim and Dr. Pro Dasgupta of S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. and Dr. Farhad Shad of Ramboll Engineering Consultants contributed greatly to that update. The contributions of Dr. Ali Hajihashemi of S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. in the development of this edition of the publication are much appreciated.

vi

Seismic Design Usign Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

About S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. The company provides seismic and code-related consulting services to engineers, businesses, trade associations, code-writing bodies, and governmental agencies involved in the design and construction of buildings and other structures that are impacted by the provisions of building codes. The company serves as a technical resource on structural codes and standards for code development and enforcement agencies and personnel; design professionals; academics; and the material industries. Technical support is provided through publications, seminars, peer reviews, research projects, computer programs, code interpretations and comparisons, a website, and other means. Main Office: 334 E. Colfax St., Unit E, Palatine, IL 60067 West Coast Office: 43 Vantis Drive, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 1-847-991-2700 www.skghoshassociates.com

About the International Code Council The International Code Council is a member-focused association. It is dedicated to developing model codes and standards used in the design, build and compliance process to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures. Most U.S. communities and many global markets choose the International Codes. ICC Evaluation Service (ICCES) is the industry leader in performing technical evaluations for code compliance fostering safe and sustainable design and construction. Headquarters: 500 New Jersey Avenue, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20001-2070 District Offices: Birmingham, AL; Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA 1-888-422-7233 www.iccsafe.org

Seismic Design Usign Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

vii

viii

Seismic Design Usign Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

CHAPTER 1

MODAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS: BACKGROUND AND IMPLEMENTATION 1.1

The Nature of Earthquake Forces in a Structure

The forces that a structure subjected to earthquake motions must resist result directly from the distortions induced by the motion of the ground on which it rests. The response (i.e., the magnitude and distribution of forces and displacements) of a structure resulting from such a base motion is influenced by the properties of both the structure and the foundation, as well as the particular characteristics of the exciting motion. A simplified picture of the behavior of a building during an earthquake may be obtained by considering Figure 1-11. As the ground on which the building rests is displaced, the base of the building moves with it. However, the inertia of the building mass resists this motion, which induces distortions in the building (greatly exaggerated in the figure). This distortion wave travels along the height of the structure1. The continued shaking of the base causes the building to undergo a complex series of oscillations. (A)

(B)

Seismic Waves

Figure 1-1. Behavior of Buildings during an Earthquake

It is important to draw a distinction between forces due to wind and those produced by earthquakes. Occasionally, even engineers tend to think of these forces as belonging to the same category just because codes specify design wind as well as earthquake forces in terms of equivalent static forces. Although both wind and earthquake forces are dynamic in character, a basic difference exists in the manner in which they are induced in a

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

1

Figure 1-2. 1940 El Centro (California) Earthquake Accelerogram: N-S Component and Corresponding Derived Velocity and Displacement Plots

1.3 Response of Structures to Earthquakes 1.3.1 Dynamic versus static structural analysis In a structural dynamic problem, the loading and all aspects of the structural response vary with time, so that a solution must be obtained for each instant during the history of response. There is a more important distinction between a static and a dynamic problem.3,4 When the simple column of Figure 1-3(a) is subjected to a static lateral load, the internal forces may be evaluated by simple statics. If the same load is applied dynamically, the timevarying deflections involve accelerations, which in turn generate inertia forces resisting the motion (Figure 1-3(b)). The external loading, p(t), that causes the motion and the inertia forces, fI(t), that resist its acceleration act simultaneously. The internal forces in the column must equilibrate this combined load system, so that it is necessary to know the inertia forces before the internal forces can be determined. The inertia forces depend upon the rate of loading and on the flexibility and mass characteristics of the structure. The basic difficulty of dynamic analysis lies in that the deflections that lead to the development of inertia forces are themselves influenced by the inertia forces.

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

3

Figure 1-4. Lumped SDOF System Subjected to Base Translation

where m, c, and k are the mass, damping coefficient, and stiffness, respectively, as shown in Figure 1-4. Equation (1-1) may be rewritten as x  2x  2 x  x g

(1-2)

where 2 = (2/T)2 = k/m, T is the natural period of vibration (Figure 1-5a), and  = c/ccr = c/2m is the fraction of critical damping* (Figure 1-5b). The solution to Equation (1-2) leads to the deformation response x(t), which depends on: (a) the characteristics of the ground acceleration, x g ( t ) , (b) the natural circular frequency of vibration,  = 2/T (or equivalently the natural period of vibration, T), of the structure without damping, and (c) the damping ratio, , of the structure. The solution to Eq. (1-2) is given by

1 x ( t, , )  d

t



x g () exp   d ( t  )] sin d ( t  )d 

0

1 R ( t, , ) d

(1-3)

where d   1   2 . For  < 0.2,  d (= 2/TD) is practically equal to . ---------------------------------------------*Critical damping is defined as the least damping coefficient for which the free response of a system (i.e. in the absence of an external exciting force) is non-vibratory, i.e., for which the system returns to the static position without oscillation after any excitation.

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

5

Ground Acceleration, ẍg (t)

-0.4 g

El Centro S00E Component May 18, 1940

0 0.4 g

0

10

20 Time, sec.

30

10 T = 0.5 sec ξ = 0.02

xmax = 2.48 in.

Deformation, u, in.

0

T = 1 sec ξ = 0.02

T = 2 sec ξ = 0.02

-10 10 0 xmax = 6.61 in. -10 10 0 -10 0

20

10

20 Time, sec.

30

Deformation (or Displacement) Response Spectrum ξ = 2 Percent

15 Sd, in.

xmax = 8.84 in.

10 5 0

0

1 2 3 Natural Vibration Period, T, sec.

Figure 1-6. Computation of Displacement Response Spectrum6

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

9

subject to low levels of shaking. The latter evidence suggested a two-factor approach sketched in Figure 1-16. In this approach, adopted in the 1994 NEHRP Provisions,16 the short-period plateau, of height proportional to Aa, is multiplied by a short-period site coefficient, Fa, and the curve proportional to Av/T is multiplied by a long-period site coefficient, Fv. Both Fa and Fv depend on the site conditions and on the level of shaking, defined by the Aa and Av coefficients, respectively. The 1994 NEHRP Provisions introduced new seismic coefficients Ca and Cv such that Ca = AaFa and Cv = AvFv

(1-10)

Figure 1-16. Two-Factor Approach to Local Site Response

Six soil categories (called Site Classes), designated as A through F, were introduced in the 1994 NEHRP Provisions. The first five are based primarily on the average shear wave velocity, vs (ft/sec), in the upper 100 ft of the soil profile, and the sixth is based on a site-specific evaluation. The categories include: (A) hard rock (vs > 5000 ft/sec), (B) rock (2500 ft/sec < vs < 5000 ft/sec), (C) very dense soil and soft rock (1200 ft/sec < vs 0.0025

O.K.

ACI 318 Section 21.9.4.1 For hw/w = 8.64 > 2.0 c =2 For normal-weight concrete,  = 1 Vn

= Acv (c f c' + tfy)

(ACI 318 Eq. 21-7)

= 5664 [2×1× 4000 + 0.0043 × 60,000]/1000 = 2178 kips In accordance with ACI 318 Section 21.9.4.4, Vn must not exceed 8Acv f c'

92

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

Figure 2-10. Reinforcement Arrangements in End Beam A2-B2, Column A2-1 (between Level 1 and Level 2) and Column A2-2 (between Level 2 and Level 3)

In addition, center-to-center spacing of longitudinal bars that are transversely supported by a stirrup cannot exceed 14 in.

Top 

34  2 1.5  2  0.5  2  12 in.  14 in. .......OK 5

Since, the bottom bars will be placed based on the stirrup locations, maximum distance between two transversely supported bars is the same as above. 2.7.2.4 Negative reinforcing bar cutoff The negative reinforcement at the joint face is 6-No.8 bars. The location where 3 of the 6 bars can be terminated will be determined. Note that 3-No.8 bars must be continuous throughout the length of the beam to satisfy the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI 318 Section 21.5.2.1. The loading used to find the cutoff point of the 3-No.8 bars is 0.7 times the dead load in combination with the probable flexural strengths (Mpr) at the ends of the members (fourth load combination, representing a condition where the vertical component of the earthquake counteracts dead load effects), as this combination will produce the longest bar cutoff lengths.

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)

125

Figure 2-13. Reinforcement Details for Interior Columns B2-1 and B2-2  0.8 Po =  0.8 {0.85fc (Ag - Ast)+ Astfy} = 4174 kips > 3506 kips for Column B2-1 > 3320 kips for Column B2-2

Figure 2-14 shows the P-M interaction diagram for the interior columns.

Figure 2-14. P-M Interaction Diagrams for Columns B2-1 (left) and B2-2 (right)

2.8.2.2 General ACI 318 Section 21.6 applies to frame members (i) resisting earthquake forces and

132

Seismic Design using Structural Dynamics (2012 IBC, 2015 IBC, and ASCE 7-10)