Seneca Seismic Design Handbook - First Edition PDF

Seneca Seismic Analysis and Design
Principles and Practice
i
Seneca Seismic Analysis and Design
Principles and Practice
First Edition
K. Dirk Bondy & Bryan Allred
iii
Copyright © 2017 K. Dirk Bondy & Bryan Allred
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means—whether auditory, graphic,
mechanical, or electronic—without written permission of both publisher and author, except in the case of brief excerpts used
in critical articles and reviews. Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this work is illegal and is punishable by law.
iv
Table of Contents
Preface ....................................................................................................................................................... vi
1) The Brief History of Seismic Design in California From a Practicing Engineer's Perspective .........1
2) Site Specific Seismic Design Values & Base Shear Using the
Equivalent Lateral Load Procedure ....................................................................................................1
3) Vertical Distribution and Diaphragm Design Forces

Using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure .................................................................................13
4) Base Shear and Vertical Distribution Using Modal Response Spectrum Analysis ..........................31
5) Rigid Diaphragm Lateral Load Distribution ....................................................................................39
6) Rigid Diaphragm Shear and Moment Diagrams ..............................................................................66
7) Foundation Loads and Analysis ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
8) Design Considerations for Good Practice ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
9) Concrete Shearwall and Foundation Design Example ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10) Concrete Moment Frame and Foundation Design Example ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
11) Non-Linear Analysis of Concrete Moment Frames........................................................................ ???

About the Authors......................................................................................................................................87
v
Preface
This book is not intended to comprehensively cover all aspects of seismic analysis and design, and it is
priced to reflect that. In fact, we really do not cover much element design at all. The intent of this book
is two-fold: first to provide notes and examples for use at the university level in a capstone fashion to
prepare students for work in a design office, and second to address analysis issues that we believe many
practicing engineers perform incorrectly – specifically in the areas of diaphragm analysis and foundation
loading. We have arrived at this opinion based upon the number of seismic peer reviews that we have
performed; many for the California State University system.
The reader may find this next part annoying, but after writing “Post-Tensioned Concrete Principles and
Practice” we learned the hard way that referencing code sections and equations numbers is great, until
those code sections and equation numbers are changed by the respective code or document. And this
seems to happen much more often than you would think it would. Therefore, we purposely describe
code sections and equations sometimes without giving a reference to the section or equation numbers
with the hope that the reader will be able to locate the section or equation themselves in both the near
and distant future. We’ll see how that goes.
vi
1
The Brief History of Seismic Design in California From a
Practicing Engineer's Perspective
"History" began for me in the 1980's. I was a student at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo and Bryan was about
to enter the University of California at Irvine. I am writing this part because I am older than Bryan by
about 7 years. The building code at that time was the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code,
pictured here.
This code included the requirements for the design of basically everything; wood, steel, concrete,
prestressed concrete, masonry, live loads, wind loads and seismic loads. The book itself was 5-1/2" x 8"
and about 1 inch thick. The seismic design portion started on page 114 in Section "Earthquake
Regulations" and ended on page 123.
The seismic base shear was a service level force calculated using the following equation:
V = ZIKCSW
Z was the zone factor, and was typically 1.0 for structures in high seismic zones. I was the importance
factor, and remains the same today. K was the ductility factor and was 1.0 for a building frame system
using shearwalls (like one of the examples in this book) and was 0.67 for ductile moment space frames
(like the other example that we will follow through this book). C was a function of the building's
fundamental period, and S was a factor relating to the soil type at the site, with a default value of 1.5.
For short period buildings, the product CS needed not exceed 0.14.
1
2 Seneca Seismic Analysis and Design Principles and Practice
Therefore, the base shear for a typical concrete shearwall building in a building frame system with a
short period would be 0.14W. In order to design the concrete shearwalls we factored the base shear to
bring it to strength level with a load factor of 1.4. The resulting base shear used for strength design was
1.4(0.14)W = 0.20W. Believe it or not, the shearwall building example in this book on a site in Los
Angeles will actually require a lower strength based seismic coefficient than what we would have used
in the 1980's.
We distributed the base shear vertically in a very similar fashion to what we do today, and we accounted
for the higher mode effects in longer period buildings by placing a lumped portion of the base shear at
the very top of the building using the following equation:
Ft = 0.07TV, when T > 0.7s
We will see in this book, after going through the modal response spectrum analysis section, that a
lumped force at the top is a very rational approach.
In the subsequent years and building codes it would appear that the development of seismic loads has
changed dramatically. But it really has not. I will admit that, while the theory of modal response
spectrum analysis has not changed at all in 30 years, the code has gotten clearer and more descriptive on
this subject. In the 1985 Uniform Building Code, dynamic analysis was addressed with the statement
"Nothing in Section 2312 shall be deemed to prohibit the submission of properly substantiated technical
data for establishing the lateral forces and distribution by dynamic analyses. In such analyses, the
dynamic characteristics of the structure must be considered." There was no limit on base shear, or
number of modes to consider, or scaling of results. That would be addressed in future codes.
In today's ASCE 7 Standard, we do get more direction regarding modal response spectrum analysis, but
not a lot more. For as large as all the codes necessary for design have gotten today, it may be a little
surprising that the modal response spectrum analysis section fits on less than one page.
Here are the codes and standards that an engineer must have in order to design a concrete or steel
building. For other materials, you would require even more codes. I've cheated a little by showing the
2010 CBC, since we go online now to view the current codes.
And for scale, here are the relative sizes of some past building codes. Note that in 1994 there were two
volumes, and in 1997 there were three volumes.
K. Dirk Bondy & Bryan Allred 3
In our opinion the basic theory of seismic design, and the theory of design of most materials such as
post-tensioned concrete has not changed in the past thirty years. What has changed is our reliance on
computers to do the analysis and design for us. And we're not convinced that this progress is good
progress.
We wrote our first book "Post-Tensioned Concrete Principles and Practice" primarily for our use in
teaching the fundamentals of post-tensioned concrete at the university level. We focused on two-
dimensional analyses that could be performed by hand, and once we establish a thorough understanding
in two-dimensions we explain the extrapolation to the three-dimensional building.
In our opinion, it is impossible to be an expert and have a thorough understanding of a three-dimensional

design or structure without first having a complete understanding in two dimensions. We take that same
approach in this book. Basically, every design example in this book is done by hand, including the
modal response spectrum analyses and the rigid diaphragm analyses. This is the way that we were taught
in the 1980's and 1990's, and we remain convinced that this is the best way to fully grasp the concepts of
both seismic design and post-tensioned concrete design. Once these concepts are fully understood in
two dimensions the student should be able to use and understand three-dimensional computer software.
But three-dimensional analyses of either seismic or post-tensioned concrete have never been done by
hand (to the best of our knowledge), so it is impossible to start with three-dimensional analyses and ever
completely understand what the computer is doing.
2
Site Specific Seismic Design Values & Base Shear
Calculation Using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
The structural system of most buildings is defined by the function of the structure. For instance, open
space parking structures are usually long-span post-tensioned concrete beams with one-way slabs
utilizing perimeter moment frames as the lateral system. Residential mid-rise structures are typically
post-tensioned flat plate systems utilizing concrete shearwalls as the lateral system. Therefore,
contractors familiar with these framing types will usually be able to estimate the construction cost of the
superstructure fairly accurately. The primary variables in the overall cost of construction are the
foundations and increased costs associated with very high seismic demands. This is why one of the very
first items that we ask for at the beginning of any project is the geotechnical report.
The most critical initial structural decision is determining the most appropriate foundation system for the
structure. Typically, the most economical foundation system consists of conventional spread and
continuous footings and a “floating” grade slab. However, this is only feasible on very stable soil sites
without high ground water or liquefaction potential. When the upper levels of the soil are poor, a mat
foundation or intermediate ground improvement method such as rammed-aggregate piers or stone
columns may be the most appropriate and economical solution. When the poor soil extends for a
significant depth or the building loads are extremely high, piles may be the only feasible solution.
Once the foundation system is chosen, the next step is to determine the ground motion data for the site.
The Response Modification Coefficient, R

This factor has gone by a few names and definitions over the course of our careers. In the 1980's it was
referred to as "K", and then "Rw" and was defined simply as a "numerical coefficient." In the 1997
Uniform Building Code the "w" was dropped and the definition became a "numerical coefficient
representative of the inherent overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateral-force-resisting
systems." We called it the "ductility factor." It is currently going by the name "R" and resides
comfortably in South Florida, and its definition is "response modification coefficient." We like to think
of the coefficient, R, as the "Rocky Balboa" factor, because it is a measure of how much of a beating the
seismic system can take during an earthquake and still remain standing.
The Risk Category & Seismic Importance Factor, Ie

Table 1.5-2 of ASCE 7 relates the Seismic Importance Factor to the Risk Category. The Risk Category
is defined in Table 1.5-1. Most of the structures that we design (and that most engineers design) fall
within Risk Category II, which is defined as “All Buildings and other structures except those listed in
Risk Categories I, III, and IV.” The Seismic Importance Factor, Ie, associated with Risk Category II,
which is the actual factor used in the following equations, is 1.0.
Risk Category I is defined as “Buildings and other structures that represent a low risk to human like in
the event of failure.” While it could be argued that parking structures and some other minimally
occupied structures fall within this category, it makes no practical difference because both Risk
Categories I and II have a Seismic Importance Factor, Ie, of 1.0 associated with them.
Risk Category III has led to some confusion for some engineers. This category has many descriptive
lines, but the first one is the one that has caused misunderstanding in that it states “Buildings and other
structures, the failure of which could pose a substantial risk to human life.” At first glance, that would
seem to describe just about any building. However, the generally accepted interpretation of the entirety
of Risk Category III is one in which failure of the building or structure would endanger human life
beyond the boundaries of the building or structure itself. Structures that house hazardous materials or
explosive substances are good examples. The Seismic Importance Factor, Ie, associated with Risk
Category III is 1.25.
Risk Category IV is defined as buildings or structures that are essential facilities. Though it is not
specifically stated, this includes hospitals and many public schools and includes any building or
structure that is intended to remain operational after a major seismic event. Facilities that house large
quantities of dangerous materials are also included in this category. The Seismic Importance Factor, Ie,
associated with Risk Category IV is 1.5.
Geotechnical Data, Ss & S1 values

All of our projects have a geotechnical report, eventually. However in the early stages of a project the
report may be unavailable. When this is the case we can obtain most of the site specific seismic
information that we need ourselves by first obtaining the site longitudinal and latitude coordinates, then
the United States Geological Survey website at:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
to obtain ground motion data for our site. The site soil classification at most of our sites has been the
default value of Site Class D – “Stiff Soil”, so lacking better information we will start with this
assumption and verify it later when the geotechnical report is available.
The USGS application will print all of the relevant ground motion data values (SS, S1, SMS, SM1, SDS &
SD1) for the site. However, the only values that we actually require are the Ss and S1 values. The other
values can (and should for educational purposes) be calculated using these two values and the ASCE 7
standard.
Ss is defined as the mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration
parameter at short periods. ASCE 7 Section 12.8.1.3 states that “For regular structures five stories or
less above the base as defined in Section 11.2 and with a period, T, of 0.5s or less, Cs is permitted to be
calculated using a value of 1.5 for Ss”.
S1 is defined as the mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration
parameter at a period of 1 second.
Calculating the SMS & SM1 values

SMs is defined as the mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration
parameter at short periods adjusted for Site Class effects, and is equal to:
SMS = FaSs
SM1 is defined as the mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration
parameter at a period of 1 second adjusted for Site Class effects, and is equal to:
SM1 = FvS1
Fa and Fv are site acceleration and velocity coefficients found in ASCE 7 Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2,
respectively and are a function of the Site Class and the SS & S1 values. The values in these tables shall
be interpolated using straight-line interpolation as necessary.
Calculating the SDS & SD1 values

SDS is defined as the design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods, and is
equal to:
SDS = (2/3)SMS
It may be beneficial not to blindly use the SDS value printed by the USGS application. That application
will not apply the limit for SS of 1.5 that is available for certain low-rise regular structures.
SD1 is defined as the design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameter at 1 second period, and
is equal to:
SD1 = (2/3)SM1
Determining the Building Fundamental Period, T

ASCE 7 provides plenty of latitude in determining the building fundamental period for each primary
building direction. The designer is only required to use “the structural properties and deformational
characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated analysis.” However, regardless of the
method used the upper limit of the fundamental period is equal to the approximate period, Ta, calculated
in ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2.1 multiplied by the coefficient, Cu, taken from Table 12.8-1.
Determine the Fundamental Period Using Dynamic Modal Properties

The most accurate method of determining the fundamental period is to model the seismic system in
dynamic analysis computer program. The fundamental translational mode shape in each orthogonal
direction will have a corresponding frequency of vibration. The inverse of that frequency is the period
of that mode shape. This method, while being the most accurate, requires more sophisticated and
expensive software than is often necessary for many buildings and requires a greater modeling effort on
the part of the designer.
Determine the Fundamental Period Using the Rayleigh Period Equation

For old-timers like me (Bryan is not as old as I am and has no gray hair as of this writing, so I will not
include him as an old-timer) the now defunct Uniform Building Code (UBC) had an option for
determining the fundamental period based upon an equation known as the Rayleigh Equation (called
“Method B” in the old UBC), and was typically used for moment frame structures. It was quite accurate
compared to a dynamic modal analysis, and only required a simple frame analysis program in order to
use. The Rayleigh Period equation is shown here and will be demonstrated in an example later.
∑ 
2
∑ 
We have done some research into why this method was not included in the International Building Code.
The rationale seems to be that it required known properties of the frame, as well as the forces and
displacements at each level in order to use the equation. In other words, the engineer needed to know the
answer before he or she started. However, we believe that the code writers have somewhat missed the
point. The structural design of anything is always iterative, and relies on a good educated guess in order
to begin. Experienced designers will have a fairly good idea of how much seismic system (how many
bays of moment frames, braced frames, or length of shearwall and their approximate sizes) will be
required for a specific building. That estimate may be modified as the design progresses, but often only
slightly if the estimating engineer was an experienced designer.
The other important point being missed here is that virtually every time for a normal building, the
calculated fundamental period of a moment frame structure using either a dynamic modal analysis
program or the Rayleigh method will be larger than the maximum period allowed by ASCE 7, and
therefore will be limited to the maximum value.
As a young engineer who designed many structural steel seismic systems I often used the Rayleigh
Period to verify that I could determine my base shear calculations using the code upper limit for the
fundamental period. Whether or not my period calculation was completely “accurate” didn’t really
matter provided my calculated period was well above the maximum permitted period. And since I
would need to model the frames in a structural analysis program anyway in order to design them, it was
an easy thing to do and it took very little additional time. Therefore, I remain a proponent of the
Rayleigh Period method. And if the truth be told, we always knew that we would be able to achieve the
maximum allowed period, CuTa, so we would actually just assume that, do the entire frame design, and
then verify the period using the Rayleigh method last.
Approximate the Fundamental Period

ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2.1 allows the fundamental period, Ta, to be approximated by using the following
equation:

Where hn is the structural height in feet above the seismic base of the structure and the coefficients Ct
and x are determined from Table 12.8-2.
Additionally, ASCE 7 provides two more alternative methods for approximating the fundamental
period; one for moment frame structures not exceeding 12 stories in height with story heights of at least
10 feet, and another for masonry or concrete shearwall structures. It has been our experience that these
two alternate methods are rarely, if ever, used by designers. And in our case specifically, we originally
included the shearwall alternative fundamental period calculation in our software as an option but
eventually removed it after realizing that for our projects the equation never once resulted in a longer
period than the equation printed above.
Determining the Base Shear, V

The seismic base shear in a given direction is calculated using the following equation:
where Cs is the seismic response coefficient and W is the effective seismic weight of the structure.
There are realistically two equations in ASCE 7 used to calculate the value Cs. There is technically a
third, however it only applies to buildings with long fundamental periods. Depending upon the location
of the site, the definition of long period varies from a minimum of 4 seconds up to 16 seconds. In the
Western United States, the value of “long period” is at least 6 seconds and is typically greater. Most of
us will never be involved in the design of a building or structure with a fundamental period in that range.
We certainly never have.
Cs Determined with ASCE 7 Equation (12.8-2)

The following equation will control the design of shorter period structures:
12.8 2
SDS and Ie were previously defined; R is the response modification factor (also known as the ductility
factor) found in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1.
The next equation will limit the value of Cs for longer period structures, and is valid for structures with
fundamental periods less than TL, the long period determined for the site. ASCE 7 states that the value
of Cs in (12.8-2) above need not exceed:
12.8 3
SD1 , T, Ie and R were previously defined.
Again, it is so rare that a building or structure will ever have a fundamental period longer than TL for the
site that we will not include the Cs equation for that condition.
The SDS and SD1/T portions of the above equations are shown graphically in ASCE 7 Figure 11.4-1
"Design Response Spectrum." While many engineers may think that this diagram only applies to modal
response spectrum analysis, it actually applies equally to the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure.
However, only the first mode, or the fundamental mode, is considered in that case. The graph depicts the
CS value before it has been divided by the term (R/Ie), which are the ductility and importance factors.
The CS value before it has been divided by (R/Ie) is also known as the Spectral Acceleration, Sa in terms
of gravity, g.
ASCE 7 Figure 11.4-1 Design Response Spectrum
ASCE 7 includes two minimum Cs value equations. The first of which applies to all buildings and the
second only applies to buildings on sites where the S1 value is equal to or greater than 0.6g.
The following minimum Cs equation always applies:
0.044 0.01 12.8 5
For buildings or structures on site with an S1 value equal to or greater than 0.6g the following equation
also applies:
.
12.8 6
Once the controlling value of Cs is determined the seismic base shear, V, is calculated by multiplying Cs
by W, the effective seismic weight of the structure.
Redundancy Factor,  Discussion

ASCE 7 Section 12.3.4 addresses redundancy, and the redundancy factor . The redundancy factor is a
factor applied to the seismic lateral forces for the strength design only of the vertical lateral load
resisting elements (those listed in ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1). Its value is either 1.0 or 1.3, depending upon
the likelihood that degradation of one of the elements in the vertical lateral load resisting system would
lead to a significant loss (more than 33%) of total story strength, or an extreme torsional irregularity.
ASCE 7 Table 12.3-3 lists the conditions required for various lateral force-resisting elements to use a 
factor of 1.0. Where these cannot be met, a  factor of 1.3 is required. It is not our intent in this book to
go through each lateral force-resisting element and discuss the redundancy requirements for each. That
is more appropriate for a material design textbook. However, we believe that the most valuable two
pieces of information that we can discuss here are the practical applications and the proper application of
the  factor.
Based upon our experience with our own designs and the seismic reviews of other's work that we
perform, for all practical purposes concrete shearwall seismic force-resisting systems can usually easily
attain a  factor of 1.0, whereas effectively all structural steel buildings utilizing steel lateral force-
resisting systems usually cannot achieve this and are designed using a  factor of 1.3. Concrete moment-
frame systems also usually qualify for a  factor of 1.0 since they are typically designed as multi-span
moment frames. However, where single-span concrete moment frames are used it is likely that a 
factor of 1.3 will be required. With all that stated, it is always conservative to use a  factor of 1.3, and
some firms simply use that as the default without performing any calculations.
The second valuable piece of information that we want to discuss is the proper application of the 
factor when it is 1.3. It has been our experience that the application of this factor is sometimes incorrect.
In our opinion, the  factor of 1.3 should not be considered a multiplier in the calculation of the base
shear. While it would be very conservative to do that, it is not necessary and is not the intent of the
redundancy factor. The only part of the seismic design that is affected by the  factor is the strength
design of the lateral force-resisting system itself (the frames, shearwalls, etc.). The following structures,
elements and calculations always use a  factor of 1.0, regardless of the  calculation results of Table
12.3-1:
 Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category B or C
 Drift calculations EXCEPT that Section 12.12.1.1 states that for “seismic force-
resisting systems comprised solely of moment frames in structures assigned to
Seismic Design Categories D, E or F, the design story drift shall not exceed a/ for
any story.” In other words, the designer must include  in the drift calculations for
moment frame structures in SDC D, E or F buildings.
 Diaphragm loads determined using Eqn. (12.10-1)
 Design of diaphragm collector elements, splices, and their connections for which the
seismic load effects including overstenth factor of Section 12.4.3 are required for
design
 Design of non-structural components
 Additional items listed in ASCE 7 Section 12.3.4.1
There is a debate in the engineering community about whether or not foundations should be designed
including the  factor. The general consensus is that they must, but the debate continues regarding
whether or not this includes the allowable soil bearing pressure calculations. Of course it is always
conservative to use it, but a  factor of 1.3 will usually have a significant effect on the size of the
foundation. Clarification from the local building official for a specific structure should be obtained
before ignoring the  factor for seismic soil bearing calculations.
Again, it is not necessary to apply a  factor of 1.3 to the seismic base shear and carry that base shear
calculation through all of the seismic calculations, and it is technically incorrect to do so. Therefore, in
this book we will not use the  factor in the base shear calculations.
Determining the Seismic Design Category, SDC (ASCE 7 Section 11.6)

We will admit that this can be a confusing part (or one of many confusing parts) of the ASCE 7
standard, but it is extremely important that the designer correctly identify the SDC and understand the
potential restrictions associated with that SDC. First, do not confuse the Site Class with the Seismic
Design Category as they are completely different concepts. The SDC is determined based upon the site
characteristic values of S1, SDS and SD1 as well as the Risk Category for the structure. It would take us
many pages to describe everything that goes into determining the SDC, so the designer should become
familiar with the entirety of ASCE 7 Section 11.6. However, based upon our experience there is one
key item to be aware of immediately upon review of the site characteristics or the geotechnical report.
ASCE 7 Tables 11.6-1 and 11.6-2 are used to determine the SDC when the value of S1 is less than
0.75. When this is the case the SDC will be somewhere in the A to D range, and for those of us
designing in higher seismic zones it will almost always be D. There are no serious restrictions to the
design when the SDC is D or less. However, if the value of S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75 the SDC
becomes either E or F; both of which have additional restrictions placed on the design. For all practical
purposes, it is absolutely critical that a SDC of E or F be identified at the very beginning of the project
as this may have a dramatic effect on the layout of the seismic system and the architectural design. Most
buildings or structures fall within the Risk Category of I, II or II. When S1 is equal or greater than 0.75
for these buildings they are assigned a SDC of E. If however, the structure is a Risk Category IV
classification the SDC assignment is F.
Limitations for SDC E and F Structures

The designer should be very familiar with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.3 “Limitations and Additional
Requirements for Systems with Structural Irregularities.” Tables 12.3-1 and 12.3-2 discuss restrictions
for all types of horizontal and vertical irregularities, most of which are well understood by designers in
high seismic regions. However, there are specific restrictions that apply only to SDC E and F structures
that, based upon our peer review experience, are sometimes overlooked by designers.
Irrgularities Forbidden for SDC E and F Structures

1. Horizontal Irregularity Type 1b. Extreme Torsional Irregularity
2. Vertical Irregularity Type 1b. Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story Irregularity
3. Vertical Irregularity Type 5a. Discontinuity in Lateral Strength – Weak Story Irregularity
Most designers in higher seismic regions would not design a structure with a soft story irregularity or a
weak story irregularity regardless of the SDC assignment. However, extreme torsional irregularity
occurs when one edge of one of the diaphragms displaces more than 1.4 times the average diaphragm
displacement (see ASCE 7 Table 12.3-1 Type 1b. for the exact verbiage). This irregularity may occur
when there are architectural restrictions on the seismic system layout requiring one side of the building
to be completely open.
Architects who design buildings and have them entitled through a City prior to consulting a structural
engineer about the Seismic Design Category at the site have caused great heartache for owners and
structural engineers, and of course themselves. It is not unusual for a site on the West Coast to have an
S1 value in excess of 0.75. Architects need to be trained to ask a structural engineer about the SDC for a
site before designing the building, and structural engineers need to immediately verify the S1 value for
each site before proceeding with just about any other part of the project.
Now that the base shear has been determined, the following chapters will demonstrate how to vertically
distribute that base shear to the upper floors of the building, through the diaphragms and to the vertical
seismic system.
Example #1 – 5 Story Steel Office Building with Steel Moment Frames at Cal Poly, San Luis
Obispo
Given:
Building Data
Steel Special Moment Frames, R = 8
Risk Category: II
Regular Structure (No Vertical or Horizontal Irregularities)
Site Latitude: 35.29607, Site Longitude: -120.65306
Seismic Floor Weight Shown Below
Total Building Seismic Weight = 15,033 kips
Calculated Dynamic Fundamental Period = 1.45s
Ground Motion Data from the Geotechnical Report

Site Class: D “Stiff Soil”
Ss = 1.124g (from USGS Design Maps Website)
S1 = 0.429g (from USGS Design Maps Website)
Find:
a) The Seismic Design Category (SDC)
b) Maximum Useable Building Period, T (ASCE 7 12.8.2)
c) SDS and SD1 values
d) Cs Value
e) Design Base Shear, V

The SDC is a function of the value determined from the geotechnical site conditions. In this example,
the S1 value is 0.429g and is less than 0.75g. Therefore, given that the Risk Factor is II, the SDC
assigned value is D.
b) Maximum Useable Building Period, T (ASCE 7 12.8.2)
In this example, the fundamental period has been calculated using the dynamic properties of the
structure, and was given in the problem statement. This calculation may have come from a dynamic
modal analysis of the structure, or from the Rayleigh Period estimate.
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.2 allows the use of any period calculated, provided it was "established using the
structural properties and deformational characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly
substantiated analysis." However, ASCE 7 then limits this value to a maximum of "the product of the
coefficient for upper limit on calculated period (Cu) from Table 12.8-1 and the approximate fundamental
period, Ta, determined in accordance with Section 12.8.2.1.

The building lateral system is classified as Steel Special Moment Frame System (see ASCE 7 Table
12.2-1). The Ct and x values determined from Table 12.8-2 are 0.028 and 0.8, respectively. Therefore;
.
0.028 68
0.82
The "Coefficient for Upper Limit on Calculated Period", Cu, in Table 12.8-1 is 1.4 for any value of SD1
greater than 0.3, and it is conservative to use Cu as 1.4 for any value of SD1. SD1 will be calculated in
Part c), but we will use Cu = 1.4 regardless. Therefore, upper limit for the fundamental period, T is:
1.4 0.82
= 1.15s
In this example, the calculated fundamental period calculated using the dynamic properties of the
structure was found to be 1.45s. Since this is greater than the maximum period allowed, the limiting
value of 1.15s will be the period used for the base shear calculations.
 the Maximum Useable Period, T .

ASCE 7 Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 are used to determine the values of Fa and Fv, respectively. For a Site
Class of D and an Ss value of 1.124 the Fa value from Table 11.4-1 is interpolated between 1.1 (for Ss =
1.0) and 1.0 (for Ss = 1.1), and is 1.05. For a site class of D and an S1 value of 0.429 the Fv value from
Table 11.4-2 is interpolated between 1.6 (for S1 = 0.4) and 1.5 (for S1 = 0.5), and is 1.57.
SMS = FaSs
= (1.05)(1.124)
=1.18
Now, SM1
SM1 = FvS1
= (1.57)(0.429)
= 0.67
And finally,
SDS = (2/3)SMS
= (2/3)(1.18) = 0.79
SD1 = (2/3)SM1
= (2/3)(0.67) = 0.45
d) Cs Value
Recall the ASCE 7 Figure 11.4-1, which describes the response spectrum to be used in lieu of a site-
specific response spectrum.
The following equations are used in the Equivalent Lateral Load procedure, but we can see that the
equations simply come from the Design Response Spectrum above, divided by the term (R/Ie); the
redundancy factor for the chosen seismic system divided by the importance factor for the structure.
12.8 2 & 12.8 3
According to ASCE 7 Table 1.5-2, a structure with a Risk Category of II has a corresponding Seismic
Importance Factor, Ie, of 1.00. Therefore, the Cs value calculated in Equation 12.8-2 is:
0.79
0.098
8
1.00
ASCE 7 states that the value of Cs in (12.8-2) above need not exceed:
12.8 3
0.45
0.049 0.098  use 0.049
8
1.15
1.00
An alternate way to look at this is to create the final Design Response Spectrum using the site-specific
parameters SDS and SD1, dividing the graph by (R/Ie) and determining CS by finding the graph
intersection at the fundamental period.
Using the values of SDS, SD1 previously found, Ie as 0, and the ASCE 7 definition of TS = SD1/SDS, we
can create the graph of CS in terms of the period, T and then find CS at a period of 1.15s.
Our point in presenting the problem this way is show that the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure is very
similar to what we will do later with the modal response spectrum analysis. The two analyses are
actually very similar. The major difference is that in the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure we will
only consider the fundamental period in the analysis, and ASCE 7 will require a vertical force
distribution of the base shear that attempts to incorporate the effects of the higher modes and associated
periods not considered in the analysis.
ASCE 7 Equation 12.8-5 establishes one of the minimum Cs values.
0.044 0.01
= 0.044(0.79)(1.00) = 0.035 < 0.049  use 0.049
Since S1 is less than 0.6g, it is not necessary to check Equation (12.8-6).
 The controlling value of Cs is 0.049.
0.049 15,033 kips = 737 kips

The following contains the output from our software, Seneca Seismic Design Values.
SENECA SEISMIC DESIGN VALUES

Licensed to: Seneca Structural Engineering, Inc.
Project Name: Example #2 - 5 Story Steel Office Building: 1 Grand Ave., San Luis Obispo, CA Date: 8/24/2017
Project Engineer: K. Dirk Bondy
The program conforms to the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10
BUILDING DATA
Number of Elevated Levels: 5 |Analysis Direction: X |Seismic System: Steel Special Moment Frames
R Factor: 8 |Risk Category: II |Importance Factor: 1.00
GROUND MOTION DATA FROM GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

S S : 1.12g | S 1 : 0.43g | Site Class: D | Seismic Design Category: D
CALCULATED GROUND MOTION DATA

Fa: 1.05 | Fv: 1.57 (from Tables 11.4-1 & 11.4-2 of ASCE 7)
SMS = FaS S = 1.18
SM1 = FvS 1 = 0.67
SDS = (2/3)S MS = 0.79 S D1 = (2/3)S M1 = 0.45
BUILDING PERIOD ASCE 7 Eqn. (12.8-7)
Ct: 0.028 |x: 0.8 |hn: 68 ft.

Ta = Ct*(hn)^x = 0.82s
Dynamic Period (from User Input), T(Dynamic) = 1.45s
Controlling Period, T = 1.15s
Cs VALUES
(Eqn. 12.8-2) (Eqn. 12.8-3)
Cs = Sds/(R/Ie) with: Sds = 0.79| R = 8| Ie = 1 Cs = Sd1/(T(R/Ie)) with: Sd1 = 0.45| R = 8| Ie = 1| T =1.15s
Cs = 0.098 Cs = 0.049
(Eqn. 12.8-5)
Cs(min) = 0.044SdsIe >= 0.01 with: Sds = 0.79| Ie = 1
Cs(min) = 0.035
Controlling Cs = 0.049
DESIGN BASE SHEAR

(Eqn. 12.8-1): V=CsW with Total Building Weight = 15,033 kips
V DESIGN = 737 kips
-1- Seneca Software Solutions

Example #2 – 5 Story Residential Flat Plate with Concrete Shearwalls in Los
Angeles
Given:
Building Data
Special Concrete Shearwalls in a Building Frame System, R = 6
Risk Category: II
Regular Structure (No Vertical or Horizontal Irregularities)
Site Latitude: 34.04790, Site Longitude: -118.25602
Seismic Floor Weight Shown Below
Total Building Seismic Weight = 23,162 kips
Ground Motion Data from the Geotechnical Report

Site Class: D “Stiff Soil”
Ss = 2.367g (from USGS Design Maps Website)
S1 = 0.831g (from USGS Design Maps Website)
Find:
b) Building Period, Ta (ASCE 7 12.8-7)
c) SDS and SD1 values.
d) Cs Value
19

The SDC is a function of the value determined from the geotechnical site conditions. In this example
the S1 value is 0.831g and is greater than 0.75g. Therefore, given that the Risk Factor is II, the SDC
assigned value is E. This SDC value has restrictions on irregularities allowed; most importantly the
structure must not have extreme torsional irregularity as defined in ASCE 7 Table 13.3-1.1b.
b) Building Period, Ta (ASCE 7 12.8-7)

The building lateral system is classified as Special Concrete Shearwall in a Building Frame System (see
ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1). The Ct and x values determined from Table 12.8-2 (All other structural systems)
are 0.02 and 0.75, respectively. Therefore;
.
0.02 60
.
ASCE 7 Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 are used to determine the values of Fa and Fv, respectively. For a Site
Class of D and an Ss value greater than 1.25 the Fa value is 1.0. For a site class of D and an S1 value
greater than 0.5 the Fv value is 1.5.
SMS = FaSs
This building is a 5 story, regular building with a period less than 0.5s. Therefore, ASCE 7 Section
12.8.1.3 states that we are not required to use an Ss factor greater than 1.5 for this building on this site.
Therefore,
SMS = (1.0)(1.5) = 1.5
Now, SM1
SM1 = FvS1
= (1.5)(0.831) = 1.25
And finally,
SDS = (2/3)SMS
= (2/3)(1.5) = 1.00
SD1 = (2/3)SM1
= (2/3)(1.25) = 0.83
d) Cs Value
12.8 2
According to ASCE 7 Table 1.5-2, a structure with a Risk Category of II has a corresponding Seismic
Importance Factor, Ie, of 1.00. Therefore, the Cs value calculated in Equation 12.8-2 is:
1.00
0.167
6
1.00
ASCE 7 states that the value of Cs in (12.8-2) above need not exceed:
12.8 3
0.83
0.321 0.167  use 0.167
6
0.43
1.00
An alternate way to look at this is to create the final Design Response Spectrum using the site-specific
parameters SDS and SD1, dividing the graph by (R/Ie) and determining CS by finding the graph
intersection at the fundamental period.
Using the values of SDS, SD1 previously found, Ie as 0, and the ASCE 7 definition of TS = SD1/SDS, we
can create the graph of CS in terms of the period, T and then find CS at a period of 0.43s.
Our point in presenting the problem this way is show that the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure is very
similar to what we will do later with the modal response spectrum analysis. The two analyses are
actually very similar. The major difference is that in the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure we will
only consider the fundamental period in the analysis, and ASCE 7 will require a vertical force
distribution of the base shear that attempts to incorporate the effects of the higher modes and associated
periods not considered in the analysis.
ASCE 7 Equation 12.8-5 establishes one of the minimum Cs values.
0.044 0.01
= 0.044(1.00)(1.00) = 0.044 < 0.167  use 0.167
For buildings or structures on a site with an S1 value equal to or greater than 0.6g, which is the case in
this example, the following equation also applies:
.
12.8 6
. .
0.069 < 0.167  use 0.167
.
The controlling value of Cs is 0.167.
0.167 23,162 kips
= 3,868 kips
It is interesting to note that had we not taken advantage of ASCE 7 Section 12.8.1.3, the required base
shear would have been 6,092 kips, or 57% higher than the one we calculated.
The following page contains the output from our software, Seneca Seismic Design Values.

Project Name: Example #2 - 5 Story Residential Flat Plate in Los Angeles Date: 9/4/2017
Project Engineer: Bryan Allred
The program conforms to the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10
BUILDING DATA
Number of Elevated Levels: 5 |Analysis Direction: X |Seismic System: Special Concrete Shearwalls - Building Frame System
R Factor: 6 |Risk Category: II |Importance Factor: 1.00
GROUND MOTION DATA FROM GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

S S : 1.50g (Limited to 1.50g per ASCE 7 Section 12.8.1.3) | S1 : 0.83g | Site Class: D | Seismic Design Category: E
CALCULATED GROUND MOTION DATA

Fa: 1.00 | Fv: 1.50 (from Tables 11.4-1 & 11.4-2 of ASCE 7)
SMS = FaS S = 1.50
SM1 = FvS 1 = 1.25
SDS = (2/3)S MS = 1.00 S D1 = (2/3)S M1 = 0.83
BUILDING PERIOD ASCE 7 Eqn. (12.8-7)

Ct: 0.02 |x: 0.75 |hn: 52.5 ft.
Ta = Ct*(hn)^x = 0.39s
Cs VALUES
(Eqn. 12.8-2) (Eqn. 12.8-3)
Cs = Sds/(R/Ie) with: Sds = 1.00| R = 6| Ie = 1 Cs = Sd1/(T(R/Ie)) with: Sd1 = 0.83| R = 6| Ie = 1| T =0.39s
Cs = 0.167 Cs = 0.355
(Eqn. 12.8-5) (Eqn. 12.8-6) - Only applies when S1 >= 0.6g

Cs(min) = 0.044SdsIe >= 0.01 with: Sds = 1.00| Ie = 1 Cs(min) = 0.5S1/(R/Ie) with: S1 = 0.83| R = 6| Ie = 1
Cs(min) = 0.044 Cs(min) = 0.069
Controlling Cs = 0.167
DESIGN BASE SHEAR

(Eqn. 12.8-1): V=CsW with Total Building Weight = 23,162 kips
V DESIGN = 3,868 kips

3
Vertical Distribution and Diaphragm Design Forces Using
the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
Vertical Distribution of the Base Shear

The vertical distribution of the base shear is intended to create a load combination that will envelope the
maximum shear at any level. It is very important for young engineers to understand that the forces and
their vertical distribution in the following calculations only make sense as a complete set of forces. The
individual forces at each level in this analysis do not have any particular meaning, except that they
contribute to the overall shear envelope. This concept will become clearer when we explore dynamic
modal analysis later in the book. For now, understand that a multi-story building is oscillating under the
influence of multiple modes acting simultaneously, and the purpose of the following calculations is to
determine a singular set of forces that when applied to the structure will envelope the maximum story
shears that are expected to occur as all of the oscillating modes participate in the structure's response to
the earthquake.
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.3 "Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces" states that the portion of the base
shear, V, applied at each level of the structure be determined from the following equations:
12.8 11
and,
12.8 12
∑
where,
Cvx = the vertical distribution factor
V = the total design lateral force or shear at the base of the structure
wi and wx = the portion of the total effective seismic weight of the structure (W) located or assigned to
Level i or x
hi and hx = the height in feet from the base to Level i or x
k = an exponent related to the structure period as follows:
 for structures having a period of 0.5s or less, k = 1
 for structures having a period of 2.5s or more, k = 2
 for structures having a period between 0.5s and 2.5s, k shall be 2 or determined by linear
interpolation between 1 and 2
Diaphragm Design Forces

The diaphragm, in our opinion, is probably the most important element in the lateral load path and is
often not given the respect it deserves, particularly by the academic world. Because of that, many
engineering students graduate and begin their design career with a minimal understanding of the role of
the diaphragm, and also often a statically incorrect view. The diaphragm is best thought of as the
membrane that ties all of the lateral force-resisting elements together, requiring that they work together
as a unit in resisting the earthquake. But it does more than just that. The diaphragm is unique in that it
not only transfers the seismic load to the seismic force-resisting system; it is also where those lateral
loads (weights) are generated. The diaphragm, or the laterally continuous portion of the floor, supports
the majority of the building weight since it is an integral part of the floor.
In post-tensioned concrete flat plates, the floor and the diaphragm are exactly the same thing. Every
inch of the plate or flat slab is used to support the vertical gravity loads, and every inch of the plate is
also used as the diaphragm to distribute the lateral loads to the seismic resisting elements. This is one of
the reasons that flat plate structures are so cost efficient, especially when they are post-tensioned.
However, in a long-span post-tensioned structure constructed of a one-way slab spanning to beams, only
the slab portion is considered the diaphragm as it is the only laterally continuous portion of the floor
system. While the beams can be used to resist collector forces (drag forces for us old folks) or chord
forces, they do not participate in the membrane action that ties all of the lateral force-resisting members
together.
In wood structures, the portion of the floor considered as the diaphragm is typically only the plywood,
and in most structural steel buildings the diaphragm is considered the concrete filled metal deck portion
of the floor.
Many engineers like to say that the analysis of the diaphragm is the same as the analysis of a beam on its
side, where the diaphragm is modeled as a beam and the supports for the beam are the lateral load
resisting elements (the shearwalls or moment frames, etc.). In our opinion this analogy, while somewhat
accurate, often leads to a statically incorrect analysis of the diaphragm shears and moments. We will go
into this in great depth later in the book.
As previously stated, the forces found in the previous section represent a set of forces that will envelope
the maximum seismic shear at any level, including base level. However, these forces do not represent
the largest story force that may occur at any particular level during an earthquake. It is necessary to
perform different calculations to determine the maximum force at any particular level regardless of the
overall set of forces acting at that instant. These forces will be the forces that the diaphragms must be
designed to withstand. Again, this will become clearer as we explore dynamic modal analysis later in
the book. But for now, understand that as the building is oscillating under the influence of multiple
modes, the maximum forces generated at any particular level will be the statistical combination of the
modal story forces, not shears, at that level. ASCE 7 estimates these diaphragm forces using the
following method.
ASCE 7 Section 12.10 "Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors" states that the diaphragms at each level
must be designed for loading according to the following equation:
∑
12.10 1
∑
where,
Fpx = the diaphragm design force at Level x

Fi = the design force applied at Level i
wi = the weight tributary to Level i
wpx = the weight tributary to the diaphragm at Level x
The minimum diaphragm force (or “shall not be less than” force) at any level is:
Fpx = 0.2SDSIewpx (12.10-2)
And the maximum required diaphragm force (or “need not exceed” force) at any level is:
Fpx = 0.4SDSIewpx (12.10-3)
Example #1 – 5 Story Steel Office Building with Steel Moment Frames at Cal Poly,
San Luis Obispo
Given:
Base Shear = 737 kips (from Example #2 of Chapter 2)

Seismic weight per level shown below
Fundamental Period = 1.15s
SDS = 0.79 (from Example #2 of Chapter 2)
Ie = 1.00 (from Example #2 of Chapter 2)
Find:
a) Vertical Distribution of the Base Shear using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure of ASCE 7
b) The Required Diaphragm Design Force at Each Level
a) Vertical Distribution of the Base Shear using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure of
ASCE 7
12.8 11
and,
12.8 12
∑
Determine the Exponent, k

The fundamental period of the structure is 1.15s, which is greater than 0.5. Therefore, according to
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.3:
1.15 0.5
1 2 1 1.32
2.5 0.5
Set up a table for the vertical distribution calculations.
Level w h hk whk Cvx F
(kips) (ft.) (kips)
Roof 2,505 68.0 (68.0)1.32 666,088 (666,088/2,127,453) 0.313(737)
= 265.9 = 0.313 = 231
5th 3,132 55.0 (55.0)1.32 628,885 (628,885/2,127,453) 0.296(737)
= 200.8 = 0.296 = 218
4th 3,132 42.0 (42.0)1.32 440,163 (440,163/2,127,453) 0.207(737)
= 140.5 = 0.207 = 152
3rd 3,132 29.0 (29.0)1.32 269,640 (269,640/2,127,453) 0.127(737)
= 86.1 = 0.127 = 93
2nd 3,132 16.0 (16.0)1.32 122,757 (122,757/2,127,453) 0.058(737)
= 39.2 = 0.058 = 43
=2,127,453 =1.0 = 737

∑
12.10 1
∑
Fpx(min) = 0.2SDSIewpx (12.10-2)
Fpx(max) = 0.4SDSIewpx (12.10-3)

Set up a table for the diaphragm calculations.

Level w F Fpx Fpx(min) Fpx(max) Fpx(design)
(kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
Roof 2,505 231 (231/2,505)(2,505) 0.2(0.79)(1.0)(2,505) 0.4(0.79)(1.0)(2,505) 394
= 231 = 394 = 789
5th 3,132 218 (449/5,637)(3,132) 0.2(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 0.4(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 493
= 249 = 493 = 986
4th 3,132 152 (601/8,769)(3,132) 0.2(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 0.4(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 493
= 215 = 493 = 986
3rd 3,132 93 (694/11,901)(3,132) 0.2(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 0.4(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 493
= 183 = 493 = 986
2nd 3,132 43 (737/15,033)(3,132) 0.2(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 0.4(0.79)(1.0)(3,132) 493
= 153 = 493 = 986
Notice that, unlike the concrete building in the previous example, the diaphragm design loads are
governed in this steel moment frame building by the minimum required Fpx force at every level.
There is also no sense in drawing a force and shear diagram. The diaphragm forces are the maximum
anticipated at any level at some time during the earthquake, but they are not assumed to be acting
simultaneously.

Project Name: Example #2 - 5 Story Steel Office Building: 1 Grand Ave., San Luis Obispo, CA Date: 8/24/2017
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION TABLE (12.8.3)

(k per 12.8.3 = 1.32)
Level w h h^k wh^k Cvx F

(kips) (ft.) (kips)
Roof 2,505 68.00 265.87 666,008 0.313 231
5th 3,132 55.00 200.79 628,885 0.296 218
4th 3,132 42.00 140.54 440,163 0.207 152
3rd 3,132 29.00 86.09 269,640 0.127 93
2nd 3,132 16.00 39.19 122,757 0.058 43
Sum = 2,127,453 1.00 737
DIAPHRAGM DESIGN LOADS (12.10.1.1)
Level W F Fpx 0.2*Sds*I*Wpx 0.4*Sds*I*Wpx F(diaphragm)

Roof 2,505 231 231 394 789 394
5th 3,132 218 249 493 986 493
4th 3,132 152 215 493 986 493
3rd 3,132 93 183 493 986 493
2nd 3,132 43 153 493 986 493

Example #2 – 5 Story Residential Flat Plate with Concrete Shearwalls in Los

Angeles
Given:
Base Shear = 3,868 kips (from Example #1 of Chapter 2)

Seismic weight per level shown below
Fundamental Period = 0.43s
SDS = 1.00 (from Example #1 of Chapter 2)
Ie = 1.00 (from Example #1 of Chapter 2)
Find:
a) Vertical Distribution of the Base Shear using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure of ASCE 7.
b) The Required Diaphragm Design Force at Each Level.
a) Vertical Distribution of the Base Shear using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure of
ASCE 7
12.8 11
and,
12.8 12
∑
Determine the Exponent, k

The fundamental period of the structure is 0.43s, which is less than 0.5. Therefore, according to ASCE
7 Section 12.8.3, k = 1.
Set up a table for the vertical distribution calculations.
Level w h hk whk Cvx F

(kips) (ft.) (kips)
Roof 3,922 60.0 (60.0)1.0 235,320 (235,320/884,670) 0.266(3,868)
= 60.0 = 0.266 = 1,029
5th 4,810 49.5 (49.5)1.0 238,095 (238,095/884,670) 0.269(3,868)
= 49.5 = 0.269 = 1,041
4th 4,810 39.0 (39.0)1.0 187,590 (187,590/884,670) 0.212(3,868)
= 39.0 = 0.212 = 820
3rd 4,810 28.5 (28.5)1.0 137,085 (137,085/884,670) 0.155(3,868)
= 28.5 = 0.155 = 599
2nd 4,810 18.0 (18.0)1.0 86,580 (86,580/884,670) 0.098(3,868)
= 18.0 = 0.098 = 379
=884,670 =1.0 = 3,868

∑
12.10 1
∑
Fpx(max) = 0.4SDSIewpx (12.10-3)
Set up a table for the diaphragm calculations.
Level w F Fpx Fpx(min) Fpx(max) Fpx(design)

Roof 3,922 1,029 (1,029/3,922)(3,922) 0.2(1.0)(1.0)(3,922) 0.4(1.0)(1.0)(3,922) 1,029
= 1,029 = 784 = 1,569
5th 4,810 1,041 (2,070/8,732)(4,810) 0.2(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 0.4(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 1,140
= 1,140 = 962 = 1,924
4th 4,810 820 (2,890/13,542)( 4,810) 0.2(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 0.4(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 1,027
= 1,027 = 962 = 1,924
3rd 4,810 599 (3,489/18,352)(4,810) 0.2(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 0.4(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 962
= 915 = 962 = 1,924
2nd 4,810 379 (3,868/23,162)(4,810) 0.2(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 0.4(1.0)(1.0)(4,810) 962
= 803 = 962 = 1,924

Project Name: Example #1 - 5 Story Residential Flat Plate in Los Angeles Date: 9/7/2017
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION TABLE (12.8.3)

(k per 12.8.3 = 1.00)
Level w h h^k wh^k Cvx F

(kips) (ft.) (kips)
GS2.6 3,922 60.00 60.00 235,320 0.266 1,029
GS2.5 4,810 49.50 49.50 238,095 0.269 1,041
GS2.4 4,810 39.00 39.00 187,590 0.212 820
GS2.3 4,810 28.50 28.50 137,085 0.155 599
GS2.2 4,810 18.00 18.00 86,580 0.098 379
Sum = 884,670 1.00 3,868
DIAPHRAGM DESIGN LOADS (12.10.1.1)
Level W F Fpx 0.2*Sds*I*Wpx 0.4*Sds*I*Wpx F(diaphragm)

GS2.6 3,922 1,029 1,029 784 1,569 1,029
GS2.5 4,810 1,041 1,140 962 1,924 1,140
GS2.4 4,810 820 1,027 962 1,924 1,027
GS2.3 4,810 599 915 962 1,924 962
GS2.2 4,810 379 803 962 1,924 962

4
Base Shear and Vertical Distribution Using Modal
Response Spectrum Analysis
In no way is this book intended to replace your dynamics book. Our intent is to have you take what you
learned in your dynamics class and apply it practically to the seismic design of a building, as you would
in a design office. We tell our own college students and younger school children when we are asked to
speak at high schools and middle schools that engineers are not mathematicians, nor are we physicists.
Parents typically believe that because their young son or daughter "just loves math and science" that
they will naturally be great engineers. Parents seem to hate hearing that in our opinion, the boy in the
garage taking apart the microwave to see how it works, or the girl who asks for a soldering iron for her
birthday is more likely to be successful as an engineer than the kid who won the math competition. That
probably explains why we have not been asked back to speak to the middle school or high school
students in a while.
Engineers leave the high-level math to the mathematicians and the high-level physics to the physicists.
An engineer's job is to take the results of what the mathematicians and physicists give us and apply
those results in a practical and hopefully economical solution to a societal "problem." In this case, the
problem is how to safely and economically design a building to withstand an earthquake.
In the following section, we will do a minor review of dynamic theory as it applies to mode shapes and
frequencies of vibration, but for anything beyond that you will need to consult Clough and Penzien.
The Basics of Free Vibration in an Undamped System
The classic equation of motion for an undamped freely vibrating single-degree of freedom (SDOF)
system, or a system with no forcing function is:
0
where;
m is the mass of the SDOF system;
k is the stiffness of the system;
x is the displacement of the mass;
is the acceleration of the mass, or second derivative of the displacement;
0 represents free vibration, or no forcing function.
In words, this equation states that in a linear spring-type system, a mass experiencing an acceleration (a
force) is equal to the stiffness of the spring multiplied by the displacement of the spring (also a force)
and these two terms (forces) must be equal and opposite.
In order to analyze a multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) system the same equation is used, but in vector
or matrix form. Instead of x representing a displacement, it will represent a shape vector that oscillates
in a simple harmonic motion represented by a sine curve. The number of oscillations in a given period
of time is the frequency of the system's vibration. Therefore, the displacement in the above equation can
be written in terms of time as a shape vector multiplied by a sine function with a frequency of
oscillation, ;
sin 
The acceleration, or second derivative of the displacement vector is:
= - sin 
Substituting both the displacement vector and the acceleration vector back into the original equation of
motion gives:
- sin  
Dividing all terms by sin(t) and rewriting gives;

This equation represents a classic eigenvalue problem, where;
is an eigenvector, but more familiar to us as a mode shape;
 is an eigenvalue, but more familiar to us as the square of the frequency of vibration corresponding to
a particular mode shape, which can then be related to a period of vibration, T.
There are as many solutions to this problem as there are mass degrees of freedom in a lumped mass
system, and there is only one corresponding eigenvector (mode shape) for each eigenvalue (squared
frequency) solution. In simple terms, each mode shape is unique and has only one corresponding
frequency of vibration, or period of vibration, T (T = 2π/). For our purposes, a three-story building
modelled with lumped masses at each level that are limited in a two-dimensional system to translational
movement only, will have three mode shape solutions and three corresponding periods.
It is at this point that we hand this problem over to the mathematicians to solve (or a computer) and go
to lunch. Once we have the solutions (the mode shapes and periods) then we can go back to work as
engineers and use this information in the seismic design of our building.
The Participation Factor, n and the Participation Function, nn

The Participation Factor, n, is defined as a scalar for intended to measure the relative contribution of
mode "n" to the total system state, but we will see that this number by itself has very little meaning
because it depends upon the arbitrary numbers used to define the mode shapes.
∑ 
The participation factor, 
∑ 
where;
i = the level
n = the mode number
N = the total number of levels (lumped masses)
mi = the mass at level i
in = the mode shape value at level i in mode n.
The Participation Factor for a particular mode, when multiplied by the mode shape itself, provides the
Participation Function, and this is the vector that is critical to the future calculations. It is important to
note that regardless of the arbitrary original numbers used to describe the mode shape, the Participation
Function will always result in the same vector because the Participation Factor will change based upon
the numbers used to describe the shape. It appears that Bryan and I are the only remaining living
people who use the term Participation Function. If you Google the term, you will probably find that
nothing comes up, and we could not find the term in any of the newer dynamics books. In our opinion,
dynamic analysis is now presented in a much more complicated fashion than it was back in the good old
days, though nothing has really changed since I learned it in the 1980’s (and Bryan in the 1990’s). We
like the way we learned it, and therefore we will present it that way.
While we will analyze each mode in a MDOF system as a SDOF (single mass) response, it is the
Participation Function vector that will provide the conversion that determines the response of each mass
in the mode.
Again, the Participation Function for mode n is the participation factor for that mode multiplied by the
mode shape vector itself.
Participation Function = nn. In some old books this is referred to as n.
An interesting and useful fun fact about the Participation Function vectors is that when they are all
added together a unity vector is created. In mathematical terms,
 
where in this equation N equals the number of modes, and in our cases, will also equal the number of
levels. In words, this means that when all modes are considered, 100% of the total response has been
accounted for. While this calculation in itself will not aid in determining the modal forces, shears, etc. it
is a very good check to determine if you have made any math mistakes up to this point.
Modal Mass Participation

Each mode will have a corresponding effective mass associated with it, which is a percentage of the total
mass of the structure. The sum of all modal effective masses equals the total mass of the structure. The
effective mass participating in Mode n is calculated as,
∑ 

∑ 
This is the same equation as the Participation Factor, but with the numerator squared.
ASCE 7 Section 12.9.1 states that the “analysis shall include a sufficient number of modes to obtain a
combined modal mass participation of at least 90 percent of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal
horizontal directions of response considered by the model.” This does not mean that 10% of the weight
of the building can be ignored; it is simply the Code’s way of limiting the number of modes that are
necessary in the analysis to only the significant modes. In other words, if a mode has a very small mass
associated with it then its participation in the response to the earthquake is assumed to be negligible.
Determine the Forces and Story Shears for Each Individual Mode
Each mode and its corresponding period of vibration will be analyzed individually as a SDOF system
using a response spectrum. The forces will be applied to the masses in each mode based upon the
following equation:
 
Where;
= the force at level i for mode n
is the spectral acceleration of a SDOF system with a period corresponding to mode n
mi = the mass at level i
  is the participation function for mode n
The Response Spectrum

A response spectrum is a graph generated for a specific site by a geotechnical engineer that plots the
maximum accelerations experienced by a SDOF mass for a spectrum of periods of vibration based upon
that site’s specific characteristics. When a site specific response spectrum has not been generated by the
geotechnical engineer for the site, the ASCE Standard provides a method for generating a design
response spectrum for modal response spectrum analyses. This is described in ASCE 7 Section 11.4.5
and shown in Figure 11.4-1. That figure is replicated on the next page.
Note that we have only included the graph up to a period of TL. In the Western United States, the value
of “long period” is at least 6 seconds and is typically greater. Neither of us has ever been involved with
the design of a structure with a period that exceeded the TL value of ASCE 7, and in all likelihood you
will never either. Therefore, we are going to simplify the graph by eliminating the long period
acceleration portion.
ASCE 7 Figure 11.4-1 Design Response Spectrum

Where;
0.2
& SDS, SD1 were described previously.

Once the forces and story shears are calculated for each significant mode, the story shears must be
combined using some rational method. In this book we will combine the story shears using the square
root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method, though engineers will sometimes use the complete
quadratic combination (CQC) method. The CQC method claims to provide more accuracy for
combining high frequency modes (short period modes) that have frequencies close to each other. This is
rarely the case in most of the buildings that are built. Most buildings constructed are in the mid-rise
range or shorter and will satisfy the 90% mass requirement within the first two or three translational
modes. The mass participation in the higher modes is typically negligible. Therefore, how those higher
modes are combined, if they are used at all, in the overall combination of modes makes little difference.
ASCE 7 Section 12.9.2 states that the forces calculated from the Design Response Spectrum shall be
divided by the quantity (R/Ie) in order to produce the design level forces.
Scaling the Dynamic Base Shear

The base shear that is found using the modal response spectrum analysis will typically be less than the
base shear calculated using the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Procedure of ASCE 7 Section 12.8, and
it will typically be less than 85% of the ELF base shear. When the base shear calculated using the
dynamic analysis is less than 85% of the base shear calculated using the ELF procedure, ASCE 7
Section 12.9.4.1 requires that the dynamic base shear must be scaled up to 85% of ELF procedure base
shear.
San Luis Obispo
Given:
 Base shear using the ELF procedure = 737 kips (from Example #2 of Chapter 2)
 Seismic weight per level shown below
 Mode shapes and periods from a frame analysis program shown below (equal in both orthogonal
directions)
 Frame types shown below
Find:
a) Normalize the mode shapes such that the largest value for each mode is +1.0. Maintain three
decimal places for each value.
b) Using a two-dimensional frame analysis computer program, model all of the frames in one
direction in series connected by rigid links with hinged connections. Approximate the first mode
period using the Rayleigh Method and compare that to the Mode 1 period determined by
dynamic analysis.
c) Determine the Participation Function for each mode, and then sum the Participation Functions
for all modes to verify that a unity vector is created. For the first mode only, recalculate the
Participation Function using the original mode shape values given (not the normalized values)
and show that the same Participation Function is calculated either way.
d) Determine the mass (weight) participating in each mode. Sum the individual modal masses to
verify that 100% of the total mass is accounted for by using all modes. Determine which modes
only are necessary to satisfy the requirement that 90% of the modal mass be included in the
modal response spectrum analysis.
e) Create a response spectrum for the site based upon the site geotechnical properties given
previously. Plot the graph for periods up to 2.0 seconds.
f) Calculate the modal forces and story shears for all of the modes. Combine the story shears using
the SRSS method and extract the vertical force distribution that creates that story shear envelope.
Scale all of the story forces and base shear by dividing the forces obtained using the Design
Response Spectrum by (R/Ie) and then scale the base shear and corresponding story forces back
up to 85% of the ELF procedure base shear.
g) Repeat f), but only use the modes that are required to account for 90% of the modal mass.
Compare the forces and shears in this analysis side by side with the analysis using all modes.
h) Combine the story forces (not shears) using the SRSS method using only the modes necessary to
capture 90% of the mass to obtain maximum diaphragm forces. Scale the results by dividing
each force by (R/Ie) and then multiplying each force by a scale factor equal to the ELF base shear
divided by the base shear obtained in g) before it was scaled to 85% of the ELF base shear.
Compare these results side by side to the diaphragm results obtained using ASCE 7 Equation
(12.10-1) found previously.
a) Normalize the mode shapes such that the largest value for each mode is +1.0. Maintain
three decimal places for each value.
This is entirely unnecessary numerically, but for some reason it is standard practice (or used to be in the
good old days, at least) to “normalize” each shape to make all the values relative to 1.0. But we want to
do it here for a different reason, which will become clear in Part c).
b) Using a two-dimensional frame analysis computer program, model all of the frames in one
direction in series connected by rigid links with hinged connections. Approximate the first
mode period using the Rayleigh Method and compare that to the Mode 1 period
determined by dynamic analysis.
∑ 
2
∑ 
The Rayleigh Period method previously existed in the Uniform Building Code as the “Method B”
period. It was a completely valid and rational estimate of the building’s fundamental period, and was
very useful to us young engineers, particularly when designing steel moment frame buildings. The
reason that it was useful was that we are able to, without much additional work and using the frames that
we had already modelled anyway, show that we could use the maximum Code allowed fundamental
period when calculating the base shear of the building. The only thing that we were actually doing was
demonstrating that the Rayleigh Period (Method “B” Period) was longer than the maximum allowed
fundamental period.
Any base shear may be applied to the building, but it should be applied using the same vertical
distribution used for the Equivalent Lateral Load procedure. We could have used the base shear
previously calculated, but it is common to use a nice round number, such as 1,000 kips for the analysis.
The following demonstrates how we determine the Rayleigh Period using a 1,000 kip base shear.
The results of this analysis are shown below.
Level wi fi i i2 wii2 fii

(kips) (kips) (in.) (in.)2 (kips-in2) (kip-in.)
Roof 2,505 313 2.366 5.598 14,023 740.6
5th 3,132 296 2.036 4.145 12,983 602.7
4th 3,132 207 1.545 2.387 7,476 319.8
3rd 3,132 127 1.095 1.199 3,755 139.1
2nd 3,132 58 0.608 0.370 1,158 35.3
=39,395 =1,837.4
∑ 
2
∑ 
with g = 386.4 in/s2
2 39,395 / 386.4 1,837.4 1.48
This compares extremely well with the dynamic first mode period of 1.45s. The most important point is
that we could have proven that we may use the maximum allowed value of CuTa = 1.15s as the
fundamental period (see Chapter 2) when calculating the base shear without actually performing a
dynamic analysis.
c) Determine the Participation Function for each mode, and then sum the Participation
Functions for all modes to verify that a unity vector is created. For the first mode only,
recalculate the Participation Function using the original mode shape values given (not the
normalized values) and show that the same Participation Function is calculated either way.
Participation Function = nn
We must first determine the participation factor. Remember, this factor is really meaningless by itself,
as it depends entirely on the values that we used to describe the mode shape.
1st Mode Participation Factor
∑ 
∑ 
Level mi ϕi ϕi 2 mi ϕ i mi ϕi2
(kips) (unitless) (unitless) (kips) (kips)
Roof 2,505 1.0 1.0 2,505.0 2,505.0
5th 3,132 0.882 0.778 2,762.4 2,436.5
4th 3,132 0.688 0.473 2,154.8 1,482.5
3rd 3,132 0.501 0.251 1,569.1 786.1
2nd 3,132 0.286 0.082 895.8 256.2
=9,887.1 =7,466.3
9,887.1
 1.324
7,466.3
1st Mode Participation Function = 11
1.0 .
0.882 .
1.324 0.688 .
0.501 .
0.286 .
This next step is not necessary, but just for fun we will redo the above calculations using the originally
given mode shape numbers. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that while the numbers used to
describe the mode shape and the corresponding participation factor can vary, demonstrating that their
values are meaningless in and of themselves, the Participation Function values are constant for a
particular mode and are truly a distinct property of the mode itself. This is the money vector as it
contains the numbers that truly matter in the modal force calculations.
Level mi Original Original mi ϕi mi ϕi2

(kips) ϕi ϕi 2 (kips) (kips)
(unitless) (unitless)
Roof 2,505 0.619 0.383 1,550.6 959.4
5th 3,132 0.546 0.298 1,710.1 933.3
4th 3,132 0.426 0.182 1,334.2 570.0
3rd 3,132 0.310 0.096 970.9 300.7
2nd 3,132 0.177 0.031 554.4 97.1
=6,120.2 =2,860.5
6,120.2
 2.139
2,860.5
1st Mode Participation Function = 11
0.619 .
0.546 .
2.139 0.426 .
0.310 .
0.177 .
This is, of course, the same Participation Function as previously calculated using the normalized mode
shape.
2nd Mode Participation Factor
∑ 
∑ 
Level mi ϕi ϕi 2 mi ϕi mi ϕi2
Roof 2,505 1.0 1.0 2505.0 2505.0
5th 3,132 0.243 0.059 761.1 184.9
4th 3,132 -0.594 0.353 -1860.4 1105.1
3rd 3,132 -0.839 0.704 -2627.7 2204.7
2nd 3,132 -0.645 0.416 -2020.1 1303.0
=-3,242.1 =7,302.7
3,242.1
 0.444
7,302.7
2nd Mode Participation Function = 22

1.0 .
0.243 .
0.444 0.594 .
0.839 .
0.645 .
3rd Mode Participation Factor

∑ 
∑ 
Roof 2,505 0.871 0.759 2181.9 1900.4
5th 3,132 -0.736 0.542 -2305.2 1696.6
4th 3,132 -0.779 0.607 -2439.8 1900.6
3rd 3,132 0.402 0.162 1259.1 506.1
2nd 3,132 1.000 1.000 3132.0 3132.0
=1,828.0 =9135.7
1,828.0
 0.200
9,135.7
3rd Mode Participation Function = 33
0.871 .
0.736 .
0.200 0.779 .
0.402 .
1.0 .
4th Mode Participation Factor
∑ 
∑ 
Roof 2,505 -0.570 0.325 -1427.9 813.9
5th 3,132 1.000 1.000 3132.0 3132.0
4th 3,132 -0.660 0.436 -2067.1 1364.3
3rd 3,132 -0.382 0.146 -1196.4 457.0
2nd 3,132 0.773 0.598 2421.0 1871.5
=861.6 =7,638.7
861.6
 0.113
7,638.7
4th Mode Participation Function = 44
0.570 .
1.0 .
0.113 0.660 .
0.382 .
0.773 .
th
5 Mode Participation Factor
∑ 
∑ 
Level mi ϕi ϕi 2 mi ϕ i mi ϕi2
Roof 2,505 -0.126 0.016 -315.6 39.8
5th 3,132 0.335 0.112 1049.2 351.5
4th 3,132 -0.744 0.554 -2330.2 1733.7
3rd 3,132 1.000 1.000 3132.0 3132.0
nd
2 3,132 -0.647 0.419 -2026.4 1311.1
=-491.0 =6,568.1
491.0
 0.075
6,568.1
5th Mode Participation Function = 55
0.126 .
0.335 .
0.075 0.744 .
1.0 .
0.647 .
Show that the Sum of All the Participation Function Vectors Equals a Unity Vector
1.324 0.444 0.174 0.064 0.009 .
1.168 0.108 0.147 0.113 0.025 .
0.911 + 0.264 + 0.156 + 0.075 + 0.056 = .
0.663 0.373 0.080 0.043 0.075 .
0.379 0.286 0.200 0.087 0.049 .
d) Determine the mass (weight) participating in each mode. Sum the individual modal masses
to verify that 100% of the total mass is accounted for by using all modes. Determine which
modes only are necessary to satisfy the requirement that 90% of the modal mass be
included in the modal response spectrum analysis.
The effective mass participating in an individual mode is calculated using the following formula:
∑ 
equal to weight when gravity is constant
∑ 
But notice that this is the same equation as the Participation Factor, but with the numerator squared.
Therefore all of the numbers have already been calculated.
1st Mode Effective Mass
∑ 

∑ 
9,887.1 13,093
, 100 . %
7,466.3 15,033
2nd Mode Effective Mass
∑ 

∑ 
3,242.1 1,440
, 100 . %
7,302.7 15,033
3rd Mode Effective Mass
∑ 

∑ 
1,828.0 366
100 . %
9,135.7 15,033
4th Mode Effective Mass
∑ 

∑ 
861.6 97
100 . %
7,638.7 15,033
5th Mode Effective Mass
∑ 

∑ 
491.0 37
100 . %
6,568.1 15,033
Verify that the Sum of All the Effective Masses Equals the Mass (Weight) of the Structure
13,093 1440 366 97 37 , 
Determine How Many Modes are Necessary to Account for 90% of the Total Mass
It is clear that the first two modes account for 96.7% of the mass of the structure. Therefore, ASCE 7
Section 12.9.1 only requires that Modes #1 and #2 be included in the modal response spectrum analysis.
e) Create a response spectrum for the site based upon the site geotechnical properties given
previously. Plot the graph for periods up to 2.0 seconds.
The parameters that are required to construct the response spectrum of ASCE 7 Figure 11.4-1 are the
SDS and SD1 values previously calculated. Those were calculated for this site as 0.79g and 0.45g,
respectively.
0.2
0.45
0.2 0.11
0.79
0.45
0.57
0.79
Therefore, the ASCE 7 Design Response Spectrum for the steel building site in San Luis Obispo, CA is
generated as the following:
f) Calculate the modal forces and story shears for all of the modes. Combine the story shears
using the SRSS method and extract the vertical force distribution that creates that story
shear envelope. Scale all of the story forces and base shear by dividing the forces obtained
using the Design Response Spectrum by (R/Ie) and then scale the base shear and
corresponding story forces back up to 85% of the ELF procedure base shear.
The force at level i in Mode n is given by the following equation.
 
an0 is determined from the response spectrum at the period corresponding to Mode n.
Determine the Story Forces and Shears for Mode 1

The period of Mode 1 is 1.45s, which is greater than Ts of 0.57s. Therefore, the spectral acceleration, Sa
is equal to SD1/T.
0.45
0.31
1.45
Or, by using the graph itself;
  
Story Mass Part. Story Force Story Shear
(kips/g) Function (kips) (kips)
2,505 1.324 , . , .
3,132 1.168 , . , .
0.31 3,132 0.911 . , .
3,132 0.663 . , .

3,132 0.379 . , .

The period of Mode 2 is 0.53s, which is less than Ts of 0.57s. Therefore, the spectral acceleration, Sa is
equal to SDS = 0.79g.
Or, by using the graph itself;
  
2,505 0.444 . .
3,132 0.108 . , .
0.79 3,132 0.264 . .
3,132 0.373 . .

3,132 0.286 . , .

  
2,505 0.174 . .
3,132 0.147 . .
0.79 3,132 0.156 . .
3,132 0.080 . .

3,132 0.200 . .

  
2,505 0.064 . .
3,132 0.113 . .
0.79 3,132 0.075 . .
3,132 0.043 . .

3,132 0.087 . .

  
Story Mass Story Force Story Shear
(kips/g) (kips) (kips)
2,505 0.009 . .
3,132 0.025 . .
0.79 3,132 0.056 . .
3,132 0.075 . .

3,132 0.049 . .
Combine the Story Shears Using the SRSS Method and Extract the Story Forces
V5th = 1,028.2 878.7 344.3 126.7 17.8 , .

V4th = 2,162.2 1,145.9 19.4 152.9 44.1 , .
V3rd = 3,046.7 492.7 405.4 32.7 94.5 , .
V2nd = 3,690.4 430.2 207.5 139.1 91.1 , .
VBase = 4,058.4 1,137.8 287.4 76.2 30.1 , .
Extract the Level Forces from the Story Shears. Show as a proportion of the base shear.
FRoof = 1,401.5 kips (1,401.5 / 4,225.5 = 0.332V)
F5th = 2,452.3 - 1,401.5 kips = 1,050.8 kips (1,050.8 / 4,225.5 = 0.249V)
F4th = 3,114.4 - 2,452.3 = 662.1 kips (662.1 / 4,225.5 = 0.157V)
F3rd = 3,724.9 - 3,114.4 = 610.5 kips (610.5 / 4,225.5 = 0.144V)
F2nd = 4,225.5 - 3,724.9 = 500.6 kips (500.6 / 4,225.5 = 0.118V)
ASCE 7 Section 12.9.2 states that the forces calculated from the Design Response Spectrum shall be
divided by the quantity (R/Ie) in order to produce the design level seismic forces. However, ASCE 7
Section 12.9.4.1 also states that the final design base shear must not be less than 85% of the base shear
determined using the ELF procedure.
The dynamic base shear divided by (R/Ie) = 4,225.5 kips / [8/1.0] = 528.2 kips.
However, 85% of the ELF procedure base shear is 0.85(737 kips) = 627 kips and this will control the
design.
Therefore, the final design forces using the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis considering all modes
are:
FRoof = 0.332(627 kips) = 208.2 kips
F5th = 0.249(627 kips) = 156.1 kips
F4th = 0.157(627 kips) = 98.4 kips
F3rd = 0.144(627 kips) = 90.3 kips
F2nd = 0.118(627 kips) = 74.0 kips
 = 627.0 kips
g) Repeat f), but only use the modes that are required to account for 90% of the modal mass.
Compare the forces and shears in this analysis side by side with the analysis using all
modes.
We demonstrated previously that the first two modes account for well over 90% of the seismic mass.
Therefore, we will repeat the modal combination using the SRSS method, but only with the first and
second modes.
Combine Only the First and Second Story Shears Using the SRSS Method and Extract the Story
Forces
V5th = 1,028.2 878.7 , .

V4th = 2,162.2 1,145.9 , .
V3rd = 3,046.7 492.7 , .
V2nd = 3,690.4 430.2 , .
VBase = 4,058.4 1,137.8 , .
Extract the Level Forces from the Story Shears. Show as a proportion of the base shear.
FRoof = 1,352.5 kips (1,352.5 / 4,214.9 = 0.321V)
F5th = 2,447.1 - 1,352.5 kips = 1,094.6 kips (1,094.6 / 4,214.9 = 0.260V)
F4th = 3,086.3 - 2,447.1 = 639.2 kips (639.2 / 4,214.9 = 0.152V)
F3rd = 3,715.4 - 3,086.3 = 629.1 kips (629.1 / 4,214.9 = 0.149V)
F2nd = 4,214.9 - 3,715.4 = 499.5 kips (499.5 / 4,214.9 = 0.118V)
As before, ASCE 7 Section 12.9.2 states that the forces calculated from the Design Response Spectrum
shall be divided by the quantity (R/Ie) in order to produce the design level seismic forces. ASCE 7
Section 12.9.4.1 also states that the final design base shear must not be less than 85% of the base shear
determined using the ELF procedure.
The dynamic base shear divided by (R/Ie) = 4,214.9 kips / [8/1.0] = 526.9 kips.
However, 85% of the ELF procedure base shear is 0.85(737 kips) = 627 kips and this will control the
design just as it did when we considered all modes. Therefore, there is no difference in design base
shear in this example (or typically ever) between an analysis that considers all modes, or only the modes
necessary to account for 90% of the structure's dynamic mass.
Therefore, the final design forces using the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis considering only the
first and second modes are:
FRoof = 0.321(627 kips) = 201.3 kips

F5th = 0.260(627 kips) = 163.0 kips
F4th = 0.152(627 kips) = 95.3 kips
F3rd = 0.149(627 kips) = 93.4 kips
F2nd = 0.118(627 kips) = 74.0 kips
 = 627.0 kips
The results of this exercise demonstrate that the use of the higher modes tends to move the resultant
force higher up the building. In previous codes, for longer period buildings a portion of the base shear
was applied as a single force, Ft, at the top level of the building to account for the higher mode effects in
the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure. In the current code that effect is accounted for with the use of
the "k" factor in the vertical distribution equation:
12.8 11
and,
12.8 12
∑
In the late 1980's and early 1990’s, using an IBM 386 machine, it would often take a number of minutes,
not quite hours, but a noticeable amount of time to run a modal response spectrum analysis. Using only
the first few modes would significantly reduce the computer run-time, so designers would often choose
this option. Today, a computer can run a large dynamic problem using all modes in a matter of seconds.
Therefore, it is common to simply have the computer use all modes. However, the wiser (read “older”)
folks realize that it is beneficial to the design to only use the modes that account for 90% of the mass
because that analysis will result in lower overturning moments, deflections and foundation loading.
h) Combine the story forces (not shears) using the SRSS method using only the modes
necessary to capture 90% of the mass to obtain maximum diaphragm forces. Scale the
results by dividing each force by (R/Ie) and then multiplying each force by a scale factor
equal to the ELF base shear divided by the base shear obtained in g) before it was scaled to
85% of the ELF base shear. Compare these results side by side to the diaphragm results
obtained using ASCE 7 Equation (12.10-1) found previously.
We previously found that Modes 1 & 2 were the only modes necessary to capture over 90% of the
building mass. The story forces for each mode are shown below.
1,028.2 878.7
1,134.0 267.2
884.5 653.2
643.7 922.9
368.0 707.6
The SRSS of the forces at each level are:
FRoof = 1,028.2 878.7 , .

F5th = 1,134.0 267.2 , .
F4rd = 884.5 653.2 , .
F3rd = 643.7 922.9 , .
F2nd = 368.0 707.6 .
Divide these forces by R/Ie to obtain the response spectrum design diaphragm forces.
FRoof = 1,352.5 kips / (8/1.0) = 169.1 kips

F5th = 1,165.1 kips / (8/1.0) = 145.6 kips
F4th = 1,099.6 kips / (8/1.0) = 137.5 kips
F3rd = 1,125.2 kips / (8/1.0) = 140.7 kips
F2nd = 797.6 kips / (8/1.0) = 99.7 kips
In the story shear analysis we were required to scale the results to 85% of the ELF base shear. The base
shear from the response spectrum analysis using only Modes 1 & 2 was found to be 526.9 kips. It
follows that we could use the same scale factor for the diaphragm forces. However, to be conservative
and to be able to compare “apples to apples” we will scale these forces to the full ELF base shear of 737
kips. Therefore, the scale factor will be 737 kips / 526.9 kips = 1.40.
The modal response spectrum diaphragm forces that we will use to compare to the ELF diaphragm
forces are:
FRoof = 169.1 kips x 1.40 = 236.7 kips

F5th = 145.6 kips x 1.40 = 203.8 kips
F4th = 137.5 kips x 1.40 = 192.5 kips
F3rd = 140.7 kips x 1.40 = 197.0 kips
F2nd = 99.7 kips x 1.40 = 139.5 kips
The comparison of the ELF diaphragm forces and the modal response spectrum forces is shown below.
Level Equivalent Lateral Force Modal Response Spectrum

Procedure Diaphragm Fpx Diaphragm Forces (kips)
Values (kips)
Roof 231 236.7
5th 249 203.8
4th 215 192.5
3rd 183 197.0
2nd 153 139.5
This was really an academic exercise to demonstrate how the diaphragm force can be calculated using a
modal response spectrum analysis, and how this compares to the ASCE 7 simplified diaphragm
equation. If we included all of the modes we would see that the dynamic diaphragm forces increase
slightly at every level. In actuality for this example however, the diaphragm forces at every level are
governed by the minimum diaphragm force, just as they were in the ELF calculations:

5
Rigid Diaphragm Lateral Load Distribution
In the previous two chapters we developed the vertical distribution of the seismic base shear using both
the Equivalent Lateral Force and modal response spectrum procedures. Those methods were based upon
two-dimensional analyses considering the earthquake in one of the building's two primary orthogonal
directions. Those forces now must be placed on each respective diaphragm and distributed to the
vertical lateral load resisting elements (the shearwalls, moment frames, etc.). In this book we are
limiting our discussions to rigid diaphragms (concrete or concrete filled metal decks). Flexible
diaphragms such as wood and metal deck without concrete fill are simpler to analyze and the loads that
they deliver to the vertical seismic elements are typically based upon tributary seismic area to each
vertical seismic resisting element.
The Diaphragm - What is it, Exactly?

The diaphragm is best thought of as a membrane that is rigid in its own plane. It is similar to a
horizontal concrete shearwall but it laterally connects to and ties all of the seismic and non-seismic
elements together such that their spacing from each other in two horizontal dimensions remains constant
during a seismic event. The theory is that all of the elements attached to the diaphragm will move with
the diaphragm as it laterally translates and torsionally rotates as a rigid body.
This figure shows a very stiff in-plane concrete seismic shearwall, a flexible concrete column and a
metal stud wall with no continuity or stiffness at all. All three elements will maintain their connection
points to each diaphragm as the diaphragms translate and rotate during an earthquake, therefore
maintaining the same horizontal distance from each other in all directions. The stiff shearwall will
experience primarily shear deformations while the flexible concrete column will experience primarily
bending deformations, and the metal stud wall will simply rack.
In our seismic analyses, we will assume that only the seismic elements resist the lateral loads because
the stiffness of the seismic system will be much greater than any other non-seismic element, and the
stiffer the element the more load will be required to displace it. However, it is important to realize that
every element attached to a diaphragm must be capable of experiencing all the same lateral movements
that the seismic system is experiencing without collapsing. Once this becomes clear, most engineers
arrive at the conclusion that a seismic system that limits the lateral story drifts (the displacement
between diaphragms from one story to the next) to very manageable amounts for all the elements within
the structure is often the preferred seismic system for that structure.
Determining the Rigidity of the Lateral Load Resisting Elements

The inertial seismic loads will be distributed to the lateral load resisting elements through the rigid
diaphragm translation and rotation based upon the stiffness of the lateral load resisting elements. The
first step is to determine the stiffness, or rigidity of those elements.
The most accurate way to do this without modeling the building in three dimensions would be to link in
series all of the seismic load resisting elements and apply a force distribution to the system matching the
force distribution percentages previously calculated. The sum of the shears in the vertical elements of a
frame or wall in a given story divided by the total shears for all frames or walls at that story would
represent the relative rigidity of that frame or wall at that story.
This is somewhat more complicated than we want to demonstrate in this book, and typically unnecessary
unless the building has dramatic stiffness differences between elements or an unusual configuration
where not all elements connect to all levels. At that point, a three-dimensional model would be
advisable.
We are going to assume that the building is fairly regular in stiffness distribution with connectivity to all
floors. We will define the rigidity of an element as the force required to displace the element a unit
value at the level of the force application. It will be necessary to determine the rigidity of each element
at each floor level in order to properly calculate the distribution of seismic forces to those elements.
The Rigidity of Concrete Shearwalls
The lateral displacement of a cantilevered concrete shearwall under a lateral load is comprised of two
components; a shear deformation, and a bending deformation.
The shear deformation component is calculated using the following equation, where G is the shear
modulus of elasticity:
1.2 1.2 3

0.4
The bending deformation component is determined from the traditional "flagpole" equation:

3
Therefore, the total lateral displacement at any level due to a force, F applied at that level is:
3

3
Since the rigidity is the force per unit displacement, the rigidity of a concrete shearwall at a particular
level a distance h above the base can be written as:
1

∆ 3
3
We will primarily be interested in only the relative rigidities of the walls (relative to each other) as
opposed to the actual rigidities, so if we can simplify this equation that will help simplify our
calculations. When the modulus of elasticity, E, is constant for all walls, as it often is, the rigidity
equation for a cantilevered wall simplifies to:
1

∆ 3
3
The Rigidity of Moment Frames, Braced Frames, Etc.
The simplest way to determine the rigidity of a moment frame or braced frame is to model it in a frame
analysis program and place a lateral force at the level of interest and allow the program to calculate the
deflection at that level. The rigidity is simply the force divided by the lateral displacement at that level.
Direct Translational Forces and Rigid Body Rotational Forces

Once the rigidities of all of the seismic elements have been determined the diaphragms will be analyzed
in two conditions; direct translation and rigid body rotation. In both cases the centroid of the diaphragm
force will be applied at the center of gravity, or C.G.
Direct Translational Forces
Direct forces will be calculated with the diaphragm “locked” against rotation. Only direct translation
will be allowed, and the direct forces will be distributed to the seismic system based solely on their
relative rigidities.
Direct Forces (All Forces Shown Acting On Diaphragm)
Rotational Forces
Rotational forces will be calculated by locking the diaphragm this time against translation, and only
allowing rotation. The rotation must occur about the center of rigidity, C.R. The torsional moment is
equal to the resultant diaphragm force multiplied by the eccentricity between the center of gravity and
the center of rigidity. The resultant diaphragm force will act through the center of gravity, but will be
resisted through the center of rigidity.
Calculation of Rotational Forces
Consider the diaphragm rotating about the center of rigidity, with a rotation angle, .
Rotational Forces (All Forces Shown Acting On Diaphragm)
The deflection of any wall, i is:

i = di, where di is the perpendicular distance between the wall and the center of
rigidity.
The force in any wall, i due to rotation only is:

Fi = Rii = Ridi
By summing moments about the center of rigidity;

Fe = MTORS = F1d1+ F2d2+ F3d3 + F4d4
Or in general terms;
Fe = MTORS =Fidi
Substituting Fi = Ridi
Fe = MTORS = R1(d1)2 + R2(d2)2 + R3(d3)2 + R4(d4)2
Or in general terms;
Fe = MTORS = [ Ri(di)2]
But  is constant, and for any wall, i:

∆
∆
∴
Rewriting in terms of the force, Fi;
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.2 Accidental Torsion

ASCE 7 requires that the total torsional moment applied to the diaphragm include the inherent torsional
moment plus an accidental torsional moment resulting from the shift in the center of mass equal to 5
percent of the dimension of the structure perpendicular to the direction of applied forces. This
accidental shift in the center of mass must be applied “in the direction that produces the greater effect.”
Therefore, in order to capture the greatest forces resulting from torsion, it may be necessary to shift the
center of mass in the positive and negative directions.
ASCE 7 Section 12.8.4.3 Amplification of Accidental Torsional Moment

According to ASCE 7, structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F where Type 1a or 1b
torsional irregularity exists as defined in Table 12.3-1 shall have the effects accounted for by
multiplying the accidental torsional moment at each level by a torsional amplification factor (Ax), where;

(12.8-14)
. 
Where;
max = the maximum displacement at Level x computed assuming Ax = 1
avg = the average of the displacements at the extreme points of the structure at Level x computed
assuming Ax = 1
Ax shall not be less than 1 and is not required to exceed 3.0.
The simplest way to account for the Ax factor is to multiply it by the accidental eccentricity percent
value. In other words, the analysis must include an accidental torsional moment resulting from a shift in
the center of mass equal to Ax(5%).
San Luis Obispo
Given:
Roof Level Force (Previously Found in Modal Analysis using 1st two modes): 201.3 kips
Levels 5 Force (Previously Found in Modal Analysis using 1st two modes): 163.0 kips
Recall that the Redundancy Factor, , will not be applied here. It would be applied, if it is equal to 1.3,
when sizing the frame members for strength, and it is also used to decrease the allowable drift values in
moment frame structures.
Find:
a) Determine the frame rigidities for each frame at each level
b) Determine the center of gravity and center of rigidity locations
c) For loading in the North-South direction applied with a positive eccentricity shift, determine the
required seismic loads to each frame at the Roof and 5th Levels using the forces found using the
modal response spectrum analysis considering only Modes 1 & 2
d) For the Roof Level, determine if torsional irregularity Type 1a or 1b exists according to ASCE 7
Table 12.3-1
a) Determine the frame rigidities for each frame at each level

Model the two frame types and apply a 100 kip load at each level, n for frame i. Determine the
displacement at that level and calculate the frame rigidity at that level for each frame based upon:
Frame Type 1 Rigidity Loading and Deflections at the Roof and 5th Levels
Frame Type 2 Rigidity Loading and Deflections at the Roof and 5th Levels
The following table contains the deflection at each level for each frame under a 100 kip lateral load at
that level, as well as the frame rigidities and relative rigidities. The relative rigidities are calculated by
setting Frame Type 1 to 1.0 and calculating the corresponding relative rigidity of Frame Type 2. This is
only done for convenience as it will simplify the calculations.
Level Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame
Type 1, Type 2, Type 1, R Type 2, R Type 1 Type 2
 (in.)  (in.) (kips/in.) (kips/in.) Rel. Rel.
Rigidity Rigidity
Roof 2.539 1.479 39.39 67.61 1.0 1.716
5th 1.767 0.957 56.59 104.49 1.0 1.846
4th 1.180 0.662 84.75 151.06 1.0 1.782
3rd 0.770 0.425 129.87 235.29 1.0 1.812
2nd 0.395 0.226 253.16 442.48 1.0 1.748
It is important to note that the relative rigidities of the frames vary between levels.
b) Determine the center of gravity and center of rigidity locations

All locations will be measured from the southwest corner (the bottom left corner) of the diaphragm.
Roof Level
The East-West, or X coordinate of the center of gravity at the Roof Level is:
182 ft 122 ft
120 ft 122 ft 122 ft 60 ft
2
X . . 109.1 ft
36,844ft
The North-South, or Y coordinate of the center of gravity at the Roof Level is:
122 ft 182 ft 122 ft

120 ft 122 ft 60 ft
2 2
Y. . 102.9 ft
36,844ft
The East-West, or X coordinate of the center of rigidity at the Roof Level is:
1 ft 1.0 1 ft 1.0 61 ft 1.716 121 ft 1.716 241 ft 1.716
X . . 101.8 ft
2 1.0 3 1.716
The North-South, or Y coordinate of the center of rigidity at the Roof Level is:
1 ft 1.716 61 ft 1.716 121 ft 1.716 181 ft 1.0 181 ft 1.0
Y. . 94.6 ft
2 1.0 3 1.716
c) For loading in the North-South direction applied with a positive eccentricity shift,
determine the required seismic loads to each frame at the Roof and 5th Levels using the
forces found using the modal response spectrum analysis considering only Modes 1 & 2
Roof Level Load Distribution for North-South Forces

The moment frames have been labeled below, and the centers of gravity and rigidity are shown.
Direct Forces in the Y Direction

. .
F F 201.3 kips 201.3 kips 28.2 kips
. . . . . .
. .
F F F 201.3 kips 201.3 kips 48.3 kips
. . . . . .
Rotational Forces for Loading in the Y Direction

The force in any wall due to the torsional moment (pure rotation of the diaphragm) includes all of the
walls in the system and is found from:
Rd
F M
∑R d
Where:
MTORS = Torsional moment
= Fp(XCR - XCG)
Ri = Rigidity of wall “i”
di = Perpendicular distance between the center of rigidity and wall “i”
ASCE 7 requires that the total torsional moment applied to the diaphragm include the inherent torsional
moment plus an accidental torsional moment resulting from the shift in the center of mass equal to 5
percent of the dimension of the structure perpendicular to the direction of applied forces. This
accidental shift in the center of mass must be applied “in the direction that produces the greater effect.”
The accidental eccentricity of 5 percent of the building dimension perpendicular to the applied forces is:
e 0.05 242 ft 12.1 ft
Therefore, the x dimension of the center of gravity with a positive shift is:
X . . 109.1 ft 12.1 ft 121.2 ft
And the x dimension of the center of gravity with a negative shift is:
X . . 109.1 ft 12.1 ft 97.0 ft
The accidental eccentricity shifts result in center of gravity locations to each side of the center of
rigidity. Therefore, two rotational analyses will be required to capture the "greatest effects", or
maximum possible forces to all the frames since the positive shift creates a counter-clockwise torsional
moment, and the negative shift creates a clockwise torsional moment. In this example only the forces
resulting from the positive shift will be shown.
The torsional moment including a positive accidental eccentricity shift for loading in the North-South
direction is:
MTORS = 201.3k(121.2 ft - 101.8 ft) = 3,905 ft-kips, applied counter-clockwise on the diaphragm about
the center of rigidity.
Wall Grid Ri di (ft.) Ridi Ridi2

Y1 1.0 100.8 100.8 10,161
Y2 1.0 100.8 100.8 10,161
Y3 1.716 40.8 70.0 2,857
Y4 1.716 -19.2 -32.9 633
Y5 1.716 -139.2 -238.9 33,250
X1 1.716 93.6 160.6 15,034
X2 1.716 33.6 57.7 1,937
X3 1.716 -26.4 -45.3 1,196
X4 1.0 -86.4 -86.4 7,465
X5 1.0 -86.4 -86.4 7,465
=90,158
It is easy to get confused when trying to keep track of positive and negative signs while doing this
analysis. However, if the applied torsional moment is drawn at the center of rigidity it is easier to
visualize the rotated shape, and it becomes easy to see the direction that the shearwall forces act on the
diaphragm. Then the correct signs can be applied after performing the calculations.
Rotational Forces on Diaphragm without Convention Signs Applied:
100.8 160.6
F 3,905 ft kips 4.4 F 3,905 ft kips 6.9
90,158 90,158
100.8 57.7
F 3,905 ft kips 4.4 F 3,905 ft kips 2.5
90,158 90,158
70.0 45.3
F 3,905 ft kips 3.0 F 3,905 ft kips 2.0
90,158 90,158
32.9 86.4
F 3,905 ft kips 1.4 F 3,905 ft kips 3.7
90,158 90,158
238.9 86.4
F 3,905 ft kips 10.3 F 3,905 ft kips 3.7
90,158 90,158
Apply these forces to the diaphragm in the direction they must act to resist torsion, then determine the
appropriate sign and combine with the direct forces to determine the final forces.
Final Total Forces on Diaphragm

FY1 = -28.2k + 4.4k = -23.8k FX1 = -6.9k
FY2 = -28.2k + 4.4k = -23.8k FX2 = -2.5k
FY3 = -48.3k + 3.0k = -45.3k FX3 = +2.0k
FY4 = -48.3k - 1.4k = -49.7k FX4 = +3.7k
FY5 = -48.3k - 10.3k = -58.6k FX5 = +3.7k
Verify Statics on Diaphragm
FE-W = -6.9k - 2.5k + 2.0k + 3.7k + 3.7k = 0 

FN-S = 201.3k - 23.8k - 23.8k - 45.3k - 49.7k - 58.6k  0 
M0,0 = (2)(23.8)k(1 ft) + 45.3k(61 ft) + 49.7k(121 ft) + 58.6k(241 ft) – 6.9k(1 ft) - 2.5k(61 ft)
+ 2.0k(121 ft) + (2)(3.7k)(181 ft) - 201.3k(121.2 ft)  0 
Calculate the forces at the 5th Level
In this example, the center of gravity at the 5th Level is the same as it was at the Roof Level.
X.. 109.1 ft
Y. . 102.9 ft
However, the center of rigidity will not be the same at the 5th Level as it was at the Roof Level.
1 ft 1.0 1 ft 1.0 61 ft 1.846 121 ft 1.846 241 ft 1.846
X . . 103.9 ft
2 1.0 3 1.846
1 ft 1.846 61 ft 1.846 121 ft 1.846 181 ft 1.0 181 ft 1.0
Y. . 92.8 ft
2 1.0 3 1.846
The forces placed on the 5th Level diaphragm must be the total shear at that level, not the force. The
loads from the frames above are assumed to be redistributed back into the diaphragm, and distributed
again through the net center of gravity about the center of rigidity at this level. Since the center of
gravity is the same at both levels, the centroid of the shear will be at the same location that it was at the
Roof Level.
The total shear applied at the 5th Level will be:
The results of this analysis are shown in the final shear diagram below:
For example, the Roof and 5th Level forces on Frame Y5 on Grid 9 are calculated as follows:
The remaining forces to each frame will be calculated in the same way. The centroid of the shear is
applied at each level, distributed through each diaphragm based upon the rigidities of the seismic
resisting elements at that level, and the forces are determined by subtracting the shear at the level of
concern from the shear in that element at the level above.
Also remember, the analysis shown is for a positive shift in the center of gravity, or a positive accidental
eccentricity. Since the accidental eccentricity will cause a shift in the center of gravity to the opposite
side of the center of rigidity, a second complete analysis is required. Frames in which the rotational
forces subtracted from the direct forces will now be additive in the second, negative shift of the center of
gravity analysis.
Finally, a similar analysis must be done for forces in the East-West direction. This will make anybody a
fan of a three-dimensional analysis program that does all of these calculations for the engineer.
d) For the Roof Level, determine if torsional irregularity Type 1a or 1b exists according to
ASCE 7 Table 12.3-1
ASCE 7 Table 12.3-1 states that torsional irregularity Type 1a exists when "the maximum story drift,
computed including accidental torsion with Ax = 1.0, at one end of the structure transverse to an axis is
more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts at the two ends of the structure."
Torsional irregularity Type 1b "Extreme Torsional Irregularity" exists when the same ratio exceeds 1.4.
According to ASCE 7, structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F where Type 1a or 1b

torsional irregularity exists as defined in Table 12.3-1 shall have the effects accounted for by
multiplying the accidental torsional moment at each level by a torsional amplification factor (Ax), where;

(12.8-14)
. 
Where;
max = the maximum displacement at Level x computed assuming Ax = 1
avg = the average of the displacements at the extreme points of the structure at Level x computed
assuming Ax = 1
Ax shall not be less than 1 and is not required to exceed 3.0.
Recall the final forces acting on the Roof Level diaphragm due to a positive shift in the center of gravity
due to the required accidental eccentricity. The forces shown are acting on the diaphragm, and the force
on the frames will be in the opposite direction.
The rotational calculations are relative values, so it is not required that the actual deflections be
calculated. However, we will use the original rigidity values to calculate the diaphragm displacements
in this example, with the understanding that the actual deflection of the frames at the roof will ultimately
be calculated with the application of all of the lateral loads at each level.
Since the application of the centroid of load at the center of gravity causes a counter-clockwise rotation,
the maximum displacement of the roof diaphragm will occur at the eastern-most edge of the diaphragm
along Grid 9. Since Frame Y5 occurs on this gridline it can be used to calculate the maximum
diaphragm displacement.
The total final force, including rotational effects in Frame Y5 was found to be 58.6 kips, and this frame
occurs at one of extreme edges of the diaphragm along Grid 9. Therefore, the deflection of this frame at
the roof level under a concentrated roof force of 58.6 kips is:
58.6 kips
∆ ∆ 0.87 in
kips
67.61
in
The total final force, including rotational effects in Frame Y1 was found to be 23.8 kips, and this frame
occurs at one of extreme edges of the diaphragm along Grid 1. Therefore, the deflection of this frame at
the roof level under a concentrated roof force of 23.8 kips is:
23.8 kips
∆ ∆ 0.60 in
kips
39.39
in
The average displacement of the diaphragm is:

0.87 in 0.60 in
 0.74 in
2
And the ratio of the maximum displacement to the average displacement is:
 / 0.87 in / 0.74 in 1.18
Therefore, for this example since the ratio of the maximum displacement to the average displacement is
less than 1.2 there is no torsional irregularity, and Ax will be taken as 1.0.
6
Rigid Diaphragm Shear and Moment Diagrams
Until now the mass at each level has been considered a lumped mass at the center of gravity of the floor
or roof. That was an appropriate assumption for determining the vertical force distribution of the
seismic loads, either in the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure, or using dynamic analysis. This was
also a statically valid assumption in the rigid diaphragm analysis for determining the design shears and
forces to the lateral load resisting elements. However, for the design of the diaphragm itself, the lateral
load must be applied proportionally to the mass distribution of the floor system.
The lateral load that will be used to determine the diaphragm shear and moment diagrams was generated
previously using the Fpx values previously calculated. That Fpx value must be distributed to the
diaphragm based proportionally on the seismic mass distribution on the floor. But this brings up an issue
that is often debated among structural engineers; how is accidental eccentricity addressed?
To Include Accidental Eccentricity or Not Include Accidental Eccentricity?

That is the question. The short answer is that accidental eccentricity should not be included in the
diaphragm design because it is statically incorrect to do so. A simple statics example will demonstrate
why moving the resultant force from the centroid of the load for any reason will result in a statically
incorrect analysis.
In the following example, the reactions at Grids A & B are found by applying the resultant 100 kip load
at the centroid of the distributed load, and summing moments and forces based upon this resultant load
and location. With those reactions the shear and moment diagrams are generated.
Now, using the same example, arbitrarily relocate the centroid of the load one foot to the right and find
the new reactions at Grids A & B as we would if we included an accidental eccentricity in order to
maximize the reactions at the seismic resisting systems, but leave the distributed load as it exists.
The shear diagram will close because the sum of the reactions equals the total applied load, but neither
the reactions nor the shear diagram correctly reflect the applied 10.0 klf distributed load. The moment
diagram will not close and makes no sense at all. The analysis will never be statically correct if the
resultant load location does not equal the actual resultant of the applied (distributed) loading. Therefore,
the only analysis that will make static sense for diaphragms is one in which the location of the resultant
load used to calculate the forces to the seismic system (the reactions) is equal to the resultant of the
applied loading. In other words, we must use an analysis with no applied accidental eccentricity.
The Role of the Perpendicular Seismic System

The perpendicular seismic system plays a significant role in the diaphragm shear and moment diagrams,
and it is statically incorrect to ignore it. The following will demonstrate why.
Consider the following example of a 100 foot by 50 foot diaphragm, first with a seismic layout only in
the North-South direction. The walls have rigidities, R, of 1, 2 & 3 for simplicity. The diaphragm force
is 1,000 kips, also for simplicity, but with greater mass on the left side.
The shear and moment diagrams look like one might expect for a rigid beam on flexible supports.
However, now consider the same layout with the same loading, but with a perpendicular seismic system
along Grids A & B, each wall with a rigidity of 3.
Some engineers and reputable publications advocate "smoothing" the moment jump over the entire
moment diagram because they are apparently bothered by the jump, and believe that is somehow does
not represent reality. The problem with doing that is that it makes the problem mathematically and
statically incorrect. The shear diagram will no longer be the derivative of the moment diagram. And
likewise, the moment diagram will no longer be the integral of the shear diagram (taken from each end
to the center of rigidity). Therefore, to correct this the engineer would need to modify the shear diagram
to match the "new and improved" moment diagram. That, in turn, would technically change the loading
diagram and the results of the rigid diaphragm analysis. In other words, to match the moment diagram
that is more palatable, all of the initial design parameters would need to change. The final diaphragm
reactions, shears and moments would no longer represent the diaphragm that is actually being designed.
We recommend learning to live with the jump in the moment diagram.
The following diagram was generated by our in-house software program for the Roof Level of the steel
office building example, with the diaphragm force of 394 kips applied as line loads based upon the mass
distribution of the diaphragm.
85
About the Authors
K. Dirk Bondy
Dirk Bondy earned his Bachelor’s degree from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis
Obispo in 1988 and his Master’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. He is the
president of Seneca Structural Engineering, Inc. and The Great American Cable Company II, Inc., both
located in Laguna Hills, California. While he has been the engineer of record on millions of square feet
of post-tensioned concrete structures he is probably best known for being the son of Ken Bondy. His
professional interest and expertise are in the area of post-tensioned and reinforced concrete, seismic
design, seismic retrofit and vertical load retrofit. In addition to his structural design experience, Mr.
Bondy currently teaches Prestressed Concrete Design at the University of California at Los Angeles in
the Spring Quarter, and has been an instructor at the University of California, Irvine and California
Polytechnic State University, Pomona where he taught courses on Prestressed Concrete Design,
Reinforced Concrete Design, Steel Design, Structural Design and Seismic Design. He has been
published in numerous journals and conference proceedings. He is a registered Civil and Structural
Engineer in the states of California, Nevada, Hawaii and Arizona as well as a licensed C50 contractor in
the state of California. He is a licensed private pilot (single-engine, multi-engine and instrument ratings)
with over 800 hours total pilot-in-command time. He resides in Laguna Hills, California with his wife
Kristen and their three children; Cameron, Ryan and Elizabeth.
Bryan Allred
Bryan Allred has been a practicing engineer since 1993 and is the Vice-President of Seneca Structural
Engineering Inc. in Laguna Hills California. He received his Bachelors and Master’s degree in Civil
Engineering from the University of California at Irvine and is a licensed civil and structural engineer in
the state of California. Bryan specializes in the design of concrete buildings utilizing post-tensioned
floor systems, post-tensioned slab on ground foundations and retrofits of existing building using external
post-tensioning. He is a member of the Structural Engineers Association of California, American
Concrete Institute and is a Fellow of the Post-Tensioning Institute where he is also a member of the
Building Design and Education Committees. He has written several magazine articles relating to post-
tensioned construction and engineering and has also given numerous post-tensioning educational
seminars and webinars across the country. Bryan and his wife Marisa have three children, two smart
beautiful girls and one ultra-cool son.
87

Seneca Seismic Design Handbook - First Edition PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seneca Seismic Design Handbook - First Edition PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seneca Seismic Analysis and Design

Principles and Practice

K. Dirk Bondy & Bryan Allred

Preface ....................................................................................................................................................... vi

3) Vertical Distribution and Diaphragm Design Forces

5) Rigid Diaphragm Lateral Load Distribution ....................................................................................39

6) Rigid Diaphragm Shear and Moment Diagrams ..............................................................................66

7) Foundation Loads and Analysis ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

11) Non-Linear Analysis of Concrete Moment Frames........................................................................ ???

Ft = 0.07TV, when T > 0.7s

In our opinion, it is impossible to be an expert and have a thorough understanding of a three-dimensional

The Response Modification Coefficient, R

The Risk Category & Seismic Importance Factor, Ie

Geotechnical Data, Ss & S1 values

Calculating the SMS & SM1 values

Calculating the SDS & SD1 values

Determining the Building Fundamental Period, T

Determine the Fundamental Period Using Dynamic Modal Properties

Determine the Fundamental Period Using the Rayleigh Period Equation

Approximate the Fundamental Period

Determining the Base Shear, V

Cs Determined with ASCE 7 Equation (12.8-2)

SD1 , T, Ie and R were previously defined.

ASCE 7 Figure 11.4-1 Design Response Spectrum

The following minimum Cs equation always applies:

0.044 0.01 12.8 5

Redundancy Factor,  Discussion

Determining the Seismic Design Category, SDC (ASCE 7 Section 11.6)

Limitations for SDC E and F Structures

Irrgularities Forbidden for SDC E and F Structures

2. Vertical Irregularity Type 1b. Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story Irregularity

Ground Motion Data from the Geotechnical Report

a) The Seismic Design Category (SDC)

c) SDS and SD1 values

12.8 2 & 12.8 3

0.049 15,033 kips = 737 kips

SENECA SEISMIC DESIGN VALUES

GROUND MOTION DATA FROM GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

CALCULATED GROUND MOTION DATA

SDS = (2/3)S MS = 0.79 S D1 = (2/3)S M1 = 0.45

BUILDING PERIOD ASCE 7 Eqn. (12.8-7)

Ct: 0.028 |x: 0.8 |hn: 68 ft.

DESIGN BASE SHEAR

V DESIGN = 737 kips

-1- Seneca Software Solutions

Ground Motion Data from the Geotechnical Report

a) The Seismic Design Category (SDC)

ASCE 7 Equation 12.8-5 establishes one of the minimum Cs values.

The controlling value of Cs is 0.167.

e) Design Base Shear, V

0.167 23,162 kips

SENECA SEISMIC DESIGN VALUES

GROUND MOTION DATA FROM GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

CALCULATED GROUND MOTION DATA

SDS = (2/3)S MS = 1.00 S D1 = (2/3)S M1 = 0.83

BUILDING PERIOD ASCE 7 Eqn. (12.8-7)

(Eqn. 12.8-5) (Eqn. 12.8-6) - Only applies when S1 >= 0.6g

DESIGN BASE SHEAR

V DESIGN = 3,868 kips

-1- Seneca Software Solutions

Vertical Distribution of the Base Shear

Diaphragm Design Forces

Fpx = the diaphragm design force at Level x

Level W F Fpx 0.2SdsIWpx 0.4SdsIWpx F(diaphragm)

Level W F Fpx 0.2SdsIWpx 0.4SdsIWpx F(diaphragm)