ASCE 7-22 CH 14com - For PC - Sou

1
CHAPTER C14
2 MATERIAL-SPECIFIC SEISMIC DESIGN AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS

3
4 Because seismic loading is expected to cause nonlinear behavior in structures, seismic design
at
5 criteria require not only provisions to govern loading but also provisions to define the required
e LY
6 configurations, connections, and detailing to produce material and system behavior consistent
rm
7 with the design assumptions. Thus, although ASCE/SEI 7-10 is primarily a loading standard,
lin N
8 compliance with Chapter 14, which covers material-specific seismic design and detailing, is
Fo
er n O
9 required. In general, Chapter 14 adopts material design and detailing standards developed by
10 material standards organizations. These material standards organizations maintain complete
11 commentaries covering their standards, and such material is not duplicated here.
nd o
U ati
12 C14.0 SCOPE
t / rm
13 The scoping statement in this section clarifies that foundation elements are subject to all of the
14 structural design requirements of the standard.
ou fo
15 C14.1 STEEL

e In
16 C14.1.1 Reference Documents

r
Fo
17 This section lists a series of structural standards published by the American Institute of Steel
18 Construction (AISC), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the American Society of
19 Civil Engineers (ASCE/SEI)ASCE, the Steel Deck Institute (SDI), and the Steel Joist Institute
rik
20 (SJI), which are to be applied in the seismic design of steel members and connections in
21 conjunction with the requirements of ASCE/SEI 7. The AISC references are available free of
St
22 charge in electronic format at www.aisc.org; the AISI references are available on at
23 www.steel.org; the SDI references are available as a free download at
24 www.aisistandards.orgwww.sdi.org; and the SJI references are available as a free download at
25 www.steeljoist.org.
1

1 C14.1.2 Structural Steel
2 C14.1.2.1 General
3 This section adopts AISC 360 (20162022b) by direct reference. The specification applies to the
4 design of the structural steel system or systems with structural steel acting compositely with
5 reinforced concrete. In particular, the document sets forth criteria for the design, fabrication, and
6 erection of structural steel buildings and other structures, where “other structures” are defined as
at
7 structures designed, fabricated, and erected in a manner similar to buildings, with building-like
e LY
8 vertical and lateral load-resisting elements. The document includes extensive commentary.
rm
lin N
9 C14.1.2.2 Seismic Requirements for Structural Steel Structures
Fo
er n O
10 C14.1.2.2.1 Seismic Design Categories B and C
11 For the lower Seismic Design Categories (SDCs) B and C, a range of options are available in the
12 design of a structural steel lateral force-resisting system. The first option is to design the
nd o
13 structure to meet the design and detailing requirements in AISC 341 (20162022a) for structures
U ati
14 assigned to higher SDCs, with the corresponding seismic design parameters ( R , Ω0 , and Cd ).
t / rm
15 The second option, presented in the exception, is to use an R factor of 3 (resulting in an
16 increased base shear), an Ω0 of 3, and a Cd value of 3 but without the specific seismic design
ou fo
17 and detailing required in AISC 341 (20162022). The basic concept underlying this option is that
e In
18 design for a higher base shear force results in essentially elastic response that compensates for
19 the limited ductility of the members and connections. The resulting performance is considered
r
20 comparable to that of more ductile systems.

Fo
21 C14.1.2.2.2 Seismic Design Categories D through F

22 For the higher SDCs, the engineer must follow the seismic design provisions of AISC 341
23 (20162022) using the seismic design parameters specified for the chosen structural system,
rik
24 except as permitted in Table 15.4-1. For systems other than those identified in Table 15.4-1, it is
St
25 not considered appropriate to design structures without specific design and detailing for seismic
26 response in these high SDCs.
27 C14.1.3 Cold-Formed Steel
2

1 C14.1.3.1 General
2 This section adopts two standards by direct reference: ANSI/AISI S100, North American
3 Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (20162020c), and
4 ASCE/SEI 8, Specification for the Design of Cold- Formed Stainless Steel Structural Members
5 (2002).
6 Both of the adopted reference documents have specific limits of applicability. ANSI/AISI S100
at
7 (20162020c) (, Section A1.1,) applies to the design of structural members that are cold-formed to
e LY
8 shape from carbon or low-alloy steel sheet, strip, plate, or bar not more than 1 in. (25 mm) thick.
rm
9 ASCE/SEI 8 (2002) (, Section 1.1.1,) governs the design of structural members that are cold-
lin N
10 formed to shape from annealed and cold-rolled sheet, strip, plate, or flat bar stainless steels. Both
Fo
er n O
11 documents focus on load-carrying members in buildings; however, allowances are made for
12 applications in nonbuilding structures, if dynamic effects are considered appropriately.
Within each document, there are requirements related to general provisions for the applicable
nd o
13
U ati
14 types of steel; design of elements, members, structural assemblies, connections, and joints; and
15 mandatory testing. In addition, ANSI/AISI S100 contains a chapter on the design of cold-formed
t / rm
16 steel structural members and connections undergoing cyclic loading. Both standards contain
17 extensive commentaries.
ou fo
18 C14.1.3.2 Seismic Requirements for Cold-Formed Steel Structures

e In
19 This section adopts three standards by direct reference—: AISI S100 (20162020c), ASCE/SEI 8
20 (2002), and AISI S400 (20152020b). Cold-formed steel and stainless steel members that are part
r
21 of a seismic force-resisting system listed in Table 12.2-1 must be detailed in accordance with the
Fo
22 appropriate base standard: AISI S100 or ASCE 8.
23 The section also adopts a reference to AISI S400, which includes additional design provisions
rik
24 for a specific cold-formed steel seismic force-resisting system, entitled the “cold-formed steel—
25 special bolted moment frame” or CFS-SBMF..” Sato and Uang (2007) have shown that this
St
26 system experiences inelastic deformation at the bolted connections because of slip and bearing
27 during significant seismic events. To develop the designated mechanism, requirements based on
28 capacity design principles are provided for the design of the beams, columns, and associated
3

1 connections. The document has specific requirements for the application of quality assurance and
2 quality control procedures.
3 C14.1.4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction
4 C14.1.4.1 General
5 This subsection of cold-formed steel relates to light-frame construction, which is defined as a
method of construction where the structural assemblies are formed primarily by a system of
at
6
e LY
7 repetitive wood or cold-formed steel framing members, or subassemblies of these members
rm
8 (Section 11.2 of this standard). It adopts Section I4 of AISI S100 (2016), which directs the user
lin N
9 to an additional suite of AISI standards, including ANSI/AISI S240 and ANSI/AISI S400. AISI
Fo
er n O
10 S240 (2020a), North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing, by
11 reference, which includes a commentary
12 In addition, all of these documents include commentaries to aid users in the correct application of
nd o
13 their the requirements.
U ati
14 C14.1.4.2 Seismic Requirements for Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

t / rm
15 Cold-formed steel structural members and connections in seismic force-resisting systems and
16 diaphragms must be designed in accordance with the additional provisions of ANSI/AISI S400
ou fo
17 (2020b) in seismic design categories (SDC) D, E, or F, or wherever the seismic response
e In
18 modification coefficient, R, used to determine the seismic design forces is taken as other than 3.
19 In particular, this requirement includes all entries from Table 12.2-1 of this standard for “light-
r
20 frame (cold-formed steel) walls sheathed with wood structural panels &mldr;rated for shear
Fo
21 resistance or steel sheets,” “light-frame walls with shear panels of all other materials”
22 (e.g., gypsum board and fiberboard panels), and “light-frame (cold-formed steel) wall systems
23 using flat strap bracing.”
rik
24 C14.1.4.3 Prescriptive Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

St
25 This section adopts ANSI/AISI S230 (2019), Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing—:
26 Prescriptive Method for One and Two Family Dwellings, which applies to the construction of
27 detached one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and other attached single-family dwellings
28 not more than two three stories in height using repetitive in-line framing practices (Section A1).
4

1 This document includes a commentary to aid the user in the correct application of its
2 requirements.
3 C14.1.5 Cold-Formed Steel Deck Diaphragms
4 This section adopts the applicable standards for the general design of cold-formed steel deck
5 diaphragms and steel roof, noncomposite floor, and composite floor deck. The SDI standards
also reference ANSI/AISI S100 (2020c) for materials and determination of cold-formed steel
at
6
e LY
7 cross- section strength and specify additional requirements specific to steel deck design and
rm
8 installation.
lin N
Fo
9 AdditionallyIn addition, design of cold-formed steel deck diaphragms is to be based on
er n O
10 ANSI/AISI S310 (2020d). All fastener design values (welds, screws, power-actuated fasteners,
11 and button punches) for attaching deck sheet to deck sheet or for attaching the deck to the
12 building framing members must be per ANSI/AISI S310, or specific testing prescribed in
nd o
13 ANSI/AISI S310. All cold-formed steel deck diaphragm and fastener design properties not
U ati
14 specifically included in ANSI/AISI S310 must be approved for use by the authorities in whose
t / rm
15 jurisdiction the construction project occurs. Deck diaphragm in-plane design forces (seismic,
16 wind, or gravity) must be determined per ASCE 7, Section 12.10.1. Cold-formed steel deck
ou fo
17 manufacturer test reports prepared in accordance with this provision can be used where adopted
18 and approved by the Aauthority Hhaving Jjurisdiction for the building project. The Diaphragm
e In
19 Design Manual produced by the Steel Deck Institute (2015) is also a reference for design values.
r
20 Cold-formed steel deck is assumed to have a corrugated profile consisting of alternating up and
Fo
21 down flutes that are manufactured in various widths and heights. Use of flat sheet metal as the
22 overall floor or roof diaphragm is permissible where designed by engineering principles, but it is
23 beyond the scope of this section. Flat or bent sheet metal may be used as closure pieces for small
rik
24 gaps or penetrations or for shear transfer over short distances in the deck diaphragm where
25 diaphragm design forces are considered.
St
26 Cold-formed steel deck diaphragm analysis must include design of chord members at the
27 perimeter of the diaphragm and around interior openings in the diaphragm. Chord members may
5

1 be steel beams attached to the underside of the steel deck designed for a combination of axial
2 loads and bending moments caused by acting gravity and lateral loads.
3 Where diaphragm design loads exceed the bare steel deck diaphragm design capacity, then either
4 horizontal steel trusses or a structurally designed concrete topping slab placed over the deck must
5 be provided to distribute lateral forces. Where horizontal steel trusses are used, the cold-formed
6 steel deck must be designed to transfer diaphragm forces to the steel trusses. Where a deck
at
7 topped with structural concretestructural concrete topping over the deck is used as the
e LY
8 diaphragm, the diaphragm chord members at the perimeter of the diaphragm and edges of
rm
9 interior openings must be either (a) designed flexural reinforcing steel placed in the structural
lin N
10 concrete topping or, (b) steel beams located under the deck, with connectors (that provide a
Fo
er n O
11 positive connection) as required to transfer design shear forces between the concrete topping and
12 steel beams.
C14.1.5.1 Modifications to AISI S400. Add the following commentary to AISI S400 Section F3:
nd o
13
U ati
14 F3 Bare Steel Deck Diaphragms
t / rm
15 The stiffness and available strength [(factored resistance)] of steel deck diaphragms are provided
16 in AISI S310 (2020d). However, AISI S310 does not cover seismic design considerations. This
ou fo
17 StandardAISI S400 (2020b) recognizes that in some situations, the applicable building code may
18 require that the diaphragm provide energy dissipation for desired structural performance. For
e In
19 example, in rigid wall– flexible diaphragm (RWFD) structures, research has shown the benefits
20 of and demands for energy dissipation in the roof diaphragm (FEMA 2015;, Koliou et al. 2016a,
r
Fo
21 b). ASCE 7 provides an alternative design method for RWFD structures in Section 12.10.4,
22 where forces in the diaphragm may be reduced if special seismic detailing is provided for bare
23 steel deck diaphragms. Further, for all other structures, the alternative diaphragm design
rik
24 provisions of ASCE 7 Section 12.10.3 also provide a means to reduce diaphragm forces when
25 special seismic detailing is provided. The provisions of AISI S400, Section F3.5, are specifically
St
26 intended to meet these special seismic detailing requirements.
27 Traditional equivalent lateral force (ELF)-–based seismic design of bare steel deck diaphragms
28 per ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1 allows diaphragm forces to be reduced based on the response
29 modification factor, R, for the particular vertical seismic force-resisting system, subject to
6

1 minimum diaphragm force levels as defined in ASCE 7this standard. The reduction in the
2 diaphragm force levels is independent of the ductility or deformation capacity of the diaphragm.
3 Analysis of a large- scale RWFD archetype building under high demand with pre-cast tilt- up
4 walls and bare steel deck diaphragm roofs that either meet or violate the special seismic detailing
5 requirements werewas completed by Schafer (2019). It wasHe found that a mechanically
6 fastened roof that met the special seismic detailing requirements of AISI S400, Section F3.5, had
7 approximately one-half½ the roof shear angle demands and one-half the anchorage demands of
at
e LY
8 an equivalent welded bare steel deck diaphragm roof that did not meet the special seismic
rm
9 detailing requirements. If the designer desires (for force reduction) or expects (due to the nature
of the structure) inelastic demands in a bare steel deck diaphragm, the special seismic detailing
lin N
10
Fo
11 requirements provide a means to ensure ductility and deformation capacity in the diaphragm.
er n O
12 In addition to special seismic detailing, standard installation and construction procedures are
13 necessary for successful performance. SDI (20172022) provides QC/QA criteria for steel deck
nd o
14 installation, and SDI (2016) provides additional construction guidance. The QC/QA provisions
U ati
15 include required special inspection for steel deck installation, both with and without special
16 seismic detailing.
t / rm
17 F3.4 Shear Strength

ou fo
18 The diaphragm strength, in shear, is found in accordance with AISI S310 through calculation or
e In
19 testing. AISI S310 refers to the diaphragm strength per unit length as the variable Sn. Consistent
20 with AISI S400, this variable Sn is defined as vn in AISI S400 and the total diaphragm strength
r
21 would be vn multiplied times the diaphragm span resulting in Vn – the total nominal strength of
Fo
22 the diaphragm in shear.
23 F3.5.1 Prescriptive Special Seismic Detailing

rik
24 The prescriptive details for ductile performance of bare steel deck diaphragms were established
25 through full-scale reversed cyclic cantilever diaphragm testing compiled and analyzed by
St
26 O’Brien et al. (2017) and augmented with small-scale reversed cyclic connector tests by NBM
27 (2017, 2018) and engineering judgment as summarized in Schafer (2019).
7

1 The assembled database of cantilever diaphragm tests focused on 36 in. wide 1.5 in. deep WR
2 (also commonly known as B) deck. Steel deck profiles consistent with WR (wide rib) roof deck
3 are defined by SDI (2016) as shown in Figure C-F3.5.1-1. Note, the specification requires that
4 this panel type be used; however trimming of the deck to meet geometric constraints at
5 boundaries and changes in the underlying framing are permitted. The repeated pattern of the
6 deck is maintained if such modifications are made at 6 in. increments. Tests were conducted on
7 16 to 22 gauge steel deck. Adequate ductility was found across this range of steel deck thickness,
at
e LY
8 but the contribution of the steel deck profile to the diaphragm ductility and the nature of the
rm
9 tilting/bearing mechanism at the structural and sidelap connections can change across this range
of thickness. In general establishing the ductility and deformation capacity is more challenging in
lin N
10
Fo
11 thicker gauge steel deck. The steel deck material should be ductile. A small sample of steel deck
er n O
12 tested with low ductility sheet steel indicated reduced diaphragm ductility (Schafer 2019), as a
13 result the steel deck is required to meet the material criteria established in AISI S100 Section
A3.1.1.
nd o
14
U ati
15
t / rm
16 Figure C-F3.5.1-1 WR Deck Dimensions (see SDI 2016 for further details)
17 The steel deck structural connection between the steel deck and supporting member plays a
ou fo
18 crucial role in the performance of the bare steel deck diaphragm system, as this connection is
e In
19 required for shear transfer between the steel deck and the structural system. As detailed in
20 Schafer (2019), PAF connections are shown to provide this connection with substantial ductility
r
21 and deformation capacity. Although welds can provide adequate stiffness and strength, unless
Fo
22 unique detailing is employed such as the weld with washer detail developed by Tremblay and
23 Rogers (see e.g., Essa et al. 2003), they do not provide sufficient deformation capacity and
24 ductility. As a result, the prescriptive requirements are limited to mechanical structural
rik
25 connections. The spacing requirements for structural connectors are based on the available tested
26 configurations and engineering judgment. SDI (2015) provides further details on the 36/7 and
St
27 36/9 attachment patterns as illustrated in Figure C-F3.5.1-2.
28
29 Figure C-F3.5.1-2 Typical Fastener Attachment Patters (see SDI 2015 for further details)
8

1 The sidelap connection, occurring from steel deck to steel deck, plays a crucial role in the
2 stiffness of the diaphragm and also in determining how much of the diaphragm deformation is
3 accommodated at the steel deck to steel deck connection or in the steel deck profile itself.
4 Screwed sidelaps were shown to provide adequate performance so long as the screw is sized
5 appropriately for the steel deck; specifically the limit state of the screw in shear, due to its brittle
6 mode of failure, must be explicitly avoided for the connection to maintain a reasonable level of
7 deformation capacity and ductility.
at
e LY
8 F3.5.1.1 Steel Deck Structural Connection Qualification
rm
The Standard recognizes that a variety of steel deck structural connections may provide adequate
lin N
9
Fo
10 stiffness, strength, ductility, and deformation capacity. To that end, this section provides the
er n O
11 necessary criteria for establishing acceptable performance. However, this performance is within
12 the context of the other limitations of Section F3.5.1 and does not qualify a structural connection
for use in any bare steel deck diaphragm, but rather its use as a component within the system
nd o
13
U ati
14 defined in Section F3.5.1.
15 The steel deck structural connection is required to provide adequate mean performance in a
t / rm
16 minimum of three reversed cyclic shear tests performed with steel deck specimens as defined in
17 AISI S905. Tests must be performed for each connection configuration. In this context
ou fo
18 configuration refers to the different diaphragm configurations that may influence the
e In
19 performance of the connection. This standard consistent with AISI S310 defines configuration as
20 “a specific arrangement of panel geometry, thickness, mechanical properties, span(s), and
r
21 attachments”. At the connector level, the strength and ductility of the attachment itself is subject
Fo
22 to the thickness of the supporting steel, as well as the panel properties listed above, including the
23 thickness of the panels. As detailed further in Chapter E of AISI S310, this includes endlaps –
24 which effectively doubles the thickness of the panels, and can potentially impact the performance
rik
25 of the steel deck structural connection. The ductility and deformation targets provided are based
26 on connector testing, diaphragm testing, and diaphragm and building modeling as summarized in
St
27 Schafer (2019).
28 F3.5.1.2 Sidelap Connection Qualification
9

1 Qualification of sidelap connections largely parallels that of steel deck structural connections.
2 However, the Standard provides direct guidance on the use of screwed sidelaps, and provides the
3 provisions of this section for qualification of other sidelap configurations. Top arc seam welded
4 and traditional button punched sidelaps have not been shown to provide adequate performance
5 compared with these provisions, as summarized in Schafer (2019).
6 F3.5.2 Performance-Based Special Seismic Detailing
at
e LY
7 This Standard provides two paths for the qualification of bare steel deck diaphragms that fall
rm
8 outside the prescriptive requirements of F3.5.1: cantilever diaphragm testing, or computational
modeling. The diaphragm testing can be understood as an extension of AISI S310 Chapter E,
lin N
9
Fo
10 which provides detailed provisions for stiffness and strength determination by testing. The
er n O
11 computational modeling can be understood as an extension of AISI S310 F1.4 which establishes
12 that principles of mechanics may typically be used for determining shear strength.
nd o
13 F3.5.2.1 Special Seismic Qualification by Cantilever Diaphragm Test
U ati
14 The special seismic detailing requirements of F3.5.1 define the parameters that led to cantilever
t / rm
15 diaphragm tests that provided adequate levels of ductility and deformation capacity, as
16 summarized in Schafer (2019). The provisions of this section define the performance level that
ou fo
17 was deemed adequate from that testing. Given the large degradation found between monotonic
18 performance and reversed cyclic performance, reversed cyclic tests are required. Rather than
e In
19 requiring 3 reversed cyclic tests for each separate diaphragm configuration, the provisions give
20 some latitude to distribute the testing across each specific range of a given diaphragm
r
Fo
21 configuration, while still requiring repeated tests at the boundaries of the selected range. Care
22 should be taken to ensure that the tests are planned to cover the boundary conditions where non-
23 ductile or limited deformation capacity is most likely. Regardless, the ductility, deformation
rik
24 capacity, and residual force capacity performance targets must be met and documented.
25 ASCE 7 Section 1.3.1.3 defines the broad application of performance-based procedures in design
St
26 including: analysis, testing, documentation, and peer review. The provisions of this section
27 provide a specific test-based application of performance-based design for bare steel deck
28 diaphragms; where the performance objectives and testing method are explicitly defined.
10

1 Documentation still must be provided to the Authority Having Jurisdiction and should include
2 either peer review, or more likely, third party review through an evaluation report.
3
4 F3.5.2.2 Special Seismic Qualification by Principles of Mechanics
5 AISI standards typically provide pathways for rational engineering analysis methods in the
at
6 determination of stiffness and strength of components (e.g. see AISI S100 A1.2(b) and (c), AISI
e LY
7 S400 F1.4). This section expands that scope to the prediction of ductility and deformation
rm
8 capacity, as would be needed to establish that a bare steel deck diaphragm meets a desired level
lin N
9 of energy dissipation. Essentially, the provisions state that if done with care a computational
Fo
er n O
10 model can replace the cantilever diaphragm test. An example of such a model is provided in
11 Schafer (2019).
An appropriately implemented material and geometric nonlinear shell finite element model can
nd o
12
capture the nonlinear behavior of a steel deck including buckling and yielding. However, the
U ati
13
14 friction, bearing, and fracture which is common at the structural and sidelap connections under
t / rm
15 cyclic demands can be challenging to explicitly capture in such a model. Schafer (2019)
16 employed testing of these connections and used the hysteretic response from these tests in a
ou fo
17 phenomenological-based spring at every structural and sidelap connection. This approach
18 provides a pathway to directly explore the impact of connections on bare steel deck diaphragms
e In
19 that are outside the prescriptive scope of Section F3.5.1 without performing costly cantilever
20 diaphragm tests. This also provides a means to plan such diaphragm testing with greater
r
Fo
21 precision and reduced cost.
22 Application of the provisions of this section require a reasonably high level of technical
23 sophistication. In addition to the requirements of this section, ASCE 7 Section 1.3.1.3 provides
rik
24 additional useful guidance on the application of analysis and testing towards establishing
25 performance. Documentation must be provided to the Authority Having Jurisdiction and should
St
26 include either peer review, or third party review most likely through an evaluation report.
27 Development of evaluation criteria consistent with the provisions of this section is expected in
28 the future.
11

1 C14.1.6 Concrete-Filled Steel Deck Diaphragms
2 Previous testingTesting by Porter and Easterling (19881994) and Avellaneda et al. (2019) has
3 demonstrated sufficient ductility and overstrength to support the tabulated Rs factor. These
4 specimens included a range of variations, such as concrete specific weight (normal weight and
5 lightweight), reinforcing steel (unreinforced and with reinforcing steel), concrete strength [(2,500
6 psi to 6,000 psi ([17 to 41 Gpa)]]), deck height [(1.5 in. to 3.0 in. ([38 to 76 mm)]]), total
at
7 thickness [(4 in. to 7.5 in. ([100 to 190 mm)]]), and perimeter fastener type (headed shear studs
e LY
8 and arc spot welds). Because this set of test specimens, which was used to determine the
rm
9 diaphragm design force reduction factor, Rs, covered a wide range of configurations, there are
lin N
10 few limitations associated with detailing. This section references AISC 341 (2022a) for the
Fo
er n O
11 design of the diaphragm and design of the shear transfer to the supports.
12 C14.1.7 Steel Cables

nd o
U ati
13 These provisions reference ASCE 19, Structural Applications of Steel Cables for Buildings
14 (2010), for the determination of the design strength of steel cables.
t / rm
15 C14.1.8 Additional Detailing Requirements for Steel Piles in Seismic Design Categories D
through F
ou fo
16
e In
17 Steel piles used in higher seismic design categories SDCs are expected to yield just under the
18 pile cap or foundation because of combined bending and axial load. Design and detailing
r
19 requirements of AISC 341 for H-piles are intended to produce stable plastic hinge formation in
Fo
20 the piles. Because piles can be subjected to tension caused by overturning moment, mechanical
21 means to transfer such tension must be designed for the required tension force, but not less than
22 10% of the pile compression capacity.
rik
23 C14.2 CONCRETE

St
24 The section adopts by reference ACI 318 (2019) for structural concrete design and construction.
25 In addition, modifications to ACI 318-1914 are made that are needed to coordinate the
26 provisions of that material design standard with the provisions of ASCE 7. Work is ongoing to
12

1 better coordinate the provisions of the two documents (ACI 318 and ASCE 7) such that the
2 provisions in Section 14.2 will be progressively reduced in future editions of ASCE 7.
3 C14.2.2.1 Definitions
4 Two definitions included here describe wall types for which definitions currently do not exist in
5 ACI 318. These definitions are essential to the proper interpretation of the R and Cd factors for
6 each wall type specified in Table 12.2-1.
at
e LY
7 The addition of precast concrete diaphragm and cast-in-place concrete equivalent precast
rm
8 diaphragm definitions is meant to clarify that Section 12.10.3 applies to precast concrete
lin N
9 diaphragms as defined in this section and not to cast-in-place concrete equivalent precast
Fo
diaphragms.
er n O
10
11 A definition for connector has been added, which does not currently exist in ACI 318-14.
12 Section 12.11 provides an alternative to the current diaphragm design procedure of
nd o
13 Section 12.10. The alternative procedure is made mandatory for precast concrete diaphragms in
U ati
14 structures assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F. The definition of connector is essential because the
three design options (BDO, EDO, and RDO) are closely related to the connector classification,
t / rm
15
16 and the diaphragm design force reduction factor, Rs , depends on the design option.
ou fo
17 The definition for connection in ACI 318-14 has also been supplemented, as it applies to this
e In
18 protocol.
r
19 C14.2.2.2 ACI 318, Section 10.7.6

Fo
20 ACI 318-1914, Section 10.7.6.1.56, prescribes details of transverse reinforcement around anchor
21 bolts in the top of a column or pedestal. This modification prescribes additional details for
22 transverse reinforcement around such anchor bolts in structures assigned to Seismic Design
rik
23 Categories SDCs C through F.
24 C14.2.2.3 Scope

St
25 This provision describes how the ACI 318-1914 provisions should be interpreted for consistency
26 with the ASCE 7 provisions.
13

1 C14.2.2.4 Intermediate Precast Structural Walls
2 Section 18.5 of ACI 318-1914 imposes requirements on precast walls for moderate seismic risk
3 applications. Ductile behavior is to be ensured by yielding of the steel elements or reinforcement
4 between panels or between panels and foundations. This provision requires the designer to
5 determine the deformation in the connection corresponding to the earthquake Design Earthquake
6 Displacement and then to check from experimental data that the connection type used can
7 accommodate that deformation without significant strength degradation.
at
e LY
8 Several steel element connections have been tested under simulated seismic loading, and the
rm
9 adequacy of their load–-deformation characteristics and strain capacity have been demonstrated
lin N
10 (Schultz and Magana 1996). One such connection was used in the five-story building test that
Fo
er n O
11 was part of the Precast Seismic Structural Systems (PRESSS) Phase 3 research. The connection
12 was used to provide damping and energy dissipation, and it demonstrated a very large strain
13 capacity (Nakaki et al. 2001). Since then, several other steel element connections have been
nd o
14 developed that can achieve similar results (Banks and Stanton 2005, Nakaki et al. 2005). In view
U ati
15 of these results, it is appropriate to allow yielding in steel elements that have been shown
16 experimentally to have adequate strain capacity to maintain at least 80% of their yield force
t / rm
17 through the full design displacement of the structure.

ou fo
18 C14.2.2.6 Foundations

19 The intention is that there should be no conflicts between the provisions of ACI 318-1914,
e In
20 Section 18.13, and ASCE 7, Sections 12.1.5 and, 12.13 and 14.2. However, the additional
detailing requirements for concrete piles of Section 14.2.3 can result in conflicts with ACI 318-
r
21
Fo
22 14 provisions if the pile is not fully embedded in the soil.
23 C14.2.2.7 Detailed Plain Concrete Shear Walls

24 Design requirements for plain masonry walls have existed for many years, and the corresponding
rik
25 type of concrete construction is the plain concrete wall. To allow the use of such walls as the
26 lateral force-resisting system in Seismic Design Categories SDCs A and B, this provision
St
27 requires such walls to contain at least the minimal reinforcement specified in ACI 318-194,
28 Section 14.6.2.2.
29 C14.2.3 Additional Detailing Requirements for Concrete Piles.
14

1 Chapter 20 of PCI (2004) provides detailed information on the structural design of piles and on
2 pile-to-cap connections for precast prestressed concrete piles. ACI 318-14 does not contain
3 provisions governing the design and installation of portions of concrete piles, drilled piers, and
4 caissons embedded in ground except for SDC D, E, and F structures.
5 C14.2.3.1.2 Reinforcement for Uncased Concrete Piles (SDC C).

6 The transverse reinforcing requirements in the potential plastic hinge zones of uncased concrete
at
7 piles in SDC C are a selective composite of two ACI 318-14 requirements. In the potential
e LY
8 plastic hinge region of an intermediate moment-resisting concrete frame column, the transverse
rm
9 reinforcement spacing is restricted to the least of (1) eight times the diameter of the smallest
lin N
10 longitudinal bar, (2) 24 times the diameter of the tie bar, (3) one-half the smallest cross-sectional
Fo
er n O
11 dimension of the column, and (4) 12 in. (304.8 mm). Outside of the potential plastic hinge region
12 of a special moment-resisting frame column, the transverse reinforcement spacing is restricted to
13 the smaller of six times the diameter of the longitudinal column bars and 6 in. (152.4 mm).
nd o
U ati
14 C14.2.3.1.5 Reinforcement for Precast Nonprestressed Piles (SDC C).
15 Transverse reinforcement requirements inside and outside of the plastic hinge zone of precast
t / rm
16 nonprestressed piles are clarified. The transverse reinforcement requirement in the potential
17 plastic hinge zone is a composite of two ACI 318-14 requirements (see Section C14.2.3.1.2).
ou fo
18 Outside of the potential plastic hinge region, the transverse reinforcement spacing is restricted to
19 16 times the longitudinal bar diameter. This restriction should permit the longitudinal bars to
e In
20 reach compression yield before buckling. The maximum 8-in. (203.2-mm) tie spacing comes
from current building code provisions for precast concrete piles.
r
21
Fo
22 C14.2.3.1.6 Reinforcement for Precast Prestressed Piles (SDC C).

23 The transverse and longitudinal reinforcing requirements given in ACI 318-14, Chapter 21, were
24 never intended for slender precast prestressed concrete elements and result in unbuildable piles.
rik
25 These requirements are based on PCI Committee on Prestressed Concrete Piling (1993).
St
26 Eq. (14.2-1), originally from ACI 318-14, has always been intended to be a lower bound spiral
27 reinforcement ratio for larger diameter columns. It is independent of the member section
28 properties and can therefore be applied to large- or small-diameter piles. For cast-in-place
29 concrete piles and precast prestressed concrete piles, the spiral reinforcing ratios resulting from
15

1 this formula are considered to be sufficient to provide moderate ductility capacities (Fanous et al.
2 2007).
3 Full confinement per Eq. (14.2-1) is required for the upper 20 ft (6.1 m) of the pile length where
4 curvatures are large. The amount is relaxed by 50% outside of that length in view of lower
5 curvatures and in consideration of confinement provided by the soil.
6 C14.2.3.2.3 Reinforcement for Uncased Concrete Piles (SDC D through F).
at
e LY
7 The reinforcement requirements for uncased concrete piles are taken from current building code
rm
8 requirements and are intended to provide ductility in the potential plastic hinge zones (Fanous
et al. 2007).
lin N
9
Fo
er n O
10 C14.2.3.2.5 Reinforcement for Precast Nonprestressed Piles (SDC D through F).
11 The transverse reinforcement requirements for precast nonprestressed concrete piles are taken
12 from the IBC (ICC 2012) requirements and should be adequate to provide ductility in the
nd o
13 potential plastic hinge zones (Fanous et al. 2007).
U ati
14 C14.2.3.2.6 Reinforcement for Precast Prestressed Piles (SDC D through F).
t / rm
15 The reduced amounts of transverse reinforcement specified in this provision compared with
16 those required for special moment frame columns in ACI 318-14 are justified by the results of
ou fo
17 the study by Fanous et al. (2007). The last paragraph provides minimum transverse
18 reinforcement outside of the zone of prescribed ductile reinforcing.
e In
19 C14.2.4 Additional Design and Detailing Requirements for Precast Concrete Diaphragms.
r
Fo
20 Section 12.10.3 introduces an alternative procedure for the calculation of diaphragm design
21 forces of Sections 12.10.1 and 12.10.2 and is made mandatory for precast concrete diaphragms in
22 structures assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F. The diaphragm design force reduction factors, Rs , in
rik
23 Table 12.10-1 for precast concrete diaphragms are specifically tied to design and detailing
requirements so that the ductility and overstrength necessary for expected diaphragm
St
24
25 performance are achieved. Section 14.2.4 is based on the Diaphragm Seismic Design
26 Methodology (DSDM), the product of a multiple-university research project termed the DSDM
27 Project (Charles Pankow Foundation 2014), and gives detailing requirements for diaphragms
16

1 constructed of precast concrete units in SDC C, D, E, or F consistent with the Rs factors. These
2 detailing requirements are in addition to those of ACI 318, as modified by Section 14.2. The
3 derivation of diaphragm design force reduction factors is described in Commentary
4 Section C12.10.3.5.
5
6 Section C12.10.3.5 relates the global ductility required by the three design options defined in
at
e LY
7 Section 11.2 to the local ductility of connectors measured at the maximum considered earthquake
rm
8 (MCE) level. The jointed nature of precast systems results in the load paths and deformations
lin N
9 being largely determined by the connections across the joints. The connections may consist of
Fo
either reinforced concrete topping slabs or discrete mechanical connectors. Since the diaphragm
er n O
10
11 strains are concentrated at the joints, the connectors or the reinforcing in the topping slab must
12 accommodate some strain demand.
nd o
13 C14.2.4.1 Diaphragm Seismic Demand Levels.
U ati
14 Fig. 14.2-1 is used to determine diaphragm seismic demand level as a function of the diaphragm
span and the diaphragm aspect ratio.
t / rm
15
16 The diaphragm span defined in Section 14.2.4.1.1 is illustrated in Fig. C14.2-1. Most precast
ou fo
17 diaphragms contain precast units running in only one direction, and typically the maximum span
e In
18 is oriented perpendicular to the joints between the primary precast floor units. The connector or
19 reinforcement deformability classifications and resulting Rs factors are calibrated relative to
r
20 joint openings between the precast floor units and are thus based on the more typical orientation.
Fo
St
rik
17

at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
1
2 FIGURE C14.2-1 Diaphragm Dimensions

nd o
3 The diaphragm aspect ratio (AR) defined in Section 14.2.4.1.2 is also illustrated in Fig. C14.2-1.
U ati
4 The following lists provide details of seismic demand level classifications, determined in
t / rm
5 accordance with Fig. 14.2-1:
6 Low Seismic Demand Level

ou fo
7 1. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC C.

e In
8 2. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with diaphragm span ≤ 75 ft

(22.86 m), number of stories  3 , and diaphragm aspect ratio  2.5 .
r
9
Fo
10
11 Moderate Seismic Demand Level

rik

13 (22.86 m) and number of stories 3 but  6 .
St
14 2. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with diaphragm span > 75 ft

15 (22.86 m) but ≤ 190 ft (57.91 m) and number of stories  2 .
18

2 (22.86 m) but  140 ft (42.67 m) and number of stories  2 but  4 .
4 (22.86 m), number of stories  3 , and diaphragm aspect ratio  2.5 .
5 5. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F, categorized below as high seismic
6 demand level, with diaphragm aspect ratio  1.5 .
at
7 High Seismic Demand Level
e LY
rm
lin N
9 (57.91 m).
Fo
2. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with diaphragm span > 140 ft
er n O
10
11 (42.67 m)) and number of stories  2 .

nd o
13 (22.86 m) and number of stories  4 .
U ati
14 4. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with number of stories  6 .
t / rm
15 Diaphragm Shear Overstrength Factor. The diaphragm shear overstrength factor, Ωv , is
16 applied to diaphragm shear reinforcement/connectors. The purpose of this factor is to keep the
ou fo
17 diaphragm shear response elastic while the diaphragm develops inelastic flexural action, as is
18 anticipated for the basic design objective (BDO) in the MCE, and for the reduced design
e In
19 objective (RDO) for both the design earthquake and the MCE. No inelastic diaphragm response
is anticipated for the elastic design objective (EDO).
r
20
Fo
21 The value of diaphragm shear overstrength factor is Ωv  1.4Rs . The values of the diaphragm
22 design force reduction factor, Rs , are 0.7, 1.0, and 1.4 for the EDO, BDO, and RDO,
rik
23 respectively. This value translates into diaphragm shear overstrength factors Ωv of 1.0, 1.4, and
24 2.0 (rounded to one decimal place) for the EDO, BDO, and RDO, respectively.
St
25 The diaphragm shear overstrength factor, Ωv , is applied to the diaphragm design forces and thus
26 is a measure relative to the flexural strength of the diaphragm. As implied by the above-listed Ωv
27 values, the level of overstrength required relative to the diaphragm flexural strength varies with
19

1 the design option. The RDO requires a higher overstrength than the BDO because of the larger
2 anticipated inelastic action. For the EDO, no overstrength is required since the diaphragm design
3 force itself targets elastic behavior in the MCE. It is noted that the absolute shear strength
4 required in the design procedure is constant, regardless of design option, since the parameter Rs
5 in the overstrength factor is canceled out by the Rs in the denominator of the diaphragm design
6 force expression.
at
e LY
7 The Ωv values represent upper bound constant values (for each diaphragm design objective) of
rm
8 parametric expressions developed for the required shear overstrength on the basis of detailed
lin N
9 parametric studies performed using nonlinear dynamic time history analysis (NTHA) of
Fo
er n O
10 analytical models of precast structures developed and calibrated on the basis of extensive large-
11 scale physical testing. These precast structures were subjected to spectrum compatible ground
12 motions scaled to the MCE in order to determine the required shear overstrength factors.
nd o
13 Precast diaphragms can be designed and detailed for ductile flexural response. However, to
U ati
14 achieve the desired mechanism, potentially nonductile shear limit states have to be precluded. In
t / rm
15 order to prevent these shear failures, elastic shear response is targeted in the design procedure for
16 both flexure-controlled and shear-controlled systems. Thus, the shear overstrength factor, Ωv , is
ou fo
17 applied in diaphragm shear design.

e In
18 The shear amplification factor values were obtained by bounding the maximum shear force Vmax
19 occurring in NTHA of the diaphragm at the critical shear joint as the diaphragm developed a
r
Fo
20 flexural mechanism (in other regions of the floor) at MCE-level hazard and scaling it by the
21 design shear, Vu . Accordingly:
 Ω E , the diaphragm shear amplification factor for the EDO, is taken as unity (
rik
22
23 ΩE  1.0  1.4Rs , where Rs  0.7 for EDO) since elastic diaphragm response is expected
St
24 in the MCE for EDO.

25  Ω B , the diaphragm shear amplification factor for the BDO, is taken as an upper bound
26 on the Vmax / Vu ratio for the BDO design under MCE-level hazard.
20

1  Ω R , the diaphragm shear amplification factor for the RDO, is taken as an upper bound
2 on the Vmax / Vu ratio for the RDO design under MCE-level hazard.
3 Fig. C14.2-2 shows a scatter plot of the Vmax / Vu ratios from NTHA for different numbers of
4 stories ( n ) and diaphragm aspect ratios (ARs) at the maximum considered earthquake. The data
5 represent the mean of the maximum responses from five ground motions. The expression
6 provided for Ωv , Ωv  1.4Rs , is plotted as a horizontal dashed line on each plot, indicating that
at
e LY
7 the expression provides a constant upper bound for the anticipated required elastic shear forces
rm
8 for all design cases.
lin N
9
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
10
11 FIGURE C14.2-2 Diaphragm Shear Amplification Factor Results from NTHA at MCE:
ou fo
12 (a) BDO; (b) RDO

e In
13 C14.2.4.2 Diaphragm Design Options.

14 The intent of the design procedure is to provide the diaphragm with the proper combination of
r
Fo
15 strength and deformation capacity in order to survive anticipated seismic events. Three different
16 design options are provided to the designer to accomplish this objective, ranging from a fully
17 elastic diaphragm design under the MCE to designs that permit significant inelastic deformations
in the diaphragm under the design earthquake. The motivation for this approach is the
rik
18
19 recognition that, under certain conditions, a precast diaphragm designed to remain fully elastic
St
20 up to the MCE may not be economical or reliable. Under other conditions, however, a diaphragm
21 designed to remain elastic up to the MCE will be satisfactory and may be most desirable.
22 The methodology allows the designer three options related to deformation capacity:
21

1 1. An elastic design option (EDO), where the diaphragm is designed to the highest force
2 levels, is calibrated to keep the diaphragm elastic not only for the design earthquake but
3 also in an MCE. In exchange for the higher design force, this option permits the designer
4 to detail the diaphragm with the low deformability element (LDE) connector or
5 reinforcement that need not meet any specific deformation capacity requirements (tension
6 deformation capacity less than 0.3 in. (7.6 mm). This option is limited in its use through
7 the introduction of diaphragm seismic demand levels, which are based on building height,
at
e LY
8 diaphragm geometry, and seismic hazard level. The use of the EDO is not permitted if the
rm
9 diaphragm seismic demand level is high.
2. A basic design objective (BDO) is one in which the diaphragm is designed to a force
lin N
10
Fo
11 level calibrated to keep the diaphragm elastic in the design earthquake but not necessarily
er n O
12 in the MCE. The design force level is lower than that required for the EDO, but this
13 option requires moderate deformability element (MDE) connectors or reinforcement or
better to provide an inelastic deformation capacity sufficient to survive the anticipated
nd o
14
U ati
15 deformation demands in an MCE. This option and the RDO require the use of a
16 diaphragm shear overstrength factor, Ωv , to ensure that a nonductile shear failure does
t / rm
17 not occur before the connectors or reinforcement reaches its intended inelastic
18 deformation. Note that inelastic deformation is associated with joint opening caused by
ou fo
19 diaphragm flexure, not joint sliding deformation caused by shear.

e In
20 3. A reduced design option (RDO) is one in which the diaphragm is designed for the lowest
21 design force level.
r
22 Because the design force level is lower than in the BDO, some yielding in the diaphragm is
Fo
23 anticipated in the design earthquake. The force levels have been calibrated to keep diaphragm
24 inelastic deformation demands in an MCE within the allowable deformation capacity for the high
25 deformability element (HDE), the highest classification of precast diaphragm connector or
rik
26 reinforcement (see Section 14.2.4.3).

St
27 Each design option can be used with its associated seismic demand level or a lower seismic
28 demand level. A 15% diaphragm force increase penalty is applied when a diaphragm design
29 option is used for a seismic demand level that is one higher than its associated seismic demand
30 level. A design option cannot be used for a seismic demand level two higher than the associated
22

1 seismic demand level, i.e., the elastic design option cannot be used for the high seismic demand
2 level.
3 The BDO has two performance targets: (1) elastic diaphragm response in the design earthquake,
4 and (2) diaphragm connector/reinforcement deformation demands (i.e., joint opening) in the
5 MCE within the allowable deformation capacity of connector/reinforcement in the moderate
6 deformability element (MDE) category, δ aMD . The diaphragm design force levels for the BDO
at
7 are aligned to the former requirement. Thus, the attainment of the second performance target
e LY
hinges on the selection of the value for δ aMD relative to the diaphragm inelastic deformation
rm
8
lin N
9 demands anticipated for the maximum considered earthquake. These anticipated deformation
Fo
10 demands were established through nonlinear dynamic time history analysis (NTHA) of precast
er n O
11 structures with diaphragms designed to the BDO force levels and subjected to spectrum
12 compatible ground motions scaled to the MCE.
nd o
13 It should be recognized that practical considerations also exist in the selection of δ aMD . The
U ati
14 allowable deformation of high deformability elements (HDEs), δaHD , (as required for the RDO)
t / rm
15 was established based on the best performing existing precast diaphragm connectors. This
16 performance resulted in an HDE allowable deformation capacity δaHD  0.4 in. ( δaHD  10.2 mm).
ou fo
17 (Note that the allowable value is 2 / 3 of the qualification value, thus HDEs are required to have
e In
18 a demonstrated deformation capacity of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) in qualification testing, as was
19 achieved by the best performing existing connectors). Given that low deformability elements
r
20 (LDEs) do not have a deformation requirement, the MDE allowable deformation value should
Fo
21 reside somewhere near half the HDE value, or δaMD  0.2 in. ( δaMD  5.1 mm).
δaMD 
22 The NTHA results for the MCE are shown in Fig. C14.2-3. These results show that 0.2 in
rik
23 . ( δaMD  5.1 mm) was an appropriate and viable choice for the MDEs used in the BDO, provided
St
24 that the diaphragms were in the moderate seismic demand level (solid triangles in Fig. C14.2-3)
25 or in the low seismic demand level (solid circles in Fig. C14.2-3). However, this value did not
26 produce satisfactory designs for diaphragms in the high seismic demand level (solid squares in
27 Fig. C14.2-3), and thus some measure is required to bring the design procedure in conformance.
23

1
at
2
e LY
FIGURE C14.2-3 Diaphragm Maximum Joint Opening in NTHA for Basic Design
rm
3
4 Objective Designs under the MCE
lin N
Fo
A choice exists in how to modify the design procedure to resolve this nonconformance to the
er n O
5
6 design target: (a) The allowable deformation ranges for the diaphragm connectors/reinforcement
7 could be modified (i.e., a more stringent qualification deformation requirement for MDE, leading
nd o
8 to an increase in δ aMD ); (b) the diaphragm force levels could be increased across the board
U ati
9 (i.e., change the design earthquake performance target for elastic diaphragm response from the
10 diaphragm yield point itself to a lower value within the diaphragm elastic range); or (c) create a
t / rm
11 special requirement for the nonconforming diaphragm case (i.e., increase the diaphragm forces
12 only for nonconforming cases). The first choice did not align well with the typical deformation
ou fo
13 capacities of existing connectors and would not produce evenly sized deformation ranges for the
e In
14 LDE, MDE, and HDE classifications. The second choice not only produces overly conservative
15 designs for many cases, but it also blurs the clean BDO performance target of elastic diaphragm
r
16 response in the design earthquake. For these reasons, the third choice was considered the most
Fo
17 desirable.
18 Thus, rather than increase the value of δ aMD to accommodate the diaphragms in the high seismic
rik
19 demand level, it was decided to keep δaMD  0.2 in. ( δaMD  5.1 mm) and create a special
requirement for conformance in the case of diaphragms in the high seismic demand level. As
St
20
21 each design option was developed with an associated diaphragm seismic demand level in mind,
22 and the nonconformance did not occur at the associated level, i.e., the moderate seismic demand
23 level, but instead at the high seismic demand level, the special requirement can be considered a
24 measure for using a diaphragm design option with a more demanding seismic demand level.
24

1 The special requirement is an increase in the design force for the nonconforming case. The
2 magnitude of the design force increase is 15%. The manner in which this value was established
3 is also shown in Fig. C14.2-3. As mentioned previously, the solid squares indicate the maximum
4 diaphragm connector/reinforcement deformation (joint opening demand) for the BDO for high
5 diaphragm seismic demand levels and indicate demands greater than δaMD  0.2 in. (5.1 mm).
6 The open squares indicate the maximum diaphragm connector/reinforcement deformation for
7 these same cases with the 15% increase in diaphragm force. This design force increase is seen to
at
e LY
8 bring the deformation demand within the allowable limit. The same design force increase is
rm
9 enforced in Section 14.2.4.2.1 for use of the EDO with the moderate seismic demand level,
lin N
10 though this provision was not based on any quantitative analytical results.
Fo
er n O
11 C14.2.4.3 Diaphragm Connector or Joint Reinforcement Deformability.
12 The precast diaphragm seismic design methodology (DSDM) uses an approach that requires
13 knowledge of the diaphragm connector or reinforcement stiffness, deformation capacity, and
nd o
14 strength to effectively and efficiently design the diaphragm system for seismic forces. To meet
U ati
15 this need, it is critical that the connector or reinforcement properties be determined in a
t / rm
16 repeatable, reproducible, and consistent manner so that existing and new connections can be used
17 effectively in the diaphragm system. The qualification protocol provides an experimental
ou fo
18 approach for the determination of connector or reinforcement properties.

e In
19 Precast concrete diaphragms deform mostly by the strains that occur at the joints between the
20 precast concrete units. The requirements for reinforcement or connector deformability come
r
21 from the need for the connections to accommodate these strains at the joints. A connection is an
Fo
22 assembly of connectors, including the linking parts, welds, and anchorage to concrete.
23 Mechanical connectors are identified as the primary parts that make the connection, but the
24 deformation capacity identified with the connector represents the performance of the entire link
rik
25 across the joint. Qualification of the deformation capacity of the connector, then, is dependent on
26 the details of the entire load path across the joint. The use in design of a connector qualified by
St
27 testing is only valid when the design incorporates the complete connector detailing, as tested.
28 The diaphragm reinforcement classifications are high deformability elements (HDEs), moderate
29 deformability elements (MDEs), and low deformability elements (LDEs). The threshold values
25

1 of tension deformation capacity for each connector or reinforcement class were selected by
2 considering the range of the ultimate (cyclic tension opening) deformations exhibited by the
3 various precast diaphragm connectors examined in the DSDM experimental program (Naito
4 et al. 2006, 2007). Based on these results, a threshold deformation of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) was
5 selected for HDE connector or reinforcement and 0.3 in. (7.6 mm) for MDE connector or
6 reinforcement. There is no deformation requirement for LDE reinforcement.
at
7 A factor of safety of 1.5 was introduced into the design procedure by establishing the allowable
e LY
8 maximum joint opening value at 2 / 3 of the connector’s reliable and maximum joint opening
rm
9 deformation capacity. The 2 / 3 factor leads to maximum allowable deformations of 0.4 in.
lin N
10 (10.2 mm) and 0.2 in. (5.1 mm) for the high deformability element (HDE) and the moderate
Fo
er n O
11 deformability element (MDE), respectively. No deformation capacity requirement is needed for
12 the low deformability element (LDE), since this classification of connector or reinforcement is
13 used with designs that result in fully elastic diaphragm response up to the MCE. The allowable
nd o
14 maximum joint openings were used as targets in the analytical parametric studies to calibrate the
U ati
15 design factors.
t / rm
16 A few further comments are given about the connector or reinforcement classification:
17 1. The diaphragm connector or reinforcement classification is based on inelastic

ou fo
18 deformation associated with joint opening caused by diaphragm flexure, not joint sliding
e In
19 deformation caused by shear.

20 2. The diaphragm connector or reinforcement classification applies to the chord
r
21 reinforcement and shear reinforcement. Other reinforcement (collector/anchorages,

Fo
22 secondary connections to spandrels, and similar items) may have different requirements
23 or characteristics.
24 3. In meeting the required maximum deformation capacity using the testing protocols in the
rik
25 qualification procedure, the required cumulative inelastic deformation capacity is also
26 met.
St
27 C14.2.4.3.5 Deformed Bar Reinforcement.

28 Deformed bar reinforcement can be considered to be high deformability elements (HDEs),
29 provided that certain conditions are met.
26

1 C14.2.4.3.6 Special Inspection.
2 The purpose of this requirement is to verify that the detailing required in HDEs is properly
3 executed through inspection personnel who are qualified to inspect these elements.
4 Qualifications of inspectors should be acceptable to the jurisdiction enforcing the general
5 building code.
6 C14.2.4.4 Precast Concrete Diaphragm Connector and Joint Reinforcement Qualification
at
7 Procedure.
e LY
8 This section provides a qualification procedure using experimental methods to assess the in-
rm
9 plane strength, stiffness, and deformation capacity of precast concrete diaphragm connectors and
lin N
10 reinforcement. The methodology was developed as part of the DSDM research program
Fo
er n O
11 specifically for diaphragm flange-to-flange connections and is intended to provide the required
12 connector or reinforcement properties and classification for use in the seismic design procedure.
nd o
13 C14.2.4.4.1 Test Modules.
U ati
14 Test modules are fabricated and tested to evaluate the performance of a precast concrete
15 connection. Fig. C14.2-4 illustrates an example test module. It is required that multiple tests be
t / rm
16 conducted to assess repeatability and consistency. The test module should represent the geometry
17 and thickness of the precast concrete components that will be connected. All connectors and
ou fo
18 reinforcement should be installed and welded in accordance with the manufacturer’s published
19 installation instructions. The results or the data generated are limited to connections built to the
e In
20 specified requirements.

r
21
Fo
St
rik
22
27

1 FIGURE C14.2-4 Test Module
2 Reduced scale connectors with appropriate reductions in maximum aggregate size following
3 laws of similitude can be used as research tools to gain knowledge but are not to be used for
4 connector qualification.
5 C14.2.4.4.3 Test Configuration.

6 A possible setup is illustrated in Fig. C14.2-5. Three independently controlled actuators are used,
at
e LY
7 two providing axial displacement and one providing shear displacement to the connection.
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
8
ou fo
9 FIGURE C14.2-5 Possible Test Setup

e In
10 C14.2.4.4.4 Instrumentation.

11 Use of actuator transducers is not recommended because of potential slip in the test fixture.
r
Fo
12 C14.2.4.4.5 Loading Protocols.

13 Figs. C14.2-6 and C14.2-7 illustrate the shear and tension/compression loading protocols for use
14 in testing.
rik
15
St
28

at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
1
2 FIGURE C14.2-6 Shear Loading Protocol

nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo
3
rik
4 FIGURE C14.2-7 Tension/Compression Loading Protocol

St
5 C14.2.4.4.6 Measurement Indices, Test Observations, and Acquisition of Data

6 Quantitative data should be recorded from each test, such that interpretation can be made of the
7 performance of the test module. For in-plane tests, the axial and shear force and deformations
8 should be recorded. Photographs should be taken to illustrate the condition of the test module at
29

1 the initiation and completion of testing as well as at points through the testing history. Ideally,
2 photos should be taken at the end of each group of cycles. Test history photos taken at points of
3 interest, such as cracking, yielding, and peak load, and post test photos are adequate for most
4 evaluations.
5 The backbone curve is adopted to represent a simple approximation of the load-deformation

6 response of the connection. The points are defined in terms of the resistances Pa , P1 , Pb , P2 , P2a ,
at
and P3 , and the displacements Δa , Δ1 , Δb , Δ2 , Δ2a , and Δ3 , respectively.
e LY
7
rm
8 As depicted in Fig. 14.2-3, the Type 1 curve is representative of ductile behavior where there is
lin N
9 an elastic range (Point 0 to Point 1 on the curve) and an inelastic range (Point 1 to Point 3 on the
Fo
er n O
10 curve), followed by loss of force-resisting capacity. The Type 2 curve is representative of ductile
11 behavior where there is an elastic range (Point 0 to Point 1) and an inelastic range (Point 1 to
12 Point 2 on the curve), followed by substantial loss of force-resisting capacity. Some connections
nd o
13 may exhibit a small peak strength with limited ductility. For these cases, the Alternate Type 2
U ati
14 curve is recommended. The Type 3 curve is representative of a brittle or nonductile behavior
15 where there is an elastic range (Point 0 to Point 1) followed by loss of strength. Deformation-
t / rm
16 controlled elements conform to Type 1 or Type 2, but not Type 2 Alternate, response with
Δ2  2Δ1 . All other responses are classified as force-controlled. An example of test data is
ou fo
17
18 included in Ren and Naito (2013).

e In
19 C14.2.4.4.7 Response Properties.

r
20 The reliable and stable maximum deformation capacity is defined for design code purposes as
Fo
21 the connector deformation at peak load, Point 2 on the backbone curve, obtained in testing
22 following the loading protocols defined here. All analytical calibrations were performed for a
23 reliable and stable maximum deformation capacity corresponding to a deformation where the
rik
24 strength reduces to 80% of P2 , which is similar to the beam–column connection deformation
capacity definition for steel structures in AISC 341. Thus, an added degree of conservatism is
St
25
26 provided in the definition proposed for the design code.
27 Deformation Category. The category ranges were determined from finite element analysis of a
28 database of diaphragm systems under a range of seismic demands. Alternate deformation limits
30

1 can be used if supporting data are provided. It should be noted that the connector or joint
2 reinforcement classification is based solely on tension deformation capacity (as stated in
3 Section 14.2.4.3), whereas the qualification procedure applies equally to, and requires, both
4 tension and shear tests. In other words, while both tension and shear characterization are required
5 to determine the needed strengths, the connector classification is based solely on the tension
6 testing.
at
7 Tensile Strength. The design factors for flexural strength are calibrated to the yield point of the
e LY
8 chord connectors, not to their peak strength. For instance, for the EDO, elastic response of the
rm
9 diaphragm under the MCE is being targeted, so this response is aligned to the yield strength, not
lin N
10 the peak strength. For consistency, the BDO and RDO factors are also calibrated to this same
Fo
er n O
11 level, i.e., yield. So the nominal strength of the connectors is based on P1 , not P2 . Using P2
12 creates a situation where yield should be anticipated in the diaphragm for the EDO, and larger
13 inelastic deformations for the BDO and RDO.
nd o
U ati
14 Shear Strength. The intention is for the diaphragm system to remain elastic under shear demands.
15 Consequently, the inelastic shear force capacity of connections is not considered. Because of the
t / rm
16 existence of low stiffness connections, limits are placed on the allowable deformation at which
17 the force P1 can be determined.
ou fo
18 C14.2.4.4.8 Test Report.

e In
19 The minimum information that must be included in a test report is spelled out.
r
Fo
20 C14.3 COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES
21 This section provides guidance on the design of composite and hybrid steel–concrete structures.
22 Composite structures are defined as those incorporating structural elements made of steel and
rik
23 concrete portions connected integrally throughout the structural element by mechanical
24 connectors, bonds, or both. Hybrid structures are defined as consisting of steel and concrete
St
25 structural elements connected together at discrete points. Composite and hybrid structural
26 systems mimic many of the existing steel (moment and braced frame) and reinforced concrete
27 (moment frame and wall) configurations but are given their own design coefficients and factors
28 in Table 12.2-1. Their design is based on ductility and energy dissipation concepts comparable to
31

1 those used in conventional steel and reinforced concrete structures, but it requires special
2 attention to the interaction of the two materials, because it affects the stiffness, strength, and
3 inelastic behavior of the members, connections, and systems.
5 Seismic design for composite structures assigned to SDCs Seismic Design Category D, E, or F is
governed primarily by AISC 341. Composite The composite design provisions in ANSI/AISC
at
6
e LY
7 341 are less prescriptive than those for structural steel and provide flexibility for designers to use
rm
8 analytical tools and results of research in their practice. Composite structures assigned to Seismic
lin N
9 Design Category SDC A, B, or C may be designed according to principles outlined in AISC 360
Fo
er n O
10 and ACI 318. ANSI/AISC 360 and ACI 318 provide little guidance on connection design;
11 therefore, designers are encouraged to review ANSI/AISC 341 for guidance on the design of
12 joint areas. Differences between older AISC and ACI provisions for cross-sectional strength for
nd o
13 composite beam–columns have been minimized by changes in the latest edition of AISC 360,
U ati
14 and AISC 360 refers to ACI 318 for much of the design of reinforced concrete components of
15 composite structures. However, there is not uniform agreement between the provisions in ACI
t / rm
16 318 and AISC 360 regarding detailing, limits on material strengths, stability, and strength for
17 composite beam–columns. The composite design provisions in ANSI/AISC 360 are considered
ou fo
18 to be current.
e In
19 C14.3.4 Metal-Cased Concrete Piles

r
Fo
20 Design of metal-cased concrete piles, which are analogous to circular concrete filled tubes, is
21 governed by Sections 18.13.5.814.2.3.1.3 and 14.2.3.2.4 of this standardACI 318. The intent of
22 these provisions is to require metal-cased concrete piles to have confinement and protection
23 against long-term deterioration comparable to that for uncased concrete piles.
rik
24 C14.3.5 Seismic Requirements for Steel and Concrete Coupled Composite Plate Shear
St
25 Walls—Concrete Filled (CC-PSW/CF)
26 C14.3.5.1 General
32

1 C14.3.5.1.1 Scope. A steel and concrete coupled composite plate shear wall—concrete-filled
2 (CC-PSW/CF) is a coupled-wall system comprised of composite walls and composite coupling
3 beams, for which both walls and beams consist of a concrete core sandwiched between two steel
4 plates that serve as the primary reinforcement, replacing conventional rebar. These sandwich
5 panels are depicted in Fig. C14.3-1. Tie bars connect the two steel plates together and provide
6 stability during transportation and construction activities. After casting, the tie bars become
7 embedded in the concrete infill and provide composite action between the steel and concrete.
at
e LY
8 The coupling beams are built-up steel box sections with concrete infill. Similar to the wall
rm
9 panels, the built-up steel section provides primary reinforcement to the coupling beam. The
empty steel modules, including both the walls and coupling beam components, are typically
lin N
10
Fo
11 fabricated in the shop, transported to the site, erected, and filled with concrete. The composite
er n O
12 walls can be planar, C-shaped, I-shaped, or L-shaped, following the typical geometric
13 configurations of conventional concrete core walls.
nd o
ELF
U ati
Loading
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo
Coupling
Wall 1 Wall 2
Beam
M1 M2
V1 V2
rik
P P
FIGURE C14.3-1. Steel and Concrete FIGURE C14.3-2. Deformed shape of CC-
St
Composite Plate Shear Wall —Concrete- PSW/CF under Lateral Loads

Filled
14 The requirement for composite walls to have height-to-length (hw/Lw) ratio greater than or equal
15 to 4 is specified to ensure that the walls are flexure critical, i.e., flexural yielding and failure
33

1 governs behavior rather than shear failure. Calculations can also be performed to show that the
2 wall is flexure-critical, i.e., plastic hinges (with flexural capacity equal to 1.2Mp,exp) form at the
3 base of the walls before shear failure occurs. The shortest archetype structure that was evaluated
4 using the FEMA P695 approach for this system was three stories with two 45 feet tall composite
5 walls of 10-foot length, corresponding to a height-to-length ratio equal to 4.5 for each wall that
6 constituted the coupled wall.
at
7 The requirement for coupling beams to have length-to-depth ratios greater than or equal to 3 and
e LY
8 less than or equal to 5 is based on: (1) the range of parameters included in the FEMA P695
rm
9 studies conducted in order to establish the response modification coefficient, R, for the system,
lin N
10 and (2) the fact that coupling beams with length-to-depth ratios less than 3 tend to be shear
Fo
er n O
11 critical, which is not recommended. Section 14.3.5.5.3 explicitly requires coupling beams to be
12 flexure critical, i.e., flexural yielding and failure governs their behavior rather than shear failure.
13 The requirement for coupling beams is relaxed to 90% of the stories in order to accommodate
nd o
14 slightly irregular or constrained building geometries, and is similar to the relaxation in ACI 318
U ati
15 for coupled concrete wall systems. The stories with this relaxation should be selected carefully,
16 and their impact on system behavior should be evaluated through analysis.
t / rm
17 C14.3.5.2 Basis of Design

ou fo
18 The CC-PSW/CF system uses coupled walls to resist lateral loads as shown in Fig. C14.3-2. This
e In
19 system is expected to undergo significant inelastic deformation in large (design-basis and
20 maximum considered) seismic events. The inelastic deformation has two sources: (1) flexural
r
Fo
21 plastic hinges at the ends of coupling beams, and (2) flexural yielding at the base of walls. The
22 preferred inelastic mechanism consists of forming flexural plastic hinges at both ends of the
23 coupling beams and at the base of the composite walls. The design implements a strong wall-
weak coupling beam approach that must be followed for appropriately sizing the composite
rik
24
25 members. This design approach helps achieve development of extensive plastic hinging in most
St
26 of the coupling beams before significant yielding of the walls.
27 C14.3.5.3 Analysis
34

1 The design philosophy expressed in Section 14.3.5.3 leads to structures with the characteristic
2 pushover behavior depicted in Fig. C14.3-3. The initial branch represents the elastic behavior of
3 the structure, and the slope of this branch represents the effective structural stiffness which is
4 approximated by elastic models such as those used with the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
5 (ELF) defined by ASCE 7. On the base shear-roof displacement curve, Point A represents the
6 lateral load level corresponding to the ELF distribution. The coupling beams are designed to
7 reach their flexural capacity at this demand. As the lateral load (and base shear force) increases,
at
e LY
8 the coupling beams along the height of the structure undergo flexural plastic hinging at both
rm
9 ends. The response reaches the next milestone, Point B, where all of the coupling beams have
developed flexural hinges. The composite walls are designed to have a flexural capacity adequate
lin N
10
Fo
11 to resist this demand level. The next milestone on the response, Point C, corresponds to the
er n O
12 overall inelastic mechanism with flexural plastic hinging in all the coupling beams and the base
13 of the composite walls. A final milestone, point D, represents fracture failure of the composite
walls. The overstrength factor for this system, defined as the ratio of ultimate load capacity to
nd o
14
U ati
15 capacity at ELF level loads, is approximately the ratio of base shear force at Point C to Point A.
16 The Seismic Response Modification Factor, R, is given in ASCE 7-16 for non-coupled
t / rm
17 composite plate shear walls to be equal to 6.5. A FEMA P695 (Quantification of Building
18 Seismic Performance Factors) study was conducted to evaluate an appropriate R-Factor for CC-
ou fo
19 PSW/CF systems (Kizilarslan et al. 2018, 2019). This FEMA P695 study demonstrated that CC-
e In
20 PSW/CF considered here can be designed with a greater R-Factor of 8. This increase in the value
21 of R for coupled walls is due to the spread of plastic hinging and inelastic deformations (energy
r
22 dissipation) in the coupling beams along the height of the structure. This lateral load behavior is
Fo
23 illustrated in Fig. C14.3-4 and Fig. C14.3-5 using finite element analysis for an 8-story archetype
24 structure having coupling beams with a span-to-depth ratio of 5. The nonlinear static pushover
25 behavior predicted by the finite element model (Fig. C14.3-4) follows the expected behavior
rik
26 presented in Fig. C14.3-3.

St
35

at
1
e LY
rm
2 FIGURE C14.3-3. Characteristic Pushover (Base Shear-Roof Displacement) Behavior
(Broberg et al. 2019)
lin N
3
Fo
er n O
4
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
FIGURE C14.3-4. Pushover Behavior from 3D FEM Analysis (Broberg et al. 2019)
r
Fo
St
rik
36

at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
FIGURE C14.3-5. Extent of Steel Yielding for Different Points on Pushover Curve
(3D FEM from Broberg et al. 2019)
nd o
1 In the FEMA P695 study, archetype structures having 3, 8, 12, 18, and 22 stories and coupling
U ati
2 beam span-to-depth ratios of 3, 4, and 5 were designed. The archetypes were designed using an
3 R value of 8 and Cd value of 5.5. The 3, 8, and 12-story archetype structures used planar
t / rm
4 composite walls, while the 18 and 22 story archetype structures used C-shaped walls. These
5 archetype structures were doubly symmetric in plan, and the wall thickness was uniform along
ou fo
6 the height of the structure. For the 18 and 22 story archetype structures, the thickness of the steel
e In
7 plates for the composite walls and the coupling beams was reduced in the top half of the
8 structure. The 22 story archetype had an overall height of 311 ft. These structures were designed
r
9 to meet the composite member and system requirements outlined in Section 14.3.5. The coupling
Fo
10 ratio for the archetype structures was about 50 – 80%, where the taller buildings had higher
11 coupling ratios. In this context, coupling ratio is defined at point B on the characteristic pushover
12 curve as the proportion of the total overturning moment resisted by coupling action.
rik
13 Seismic demands followed standards set in ASCE 7 and the FEMA P695 procedure. The
St
14 numerical models for the structures accounted for the various complexities of flexural behavior
15 of the coupling beams and composite walls including the effects of concrete cracking, steel
16 yielding, local buckling, concrete crushing, and steel inelastic behavior up to fracture due to
37

1 cumulative plastic strains and low cycle fatigue. The numerical models were benchmarked using
2 experimental data available in the literature.
3 Results from the FEMA P695 analyses indicated that all archetypes reached collapse at drifts
4 greater than 5%, but all collapse margin ratios established in this study were conservatively
5 calculated based on results obtained at 5% drift (i.e., at less than actual collapse points).
6 Consequently, collector beams must be designed to be able to accommodate up to 5% drift –
at
7 note that in wall systems, at a given roof drift, the rotation in collector beams varies along the
e LY
8 height of the walls. Results of the FEMA P695 studies indicated that collapse margin ratios
rm
9 increased for the taller buildings, which is consistent with the fact that code-specified drift limits
lin N
10 governed the design of the 18 and 22 stories archetypes.
Fo
er n O
11 C14.3.5.3.1 Stiffness. An elastic model of the structure is used to conduct structural analysis for
12 design by the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure (ELF) defined by ASCE 7. The results of this
analysis are used to determine the design demands for the coupling beams and the maximum
nd o
13
U ati
14 elastic story drift ratio, which is amplified by Cd to estimate the inelastic story drift ratio for
15 design. This analysis can be performed in accordance with AISC 360 Section I1.5, which is
t / rm
16 based on the direct analysis method, and includes recommendations for the flexural (EIeff) and
17 axial stiffness of filled composite members (i.e., composite coupling beams). The flexural
ou fo
18 stiffness (EIeff) and axial stiffness (EAeff) of composite walls can be calculated using section
19 properties and secant stiffness corresponding to 60% of the calculated nominal flexural capacity
e In
20 of the wall (without accounting for axial force effects). It is important to use the reduced
(cracked) axial stiffness of the walls as they have an influence on the structure lateral stiffness
r
21
Fo
22 (and story drift) through the coupling frame action. The shear stiffness of the composite walls
23 and coupling beams does not have a significant influence on the structure stiffness as flexure
24 behavior dominates. As such, the uncracked composite shear stiffness can be used for both the
rik
25 coupling beams and composite walls.
26 C14.3.5.3.4. Capacity-Limited Seismic Load. The design demands for the composite walls are
St
27 estimated using a capacity-limited horizontal seismic load effect, Ecl, where all the coupling
28 beams are assumed to develop plastic hinges at both ends with flexural capacity equal to
29 1.2Mp,exp, i.e., at point B in Fig. C14.3-3. The total overturning moment at B can be estimated
38

1 using the total overturning moment at point A in Fig. C14.3-3 amplified by the factor given
2 below.
3 Eq. C14.3.5-1
4 where
5 = sum of the expected flexural capacities of coupling beams along structure
at
6 height, k-in. (N-mm)
e LY
rm
7 = sum of the flexural design demands for the coupling beams along structure
height, k-in. (N-mm)
lin N
8
Fo
er n O
9 n = number of coupling beams along structure height
10 The capacity-limited shear force in the coupling beams can be summed over the height of the
structure to estimate the axial forces acting in the walls as shown below.
nd o
11
U ati
12 Eq. C14.3.5-2
t / rm
13 The portion of the total overturning moment resisted by coupling action can be estimated by the
14 equal and opposite axial forces at the base of the walls (Pw) multiplied by the distance between
ou fo
15 them. The remaining portion of the total overturning moment can be distributed to the individual
16 walls based on their effective flexural stiffness (while accounting for the effects of tensile or
e In
17 compressive axial force). The shear force in the walls obtained from this analysis is amplified by
18 a factor of 4 to conservatively account for: (1) effects of higher modes, and (2) the overstrength
r
Fo
19 in the walls resulting from the difference between their expected flexural capacity (at point C in
20 Fig. C14.3-3) and design demand (point B). For reinforced concrete walls, this amplification
21 factor is about 2 – 3 (Wallace et al. 2019). A conservative value of 4 was used for composite
rik
22 walls in the absence of better information, and in recognition of their inherent (significant) shear
23 strength. The shear strength of these composite walls is very high due to the significant
St
24 contribution of the steel plates and composite action.
25 C14.3.5.4 Composite Wall Requirements
39

1 C14.3.5.4.1 Area of Steel Requirements. The minimum area of steel requirement is based on
2 AISC 360 Section I2 requirements for composite columns. The maximum area of steel
3 requirement is based on the range of test data available and practical design configurations.
4 C14.3.5.4.2 Steel Plate Slenderness Requirement for Composite Walls. The steel plates of
5 composite walls are required to be nonslender, i.e., yielding in compression must occur before
6 local buckling. When subjected to compressive stresses, the plate undergoes local buckling
at
7 between the steel ties or anchors as shown below. The horizontal lines joining the steel anchors
e LY
8 (or ties) act as fold lines, and local buckling occurs between them. The buckling mode indicates
rm
9 fixed-ends along the vertical lines with steel anchors, and partial fixity along the vertical lines
lin N
10 between steel anchors.
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
11
12 FIGURE C14.3-6. Local buckling of steel plates, and plot of normalized critical buckling
r
strain vs. slenderness ratio (Zhang et al. 2014, 2019)

Fo
13
14 Experimental studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of plate slenderness ratio, s/tp,
15 defined as the steel anchor spacing, s, divided by the plate thickness, tp, on local buckling of
rik
16 plates. Zhang et al. (2014, 2019) have summarized these experimental studies, and conducted
17 additional numerical analyses to confirm and expand the experimental database. Fig. C14.3-6
St
18 from Zhang et al. (2014, 2019) shows the relationship between the normalized critical buckling
19 strain (buckling strain/steel yield strain, cr/ y) and the normalized plate slenderness ratio (s/tp 
20 Fy/E). As shown, cr is reasonably consistent with Euler’s curve with a partially fixed (K = 0.8)
21 end condition. Also, no data point falls in the shaded area, implying yielding occurs before local
40

1 buckling for a normalized plate slenderness ratio less than 1.0. Since ties may also act as
2 anchors, the equation considers the largest unsupported length between rows of steel anchors or
3 ties, b.
4 C14.3.5.4.3 Tie Spacing Requirement for Composite Walls. The tie spacing requirement is based
5 on the flexibility and shear buckling of empty steel modules before concrete placement,
6 discussed in detail in Shafaei et al. (2018). The flexibility of the empty modules for
at
7 transportation, shipping and handling activities is dominated by their effective shear stiffness,
e LY
8 GAeff, which can be estimated accurately using numerical models as shown in Shafaei et al. or
rm
9 calculated conservatively (for a unit cell of the module) using Eq. C14.3.5-3. In this equation, Ip
lin N
10 and It represent the moments of inertia of the individual steel faceplate (about its own axis) and
Fo
er n O
11 tie bar. S and dtie represent the largest clear spacing of the tie and the diameter of the tie,
12 respectively. For threaded bars, the effective diameter of the tie is to be used for dtie. Eq.
13 C14.3.5-4 defines α, which is the ratio of the flexural stiffness of the steel pate to the flexural
nd o
14 stiffness of the tie bar, and simplifies to the form of Eq. 14.3.5-3.
U ati
15 Eq. C14.3.5-3
t / rm
16 Eq. C14.3.5-4

ou fo
17 After assembly, and before concrete casting, the empty modules provide structural support for
18 construction activities, loads, and the steel framework connected to it. The buckling of the empty
e In
19 module subjected to compression loading is also governed by its effective shear stiffness GAeff,
20 and can be estimated conservatively using Eq. C14.3.5-5. The requirements of Eq. 14.3.5-2 and
r
Fo
21 14.3.5-3 will result in critical buckling stress greater than or equal to 1000 psi, which is
22 equivalent to a distributed loading of 12,000 lbs per linear foot for walls with two 0.5 in. thick
23 steel plates. The stresses and deflections induced by concrete casting hydrostatic pressure can
rik
24 also be estimated as shown in Shafaei et al. (2018). Research by Bhardwaj et al. (2018) indicates
25 that modules that meet the plate slenderness requirement of Section 14.3.5.4.2 can be typically
St
26 cast with concrete pour heights of up to 30 ft without significant influence of induced deflections
27 and stresses on the compressive strength and buckling of the steel plates. There are no additional
28 tie requirements or limits for walls without fire protection (Anvari et al. 2020).
29 Eq. C14.3.5-5
41

1 C14.3.5.4.4 Tie-to-Plate Connection. This requirement develops the yield strength of the tie bars,
2 and enables yielding before failure of the tie-to-plate connection. Samples of tie-to-plate
3 connection details are shown in Fig. C14.3-7 for round tie bars.
at
e LY
rm
lin N
4
Fo
er n O
5 FIGURE C14.3-7 Tie bar-to-plate connection detail samples
6 C14.3.5.5 Composite Coupling Beam Requirements

nd o
C14.3.5.5.1 Minimum Area of Steel. The minimum area of steel requirement is based on AISC
U ati
7
8 360 Section I2 requirements for composite columns.
t / rm
9 C14.3.5.5.2 Slenderness Requirement for Coupling Beams. The slenderness requirements are
10 based on compact section requirements in AISC 360 Section I1.4 for filled composite members.
ou fo
11 The web slenderness ratio requirement is based on developing the shear yield strength of the web
e In
12 plates before shear buckling as per AISC 360 Section G4. Fig. C14.3-8 shows a schematic of the
13 coupling beam cross-section along with the clear widths of the flange and web plates.
r
Fo
14 C14.3.5.5.3 Flexure-Critical Coupling Beams. This requirement is based on achieving flexure
15 critical behavior in composite beams. The requirement increases the capacity-limited shear force
16 capacity (2 Mp,exp/Lcb) by a factor of 1.2 to account for the effects of steel inelastic hardening in
rik
17 tension, concrete confinement, and the biaxial (tensile) stress effect in the steel tension flange.
C14.3.5.6 Composite Wall Strength

St
18
19 The requirements for axial tensile strength, compressive strength, flexural strength, and
20 combined axial force and flexure are based on the recommendations for filled composite
21 members in AISC 360 Chapter I. The unsupported length for the flexural buckling of composite
42

1 walls is typically equal to the story height. The requirements for flexural strength have been
2 verified using experimental data by Kurt et al. (2016) and Alzeni and Bruneau (2017) and for
3 combined axial force and flexure by Shafaei et al. (2019) and Bruneau et al. (2019) for C-shaped
4 walls.
5 C14.3.5.6.3 Flexural Strength. The flexural capacity of composite walls and coupling beams can
6 be calculated using the plastic stress distribution method or the effective stress-strain method in
at
7 AISC 360 Section I1.2. The nominal flexural capacity (with or without concurrent axial force)
e LY
8 can be calculated using nominal steel (Fy) and concrete (f’c) material strengths. The expected
rm
9 flexural capacity can be calculated using expected steel (RyFy) and concrete (Rcf’c) material
lin N
10 strengths. The expected flexural capacity is amplified by a factor of 1.2 to account for the effects
Fo
er n O
11 of steel inelastic hardening in tension, concrete confinement, and the biaxial (tensile) stress effect
12 in the steel tension flange.
C14.3.5.6.5 Shear Strength. The in-plane shear behavior of composite walls is governed by the
nd o
13
U ati
14 plane stress behavior of the plates and the orthotropic elastic behavior of concrete cracked in
15 principal tension. Varma et al. (2014) and Seo et al. (2016) discuss the fundamental mechanics
t / rm
16 based model (MBM) for in-plane shear behavior of composite walls. The in-plane shear behavior
17 can be estimated as the tri-linear shear force-strain curve shown in Fig. C14.3-9. The first part of
ou fo
18 the curve is before the concrete cracks. The second part is after the concrete cracking but before
19 the plate yielding. The third part of the curve corresponds to the onset of plate von Mises
e In
20 yielding. The shear force corresponding to this onset of von Mises yielding is given by Equation
14.3.5-9. The corresponding principal compressive stress in the cracked (orthotropic) concrete is
r
21
Fo
22 less than 0.7f’c for typical composite walls with reinforcement ratios (2tp/tsc) less than or equal to
23 10%. For walls with very high reinforcement ratios (i.e., walls with very thick steel plates
24 compared to overall thickness), the concrete principal compressive stress can be the limiting
rik
25 failure criterion (Seo et al. 2016, Varma et al. 2014).

St
43

Flange plates
with thickness tf
bc
Web plates with

thickness tw
hc
at
e LY
1
rm
FIGURE C14.3-1. Coupling beam cross-section
lin N
2
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
3
e In
4 FIGURE C14.3-9. In-plane shear force-stain response of composite walls, and comparison
5 of experimental results with shear strength calculated using Equation 14.3.5-9 (Seo et al.
r
6 2016)
Fo
7 C14.3.5.7 Composite Coupling Beam Strength
The requirements for flexural strength are based on the recommendations for filled composite
rik
8
9 members in AISC 360 Chapter I. The requirements for shear strength are based on
St
10 recommendations for filled composite members in AISC 360 Chapter I as modified to reflect the
11 latest research (Lehman et al. 2018, Bruneau and Kenarangi 2018, Bruneau and Varma, 2019).
12 C14.3.5.8 Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections
44

1 The coupling beam-to-wall connections are designed to develop and transfer the expected
2 flexural capacity (and corresponding capacity-limited shear force) of the associated coupling
3 beams. Fig. C14.3-10 shows the envelope of the inelastic moment-rotation response assumed in
4 the FEMA P695 (analytical) studies for the flexural (plastic) hinges in the coupling beams. As
5 shown, the plastic rotation before degradation of flexural capacity due to fracture failure was
6 assumed to be equal to 0.025 rad.
at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
7
ou fo
8 FIGURE C14.3-10. Envelope of cyclic moment-rotation response and hysteretic behavior of

9 plastic hinges in composite coupling beams (Broberg et al. 2019)
e In
10 Coupling beam-to-wall connections have been tested in the past, for example, Nie et al. (2014),
r
11 and additional testing of coupling beam-to-wall connections are currently ongoing. Some details
Fo
12 that may be demonstrated to be acceptable by testing, as well as detailing, fabrication, and
13 concrete casting considerations, are provided in the AISC Design Guide (Varma et al. 2021).
rik
14 C14.3.5.9 Composite Wall-to-Foundation Connections

St
15 For structures with sub-grade basement stories, the maximum shear force and overturning
16 moment in the composite walls at the grade level can be transferred gradually through the
17 basement stories. For structures that are connected to the concrete basemat/foundation at the
18 location of maximum shear force and overturning moment, the wall-to-basemat connections have
45

1 to be designed for: (1) the expected flexural capacity of the composite walls (accounting for
2 effects of axial force); (2) the expected axial forces associated with capacity-limited shear forces
3 in the coupling beams; (3) and the amplified shear force demand (amplification factor of 4) used
4 for the design of the composite walls. Some connection details that have been used in the past
5 include details with welded base plates and rebar couplers as shown in AISC Design Guide 32
6 (Bhardwaj and Varma 2016). The base plate can be continuous or discontinuous across the wall
7 thickness depending on the needs of the project and wall thickness. Another potential connection
at
e LY
8 with the wall embedded in the concrete foundation is shown in Kizilarslan et al. (2019).
rm
9 C14.3.5.10 Protected Zones
lin N
Fo
er n O
10 Protected zones are defined in AISC 341 as regions of members or connections of members
11 undergoing large inelastic strains or plastic hinging to provide significant inelastic deformation
12 capacity and energy dissipation during design-basis or higher magnitude earthquakes.
nd o
13 FEMA/SAC testing has demonstrated the sensitivity of these regions to discontinuities caused by
U ati
14 fabrication or erection activities or from other attachments. For this reason, operations specified
15 in AISC 341 Section I2.1 are prohibited in the protected zones.
t / rm
16 For the CC-PSW/CF system, the protected zones are designated as the regions at the ends of
ou fo
17 coupling beams that will undergo significant inelastic straining and plastic hinging, and portions
18 of the adjacent wall (if any) undergoing yielding at the connection. The typical length of the
e In
19 plastic hinge region will extend from the face of the composite wall to a distance equal to
20 coupling beam depth. However, the extent of the plastic hinge (and the protected zone) can
r
Fo
21 depend on the cross-section geometry, flange and web plate thicknesses, and the length-to-depth
22 ratio of the coupling beam. The extent of the protected zone can be determined from analysis.
23 Additionally, the regions of the composite walls undergoing significant inelastic straining and
rik
24 plastic hinging are also designated as protected zone. The extent of the plastic hinge region
25 undergoing significant inelastic strains (and the protected zone) can depend on wall cross-section
St
26 geometry, web plate and flange (closure) plate thickness and lengths, and the height-to-length
27 ratios of the walls. The extent of the protected zone can be determined from analysis.
28 C14.3.5.11 Demand Critical Welds in Connections
46

1 Demand critical welds are defined in AISC 341, and the requirements are specified in Sections
2 A3.4b and I2.3. These include requirements for the filler metals in terms of minimum levels of
3 CVN toughness using two different test temperatures and specified test protocols, unless
4 exempted from testing. Demand critical welds are generally complete-joint-penetration groove
5 (CJP) welds because they are subjected to yield level or higher stress demands and located in
6 joints where failure can result in significant degradation in strength or stiffness.
at
7 Welds used to connect the coupling beam flanges and web plates to the composite wall steel
e LY
8 plates are designated as demand critical, and therefore required to meet the corresponding
rm
9 requirements.
lin N
Fo
10 Additionally, welds within the protected zones of coupling beams and composite walls are also
er n O
11 designated as demand critical, and therefore required to meet the corresponding requirements.
12 These include welds connecting the composite wall flange (closure) plates to the web plates,
welds connecting the coupling beam web plates to flange plates in built-up box sections, welds
nd o
13
U ati
14 used in composite wall steel plate splices, and welds used in composite wall steel plate-to-base
15 plate connections.
t / rm
16 The splice welds for the steel plates are to be designed, detailed, and tested as needed to develop
17 the expected yield strength of the steel plates. A CJP weld can be used to achieve such a splice,
ou fo
18 or alternatively, project-specific splice weld details can be developed and tested. For example, a
e In
19 PJP with reinforcing fillet weld detail was used on a project. Note that this is not an AWS
20 D1.8/D1.8M prequalified weld configuration, and therefore it was qualified by testing for the
r
21 specific project.

Fo
22
rik
St
47

1 C14.4 MASONRY
2 This section adopts by reference and then makes modifications to TMS 402 (2016a) and TMS
3 602 (2016b). In past editions of this standard, modifications to the TMS referenced standards
4 were also made. During the development of the 2016 edition of the TMS standards, each of these
5 modifications was considered by the TMS 402/602 committee. Some were incorporated directly
6 into the TMS standards. These Those modifications have accordingly been removed from the
at
7 modifications in this standard. Work is ongoing to better coordinate the provisions of the two
e LY
8 documents so that the provisions in Section 14.4 are significantly reduced or eliminated in future
rm
9 editions.
lin N
Fo
er n O
10 C14.5 WOOD

nd o
12 Two national consensus standards are adopted for seismic design of engineered wood structures:
U ati
13 the National Design Specification (AWC NDS-1518, 2018), and the Special Design Provisions
for Wind and Seismic (AWC SDPWS-1521, 2020). Both of these standards are presented in dual
t / rm
14
15 formats, for allowable stress design (ASD) and load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
formats. Both standards reference a number of secondary standards for related items such as
ou fo
16
17 wood materials and fasteners. AWC NDS addresses requirements for member and connection
e In
18 design, and AWC SDPWS addresses general principles and specific detailing requirements for
19 shear wall and diaphragm design. and provides tabulated nominal unit shear capacities for shear
r
Fo
20 wall and diaphragm sheathing and fastening. The balance of member and connection design is to
21 be in accordance with the AWC NDS.
22
rik
23 REFERENCES
St
24 Essa, H. S., Tremblay, R., & Rogers, C. A. (2003). Behavior of roof deck diaphragms under
25 quasistatic cyclic loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(12), 1658-1666.
26 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1658)
27
48

1
2
3
4 NBM (2017) “Cyclic performance and characterization of steel deck connections.” NBM
5 Technologies report to AISI/SDI/SJI, 14 December 2017
6
7 NBM (2018) “Button Punch Sidelaps (Cyclic testing program)” NUCOR-Verco/Vulcraft Group,
at
e LY
8 Project number 103-042-18, 11 July 2018 (released by Verco for public use)
rm
9
O'Brien, P., Eatherton, M.R., Easterling, W.S. (2017). “Characterizing the load-deformation
lin N
10
Fo
11 behavior of steel deck diaphragms using past test data.” CFSRC Report 2017-02.
er n O
12 access at http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/40633
13
nd o
14
U ati
15
16
t / rm
17
18
ou fo
19 Wei, G., Eatherton, M.R., Schafer, B.W. (2019). “Development of Steel Deck Diaphragm
20 Seismic Design Provisions for ASCE 41/AISC 342.” CFSRC Report R-2019-01.
e In
21 http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/59927
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). (2015). “North American standard for cold-formed
r
22
Fo
23 steel structural framing.” ANSI/AISI S240 , Washington, DC.

24 AISI. (2015). “Standard for cold-formed steel framing—Prescriptive method for one and two
25 family dwellings.” ANSI/AISI S230 , Washington, DC.
rik
26 AISI. (2015). “North American standard for seismic design of cold-formed steel structural
27 systems” ANSI/AISI S400 , Washington, DC.
St
28 AISI. (2016). “North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural
29 members.” ANSI/AISI S100 , Washington, DC.
30 AISI. (2016). “North American standard for the design of profiled steel diaphragm panels”
31 ANSI/AISI S310 , Washington, DC.
49

1 Fanous, A. , Sritharan, S. , Suleiman, M. , and Arulmoli, A. (2007). Minimum spiral
2 reinforcement requirements and lateral displacement limits for prestressed concrete piles
3 in high seismic regions . Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
4 Engineering, Iowa State University, ISU-ERI Ames Report, Ames, IA
5 International Code Council (ICC). (2012). “International building code.” Country Club Hills, IL.
6 Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC). (2005a). “Building code requirements for masonry
7 structures.” ACI 530-05/ASCE/SEI 5-05/TMS 402-5 , Farmington Hills, MI.
at
e LY
8 MSJC. (2005b). “Specification for masonry structures.” ACI 530.1-05/ASCE/SEI 6-05/TMS 602-
rm
9 05 , Farmington Hills, MI.
Naito, C. , Peter, W. , Cao, L. (2006). “Development of a seismic design methodology for
lin N
10
Fo
11 precast diaphragms—Phase 1 Summary Report,” ATLSS Report No. 06-03 , January,
er n O
12 ATLSS Center, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
13 Naito, C. , Ren, R. , Jones, C. , Cullent, T. (2007). “Development of a seismic design
methodology for precast diaphragms—Connector performance, Phase 1B,” ATLSS
nd o
14
U ati
15 Report No. 07-04 , June, ATLSS Center, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
16 ACI (American Concrete Institute). 201914. Building code requirements for structural concrete
t / rm
17 and commentary. ACI 318. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.

18 AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2016a2022a. Seismic provisions for structural
ou fo
19 steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 341. Chicago, IL: AISC.

20 AISC. 2016b2022b. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360. Chicago, IL:
e In
21 AISC.
AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). (20152019). Standard for cold-formed steel framing:
r
22
Fo
23 Prescriptive method for one- and two-family dwellings. ANSI/AISI S230-19.
24 Washington, DC: AISI.
25 AISI. 2020a2015. North American standard for cold-formed steel structural framing. ANSI/AISI
rik
26 S240-20. Washington, DC: AISI.

27 AISI. 2020b2015. North American standard for seismic design of cold-formed steel structural
St
28 systems. ANSI/AISI S400-20. Washington, DC: AISI.

29 AISI. 2020c2016. North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural
30 members. 2016 ed., reaffirmed 2020, with Supplement 2. , 2020 ed. ANSI/AISI S100-16
31 (2020) w/S2-20.ANSI/AISI S100-16. Washington, DC: AISI.
50

1 AISI. 2020d2016. North American standard for the design of profiled steel diaphragm panels.
2 ANSI/AISI S310-20. Washington, DC: AISI.
3 ASCE. 2002. Specification for the design of cold-formed stainless steel structural members.
4 ASCE/SEI 8-02. Reston, VA: ASCE.
5 ASCE. 2010. Structural applications of steel cables for buildings. ASCE/SEI 19-10. Reston,
6 VA: ASCE.
7 Avellaneda, R. E., W. S. Easterling, B. W. Schafer, J. F. Hajjar, and M. R. Eatherton. 2019.
at
e LY
8 “Cyclic testing of composite concrete on metal deck diaphragms undergoing diagonal
rm
9 tension cracking.” In Proc., 12th Canadian Conf.erence on Earthquake Engineering,
Quebec, June 17–20.
lin N
10
Fo
11 AWC (American Wood Council). 20122017. National design specification (NDS) for wood
er n O
12 construction with commentary. ANSI/AWC NDS-2012 2018. Leesburg, VA: AWC.
13 AWC. 20082020. Special design provisions for wind and seismic. ANSI/AWC SDPWS-2012
2021. Leesburg, VA: AWC.
nd o
14
U ati
15 Banks, G., and J. Stanton. 2005. “Panel-to-panel connections for hollow-core shear walls
16 subjected to seismic loading.” In Proc., 2005 PCI Convention, Precast/Prestressed
t / rm
17 Concrete Institute, Chicago.

18 Easterling, W. S., and M. Porter. 1994. “Steel‐deck‐reinforced concrete diaphragms. I.” J. Struct.
ou fo
19 Eng. 120 (2): 560–576.

20 FEMA. 2015. Seismic design of rigid wall–flexible diaphragm buildings: An alternate
e In
21 procedure. FEMA P-1026. Washington, DC: FEMA.

Koliou, M., A. Filiatrault, D. J. Kelly, and J. Lawson. 2016a. “Buildings with rigid walls and
r
22
Fo
23 flexible roof diaphragms. I: Evaluation of current U.S. seismic provisions.” J. Struct.
24 Eng. 142 (3). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001438.
25 Koliou, M., A. Filiatrault, D. J. Kelly, and J. Lawson. (2016b). “Buildings with rigid walls and
rik
26 flexible roof diaphragms. II: Evaluation of a new seismic design approach based on
27 distributed diaphragm yielding.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (3). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
St
28 541X.0001439.
29 Nakaki, S., J. F. Stanton, and S. Sritharan. 2001. “The PRESSS five-story precast concrete test
30 building, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California,” PCI J. 46 (5): 20–26.
51

1 Nakaki, S., R. Becker, M. G. Oliva, D. and Paxson. 2005. “New connections for precast wall
2 systems in high seismic regions.” In Proc., 2005 PCI Conv., Precast/Prestressed
3 Concrete Institute, Chicago.
4 PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2004. “Precast/prestressed concrete piles.” Bridge
5 design manual BM-20-04. Chicago: PCI.
6 Ren, R., and C. J. Naito. 2013. “Precast concrete diaphragm connector performance database.” J.
7 Struct. Eng. 139 (1): 15–27.
at
e LY
8 Sato, A., and C.-M. Uang. 2007. “Development of a seismic design procedure for cold-formed
rm
9 steel bolted frames.” Report no. SSRP-07/16. University of California, San Diego.
Schafer, B. W. 2019. Research on the seismic performance of rigid wall flexible diaphragm
lin N
10
Fo
11 buildings with bare steel deck diaphragms. CFSRC Report R-2019-02.
er n O
12 Schultz, A. E. , and R. A. Magana. 1996. “Seismic behavior of connections in precast concrete
13 walls.” In Proc., Mete A. Sozen Symposium, 273–311. SP-162. Farmington Hills, MI:
American Concrete Institute.
nd o
14
U ati
15 SDI (Steel Deck Institute). 2015. Diaphragm design manual, 4th ed. (also known as DDM04).
16 Allison Park, NJ: SDI.
t / rm
17 SDI. 2016. Manual of construction with steel deck, 3rd ed. Allison Park, NJ: SDI.
18 SDI. 20222017. Standard for quality control and quality assurance for installation of steel deck.
ou fo
19 ANSI/SDI QA/QC-20222017Standard. Allison Park, NJ: SDISteel Deck Institute (SDI).
20 (2015). Diaphragm design manual, 4th Ed., DDMO4, Glenshaw, PA.
e In
21 TMS (The Masonry Society). 2016a. Building code requirements and specification for masonry
structures. TMS 402-16. Longmont, CO: TMS.
r
22
Fo
23 TMS. 2016b. Specification for masonry structures. TMS 602-16. Longmont, CO: TMS.
24
25 Alzeni, Y. and Bruneau, M. (2017), “In-Plane Cyclic Testing of Concrete Filled Sandwich Steel
rik
26 Panel Walls with and without Boundary Elements”, ASCE Journal of Structural
27 Engineering, Vol.143, No.9, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001791
St
28 Anvari, A., Bhardwaj, S., Wazalwar, P., and Varma, A.H. (2020). “Performance-based Fire
29 Design of Composite Plate Shear Walls / Concrete Filled (CPSW/CF)”. Final Project
30 Report CPF Research Grant #03-18. Charles Pankow
31 Foundation, https://www.pankowfoundation.org
52

1
2 Bhardwaj, S. and Varma, A.H. (2016), AISC Design Guide 32: Design of Modular Steel Plate
3 Composite (SC) Walls for Safety Related Nuclear Facilities. AISC, Chicago, IL.
4 Bhardwaj, S., Wang, A.Y., and Varma, A.H, (2018), “Slenderness Requirements for CF-CPSW:
5 The Effects of Concrete Casting.” Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
6 Thin-Walled Structures, ICTWS 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, July 24-27. ISBN: 978-989-20-
7 8665-1
at
e LY
8 Broberg, M., Shafaei, S., Seo, J., and Varma, A.H. (2019), “Introduction to the Seismic Behavior
rm
9 of Coupled Composite Plate Shear Wall—Concrete Filled.” Engineering Journal, AISC,
In Preparation
lin N
10
Fo
11 Bruneau, M. and Kenarangi, H. (2018), “Investigation of Cyclic Shear Behavior of Circular
er n O
12 Reinforced Concrete Filled Steel Tubes.” Journal of Structural Engineering, Under
13 Review.
Bruneau, M. and Varma, A.H. (2019), “Shear Strength of Filled Composite Members.”
nd o
14
U ati
15 Engineering Journal, AISC, In Preparation.
16 Bruneau, M., Kizilarslan, E., and Kenarangi, H. (2019), “Cyclic Behavior of C-Shaped
t / rm
17 Composite Plate Shear Walls—Concrete Filled.” Journal of Structural Engineering,

18 ASCE, In Preparation
ou fo
19 Booth, P., Varma, A.H., and Seo, J. (2015), "Lateral Load Capacity of Steel Plate Composite
20 Wall Structures." Transactions of SMiRT 23 in Manchester, UK, Paper ID 791,
e In
21 IASMIRT, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, pp. 1-10,
http://smirt23.uk/attachments/SMiRT-23_Paper_791.pdf
r
22
Fo
23 Kizilarslan, E., Seo, J., Broberg, M., Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., and Bruneau., M. (2018), “R-
24 Factors for Coupled Composite Plate Shear Walls—Concrete Filled (Coupled-C-
25 PSW/CF), Interim Project Report #2, Submitted to the Charles Pankow Foundation for
rik
26 CPF research grant #06-16.

St
27 Kizilarslan, E., Seo, J., Broberg, M., Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., and Bruneau., M. (2019),
28 “Seismic Design Coefficients and Factors for Coupled Composite Plate Shear Walls—
29 Concrete Filled (Coupled-C-PSW/CF), to be published
53

1 Kurt, E.G., Varma, A.H., Booth, P.N., and Whittaker, A. (2016), “In-plane Behavior and Design
2 of Rectangular SC Wall Piers Without Boundary Elements.” ASCE Journal of Structural
3 Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001481
4 Lehman, D., Roeder, C., Heid, A., Maki, T., and Khalegi, B. (2018), “Shear Response of
5 Concrete Filled Tubes. Part 1: Experiments.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
6 Volume 150, November 2018, Pages 528-540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.08.027
7 Nie, J.G., Hu, H.S., and Eatherton, M.R. (2014), "Concrete filled steel plate composite coupling
at
e LY
8 beams: Experimental study." Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, 94 49-
rm
9 63.
Seo, J., Varma, A.H., Sener, K., and Ayhan, D. (2016), “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: In-
lin N
10
Fo
11 Plane Shear Behavior, Database, and Design.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
er n O
12 Elsevier Science, Volume 119, Pages 202-215,
13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.12.013
Shafaei, S., Seo, J., and Varma, A.H. (2019), “Cyclic Behavior of Planar Composite Plate Shear
nd o
14
U ati
15 Walls—Concrete Filled.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, In Preparation.
16 Shafaei, S., Wang, A., Varma, A.H., and Morgen, B. (2018), “Stability of Steel Modules During
t / rm
17 Construction.” Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Baltimore, MD, April 10-
18 13, 2018.
ou fo
19 Varma, A.H., Shafaei, S., Broberg, M., Anvari, A., Bhardwaj, S., and Seo, J. (2021). Seismic and
20 Non-seismic Design Composite Plate Shear Walls / Concrete Filled (CPSW/CF). AISC
e In
21 Design Guide XX, AISC, Chicago, IL.

Varma, A.H., Malushte, S., Sener, K., and Lai, Z. (2014), “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls for
r
22
Fo
23 Safety Related Nuclear Facilities: Design for In-Plane Force and Out-of-Plane
24 Moments.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Special Issue on SMiRT-21 Conference,
25 Vol. 269, pp. 240-249, Elsevier Science,
rik
26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.09.019
27 Wallace, J. et al. (2019), R-Factor for Coupled Concrete Core Wall System. Report to the
St
28 Charles Pankow Foundation.

29 Zhang, K., Varma, A.H., Malushte, S., and Gallocher, S. (2014), “Effects of Shear Connectors
30 on the Local Buckling and Composite Action in Steel Concrete Composite Walls.”
54

1 Nuclear Engineering and Design, Special Issue on SMiRT-21 Conference, Vol. 269, pp.
2 231-239, Elsevier Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.08.035
3 Zhang, K., Varma, A.H., and Seo, J. (2019), “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: Behavior and
4 Design and Behavior for Axial Compressive Loading.” Journal of Structural
5 Engineering, ASCE, submitted for review.
6 OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)
7 American Institute of Timber Construction. 2005. Timber construction manual, 5th ed. New
at
e LY
8 York: Wiley.
rm
9 APA –(The Engineered Wood Association). 1994. Northridge California earthquake. T94-5.
Tacoma, WA: APA.
lin N
10
Fo
11 APA –(The Engineered Wood Association). 2004. Diaphragms and shear walls
er n O
12 design/construction guide. L350. Tacoma, WA: APA.
13 ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1981. Guidelines for the design of horizontal wood
diaphragms. ATC-7. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
nd o
14
U ati
15 Bora, C. M G. Oliva, S. D. Nakaki, and R. Becker, R. 2007. “Development of a precast concrete
16 shear-wall system requiring special code acceptance.” PCI J. 52 (1): 122–135.
t / rm
17 Breyer, D., K. Fridley, Jr., D. Pollack, and K. Cobeen. 2006. Design of wood structures
18 ASD/LRFD, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ou fo
19 Charles Pankow Foundation. 2014. “Seismic design methodology document for precast concrete
20 diaphragms.” CPF, Vancouver, WA, January 23.
e In
21 CWC (Canadian Wood Council). 1995. Wood reference handbook. Ottawa: CWC.
CWC. 2005. Wood design manual. Ottawa: CWC.
r
22
Fo
23 Cobeen, K. 2004. “Recent developments in the seismic design and construction of woodframe
24 buildings.” In Earthquake engineering: From engineering seismology to performance-
25 based engineering, Y. Bozorgia and V. Bertero, eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
rik
26 CUREE (Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering). 2004.

27 Recommendations for earthquake resistance in the design and construction of woodframe
St
28 buildings. CUREE W-30. Richmond, CA: CUREE.

29 Dolan, J. D. 2003. “Wood structures.” In Earthquake engineering handbook, W.-F. Chen and C.
30 Scawthorn, eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
55

1 Easterling, W. S., and M. Porter. 1994. “Steel‐deck‐reinforced concrete diaphragms. I.” J. Struct.
2 Eng. 120 (2): 560–576.
3
4 EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute). 1996. “Northridge earthquake
5 reconnaissance report.” Earthquake. Spectra, Ch. 6, Suppl. C to Vol. 11. Oakland, CA:
6 EERI.
7 Faherty, K. F., and T. G. Williamson. 1989. Wood engineering and construction handbook. New
at
e LY
8 York: McGraw-Hill.
rm
9 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2003. NEHRP recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. FEMA 450. Washington, DC:
lin N
10
Fo
11 FEMA, Building Seismic Safety Council.
er n O
12 FEMA. 2005. Coastal construction manual, 3rd ed. FEMA 55. Washington, DC: FEMA.
13 Forest Products Laboratory. 1986. Wood: Engineering design concepts. Materials Education
Council, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
nd o
14
U ati
15 Goetz, K. H., D. Hoor, K. Moehler, and J. Natterer. 1989. Timber design and construction source
16 book: A comprehensive guide to methods and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
t / rm
17 Hoyle, R. J., and F. E. Woeste. 1989. Wood technology in the design of structures. Ames: Iowa
18 State University Press.
ou fo
19 ICC (International Code Council). 2006. ICC standard on the design and construction of log
20 structures, 3rd draft. Country Club Hills, IL: ICC.
e In
21 Ishizuka, T., and N. M. Hawkins. 1987. “Effect of bond deterioration on the seismic response of
reinforced and partially prestressed concrete ductile moment resistant frames.” Report
r
22
Fo
23 SM 87-2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.

24 Karacabeyli, E., and M. Popovsky. 2003. “Design for earthquake resistance.” In Timber
25 engineering , H. Larsen and S. Thelandersson, eds. New York: Wiley.
rik
26 Keenan, F. J. 1986. Limit states design of wood structures. North York, ON: Morrison
27 Hershfield.
St
28 Lee, N. H., K. S. Kim, C. J. Bang, and K. R. Park. 2007. “Tensile-headed anchors with large
29 diameter and deep embedment in concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 104 (4): 479–486.
30 Lee, N. H., K. R. Park, and Y. P. Suh. 2010. “Shear behavior of headed anchors with large
31 diameters and deep embedments.” ACI Struct. J. 107 (2): 146–156.
56

1 MSJC (Masonry Standards Joint Committee). 1999. Building code requirements for masonry
2 structures, ACI 530-99/ASCE 5-99/TMS 402-99; Specification for masonry structures,
3 ACI 530.1-99/ASCE 6-99/TMS 602-99; Commentary on building code requirements for
4 masonry structures; Commentary on specification for masonry structures, together
5 known as MSJC standards (code and specification). Longmont, CO: The Masonry
6 Society / American Concrete Institute / ASCE.
7 Nakaki, S. D., J. F. Stanton, and S. Sritharan. 1999. “An overview of the PRESSS five-story
at
e LY
8 precast test building.” PCI J. 44 (2): 26–39.
rm
9 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, . 1971. San Fernando, California,
Earthquake of February 9, 1971. Washington, DC: NOAA, US Department of
lin N
10
Fo
11 Agriculture.
er n O
12 Park, R., and K. J. Thompson. 1977. “Cyclic load tests on prestressed and partially prestressed
13 beam-column joints.” PCI J. 22 (5): 84–110.
PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2004. “Precast/prestressed concrete piles.” Bridge
nd o
14
U ati
15 design manual BM-20-04. Chicago: PCI.
16 Ren, R., and C. J. Naito. 2013. “Precast concrete diaphragm connector performance database.” J.
t / rm
17 Struct. Eng. 139 (1): 15–27.

18
ou fo
19 SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1999. Recommended lateral force
20 requirements and commentary. Sacramento, CA: SEAOC.
e In
21 SEAONC (Structural Engineers Association of Northern California). 2005. Guidelines for
r
22 seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of tilt-up buildings and other rigid wall/flexible
Fo
23 diaphragm structures. Sacramento, CA: SEAONC.

24 Sherwood, G. E., and R. C. Stroh. 1989. Wood-frame house construction. Agricultural Handbook
25 73. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
rik
26 Somayaji, Shan. 1992. Structural wood design. St. Paul, MN: West.
27 Stalnaker, J. J., and E. C. Harris. 1996. Structural design in wood, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-
St
28 Hill.
29 US Department of Agriculture, NOAA. 1971. San Fernando, California, Earthquake of
30 February 9, 1971. Washington, DC: NOAA.
57

1 US Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. (1992). Seismic design for buildings. Tri-
2 Services Manual TM5-809-10. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
3
at
e LY
rm
lin N
Fo
er n O
nd o
U ati
t / rm
ou fo
e In
r
Fo
St
rik
58

ASCE 7-22 CH 14com - For PC - Sou

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE 7-22 CH 14com - For PC - Sou

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE 7-22 CH 14com - For PC - Sou

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

2 MATERIAL-SPECIFIC SEISMIC DESIGN AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS

15 C14.1 STEEL

16 C14.1.1 Reference Documents

20 comparable to that of more ductile systems.

21 C14.1.2.2.2 Seismic Design Categories D through F

27 C14.1.3 Cold-Formed Steel

18 C14.1.3.2 Seismic Requirements for Cold-Formed Steel Structures

22 appropriate base standard: AISI S100 or ASCE 8.

3 C14.1.4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

14 C14.1.4.2 Seismic Requirements for Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

24 C14.1.4.3 Prescriptive Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

3 C14.1.5 Cold-Formed Steel Deck Diaphragms

26 intended to meet these special seismic detailing requirements.

17 F3.4 Shear Strength

22 the diaphragm in shear.

23 F3.5.1 Prescriptive Special Seismic Detailing

27 36/9 attachment patterns as illustrated in Figure C-F3.5.1-2.

27 Schafer (2019).

28 F3.5.1.2 Sidelap Connection Qualification

6 F3.5.2 Performance-Based Special Seismic Detailing

4 F3.5.2.2 Special Seismic Qualification by Principles of Mechanics

21 precision and reduced cost.

12 C14.1.7 Steel Cables

23 C14.2 CONCRETE

6 each wall type specified in Table 12.2-1.

19 C14.2.2.2 ACI 318, Section 10.7.6

23 Categories SDCs C through F.

24 C14.2.2.3 Scope

17 through the full design displacement of the structure.

18 C14.2.2.6 Foundations

22 14 provisions if the pile is not fully embedded in the soil.

23 C14.2.2.7 Detailed Plain Concrete Shear Walls

29 C14.2.3 Additional Detailing Requirements for Concrete Piles.

5 C14.2.3.1.2 Reinforcement for Uncased Concrete Piles (SDC C).

22 C14.2.3.1.6 Reinforcement for Precast Prestressed Piles (SDC C).

6 C14.2.3.2.3 Reinforcement for Uncased Concrete Piles (SDC D through F).

2 FIGURE C14.2-1 Diaphragm Dimensions

5 accordance with Fig. 14.2-1:

6 Low Seismic Demand Level

7 1. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC C.

8 2. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with diaphragm span ≤ 75 ft

11 Moderate Seismic Demand Level

12 1. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with diaphragm span ≤ 75 ft

14 2. Diaphragms in structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F with diaphragm span > 75 ft

11 (42.67 m)) and number of stories  2 .

17 applied in diaphragm shear design.

24 in the MCE for EDO.

12 (a) BDO; (b) RDO

13 C14.2.4.2 Diaphragm Design Options.

19 diaphragm flexure, not joint sliding deformation caused by shear.

26 reinforcement (see Section 14.2.4.3).

18 approach for the determination of connector or reinforcement properties.

17 1. The diaphragm connector or reinforcement classification is based on inelastic

19 deformation caused by shear.

21 reinforcement and shear reinforcement. Other reinforcement (collector/anchorages,

27 C14.2.4.3.5 Deformed Bar Reinforcement.

6 C14.2.4.4 Precast Concrete Diaphragm Connector and Joint Reinforcement Qualification

20 specified requirements.