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
5  criteria require not only provisions to govern loading but also provisions to define the required
6  configurations, connections, and detailing to produce material and system behavior consistent

LY
7  with the design assumptions. Thus, although ASCE 7 is primarily a loading standard, compliance
8  with Chapter 14, which covers material-specific seismic design and detailing, is required. In

N
9  general, Chapter 14 adopts material design and detailing standards developed by material

O
10  standards organizations. These material standards organizations maintain complete
11  commentaries covering their standards, and such material is not duplicated here.
n
io
12  C14.0 SCOPE
at

13  The scoping statement in this section clarifies that foundation elements are subject to all of the
m

14  structural design requirements of the standard.

or

15  C14.1 STEEL

nf

16  C14.1.1 Reference Documents

rI

17  This section lists a series of structural standards published by the American Institute of Steel
Fo

18  Construction (AISC), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), ASCE, the Steel Deck
19  Institute (SDI), and the Steel Joist Institute (SJI), which are to be applied in the seismic design of
20  steel members and connections in conjunction with the requirements of ASCE 7. The AISC
21  references are available free of charge in electronic format at www.aisc.org; the AISI references
22  are available at www.steel.org; the SDI references are available as a free download at
23  www.aisistandards.org; and the SJI references are available as a free download at
24  www.steeljoist.org.

25  C14.1.2 Structural Steel

1 
 
 1  C14.1.2.1 General
2  This section adopts AISC 360 (2022b) by direct reference. The specification applies to the
3  design of the structural steel system or systems with structural steel acting compositely with
4  reinforced concrete. In particular, the document sets forth criteria for the design, fabrication, and
5  erection of structural steel buildings and other structures, where “other structures” are defined as
6  structures designed, fabricated, and erected in a manner similar to buildings, with building-like
7  vertical and lateral load-resisting elements. The document includes extensive commentary.

8  C14.1.2.2 Seismic Requirements for Structural Steel Structures

LY
9  C14.1.2.2.1 Seismic Design Categories B and C

N
10  For the lower Seismic Design Categories (SDCs) B and C, a range of options are available in the
11  design of a structural steel lateral force-resisting system. The first option is to design the

O
12  structure to meet the design and detailing requirements in AISC 341 (2022a) for structures
13 
n
assigned to higher SDCs, with the corresponding seismic design parameters ( R , Ω0 , and Cd ).
io
14  The second option, presented in the exception, is to use an R factor of 3 (resulting in an
at
15  increased base shear), an Ω0 of 3, and a Cd value of 3 but without the specific seismic design

16  and detailing required in AISC 341 (2022). The basic concept underlying this option is that
m

17  design for a higher base shear force results in essentially elastic response that compensates for
or

18  the limited ductility of the members and connections. The resulting performance is considered
comparable to that of more ductile systems.
nf

19 
rI

20  C14.1.2.2.2 Seismic Design Categories D through F

21  For the higher SDCs, the engineer must follow the seismic design provisions of AISC 341 (2022)
Fo

22  using the seismic design parameters specified for the chosen structural system, except as
23  permitted in Table 15.4-1. For systems other than those identified in Table 15.4-1, it is not
24  considered appropriate to design structures without specific design and detailing for seismic
25  response in these high SDCs.

26  C14.1.3 Cold-Formed Steel

2 
 
 1  C14.1.3.1 General
2  This section adopts two standards by direct reference: AISI S100, North American Specification
3  for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (2020c), and ASCE 8, Specification for
4  the Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural Members (2002).

5  Both of the adopted reference documents have specific limits of applicability. AISI S100,
6  Section A1.1, applies to the design of structural members that are cold-formed to shape from
7  carbon or low-alloy steel sheet, strip, plate, or bar not more than 1 in. (25 mm) thick. ASCE 8,
8  Section 1.1.1, governs the design of structural members that are cold-formed to shape from

LY
9  annealed and cold-rolled sheet, strip, plate, or flat bar stainless steels. Both documents focus on
10  load-carrying members in buildings; however, allowances are made for applications in

N
11  nonbuilding structures, if dynamic effects are considered appropriately.

O
12  Within each document, there are requirements related to general provisions for the applicable
types of steel; design of elements, members, structural assemblies, connections, and joints; and
13 
n
io
14  mandatory testing. In addition, AISI S100 contains a chapter on the design of cold-formed steel
15  structural members and connections undergoing cyclic loading. Both standards contain extensive
at

16  commentaries.
m

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

or

18  This section adopts three standards by direct reference: AISI S100 (2020c), ASCE 8 (2002), and
19  AISI S400 (2020b). Cold-formed steel and stainless steel members that are part of a seismic
nf

20  force-resisting system listed in Table 12.2-1 must be detailed in accordance with the appropriate
rI

21  base standard: AISI S100 or ASCE 8.

Fo

22  AISI S400 includes additional design provisions for a specific cold-formed steel seismic force-
23  resisting system, the “cold-formed steel—special bolted moment frame” or CFS-SBMF.” Sato
24  and Uang (2007) have shown that this system experiences inelastic deformation at the bolted
25  connections because of slip and bearing during significant seismic events. To develop the
26  designated mechanism, requirements based on capacity design principles are provided for the
27  design of the beams, columns, and associated connections. The document has specific
28  requirements for the application of quality assurance and quality control procedures.

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

3 
 
 1  C14.1.4.1 General
2  This subsection of cold-formed steel relates to light-frame construction, which is defined as a
3  method of construction where the structural assemblies are formed primarily by a system of
4  repetitive wood or cold-formed steel framing members, or subassemblies of these members
5  (Section 11.2 of this standard). It adopts AISI S240 (2020a), North American Standard for Cold-
6  Formed Steel Structural Framing, by reference, which includes a commentary to aid users in the
7  correct application of the requirements.

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

LY
9  Cold-formed steel structural members and connections in seismic force-resisting systems and
10  diaphragms must be designed in accordance with the additional provisions of AISI S400 (2020b)

N
11  in seismic design categories (SDC) D, E, or F, or wherever the seismic response modification

O
12  coefficient, R, used to determine the seismic design forces is taken as other than 3. In particular,
13  this requirement includes all entries from Table 12.2-1 of this standard for “light-frame (cold-
14  n
formed steel) walls sheathed with wood structural panels rated for shear resistance or steel
io
15  sheets,” “light-frame walls with shear panels of all other materials” (e.g., gypsum board and
at
16  fiberboard panels), and “light-frame (cold-formed steel) wall systems using flat strap bracing.”
m

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

18  This section adopts AISI S230 (2019), Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing: Prescriptive
or

19  Method for One and Two Family Dwellings, which applies to the construction of detached one-
nf

20  and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and other attached single-family dwellings not more than
three stories in height using repetitive in-line framing practices (Section A1). This document
rI

21 
22  includes a commentary to aid the user in the correct application of its requirements.
Fo

23  C14.1.5 Cold-Formed Steel Deck Diaphragms

24  This section adopts the applicable standards for the general design of cold-formed steel deck
25  diaphragms and steel roof, noncomposite floor, and composite floor deck. The SDI standards
26  also reference AISI S100 (2020c) for materials and determination of cold-formed steel cross-
27  section strength and specify additional requirements specific to steel deck design and installation.

4 
 
 1  In addition, design of cold-formed steel deck diaphragms is to be based on AISI S310 (2020d).
2  All fastener design values (welds, screws, power-actuated fasteners, and button punches) for
3  attaching deck sheet to deck sheet or for attaching the deck to the building framing members
4  must be per AISI S310, or specific testing prescribed in AISI S310. All cold-formed steel deck
5  diaphragm and fastener design properties not specifically included in AISI S310 must be
6  approved for use by the authorities in whose jurisdiction the construction project occurs. Deck
7  diaphragm in-plane design forces (seismic, wind, or gravity) must be determined per ASCE 7,
8  Section 12.10.1. Cold-formed steel deck manufacturer test reports prepared in accordance with

LY
9  this provision can be used where adopted and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction for
10  the building project. The Diaphragm Design Manual produced by the Steel Deck Institute (2015)

N
11  is also a reference for design values.

O
12  Cold-formed steel deck is assumed to have a corrugated profile consisting of alternating up and
13  down flutes that are manufactured in various widths and heights. Use of flat sheet metal as the
14  n
overall floor or roof diaphragm is permissible where designed by engineering principles, but it is
io
15  beyond the scope of this section. Flat or bent sheet metal may be used as closure pieces for small
at
16  gaps or penetrations or for shear transfer over short distances in the deck diaphragm where
17  diaphragm design forces are considered.
m

18  Cold-formed steel deck diaphragm analysis must include design of chord members at the
or

19  perimeter of the diaphragm and around interior openings in the diaphragm. Chord members may
nf

20  be steel beams attached to the underside of the steel deck designed for a combination of axial
loads and bending moments caused by acting gravity and lateral loads.
rI

21 

22  Where diaphragm design loads exceed the bare steel deck diaphragm design capacity, then either
Fo

23  horizontal steel trusses or a structurally designed concrete topping slab placed over the deck must
24  be provided to distribute lateral forces. Where horizontal steel trusses are used, the cold-formed
25  steel deck must be designed to transfer diaphragm forces to the steel trusses. Where a deck
26  topped with structural concrete is used as the diaphragm, the diaphragm chord members at the
27  perimeter of the diaphragm and edges of interior openings must be either (a) designed flexural
28  reinforcing steel placed in the structural concrete topping or, (b) steel beams located under the
29  deck, with connectors (that provide a positive connection) as required to transfer design shear
30  forces between the concrete topping and steel beams.

5 
 
 1  The stiffness and available strength (factored resistance) of steel deck diaphragms are provided
2  in AISI S310. However, AISI S310 does not cover seismic design considerations. AISI S400
3  (2020b) recognizes that in some situations, the applicable building code may require that the
4  diaphragm provide energy dissipation for desired structural performance. For example, in rigid
5  wall–flexible diaphragm (RWFD) structures, research has shown the benefits of and demands for
6  energy dissipation in the roof diaphragm (FEMA 2015; Koliou et al. 2016a, b). ASCE 7 provides
7  an alternative design method for RWFD structures in Section 12.10.4, where forces in the
8  diaphragm may be reduced if special seismic detailing is provided for bare steel deck

LY
9  diaphragms. Further, for all other structures, the alternative diaphragm design provisions of
10  Section 12.10.3 also provide a means to reduce diaphragm forces when special seismic detailing

N
11  is provided. The provisions of AISI S400, Section F3.5, are specifically intended to meet these
12  special seismic detailing requirements.

O
13  Traditional equivalent lateral force (ELF)-–based seismic design of bare steel deck diaphragms
14  n
per Section 12.10.1 allows diaphragm forces to be reduced based on the response modification
io
15  factor, R, for the particular vertical seismic force-resisting system, subject to minimum
at
16  diaphragm force levels as defined in this standard. The reduction in the diaphragm force levels is
17  independent of the ductility or deformation capacity of the diaphragm. Analysis of a large-scale
m

18  RWFD archetype building under high demand with precast tilt-up walls and bare steel deck
or

19  diaphragm roofs that either meet or violate the special seismic detailing requirements was
20  completed by Schafer (2019). He found that a mechanically fastened roof that met the special
nf

21  seismic detailing requirements of AISI S400, Section F3.5, had approximately one-half the roof
rI

22  shear angle demands and one-half the anchorage demands of an equivalent welded bare steel
deck diaphragm roof that did not meet the special seismic detailing requirements. If the designer
Fo

23 
24  desires (for force reduction) or expects (due to the nature of the structure) inelastic demands in a
25  bare steel deck diaphragm, the special seismic detailing requirements provide a means to ensure
26  ductility and deformation capacity in the diaphragm.

27  In addition to special seismic detailing, standard installation and construction procedures are
28  necessary for successful performance. SDI (2022) provides QC/QA criteria for steel deck
29  installation, and SDI (2016) provides additional construction guidance. The QC/QA provisions

6 
 
 1  include required special inspection for steel deck installation, both with and without special
2  seismic detailing.

3  C14.1.6 Concrete-Filled Steel Deck Diaphragms

4  Testing by Porter and Easterling (1994) and Avellaneda et al. (2019) has demonstrated sufficient
5  ductility and overstrength to support the tabulated Rs factor. These specimens included a range of
6  variations, such as concrete specific weight (normal weight and lightweight), reinforcing steel
7  (unreinforced and with reinforcing steel), concrete strength [2,500 to 6,000 psi (17 to 41 Gpa)],

LY
8  deck height [1.5 to 3.0 in. (38 to 76 mm)], total thickness [4 to 7.5 in. (100 to 190 mm)], and
9  perimeter fastener type (headed shear studs and arc spot welds). Because this set of test

N
10  specimens, which was used to determine the diaphragm design force reduction factor, Rs,

O
11  covered a wide range of configurations, there are few limitations associated with detailing. This
12  section references AISC 341 (2022a) for the design of the diaphragm and design of the shear
13  transfer to the supports. n
io
14  C14.1.7 Steel Cables
at
m

15  These provisions reference ASCE 19, Structural Applications of Steel Cables for Buildings
16  (2010), for the determination of the design strength of steel cables.
or

17  C14.1.8 Additional Detailing Requirements for Steel Piles in Seismic Design Categories D
nf

18  through F
rI

19  Steel piles used in higher seismic design categories are expected to yield just under the pile cap
Fo

20  or foundation because of combined bending and axial load. Design and detailing requirements of
21  AISC 341 for H-piles are intended to produce stable plastic hinge formation in the piles. Because
22  piles can be subjected to tension caused by overturning moment, mechanical means to transfer
23  such tension must be designed for the required tension force, but not less than 10% of the pile
24  compression capacity.

25  C14.2 CONCRETE

7 
 
 1  The section adopts by reference ACI 318 (2019) for structural concrete design and construction.
2  In addition, modifications to ACI 318-19 are made that are needed to coordinate the provisions
3  of that material design standard with the provisions of ASCE 7. Work is ongoing to better
4  coordinate the provisions of the two documents (ACI 318 and ASCE 7) such that the provisions
5  in Section 14.2 will be progressively reduced in future editions of ASCE 7.

6  C14.2.2.1 Definitions
7  Two definitions included here describe wall types for which definitions currently do not exist in
8  ACI 318. These definitions are essential to the proper interpretation of the R and Cd factors for

LY
9  each wall type specified in Table 12.2-1.

N
10  The addition of precast concrete diaphragm and cast-in-place concrete equivalent precast

O
11  diaphragm definitions is meant to clarify that Section 12.10.3 applies to precast concrete
12  diaphragms as defined in this section and not to cast-in-place concrete equivalent precast
13  diaphragms.
n
io
14  C14.2.2.2 ACI 318, Section 10.7.6
at

15  ACI 318-19, Section 10.7.6.1.5, prescribes details of transverse reinforcement around anchor
m

16  bolts in the top of a column or pedestal. This modification prescribes additional details for
17  transverse reinforcement around such anchor bolts in structures assigned to Seismic Design
or

18  Categories C through F.

nf

19  C14.2.2.3 Scope

rI

20  This provision describes how the ACI 318-19 provisions should be interpreted for consistency
21  with the ASCE 7 provisions.
Fo

22  C14.2.2.4 Intermediate Precast Structural Walls

23  Section 18.5 of ACI 318-19 imposes requirements on precast walls for moderate seismic risk
24  applications. Ductile behavior is to be ensured by yielding of the steel elements or reinforcement
25  between panels or between panels and foundations. This provision requires the designer to
26  determine the deformation in the connection corresponding to the Design Earthquake
27  Displacement and then to check from experimental data that the connection type used can
28  accommodate that deformation without significant strength degradation.

8 
 
 1  Several steel element connections have been tested under simulated seismic loading, and the
2  adequacy of their load–deformation characteristics and strain capacity have been demonstrated
3  (Schultz and Magana 1996). One such connection was used in the five-story building test that
4  was part of the Precast Seismic Structural Systems (PRESSS) Phase 3 research. The connection
5  was used to provide damping and energy dissipation, and it demonstrated a very large strain
6  capacity (Nakaki et al. 2001). Since then, several other steel element connections have been
7  developed that can achieve similar results (Banks and Stanton 2005, Nakaki et al. 2005). In view
8  of these results, it is appropriate to allow yielding in steel elements that have been shown

LY
9  experimentally to have adequate strain capacity to maintain at least 80% of their yield force
10  through the full design displacement of the structure.

N
11  C14.2.2.6 Foundations

O
12  The intention is that there should be no conflicts between the provisions of ACI 318-19,
13  Section 18.13, and ASCE 7, Sections 12.1.5 and 12.13.
n
io
14  C14.2.2.7 Detailed Plain Concrete Shear Walls
15  Design requirements for plain masonry walls have existed for many years, and the corresponding
at

16  type of concrete construction is the plain concrete wall. To allow the use of such walls as the
m

17  lateral force-resisting system in Seismic Design Categories A and B, this provision requires such
18  walls to contain at least the minimal reinforcement specified in ACI 318-19, Section 14.6.2.2.
or
nf

19  C14.3 COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES

rI

20  This section provides guidance on the design of composite and hybrid steel–concrete structures.
21  Composite structures are defined as those incorporating structural elements made of steel and
Fo

22  concrete portions connected integrally throughout the structural element by mechanical
23  connectors, bonds, or both. Hybrid structures are defined as consisting of steel and concrete
24  structural elements connected together at discrete points. Composite and hybrid structural
25  systems mimic many of the existing steel (moment and braced frame) and reinforced concrete
26  (moment frame and wall) configurations but are given their own design coefficients and factors
27  in Table 12.2-1. Their design is based on ductility and energy dissipation concepts comparable to
28  those used in conventional steel and reinforced concrete structures, but it requires special

9 
 
 1  attention to the interaction of the two materials, because it affects the stiffness, strength, and
2  inelastic behavior of the members, connections, and systems.

3  C14.3.1 Reference Documents

4  Seismic design for composite structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F is

5  governed primarily by AISC 341. The composite design provisions in AISC 341 are less
6  prescriptive than those for structural steel and provide flexibility for designers to use analytical
7  tools and results of research in their practice. Composite structures assigned to Seismic Design

LY
8  Category A, B, or C may be designed according to principles outlined in AISC 360 and ACI 318.
9  AISC 360 and ACI 318 provide little guidance on connection design; therefore, designers are

N
10  encouraged to review AISC 341 for guidance on the design of joint areas. Differences between

O
11  older AISC and ACI provisions for cross-sectional strength for composite beam–columns have
12  been minimized by changes in the latest edition of AISC 360, and AISC 360 refers to ACI 318
13 
n
for much of the design of reinforced concrete components of composite structures. However,
io
14  there is not uniform agreement between the provisions in ACI 318 and AISC 360 regarding
at
15  detailing, limits on material strengths, stability, and strength for composite beam–columns. The
16  composite design provisions in AISC 360 are considered current.
m

C14.3.4 Metal-Cased Concrete Piles

or

17 
nf

18  Design of metal-cased concrete piles, which are analogous to circular concrete filled tubes, is
19  governed by Section 18.13.5.8 of ACI 318. The intent of these provisions is to require metal-
rI

20  cased concrete piles to have confinement and protection against long-term deterioration
Fo

21  comparable to that for uncased concrete piles.

24 

10 
 
 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. Those modifications have accordingly been removed from this standard.
7  Work is ongoing to better coordinate the provisions of the two documents so that the provisions
8  in Section 14.4 are significantly reduced or eliminated in future editions.

LY
9  C14.5 WOOD

N
10  C14.5.1 Reference Documents

O
11  Two national consensus standards are adopted for seismic design of engineered wood structures:
12  n
the National Design Specification (AWC NDS-18, 2018), and the Special Design Provisions for
io
13  Wind and Seismic (AWC SDPWS-21, 2020). Both of these standards are presented in dual
at

14  formats, for allowable stress design (ASD) and load and resistance factor design (LRFD) . Both
m

15  standards reference secondary standards for related items such as wood materials and fasteners.
16  AWC NDS addresses requirements for member and connection design, and AWC SDPWS
or

17  addresses requirements for shear wall and diaphragm design.

nf

18 
rI

19  REFERENCES
Fo

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

11 
 
 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7  ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building code requirements for structural concrete
8  and commentary. ACI 318. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.

LY
9  AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2022a. Seismic provisions for structural steel
10  buildings. ANSI/AISC 341. Chicago: AISC.

N
11  AISC. 2022b. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360. Chicago: AISC.
12  AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). (20152019). Standard for cold-formed steel framing:

O
13  Prescriptive method for one- and two-family dwellings. ANSI/AISI S230-19.
14  Washington, DC: AISI.
n
io
15  AISI. 2020a2015. North American standard for cold-formed steel structural framing. ANSI/AISI
16  S240-20. Washington, DC: AISI.
at

17  AISI. 2020b2015. North American standard for seismic design of cold-formed steel structural
m

18  systems. ANSI/AISI S400-20. Washington, DC: AISI.

AISI. 2020c2016. North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural
or

19 
20  members. 2016 ed., reaffirmed 2020, with Supplement 2., 2020 ed. ANSI/AISI S100-16
nf

21  (2020) w/S2-20.Washington, DC: AISI.

AISI. 2020d2016. North American standard for the design of profiled steel diaphragm panels.
rI

22 
23  ANSI/AISI S310-20. Washington, DC: AISI.
Fo

24  ASCE. 2002. Specification for the design of cold-formed stainless steel structural members.
25  ASCE/SEI 8-02. Reston, VA: ASCE.
26  ASCE. 2010. Structural applications of steel cables for buildings. ASCE/SEI 19-10. Reston,
27  VA: ASCE.

12 
 
 1  Avellaneda, R. E., W. S. Easterling, B. W. Schafer, J. F. Hajjar, and M. R. Eatherton. 2019.
2  “Cyclic testing of composite concrete on metal deck diaphragms undergoing diagonal
3  tension cracking.” In Proc., 12th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Quebec,
4  June 17–20.
5  AWC (American Wood Council). 2017. National design specification (NDS) for wood
6  construction with commentary. ANSI/AWC NDS-2018. Leesburg, VA: AWC.
7  AWC. 2020. Special design provisions for wind and seismic. ANSI/AWC SDPWS-2021.
8  Leesburg, VA: AWC.

LY
9  Banks, G., and J. Stanton. 2005. “Panel-to-panel connections for hollow-core shear walls
10  subjected to seismic loading.” In Proc., 2005 PCI Convention, Precast/Prestressed

N
11  Concrete Institute, Chicago.
12  FEMA. 2015. Seismic design of rigid wall–flexible diaphragm buildings: An alternate

O
13  procedure. FEMA P-1026. Washington, DC: FEMA.
14 
n
Koliou, M., A. Filiatrault, D. J. Kelly, and J. Lawson. 2016a. “Buildings with rigid walls and
io
15  flexible roof diaphragms. I: Evaluation of current U.S. seismic provisions.” J. Struct.
16  Eng. 142 (3). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001438.
at

17  Koliou, M., A. Filiatrault, D. J. Kelly, and J. Lawson. (2016b). “Buildings with rigid walls and
m

18  flexible roof diaphragms. II: Evaluation of a new seismic design approach based on
distributed diaphragm yielding.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (3). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
or

19 
20  541X.0001439.
nf

21  Nakaki, S., J. F. Stanton, and S. Sritharan. 2001. “The PRESSS five-story precast concrete test
building, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California,” PCI J. 46 (5): 20–26.
rI

22 
23  Nakaki, S., R. Becker, M. G. Oliva, D. and Paxson. 2005. “New connections for precast wall
Fo

24  systems in high seismic regions.” In Proc., 2005 PCI Conv., Precast/Prestressed
25  Concrete Institute, Chicago.
26  Sato, A., and C.-M. Uang. 2007. “Development of a seismic design procedure for cold-formed
27  steel bolted frames.” Report no. SSRP-07/16. University of California, San Diego.
28  Schafer, B. W. 2019. Research on the seismic performance of rigid wall flexible diaphragm
29  buildings with bare steel deck diaphragms. CFSRC Report R-2019-02.

13 
 
 1  Schultz, A. E. , and R. A. Magana. 1996. “Seismic behavior of connections in precast concrete
2  walls.” In Proc., Mete A. Sozen Symposium, 273–311. SP-162. Farmington Hills, MI:
3  American Concrete Institute.
4  SDI (Steel Deck Institute). 2015. Diaphragm design manual, 4th ed. (also known as DDM04).
5  Allison Park, NJ: SDI.
6  SDI. 2016. Manual of construction with steel deck, 3rd ed. Allison Park, NJ: SDI.
7  SDI. 20222017. Standard for quality control and quality assurance for installation of steel deck.
8  ANSI/SDI QA/QC-20222017Standard. Allison Park, NJ: SDI.

LY
9  TMS (The Masonry Society). 2016a. Building code requirements and specification for masonry
10  structures. TMS 402-16. Longmont, CO: TMS.

N
11  TMS. 2016b. Specification for masonry structures. TMS 602-16. Longmont, CO: TMS.
12 

O
13  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)
14 
n
American Institute of Timber Construction. 2005. Timber construction manual, 5th ed. New
io
15  York: Wiley.
16  APA (The Engineered Wood Association). 1994. Northridge California earthquake. T94-5.
at

17  Tacoma, WA: APA.

m

18  APA (The Engineered Wood Association). 2004. Diaphragms and shear walls
design/construction guide. L350. Tacoma, WA: APA.
or

19 
20  ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1981. Guidelines for the design of horizontal wood
nf

21  diaphragms. ATC-7. Redwood City, CA: ATC.

Bora, C. M G. Oliva, S. D. Nakaki, and R. Becker, R. 2007. “Development of a precast concrete
rI

22 
23  shear-wall system requiring special code acceptance.” PCI J. 52 (1): 122–135.
Fo

24  Breyer, D., K. Fridley, Jr., D. Pollack, and K. Cobeen. 2006. Design of wood structures
25  ASD/LRFD, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26  Charles Pankow Foundation. 2014. “Seismic design methodology document for precast concrete
27  diaphragms.” CPF, Vancouver, WA, January 23.
28  CWC (Canadian Wood Council). 1995. Wood reference handbook. Ottawa: CWC.
29  CWC. 2005. Wood design manual. Ottawa: CWC.

14 
 
 1  Cobeen, K. 2004. “Recent developments in the seismic design and construction of woodframe
2  buildings.” In Earthquake engineering: From engineering seismology to performance-
3  based engineering, Y. Bozorgia and V. Bertero, eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
4  CUREE (Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering). 2004.
5  Recommendations for earthquake resistance in the design and construction of woodframe
6  buildings. CUREE W-30. Richmond, CA: CUREE.
7  Dolan, J. D. 2003. “Wood structures.” In Earthquake engineering handbook, W.-F. Chen and C.
8  Scawthorn, eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

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

N
11 
12  EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute). 1996. “Northridge earthquake

O
13  reconnaissance report.” Earthquake Spectra, Ch. 6, Suppl. C to Vol. 11. Oakland, CA:
14  EERI.
n
io
15  Faherty, K. F., and T. G. Williamson. 1989. Wood engineering and construction handbook. New
16  York: McGraw-Hill.
at

17  FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2003. NEHRP recommended provisions for
m

18  seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. FEMA 450. Washington, DC:
FEMA, Building Seismic Safety Council.
or

19 
20  FEMA. 2005. Coastal construction manual, 3rd ed. FEMA 55. Washington, DC: FEMA.
nf

21  Forest Products Laboratory. 1986. Wood: Engineering design concepts. Materials Education
Council, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
rI

22 
23  Goetz, K. H., D. Hoor, K. Moehler, and J. Natterer. 1989. Timber design and construction source
Fo

24  book: A comprehensive guide to methods and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25  Hoyle, R. J., and F. E. Woeste. 1989. Wood technology in the design of structures. Ames: Iowa
26  State University Press.
27  ICC (International Code Council). 2006. ICC standard on the design and construction of log
28  structures, 3rd draft. Country Club Hills, IL: ICC.
29  Ishizuka, T., and N. M. Hawkins. 1987. “Effect of bond deterioration on the seismic response of
30  reinforced and partially prestressed concrete ductile moment resistant frames.” Report
31  SM 87-2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.

15 
 
 1  Karacabeyli, E., and M. Popovsky. 2003. “Design for earthquake resistance.” In Timber
2  engineering , H. Larsen and S. Thelandersson, eds. New York: Wiley.
3  Keenan, F. J. 1986. Limit states design of wood structures. North York, ON: Morrison
4  Hershfield.
5  Lee, N. H., K. S. Kim, C. J. Bang, and K. R. Park. 2007. “Tensile-headed anchors with large
6  diameter and deep embedment in concrete.” ACI Struct. J. 104 (4): 479–486.
7  Lee, N. H., K. R. Park, and Y. P. Suh. 2010. “Shear behavior of headed anchors with large
8  diameters and deep embedments.” ACI Struct. J. 107 (2): 146–156.

LY
9  MSJC (Masonry Standards Joint Committee). 1999. Building code requirements for masonry
10  structures, ACI 530-99/ASCE 5-99/TMS 402-99; Specification for masonry structures,

N
11  ACI 530.1-99/ASCE 6-99/TMS 602-99; Commentary on building code requirements for
12  masonry structures; Commentary on specification for masonry structures, together

O
13  known as MSJC standards (code and specification). Longmont, CO: The Masonry
14 
n
Society / American Concrete Institute / ASCE.
io
15  Nakaki, S. D., J. F. Stanton, and S. Sritharan. 1999. “An overview of the PRESSS five-story
16  precast test building.” PCI J. 44 (2): 26–39.
at

17  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, . 1971. San Fernando, California,
m

18  Earthquake of February 9, 1971. Washington, DC: NOAA, US Department of

Agriculture.
or

19 
20  Park, R., and K. J. Thompson. 1977. “Cyclic load tests on prestressed and partially prestressed
nf

21  beam-column joints.” PCI J. 22 (5): 84–110.

PCI (Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute). 2004. “Precast/prestressed concrete piles.” Bridge
rI

22 
23  design manual BM-20-04. Chicago: PCI.
Fo

24  Ren, R., and C. J. Naito. 2013. “Precast concrete diaphragm connector performance database.” J.
25  Struct. Eng. 139 (1): 15–27.
26 
27  SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1999. Recommended lateral force
28  requirements and commentary. Sacramento, CA: SEAOC.
29  SEAONC (Structural Engineers Association of Northern California). 2005. Guidelines for
30  seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of tilt-up buildings and other rigid wall/flexible
31  diaphragm structures. Sacramento, CA: SEAONC.

16 
 
1  Sherwood, G. E., and R. C. Stroh. 1989. Wood-frame house construction. Agricultural Handbook
2  73. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
3  Somayaji, S. 1992. Structural wood design. St. Paul, MN: West.
4  Stalnaker, J. J., and E. C. Harris. 1996. Structural design in wood, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-
5  Hill.
6  US Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. (1992). Seismic design for buildings. Tri-
7  Services Manual TM5-809-10. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
8 

LY
N
O
n
io
at
m
or
nf
rI
Fo

17