Scribd
Upload
92 views

NAVFAC Design Examples - Structures

This appendix provides design examples for evaluating and upgrading lateral load resistance of structures. It includes 4 examples: a screening of a large military installation; a 3-story brick and concrete building; a 3-story steel building with ductile frames and braced frames; and a 10-story concrete building with moment frames and shear walls. Each example provides structural drawings, analysis and design calculations to demonstrate the evaluation and upgrading process outlined in the manual.

Uploaded by

RFM PCMD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views

NAVFAC Design Examples - Structures

This appendix provides design examples for evaluating and upgrading lateral load resistance of structures. It includes 4 examples: a screening of a large military installation; a 3-story brick and concrete building; a 3-story steel building with ductile frames and braced frames; and a 10-story concrete building with moment frames and shear walls. Each example provides structural drawings, analysis and design calculations to demonstrate the evaluation and upgrading process outlined in the manual.

Uploaded by

RFM PCMD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 38

TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.

2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

APPENDIX F
DESIGN EXAMPLES — STRUCTURES

Fig. No. Description of Design Examples


F-1. Introduction F-1 Sample screening and evaluation of a
This appendix gives illustrative examples for eval- large military installation.
uating and upgrading various types of lateral F-2 Brick building with concrete framing
systems in accordance with the criteria and proce- system. A 3-story concrete frame
dures of this manual. structure with brick exterior walls.
F-3 Building with steel ductile moment-
F-2. Use of appendix resisting frames and steel braced
The design examples are purely advisory; they are frames. A 3-story building with
not intended to place super-restrictions on the transverse ductile moment-resisting
manual. This appendix is not a handbook for the frames and longitudinal frames with
inexperienced designer. Neither the manual nor the chevron bracing.
manual supplemented by the appendices can F-4 Building with concrete moment-
replace good engineering judgment in specific situ- resisting frames and shear walls. A
ations. Designers are urged to study the entire 10-story building with reinforced
manual. Following is a listing of the design concrete lateral force resisting
examples. frames in the longitudinal direction
and shear walls in the transverse
direction.

F-1
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-2
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-3
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-4
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-5
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-6
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-7
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-8
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-9
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-10
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-11
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-12
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-13
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-14
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-15
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-16
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-17
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-18
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-19
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-20
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-21
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-22
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-23
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-24
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-25
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-26
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-27
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-28
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-29
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-30
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

Detailed Structural Analysis to Confirm Concept. A detailed structural


analysis was not necessary for the existing structure because of the
negative results from the preliminary evaluation. However, a detailed
analysis is now required to determine if the recommended concept will
satisfy the acceptance criteria outlined on sheet 5. A modal analysis
of the modified structure was made with the aid of a general computer
program for static and dynamic analyses of frame and shear wall three—
dimensional buildings for both the transverse and longitudinal direc-
tions. The program assumes rigid diaphragms and the roof and floor
diaphragms of this modified structure essentially met this assumption.
Sheets 20 and 21 indicate the SRSS of the dynamic modal responses from
the computer output. Sheet 22 indicates the evaluation of the SRSS
response of some representative structural elements and sheets 23 and 24
contain stress checks of selected elements for compliance with the cri-
teria.

Torsion Forces. Due to the symmetry of the structure lateral load re-
sisting system there is no “calculated torsion.” The “accidental tor-
sion” is the story force times the nominal eccentricity of 5 percent of
the maximum building dimension. The forces due to torsion were calcu-
lated by applying a torsional moment in each story equal to the seismic
(SRSS) story shear times the “accidental” eccentricity (0.05 x 186
feet). The resulting member responses from this analysis were added to
the translational member responses (SRSS) of the dynamic analyses.

Foundation Ties. The BDM (pam. 4-8a) requires that pile, caisson, and
deep pier footings in seismic zones 2, 3, and 4 be interconnected by
ties. In this building, the existing foundation ties are near the top
of the large piers (see sheet 4 of 24) and provide questionable re-
straint to the timber piles. The seismic upgrading modification pro-
vides a good tie, in the plane of the new walls, for the piles on lines
C and H. The significant cost and disruption of the existing building
required to install new tie beams throughout the building may not be
justified if it can be demonstrated that the seismic forces from EQ-II
can be transmitted to the ground with the existing tie system or by
passive soil pressure on the existing piers.

Sheet 18 of 25

Figure F-2. Brick building with concrete framing system (Sheet 18 of 25)

F-31
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

Results of the Confirmation Analysis. The modified structure meets all


the acceptance criteria requirements for EQ-II forces except for possibly
the capacity of the timber piles to support the additional loads from the
new concrete walls. The capacities of the timber piles to meet the
requirements for the new dead load plus live load loading criteria will
need to be re-evaluated. As a result of the detailed analysis it was
determined that the unreinforced brick masonry walls that were not being
reinforced with gunite were deficient for seismic forces normal to the
walls. These walls will either be anchored to the new concrete walls or
will be provided with new vertical concrete or steel mullions between
existing concrete columns for additional lateral support to meet the EQ-II
acceptance criteria. Shear and flexural stresses for seismic forces
parallel to the walls were found to be within the Acceptance Criteria
after strengthening. An alternative modification concept was studied that
provided for the anchoring of all exterior unreinforced brick masonry end
walls to new reinforced concrete gunite walls placed against their
interior faces in lieu of constructing the new concrete walls on Lines C
and H and the additional vertical concrete mullions. This concept was
rejected because it resulted in unacceptable shears in the floor and roof
diaphragms and excessive overturning forces for the end walls in the
transverse direction. The recommended concept could have been implemented
for the entire length of the longitudinal walls thus eliminating the
vertical mullions, but it is more cost effective to provide new gunite
walls as required for shear resistance and new concrete mullions in the
remaining portions of the existing longitudinal walls.

Sheet 19 of 25

Figure F-2. Brick building with concrete framing system (Sheet 19 of 25)

F-32
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-33
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-34
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-35
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-36
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-37
TM 5-809-10-2/NAVFAC P-355.2/AFM 88-3, Chap 13, Sec B

F-38

You might also like