UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

47
SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison Summary Report Executive Summary Introduction Recognizing there have been questions on the differences between the alternate slender wall design procedures in 1997 UBC and in ACI 318-02, the SEAOSC Board authorized a Task Group to provide a comprehensive review of the two design procedures. The ACI procedure was adopted by IBC 2000 and subsequent code editions. As quoted in ACI 318R-02 Commentary Section R14.8, Section 14.8 is based on the corresponding requirements in the UBC and experimental research of the Test Report by SCCACI-SEAOSC. This summary report includes review of source documents, code comparison, and background of the design provisions under UBC and under ACI, respectively. A comprehensive review of the 1980 test data was made in addition to analytical comparison of sample wall panel design under each of the two procedures. Pursuant to the comparative design and validation of the original data, a list of findings is presented in the Report. Other design considerations though not part of the code comparison are discussed in order to encourage further studies by other groups. The report concludes with recommendations to SEAOSC Board and proposed changes to ACI. Code Comparison Under 97 UBC Section 1914.8, the cracked moment is based on f r = 5 f ´ c. ; and in ACI 318-02 Section 14.8, the cracked moment is based on f r = 7.5 f ´ c . This also means that the M cr (UBC) = 2/3 M cr (ACI) in the application of the two design procedures. In the 97 UBC, a linear interpolation between Δ cr and Δ n is permitted in obtaining Δ s in order to simplify the slender wall panel design for M s > 5 f ´ c I g /y t . The ACI procedure employs effective moment of inertia and a magnified moment for the combined moment due to lateral and eccentric vertical load, also know as the P-Δ effect. Table 1 gives section by section comparison between the alternate slender wall design procedures. Review of 1980 Test Data This Task Group was able to review and re-analyze the original test data. Verification of the 1980 data using adjusted lateral force and deflection data was performed. The analytical result follows closely with the bilinear load deflection characteristic. Lateral deflection increases rapidly when the moment exceeds two-third (2/3) of M cr (as defined by ACI). The calculated moments for each of the twelve test panel correlate closely with the empirical test data. The load deflection curves and plots for the low axial loads versus moment interaction curve further validate the UBC design procedure. ACI needs to improve its methodology in computing M u and I e so that computed results would follow a bilinear load deflection characteristic. Summary of Findings Summary of comparative design examples is given on Table 5. Design based on ACI procedure is normally controlled by strength with service load deflection less than Δ cr . ACI procedure significantly under-estimates service load deflection in comparison to the UBC procedure with increase lateral force and/ or axial load. Where wall panel design based on ACI procedures meets strength and deflection limit, the corresponding wall panel calculation based on UBC procedure may exceed the deflection limit. Recommendations To calculate service load deflection, use E/1.4 for earthquake forces. Recommend to appropriate enforcement agencies that adoption of the 2003 IBC provisions on alternate design of slender wall procedure should incorporate proposed changes to ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4. Modification to ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4 - delete equations (14-8) and (14-9) and the last paragraph in total, and replace with the following after the first paragraph: Δ Δ s = 0.67Δ cr + (M s – 0.67M cr )(Δ n – 0.67Δ cr )÷ (M n - 0.67M cr ); for M s > 0.67M cr (14-8) Δ s = 5 M s l c 2 ÷ (48E c I g ) ; for M s < 0.67M cr (14-9) Send a letter to ACI-318 addressing the concerns in using the ACI alternate design of slender wall procedure and requesting ACI 318 to correct statements under Commentary R14.8. SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 1 of 47

Transcript of UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Page 1: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison Summary Report

Executive Summary Introduction Recognizing there have been questions on the differences between the alternate slender wall design procedures in 1997 UBC and in ACI 318-02, the SEAOSC Board authorized a Task Group to provide a comprehensive review of the two design procedures. The ACI procedure was adopted by IBC 2000 and subsequent code editions. As quoted in ACI 318R-02 Commentary Section R14.8, Section 14.8 is based on the corresponding requirements in the UBC and experimental research of the Test Report by SCCACI-SEAOSC.

This summary report includes review of source documents, code comparison, and background of the design provisions under UBC and under ACI, respectively. A comprehensive review of the 1980 test data was made in addition to analytical comparison of sample wall panel design under each of the two procedures. Pursuant to the comparative design and validation of the original data, a list of findings is presented in the Report. Other design considerations though not part of the code comparison are discussed in order to encourage further studies by other groups. The report concludes with recommendations to SEAOSC Board and proposed changes to ACI.

Code Comparison Under 97 UBC Section 1914.8, the cracked moment is based on fr = 5 √ f ´c.; and in ACI 318-02 Section 14.8, the cracked moment is based on fr = 7.5 √ f ´c. This also means that the Mcr (UBC) = 2/3 Mcr (ACI) in the application of the two design procedures. In the 97 UBC, a linear interpolation between Δcr and Δn is permitted in obtaining Δs in order to simplify the slender wall panel design for Ms > 5 √ f ´c Ig/yt. The ACI procedure employs effective moment of inertia and a magnified moment for the combined moment due to lateral and eccentric vertical load, also know as the P-Δ effect. Table 1 gives section by section comparison between the alternate slender wall design procedures.

Review of 1980 Test Data This Task Group was able to review and re-analyze the original test data. Verification of the 1980 data using adjusted lateral force and deflection data was performed. The analytical result follows closely with the bilinear load deflection characteristic. Lateral deflection increases rapidly when the moment exceeds two-third (2/3) of Mcr (as defined by ACI). The calculated moments for each of the twelve test panel correlate closely with the empirical test data. The load deflection curves and plots for the low axial loads versus moment interaction curve further validate the UBC design procedure. ACI needs to improve its methodology in computing Mu and Ie so that computed results would follow a bilinear load deflection characteristic.

Summary of Findings Summary of comparative design examples is given on Table 5. Design based on ACI procedure is normally controlled by strength with service load deflection less than Δcr. ACI procedure significantly under-estimates service load deflection in comparison to the UBC procedure with increase lateral force and/ or axial load. Where wall panel design based on ACI procedures meets strength and deflection limit, the corresponding wall panel calculation based on UBC procedure may exceed the deflection limit.

Recommendations � To calculate service load deflection, use E/1.4 for earthquake forces. � Recommend to appropriate enforcement agencies that adoption of the 2003 IBC provisions on alternate

design of slender wall procedure should incorporate proposed changes to ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4. � Modification to ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4 - delete equations (14-8) and (14-9) and the last paragraph in

total, and replace with the following after the first paragraph: “ ΔΔ s = 0.67Δ cr + (Ms – 0.67Mcr )(Δ n – 0.67Δ cr)÷ (Mn- 0.67Mcr); for Ms > 0.67Mcr (14-8)

Δ s = 5 Ms lc2 ÷ (48Ec Ig) ; for Ms < 0.67Mcr (14-9)

� Send a letter to ACI-318 addressing the concerns in using the ACI alternate design of slender wall procedure and requesting ACI 318 to correct statements under Commentary R14.8.

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 1 of 47

Page 2: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison Summary Report

Task Group Members: Chukwuma Ekwueme John Lawson, Mehran Pourzanjani, James S. Lai, Chair Bob Lyon (ex-officio)

email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected]

1. Background:

The original code development on alternate slender wall design was introduced into the 1987 UBC Supplement through efforts of SEAOC Building Code Committee. The provision was based on findings of Joint SCCACI- SEAOSC Task Committee on Slender Walls pursuant to full scale tests conducted in the early 1980’s on twelve 4 feet wide by 24 feet high concrete wall panels of varying height to thickness ratios ranging from 30 to 60. [Refer to “Test Report on Slender Walls”, aka “Green Book”]. The design procedure is predicated on control of out-of-plane deflection for serviceability under code prescribed forces in addition to required moment strength.

2. Issue:

In 1997 UBC Section 1914.8, the cracked moment is based on fr = 5 √ f ´c.; and in ACI 318-02 Section 14.8, the cracked moment is based on fr = 7.5 √ f ´c. In the 97UBC, a linear interpolation between Δcr and Δn

is permitted in obtaining Δs, the deflection at service load, in order to simplify the slender wall panel design for Ms > 5 √ f ´c Ig/yt. The conceptual moment-deflection curve shown in the figure below demonstrates the intent of the UBC provision. At the ordinate of Ms > 2/3 Mcr, using the straight line linear interpolation between Δcr and Δn, UBC procedure gives a higher Δs, deflection under service load, than the corresponding value based on ACI 318 procedure. When the lower bound is raised from fr = 5 √ f ´c to fr = 7.5 √ f ´c, the design of slender wall panels based on ACI procedure may significantly under-estimate service load deflection.

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 2 of 47

I''''

:>1• .!..)!5M. ,···f··················· ..- ..- :.~ :: ,,,,,,,- - •.--

\000Idealized Momeut-dcOeclionCIUVI!'

M.

M"~.7/i

UBcn

ACI3U.o2

Mor.~oJf·clll}1

Mor-7.S \'f'.I,/yt

•'"DcOcctiOll - in.

:\IOInf'llt Dt'Ol'ctioli CmT('

10 II I , \ l

'"

Page 3: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

3. Mission Statement

Recognizing there have been questions on the differences between the two design approaches, the SEAOSC Board authorized a Task Group to provide a comprehensive review of the two design procedures. In June, 2005, the Committee set forth to accomplish the following missions: � Document review � Review background of UBC provisions � Review background of ACI provisions � Perform sample calculations on an array of lateral force and axial load combinations � Provide summary of findings � Other design considerations � Recommendations to SEAOSC Board � Proposal for possible code change, if necessary

4. Document Review

Documents reviewed are listed in the reference section. The Green Book, “Test Report on Slender Walls” by SCCACI-SEAOSC Task Committee on Slender Walls, 1982 edition, was used as the primary data resource. Records of the 1980 test and data file were retrieved from archive. An abbreviated summary of the 1980 test panel properties and test data are given in Tables 6.1 to 6.8. Current draft of Design Guide for Tilt-up Concrete Structures, ACI Committee 551 was used as the source information on the development of the ACI design procedure.

5. Code Comparison

Table 1 gives section by section comparison between the alternate slender wall design procedure based on 97 UBC and that based on ACI 318-02. The ACI procedure was adopted by IBC 2000 and subsequent code editions. As quoted in ACI 318R-02 Commentary Section R14.8, Section 14.8 is based on the corresponding requirements in the UBC and experimental research of the Test Report by SCCACI­SEAOSC. The ACI Commentary further alleged that the procedure, as prescribed in UBC, has been converted from working stress to factored load design. This could also imply that the ACI procedure as written is a direct conversion of UBC procedure. In order to clarify and clearly understand the two procedures, several examples were used within a range of wall panel thickness, reinforcement ratio, axial load and lateral forces. Results of the analytical comparison are discussed in Section 9 of this Report.

6. Background of UBC Provisions on Alternate Slender Wall Procedure

Between late 1979 and 1982, a Joint Task Committee including members from the Southern California Chapter ACI and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California was organized to study the design procedure of thin wall panels. Model building codes at that time limited the height to thickness ratio (h/t) to 25 for bearing walls and 30 for non-bearing walls. However tilt-up wall panels designed with variable moment of inertia accounting for the influence of axial loads and lateral instability such as PΔ moment were exempt from the h/t limitation. Non-bearing wall panels were designed with height to thickness ratio well in excess of 36.

While the 1980 Task Committee members agreed that elastic lateral instability (buckling) might be overly stated in building codes, the Committee concluded that full scale tests were needed in order to explore the inelastic behavior of tall slender wall. As a result of this non-profit research during the early 80’s., results of the experimental work were presented in a “Test Report on Slender Walls.” The test results gave better understanding in the performance of slender wall panels. There was no evidence of elastic and inelastic out-of-plane instability for the loading range tested. Subsequently, members of the SEAOC Building Code Committee authored and submitted proposed code change to ICBO offering an alternate design procedure for slender wall panels. The methodology emphasized deflection control in addition to strength to assure a

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 3 of 47

Page 4: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

wall of reasonable straightness after a service level loading. Required moment strength under UBC procedure is based on strength design. The slender wall provision was adopted and first included in 1987 UBC Supplement. During the ICBO code development hearing, the deflection limit of lc/100, which was recommended by the 1980 Task Committee, was changed to lc/150. While other minor changes were made in subsequent code development cycles on distribution of concentrated load, the alternate design procedure was not affected.

7. Review of 1980 Test Data

This current Task Group was able to review and re-analyze the original test data. All test panels were 24 feet in height and 4 feet in width reinforced with a single layer of 4 # 4 reinforcement bars. Analyses include adjusting the load based on the air bag contact area, the measured panel thickness and location of flexural reinforcement. Moment is calculated based on the following equation:

M (test) = wlc2 x 1.5 + P1e + (P1 + P2) Δ

Where M (test) = equivalent moment based on test, in-kip lc = panel height, feet w = applied lateral force on panel, kip P1 = applied axial load, kip P2 = panel weight at mid height, kip e = eccentricity of applied axial load, inch Δ = deflection at mid-height, inch

Results are shown in Figures 1.1 to 1.12. The upper curve shows load-deflection of the test panel, while the lower curve shows the moment-deflection relationship. On these plots, a φ –factor equal to one (1) was used. The ordinates for 2/3 Mcr (cracked moment) and Mn (nominal moment strength) are shown. Lateral deflection increases rapidly when the moment exceeds 2/3 Mcr. A straight line joining 2/3 Mcr (at 5√ f ´c) and Mn represents the permissible provision under UBC. The calculated moment-deflection for each test panel correlates closely with the empirical test data. The deflection limit lc/150 is also shown on the plots.

An interaction envelop may be drawn for a range of axial load. The P-M values are calculated for a range of tensile strain up to 0.0020 based on the measured depths to reinforcement bars in each panel. Plots for the axial loads versus moment are shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.12. Nominal moment strength at an average load factor 1.5 times the axial load is shown for reference only. Except for wall panels 22 and 27, the calculated nominal moment strength is within the P-M envelop. These plots further validate the UBC design procedure.

An overlay of calculated moment-deflection based on ACI design procedure was studied. The plots for test panels 22 and 25 are shown in Figure 3.1; and for test panels 19 and 28 are shown in Figure 3.2. Below Mcr

(at 7.5√ f ´c), a straight line is drawn from zero to Δcr for moment within the uncracked segment. The ordinate for Mu and Δu are calculated based on ACI equations (14-5) and (14-6) for a range of lateral forces up to 50 lbs. per square foot and load combination based on ACI Appendix Equation (C-2.) In order to simulate an idealized bilinear relationship, a horizontal line is drawn from Δcr to intersect with the calculated value of Δu. It is important to note that the test results did not support the ACI 7.5√ f ´c for modulus of rupture in any of the test panels. Also, the ACI procedure does not appear to correlate with the 1980 test results.

8. Background of ACI Provisions on Alternate Design of Slender Wall

Prior to the ACI 318-99, wall panels subject to combined axial and bending designed under ACI requirements must resort to second-order analysis in order to account for slenderness effects and lateral instability in accordance with Section 10.10. ACI Committee 318-D with input from Committee 551

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 4 of 47

Page 5: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

introduced code change CD-121 in 1998. This code change was made in an effort to eliminate differences between ACI and UBC and in time for the adoption in the IBC 2000. For computing service load deflection the ACI procedure employs effective moment of inertia and a magnified moment for the combined moment due to lateral force and eccentric vertical load, also know as the P-Δ effect. Because the effective moment of inertia and magnified moment are dependent upon each other, some iteration is necessary.

The ACI procedure includes an additional restriction for walls based on the alternate design to be simply supported with constant cross section over height of panel, and revision of the axial stress limits from service load stress ≤ 0.04 f ´c to factor load stress ≤ 0.06 f ´c. The latter is the same as applying a load factor of 1.5 to service load. Within the normal range of load combinations for walls controlled by flexural tension as currently required by ACI 318-05, the axial load stress will never approach this stress limit.

In developing the equation for the bending stiffness Δmax = Mmax/ Kb where Kb= 9.6 EcIe/lc2, Committee 551

drew on the similarity of the Euler critical buckling load of Pcr = π2 EcIe/lc2 = 9.87 EcIe/lc

2. ACI adopted the same equation as UBC for calculation of Icr based on a rectangular stress block. However, the Branson equation for Ie is used for the calculation of service load deflection.

As an alternative to the second order analysis procedure, ACI Commentary R10.10 and R10.11 explain that the provisions under sections 10.11 and 10.12 present an approximate design method to account for the slenderness effect of slender columns based on a moment magnifier. One item lingers on is the 0.75 stiffness reduction factor in the denominators in ACI Equations (14 -5) and (14 -6) and its appropriateness for slender wall panels. The key question appears the lack of correlation to empirical data. In order to satisfy an idealized load deflection curve, an equation to express the portion of curve between Δcr and Δu under the ACI procedure would be prudent.

9. Analytical Comparison

Upon reviewing example A from draft document of ACI Committee 551, [Tilt-up Design Guide Examples – Draft No. 4], this Task Group formulated wall panels of similar geometry for comparative analyses using the UBC and ACI design procedures. Wall thicknesses of 6.25 and 7.25 inches were used for 29.5 feet high panels; and thicknesses of 5.75 and 6.25 were used for 24 feet high panels. Basic axial loads of 480 lbs. per foot dead load plus 500 lbs. per foot live load were applied with 3 inches eccentricity. The axial loads were increased to two times and three times the basic loads in order to explore high axial load parameters. Lateral forces of 20, 25, 30 and 35 lbs. per square foot were used in combination with each axial load condition. The reinforcement ratios generally varied between 0.0126 and 0.0162 which were within the maximum steel ratio of 0.0171 at 0.6ρb. Loading increment for both lateral force and axial loadings were used in order to obtain the data points for moment-deflection curves.

In order to compare the two procedures similar load factors were used from the UBC and from ACI 318 Appendix C. Results of the comparative study are given on Tables 4.1 to 4.4 for single curtain reinforcement. Graphic representation of moment-deflection based on the range of calculations for seven wall panels are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.4. A summary of the analytical comparative design is given on Table 5.

ACI 318 defines Mcr at a modulus of rupture of 7.5√f ´c. For the purpose of this Report, the cracked moment as used in UBC procedure at 5√f ´c will be labeled as 2/3 Mcr. The load deflection characteristic for the UBC procedure is represented by a straight line from zero to 2/3 Mcr for the uncracked stage and another straight line from 2/3 Mcr to Mn for the cracked stage. For any given wall panel with reinforcement approaching the upper limit and with increase lateral force and/ or axial load, ACI procedure significantly under-estimates the service load deflection in comparison to the UBC procedure. In fact, in most cases, the service load deflection is less than Δcr.

For two curtains of reinforcement, the Task Group used a 29.5 feet high by 20 feet wide wall panel with a 10 feet wide by 15 feet off center opening. Effective pier width of 4 feet and 6 feet, with thickness of 6.25

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 5 of 47

Page 6: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

inches and 7.25 inches and steel ratios ranging from 0.001 to 0.017, were used in the analytical comparison. This is similar to Example B under work in progress by Committee 551. Lateral forces of 17, 25 and 35 lbs. per square foot were used to provide a range of moments and deflections in this study. Results of the comparative study for double curtain reinforcement are given on Table 4.5. Contrary to the single curtain described above, the results for service load deflections are much closer between the UBC and ACI procedures. Nonetheless, the ACI procedure predicts service load deflection lower than UBC procedure.

A summary of all comparative design examples is given on Table 5. The table includes footnotes for Mu/φ <Mn; Mu/φ > Mn; Δs ≤ Δcr ; Δcr ≤ Δs ≤ lc/150 and Δs ≥ lc/150. Of 28 comparative examples for single curtain reinforcement and 12 comparative examples for double curtain reinforcement, the ACI procedure shows 20 cases Δs ≤ Δcr and only one case Δs ≥ lc/150. Similarly, the UBC procedure shows 2 cases Δs ≤ Δcr

and 19 cases Δs ≥ lc/150. The significance of this comparative study demonstrates that ACI procedure tends to under-predict serviceability.

10. Findings

Based on an array of analytical studies and comparison of code provisions, our findings are as follows:

1. Verification of the Green Book (1980 Slender Wall Task Committee Report) data using adjusted lateral force and deflection data was performed. The analytical result follows closely with the bilinear load deflection characteristic. Lateral deflection increases rapidly when the moment exceeds 2/3 of Mcr (as defined by ACI).

2. ACI needs to improve its methodology so that computed results would follow a bilinear load deflection characteristic observed during full scale testing. There are concerns from other sources researching appropriateness of Ie in the traditional Branson Equation for wall panel out-of-plane deflection calculation.

3. Both design procedures are applicable to walls controlled by flexural tension. The ACI code now defines tension control based on tensile strain, εt ≥ 0.0050.

4. For wall panels with low percentage of reinforcement, panel design based on ACI procedure is normally controlled by strength with deflection less than Δcr. UBC procedure is more sensitive to out-of-plane deflection with increase in lateral force and/ or axial load.

5. For wall panels with reinforcement ratio approaching the upper limit, panel design based on ACI procedure significantly under-estimates service load deflection in comparison to the UBC procedure and empirical results with increase lateral force and/ or axial load.

6. Where wall panel design is based on ACI procedure meeting strength and deflection limits, the corresponding wall panel calculation based on UBC procedure may exceed lc/150 deflection limit.

7. Designs using two curtains of reinforcement show closer correlation between the two procedures.

8. Control of maximum steel ratio based on tensile strain under ACI 318-05 procedure is appropriate.

9. The requirement for minimum reinforcement of Mn ≥ Mcr / φ is appropriate.

10. φ – factor of 0.90 based on ACI 318-05 Section R9.3.2.2 is appropriate.

11. Load factors and load combinations should be based on generally accepted load factors from model code (ASCE 7-05.)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 6 of 47

Page 7: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

12. Change of Pa/Ag < 0.04f ´c to Pu/Ag < 0.06f ´c for maximum stress at mid-height does not impact design by either procedure since the normal range of axial load for slender wall does not approach the limit. In order to comply with tension controlled requirement, the normal range of axial loading will be substantially below the prescribed maximum stress level.

13. Approach for cracked moment of inertia (Icr) is the same for both Codes.

14. Serviceability requirement of Δs < lc/150 (or 0.007 lc) based on service load is the same for both Codes. The limit was apparently set by Building Officials. However, it does not appear the ACI procedure would exceed Δcr within the range of most loading and load combinations.

15. Seismic force prescribed on the strength basis will need to be divided by a load factor of 1.4 for equivalent service load calculations. Further code development for strength design force level should review the appropriate load factor for conversion to service load in serviceability check in addition to the appropriate inclusion of dead, floor and roof live loads.

16. In the ACI equations (14-5) and (14-6) for Δu and Mu, the 0.75 stiffness reduction factor tends to increase the required moment strength rapidly. The alternate slender wall design procedure includes the P-Δ effect; and it would appear further softening of the cracked moment of inertia is unnecessary.

17. In order to be consistent with ACI traditional modulus of rupture of fr = 7.5 √ f ‘c and Mcr = fr S, the corresponding cracked moment in 97UBC should be limited to 2/3 Mcr. For service load deflection, the UBC procedure should be revised to: Δs = 0.67Δcr + (Ms – 0.67Mcr) (Δn – 0.67Δcr)÷ (Mn- 0.67Mcr)

18. The following statements in ACI commentary R14.8 are found questionable and should be corrected:

“Section 14.8 is based on the corresponding requirements in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and experimental research” and

“The procedure, as prescribed in the UBC, has been converted from working stress to factored load design.”

11. Other Design Considerations

All engineering design includes considerable judgment in applying practical research and past experience. Building code provisions may not fully cover all design parameters. Some of those other design considerations that were discussed within this Task Group include the following:

� Effective Area of Steel –Traditionally, Ase = As + P/fy. A unique problem in a double curtain wall is that the axial load modeled at the center of the wall is being used to increase the steel near the face of the wall, where its benefit is much greater than in reality. This tends to increase Icr and thus help to reduce the calculated deflection and increase the nominal moment capacity. Further clarification is needed for double curtain wall reinforcement.

� Service level deflection – the model codes in other countries and practice in some parts of the United States are using deflection limitation of lc/100 as was recommended in the “Green book.” While the original research showed no lateral instability for thin wall panels under combined light axial load and large lateral forces, the enforcement agencies felt more comfortable with the more restrictive deflection limit of lc/150 particularly in consideration of other brittle building materials. This Report does not address the validity or usefulness of service level deflection limit, except as an index in comparison of the design procedures. Parallel research is needed in service load deflection in order to justify different deflection limits.

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 7 of 47

Page 8: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

� Location of rebar and tolerance – location of reinforcement sometimes is predicated on availability of commercial rebar chairs and the correct location of bars in orthogonal directions. ACI-318 permits 3/8 inch tolerance for d ≤ 8 inches. Engineers should review if such tolerance would satisfy the design on thin panels. Construction observation should include the verification of reinforcement bar location.

� End condition versus simply support – ACI 318 puts emphasis under design limitations the importance of design based on simply supported wall panels regardless of end fixity. While some fixity may be realized either due to continuity of wall panels at the floor lines or fixity at a dock height wall panels, the inclusion of such end fixity to reduce service load deflection may be an academic exercise and should be based on further research.

� Effectiveness of Branson equation – there has been questions on the suitability of using the Branson equation, ACI Equation (9-8) for the computation of effective moment of inertia. One academia from Canada pointed out that the equation may not work well for concrete members with an Ig/Icr ratio greater than about 4. Using Branson’s method (Ie) to calculate service load deflections in slender walls, particularly with single layer of reinforcement may significantly underestimate service level deflection. An improve methodology to replace the Branson’s equation for slender wall deflection calculations is currently understudy and is not available at this time.

� Roof live load – under service load combination, model codes allows exclusion of roof live less than 30 lbs. per sq. ft. when combination with wind or seismic forces. ACI 318 does not address whether such exclusion is permitted under load combination.

12. Recommendations to SEAOSC Board

� To calculate service load deflection, use E/1.4 for earthquake forces.

� Recommend to appropriate enforcement agencies that adoption of the 2003 IBC provisions on alternate design of slender wall procedure should incorporate proposed changes to ACI 318-05 Section 14.8.4 listed under Section 13 below.

• Send a letter to ACI-318 addressing the concerns in using the ACI alternate design of slender wall procedure for service load deflection and requesting ACI 318 to correct the statements in Commentary R14.8.

13. Proposed Changes to ACI

The following are proposed revision to ACI 318-05

14.8.4 – Delete equations (14-8) and (14-9) and the last paragraph in total, and replace with the following after the first paragraph:

“ ΔΔ s = 0.67Δ cr + (Ms – 0.67Mcr )(Δ n – 0.67Δ cr)÷ (Mn- 0.67Mcr); for Ms > 0.67Mcr (14-8)

Δ s = 5 Ms lc2 ÷ (48Ec Ig) ; for Ms < 0.67Mcr (14-9)

Where

Δcr = 5(Mcr) l c2 ÷ (48 EcIg)

Δn = 5(Mn) l c2 ÷ (48 EcIcr)”

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 8 of 47

Page 9: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

14. Acknowledgement

In preparing this report, the 2005 Slender Wall Task Group attempted to do a thorough search of available reference sources. Each Task Group member has performed and contributed to this analytical research and the summary report. The Task Group wishes to acknowledge several individuals who assisted in furnishing material for our analytical research efforts. Luis Garcia who is current chairperson of ACI-318 D was gracious to forward the original ACI code change CD121 and the analysis by Committee 551. Gerry Weiler who was chairperson of ACI 551 when ACI 318 was converting the 97 UBC slender wall section to ACI format furnished material showing the comparison of the earlier analysis as well as portions of the current Tilt-up Design Guide. Professor Peter Bischoff of the University of New Brunswick, Canada, shared some of his recent findings on the ACI deflection equations. Other individuals including Messer Neil Hawkins, Robert Mast, Basile Rabbat and Charles Salmon have also kept this Task Group informed.

The Task Group is indebted to the vigorous efforts of members of the 1980 Joint Task Committee and those volunteer workers who devoted two years of their professional lives on the test program and report assignments. We hope this Report serves as a closure to the earlier research efforts that continue to serve the design profession and construction industry in future years. To the memories of those Joint Task Committee members who have since deceased including Ralph Mclean, William Simpson and Ulrich Foth, we dedicate this summary report.

15. References

1. ACI Committee 551, “Tilt-Up Construction Guide- ACI 551.1R-05,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.

2. ACI Committee 551, “Tilt-Up Design Guide Examples – Draft No. 4,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, April, 2005.

3. ACI Committee 318-02, “Building Code Requirements for Structural concrete and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington, MI, 2002.

4. ACI Committee 318-05, “Building Code Requirements for Structural concrete and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington, MI, 2005.

5. SCCACI-SEAOSC Task Committee on Slender Walls, “Test Report on Slender Walls,” Los Angeles, CA, 1982

6. Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, “Structural Engineering Provisions,” International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA 1997.

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 9 of 47

Page 10: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

16. Appendix –

Page

Table 1 - Comparison of Slender Wall Design Procedures UBC vs. ACI 11 Figure 1.1 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 19 12 Figure 1.2 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 20 13 Figure 1.3 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 21 14 Figure 1.4 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 22 15 Figure 1.5 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 23 16 Figure 1.6 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 24 17 Figure 1.7 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 25 18 Figure 1.8 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 26 19 Figure 1.9 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 27 20 Figure 1.10 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 28 21 Figure 1.11 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 29 22 Figure 1.12 - Load-Deflection and Moment Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 30 23 Figure 2.1 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 19 24 Figure 2.2 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 20 24 Figure 2.3 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 21 24 Figure 2.4 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 22 25 Figure 2.5 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 23 25 Figure 2.6 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 24 25 Figure 2.7 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 25 26 Figure 2.8 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 26 26 Figure 2.9 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 27 26 Figure 2.10 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 28 27 Figure 2.11 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 29 27 Figure 2.12 - Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 30 27 Figure 3.1 - Comparison ACI and UBC Procedure for Test Panel Nos. 22 and 25 28 Figure 3.2 - Comparison ACI and UBC Procedure for Test Panel Nos. 19 and 28 29 Figure 4.1 - Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 -03.0 and Task 4 – 03.1 30 Figure 4.2 - Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 -03.2 and Task 4 – 03.3 31 Figure 4.3 - Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 -03.4 and Task 4 – 03.5 32 Figure 4.4 - Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 -03.6 33 Table 4.1 - Comparative Example Tasks 4 - 03.0 and 4 - 03.1 34 Table 4.2 - Comparative Example Tasks 4 - 03.2 and 4 - 03.3 35 Table 4.3 - Comparative Example Tasks 4 - 03.4 and 4 - 03.5 36 Table 4.4 - Comparative Example Tasks 4 - 03.6 37 Table 4.5 - Comparative Example Tasks 4 - 04.0 and 4 - 04.1 with Double Curtain Reinforcement 38 Table 5 - Summary of Comparative Examples 39 Table 6.1 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Properties 40 Table 6.2 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel – Test Results 41 Table 6.3 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 19, 22) 42 Table 6.4 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. Panels 20, 23) 43 Table 6.5 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panels Nos. 21, 24) 44 Table 6.6 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panels Nos. 25, 28) 45 Table 6.7 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panels Nos. 26, 29) 46 Table 6.8 - Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panels Nos. 27, 30) 47

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 10 of 47

Page 11: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Appendix

Table 1 – Comparison of Slender Wall Design Procedures UBC vs. ACI

Section Reference

Topic 1997 UBC ACI 318-02

1914.8 ACI 14.8

Title Alternate Design Slender Walls Alternative design of slender walls

1914.8.1 1910.10

ACI 14.8.1 ACI 10.10

Applicable in lieu of consideration for slenderness effects as a compression member

Walls controlled by flexural tension Walls controlled by flexural tension

1914.8.2 ACI 14.8.1 ACI 14.8.2

Limitations Design as simply supported axial loaded member subjected to uniformed lateral force; Constant cross section over height of panel

1914.8.2 ACI14.8.2.6

Maximum axial stress at mid-height Vertical service load stress < 0.04 f ‘c Vertical stress Pu / Ag < 0.06 f ‘c

1914.8.2 ACI14.8.2.3

Maximum Reinforcement ratio ρ < 0.06 ρb

ρ < 0.06 ρb ACI 318-02 ε t > 0.0050 ACI 318-05

1914.8.2 ACI14.8.2.4

Minimum reinforcement φMn > Mcr φMn > Mcr

1914.8.2 ACI

14.8.2.5

Concentrated load Bearing width plus width at slope of 2 V to 1 H Bearing width plus width on each side at slope of 2 V to 1 H; Not to exceed spacing of conc. Load

1909.2.2 1612.2.1

ACI 9.2.1 Or ACI

Appendix C.2

Basic load combinations 1.4D + 1.7L 0.75 (1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 0.9D + 1.3W 1.2D + 1.0E + (f1L + f2S) 0.9D + 1.0E

1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S) + (0.8W) 1.2D + 1.6W + 1.0L + 0.5(Lr or S) 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L + 0.2S 0.9D + (1.0E or 1.6W) Note: without Directional Effect use 1.3W in place of 1.6W

1909.3.2.2 ACI

R9.3.2.2

φ - factor 0.90 – 2.0Pu / f ‘c Ag > 0.70 OR 0.70 + (1-Pu/0.10f ‘cAg) (0.90 -0.70)

0.90 when ε t > 0.005 0.65 + (ε t -0.002)(250/3) when ε t < 0.005 ACI318-05

1014.8.3 ACI 14.8.3

Design moment strength Mu < φ Mn φ Mn > Mu

1914.8.3 ACI 14.8.3

Required factored moment

Mu = wu lc 2x1.5+Pu1 e/2 + (Pu1 + Pu2) Δn Mu = Mua + Pu Δu OR

Mu = Mua ÷[1– 5Pulc 2 ÷(0.75)48EcIcr]

1914.0 ACI 9.5.2.3

Cracking moment for normal weight concrete Mcr = 5 √f ‘c Ig / yt Mcr = 7.5√f ‘c Ig / yt

1914.8.4 14.0

ACI 14.8.4

Service Load moment Ms = wlc

2x1.5+P1 e/2 + (P1 + P2) Δs

Msa = wlc 2x1.5+P1 e/2

M = Msa + (P1 + P2) Δs

= Msa ÷ [1-5Ps lc 2 /48 EcIe]

1914.8.4 14.8.3

Effective tension reinforcement Ase = (Pu + As fy) ÷ fy Ase = (Pu + As fy) ÷ fy

1914.8.4 ACI 14.8.3

Moment of inertia of cracked transformed section

Icr = n Ase (d – c)2 + bc3 / 3 Icr = n Ase (d – c)2 + lw c3 / 3 Icr = (Es/Ec)(As+Pu/fy) (d–c)2 +lw c3/ 3

ACI 318-05 14.8.4

ACI 9.5.2.3 Effective moment of inertia ΝΑ Ie = (Mcr/M)3 Ig + [1- (Mcr/M)3] Icr

1914.8.4 ACI 14.8.3

Deflection at Mcr

Δcr = 5 Mcr lc 2 ÷ 48EcIg NA

ACI 14.8.3 Deflection due to factored load NA Δu = 5 Mu lc

2 ÷ [(0.75)48 EcIcr] 1914.8.4 Max. potential

deflection Δn = 5 Mn lc 2 ÷ 48EcIcr NA

1914.8.4 Deflection due to cracking moment Δcr = 5 Mcr lc

2 ÷ 48EcIg ΝΑ 1914.8.4

ACI 14.8.4 Deflection at Service Load Δs = Δcr + (Ms–Mcr)(Δn –Δcr) ÷(Mn– Mcr) Δs = (5M) lc

2 ÷ 48EcIe

1914.8.4 ACI 14.8.4

Permissible service load deflection Δs = lc / 150 Δs = lc / 150

Note: Editorial changes in ACI 318-05 are highlight.

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 11 of 47

Page 12: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

w

00

w -c 50

'" PA." LNO " , , , • • " " " MID_HLl GHT DHL[CTIO"- inc h ...

'00

; 00

--- - - \

' 00 liDe

>;,

.00

PA." LNO " , , , • • " " " ' lA, ~

.\IID_HLl GHT DHL[CTIO'i inc h ..

Appendix

Figure 1.1 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 19

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 12 of 47

w

00

~ ~ '" 50

'"P,\,,, L~O "

0 , ; 0 • " " "MID_HI:IGHT DEfLECTIO" iD,h.,;00

'00

I - -,- - \'00 m

HO

'00

PA,"l L~O "0 , ; 0 • " " "'I""" ~

MID_HI:IGHT DEfLrCTlO>; inch..

Page 13: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

"

"

" -u " ,.

PA." Ll'O " , , , • • " " " ;\IID.H [ I GHT DEfLrCTIO"- in<h • •

'00

'00

------- -'\ - -- .>C

'00

0 " '00

,~, 1'0 " , , , • • " " " 'IA:. ~ ~.IID.H£IGHT D[r LECTIO:" i •• h ..

Appendix

Figure 1.2 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 20

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 13 of 47

"

"

., "

~

PA>'> L 1'0 "0 , , • • '" " ";\IID.H[IGHT DHLECTlO...- imh••

00

00

----- -- -,

- -- ne'00 .

1'-0 "'00

,~, 1'0 "• , , • • '" " "'IA, ~

:U1D.HElGHT DHL[CTIO:-; i.<bn

,

,

•.,! '1,.'1"~"­••

Page 14: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

"

"

"

M

,

'00

'00

. , "T I.~I" •• ,-•

'00

' 00

,

.'

"""

, ; , , i , "-" " , :

,I ,

... .\ c>c

~ O "

, •

v

,~ L 1"0 " , • " " " ;\I1D.H t I GHT DHLrCTIO"- imh ..

.'

,~, 1'0 " , • " " "

~ ~.IID.H£IGHT DrFL[CTIO:" iD<b ...

Appendix

Figure 1.3 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 21

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 14 of 47

-Q

" <,• v

" •i

'" l.LJ ..,

"

iPAl, :SO ",

,I , , • " " "~IID.H[IGHT DEfLrCTIO" in,hn

'00

'00

---- --- -- --" "\ m'00

~O ..'00

,~, 1'0 ", , • , • " " "'IAr ~lllD.HI:IGlIT DEFL[CTIO:,\ im.b ..

Page 15: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

• '. •

.. ,

.. ~

, 00

, 00

~ I . , '" ,of

• ', ...

, ~

,

. . "-. . .

-'1W

, ,

,

"

" u " ~IID.H[lGHT DH L £CTIO:" inc h ..

' '"'

PA.." NO n

, , " " "

~

:\I ID.H [IGHT DH L ECTIO"- iad • .,

Appendix

Figure 1.4 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 22

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 15 of 47

~

..

",.~q

,~, so ••

• , • • • '" " ")IID_H£IGHT DI:n.£CTlO~ ~~

'"

••

'",

, . ....I .. nc

,oJ." M

P.-\..... ''0 ..• , , • • '" " "' .. "lIID.H[IGHT DUllcnO:-i ~~

Page 16: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

.. •

,. - v ~

PA.>; NO " , , , • • " U " ~IID.H[lGHT DHL £CTIO;\' inch ..

""

",I

,001 • -- --'

"t . 'i ' -"1"

~ r-

" " " " .... ~

:\IID .H[lGHT DHL[CTIO..- ;" ,k.,

Appendix

Figure 1.5 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 23

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 16 of 47

..•

•f-t:t

" -" ..,~, 1'0 ", , • • • " u ":\IID.HElGHT DHL£CT10:\' in,k.,

00

'00

,.-- -------

,~- --- • ,, ,

-" ..PA.'> NO ", , • • • " U ", ,.:I." ~

:\IID.HEICHT DHLECTlO-," ;"<k••

•.,•••\;. :\1.

"

Page 17: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

'" @

'" = 3

'"

"

;00

~I .

:;:: " H ::> .... " =

;00

-

,

"

r

-, ,

'1,1>."

I'- v

;

-----

I'- v

;

~

,~, NO "

• • '" u " ID_HElGHT DI:r LI:cnO:':

----", C

~

Pk" NO " • • '" u

~

" ID_HElGHT DI:r LI:cnO:':

Appendix

Figure 1.6 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 24

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 17 of 47

'"

~

'"r'

'0

!'-v '",~, NO "

0

=3

, 4681012'1ID_H[lGHT DL£LLcnO:': inoh., "

;~

,

. .,

,

,~,

, , ",,C,

-

, ,, !'-V ~

I'.-Ie'-: NO "0

~I.

•,,•

, , • '" "'1,;1" ~

'1ID_H[lGHT DL£LLcnO:':

Page 18: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

•• •

..

.,

.. ,.

• 00

'00

::0 :\1,

'00

-e '00 ,

,

-, ,

....

1'- " ~

, •

-.---1"'---1'- . ~

, ,

,.~ CNO "

• • .. " " ~IID.H£IGHT DEfL [ CTIO:'\ in<h ..

V ------

UOC

,~ NO "

• • .. " " "-lllD. HElGHT D[(LLCTIO~- m, •• ,

Appendix

Figure 1.7 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 25

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 18 of 47

..

.."

" _w ~

,~ NO "• , , • • ,.

" "~11D.H£lGHT DHL[CTlO:'i im<h..00

00

t../

00 .·..

1'..-~.I,'00

.. "'C, r-V ~,•

m NO ", , , • • ,." "."" ...

lllD.HEICRT DHLICTTO:'i ..,.....

,

•••... ~I.,~-o-

Page 19: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

;

~I . ,

..

.. '"

"

" 00

00

00

' 00

, , , ,

~"

,

-------~ "

,

..

-"-..

• , ~ilD_HI:IGHT DEIl..LCTIO:"i

------

UOC

• , ~

~IID_HI:IGHT DEIl..LCTIO:"

PANJjLNO ,.

'"

>Am CNO ,.

I

'" "

Appendix

Figure 1.8 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 26

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 19 of 47

<5

..

..'"

"~"

~

PAN1jL NO "" , 46&1012

~IID_HUGHTDEfLECTlO:'i in<h..

00

00

'00 , ,,

, ,,

,, ,

'\,,, ,

'00,

UBC,

, ~" ~,,

PAN! eNO ",

• I

;

~I.

"­~IID_HUGBT DEIl..LCT10:S

'I,~

, • ,'"

im<h..

"

Page 20: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

..

.. '"

" J"ISlI

• ,

'00

• < • '00

" " • , ,

0 , --- " ' 00 ---, 1, \1< • 'jot- l,I ~

• ,

• , ~IID_HI:IGHT DEFLLCTIO:"

------

uoc

• , ~

~IID_HI:IGHT DEFLLCTIO:"

,m eNO " .. "

,m eNO .--,

.. "

Appendix

Figure 1.9 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 27

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 20 of 47

eo

M

'"

'" 1"ISlI

PA~ eNO '"-,

'00

, 4681011UID_HLIGHT DEfLECTIO:" in<h..

•<•

i ",-c,">-\1<

'00

'00• --- -

----- "'00 --- UOC

• 10-" M

PA~ eNO "• , • ,

" ""UID_HLIGHT DHLECTIO:"

Page 21: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

•• • •

"

,

,

."

,oJ

~ •

' I"",

!'- v "

, ,

, ,

P A.>'; NO "

• • " " " ~IID.HEIGHT DHLECTIO;\' inch.,

~

"-eN°l "

" " " "-:\IID.HEIGHT DHL ECTIO "- jud ...

Appendix

Figure 1.10 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 28

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 21 of 47

••••

"

" "PA." KO ", , , • • " " "~IID.H[lGHT DHLECTIO:\" Inch••

'"

'",. -- ----- -

-_W --- -- I'--.------ UIC

,V .. ,~, SO ", , , • • " " "',.loa "-

~IID.H£IGHT DULECTIO:-; ;n<h..

Page 22: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

'" @

'" ~ V ~

'" r Pk"EL 1'0 "

• ,I 1 , I 1 " I 1 " I 1 , , " lIID_H[lGHT DHL £ CIIO:'>' inch.,

'00

• '00 1 . •

'00

---• ------.00 ---:.- -- - '\ ---- liDe

, V ~ PA." KO " • , , , ,

" " " ' I,,j,,, ~ lIID_H[lGHT DHL £ CTIO:'>' inch.,

Appendix

Figure 1.11 – Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 29

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 22 of 47

=s

'"

'"

'" ~V '"

'" rPA.'>EL 1'0 "

• ,I 1 ,I 1 "I 1 "I 1, ,"\IID_H[lGHT DHL£CTIOX in,b.,

'00

'00

'00

---• ------'00 -

---

"---- --- C>C, V '" P.-Ie'\; NO "

• , , , ," " "'IA, ~

\IID_H[lGHT DHL£CTIO:': incb.,

Page 23: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

'" @

'" v '"

'" Pk"EL 1'0 '"

• ,I 1 ,I 1 " I 1 " I 1 , , " \lID_H[lGHT DH L £ CT1O;\' inch.,

00

'00

'00

~

------' 00 -

---

" ---- liBe , V '" PA." KO '" -. -- --

, , • , " " " '1,,1., ~

lIID_H[lGHT DH L£ CTIO;\' inch.,

Appendix

Figure 1.12– Load-Deflection and Moment-Deflection Plots for Test Panel No. 30

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 23 of 47

'"

'"

'"V 50

'"Pk'\,'EL 1'0 '"

• ,I 1 ,I 1 "I 1 "I 1, ,""ID_HrIGHT DHL£CTIO,,- inch.,

00

'00

'00

~

------'00 -

--- "----- UBC, V '" P.-\.'-: '0 '"-. --

, , • ," U "'1,,1., ~

'1ID_H[lGHT DHL£CTIm. inch.,

Page 24: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Figure 2.1 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 19

Figure 2.2 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 20

Figure 2.3 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 21

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 24 of 47

SEAOOC- P/f'A P M M &,

S'leJ!llierWaJ! Tm.Gro:ap O. 0 238 19.9 0.0336De>o'<! Dp irnItern.ction C1J!['\'e 0.0005- 1 2 2 2Q. 0.0330\VaHlNo. 19 P 0.001 2 246· 2'0.5 0.0324

67..5 ksi lap 0.0054 10 2 8 21.2 0.0'l II

f'o := .0 ksi 0.0109 20 319 26.6 0.0236E, .= 28,6110 ksi 0.0271 50 438 36.5 (W159

Etl

:= 15 ksi 0.05 92 59 49.5 OJ)l04

."l,,'= 0.196 sqiu.. 5iP' .]0 185 935 n9 0.005211 .= 9. ~ 0.. 03 1 952 793 1)-,00510

1..- .= .0 ~ 0.]5 2T7 120 10Q 0.0029P .= 36 kip ciDO 0.1&2 336 1350 ]]2.5 1)-,001:0

P/J\= 0.016 ksi M kip·ill ktp·furl ~-ft

~eo,~ 1:76 ll;ip·furl So

"m· • • • &,

Box ),

SE.'!.OOC- 50 Pff'A PSteElier Wall Ta.s};, Grolllp 0.0 0De~.Dp irnItern.ctioll curve O. 005- 1\Va No. 10 P 0.001 2

6..5 ksi lap .0055 10

f'a ~= .0 ksi 25 .0lll 2.0

E,= 28,6llO ksi 0.<:f176 50 452

35 ksi 12

A,= 0.1!l' sqiu. .0 181 933

11 .= 9, in 0.106 192 0 80..8 1),,00510

1..-= 48.0 iin 0.15 271 1204 0.3 .0030

P= 36 kip 400 ciOO 0.1&6 336 136£ ]4.0 00.002:0

P/J\ = 0.016 ksi M kip-ill ktp-iu kip-ft

1>l'.("'''~ 276 ~tp·furl So

"m· • •Box 2 ),

SEAOOC- 50 P/f'A !' M M &,

Slemler Wall Tl!!d. Gro:ap 0.0 0 237 19. 0.0334De>o"'_Dp irnItern.ction am'e 0.0 5 1 2 1 2Q.0 0.032:8"":In '0. n p o. 1 2 2 '2'0. 0.0322

6..5 ksi J.cip 0.0055 10 2 9 23.3 0.0'2 6f'o := .0 ksi 25 0.0109 2.0 321 26.8 0.0234E,= 28,6110 ksi 0.0274 50 17.0 .0157E,,= 35 ksi .OS 91 - .3 .0104•"l,,= 0.196 sqiu.. .5P .10 183 921 76. 0.005211= 9.50 iin 0.03 188 93 78. Il)iJ){)50

1... = 48.0 in 0.15- 274 1186 98.8 .0029p= 5,97 kip 400 600 O. lro 32.9 1321 10..1 1),,001:0

P/J\ = 0.013 ksi M kip-ill ktp·in kip-ft

~eo,~ 'rt6 ~p.i!JlI So

"r::!=--1. • • •Bl!I . 2 ),

Page 25: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Figure 2.4 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 22

Figure 2.5 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 23

Figure 2.6 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 24

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 25 of 47

SE.~OSC- 50 P M M :5;1

SleltderW Ta.3l.Grolllp 0 209- 7. 0.0292!}eT;'~op imteracti.all cm:v!! 1 211 7.6 0.02;B:S\\1 [No. 12 P 1 21 7.8 0.02:&4

Icip 10 246 205 0.0241

ksi 25 2 283 n.6 0.02

fila := ksi 50 39 J;;.5 0.013

E,= 211, ksi ' 1 462 Ja5 0.0108

35 ksi UP 14 6ll -7.0 0.0057

A" = 0.196 sqill. 159 733 61, 0,00I5(I

!J.= .40 iwl 0 2115 1035 8-6.3 0.0021

lw= 48.0 iwl 0 m 1050 87.5 0,0020

p= 5..9'7 kip kip-ill kEp·imJ kip-ft

PI1\ = 0.017 ksi S.Mo(a.<~

~:tm~! 1" • • • S,

Bi!r 3

SEAOSC- 50 Plf'A !> M M s,Sleltder Wall Ta.sk Oro'llp 0.0 0 166, U8 0.0'2.29~.op ilrtencti.all a~\'!! 0.0005 1 1611 ]4.0 0.0'2.25Wa No. B P 0. 1 1 1 ° ]4. 0.0'2.2.2

67.5 ksi J.tip 0.0071 10 195 16.3 .oure£'1:1 := ..0 ksi 2.5 0.0142 20 22 la. 0.0158

E,= 211,600 ksi 0.0354 50 306 - 5 .0103

E,,= 35 ksi .05 1 360 30.0 0.0081

•,!;,,= 0.196 sqiu.. 0.09 1 4 II 319.8 0',0049

h= 34 iim UP 0.10 141 52 41.6 0.0041

lw= 48.0 iim 0 0.60 2.2.6 6110 56. 0',0019p= 5.97 kip 0 400 0.20 282 760 6H 0.0011

PI1\ = 0.017 ksi kip-in kEp·ira kip-ft

M;.(&,~ 235 kEp·imJ u..- S.

.d==--1" -I, c.• •" \A.

s,

Bsr 3

SE.~OSC - 50 P/f'A P M ::;1

S1eltderW Th3l.Grolllp 0. 0 19.3 0.032-6!}eT;'l! op ilrtencti.all run'!! 0.0005 1 195 0.0321W [No. 1 P 0.001 1 19.8 0.0317

6,5 ksi Icip 0.0070 10 22, 0.0270

fila = .0 ksi 25 0.0141 26.- 0.02:29

E,= 211,.600 ksi ~ 0.0352 36.. 0.0153

E,,= 35 ksi 0.05 4~,8 0.0122

.,!;,,= O.L sqiu. 0.10 63.9 O.

!J.= .38 iwl 0.. 2:& 45 0.00."0

lw= 48 m. 0.200 9a. 0.002

P= 1l.12 kip, 400 600 023 106.. 0.0020

P/~= 0.023 ksi M kip-in kip-ft

Mo(a.,~ 235 kEp·iim S.

.d==--1"1

• - S,

Bi!r 3

Page 26: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Figure 2.7 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 25

Figure 2.8 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 26

Figure 2.9 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 27

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 26 of 47

SEAOOC- .50 P/f'A p M ~,

Sl.el!Ilil!r Wall 'Fm Goomp 0.0 0 HIS 0.0261])e1;.·e op iJirtemctio:!l cmn 0.0005 1 190 0.0258WalNo. 25 P O. 1 1 19'2 0.025.5

67.3- ksi klip 0.002 2 19'5 0.0249

f'o := .0 ksi 2.5 0.008.5 10 221 0.0215B, ,= 2S,6OO ksi .1'.'1,. 0.0170 2'5 0,0181Ee ,= 15 ksi 0.0424 50 39 0.0120.•"t,,= 0.196 sqiu. 1.5P CUO 113 .5 3 0.0060

h= (5'.13 in 0.. 18 1.39 .59S 0,0050

!w ,= ..0 in 0 20 236 81 0.0023P ,= .32 kip ° 40O 0215 254 114 OA)(I1.o

Pf1\= 0.025 ksi M kip-ill kfp·in

MO(""'~ 207 ~p·in ~c

-rn· ""1• • • ~,

Bl!I 3

SEAOOC- .50 P M 1: ~,

I.eli:lil!r Wall Th;:k Goo'lIp 0 IS ]'3 OJ)2S5

~·e.op .!JJ.1eractia:!l C\i![\'e 1 IS5 ]'.5 OJ)250WalllNo. 26 P 1 IS ]'.6 O. 48

.- 67..5- ksi J.:Jip 2 191 ]'.9 0.0242fila := ..0 ksi 2.5 10 21(5, ]8.0 0.02.08B, ,= 2S,600 ksi 2 20. 0.0176

E" ,= 35 ksi .5 3 1 28. 0.0116

i!l.'= 0.1.6 sqiu. 1.5P 113 51S 41. 0.0060..'5.ll:ll fa;, 116 5 5 48.0 0,0050

!w ,= .8.0 in I) 226 '7 . 64.5 0.0024P ,= 32 kip 0 ..51 820 68.3 OJ)(I1.o

Pf~= O. ksi M kip-ill kfp·ilil k~-ft

"~""'~k[p·ilil

-rn· • • •Bl!I 3

SEAOOC- .50 P M M :;.,

SI.eli:lierW 'I'a;:k Goo<lp 0 169 ]4, 0.0233])e1;.-e.op iL."!er.l.ctia:!l CU!£Ve 1 1 0 ]4. 0.0230WalNo. 27 P 1 1 2 ]4.. 0.021:8

6...5 ksi J.:Jip 2 1 6 ]4.6 0.02.2:2

f'a := .0 ksi 2.5 10 199 ]15.6 0.0191

E,= 2S,,600 ksi 22S ]9.0 0.01 1

1.5 ksi .50 312 26.0 0.010.5

."t,= 0.196 sqiu.. 11.5 4 ],9.- 0.00.53

(5'.00 ilil UP 1 1 490 40.8 0,00.'10

!w= 48.0 ilil 0 225 69 ~

~S 0.002.0

P= 5.08 kip, 0 '1 'm3 5&.6 0,0019

PfA~ = 0.018 ksi kip-in kfp·ilil k~-ft

"l;.(""'~ k[p·ilil Sc

·~1·"'1

• • :il

Bl!I 3

Page 27: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Figure 2.10 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 28

Figure 2.11 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 29

Figure 2.12 – Interaction Diagram for Test Panel No. 30

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 27 of 47

1.1 SI

0 12 0.0172

0 128 0_0170

1 129 0.0168

2 132 0.0165

10 1 9 0.01

1 1 0.0117

5 232 0. 74

81 288 O,OOSO

3 309' 25,. 0. 3

.175 162 411 34. O.OO:W":00 186 438 36.5 0. 15

kip-fu!; kip-ft

So

"'1:51

M kip-iJI

II/

0 --Y0 200 '1l0

UP

50

p

!lip

25

sqiu..

iI!l

iI!l°.0.33 !dp

0.019 ksi

.3. Elip·iI!l

E,=E,,=./\,,=!J.=L..=P=

'P/~'=

M~""i!-"J=

SE,A08C-SlP-I!:der W Task Gro~!}el;~Dp Umteract:Wll CliIVeWa INo. 28

6,..5 k!ii

.0 ksi

k!ii

ksi

SEA08C- 50 Plf'A 'P M M SI

SlP-I!:derW Tac;:};.Gro1llp 0.0 0 139 U.5 O.Olall!}el;'e op UmteractiQll CIilC\'e 0.0005 0 140 ]],6 0.01116WaUl No. 29 P 0.001 1 1 1 U. 0.OU15

6.5 k!ii !lip 0. - 2 1 3 ] .9 o.ounfila := .0 ksi 25 .0109 10 163 ] .6 0.0154

E,= 28,.600 k!ii 0.021 186 ]5.5 0.0129

E" ,= 35 k!ii 0.54 5 253 0.00&2

./\,,= 0.196 sqiu.. 1).]00 338 '2:8. OJ)QSO!J. .= .78 fu!; LSP (U5 1:33 418 34.9 0.0031

L..= .0 iI!l 0 (U95 179 480 40.0 0,0020

P= .31 kip, 0 200 4110 0..200 184 486 40.5 0.0019

'P/~= .019 k!ii M lap-in kip·fuJ. kip-ft

~""~ 39 Elip·iI!l I,., So

h~-1. ~c• • • &,

Bu 3 A,.

SEA08C- 50 Plf'A 'P M &,

SlP-I!:der Wall Thsk. Gro~ 0. 0 126 0.0170

De,..e Dp Umteract:Wll CIilC\'e 0.0005 0 128 0.0169WalNo. 30 P 0.001 1 129 0.0167

65 k!ii !lip 0.002 2 131 0.0164

fila = ,,11 ksi 25 0.01. 10 1 0.0139

E,= 28,)6OCl ksi .0213 1 ° 0.011

E" ,= 35' k!ii 0.0531 230 0.0073

./\,,= 0.196 sqilL 0.085 285 0,005

!J.= ..ll9 iJlL LSP 0.]0 309' 25..7 0.0042

L..= 8.0 iI!l 0 0.170 40 ll. 0,0020

P= .38 kip, 0 200 0200 43 36. ' 0.0014

.I.~= 0.019 ksi M kip-iJI kip·fuJ. kip-ft

~""~ ]39 EI:p·iI!l So

h~-1. • • &,

Bu 3

Page 28: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

00

00 A DIS ,

M, , . (1 4_

• J / ' 00 -- - - - - - -~ "- "'C V " - 1,115 0/

~I", (l ,

Mo , m ,,, ,- " ,/ "

m ., D.,.

'"' eNO " /'

• , , • , ,. " " " , A" " ~IlD_H[JGHT DHL£CTIO:"i inch.,

00

f.o ; 00 ACI 18_0! ./

/

I '~ L . (14_ ./

1.1150 .;;: • ' 00

,.,/ -- ~ ---, I, :U"

- ----- 7' "'- , ' I " (l , -' Mo

" ," -- UBC , / , ,

/' , " m ., D.,.

, , AC> (14_ ) ,

,

'"' eNO " /'" , - ,

• , , • , ,. " " ,

" A" " 'IID_HrIG HT DHL£CIIO:"i inch.,

Appendix

Figure 3.1 – Comparison ACI and UBC Procedure for Test Panel Nos. 22 and 25

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 28 of 47

;. "c•

00

00

A DIS ,M, , .(U_

• J /'00 - - - - - - -y "- "'C V·

,00[ - I,JBO / ~I,,(l,

M oAn '",.

"/ " m "

D.,.,

'AN eNO "l/• , , • • " " "'I, A" "~llD_H[JGHI DHLLCIIO:'i inch.,

00

""00 .-\CI 18_0~/'

/

I'~[ .(H- ,/

• 1,,1150 0:::00

" -- ~,... ---- "' -- 7''- ,'Iu(l ,. ' M o """ -- UBC >/ ,

/ , " m "Doto

, ,An (14_ ,

,P.o.!'; eNO ",

/ ,

• , , • • " " ",I,ll" "'lID_HEIGHT DHL£CTIO:'i inch.,

;

,

,I, :U"

~",C,

Page 29: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

~ • , o ,

00 ;

". -, 00

00

00

'00

./ :U""

V M, ~ ' ,. ~ . -

/ ,

[1M

''1ft--,

" , , " A"

i' > ~I ,

, H )

-\

UBC

10-, ~

V-V

(,«11 Lq.(

V ~

--.: UBC

r' "'- AU 1S-1l!

/

/ V

V .-I.el (" ~

~I "il , -' \In • 8 " m ; , Doo .' , ~ I PAl' eND " , ,

• , ,. " ~

~IlD_H[JGHT DH L[ CTIO:,\in<h ..

~I "il ,

\In ,- • H)

--<C: --- ..I.e! - 8_02 -- - - - --- , '

!I ~ , ' C " m ; , Doo

.\ CI q (14 r ~~ PAl' eND " I

• , ,. "

~IlD_H[JGHT DH L [ CTIO:'\

Appendix

Figure 3.2 – Comparison ACI and UBC Procedure for Test Panel Nos. 19 and 28

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 29 of 47

'00

/M,....10 > ~I, f' /' .KI 15-1l~

:/ M,t1!_O\ /

'00 L. H

'. /-"'- ~. - \ 1/'00 UBC

.... ~ 1/'00 It AU (U ~

~Ia(l ,-' '.. •V " (,

m "D...'

/ ~l PAl' eND ..,

",

,

",•,c,

, • • "~~IID_H[JGlfT DlfLlCTIO:'i in<h..

"

00

'00~I", (l~- ' "IT •

11 M ~, ['I. ( H)

• •~ -- ":-'~--

-- ACI - 8_02-- - - - - -- -- , ---- 11-", UBC 7 'C (, " ~"

• .\CI q (14 ~ ~~ PAl' eND "• I

~IID_H[JGlfT DHLlCTIO:'i

,I, A"

, • • " "

Page 30: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

• , • • ~ • -. c <

• ., •

. ,..

"" 97UBC

""

• , "

/ : ,

" ..

.-I.CI _ J l l-O __ ->/),.. [ '1.(1.(...6) /

15 : .. DrFLECTIO:"O in' ~.,

>OO'-r ____ -. ____ -. ____ -. ____ -. ____ -. ____ _

""'-f------+------+------+------+------t------

". Li "liBC t-/ I +- .\ CI _ 31~!

V : I:q.( H

SOO i / .i.ii :\1,1>(11 ) VT- I ~ :, : ~.; ,~;----+----+----+----i I Eq(14.9 : ~~ ... j' .... T .. k ~..(I3.1

'- I :' • . I " :u.(M~ , I :: ~: ~ • ~ Lood C ... 1

: I ':: '-l : : ;' -1. 1;0': ' :

""

' 1 : 51 ' , ~ I LQ " I H I 30

" "'. DrFLECTIO:" in<k ..

Appendix

Figure 4.1 – Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 – 03.0 and Task 4 – 03.1

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 30 of 47

-

i,.,ACI_ JIl-t

/['I' (1.(...6j

V,,

",

, ·"UBI: , ··, ··I V Vf · ·· ·· ·•

I , ::--10 (l.'IC1 ¥l ~l...w:~) "'- L·.( ---/

, ., ., ,-0'

,I~- . , •, ,

" ~I , ~: T.,k 4_0J.O, , • ,, , , •: [--IcISO

, , , , • ~ LOld c.... 2,, , ,, , ,, , ,, ,

• ,'"

,

" " ",

", ,, "- "-DHLECTlO.'" In,h.,

'"

~l. """'71

V: LI'f"''''"Be ~ .\Cl_31

4J ·i/

: £'1.(H ,· :-'Iu 1l'llC)· IJ :\1..1AClI

··-"V,r-- , : ~.;! l;il) , I ' , ~~ .... T••kJ..IU.l, , , l ••'- I : : ': I~ Lood Co.. 2

I ' , ~'": : : ..... ~ ·· I ·• , , , ,". ' : ' ·· ,

•• , . . ~ 11Q "I " " ",

" "-'.DHLECTIO:-; IMh...,

'"'"

'000

"'"

:U,lAC~

Eq(14.'

"'":\I,lACO

•-,•

"~"-!1-

•­••a-

Page 31: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

1000

s::: M ,(.Un Eq( 14_9

'00 M ,(.Un

97uBC

1/ ,Vi -- , , , I , ,

I~ ,

Ii I. ! i

, ,

01: ,

M , (.Un Eq( 14_9)

'00 M , (.Un

,'" -

97uBC

/ V I

I , I

, ,

, I_ I, , i

"/ ~'" :/ I .L JI8_0~

I. ( 1-1--6)

~1 i , , .

. ! ~"t : ,

I : I , I I ~ i ,

.\I"(lllC) .... 1 II : ~ i ,

:;;1 iii: , ~ , , , , , " " , , " "

, , , , , , I: , ,

, " " " , ,

DEFLECTIO:S inch.,

v '" 318--t1 ~

7: , ,. "7v / V I:

.\I"(lllC)

,~ , " " " 0 • 0 • .. .. .. .. , , , , , , , ,

" I

, ' I 1

10 ' I ,

DEFLECTIO:S inch.,

, 1, ~I,,(AC1)

h,k -1_03.:

Lo.ad C."" 2

'"

, 1, ~I,,(AC1)

h,k -1_03.3

Lo.ad C."" 2

Appendix

Figure 4.2 – Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 – 03.2 and Task 4 – 03.3

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 31 of 47

1000

~I/: ~'CIJIS-Ol

9WBC :/ I .L I. (U-lfl

~1i,, .

. ! r], :,

!/ I: I ,1 1 ~ i 'I" (lllt)

,>;:: ....1 i I:~ i

, I, ~l" \ACI),

vr - ;;1::;;,1 ,~,,, , ,"

T»k4_0J.:,

" , , " Load C."" 1

Ii,~ , "

, , , ,!

, ,I: , ,°1: ,

" " " ", ,

"00

'-"\A{I)Eq(14_9

'00'-',(.UI)

DEFLECTlO:,\ inch.,

"Iinch.,

~I _°1..DEFLECTlO:,\

110.,'I

V.\CI JI8-l1l

,

7,

,~,, ,

"7//9HjBC VI,/ ~I" (lllt}

,

:-=1,~i"\ACI)

_I: " "V , • • •0 • 0 ..

- , .. .. .. .. T.,k 4_0J.3, , , , , ,, , , , , Load C."" 1

Ii '-, " I!, ,

'-"'''1)Eq(14_9)

'00'-',(.UI)

•,'" noo

Page 32: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

• , •• • " 00 " /'

V) Vi " VBe

,

:1 , , ,

'"00

~/v i , !I ,

I , ,

:lV , , ,

I ,

') , , , ,

" V , , , , -, • , n' .,

~ , , , < , , , , , , , "" , , " , , , ~ ,-

" ,

:.--' ,

'>i ., ;s, , , ,

, "

, , , ,

.' , ,

, , ., , , , , , '" ,

.' , . ,I , ,

' . .. .. DEfLECTIO:O;

M. ;; ,/ •

• •

-I •

" BC ? 00 .\CI_ JlI-O!

V I~ • Eq. ( H -6) · , • " : '

/ A : " , ,

tI-1/ : , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0 , ,

,--= -) • • . , ,. iii ~

, 0 -, -' ,-, , • , • i , . , , • , " • , , , ~ ~ II , i ' , , , , , , , , , ,

"; , , , : , " '" • '. ... ' . DEFLECTIO:"

Ad ·llJ-O! E'I.. ( U -')

:\1,,(\., , il )I ,,(AC1)

T.,k ~_03A Lood C . .. l

" " i n' ~ ..

M.. {l.X) 1/, MalACll

T • • u ..{JU Lood c ... 1

" " in<k • •

Appendix

Figure 4.3 – Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 – 03.4 and Task 4 – 03.5

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 32 of 47

,..',--..,--,-----,--,------,--,

i•

---''''+-+----f!9h~/b..+___jV 'v "CI_n....:

,...~ -.::.~c~oc~;2::l.7LA~:+_Lj--4"-'(-'-""--1---~v Vii"~' V/ l',~14-9) '7: ' )(,,(l~ IIJll.o~

"~"''::::H~~: -- - : ~...,e----"...f:l·+--1~"~-~·iI-----~,-..-...,--A--I, I :. , , ,, I : l ~(.. ~: LoMC_2

:r-" so : ~ :: . . ~ ., , .. ~ . :.. ..DUU:cnO~

"...,. "

"'., , ,,..01:

"

-..,.----..,.----'.~.:..:;::;;2+_--,----,----,---..,,.. ,/:,

r>cf ~''''-I_----I_-7'L-l_t~:=:=k,'~a~,~'~'ul;!''-I_----I_----11I / I~ 1; £+(IU)

1/ Jf1::,...,-t----;f.'t-7'''-/-;"tI~'--i'f----t-----t-----t----

.\I,lAC' b(-:---II: :::£lI(I4.f) 'I ""JQO:: 1 1 ,-.\1>1/1(11 - I l-1.;-:+'.r,r-;-;,~.r-+----+----+----

I ~;:: 1:;:1 I~I ~.I'II·

Ij rIe ~ : l'.: J: ~

,•-•-

D£FLECTIO:oi I.,h••

Page 33: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Figure 4.4 – Comparative Design Procedure Plot for Task 4 – 03.6

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 33 of 47

.;: A,c<,,~,: :E.1I4_1i'l

<;(,

97 BC /

v/ /T, ,, ,,,,,,,

1/,,l;f- ,

-,,,,,

\!"(lllQ,

: I , 1,~I,,(AC1),, • ..' •I g: • 0: ~I .. .. -, .. h,k 4_03.6I

, , , •, , , , Lo.ad C."" 2

:- 1.1 , V, ,, , , :

",

'",

", ,

'" " '", , ,~

., .,DEFLECTIO:" incb.,

.u,(,"nEq(14_9)

Page 34: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Sku.s..-WaU ra!okGroup

coo. Comparisoo SummM)' ofCakot.lioo Da .. _ ra.Jo 4 "()1

Ba, .d on AClllB_O! Proud". ....

"" L. ,. .. I FOfC.

P .... I H";gb' P .... I Tbidn . ..

Pon.1 Longlb

Ecc«llrieily

""-""-, S..,.IRatio

Maximum S1 ... 1 Rob.

Facf<nd A",.I toad

A Y .... g< A"i.1 Sir ...

Efk.c,iy. S..,.I Ar ••

M."""ot S,""ogtb

• - 0_90

R<quu<d SIr""g,b

CrIchd Mow",,'

S<r;-ico Lo.d M"""""

S<r;-ic. Lo.d o.nochon

D.nocbon Limit

\Oi }>If , , , m .. , • , ,

06p"

m

m

p. kip

P"',,," h i

A... 111'

M. 1<_,0

~IJ. 1<_,0

~" 1<_,0 ~1" 1<_,0

M, 1<_,0

~ m

'" m , m

lJl50 111

B."d on UBC 97 Pr<><N1n .... Lat ..... 1 FOfCO \Oi }>If Arial Load at mid-bo,Yt' p. kip

AY .... g< IXIaI . b... PI A, h i

Efk.c,iy. S..,.I Ar.. A... 111'

M."""ot S,""ogtb M. 1<_,0

• - 0_90 ~IJ. 1<_,0

R<quu <d SIr""g,b ~" 1<_,0 Crochd Mom",,' 213 ~1" 1<_10

M, 1<_,0 , m

1Il!l.a In

S<r;-ic. Lo.d o.nochon II., In

DO/locbon Limit lJl50 111

to.d C.,. ! u - 1 . 0~D ' Ll8L + UW

4_01 .0 4_01 .0 4"()10 4_01 .0 4_01.0 4_0J.l 4"()1_1 ~-O3_1 4-03 _1 4-03_1

9.7

19. ~

6.l~

"

20 2S

19.~ 29. ~

6.l~ 6_2~

D I~

'" 29. ~

6_n

" 3_00 3_00 1_00 3_00

.. 29 . ~

6.n

" '00

16. :

" 5 . 7~

" '00

'" " 5.n

" '00

" " 5 . 7~

" '00

'" " ~ .n

" '00

.. " ~ .n

" '00 16 11 6 16 11 6 16H 16H 16H 1 6~6 16~6 16 if 6 16H 16 a6

3_B 3_B 1.11 0 .0126 0 .0126 0 .0126

o.om 0 .0171 0 .017 1

371 37J

0 .031 O_Oll

7.68.-1 7_68

1167 1267

618 121l

~16 1091

~16 ~56

219 418

7.636 14_98

0~50 0_15

37 J

O_Oll

7_68

1267 ,~

1150

'" '" 18_5 ~

0_55

1.11 0 .0126

0 .017 1

37 .1

O_Oll

7_6B

1167

1789

1610

'" M' l2.ll

O_~ ~

0217 0.42 0_52 0_92

U6() 1_36 2_16 2_36

1.11 0 .01l6

0 .017 1

37J

O_Oll

;~

1167

2077

1870

'" '" 156B

0. 5 ~

1.71

2.16

20 2S lO lS 31 .7 H.7 H.7 H.7

0_030 0_010 0_010 0_010

7_68 7_68 7_6B 7.68

1267 1267 1167 1167

ll 42 128.-1 14n 1566

1009 111 4 1159 1184

m

'" m 851 1019

IJ.05 1l_0~ 130~ B .O~

0_37 0_37 0_37

1.86 4_51 7.16

1_36 2_16 2_16

0.37

9.82

2.16

2.8B 0_0117

2.SS 0_0117

2.88 0_0117

lB8 0_0117

lB8 0_0 117

0_0171 0_0171 0_0171 o_om o_om 124

"" " ll4!

121 -m no

"

12.4

0_011

7.61

ll 41

'" "" m m 6.40

1l.4

0.01l

761

]]41

"" '"' "" m 7.S8

11.4

0.01l

7.61

]]41

928

'" "" 421

9 .17

1l.4

0 .011

7.61

1142

1075 %;

"" '" 10_B6

0 4 0 .40 0 .40 0 4 0 0 4 0

02 0 .24 0 .10 O.ll 0 4 6

1.9 1.92 1.91 1.92 1.92

!O !S lO l5 293 29_3 29_3 29_3

0_028 0.028 0.028 0 .028

7.61 761 7.61 7.61

ll 41 ]]41 ]]41 1142

75~ 8.-18 941 1015

66B 750 813 916

'" '" 9 .61

'" m 9 .61

'" "" 9 .61

'" '" 9 .61

0 .26 0 .26 026 026

0 .26 0 .94 203 l .ll

1.92 1.91 1.92 1.92

Appendix

Table 4.1 – Comparative Example Task 4 – 03.0 and Task 4 – 03.1

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 34 of 47

Sk-nd<J w.1l T.sk Groupcoo.. Comp",i:IOD

SUIllI>IMY ofC.lcul>,i"" D... _T.sk~-1:Il Lo.d C.,. 1 u- 1.0~D'1.28L+UW

8.,.d on Ael 318_01 Pc.«du....

M 4_03.0 4_0l.0 4-1:13.0 4-1:Il.0 4_03.0 4_03.1 ~-1:Il.1 ~-Ol.1 ~-O3.1 ~-O3.1

L.,."I For"" w ", .., " " '" " 16.: '" " '" "POD.I H<isb' , ,29.~ '" 19.~ 19~ 19.~ " " " " "P....IThid"'... , .. 6.1~ 6.1~ 6.n 6.n 6.n ~.7~ U~ ~.71 ~.1l ~. 71

POD.1 L...gIb '-,

" " " " " " " " " "Ecc...tricny • .. '.00 '.00 '.00 '.00 '00 '00 '00 '00 '00 '00..". 16 1/ 6 16 Ji 6 16 Ji 6 16 Ji6 16 Ji 6 16 Ji 6 16 Ji 6 16i6 16 "6 16.6

..".. • m 3.B 3.B 3.13 3.B 3.B 1.8B 2.SS 1.88 1.88 188

S...I RollO , 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 0.0126 O.Ol26 O.OIH O.OlJ 7 O.OIH 0.Oll7 0.01l7Moximum S,..I RollO 06p" 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 o.om 0.0171

Foct<nd Ax,.l Lood '. h, 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 l!4 l2A l1.4 l1.4 31.4

A,"ft1Ig<" Axial Srr." "" h, 0.033 O.Oll o.on 0.03l O.Oll "" 0.031 O.Oll 001i 0.031

Effoe,iY' S... I AJu A.,

7684 7.68 7.68 7.6B 7.6B " 7.61 7.61 761 7.61•Momoot SlrOogtb "- lo_m 1267 1167 1167 1167 1267 IUl 1141 1l~2 1l~1 1l~2

• - 0.90 ~l,l. lo_,o ... 1212 ,~ 1789 2077 121 0;; "" 918 107~

Roq,lU~ Slf""g,b ''- ,. ,,. ,@, ll~O 1610 1870 ~ "" ,eo '" %,C"chd Mom..." ''- lo_m ,,. ,,. ,,. ,,. ,,.

"" "" 470 "" ""Son·i<:. Lo.d Mo......' M, lo_,o 219 418 '" M> '" no lSS m 421 no~ m 7.636 14.98 18.~~ nil lHB " 6.40 1.88 9.H 10.86

'" .. 0.~10 O.l~ O.~~ O.~~ O~~ "' O.~O 0.40 0.40 OAO

S.,-yi<:. Lo.d Don..,hotl , m 0.117 0.~1 0.~1 0.92 L71 0.2 0.2~ O.lO 0.31 OA6

0011..,110. Limit ,'W .. 2.360 1.l6 1.36 l.36 1.36 " 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91

8.,.d •• liBC 97 Prl><N1on

L.,."I For"" w ~, " lS '" " '" " '" "Axial Lo.d at mid-b<,sb' " h, 3l.7 H.7 H.7 33.7 29_l 19.3 19.3 19.3

A,"ft1Ig<" utal .rr." 'J" h, 0.030 0.030 0.030 O.OlO 0.028 0.028 0.018 0.018

Effoe,iY' S... I AJu A",

7.68 7.68 7.6B 7.6B 7.61 7.61 7.61 7.61•Momoot SlrOogtb ''- lo_m 1167 1167 1167 1267 1141 1l~2 1l~1 1l~2

• - 0.90 ~lJ. lo_,o lln 1184 14n "M m '" ~; 103~

R<qlluNi Slf""g,b "- lo_m ,~ IIH 11~9 138~ M' ". m ...Crochd Mom..." 213 Mo lo_m m m m m '" '" '" '"Son·i<:. Lo.d M.....", M, ,. "" ~ '" 1039 '" m "" '", .. 13.0~ 13.0~ 13.0~ B.O~ 9.61 9.61 9.61 9.61

21l !I. m 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.16

Son·i<:. Lo.d Don..,hotl , m ,.u 4.~ 1 7.16 9.81 0.26 0.94 1.03 3.11

Doll..,,,o. Limit V'W .. 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.92

Page 35: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

,61 ,61

69> Bf[

KO KO

.88 .88

WL .19

H[ H[

01fl all

01<;] '1t!

lHl lHl

Bt8 Bt8

L.OO [<;00

(-1'9 ["1'9

Sf Of

,61

00' KO .8S ~,

'" >t(]

O<:[]

lHl

us [<;00

,W

"

<:61

no no .ss E(

E(

'00' <;(ll

lHl

8<S

HO-O

f"t9

"'

<:61 <:6"1 ,6"( ,6"1

<;<;[ 'Wl Ln 8["0

910 9l-0 9[-0 9[-0

8101 8101 8101 SI01

t.9 It. Set 91[

tI( tlf t![ tI[

tfll 1.01 696 9'.l8

t6l1 OOll 9011 1101

Ot(1 ot(l ot[l ot[l

"6 <:11YO

"~

"

"-6

<:to-O

Ott

"'

n-6

<:to-O

Ott

H

,["6

,tIrO

O-tv

" ,61 ,61 ,61 <:61 <:61 <:61 <:6"1 ,6"( ,6"1 61

9[0 [f0 ao flO 110 8.0 8[-0 ([-0 9[-0 lO

9fO 9[0 9[0 9[0 9[0 otO ot-O ot-O (lI'O to

SC91

'" '" .9S1

UO< lHl

Bt8

<;(t(

'"' '" [f91

t 181

lHl

B<:8

cUI

'" '" 66[]

<;1;<;1

lHl

US

BIOI

en

'" ~" .W lHl

8<S

'St ~,

'" '" ." 1 .[]

8,S

[Ofl ([(] 19-6

H. o.t ,Sf

OLt OLt OLt 9Sl1 L111 St6 6ltl ltZI t,OI Ot(1 ot(l ot[1

"6 ;:r-6 n-6

<;900 .900 .900 .90-0 .90-0 811)"0 8tO-0 8tO-0

HL HL HL l"fL l"fL '6t '6t <;6t lL10-0 lLl0-0 HIO-O Hl0-0 lL10-0 lL100 E100 ][100 91:10-0 9<:10-0 (l[ (l[

9 ~ 91

'" " .[9

" "

9 # 91

'" " .<:9

" "'

9<:10-0 (l[

9 a 91

'" " ><:9 t,

"

9<:10-0 [l[

9 # 91

'" " ><:9

" "'

9<10-0

[l[

9 ~ 91

'" " ><:9

" ••

<:9100 8H 9 ~ 61

'" " .n

" "

<:9100 8H 9 ~ 61

'" " .n

" "' no-t nO-t nO-t [fOot [fOot <:fOot <:fOot

<:9100 S8"[

9 ~ 61

'" " <;n

" H (fO-t

~,

m

'" "" ". ~" ,r6

sl1ro <;-6V

][100

<:9100 SH 9 F 61

"T

" <;n

" " <:fOot

tio.n+18C1'0'0-1 -n ;:".:Jp.0"l

n

'" OLt 89t

"" ~"

" "" <;-6V

moo ,9100

SH 9 ~ 61

'" " <;n

" S·OI no-v

moon m ,

m DV fll

m " o,-~ '1'1

o,-~ "J~ fJ<:

o,-~ '1~

o,-~ .ll~

o,-~ 'I~

,m "Y ,.~ 'Yl'd dlll • d

Jod _"

"""1 uO">01/'O

""">OII>(J P'''1 "'_~

'~I'I P'''1 "'_~

,,,,,mol~ p,~,..,:)

~,i"""S f'l'm~

06-0 -. ~(jo...,S "'''''01'1

<>.IY I»1S '''''>011]

.. ..." I''''' >i~_, Y

''Ii'><J"1''''' '" P,,011<uy

'>.>011""'" ump.>,o'd L6 :)1I!l uo P"'S

m O>ln m ,

m ""

m " o,-~ '1'1

o,-~ "J~

o,-~ '1~

oq .fJ~

o,-~ '1~

,m "Y

'. '. m

m

" m

" ••

'Yt'd "

'<l9-0 , , • , , , •

"""1 uO">01/'O

""">OII>(J P'''1 "'_~

'~I'I P'''1 "'_~

,,,,,mol~ p.~,..,:)

~,i"""S p;"m~

06·0 -. ~(jo...,s ,0=01'1

<~Y I»1S '''''»lI] ,,""S l<l~Y >i~_, Y

I'""11"'''Y p>.JOl""l o""'lIl"'S ""'mlnl'l

o"~I»1S

,.~

.~

Ai"",,,,,,]

~11>1'''d

'''<q>''Ill>1'''d ,~i"H l>1'''d

'>.>011""'" ,.,

.. np .... 'd ;:0-111£ DY uo P''"S

fo-t 'l".l -"'0 """0]0'1':) JO ,(,..m"",S OOUlOdmO:) >'P":)

00019 'l".lU"1\\. -'>\1"'15 :>SOY]5

Appendix

Table 4.2– Comparative Example Task 4 – 03.2 and Task 4 – 03.3

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 35 of 47

SEAOSCSl<wl<r waU T.!ok GrQ"P

Co&. Co_risonSumm.aly ofCakut.,j"" D... _T.!ok ~ _Ol Lo.d C.,. 1 u- I.O~D'USL+LJW

B.,.d om AClllB_01 Pro«do..

M ~_Ol.l ~_Ol.2 ~~l.2 .J-Ol.2 .J-Oll ~_Oll ~~l.l ~~H ~_Oll ~~l.l

Lat...1FOfC~ w .' 10,8 " lS '" " " " " '" "Pon<l H"Sbt , ," " " " " " " " " "P....I Tbid:n... , m ~.7~ 5.7~ H~ H~ 5.7~ 6.n 6.n 6.n 6.1~ 6.1~

P....l L~ngtb , ," " " " " " " " " "E<co"lri<i'y • m '.00 '00 '.00 '.00 '00 '00 '00 '00 '00 '00_.

19/16 19/16 19 *6 19 *6 19 *6 16 *6 16 *6 16 *6 16 ;, 6 16 ;; 6_., , .. 1.8& 2.S& 2.&& 1.&& 2.&& l.U l.ll l.13 l.U l.USIMIRotlo , 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0116 0.0116 0.0126 0.0126 0.0116Maximum 5,...1ROllO 0.6..- 0.0ll! 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171

Foe",,-od .-u..l Load '. b, ~9~ ~9.5 ~9.~ ~9.~ ~9.~ HI 7l.l 73.1 73.1 73.1

AHI"g< Axi.1 Sir... PJA, I<>i "" 0-'J~8 0-'>4& O.O~& 0.W8 O.OM 0.06~ 0.0l\~ 0.06~ 0.065

Eff«tiH SIMI~. A.,

" 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 81& 8.28 8.2S &.28 8.1Sm

Mo""""t S...."gtb '< k_l" "'" "'" "'" "'" U~O Inl U51 lJ~1 lJ~1 B~I

+- 0.90 W+ k-,,, ~10 "~ I05~ INl 1419 "" 11% on 1814 11mRoqw,-od SIr""gtb '< k_m "" m "" 1117 1186 ,,.

U~ lJ99 16Jl 1865

Cnchd MCfI1<11' 'C k_m "" 470 "" 470 "",,. ,,. ,,. ,,. ,,.

s.r,'ico Load Memon' M, k_m '" '" l&2 450 ~n '" m '" '"' '"~ m " m 9.61 llJl B.Ol U~ 1O.l8 1112 14.1~ 16.1&

'" m "' 0.'" 0'" 0.'" 0'" 0.l6 0.l6 0.l6 0.l6 0.l6

s.r,'ico Load o.noetl"" ~ m 0.1 0.26 O.H 038 0.5& O.ll OB 017 Oll 0.l6

D.noetlOn Limit VIIO 111 " 1.92 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.91 1.91 1.92

B.,.d om UBC 97 PTo,rogn

La1<....1FOfC~ w .' " " '" " " " '" "Axial Lo.d Ol mid-bo,gj>' " b, ~~.O ~O ~O ~O M' M.' M' M.'

.-h-~~g< nal 'b... PIA, lai 0.W2 0.042 0.042 O.Wl 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.0~7

Eff«ti,.. SIMI ....... A.,

9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 818 818 8.28 &.1Sm

Mo"",,'" S,,-...,gtb M. k_m U~O "'" "'" U~O 1151 1l~1 lJ~1 B~I

+- 0.90 ~li+ k_m 1011 UM 1100 119~ In~ lJ20 I~I~ 1510

Req";,-od Sb""g,b '< k_ln"~ ~ 1051 llH W61 ll41 un BIO

C,,<kc-d Mom..." 1/l M" k_m '" '" '" '" m m m ms.r,'ico Load Memon' M, k_m no m M' ." m ,~ '" 'M

~ m 10.1& 10.1& 10.1& 1O.l8 &.&~ &.&1 8.8~ 8.81

YJ ll.~ 111 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.2~ 0.2~ 0.14 0.14

~'ic. Lo.d o.noeh"" ~ m 0.2& 1.37 '" J.5~ O.H '00 138 l.69

o.noeben Limit VI j(} In 1.92 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.91 1.92

Page 36: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SEAOSC

SI<n.s..- W.U r.!ok Group co&. Comparison SummM)' ofCakut.l;OO D ... _ r.!ok ~_1)] Lo. d C.,. ! u - 1 . 0~D 'L28L + UW

B.,.d OR AClllB_O! Pro«d". ....

M 4_0H 4_034 ~-1)H ~_034 ~_OH 4_0D ~ -1)U 4-OD ~-OD ~-1)D

, , , •

~, , ,

lU

29.5 6_15

" ;00 21 ~ 6

3_B

" N' 6_15

" '.00 21>1 6

3_B

" 29.5 6_25

" '.00 21 M 6

lJl

'" 29. ~

6_n

" '.00 21 M 6

lJl

" 19 . ~

6.n

" '00 21 M 6

l .ll

I U

29 . ~

7.n

" '00 ;W 163

'" 29_~

7.n

" 1.00 N>l6

163

" 29_~

7.n

" '00 N/i6

1.63

'" 29_ ~

72~

" '00 N~6

3.63

" 29_~

72~

" '00 24~6

3.63

La,. .. 1 FOf~

Pan.1 H<igbl

Pan.1 Tbiclrn . ..

P .... IL<ngtb

Ecc«ltrieity ~.

~.,

S"",IRatio

Maximum S1 ... 1 Raho

, , 061'>

0 .0165 0.016~ 0.016~ 0 .016~ 0 .016~ 0_0162 0_016 2 0_0162 0_0162 0_0162

0 .0171 0 .0171 0 .017 1 0 .017 1 0 .017 1 0_0171 0_0171 0_0171 0_0171 0_0171

Fac1<nd A ... I Load

A Y<flIg< A.ial S". ...

E~1iY" S"",I AI''''

MODlOtIf Slr<ngtb

• - 0_90

R<qUUN S1f""g1b

CfIchd Mow..."

~-i~ Lo.d M0ID<111

P, kip 37.1 37 .1

PJ A, bi 0 .0330 0_033

A... in' 9.9 9_89

M, 1:_m 1~67 1 ~67

~V. bo 61 8 1071

M. b o ~~6 964

~1a 1:_m ~~6 ~56

M, 1:_m 248 ~28

,j", .n 6_67 11.57

I\.., in 0_~5 0_~5

37 .1 0_033

9_89

1 ~67

ll26

1I9~

'" '" I~_J!

0_55

37 .1 0_033

9_89

1 ~67

1 ~81

1423

'" ~ 17.0<1 0_5~

37.1 O_Oll

9.89

'''' 1816

1653

'" ;0;

19.83

0. 5~

57.4 0_04~

I 1.5 ~

2120

829

'" "" m 5.71

0 .47

57.4 0_044

I 1.5 ~

2120

1112

'00 '

"" "" 7.66

0 .47

57.4 0.044

1I .n

2120

"M 1228

'" m 9 .~0

0 .47

H.4 0.().I4

1I .n

2120

1617

I~n

'" 0>;

11 14

0 .4 7

HA O().l~

11.55

2120

1869

16B2

'" m 12_ 88

OA7

~-i~ Lo.d o.n«hon

D.n""bon Limit

0_24 0.42 0_52 0_91 1.66 0 .21 0 .29 0 .15 OAI OA9

B. "d OR USC 9 7 P I'O<N1nr< La,. .. 1 FOf~ v; p. f

Axial Lo. d Of mid-I><Igitl p. kip

A Y<flIg< 1X101 . ".... P,IAo bi

E~1iY" S"",I AI'''' A" in~ Mo"",'" Slr<ogtb

• - 0_90

R<qwrN S1f""g1b

Cnchd Mow..."

~-i~ Lo.d M0ID<111

~-ic. Lo.d o.n « hon

D<fl""bon Limit

M. 1:_10

~I/' 1:_m M. 1:_10

213 M" b o M, 1:_m

~ . Zll!l.a .n , . lJl50 in

2_36 1_36 2.36 2.36 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 236 2.36

20 2S lO lS

33 .7 H.7 H.7 H.7

0_010 0_010 0_010 0_010

9_89 9_89 9_89 9.89

1 ~67

1187

'M' m

'"

1 ~67

ll28

1171

m on

1 ~67 ,,~

129B

m

'"

'''' 16 11

14B

m

'" I~JO I~JO I~JO 14 .1 0

0_37 0.37 0_37 0.37

lAO 1_24 5_07 6.91

1_36 2_16 2_16 2.16

! O !S 30 3S

5U 51.5 ~1.5 ~1.5

0_019 0.039 0.039 0 .039

I U~ 1I .n 1I .n 1155

2l!0

1~2 4

1250

'" '"

2120

"M un m

"" 12.18 l! .1 8

O.l! 0 .32

O.l! 0 .91

2.16 2.16

2120

1708 ,~

'" '" l!.18

0 .32

2.06

236

2120

"W 1625

'" '" 12_18

0 .32

321

2.36

Appendix

Table 4.3 – Comparative Example Task 4 – 03.4 and Task 4 – 03.5

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 36 of 47

SEAOSCSl<n<l<J WoU To!ok GroopCo&. CnmporuonSummary of Colculo"on Do.. _To!ok 4 -1l1 Lood C.,,: u- 1.0~Dj-1.l8L+UW

Bo,«I OR ACI ]18_0~ Pr<>",dn,,,,

M 4_01.4 4_034 4_034 ';"'034 ';"'034 4_0n 4-OU 4_0D 4-03.1 4-01.1Lot.ral Fo", w ~, Il.l " 25 '" " 3404 '" " '" "P....1Hoig!>' , ,

19.~ 19.~ 19.~ 19.~ 19.~ 19.~ 19.~ 19.1 19.1 19.1

P....1Thidn... , •• 6.1~ 6.1~ 6.1~ 6.n 6.n 72~ 7n 7.11 7.11 711

P....1L<ngIb , ," " " " " " " " " "Ecc""lri<ny , • '00 '.00 '00 '.00 '00 '00 1.00 '00 '.00 '00

~. 11 d 6 11 ,; 6 11 M6 11 M6 11 M6 14 iffi N,;1\ N~6 24~6 14#6~., , .. 1.B 1.B 1.11 lJJ III Hl Hl Hl 1.61 161S... IRono • 0.016~ 0.016~ 0.016~ 0.016~ 0.016~ 0.0162 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161

Maximum S,...l RobO 06,.. o.om 0.0\71 0.0\71 0.0\71 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.01l1 0.0171 0.0171

Foct<"",d .0."'01 Load '. kip 37.1 37.1 17.1 37.1 n.1 HA HA HA HA H.4

A''<IlIg<' Axiol Stt... 'JA, bi O.OHO O.Oll O.OB O.OB O.OB 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.Q.l4 0Q.l4

Hl'«ti,,,, S...I.o.,.. "- in' .. .~ 9.89 9.89 9.89 IU~ lUI IDI ILH lD~

10.10"""" Slr<tIgtb ;" l<-ln n67 1167 1167 1167 111\1 2120 2110 2120 2110 2110

• - 0.90 ~lJ. ,. ... 1071 1116 1181 1816 819 I III "M 1611 1869

R<qwr'" Stt<11gtb '" 1:_m '" OM 119~ 1421 165J '" '00' 1218 I~~l ,~,

Crachd Mom<11' M" 1:_In '" '" '" '" '" "" "" '" '" '"$<n'ic. Lood M""""" ;;, 1:_m 148 418 '" ~ '" m "" m m m~ • .~ IU7 I~.ll 1708 19.8J ~.71 766 9.~0 11.14 12.88

" • O.l~ O.l~ O.~~ O.~~ O.~~ 0.41 0.41 0.41 OAl OAl

$<n'ic. Lood Don«""" ~ • 0.2~ OA2 0.~2 0.91 ,~ 0.21 0.19 on OAI 0.49

D.n«b"" limi, V'~ • 236 2.16 136 1.16 1.16 2.16 1.16 2.16 2.J6 2.16

B",d OR UBC 97 PI'O<<d~,',

Lot.ral F<lfC< w .', " " '" " '" " '" ".o.xw Lood ot IWd_bo1g!>' '. kip Jl.7 H.l H.1 H.7 ~u ~U ~u ~U

A ''<Ill!\< ""01 .tt... 'JA, n, 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.019 0.OJ9 0.019 0.019

E~ti,,,, S... I A,.. "-•

.~ 9.89 9.89 9.89 lUI IDI IDl lD~..Mmn.nt Str<ngtb " 1:_m 1~67 1~67 1161 '''' 1110 1120 1110 1110

• - 0.90 ~l,'. 1:_m 1187 112S ,,~ 1611 1424 "M \708 ,,~

R<qwr'" Stt<11gtb '" 1:_m 'M' 1171 1198 14H 11~0 un "00 162~

CfKk«l MOO><11' 213 M" 1:_m m m m m '" '" '" '"s..n'i« Lood M""""" ;;, 1:_m '" 611 '" ." '" >0. m '"~ • 14.10 14.10 14.10 14.10 12.18 12.18 11.l8 12.18

lJl lIa • 0.37 0.37 0.37 O.H O.ll 032 0.32 0.12

S"Yic, Lood Dof1«b"" ~ .. ''" 1.14 ~.07 6.91 O.ll 0.91 2.06 J.11

D.n«b"" limi, V'W • 1.16 136 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 236 2J6

Page 37: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Table 4.4 – Comparative Example Task 4 – 03.6

1.05D +1.28 L + 1.3W

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 37 of 47

SEAOSCSl<n.s..- WaU r.>k Groupcoo. ComparisoDSummMY ofCokulat;on D... _r.>k 4"()1 Load Ca,. 1 u- 1.0~D'1

8a"d on AC111S_01 Pro«d...M 4_01.6 4_01.6 4"()16 4_01.6 4_0>6L.,.ral FOf~ w .' .., " " '" ..P....I H<iglll , " 29.~ '" 29.~ 29.~ 29.~

P....I Thicln<.. , m U~ U~ 7.2~ 7.n 7n

P....IL<ngIb ," " " " " "Ecc«ltricity • m '.00 '.00 '.00 '.00 '00

~. 24>1 6 24>1 6 2U6 N~6 24~6

~., , m 3.61 3.61 3.61 3.63 3.63S"",IRatio , 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162

Maximum St...1Rabe 06r- 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171

Fact<.-.d A..al Load '. b, 79.7 m 79.7 79.7 79.7

AY<rlIg< A.ial Str... 'JA, b, 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061

E~ti". S"",I A.... A..,

I L91 11.91 11.93 ll.93 11.93m

M.tn«It Str«lgtb ." I_m 2176 2176 2176 2176 2176

+ - 0.90 W+ I_I. ,.. ,,., 2019 2376 2732

R<q",..ed Str<l1!th ." I_I. '" ,,~ lB02 2120 241B

Crocked Mom...t 'C I_I. '" '" '" '" '"S<r;·i« load Mom<nt M, I_m 24B ,.. '" ... ,,,~ m HI ILl6 In6 IH~ 18.H

"" m 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47

S<r;·i« load D<l1ectron , m 0.16 0.31 0.37 "~ 0.61

D<l1ectron Limit V'~ m 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36

8.,.d on U8C 97 P,<><N1ur<L.,.ral FOf~ w .' " " '" ..Axial Load at mid-b<Ight '. b, 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6

AY<rlIg< ax>al .tr... "A, b, 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.0~4

Effecti". S"",I A .... A.,

11.91 11.93 ll.93 11.93m

M.tn<.t Str<.gth M. I_I. 2176 2176 2176 2176

+ - 0.90 ~Ii+ I_I. 1797 19~1 20S4 222B

R<q""ed Str<l1!th ." I_I. 1~61 1687 1812 1917

Crocked Mom...t 213 M" I_I. ,~ m m ,~

S<r;·ic. load Mom<nt M, I_I. '" m ,m 1l~4

~ m 12.28 !l.U 12.2B 12.2B

li1 !l.a m 0.32 0.32 0.32 032

S<r;·ic. load D<l1ectron , m 0.42 1.94 H7 ,~

D<l1ectron Limit V'~ m 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36

Page 38: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Appendix

Table 4.5 – Comparative Example Task 4 – 04.0 and Task 4 – 04.1 for Double Curtain Reinforcement

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 38 of 47

"AOOCS-. wan roo.ll: GowpCod< Comp>n>oolS-mary o(CIIcIlla_ Dala _r .... t-01 LeodC... l u- 1.0'D~UaL·UW

Bowd •• AClll~:hKHI.. O-W< nr.... "iIolor......,~ 4-04.00 ~-'Jb .l-O-I.la 4-().I.lb t4Ua ;l./)4lb

1.aoonI FCilco • ,.," " D D " "P_Hosp. , , 19.' 19.' 19.' 19.' N.} N.'

P_lW' • • 6_n 62} U} U> U> U>._--- • , .00 '.00 '.00 '.00 .00 .00

"'-'" • • '00 '.00 '.00 '.00 '00 '.00..... mi.} (1)100} (2)_ (2)- (2)1006(2)10oIl5...... • • .~ .~ ,~ ,~ >3. >3•,_ .... • G.DIH 0.0096 II.Ol~ 0.0101 O.Olil 00111

~~s-IRoao ,.... O_Olii 0.01i1 0.0111 G.Olii O.Ol1i 00171

r......IOd As>.oll.oo4 " .. 21-0 ,U 21.9 D' ll.Sl ".A,-."'-' 5...... 'J., ... 0.070 ,~ ,- O.O:lll ,- ,,~

EtfKtn.. SIHl AI... A" .' ,m ,~ .~ '3 .m ..,M_SIr""" " ,.. - ." n% ,~ 'N' 1110

.-0-'0 '" ,.. '" m, m, .~ m '"~S'''''&do " ,.. u, ~ ~, '" m' ."C.-..:1:e6M_ 'e ,.. ,,, ill ,% ~ ,% ~

Sm~ l.ood ),I.",... " o. lS} m m m ", ,m

" • 1.17 737 ,." DS US 6.01

" • D.SS D.S} O.H 0.11 D.H 0.11

s.n~ Loo.4 DdlettooD " • ,." U7 231 '" l.i6 '"........""', 11''' • ,~ 1..J.6 1.36 1.36 ,~ ,~

B....... l"8Cf7 r ..........1.M«lol r",.. • ~, " " D D " ""'-' l.oo4.~P' '. .. 19.2 lH 21.0 17.• 11.0 noA,'ft"!" UI.Il'''eoo ,,'" ... ,~ G.GH ,- D_OS] ,- DOS]

[tr.."n.. S_l "'•• A" .' HO Ua .~ ." u WM........,S......pIl " ,.. - ." n% 1.!91 ,m '4\0

.-0.90 M.'+ ,.. m m, '" w, u, ''''1t<quutd S"eqth " ,.. ". m u. ~ 729 U.C.-d<<<I MOIIlftlI UJ M" k·... % ,n '" ,% '" ...Sm.,.,.l.oo4 Mo_ M, ,.. ,~ 324 ... ~ll ", '"~ • '.M .00 1.11 720 832 1,42

V)~ ... 0.J7 031 (132 032 on 0,)2

Son",. Lo.od Deflocho" ~ • HI 2.U 231 2,21 211 2,63

DeflocbOlllilllil 10'1» ... 2.36 2.36 236 2,36 H6 2,)6

Page 39: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Sumowy ofFiOOiny _ Ta!ok 4 _ OJ

, , • Si",l< Curl. in R.info". ID.n , 03.0 !9.~ 6.n 03.1 03.2

Oll

OH 03 . ~

0]6

n o n o n o !9.~

!9.~

!9.~

~ . 7~

~ . 7~

6.n

6.n Tn 7.n

T " " Curuin R. info. " m , n' ~_N .Oa

H4.0I>

~_N.1a

H4.1b

~_(~ .1 a

HHb

!9.~

29.~

!9.~

!9.~

!9.~

!9.~

6.n

6.n

7.n 7.n

Tn 7.n

MJ+<M, MJ+ > M,

Si",l< C u rl. in R.in fo,«ID<n '

03.0

03.1

03.2 Oll OH 03 . ~

0]6

!9.~

n o n o n o !9.~

!9.~

!9.~

6.n

~ . 7~

~ . 7~

6.n 6.n 7.n Tn

r "" Cu.u in R, info. " m , n' ~_(~ .Oa

H4.Ob

~_(~.1.

H4. 1b

~_(~.1.

HHb

!9.~

!9.~

!9.~

!9.~

!9.~

!9.~

6.n

6.n

7.n 7.n Tn 7.n

MJ+<M, MJ+ > M,

• , Rob.,

A ... I ~ .. ' . kip

_ AeJ Pro«du,.. 15 .0 16 d 6 33 .7 I ~ .O 16d6 15.0 19#6

15 .0 16 d 6

15.0 21 #6 15.0 !4~ 6

I ~ .O !4d 6

N; ~,

~;

33 .7 115

70.6

_ AeJ P .... <.dur<

~. O (1) B ~ ~ 19.2

6.0 (1) IO#~ 156

~. O (1) 9~6 11.0

6.0 (1) 9 ~ 6 l7. 8

~. O (2)10 #6

6.0 (2)10 #6

11.0

l7.8

_ UBC P.o«du ....

15 .0 16 d 6

15.0 1 6~6

I ~ .O 19d6 15.0 16#6 15.0 2 1 ~6

15 .0 !4d 6

15.0 !4~ 6

33 .7

N; 4~ .0

~;

33 .7 115

70.6

_UBC P.o«du ....

~. O (1)U~

6.0 (1)10 # ~

~ . O (1) 9~6

6.0 (1) 9 ~ 6

~. O (2)10 #6

6.0 (2)10 #6

19.2

1~ .6

11.0

l7. 8

11.0

l7.8

;

• ,

Nomina! Mom",,'

' I, in_kip

w - 20 psf ,"' - 21 ",f w - 30",f ,"' -J~

" " JI. :U Jl. ~[ JI. ~I '"

1267 I U! U~O

Inl

1567 n!O

1 176

; ; ; ; ; ; ;

w - 17psf 660 2 4

850 2 4

1196

1298

1293

1~ 1 0

1267

I U!

U~O

Inl 1567 n!O

1 176

-"" 1196

1298

1293

1~ 1 0

"-,';:213 .....

• ;

• ;

• ;

; ;

113 Jl.a < .1, < l.u l~O .1, > l! 1~0

, ; ; ; , ;

; ; ;

, , • • • , • •

, • ; ; , ; , . ; , ;

, • • , . , ; , . • , .

w - 30",f w - Jlp.f

• •

! S , , ! ;; ,

• •

, •

, ; , , , ;

! S , , ;

, ,

Appendix

Table 5 – Summary of Comparative Examples

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 39 of 47

SumowyofFiOOmV _TaoJ< 4 _ OJ

,-, ,-, P"".l A",ol N_' ,,--35M

H«yu TIuokne.. c,.,. ~". Lood Mom"'"w -!O p"f w -!~ p'f \Oi - JO",f .., " '- '. lI. "

,"

,"

,"

,, • , b, in_kip

SiD&I. Curt.in R.infor<.m<n' _AU Pr"".dur<4_'lJ,0 !9.~ 6,n 15,0 16 ~ 6 JJ.7 1267 • ; , ; , , , ,4_'lJ.1 no 5,7~ 15,0 16 # 6 !9,J 1142 , ; ; ; ,4_'lJ.! no 5,7~ 15,0 19 ~ 6 ~o 1J40 , ; ; ; , ,OJ,J no 6,n 15,0 16 ~ 6 ~; 1J~1

, ; , ; , ; , ;

4_'13.4 !9.~ 6,n 15,0 !I # 6 JJ.7 1567 , ; ; , , , ,4_'lD !9.~ 7,n 15,0 !4 ;; 6 115 21!0 , ; ; ; ,4_'lJ,6 !9.~ 7,n 15,0 24#6 70,6 2176 , ; ; , ; , ,

T"" Curtain R.infor<.m.n' _AU Pr"".dul'< w - 17 p"f \Oi - 30",r w - Jj p.r4_(-1,0. 29.~ 6,n '" (1) U ~ 19,! ~

, ,H40b !9.~ 6.n " (1)lOiI~ 156 ." , ,4_(-I.1a !9.~ 7,n '" (1)9;;6 21.0 1196 ,H4.lb 29.~ Tn " (1)9;;6 l7.8 1298 ,4_(-1.1. !9.~ 7,n '" (2)10;;6 11.0 1293 ,H4.lb !9.~ 7,n " (!) 1011 6 17.8 1410 ,:""." MJ+"M, ; ~.':':&"

MJ+ >M, , ",., "J.o1150, ",,"VISO

Si"l:l. Curt.in R.infor«m<n' _ UBC Pco<.du••

4_'lJ,0 !9.~ 6,n 15,0 16 ~ 6 JJ.7 1267 , , , , , , ,4_'lJ.1 no 5,7~ 15,0 16 iI 6 29,J IH1 ; , , ,4_'lJ,! no 5,7~ 15,0 19 iI 6 4~.0 1340 , , , ,4_'lJ,3 no 6,n 15,0 16 ;; 6 ~; 13~1 ; , , , , ,4_'13.4 29.~ 6,n 15,0 ! I ;; 6 JJ.1 1567 , , , , ,4_'lJ,5 !9.~ 7,n 15,0 24~6 115 2120 ; , , ,4_'lJ,6 29.~ Tn 15,0 24 iI 6 70,6 1176 , , , , , ,

T"" Curtain R.infor<.",.n' _UBC P""'.du....~_(-I,O. 29.~ 6,n '" (1)8#~ 19,! ~

,4H.Ob !9.~ 6.n " (1)10 II~ 156 ""

,4_(-1.1. !9.~ 7,n '" (1)9~6 21.0 1196 ,H4.lb !9.~ 7,n " (1)9;;6 17.8 1298 ,4_(-1.1. 29.~ Tn '" (2)10#6 21.0 1293 ,H4.lb !9.~ 7,n " (!) 1011 6 17.8 1410 •:,<"." MJ+<M. ; .....s: 2/3 ""

MJ+ >M, ,113 "'a """ "J.il50,~>VI50

Page 40: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

} ~ .,ii?

I "'

," ~ I

. III.

-1 j

.!i.!i.!i.!i Il.Il.

Il.Il. U

Il.Il. U

il. Il.Il.Il.U:;.:.~

1l.1l.1l.1l..l:'~ ~ l

!;~;;;;;tO ~H:i

~~ r:~~$

§~Ei ~

h~~§1iI~::;§§ ~~§!!§~

, I ~~

0 .I~

., ~~

~~

~

s~~i~~~ ¢~ ~~~~~

" ji----

, ,

i

· ! 11 Ij 11H

lIl, mmlm mw J

JI ,I J1

! !l

!'I'j "j

l' 'llll'~'« ljll'j'

• "

!' I

• '. j'

!1 <-.-.,

I -

-., ; ,'~

ll! i

! j. -j.

OJ' "j!

"j

" ~!~

.. ~ H

J i 8

i ! h. ',!'

! ,1

"I} )

'j} "J~

. !!"l.

"l ~

~i

el~

el "

-jf

~ ....

""

j::;: ::;:

~ ·

",

II

. •

~ £

~ ~~

~ ~

~~

~ ~

Appendix

Table 6.1 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Properties

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 40 of 47

HH

P......

"IlM...

...,"'IIli!-

~1~1ji5

5....1

Page 41: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

>L\O!.C . sw-. W .. T.,~ en. T ....... C _ _ ' ....

p ... No. n.d ..... (10) . ..... -, ~-" .~

" .~

" .~

" 1.)!

" '" " '" " '-1'

" '-1' " J.7!

• V , , ", • v s

•• •• •• 'w ,,, 1.)1

'" ," ~

' .12 •• ••

••

Pb<_,,, ......... Di"-" (<1) """-"'" of...!!

~., ..... . , Rft . 1 ~"

•• I .N •• ..,. ' .1. '.,. .m 'W

•• • • .. 'w UI ,. UJ '-J' HI J.JI , .. ,. •• .ro •• •• 0" , . .. , .. ,. ,ro ,. , .. HI '. J ." J .!<

HI H I ,. l .1' ! . .16 !.l l ,. '" 2.!' !..Il 'W '-'1 ·.no ........ d . [1· .... _00110';'}. 100

v..- ... . . ,~-

1>-.&0. " ... T_ ........ - "0 ~. ~.\ _s. ~ , .. .- ~ • .- ~ ~ .. '" -

" •• '.- • m • u

• •• '.- • m " " " •• .- • m " u

" W '.- • m " ,. " W '.- • m " , .. " W '.- • - " ••• "

,,, '.- • - " " " ,,, '.- • - " " " ,,, '.- • m " " , VI '.- " m " 11.6

• 4.1, '.- " I;" " "-. " VI '.- " .. " H I

\ . ...-... .,~ . '" -

•• , '" . m 0 OW .. , , '" 1.1" " OW n 'l " OJI ' .Il ·ll ." .. .J! •• W ·ll •• ,." ." ." l .11 • '" HI ." ••• l.ll • ",

- -~ --.. ill .. , , .. iII 111 ILl .LIl1l1 11.1 -"1111 ILl -Ll:!91 1 H.I ~ I '"

ll.l iIIal I Ll m ill I H ~~J.l l

HO ),1'11

'".1 >11"" II.l iIIal

Appendix

Table 6.2 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel – Test Results

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 41 of 47

S,L\OK._".r.....e.­r,.,... c__

- .''-Is.. _OIl. .... 0.-.(4)___....11 \._..~ ~ ~.,

~" ~ .. ~ .. .- , '. -" ... •• ~ u, '. U~ '. ,

'"• ... •• .. ~ '. '. '. • ••" ... •• •• ~ '. •• .ti , ."" ,~ '. ~ ~ '" ~ ,.. " ••" ,~ '.. w '"

,. ,. ,~ " .~

" '" ,~ •• ,. ,.. '.. 'ti ~ ••, '" u, .. ~ ,. ,.. ,. ~, ••» '" ,~ ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ~ ••n '",. ,. .. ,~ '" '" ," ..

» '" '0 UI 1.'S ~ 1.;0 ~ • ."» '" " ,. ~ .. '-16 ",,, n

• ," ,. W ~ ~ ~ '" • ••.._ ••• [1· .... _.1101011\~.........~~

-..,..·..T_ .......- ". ~.!lo!! .. ~

~ ~

'-1:-' - C. 0. ~ , ~ -,- ~ - .. .. - -• ... ,- • ,. r -, U UHl

• ... ,.- • ,. .. B '. lUll

" ... ,- • .. .. -, >U .~. II

" '" ,- • .. " ,., IU '~II

" ,~ ,- • .. "-, 'U '~Il

" .~ ,- • - " " 'u .,u,,'" ,- • - " U '" lHII

» '" ,- • - .," IU lUll

n '" ,... • .. ., " ,U !~1I1

• '" '.- " .. " lU lJ.O "nl• .., ,.- " ". .. ,a ,¥., ~'~II

• ," ,... " .. .. H.I '" llUI

Page 42: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

Ii •• ..

j •

I :.

'i.·

.•.•

Ii 0

, ~ ~ ~ ~ :::

!!! ~ ......

, , •

• • • • • ,0

• •

.J';;:" "

i ..

>

""

rli •

. ' , ';l ~

, !

I il ilil ill

~ H:I , • .. ,! :::;

i ~ .. e

::l;;~~I1":!~~

I; 11;;::

I: ~

II! !,I,_,,_

ro .... -

-~

".

-!!

II j...... . . . . . '""I -'''.',,':-

~.J::(')<l

1'" '"

. ~

... .1 !

""

Ii •• ..

! •

I :.

' il ..

II 0

, I'"

, -..

, , •

,0 •

• J'

.! ..

. Iii

>

• . ' ,

';l ~ ,

! : H"o

., i 1

lil]]]'

0

" II! ~~!]!!~:U! ~ 3~ ~!

,. -

r 11 j...... . . . . .

'""I -'J

.'"..r" J.J

::(..I<

l

l! 1'"

'"' ~

~ '"

.1 ! ""

J f • , ~

'~;;la;:3:!:!~~;:Hf!;

,~-~~-.. ...,...,..,.-..... -

-----

~:::II::::;j

::P.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

,~--

"-~

--~

---

:t~~

IS~~355!!53

~

' •••••••• 1

•••••

,~~-------------

, ~~

:ssssssssssssss

• .; :lI •

••

~;p~:::

:!;,.,:.;!:;lI~

JI"', ••••••••

~ .. ,-.. ::

" 1 ,,· _ __ OJ .. _____ _

":~~iI!I~::;';

,g't;:;j;!iliit

~

J '~;;~:!!~~~~i;S~i

• f -........ "

,--...,-_ ..

-------:::IIIII:~:.;::i

• '._-------------• •

:============~~=

~ '.----"---~ .. ---..

:~~~S3~!~~~~~~!~

~

' ............... ,~

' ............... , ~~

:sssssssssssssss

• .lI :i

:;:Ol:IlI:I>'~~::;=::;~":;:

]"' .......... _ ..... -..

" ]1

-~.---.~.~

-.~

:~~iI!I::;:;ri:;iIOr;~~i':r."

• ,

Appendix

Table 6.3 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 19 and 22)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 42 of 47

.....:.1.......

=:!'"'

""t""t'"

..,""t

.,..

..,""t

..,""t..,

""t~

:!l:t~.§=!':!3SE!!:i::

i.=-"""""11;11;•••••.•

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

•~.:33

SSS:!:!:!:!:!S:!:!:!

- ;Ii~•••

•..::t-"2""~~

!.......

;l;l.=::l~:;;:;::;..=-]l.;;;;~i;~;~a;ii1i

f .J.~~~;tE:l!3~i~!:H~

f:=l:==:=:::l::i~~a~i~

~............................

::.

••

"j

••

•.,

0"•

.;•

••

•t~

j;;aa~;~;~i;;~~~=

1;;j

l'i...

~~

.~~.............•••

•~~~··~~~~~~~4~44

i·~-:::l:::l-----------;.~

~~~~

•••~~~!;~~~

!~~~

.

-3l2~;2;i~a~~;~;~;

f ~-~~

..""t""t""""~--•

•t

.,;••••••~~~

•••~~

~.......................

::~~::===========

••

"J•

••

".".••

H••..".

:.1.......

•••~

1~...........

o'!i]'riI......r;.·w

w"..

"';~.J.<f

~"

].._-

,".

.!i..'

~-

Page 43: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SE..WSC __ " .• Y""""'-........ " "-' ..... Y""",_, .... _w.., , .. sec"", Sl.AOSC Y"",C_ ..

._So- It

_y", .. .,uu ....... . ...... _ .... _ '-Bon n o "' _ __" "l. ... p _ uw

~ - ' II • p _ _ __ _

~ _ .u .,. ". - ....,. E. - ,.,.. .,. I.. - .... .,. u . _ ~ -

'1" ", ­

~ ­c ­, -

~ ... ,,_. . , .,

" . .... "'. ", -", -'ll .. '

' .11 •

• ,. ,. ,. •. ..,

" uo uo uo u,

'U • .• 1.11 .... • .• 1.11 ,,_. . ... 1.11

>0., '_U 1.11 ,,_. ._" U I

" .1 ._" 1.11 ,,_, '_11 U I

" .. ._" 1.11 n. .~, 1.11 ,U .~, U I

'U L" 1.11 ,,_. , ... 1.11

n .. ,_" 1.11

71.. . ... 1.11

K' .. " 1.11

-- u

~ _ m, .. ' d .,, _ ,to .... ._ .J, •

,_ u, • ' f ..... _ U. •

'. •• •• •• ••

., ", ", • •

,,. 107.' ,,. " ... ,,. U! .•

,,. 1"-' ,,. ,,'-' ,,. 107~

,,. "' .. ,,. m .• ,,. lOU

,,. "U ,,. ,,, .• ,,. ,.u ,,. 1<1.1

,,. '* .• ,,. ,.. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. u

... to .•

... ,1.1 ... .... ... ".,

.. • • , . '" , .. '" m , . m ... ... ., ., '" m ., ." '"

SE..WSC __ " .• Y""""'-........ " "-'of ... Y"""'_' .... _ w..,

, .. scc.<.C. Sl.AOSCY"",C_

._So- lJ

_ y", .. ~"..u

....... u .. .... _ .... _'_Bon n o "' - __ " "l. ... p - __ _ ~ - ' II • p _ _ __ _

~ _ .u .,. f". _ . ...,.

E. - ,.,.. .,. I.. - .... .,.

UfO _

~ -

'I, '''' _ ~ ­c ­, -

m • OJ, "' • ,,, ­'Il _ ... ' , ....

, -

,-d .', _ .. .. 'f ..... _

.u;. Load " .. "'- y",- <AW .. WI . ... ' ,u ....A P,P,

1 __ • . ... 1.11 ..... 'U

,,_. • . .., 1.11

,U '_ll U I

" .. ..,. 1.11 ,U .~, 1.11

..., "--11 1.11

,,~ ..... 1.11

"'_' l_U U I >0.. ,.. 1.11 • . 1 ,.. U I

.... '-OJ 1.11

,,_. .... 1.11 ,,_, '-OJ U I

,,_. ' U ' 1.11

.... , ",

..... 71 .. ..... . .•

..... 107~

..... I"~

..... 101.1

..... m .,

..... IOU

..... I ....

..... m .,

..... 111_'

..... 1. 1.l

..... 111.7

u

"., .. ' ,to .... ,. . u, • •. n •

.~ (p,. p,)j ' '-

u u u

.. .. •. , ... U ... U ... '-' ... u ... ll.' ... , oJ ... 1'-' ... JJ.' ... ,U ... n .' ...... ,

.. • • .. '" ~ '" .. , . m

'" m .. '"

Appendix

Table 6.4 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 20 and 23)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 43 of 47

SI..\OSC__ w·.. y ...",- Sf..W:'£ __ WOO y ...",-

........., "-'..... y...,_....._w... """-,, "-'..... y ...,_,.... _w..,,.. SCCAC._ Sf..W:'£·YdC_'" ,.. SC<:.lC._ Sl.AOSC Y"'C_..._So • .....SO "DoooY.,,,,,,,,~'Il DoooY",.. JIlO.U- ...,..._.... - '..1....0_...,

...... Ban "'.... k_ ..,. ...... .- .- ...... Bon "'.... .- ..,. ...... .- .-C- ,. • ._- ... C- ,. • ._- ...C- .. - C- m -f". _ U - 0- " f". a .. - 0- ",- - - ,- ,~ -,- ~ - ,- ~ -U. a •• , U. _

,~ ,~- .~ ,. C- W, " ~- .. ,. C- ,~ "

'i,'loa '" - d",a '" • '" ' ... a,. - '~f',a '" •

~- m - O- W • ~- ,. - 0- O. •c- ,. " ,- •• • c- " " ,- O. •,- .., • " ..... a •." • ,- ,. • 'i ..... a ..n •Mj. ..... , ...... ,·oo<.I.<W.. W,....'.U "- (P,·P.l/ ,~.. • " " ......... , ...... \"00<.1.<"...........'.1.0 "- (P,·P.l/ ~

,t.• •• u. ,. m .. 0.' • • • " ",'-" •• U. ,. ". .. " • ,t.• •• ,~ ,. •• oo " ".. •• U. O. ", " oo " ".. t.r. on ,. m oo oo •.. •• U. O. ., .0 oo ,. .0 t.ll U. ,. 'U oo oo "JI.' •• U. ,. ,.,.. oo .. ". ".. ~ ,~ ,. •• oo " ••• •• UO O. "... .. .. ,. OU '" UO ,. ,.. " .. m,,-" •• UO .. UU " " '" ., •• U. ,. ,.. oo u ,.., •." U. O. IOU' oo oo m ".. W U. ,. UlJ oo " m0.. t." UO •• ... oo " ,. .0 ," U. ,. m .• oo " , ..,n 0.11 U. ,. ,m oo " m .0 '" on ,. '0l.1 oo .. ,."., t." U. O. "'.. .0 " ," .. ,. UO ,. "0 oo ".• m", t." UO o. m, oo " ,. .0 Ok UO ,. m., oo ., ,"OU t." UO O. m.t oo .. .. ".. ~ UO ,. 111.0 oo •• m'u t." UO •• ,w oo .. m .. •• UO ,. Ill.' oo n., m".• Ll' UO O. "... oo " m 0.. lU' UO ,. Ill.' .. ., m".. ,. UO •• bin .. lO.' mno '.lO UO O. m, .. ".• .,• 0 O. uo o. m.' .. •• '".. '" u • .. ~, .. •• ".

Page 44: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SUOSC · _\\· .. T .... ....... ...... ..,,, ~" ... T .... <_' .. .. _W ... ,o. SCc.u:, · SUOSCT.".C-..

" """ Tw;," ~"",11 ...-, ' ... -1'_ ... . ~"" ._ 'S .. , ... . "" 't." . , ..... n ,_.,._

~ . ,'" .. ~ . f1.l ""

f '.· ... "" • • 11

,,- . ' .... ... ... . .... ... .... f · U' _ ... ~-. III _

, .... ,. I~ f" . ,.

........ ' 1lI '" I.j , ..

1,. . , II .. ' ... f ." ..

,. U . fo

'I...... ' .lI ..

......... , ... ... V .... "W .. ..... ... ' ....

.. , ~p. p,

If.> u, ,n u, IU 'u U, 1.11 UI I., It.! ..... ,n UI n, 'U •.• ,n ... , • .• U I .... • . ..,. U I

" .. • .• U I ... ' •.• ,n I '"' '.1' 1.11 n .1 f.ll ,n fU . ... u l

07.1 .... U I 71.' •. " U I ,.., , ... U I

".1 U' UI

' '"' UI U I • . 1 ' .11 1.11 , OJ ... t ,n ".1 ",1 .n ,.., II.... , .11

1.0, ... , 0.0, ,..,~

1.0, " ... U, u u u, ,,, .. U, I'''' UI In ... I.tI m~

0.0, ;W~

1.0, " U U, ,...~

U, ,.u U, H' ... UI lId UI lSU 0.0, >It.! 1.0, ,.1.0

•• " " " " .. .. •• •• " .. "

" u

" " " " .. .. " .. " ..

• " " ,. ". '" '" '" ,. m ". w

• .• , ., H' •.• ,u m • .• IU ' " •.• H.I m U III '" U • . , J II

OJ ".1 "" OJ OJ.' ....

SUOSC · _ .. · .. T .... ....... ...,....,,, ~"' ... T .... <_' .... _w ... ,o. SCC.CI · SUOSCT.",C-..

" """ Tw;," ''''11 ...-, ' .JOI .. I'_ ... . ~ ... f. aon 'S .. , ... .

~ • ,'" 10 " " ' t . lo. ," ,,­,_.,._

~. f1.l "" f '.· ... "" ,,- . ' .... ... ... . .... ...

.... f · .... _

U ' ~_ . 1.11 _

, .... 1,. . ,IJ 10' ... I." ..

• • 11

,. ' 1M .. '

1lI ... 1.1, ..

,. I ." ..

'I...... ' .11 ..

.u;. ..... , ... ... \· .... "w ....... ... ' .... .~ (J' ,'P,)< ' '-

.. f ~ •• P, •.• ...,1 UJ J.. U ., " . ••• •••

•. , •. , .. " .' ..... UJ ..... I .... ,.... .... l..... ..... .., ,u .... • ..... ,u •.• • ..... ... , .... UJ

.... '.11 UJ

" .' U' UJ " .1 '.11 UJ II.' .... • ..... 1.1.0 , ... l .....

I ... II,. . .....

.... .., ,u .~

.... It'''' lJ.. ...

.... 1 m.' lJ.. U

J.. U U lJ.. U

.... 1 '''., lJ.' ).0 J." IMJ lJ.1 11.,1 ..... 111.4 lU • .1 . ... , .. ~ III 110.1

.... '''., lJ.. .. .•

" " • ,. ". , . '" , . ., ., '" m

Appendix

Table 6.5 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 21 and 24)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 44 of 47

su.OSC·_W.. TOIk ....... SUOSC·-. II'" T.... c;r...,_ ........" ... TOIk'_'...._,..... Il.ol...-0: ........TOIk'_...._W..,

,.. SCCACI· Sf.AOSCT...,,-.. ,.. SCUcl· Sf.AOSCT...~..._So."

._So"_T..... ~.,."ll _T..... ~~.ll_:

U ...,,_...._:

UI"I,_.."b.r.1l>r> ,~.., .- -''' ",10, .- .~ ~"",8m , "'--I .- -''' ... 10. .- .~,- ,. 0 '-- .~ ,- ,. 0 '-- .~,- 1'.1 .. ,- .. ..

f'•• .. .. .- " ,. - .. .. .- ",,. ,~ .. ,. ,~ ..,. - .. ,. - ...... •• • .... W •~- .. •• ,- .. 0' ~- '" ., ,- '. 0'

'I, ~l. • ".... I~"'. m " 'I,~~.• .. ... I~I". ." ..,,- ,.... ,- 1.11 0 ,,- ,. ... ,- 1.1' 0

C- ,. 0' ,- .. • C- ,. 0' ,- •• 0,- 1.1• • 'I....... UI 0 ,- .. 0 'I..... U, 0

........... , ...... ~·.... "W..........'.U "- (P,+P,j< ,~ .\4 ...... , ...... " .... ""'..........',,.• "- (P,+P,j< ,~.. • 0, " .' • 0, 0,

'" ." ,.• 00' ., 00 " • 00 ." W •• '" ". " "n.1 u, 1.11 UI ", U U • ",,' .f.0l .~ •• ., •• •., "•• •• ,n UI ., 00 u " ", •• ,~ •• ., •• 00 ••• •• ,n ul ., 00 00 ,. .... •• ,. •• ., ". 00 ,."., •• w u, ,.. 00 u ". •• •• •• •• IOL. ". 00 ,.•• •..., u• ." "... u " .. •., •." w •• m.' ". U ,.".. •• ,.• 1,0l ,,,. 00 u '" ., ',lI W •• m, ". U '"., •• U• 00' '''.' •• •• m ., ." w •• 116.' ", ,. ,.." ." '" ." "U 00 .' ,. •• '.11 '" •• '"' ". ,,' .,11.1 •.1, 1.11 UI ,., 00 " .. II.' •• ,~ •• ... ••• ., .,•U '.11 u. •• 'IH 00 00 ". .. ,. '" •• ,,,, •• ". m., ••• w UI w, U U w In ". '" •• 17'.1 ". ., m

"' •." '" •• m.J 00 " .,1... ,. ,.• u, "', U ,1.1 m

•• w '" •• ~ 00 ,u .,",I .. '" 00' ... 00 •• ."•• '.11 ,n U, ,., 00 11,' ..", ,. ,n UI m, 00 •• m., •• ,n UI ,,,, 00 .., .,.' ". w •• lfU 00 ". '"

Page 45: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

, iI 'j !Ii ~ ~ ,

.' ! ", Ih II ! II 'j

I .

i-! 1 ~ ,

i ~ ~ II! !i

il • ,

:. •

'il , ,

• •

, :!~ ; ; , ,

• •

• .... ;:

.J >

" JIHHI

'~H~II ~;;:~,"

',~Ilr;;

II< 1

I:r;;::I:=

s:~:.;~ :of

"'-

.., =

I

I ······ . . . . . i. ... j"

-'-';..,.(.r;:: ~;,'i,)<d

!Ll

'.<

II .. "-I -.t .•

.•.•

• .

::l ""

'" it

i:Ol:;;:I~

...... ~

• • .J''::

i >

."

• •

, i . "

'" '·'·'":::.1

tIl

.:: .1 ......

, :!l-::I

~"'I"!

1/1:::: I!

'" :l",;

10 1'<

"' ~::

!;..;

If

I i ······ . . . . .

, I"

""''''.'.t.t'' 'J

",..I'"

. I

" ,'.'

II . .<

J =~~:I~~~;;:li!~5S~~

• ~ ··--~~···~-~l·'·

;: ....... -_

.. :"l::lIP: *,,:;:

• · :::::::::::::::: • ~ :;~;;;~a~e~~~i~i

; ~

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

,~----------------

• ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> , ';~iIo'=::l;~I~"t;="

i~""""""""N",~"~":"l~

]1~~~;;~3;;~aa;;~~

t J :;:ll§~5!!=HH

., "'''

'''''''''''~

''''::l

;: ·---~"

:lII:I'"

• • :: ~~~~~~~~~~~

., ."~.""""

-.'"

;. lI:::o1i!l5

S!!5!!!l

;.!!!!!!!!!!!

• ~ ... BBBB~B

>

""'''''!

' ~.,:;;l.:l'l;o::;;_::i

• 11 ....

.... ··" .... .,­

-III

;:O:"iII"I;j:l~nnl

f

Appendix

Table 6.6 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 25 and 28)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 45 of 47

J:~~~~~~.I=!=5S~~

~::-."".•

~~~~~~~~~­

?••

-~.:~~~~~~

~

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~.

~~=:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...._

..=~:t",

.....r:r:.=I:;:::

..~.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

••

•4~

••

•,.,.

0"..

· ~•

iI'i.'

.I..

••

..•I•

•t~ u••

~<I:=~~S!3~~~~

•~'i=;3~;;~;;~~

~ J::o

t§:!5

3a

!!!!!

~~"'!

"'I'":

-.'"'

'"I"'!

"'\""l

"'l.,

1·~-i!3=!S!!

~..~!!!!!!!!!!!

•~..~~~~~333333

-

••

"}•

••

J."

...;•

••

•••• a••..•I..

i1..1

....

Page 46: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

SI..WSC . _ W. T ... c.-. --., """"' .... T ... '_ .. _W ..

, .. SCCACl _Sl..WSCT .... ~

" .... T_ .. ~~~l

......... , .---.",-_ lion .So.. "'_ .. "...... ~ _ .......

~ _ lSI "' __ - ___

~ _ .U • • f '. _ , ­, -~. -~ -'1,,,- _ 'C ­c ­c -

.. .. .. ~ , UlI ......

.., -1I7 _

, ,­'-77 "'

--,-

d ,', _

-­'"

u

'" .' '" ... .J, • O. , U ••

Ali-LMd'W'" v"'-"'W. "., . ... '.u P~ (p, 'P,)O "-

'" A P, " In 1.11 UI

IU .. " UI 10.1 IJI U' "-. Ul U' 1'-' UI UI .... J.U UI

.... '-'I UI

A. "' UI .... .... UI

• 1.< '0...1 UI

.." . 1.1 >0..

.." .. ~ >0..

.." A l >0..

.." .... >0..

.." Ill.' >0..

.." lU.1 >0. •

.." In~ >0. •

.." ".... >0..

.." lJI.I >0. •

.." 1J1.' >0. •

.. u u u , .. ,u ., ., ... '"

" , " '" '" ", , . ~

," ,n

S£AOSC __ W. T .... "'-

~. _ ..... T .... _ .. _W ..

'_OCCA.a · S£AOSC T"'~

, .. " ... ,--.""

' So~ ... _ .." ...... --.. -,. , 07~ .,.

f '. _ ...

I, - 11,_ .. .. .. , - ~

[ ff' _

~ -'1, ,,- _

'C ­c ­c -

'" , .... ".R .. -u._ " " n, •

--,-

,.J", _ -­'"

'1 .... -

u

n, n. ~

. n U>

---.....

.' " , , ,

Adi·.-""' .. ·,· ... · L<W.WL ...... U P,' (p,""" "-

'" ~ P, P, .~ UI U I

11.-1 .. " U I 1... .... U I 11.-1 L'" U I IV U" U I IU J.1I 1.11

ILl ~.. U I

11.1 "._ U I 11.7 '-.. U I

u., U, U I

IU ' .U U I

'"~ ... , U I

llU 1I.JJ U I IOJ u... U I

IOJ 1"-" 1.11 IOJ 1I.1J U I n, lU. U I

M.' 10.. U I D J 10.1> U I .lJ IV' 1.11

on on on on on on on on on on on on on .... . ... .... OL1 .... ,,-' .... IBJ

.... lIil

.... "U

.... UOJ

u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

u .. , .. u 0.' ... .. '" n. .1.1

". .1.. ~

•• . , .. n.' ~

". m

, n

" " " N

o • ON m m w m o. o • o • m

* ". ~

w

Appendix

Table 6.7 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 26 and 29)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 46 of 47

••

11

I.j

.. " Ii

.~,

iil!

I'r;

:Of.

t..

J"J"o

"'.,..,.

..fl""!

,."'

..'.'

..~.>l

~!!;

~d!l

;eh

dH

iii!

!;;:

.'I:ff

~,n:

~u.'

~ ,!

•1=ai:~till:::;;:::

..'

~.r;;;...~\o

......"l

~t;H;~;a"'~ <

....

....

...

I"......

I"..,,~

tt:U

::t;

U::

eee

.: ,~~~~~~~~~~:o~

~HSE~!Jl1lil:

}....

........

.......

..~~~~~n~~~

;:: •>

ii!:

lI1

1t:

l••

<!'....

...."'..

........

..:;

iiif

i5ti

ilH

F

•~

<1'

••:<

....•

••

••

..I'

......

il:l:~;;;

• , ,, , •

II iii !"

~r" !'• d ~I '. II I I' .i iii ~i:

o~~ !if '. II I

, , , II• ,. "

• , ,e::~:=t

~_

11:..

~

•'.'

.'1,

.;.~

<}

.:<....

••

••

•~ ~ f

~~::::::::::::::::::

i.~.

Ii!!

..1

ilt:

!:;;

:;;;

;:;:

;:;:

::::

;:::

::;;

;;;;

~",

{";:

,rr~

rJ".

"'-r

....l!'~!"'''

t;..""

_"l

•'"

1,.

"••

5If

~..

'"~;;;;;;:=e:,.-:.,./':I"",..,.,.,.

....

-,.

..I'

I..'

!i~~.!ii

..~.lIt~IIl:

..::

..l\.lI:l.";~lfd;;=

~ti

llllllill:

;j......

iI_

1i

",·:H~IUUIt ,;

"EC

"""I

I:,,:0

'ltl

:;;;:

,.

10..

'-_

_io

....

:..1

0......

""'

...

l:!i

;ii:

:iii,

Ii:E

SE

it1!

l!':i!

:1::

'JI

e~E!i;t:;e

~~e~~~~~~n

~

<

1"'

''I'"

I'"'"

!In

dd

Hn

;ill

illill

iii~

::n

dH

I::l

iii~nl

ill"' • ••

,...,.

....,.....

..,....

...,.,

...,...

....-

~

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

;; !; ,

Page 47: UBC 97 and ACI 318-02 Code Comparison - Summary Report

• ."

, iii!

/l/

:~~t:t:

~:;:

II:i=

...

" j>

r;:'

Ft

.. f'

l"''''

.,..r!l~

~ ..

.. _

...

..

....

_ .•

~"'l

•••

••••••••

it

• "~,

.,."

ieee

""t>

[ ,.

-""

'!.II

!l

~,.I

11

;;;l

'll

,._

..

11:

If

I:;!!O

I!~I=

1:

.. iI.l

i!!:l

..,

...

. ~~~~~~~~~~~-..

~ "'

"·ff~,

I'~H~

I' ~

liii i

iiili

iiliiiiiiii(

! i)

eg ~~~ t

:'*"'~~

.. -"

,-.....

... ",.

c:c:

c:c:c:

c:c:c:c:c:~

'1:1 ~~"

; _

__

."

....

. '-

_ .

. 1

0""

10

"

i5 O

iSE

!':i

liU

e •

=:~;lE E~ ;:: ::

:~:ei!:'!.i

.~~ ...

.... ~~

~ .. "

..... ~

I!~~

¥iO

;: ~I:. ~il

l! 1:~liI;

,

--

.'" !.

;;;;;;;;;;;\1

:;;;

~ ,

-_

._ I

-

iii;;;;;;;;;;;;

~ ,

e!!~~e!;~eee~~~

~ .' iO!

;;:

;;:

iO!;;:

;;:

iO!

;;: i

O! iO!

;;:

iO!

;;: i

O! iO!

• ~

/:'l:

;!: "I ~

I:

1111

::< i

_

_ •

• ~

-..

.. ~

........ '

....

....

>-

..

aSSl;

ii;h

lil~

i:n::'

li f

~ • , • ~ f

" .

i-,. !

-.-

• •

· . . "

. ,

, , ~

~ i;

: !

, •

• •• ~

I: • , . " Ii

.-'.

Ii II

;>

r J!

r r

~.I"

l"'''''''''''!U~

• •

• •

• •

• •

• ••

l .

.'

;; -

.. "'I

I'" ~-~ ..

;: 1;

:1:1

1:11

11'1

: 1

i; ..

...

. ~1

II:f'.

li 1

[[[[1

l

I •

! " F.

. •

• . .

, •

, ,

, "

, ~; ;;

I ,

• • •

. , •

. ; , . , , II

II iii

h~

.'

!' ,

d ·1 " II I r . i iii

h~

, .. i I' j ,I Ii I

Appendix

Table 6.8 – Summary of 1980 Test Panel Data (Panel Nos. 26 and 30)

SEAOSC Slender Wall Task Group Summary Report (January 2006) Page 47 of 47

~

~:c~Eei:~~~~!i ,

r""'~!""l"'ee!O'.oep.

Ii:zl

:..

:.:l

:ll

.._t

::=_

j(

~~~~

~~~~

~~~_

.~ •....

~,;,

iiiII

slill

!l:Il

JII

l!lI

Ia~

E~§~

§g!e

!~:

~j;

~..

" ~•

·_r

•,

,•

.'••

• $~t•;

Ec

,, "I'

l"

• I•, • •• U

-= F

:",..

,..""

,..,..

,..,..

,..;

......

.......

.....

:.

9"'

:Il·

~ta"

".:a

:--

f:!!:

t,.;

;:..

.~;;:..

.::

:e;t

::::

l> ,~i5E5~~i~!~e~t~

r

L-~

•·_

r•

,,

•.'•

•;

~$

-;•

C,

" .-.-I

i,.,

• I• , • ~

!'"

U