evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings when subjected ...building prototypical designs were...

Research Report UHM/CEE/14-01 December 2014

Page i

Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings When Subjected to Tsunami Loads

by

James Yokoyama

and

Ian N. Robertson

Research Report UHM/CEE/14-01

December, 2014


Page ii


Page iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is based on a Master of Science Research Report prepared by James

Yokoyama under the direction of Ian Robertson.

The authors would also like to thank Gary Chock for developing the prototype

buildings used in this report and for providing valuable input and expertise. The authors

also would like to thank Lyle Carden and Guangren Yu for providing the tsunami transect

information for Hilo and Waikiki. The authors also thank Yuriy Mikhaylov for providing

valuable information with his research on tsunami effects on reinforced concrete buildings.

Finally, the authors wish to express their appreciation to Drs. Gaur Johnson and H. Ronald

Riggs for reviewing this report.


Page iv


Page v

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to develop prototypical designs of reinforced concrete

buildings and evaluate them for resistance to tsunami loading following the provisions of

“ASCE 7: Chapter 6 Tsunami Loads and Effects”. The mid-rise reinforced concrete

building prototypical designs were developed according to the wind and seismic provisions

of ASCE 7-10. Two different types of reinforced concrete buildings were considered: a six

story office building and a seven story residential building. Each of these prototype

buildings was considered in three locations: Hilo Hawaii, Waikiki Hawaii and Monterey

California. For each building and location, prototype designs were created for two different

soil types: Soil Type B and Soil Type D. Once the prototype buildings were designed for

wind and seismic loads, they were analyzed for tsunami loads appropriate for each

building location. It was determined that redesign of some structural members was

required for tsunami design of the buildings in Hilo and Waikiki. However, for the Monterey

buildings, no redesign was required for the moment frame building and minimal redesign

was needed for the shear wall building.


Page vi


Page vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1

1.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 TSUNAMI GENERATION ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI .................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 TOHOKU TSUNAMI .............................................................................................................................. 5

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7 2

2.1 EVALUATION OF TSUNAMI LOADS AND THEIR EFFECT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS ........... 7 2.2 FEMA P-646 ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPICAL REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING PERFORMANCE WHEN

SUBJECTED TO TSUNAMI LOADING ................................................................................................................... 8

TSUNAMI DESIGN PROVISIONS ..................................................................................................... 11 3

3.1 NOTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 LOAD CASES ..................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 HYDROSTATIC LOADS ...................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Buoyancy .....................................................................................................................................................14 3.4 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS .................................................................................................................. 14

3.4.1 Overall Drag Force on Buildings and Other Structures .............................................................................14 3.4.2 Drag Force on Components ........................................................................................................................15 3.4.3 Bore Loads on Vertical Structural Components ..........................................................................................15

3.5 DEBRIS IMPACT LOADS .................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.1 Alternative Simplified Debris Impact Static Load .......................................................................................16 3.5.2 Design Instantaneous Debris Impact Force ................................................................................................16

3.6 IMPORTANCE FACTORS ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.7 LOAD COMBINATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 17

ENERGY GRADE LINE METHOD .................................................................................................... 19 4

DESIGN LOADS FOR PROTOTYPE BUILDINGS ......................................................................... 27 5

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROTOTYPE BUILDINGS ........................................................................................ 27 5.2 DEAD LOADS .................................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.1 Office Building Dead Loads ........................................................................................................................29 5.2.2 Residential Building Dead Loads ................................................................................................................30

5.3 LIVE LOADS ...................................................................................................................................... 31 5.3.1 Office Building Live Loads ..........................................................................................................................31 5.3.2 Residential Building Live Loads ..................................................................................................................31

5.4 WIND LOADS .................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4.1 Notation .......................................................................................................................................................31 5.4.2 Design Assumptions .....................................................................................................................................32 5.4.3 Wind Loads – Hilo, Hawaii .........................................................................................................................33 5.4.4 Wind Loads – Waikiki, Hawaii ....................................................................................................................34 5.4.5 Wind Loads – Monterey, California ............................................................................................................35

5.5 SEISMIC LOADS ................................................................................................................................. 36 5.5.1 Notation .......................................................................................................................................................36 5.5.2 Seismic Load Distribution ...........................................................................................................................37

PROTOTYPE BUILDING FINAL DESIGNS .................................................................................... 41 6

6.1 ETABS DRIFT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 41 6.1.1 Special Moment Frame Office Building Design ..........................................................................................43 6.1.2 Intermediate Moment Frame Office Building Design ..................................................................................44

6.2 OFFICE BUILDING ............................................................................................................................. 44


Page viii

6.3 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ................................................................................................................... 46 6.3.1 Hilo Residential Building Design ................................................................................................................46 6.3.2 Hilo Residential Building Design ................................................................................................................47

TSUNAMI DESIGN LOADS ................................................................................................................ 51 7

7.1 OVERALL BUILDING DRAG FORCE ................................................................................................... 51 7.2 COMPONENT DRAG FORCE ............................................................................................................... 53

7.2.1 Drag Force on Components ........................................................................................................................53 7.2.2 Bore Loads on Vertical Structural Components ..........................................................................................53

7.3 DEBRIS IMPACT LOADS .................................................................................................................... 53

TSUNAMI BUILDING DESIGNS ........................................................................................................ 55 8

8.1 OFFICE BUILDING TSUNAMI DESIGNS .............................................................................................. 55 8.1.1 Moment Frame Analysis ..............................................................................................................................55 8.1.2 Beam Designs ..............................................................................................................................................57 8.1.3 Column Designs ...........................................................................................................................................58

8.2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TSUNAMI DESIGNS .................................................................................... 64 8.2.1 Shear Wall Analysis .....................................................................................................................................64 8.2.2 Elevator Shear Wall Designs .......................................................................................................................67 8.2.3 Stairwell Shear Wall Designs ......................................................................................................................69 8.2.4 External Gravity Column Designs ...............................................................................................................70

MATERIAL QUANTITY COMPARISON ......................................................................................... 73 9

9.1 MATERIAL QUANTITY COMPARISON ................................................................................................ 73

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 77 10

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 79 11

APPENDIX A – HILO TSUNAMI DESIGN LOADS SAMPLE CALCULATION ................................ 81

APPENDIX B – ETABS MOMENT AND SHEAR DIAGRAMS ............................................................. 91

APPENDIX C – ENERGY GRADE LINE TRANSECT PROFILE PLOTS ......................................... 167

APPENDIX


Page ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Tsunami Generation ......................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4-1: Transect Lines for Hilo Building Location .................................................................................... 20 Figure 4-2: Transect Lines for Waikiki Building Location .............................................................................. 21 Figure 4-3: Transect Lines for Monterey Building Location ........................................................................... 22 Figure 4-4: Inundation Depths for Hilo Transect Lines ................................................................................... 24 Figure 4-5: Inundation Depths for Waikiki Transect Lines .............................................................................. 25 Figure 4-6: Flow Velocities Based on Distance from Shoreline for Hilo Transect Lines ................................ 25 Figure 4-7: Flow Velocities Based on Distance from Shoreline for Waikiki Transect Lines .......................... 26 Figure 5-1: Prototype Office Building Plan and Elevation Views ................................................................... 28 Figure 5-2: Prototype Residential Building Plan and Elevation Views ............................................................ 29 Figure 6-1: ETABS Model of Special Moment Frame Building with Hilo Soil D Seismic Loads .................. 42 Figure 6-2: ETABS Model of Special Shear Wall Building with Hilo Soil D Seismic Loads ......................... 43 Figure 8-1: ETABS Model of Special Moment Frame Building with Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag

Force ................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 8-2: ETABS North-South Special Moment Frame Column Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami

Overall Building Drag Force ............................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 8-3: RISA 2-D Special Moment Frame Column Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami

Hydrodynamic Component Drag Force ........................................................................................................... 57 Figure 8-4: Location of Moment Frame Columns Affected by Overall Building Drag Force ......................... 59 Figure 8-5: Hilo SMRF Beam Flexural Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Building Forces - Soil D ..................... 61 Figure 8-6: Boundary reinforcing (left) and midspan reinforcing (right) for the Hilo Seismic Soil D first floor

moment frame beams........................................................................................................................................ 63 Figure 8-7: Boundary reinforcing (left) and midspan reinforcing (right) for the Hilo Tsunami Overall

Building Drag Force first floor moment frame beams. .................................................................................... 63 Figure 8-8: Boundary reinforcing the Hilo Seismic Soil D first floor moment frame columns. ...................... 64 Figure 8-9: Boundary reinforcing for the Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force first floor moment

frame columns. ................................................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 8-10: ETABS Model of Special Shear Wall Building with Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force

.......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 8-11: ETABS Stairwell Shear Wall Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag

Force ................................................................................................................................................................. 66 Figure 8-12: RISA 2-D 12” Width Elevator Shear Wall Segment Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami

Hydrodynamic Component Drag Force ........................................................................................................... 67 Figure 8-13: Reinforcing for the Hilo Seismic Soil D first floor elevator shear walls. .................................... 69 Figure 8-14: Reinforcing for the Hilo Tsunami Component Force first floor elevator shear walls. ................ 69


Page x


Page xi

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Velocity and Flow Depths for Each Load Case .............................................................................. 13 Table 3-2: Tsunami Importance Factors ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 5-1: Wind Loads for Hilo Office Building ............................................................................................. 33 Table 5-2: Wind Loads for Hilo Residential Building ..................................................................................... 34 Table 5-3: Wind Loads for Waikiki Office Building ....................................................................................... 34 Table 5-4: Wind Loads for Waikiki Residential Building ................................................................................ 35 Table 5-5: Wind Loads for Monterey Office Building ..................................................................................... 35 Table 5-6: Wind Loads for Monterey Residential Building ............................................................................. 36 Table 5-7: Moment Frame Building Seismic Design Criteria .......................................................................... 37 Table 5-8: Shear Wall Building Seismic Design Criteria ................................................................................. 37 Table 5-9: Moment Frame Building Seismic Loads – Soil D .......................................................................... 38 Table 5-10: Moment Frame Building Seismic Loads – Soil B ........................................................................ 38 Table 5-11: Shear Wall Building Seismic Loads – Soil D ............................................................................... 38 Table 5-12: Shear Wall Building Seismic Loads – Soil B ............................................................................... 39 Table 6-1: Flexural Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil D ............................................................... 45 Table 6-2: Shear Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil D ................................................................... 45 Table 6-3: Flexural Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil B ............................................................... 45 Table 6-4: Shear Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil B ................................................................... 45 Table 6-5: Reinforcing of Typical Special MRF Column Sections – Soil D ................................................... 45 Table 6-6: Reinforcing of Typical Intermediate MRF Column Sections – Soil D ........................................... 46 Table 6-7: Reinforcing of Typical Special MRF Column Sections – Soil B ................................................... 46 Table 6-8: Reinforcing of Typical Intermediate MRF Column Sections – Soil B ........................................... 46 Table 6-9: Reinforcing of Typical Office Building Gravity Columns ............................................................. 46 Table 6-10: Reinforcing of Typical Special Elevator Shear Walls – Soil D .................................................... 47 Table 6-11: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Elevator Shear Walls – Soil D.................................................. 47 Table 6-12: Reinforcing of Typical Special Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil D ................................................... 48 Table 6-13: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil D ................................................. 48 Table 6-14: Reinforcing of Typical Special Elevator Shear Walls – Soil B .................................................... 48 Table 6-15: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Elevator Shear Walls – Soil B .................................................. 49 Table 6-16: Reinforcing of Typical Special Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil B ................................................... 49 Table 6-17: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil B ................................................. 49 Table 6-18: Reinforcing of Typical Residential Building Gravity Columns .................................................... 49 Table 8-1: Hilo SMRF Beam Flexural Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil D ................. 57 Table 8-2: Hilo SMRF Beam Flexural Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B ................. 58 Table 8-3: Hilo SMRF Beam Shear Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil D ..................... 58 Table 8-4: Hilo SMRF Beam Shear Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B ..................... 58 Table 8-5: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil D ............................ 59 Table 8-6: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B ............................ 60 Table 8-7: Waikiki IMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B ....................... 60 Table 8-8: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil D ............................ 61 Table 8-9: Waikiki IMF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil D .......................... 62 Table 8-10: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil B ........................... 62 Table 8-11: Waikiki IMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil B ...................... 62 Table 8-12: Hilo Special Elevator Shear Wall Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces.................... 68 Table 8-13: Waikiki Elevator Shear Wall Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces .......................... 68 Table 8-14: Monterey Elevator Shear Wall Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces ........................ 68 Table 8-15: Hilo Special Stairwell Shear Wall Due to Overall Building Drag Force – Soil D ........................ 70 Table 8-16: Hilo Special Stairwell Shear Wall Due to Overall Building Drag Force – Soil B ........................ 70 Table 8-17: Hilo Residential Building Exterior Gravity Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component

Forces ............................................................................................................................................................... 71


Page xii

Table 8-18: Oahu Residential Building Exterior Gravity Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component

Forces ............................................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 9-1: Concrete Quantity Comparison ....................................................................................................... 73 Table 9-2: Reinforcement Quantity Comparison ............................................................................................. 74


Page 1

Introduction 1

1.1 Overview

All structures in the United States of America are designed for both gravity loads and

lateral loads. The two main categories of lateral loads that are considered during the

structural design phase are wind and seismic loads. Special detailing can be incorporated

into the design of structures to allow the structure to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes

to prevent collapse. However, there are currently limited design provisions provided by

building codes to design structures for tsunami loads.

Tsunamis have the potential to cause widespread destruction and massive loss of life

in coastal areas, as evidenced by recent natural disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean

tsunami and the 2011 Tohoku tsunami. With the implementation of a tsunami building code

to guide design of structures to withstand tsunamis, such destruction can possibly be

prevented. Hawaii is particularly at risk for a major tsunami due to its geographical

location. Therefore, Hawaii’s vulnerability emphasizes the importance of its structures

being designed to withstand major tsunamis.

A proposed Chapter 6 of the ASCE 7 Standard (ASCE, 2010) has been developed to

establish a design standard for use in coastal areas in the United States susceptible to

tsunamis, including Hawaii. The objective of this report is to create mid-rise reinforced

concrete buildings designed according to the wind and seismic provisions of ASCE 7-10,

and evaluate them for resistance to tsunami loading following the provisions of “ASCE 7:

New Chapter 6 Tsunami Loads and Effects”.


Page 2

1.2 Tsunami Generation

Tsunamis are generated when a significant volume of water in the ocean is displaced

in a short amount of time. In most cases, this displacement is caused by earthquakes on

the ocean floor.

A subduction zone is an area on the earth’s crust where two tectonic plates move

toward one another, with one plate riding over the other. The overriding plate forces the

subduction plate down into the mantle of the earth with plate tectonic forces. Due to

roughness of the plate surfaces, friction causes the overriding plate to become stuck on

the subduction plate. Continued motion between the plates increases stress in the

overriding plate over time, thereby deforming the overriding plate. Eventually, the energy

accumulated in the overriding plate exceeds the friction forces, causing the plate to snap

back into its original position, thereby causing an earthquake. Such earthquakes at

subduction zones (as opposed to earthquakes at convergent or transform boundaries) are

particularly dangerous, because these earthquakes cause the vertical deformation

necessary for a tsunami to form in the ocean.

If a subduction zone earthquake occurs on the ocean floor, the overriding plate pushes

water up as it snaps back to its original position (Fig. 1-1). The deformation of water can

cause a tsunami. When the tsunami is far from shore in deep water, it has a long wave

length and small amplitude. The amplitude of a tsunami in deep water is generally small.

Due to this low amplitude, tsunamis are difficult to detect when far from shore.

As a tsunami approaches shallower water, it increases in height due to wave shoaling.

As a tsunami gets closer to shore increased friction from the ocean floor due to shallower

waters cause wave speed and wave length to decrease. However, the energy of the wave


Page 3

must remain constant, so this reduction in speed and wave length is compensated with a

significant increase in wave height.

In major tsunamis, waves tend to break offshore before approaching land as bores

(powerful walls of turbulent water). These bores run deep inland and can cause major

damage to whatever exists in their path. After the bore reaches its maximum run up, the

water then recedes back into the ocean, causing even more damage. In most cases,

tsunamis come in sets of waves. After each consecutive wave, the water that runs inland

recedes preparing for inundation of the next wave. As this cycle repeats itself, more and

more damage is caused to the tsunami inundation zone. Debris from damages structures

that recedes into the ocean can be launched back inland with the next wave, behaving as

a projectile and further magnifying the damage caused by each successive wave.


Page 4

Figure 1-1: Tsunami Generation

1.3 Indian Ocean Tsunami

On December 26th 2004, a 9.3 magnitude earthquake occurred along a subduction

zone at the Northeast edge of the Indian Ocean. The earthquake resulted in a major

tsunami which hit many countries in the Indian Ocean, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka,

India, Thailand, and Malaysia. The tsunami resulted in widespread damage of structures in

the affected countries.

The Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering (CAEE) wrote a

reconnaissance report following the Indian Ocean Tsunami (CAEE, 2005). A team of


Page 5

engineers visited Thailand and Indonesia to examine the performance of coastal

structures. It was determined that lateral forces generated by the tsunami waves were

much larger than design wind forces. The lateral forces from the tsunami waves were large

enough to damage unreinforced masonry walls within the height of the wave. In addition to

unreinforced masonry buildings, it was also determined that low rise non-engineered

reinforced concrete frame buildings and low-rise timber frame structures suffered major

damage due to tsunami wave forces. These buildings were also damaged extensively by

impact forces from floating debris. However, the report also determined that engineered

reinforced concrete frames appeared to have sufficient strength to withstand tsunami

forces. The engineers observed that structural components of engineered reinforced

concrete buildings sustained little damage. It was observed that nonstructural elements of

these buildings would often fail before critical loads were achieved on structural members.

The failure of the nonstructural members thereby relieved some pressure on the structural

elements of the building.

1.4 Tohoku Tsunami

On March 11th 2011, a 9.0 magnitude subduction earthquake hit approximately 100

kilometers off the northeast (Tohoku) coast of Honshu, the main island of Japan. The

earthquake generated a major tsunami which affected much of the Tohoku region of

Japan. According to the Japan Meteorological Agency, the movement of ocean floor was

estimated to be 3 meters upward and 24 meters laterally at the megathrust fault (Chock et

al. 2011). The Japanese government estimates that 264,468 buildings either collapsed or

partially collapsed primarily from tsunami inundation. It was also estimated that the

disaster caused over $217 billion in damages. There were over 20,000 fatalities or missing

persons in the tsunami-affected coastal areas of Honshu (Chock et al. 2011).


Page 6

From April 15 to May 1 2011, a team from the ASCE 7 Subcommittee on Tsunami

Loads & Effects performed a reconnaissance visit to survey the effects of the Tohoku

tsunami. The team focused on tsunami effects on coastal buildings, bridges, port facilities,

and coastal protective structures.

It was observed that nearly all residential light frame buildings completely collapsed in

areas with a tsunami inundation of a story height or more. In coastal inundation areas,

75%-95% of low rise buildings collapsed. However, several taller multistory buildings

survived the disaster and retained structural integrity in their vertical load carrying

members and foundation. A significant number of the surviving buildings did not seem to

have significant structural damage from either the earthquake or tsunami forces. Mid-rise

buildings with robust columns or shear walls also performed relatively well if the building

was high enough. This lack of structural damage in a number of the buildings shows

potential tsunami resistance of larger modern buildings with robust seismic designs and

uplift-resistant foundations. The results of this study proved that it is very realistic for taller

structures to be designed to withstand tsunami events, thereby allowing the buildings to

serve as vertical evacuation refuges.


Page 7

Literature Review 2

2.1 Evaluation of Tsunami Loads and Their Effect on Reinforced Concrete Buildings

In Evaluation of Tsunami Loads and Their Effect on Reinforced Concrete Buildings

(Pacheco and Robertson, 2005), the performance of typical reinforced concrete buildings

was analyzed under tsunami loads. The analysis was used to determine the buildings’

potential for vertical evacuation. Tsunami forces were calculated based on guidelines from

the City and County of Honolulu Building Code (CCH, 2000) and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency Coastal Construction Manual, (FEMA 2000). The buildings that were

analyzed were prototype buildings designed by S.K. Ghosh and David Fanella in Seismic

and Wind Design of Concrete Buildings (Ghosh and Fanella, 2003). It was determined

from this study that the moment resisting frame building and shear wall frame building

design for high seismic design categories were able to resist the tsunami forces.

However, individual shear walls subjected to out of plane tsunami forces could

possibly fail, leading to progressive collapse. The prototype bearing wall structure

performed poorly under tsunami loads. However, this research had some shortcomings.

The prototype reinforced concrete buildings were oversimplified and not representative of

typical coastal buildings which would be at risk for tsunamis. Also, the tsunami load

calculation guidelines in CCH and FEMA 2000 were oversimplified and did not adequately

model tsunami flow force. It was concluded in the study that experimental validation of

tsunami velocity and flow depth was needed and that wave tank studies needed to be

performed to verify debris and hydrodynamic tsunami loading.


Page 8

2.2 FEMA P-646

In 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began a project to

develop design guidelines for structures to withstand both tsunami and earthquake loads.

FEMA addressed this issue due to the multitude of areas on the west coast of the United

States that are vulnerable to a major tsunami. These communities are extremely

vulnerable to a tsunami caused by an earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone. Such

a tsunami could potentially reach to the coastline within 20 minutes after the earthquake,

making horizontal evacuation extremely difficult in at-risk communities on the west coast.

In such cases, the best chance for survival would be to evacuate vertically up a building

designed to withstand tsunami loads. This concept was shown to be effective in the Indian

Ocean tsunami, where many people were able to survive by evacuating to upper floors of

engineered reinforced concrete buildings.

In 2008, Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis

(FEMA P-646) was published, which provides guidance on tsunami structural design for

coastal regions (FEMA 2008). FEMA P-646 includes information on tsunami assessment,

load determination, structural design criteria, and options for vertical evacuation. In 2012,

the second edition of FEMA P-646 was published (FEMA 2012). The second edition

updated reference documents to current versions, provided observations and lessons

learned based on the 2011 Tohoku tsunami, and revised debris impact load equations.

2.3 Evaluation of Prototypical Reinforced Concrete Building Performance When Subjected to Tsunami Loading

In Evaluation of Prototypical Reinforced Concrete Building Performance When

Subjected to Tsunami Loading (Mikhaylov and Robertson, 2009), multi-story reinforced

concrete residential and office buildings were designed for three different seismic


Page 9

conditions using IBC 2006. The seismic conditions were chosen such that they

represented conditions common to different locations in Hawaii. Each of these buildings

was then analyzed under tsunami loads calculated using the first edition of FEMA P-646

(FEMA 2008) to determine if it could be used for tsunami evacuation. If the building was

deemed inadequate according to tsunami design standards, the amount of additional

concrete and reinforcement needed to make the structure tsunami resistant was

determined.

The study concluded that multi-story reinforced concrete office and residential

buildings can be realistically designed to survive major tsunamis and can be used for

vertical evacuation. It was determined that the prototype buildings in the study would need

less than an 8% increase in reinforcing steel weight and less than a 3% increase in

concrete volume in order to become tsunami resistant. It was also determined that special

moment-resisting frame structures designed for high seismic conditions may not need

upgrades to resist tsunami loads. However, structural walls subject to out-of-plane shear

from tsunami loads may need additional shear reinforcement. Also, it was concluded that

debris impact loads from shipping containers would likely lead to shear and/or bending

failure of individual reinforced concrete columns. Therefore, tsunami- resistant buildings

should be designed to prevent progressive collapse in case of an individual column failure.

From the study, shortcomings of the first edition of FEMA P-646 were discovered. It

was concluded that the maximum water depth and bore velocity as calculated by FEMA P-

646 were very low and did not accurately represent a typical tsunami bore. In

Characterization of Tsunami-Like Bores in Support of Loading on Structures (Mohamed,

2008), small tsunami waves were tested on wet and dry beds and equations were created

to determine the velocity of a tsunami bore. It was concluded that Mohamed’s equation for


Page 10

tsunami wave velocity on a wet bed better represented the actual velocity of an expected

tsunami bore in Waikiki than FEMA P-646’s wave velocity equation. Therefore, Mohamed’s

flow velocity equation was used for the determination of tsunami forces on the building.

According to Mikhaylov and Robertson, another shortcoming of the first edition of

FEMA P-646 was an inaccurate estimation of the stiffness of shipping containers. FEMA

P-646 suggested that the mass of an empty shipping container should be used in the

design process. However, in the event of a major tsunami, there exists a possibility that a

filled shipping container could act as a floating projectile force. A filled shipping container

would have greater mass, possibly resulting in larger debris loads. The report also

concluded that the shipping container stiffness values provided by FEMA P-646 were

considered too high. For the tsunami design in the report, more accurate container

stiffness was estimated by examining and measuring several different shipping containers.


Page 11

Tsunami Design Provisions 3

For this report, “ASCE 7: Chapter 6 Tsunami Loads and Effects” will be used to

calculate the tsunami loads used in the analysis of the prototype buildings. This document

consists of a set of proposals to establish the first national design standard for tsunami

design. This chapter of the ASCE 7 code would be used for tsunami design in Alaska,

Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii, where there exists a quantifiable tsunami risk.

According to the draft chapter, structural engineers in these states are being asked to

incorporate tsunami-resilient designs in critical structures, thereby creating a need for an

engineering standard for tsunami design. The proposed ASCE 7 Chapter 6 categorizes

tsunami loads into hydrostatic loads, hydrodynamic loads, and debris impact loads.

3.1 Notation

𝐴𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 – Vertical projected area of a beam element

𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑙 – Vertical projected area of a column element

𝐴𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 – Vertical projected area of a wall

b – Width subject to force

B – Building width

𝐶𝑐𝑥 – Ratio of solid element area to the overall building area or closure coefficient

𝐶𝑑 – Drag coefficient, from Table 6.10-1 in Chapter 6

𝐹𝑑 – Drag force on a component

𝐹𝑑𝑥 – Drag force on a structure at each level

𝐹𝑖 – Debris impact design force


Page 12

𝐹𝑛𝑖 – Nominal maximum instantaneous debris impact force

𝐹𝑣 – Buoyancy force

𝐹𝑤 – Tsunami load on vertical structural components

h – Tsunami inundation depth

ℎ𝑒 – Inundated height of an element

ℎ𝑚𝑎𝑥 – Maximum inundation depth

ℎ𝑠 – Top of floor slab elevation

ℎ𝑠𝑥 – Story height of a given story x

𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢 – Importance factor of tsunami forces

𝑘 – Effective stiffness of the impacting debris

𝑚𝑑 – Mass of debris object

u – Tsunami flow velocity

𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 – Maximum tsunami flow velocity

𝑉𝑤 – Displaced water volume

𝛾𝑠 – Fluid weight density

𝜌𝑠 – Fluid mass density

3.2 Load Cases

For calculation of tsunami loads, three load cases need to be analyzed. Each load

case represents different critical design stages of structural loading.


Page 13

Load Case 1 is the loading situation associated with maximum buoyancy. The

structure is designed with a maximum buoyant force and the associated hydrodynamic

forces. The main purpose of checking this load case is to check the stability of the

structure and its foundation against net uplift. Load Case 2 is associated with maximum

flow velocity of the tsunami, thereby resulting in maximum hydrodynamic forces on the

structure. Load Case 2 uses two-thirds of the max inundation depth. Load Case 3 is

associated with maximum inundation depth. For Load Case 3, velocity is assumed to be

one-third the maximum velocity. The maximum flow depth and velocity at each site were

determined using the Energy Grade Line Method proposed in ASCE 7 Chapter 6. Table 3-

1 lists the velocity and flow depth for each load case at each building location.

Table 3-1: Velocity and Flow Depths for Each Load Case

Flow Parameters Hilo Waikiki Monterey

Max. Inundation Depth, hmax (ft) 55 25 13

Max. Flow Velocity, umax (fps) 35.8 28 18

3.3 Hydrostatic Loads

Hydrostatic tsunami loads occur in structures due to standing or slowly moving water.

Hydrostatic loads imparted on structures can be split into three main categories: buoyancy,

unbalanced lateral hydrostatic forces, and residual water surcharge loads. For the

purposes of this project, only the buoyant forces were calculated for the design of the

structures. However, we are assuming the slab-on-grade of both the office and residential

buildings to be non-structural. A non-structural slab implies that the grade beams are not

tied into the slab-on-grade. Therefore it was assumed that buoyancy forces would not

result in building uplift.


Page 14

3.3.1 Buoyancy

Uplift due to buoyancy is an upward force that results from air being trapped in an

enclosed inundated portion of a structure. Buoyancy needs to be considered in enclosed

spaces without breakaway walls that have an opening area of less than 25% of the exterior

wall area. Buoyant force equals the weight of the water being displaced, and can be

calculated using Equation 3-1.

𝐹𝑣 = 𝛾𝑠𝑉𝑤

Equation 3-1: Buoyant Force

3.4 Hydrodynamic Loads

Hydrodynamic tsunami loads are caused by water flowing around structural

components at a moderate to high velocity. These forces can be caused by either

incoming or outgoing flow. According to the proposed ASCE 7 Chapter 6, a structure’s

lateral force resisting system and all structural components below the tsunami inundation

elevation must be designed for hydrodynamic forces.

3.4.1 Overall Drag Force on Buildings and Other Structures

The lateral force resisting system of the building must be designed to resist

hydrodynamic tsunami drag forces at each level. This force can be caused by either

incoming or outgoing flow. The overall drag force on a building can be calculated with

Equation 3-2.

𝐹𝑑𝑥 =1

2𝜌𝑠𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢𝐶𝑑𝐶𝑐𝑥𝐵(ℎ𝑢2)

Equation 3-2: Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force

Ccx is defined as the closure ratio and can be calculated with Equation 3-3.


Page 15

𝐶𝑐𝑥 =∑(𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑙 + 𝐴𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙) + 1.5𝐴𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚

𝐵ℎ𝑠𝑥

Equation 3-3: Closure Ratio

Cd, the drag coefficient for the building, is determined from ASCE 7 Chapter 6 Table 6.10-

1, and is based on the width to inundation depth ratio.

3.4.2 Drag Force on Components

For designing components of the building, a design hydrodynamic drag force on

components was also used. The drag force, calculated with Equation 3-4, was applied as a

pressure on the projected inundated height of all structural components below the

inundation depth.

𝐹𝑑 =1

2𝜌𝑠𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢𝐶𝑑𝑏(ℎ𝑒𝑢2)

Equation 3-4: Component Drag Force

For exterior components, debris accumulation was included with a Cd value of 2.0. For

interior components, ASCE 7 Chapter 6 Table 6.10-2 gives a Cd value of 2 for

square/rectangular columns.

3.4.3 Bore Loads on Vertical Structural Components

Where the flow at a site has a Froude number greater than 1.0, and the vertical

component width to inundation ratio is three or more, the foce on the wall is 50% larger

than the drag force and is given by Equation 3-5.

𝐹𝑤 =3

4𝜌𝑠𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢𝐶𝑑𝑏(ℎ𝑒𝑢2)𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒

Equation 3-5: Hydrodynamic Bore Load

Out of the three locations studied, the Waikiki and Hilo locations were determined to have

the potential for tsunami bores. Hilo was determined to have potential for tsunami bores


Page 16

due to recorded historical evidence of bores during a past tsunami. Waikiki was

determined to have potential for tsunami bores due to its fringing reef.

3.5 Debris Impact Loads

Structural components on the structure were also designed for debris impact loads.

Debris impact loads are caused by large debris (such as shipping containers and logs)

striking the component during a tsunami. Debris impact forces must be considered when

the minimum inundation depth is three feet or greater. Both static and dynamic analyses

can be performed to determine the debris impact on a component.

3.5.1 Alternative Simplified Debris Impact Static Load

The alternative simplified debris impact static load method from ASCE 7 Chapter 6

was used as the maximum static debris load on the components of the structure. The

simplified debris impact static load can be determined from Equation 3-6.

𝐹𝑖 = 330𝐶𝑜𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢

Equation 3-6: Simplified Debris Impact Static Load

Co is the orientation coefficient and is equal to 0.65 in all cases. When the building site

is not in an impact zone for shipping containers, ships, and barges, the simplified debris

impact load from equation 3-6 can be reduced by 50%. It was assumed that the Hilo

location was in an impact zone for shipping containers. However, the Oahu and Monterey

locations were not in an impact zone for shipping containers. The alternative simplified

debris impact load controlled the debris loading for the Hilo and Waikiki locations.

3.5.2 Design Instantaneous Debris Impact Force

The design instantaneous debris impact force from ASCE 7 Chapter 6 was used to

determine the static debris load on components of the structure. The nominal

instantaneous debris impact force was determined from Equation 3-7.


Page 17

𝐹𝑛𝑖 = 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝑘𝑚𝑑)0.5

Equation 3-7: Nominal Instantaneous Debris Impact Force

The design instantaneous debris impact force was determined from Equation 3-8.

𝐹𝑖 = 𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢𝐶𝑜𝐹𝑛𝑖

Equation 3-8: Design Instantaneous Debris Impact Force

Co is the orientation coefficient and is equal to 0.65 in all cases. In Hilo and Waikiki,

equation 3-8 calculated debris impact forces which were greater than the value determined

with the simplified debris impact load equation, which acts as the maximum static debris

load for design. Therefore, the design instantaneous debris impact force was only used as

the controlling debris impact force for the Monterey location.

3.6 Importance Factors

The importance factors from ASCE 7 Chapter 6 Section 6.8.3.2, given in Table 3-1,

were considered when determining tsunami loads. For both the office and residential

buildings, Tsunami Risk Category II was assumed.

Table 3-2: Tsunami Importance Factors

Tsunami Risk Category ITSU

II 1.0

III 1.25

Tsunami Risk Category IV, Vertical Evacuation Refuges, and Tsunami Risk

Category III Critical Facilities 1.25

3.7 Load Combinations

The following load combinations from ASCE 7 Chapter 6 Section 6.8.3.3, given by

Equations 3-9 and 3-10, were considered when designing for tsunami loads.


Page 18

0.9D + FTSU + HTSU

Equation 3-9: Tsunami Load Combination 1

1.2D + FTSU + 0.5L + 0.2S + HTSU

Equation 3-10: Tsunami Load Combination 2


Page 19

Energy Grade Line Method 4

In order to determine the tsunami forces on the structures, the maximum tsunami

inundation depth and maximum tsunami flow velocity are required. The Energy Grade Line

Method is a stepwise procedure that can be used to determine the maximum inundation

depth and maximum flow velocity at any site between the shoreline and the inundation

limit. Starting from the runup elevation at the inundation limit, the flow parameters are

determined progressing shoreward to get the tsunami velocity and inundation depth at the

site of the building. The following are the steps that were taken for the Energy Grade Line

Method:

Runup and Inundation Limit values were obtained. For the Monterey building, a site

specific analysis was used to determine the Runup and Inundation Limit values.

For the Hilo and Waikiki locations, the Runup and Inundation Limit values were

obtained from maps created by Prof. Fai Cheung based on the Great Aleutian

Tsunami (Cheung).

The transect lines were approximated by a series of x-z grid coordinates of the

points, which create a series of segmented slopes. X is the horizontal distance

measured from the shoreline, and z is the topographic elevation. For each of the

locations of the buildings, transect lines were created for tsunami flow acting

perpendicular to the shoreline, flow acting 22.5 degrees clockwise from the

perpendicular line, and flow acting 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from the

perpendicular line. This allows for variation of the direction of the tsunami within a

45 degree envelope. See Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 for the transect lines for Hilo,

Oahu, and Monterey, respectively.


Page 20

Figure 4-1: Transect Lines for Hilo Building Location


Page 21

Figure 4-2: Transect Lines for Waikiki Building Location


Page 22

Figure 4-3: Transect Lines for Monterey Building Location

The topographic slope, ∅𝑖, of each segment, or pair of consecutive points, was

determined along the transect line. The topographic slope is calculated as the ratio

of elevation difference and distance between two adjacent points on the transect.

∅𝑖 =𝑧𝑖 − 𝑧𝑖+1

𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥𝑖+1

The Manning’s Coefficient, n, was determined based on the terrain along the

transect line. The Manning’s Coefficient can be obtained from the draft Chapter 6

Table 6.6-1. An n value of 0.03 was assumed for all three locations.

The Froude number, 𝐹𝑟𝑖, was calculated for each point along the transect. The

Froude number can be calculated with the draft Chapter 6 Equation 6.6.2-3.


Page 23

𝐹𝑟𝑖 =∝ (1 −𝑥

𝑥𝑅)

0.5

The hydraulic friction slope, 𝑠𝑖 was calculated the draft Chapter 6 Equation 6.6.2-2.

The calculation for the slope began at the runup point and progressed toward the

shoreline. At the runup point, a nominally small value of hi (0.1 feet) was used to

avoid a singularity.

𝑠𝑖 =𝑔𝐹𝑟𝑖

2

((1.49

𝑛 )2

ℎ𝑖1 3⁄

)

The hydraulic energy head, 𝐸𝑖+1, was calculated at successive points progressing

toward the shoreline.

𝐸𝑔,𝑖+1 = 𝐸𝑔,𝑖 + (∅𝑖 + 𝑠𝑖)∆𝑥𝑖

The inundation depth, ℎ𝑖+1, was determined at each point along the transect line.

ℎ𝑖+1 =𝐸𝑔,𝑖+1

(1 + 0.5𝐹𝑟𝑖2 )

The velocity of flow at each point was calculated. The equation for velocity is

derived from the equation for the Froude number.

𝑢𝑖+1 = 𝐹𝑟𝑖(𝑔ℎ)0.5

Section 6.6.1 states that flow velocity used in the tsunami load equations may not

be less than 10 ft/s but it need not be greater than 50 ft/s. The flow velocity and flow depth

were calculated for each point along the three transect lines for each location. See Figures

4-4 through 4-7 for the flow depths and flow velocities for Hilo and Waikiki along the

transect lines. The critical h and u values out of the three transect lines at the project site


Page 24

were chosen as the design hmax and umax values. From the Energy Grade Line Method

analysis, it was determined that the maximum inundation depths to be used for design at

the building locations in Hilo and Waikiki would be 55 feet and 25 feet, respectively. The

EGL method also determined that the maximum flow velocity to be used for design in Hilo

and Waikiki would be 35.8 ft/s and 28 ft/s, respectively.

Figure 4-4: Inundation Depths for Hilo Transect Lines


Page 25

Figure 4-5: Inundation Depths for Waikiki Transect Lines

Figure 4-6: Flow Velocities Based on Distance from Shoreline for Hilo Transect Lines


Page 26

Figure 4-7: Flow Velocities Based on Distance from Shoreline for Waikiki Transect Lines


Page 27

Design Loads for Prototype Buildings 5

5.1 Description of Prototype Buildings

For this project, two different types of reinforced concrete buildings with different

structural systems are to be analyzed. The two buildings are a six story office building and

a seven story residential building. Each of these prototype buildings are to be analyzed in

three locations: Hilo, Hawaii, Waikiki, Hawaii and Monterey, California.

The six story office building consists of moment resisting frames, a flat plate floor

system, and interior gravity load resisting columns. The Hilo and Monterey buildings have

perimeter and interior special moment frames, while the Waikiki building has perimeter

intermediate moment frames. The seven story residential building consists of shear walls

at elevators and stairwells, a flat plate floor system, and gravity load resisting columns.

The Hilo and Monterey buildings have special reinforced concrete shear walls, while the

Waikiki building has ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls.


Page 28

Figure 5-1: Prototype Office Building Plan and Elevation Views


Page 29

Figure 5-2: Prototype Residential Building Plan and Elevation Views

5.2 Dead Loads

5.2.1 Office Building Dead Loads

The following dimensions were used for the self-weight of the office building:

Building Plan Dimensions: 88’ x 254’

Assumed Interior Column Dimensions: 24” x 24”

Assumed Exterior Column Dimensions: 30” x 30”

Assumed Beam Dimensions: 24”x30”

Slab Thickness: 8”

The following gravity loads were assumed:

8” Slab: 100 psf


Page 30

Floor Finish/Tapered Roofing: 5 psf

Ceiling/Insulation: 5 psf

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP): 10 psf

Perimeter Window Wall: 10 psf x 12 ft = 120 plf (at each level except the roof)

Using these values, an assumed concrete unit weight of 150 pcf, and an assumed

25% sustained live load, a typical floor weight of 4202 kips and a roof weight of 4107 kips

was calculated. These values result in a total building seismic weight of approximately

25100 kips for the office building.

5.2.2 Residential Building Dead Loads

The following dimensions were used for the self-weight of the residential building:

Building Plan Dimensions: 64’ x 254’

Assumed Column Dimensions: 20” x 20”

Assumed Shear Wall Thickness: 10”

Slab Thickness: 8”

The following gravity loads were assumed:

8” Slab: 100 psf

Floor Finish/Tapered Roofing: 10 psf (typical floor), or 5 psf (roof)

Ceiling/Insulation: 8 psf

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP): 10 psf

Perimeter Window Wall: 10 psf x 12 ft = 120 plf (at each level except the roof)

Using these values, an assumed concrete unit weight of 150 pcf, and an assumed

25% sustained live load, a typical floor weight of 2771 kips and a roof weight of 2999 kips

was calculated. These values result in a total weight of approximately 19600 kips for the

residential building.


Page 31

5.3 Live Loads

5.3.1 Office Building Live Loads

The following live loads were assumed for the office building based on Table 4-1 of

ASCE 7-10:

Corridors: 80 psf

Offices: 50 psf

Stairs: 100 psf

Partitions: 15 psf

Roof: 20 psf

It was assumed that the corridor is 10 feet wide down the long direction center line of

each floor.

5.3.2 Residential Building Live Loads

The following live loads were assumed for the residential building based on Table 4-1

of ASCE 7-10:

Typical Floor Area: 40 psf

Stairs: 100 psf

Partitions: 15 psf

Roof: 20 psf

Live load reductions were taken using ASCE 7-10 Section 4.8, which allows up to a

60% reduction in live load for members supporting two or more floors. Live load reductions

were taken into account for the design of the columns and shear walls.

5.4 Wind Loads

5.4.1 Notation

V – Effective wind speed, from ASCE 7-10 Figure 26.5-1 (mph)

I – Importance factor, from ASCE 7-10


Page 32

Z – Height above ground level (ft)

𝐾𝑑 – Wind directionality factor, from the Hawaii State Building Code Amendments

𝐾𝑧 – Velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height Z, from ASCE 7-10

Table 27.3-1

𝐾ℎ – Velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height Z=h, from ASCE 7-

10 Table 27.3-1

𝐾𝑧𝑡 – Topographic Factor from the Hawaii State Building Code Amendments

G – Gust effect factor, from ASCE 7-10 Section 26.9

𝐶𝑝 – External pressure coefficient, from ASCE 7-10 Figure 27.4-1

𝐶𝑝𝑖 – Internal pressure coefficient, from ASCE 7-10 Figure 27.4-1

𝑞𝑧 – Velocity pressure evaluated at height Z (psf)

𝑞ℎ – Velocity pressure evaluated at height Z=h (psf)

P – Design wind pressure (psf)

𝑃𝑊 – Design wind pressure acting on windward face (psf)

𝑃𝐿 – Design wind pressure acting on leeward face (psf)

5.4.2 Design Assumptions

– The Directional Procedure from ASCE 7-10 Chapter 27 was used for

determination of wind loads.

– Based on Figure 26.5-1, V=130 miles per hour for Hawaii.

– The importance factor = 1.0 for residential and office buildings.


Page 33

– Both the reinforced concrete office building and residential buildings are assumed

to be rigid structures, resulting in G=0.85 from ASCE 7-10 Section 26.9.

– According to ASCE 7-10 Figure 27.4-1, the external pressure coefficient Cp for

the windward wall is 0.8, while the external pressure coefficient Cp for the leeward

wall is -0.5 for north-south winds, and -0.256 for east-west winds.

5.4.3 Wind Loads – Hilo, Hawaii

A) Office Building

Table 5-1 gives the wind loads determined for the Office Building located in Hilo.

Table 5-1: Wind Loads for Hilo Office Building

B) Residential Building

Table 5-2 gives the wind loads determined for the Residential Building located in Hilo.

Pw (psf) PL (psf) P (psf) Fstory (k) Pw (psf) PL (psf) P (psf) Fstory (k)

6 74 22.1 -13.8 35.8 54.6 22.1 -7.1 29.1 15.4

5 62 21.1 -13.8 34.9 107.8 21.1 -7.1 28.2 30.3

4 50 20.2 -13.8 34.0 105.0 20.2 -7.1 27.3 29.3

3 38 19.1 -13.8 32.9 101.9 19.1 -7.1 26.1 28.2

2 26 17.6 -13.8 31.4 97.9 17.6 -7.1 24.7 26.8

1 14 15.8 -13.8 29.5 100.4 15.8 -7.1 22.8 27.1

Base 585.9 171.1

NS Direction EW DirectionFloor Z (ft)


Page 34

Table 5-2: Wind Loads for Hilo Residential Building

5.4.4 Wind Loads – Waikiki, Hawaii

A) Office Building

Table 5-3 gives the wind loads determined for the Office Building located in Waikiki.

Table 5-3: Wind Loads for Waikiki Office Building


Table 5-4 gives the wind loads determined for the Residential Building located in Waikiki.


7 66 21.3 -13.3 34.6 39.6 21.3 -5.3 26.6 7.7

6 57 20.8 -13.3 34.1 78.5 20.8 -5.3 26.1 15.2

5 48 20.0 -13.3 33.3 77.1 20.0 -5.3 25.3 14.8

4 39 19.1 -13.3 32.4 75.2 19.1 -5.3 24.4 14.3

3 30 18.2 -13.3 31.5 73.0 18.2 -5.3 23.5 13.8

2 21 16.9 -13.3 30.2 70.5 16.9 -5.3 22.2 13.2

1 12 15.8 -13.3 29.1 78.8 15.8 -5.3 21.1 14.5

Base 537.0 101.5

Floor Z (ft)NS Direction EW Direction


6 74 27.0 -16.8 43.8 66.8 27.0 -8.6 35.6 18.8

5 62 25.8 -16.8 42.7 131.8 25.8 -8.6 34.5 37.0

4 50 24.7 -16.8 41.5 128.3 24.7 -8.6 33.3 35.8

3 38 23.3 -16.8 40.2 124.5 23.3 -8.6 32.0 34.5

2 26 21.5 -16.8 38.4 119.7 21.5 -8.6 30.1 32.8

1 14 19.3 -16.8 36.1 122.7 19.3 -8.6 27.9 33.1

Base 716.0 209.1



Page 35

Table 5-4: Wind Loads for Waikiki Residential Building

5.4.5 Wind Loads – Monterey, California

A) Office Building

Table 5-5 gives the wind loads determined for the Office Building located in Monterey.

Table 5-5: Wind Loads for Monterey Office Building


Table 5-6 gives the wind loads determined for the Residential Building located in

Monterey.


7 66 26.1 -16.3 42.3 48.4 26.1 -6.5 32.6 9.4

6 57 25.4 -16.3 41.7 96.0 25.4 -6.5 31.9 18.6

5 48 24.5 -16.3 40.7 94.2 24.5 -6.5 31.0 18.1

4 39 23.3 -16.3 39.6 91.9 23.3 -6.5 29.8 17.5

3 30 22.2 -16.3 38.5 89.3 22.2 -6.5 28.7 16.9

2 21 20.6 -16.3 36.9 86.2 20.6 -6.5 27.1 16.1

1 12 19.3 -16.3 35.5 96.3 19.3 -6.5 25.8 17.7

Base 656.3 124.1

Floor Z (ft)NS Direction EW Direction


6 74 21.3 -13.3 34.6 52.8 21.3 -6.8 28.1 14.8

5 62 20.4 -13.3 33.7 104.2 20.4 -6.8 27.2 29.2

4 50 19.5 -13.3 32.8 101.4 19.5 -6.8 26.3 28.3

3 38 18.4 -13.3 31.8 98.4 18.4 -6.8 25.3 27.2

2 26 17.0 -13.3 30.3 94.6 17.0 -6.8 23.8 25.9

1 14 15.2 -13.3 28.5 97.0 15.2 -6.8 22.0 26.2

Base 565.9 165.2



Page 36

Table 5-6: Wind Loads for Monterey Residential Building

5.5 Seismic Loads

To determine the design seismic loads, the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure from

ASCE 7-10 Section 12.8 was used. All seismic design coefficients for the respective sites

were obtained from the USGS online seismic design tool. Occupancy Category II was

assumed for all sites. Seismic design provisions for Soil Type B and D were obtained to

compare seismic designs for both poor soil and good soil conditions.

5.5.1 Notation

𝑆𝑆 – 0.2 second response acceleration

𝑆1 – 1.0 second response acceleration

𝑆𝐷𝑆 – Design spectral acceleration parameter based on SS

𝑆𝐷1 – Design spectral acceleration parameter based on S1

𝐹𝑎 – Site coefficient based on SS

𝐹𝑉 – Site coefficient based on S1

I – Importance factor, from ASCE 7-10 Table 11.5-1

𝐶𝑆 – Seismic response coefficient, from ASCE 7-10 Section 12.8.1.1


7 66 20.6 -12.9 33.5 38.2 20.6 -5.1 25.7 7.4

6 57 20.1 -12.9 32.9 75.9 20.1 -5.1 25.2 14.7

5 48 19.3 -12.9 32.2 74.4 19.3 -5.1 24.5 14.3

4 39 18.4 -12.9 31.3 72.6 18.4 -5.1 23.6 13.8

3 30 17.5 -12.9 30.4 70.6 17.5 -5.1 22.7 13.3

2 21 16.3 -12.9 29.2 68.1 16.3 -5.1 21.4 12.7

1 12 15.2 -12.9 28.1 76.1 15.2 -5.1 20.4 14.0

Base 518.7 98.1

Floor ZNS Direction EW Direction


Page 37

𝑇𝑎 – Approximate fundamental period, from ASCE 7-10 Section 12.8.2.1

R – Response modification factor, from ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1

SDC – Seismic Design Category, from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.6

W – Seismic dead weight (kips)

V – Seismic base shear (kips)

Table 5-7: Moment Frame Building Seismic Design Criteria

Table 5-8: Shear Wall Building Seismic Design Criteria

5.5.2 Seismic Load Distribution

Using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure, the base shears of the respective

buildings were obtained and distributed throughout the floors of the buildings. After

completing both the seismic and wind load analysis, it was determined that the seismic

loading would control the lateral force demand for all buildings and locations.

Location Soil Type SDC Ss SDS S1 SD1 Ta (s) R Cs

Hilo - Special MF B D 1.5 1 0.6 0.4 0.77 8 0.065

Hilo - Special MF D D 1.5 1 0.6 0.6 0.77 8 0.097

Monterey - Special MF B D 1.513 1.009 0.554 0.369 0.77 8 0.06

Monterey - Special MF D D 1.513 1.009 0.554 0.554 0.77 8 0.09

Oahu - Intermediate MF B C 0.579 0.386 0.17 0.113 0.77 5 0.029

Oahu - Intermediate MF D C 0.579 0.516 0.17 0.24 0.77 5 0.062

Office Moment Frame Building Seismic Design Criteria

Location Soil Type SDC Ss SDS S1 SD1 Ta (s) R Cs

Hilo - Special SW B D 1.5 1 0.6 0.4 0.463 6 0.144

Hilo - Special SW D D 1.5 1 0.6 0.6 0.463 6 0.167

Monterey - Special SW B D 1.513 1.009 0.554 0.369 0.463 6 0.133

Monterey - Special SW D D 1.513 1.009 0.554 0.554 0.463 6 0.168

Oahu - Ordinary SW B C 0.579 0.386 0.17 0.113 0.463 5 0.049

Oahu - Ordinary SW D C 0.579 0.516 0.17 0.24 0.463 5 0.103

Residential Shear Wall Building Seismic Design Criteria


Page 38

Table 5-9: Moment Frame Building Seismic Loads – Soil D

Table 5-10: Moment Frame Building Seismic Loads – Soil B

Table 5-11: Shear Wall Building Seismic Loads – Soil D

Level Wx (k) hx (ft) hxk (ft) wxhx

k (ft-k) CvxFxHILO (k) FxWAIKIKI (k) FxMONTEREY (k)

Roof 3993 74 132.306 528336 0.284 692 445 642

5 4216 62 108.234 456359 0.246 598 384 555

4 4216 50 84.787 357497 0.192 468 301 435

3 4216 38 62.095 261816 0.141 343 220 318

2 4216 26 40.364 170191 0.092 223 143 207

1 4216 14 19.992 84294 0.045 110 71 102

SUM 25075 1858493 1 2435 1565 2259



Roof 3993 74 132.3055 528336 0.284 463 209 428

5 4216 62 108.2342 456359 0.246 400 181 369

4 4216 50 84.78733 357497 0.192 314 142 289

3 4216 38 62.09468 261816 0.141 230 104 212

2 4216 26 40.36405 170191 0.092 149 67 138

1 4216 14 19.99196 84294 0.045 74 33 68

SUM 25075 1858493 1 1630 737 1504



Roof 2788 66 66 184021 0.240 787 486 792

6 2808 57 57 160028 0.209 685 423 689

5 2808 48 48 134760 0.176 576 356 580

4 2808 39 39 109493 0.143 468 289 471

3 2808 30 30 84225 0.110 360 223 362

2 2808 21 21 58958 0.077 252 156 254

1 2808 12 12 33690 0.044 144 89 145

SUM 19633 765174 1 3273 2023 3293


Page 39

Table 5-12: Shear Wall Building Seismic Loads – Soil B



Roof 2788 66 66 184021 0.240 678 230 626

6 2808 57 57 160028 0.209 590 200 544

5 2808 48 48 134760 0.176 497 168 458

4 2808 39 39 109493 0.143 404 137 372

3 2808 30 30 84225 0.110 311 105 287

2 2808 21 21 58958 0.077 217 74 201

1 2808 12 12 33690 0.044 124 42 115

SUM 19633 765174 1 2821 956 2603


Page 40


Page 41

Prototype Building Final Designs 6

6.1 ETABS Drift Analysis

ETABS was used to determine the final design dimensions the lateral force resisting

members of both the moment frame and shear wall buildings (Fig 6-1 and 6-2). The lateral

loads were applied to the buildings to determine the drift of the structure. The member

sizes were then optimized by comparing the inelastic story drift values to the seismic

allowable story drift calculated using ASCE 7-10 Table 12.12-1.

A lateral drift limit of H/400 was also checked for the lateral displacement at the roof of

the structure when subjected to wind loads. For this case, elastic cracked section

properties based on ACI 318-11 Section 10.10.4.1 were used. In order to model elastic

cracked section properties, a modification factor of 0.7 was applied to the flexural stiffness

of the columns and walls and a modification factor of 0.35 was applied to the flexural

stiffness of the beams.

From this analysis, the special moment frame building required 28” square columns

with 30” wide by 24” deep beams. Moment frames are provided on the perimeter of the

special moment frame building with two additional moment frames spanning in the short

direction in the interior of the building. The intermediate moment frame building required

20” square columns with 20” wide by 26” deep beams. The special shear wall buildings

were determined to have 10” thick shear walls. Although the drift analyses determined that

thinner walls could be permitted for the ordinary shear wall buildings, walls thinner than 10”

were deemed not to be practical.


Page 42

Figure 6-1: ETABS Model of Special Moment Frame Building with Hilo Soil D Seismic Loads


Page 43

Figure 6-2: ETABS Model of Special Shear Wall Building with Hilo Soil D Seismic Loads

6.1.1 Special Moment Frame Office Building Design

For the design of the special reinforced concrete moment frame, provisions of ACI

Chapter 21 were used. Controlling shear and moment values obtained from the ETABS

analysis for seismic loading were combined with gravity shear and moment values using

the appropriate load combinations.

For the purposes of this project, two typical special moment frame beam designs were

performed: a typical 28’ beam design and a typical 10’ beam design. The 28’ beam design

was chosen because of its likelihood to control flexural reinforcing design. Likewise, the 10’

beam was chosen because it was assumed that the shortest beam would control shear

design for the special moment frame. These assumptions proved to be correct for the

special moment frame design. One typical column was designed for the special reinforced


Page 44

moment frame. PCA Column was used to assist in the design of the column longitudinal

reinforcing. Tables 6-1 through 6-4 show the flexural and shear reinforcing for the beams

and Tables 6-5 and 6-7 show the reinforcing of the column.

6.1.2 Intermediate Moment Frame Office Building Design

For the ordinary reinforced concrete moment frame, simple beam and column design

was performed. Controlling values for both shear and moment were obtained from the

Oahu ETABS model to create a typical beam and column design. PCA Column was used

to assist in the design of the longitudinal reinforcing of the column. See Tables 6-1 through

6-4 for the flexural and shear reinforcing for the beams and Tables 6-6 and 6-8 for the

reinforcing of the column.

6.2 Office Building

Tables 6-1 through 6-4 display the flexural and shear reinforcing designs of typical

beam sections for the office building. Tables 6-5 through 6-9 display the reinforcing

designs of typical columns for the office building.

The seismic force values of both the Hilo and Monterey building were very similar, with

the Hilo moment frame building having slightly larger seismic forces. Therefore, it was

determined that all special moment frame calculations would use the values obtained from

the Hilo seismic load calculations. Due to the similarity of forces between the two cases,

two different special moment frame designs were not necessary. The intermediate moment

frame building was designed using the Waikiki seismic loads.


Page 45

Table 6-1: Flexural Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil D

Table 6-2: Shear Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil D

Table 6-3: Flexural Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil B

Table 6-4: Shear Reinforcing of Typical Beam Sections – Soil B

Table 6-5: Reinforcing of Typical Special MRF Column Sections – Soil D

Beam Type Length Width Height Midspan Reinf (bot) Midspan Reinf (top) End Reinf. (bot) End Reinf. (top)

Special MRF 28' 30" 24" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's (5) #10's

Special MRF 10' 30" 24" (2) #10's (2) #10's (4) #10's (4) #10's

Intermediate MRF 28' 24" 28" (3) #8's (2) #10's (2) #8's (5) #10's


MRF BEAM FLEXURAL REINFORCING - SOIL D

Beam Type Length Width Height Shear Reinf. (mid) Shear Reinf. (end)

Special MRF 28' 30" 24" (2) #3 legs @ 5" (3) #4 legs @ 5"


Intermediate MRF 28' 24" 28" (2) #3 legs @ 8" (2) #3 legs @ 6"


MRF BEAM SHEAR REINFORCING - SOIL D

Beam Type Length Width Height Midspan Reinf (bot) Midspan Reinf (top) End Reinf. (bot) End Reinf. (top)

Special MRF 28' 26" 22" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's (5) #10's

Special MRF 10' 26" 22" (2) #9's (2) #9's (4) #9's (4) #9's



MRF BEAM FLEXURAL REINFORCING - SOIL B






MRF BEAM SHEAR REINFORCING - SOIL B

Floor Height Size Longitudinal Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf.

1 14' 28"x28" (8) #10's (3) #4 legs @ 4" (2) #3 legs @ 6"

Rem. Floors 12' 28"x28" (8) #9's (3) #4 legs @ 4" (2) #3 legs @ 6"

SPECIAL MRF COLUMNS SOIL D


Page 46

Table 6-6: Reinforcing of Typical Intermediate MRF Column Sections – Soil D

Table 6-7: Reinforcing of Typical Special MRF Column Sections – Soil B

Table 6-8: Reinforcing of Typical Intermediate MRF Column Sections – Soil B

Table 6-9: Reinforcing of Typical Office Building Gravity Columns

6.3 Residential Building

6.3.1 Hilo Residential Building Design

Tables 6-10 and 6-11 display the flexural and shear reinforcing details of typical

elevator shear wall sections for the residential building. All shear walls for each building

have a thickness of 10”.

The seismic force values of both the Hilo and Monterey building were again very

similar, with the Monterey moment frame building having slightly larger seismic forces for

Soil D, and the Hilo shear wall building having slightly larger seismic forces for Soil B. The


1 14' 24"x24" (8) #8's (2) #3 legs @ 9" (2) #3 legs @ 14"


INTERMEDIATE MRF COLUMNS SOIL D


1 14' 24"x24" (8) #8's (3) #4 legs @ 4" (2) #3 legs @ 6"


SPECIAL MRF COLUMNS SOIL B

Column Type Height Size Longitudinal Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf.

1 14' 20"x20" (8) #7's (2) #3 legs @ 9" (2) #3 legs @ 18"


INTERMEDIATE MRF COLUMNS SOIL B


1 14' 24"x24" (8) #7's (3) #4 legs @ 4" (3) #3 legs @ 5"


GRAVITY COLUMNS - ALL OFFICE BUILDINGS


Page 47

soil D special shear wall building was designed with the Monterey loads, and the soil B

special shear wall building was designed with the Hilo loads. Due to the similarity of forces

between the two cases, two different special moment frame designs were not necessary.

The ordinary shear wall buildings were designed using the Waikiki seismic loads.

6.3.2 Hilo Residential Building Design

Table 6-10: Reinforcing of Typical Special Elevator Shear Walls – Soil D

Table 6-11: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Elevator Shear Walls – Soil D

Wall Type Portion Length Vert. Reinf. Horiz. Reinf. Boundary Vert. Reinf. Ties Required

1st Floor Flange 132" #8's @ 18" E.F. #6's @9" E.F. (16) #10's Y

1st Floor Web 336" #8's @ 18" E.F. #6's @9" E.F. (4) #8's Y

2nd Floor Flange 132" #7's @ 18" E.F. #6's @9" E.F. (10) #9's Y

2nd Floor Web 336" #7's @ 18" E.F. #6's @9" E.F. (4) #7's Y

Rem. Floors Flange 132" #6's @ 18" E.F. #6's @9" E.F. (10) #7's N

Rem. Floors Web 336" #6's @ 18" E.F. #6's @9" E.F. (4) #6's N

SPECIAL ELEVATOR SHEAR WALLS - SOIL D




2nd Floor Flange 132" #7's @ 18" E.F. #5's @12" E.F. (10) #7's N

2nd Floor Web 336" #7's @ 18" E.F. #5's @12" E.F. (4) #7's N



ORDINARY ELEVATOR SHEAR WALLS - SOIL D


Page 48

Table 6-12: Reinforcing of Typical Special Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil D

Table 6-13: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil D

Table 6-14: Reinforcing of Typical Special Elevator Shear Walls – Soil B




1st Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (8) #10's Y



2nd Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's Y

3rd Floor Flange 120" #8's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #10's Y

3rd Floor Web 192" #8's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #10's Y

3rd Floor Door Wall 146" #8's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #10's Y

4th Floor Flange 120" #7's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #7's N

4th Floor Web 192" #7's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #7's N

4th Floor Door Wall 146" #7's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #7's N



Rem. Floors Door Wall 146" #6's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (4) #6's N

SPECIAL STAIRWELL SHEAR WALLS - SOIL D


1st Floor Flange 120" #7's @ 18" E.F. #6's @12" E.F. (4) #7's N

1st Floor Web 192" #7's @ 18" E.F. #6's @12" E.F. (4) #7's N

1st Floor Door Wall 146" #7's @ 18" E.F. #6's @12" E.F. (4) #7's N




ORDINARY STAIRWELL SHEAR WALLS - SOIL D




2nd Floor Flange 132" #6's @ 18" E.F. #5's @8" E.F. (10) #8's N

2nd Floor Web 336" #6's @ 18" E.F. #5's @8" E.F. (4) #6's N



SPECIAL ELEVATOR SHEAR WALLS - SOIL B


Page 49

Table 6-15: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Elevator Shear Walls – Soil B

Table 6-16: Reinforcing of Typical Special Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil B

Table 6-17: Reinforcing of Typical Ordinary Stairwell Shear Walls – Soil B

Table 6-18: Reinforcing of Typical Residential Building Gravity Columns


All Floors Flange 132" #6's @ 18" E.F. #4's @18" E.F. (10) #6's N

All Floors Web 336" #6's @ 18" E.F. #4's @18" E.F. (4) #6's N

ORDINARY ELEVATOR SHEAR WALLS - SOIL B




1st Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. #6's @8" E.F. (8) #10's Y



2nd Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. #6's @8" E.F. (4) #10's Y

3rd Floor Flange 120" #8's @ 18" E.F. #6's @8" E.F. (4) #8's N

3rd Floor Web 192" #8's @ 18" E.F. #6's @8" E.F. (4) #8's N

3rd Floor Door Wall 146" #8's @ 18" E.F. #6's @8" E.F. (4) #8's N




SPECIAL STAIRWELL SHEAR WALLS - SOIL B


All Floors Flange 120" #6's @ 18" E.F. #4's @18" E.F. (4) #6's N

All Floors Web 192" #6's @ 18" E.F. #4's @18" E.F. (4) #6's N

All Floors Door Wall 146" #6's @ 18" E.F. #4's @18" E.F. (4) #6's N

ORDINARY STAIRWELL SHEAR WALLS - SOIL B


1st Floor 12' 20"x20" (8) #7's (3) #4 legs @ 4" (3) #3 legs @ 5"


GRAVITY COLUMNS - ALL RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS


Page 50


Page 51

Tsunami Design Loads 7

The lateral force resisting system of the building must be designed to resist

hydrodynamic tsunami drag forces at each level, hydrodynamic drag component loads,

and debris impact loads. From the Energy Grade Line Method analysis, it was determined

that the maximum inundation depths to be used for design in Hilo and Waikiki would be 55

feet and 25 feet, respectively. The EGL method also determined that the maximum flow

velocity to be used for design in Hilo and Waikiki would be 35.8 ft/s and 28 ft/s,

respectively. With these maximum inundation depth and velocity values, the lateral

tsunami loads for each building were calculated for each of the three load cases.

Component loads were also calculated for the columns and walls of each of the buildings.

See Table 7-1 for a summary of the design loads.

7.1 Overall Building Drag Force

The overall tsunami building drag force was determined for the office and residential

buildings for the Hilo, Waikiki, and Monterey locations using Equation 3-2. This force was

then compared with the base shear due to seismic forces.

Section 6.8.3.4 of ASCE 7 Chapter 6 allows the overall building drag force to be

compared to the Horizontal Seismic Load Effect, Emh. If Fd > Emh, the overall building drag

force must be considered for the structural design. The Horizontal Seismic Load Effect,

Emh, includes 75 percent of the system’s Overstrength Factor, Ω0, for Seismic Design

Category D, E, or F for the life safety performance level and is given by Equation 7-1. This

provision applied to the buildings at Monterey and Hilo, which had Seismic Design

Category D.


Page 52

𝐸𝑚ℎ = 0.75Ω𝑜𝐸ℎ

Equation 7-1: Horizontal Seismic Load Effect Including Overstrength Factor

Table 7-1: Tsunami Loading Summary

Office Building Residential Building

Flow Parameters Hilo Waikiki Monterey Hilo Waikiki Monterey

Max. Inundation Depth, hmax (ft) 55 25 13 55 25 13

Max. Flow Velocity, umax (fps) 35.8 28 18 35.8 28 18

Overall Building Lateral Loading

(kips)

Load Case 1 1047 874 974 1429 1554 974

Load Case 2 11490 3297 769 11490 3297 769

Load Case 3 1947 424 119 1915 424 119

Hydrodynamic Drag

Component Loading

Exterior Column Hydrodynamic

Drag (kips/ft)

55.3 33.8 14.0 55.3 33.8 14.0

Interior Column Hydrodynamic

Drag (kips/ft)

5.6 3.45 1.4 4.7 2.9 1.2

Exterior Wall Hydrodynamic

Drag (kips/ft)

- - - 79.0 48.3 27.9

Interior Wall Hydrodynamic

Drag (kips/ft)

- - - 28.2 17.2 7.1

Exterior Wall Bore Force

(kips/ft)

- - - 50.1 53.2 -

Debris Loading

Ext. Column Debris Impact (kips) 214.5 107.3 102.8 214.5 107.3 102.8

Ext. Wall Debris Impact (kips) - - - 214.5 107.3 102.8

For Seismic Design Category A, B and C, the value of the seismic base shear must be

directly compared to the overall building drag force. When comparing the tsunami loads to

the seismic loads of each building, it was determined that the base shear due to tsunami

loading was larger than the seismic base shear values at the Hilo and Waikiki locations.

Therefore, overall building drag force had to be considered to redesign the members of the


Page 53

buildings in Hilo and Waikiki. In the Hilo and Waikiki locations, Load Case 2 controlled the

overall building drag force. In Monterey, Load Case 1 controlled the overall building drag

force.

7.2 Component Drag Force

7.2.1 Drag Force on Components

The component hydrodynamic drag force was computed for components of each

building. For the office building, the hydrodynamic component drag was calculated for the

exterior moment frame columns and the interior gravity columns. Exterior columns

experience increased drag due to debris blockage. Therefore, b was taken as the tributary

width of the column multiplied by a closure ratio value of 0.7. For the residential building,

the hydrodynamic drag was calculated for the broad side (web) of the elevator shear wall,

the narrow side (flange) of the stairwell shear wall and the interior and exterior gravity

columns.

7.2.2 Bore Loads on Vertical Structural Components

The bore hydrodynamic load was calculated for the exterior facing elevator shear walls

in the Waikiki residential building, due to the fringing reefs in Waikiki. In areas where bores

are possible, the bore force must be calculated for vertical components with a width to

inundation depth ratio of three or more. Therefore, the bore load on the elevator shear wall

was calculated for an inundation depth of 9.33 feet (1/3 of the elevator wall width or 28

feet).

7.3 Debris Impact Loads

The debris impact loads were calculated for design of components in each building.

Because of their location away from shipping ports, the Waikiki and Monterey building sites


Page 54

were not in impact zones for shipping containers. Therefore, only logs were considered

using the simplified debris impact load from equation 3-6 reduced by 50%.


Page 55

Tsunami Building Designs 8

8.1 Office Building Tsunami Designs

8.1.1 Moment Frame Analysis

ETABS was used to apply the tsunami overall building drag forces to the broad side of

the moment frame building (Fig 8-1).

Figure 8-1: ETABS Model of Special Moment Frame Building with Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force


Page 56

Figure 8-2: ETABS North-South Special Moment Frame Column Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force

The moment and shear values from ETABS were used to redesign the beams and

columns in the north-south moment frames.

RISA-2D was used to determine the moment and shear values due to component

loading (which includes hydrodynamic drag component forces and impact forces) on

structural members. For the moment frame building, only exterior and interior columns


Page 57

were analyzed for component loading. Figure 8-3 shows an example of the hydrodynamic

component loading and moment diagram of a portion of an exterior column on RISA-2D.

Figure 8-3: RISA 2-D Special Moment Frame Column Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami Hydrodynamic Component Drag Force

8.1.2 Beam Designs

Tables 8-1 through 8-4 display the beam flexural and shear reinforcing designs due to

the tsunami overall building drag force for the Hilo special moment frame. The overall

building drag force resulted in larger beam moments and shears than the seismic

moments and shears in the lower portion of the office building. The tsunami forces resulted

in an increase in beam size for the first floor of the Hilo Soil Type D buildings and the first

and second floors of the Hilo Soil Type B buildings. Reinforcing was also increased in

various beams in the Hilo building. Due to the relatively small overall building drag forces

in the Waikiki and Monterey buildings, redesign of the beams was not needed in those

locations.

Table 8-1: Hilo SMRF Beam Flexural Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil D

Note: Reinforcing for seismic designed members in brackets [ ]

Location Length Width Height Midspan Reinf (bot) Midspan Reinf (top) End Reinf. (bot) End Reinf. (top)

1st Floor - Typ. 28' 36" 32" (3) #10's [(2) #10's] (3) #10's [(2) #10's] (8) #10's [(5) #10's] (8) #10's [(5) #10's]

1st Floor - 10' Beam 10' 36" 32" (8) #10's [(2) #10's] (8) #10's [(2) #10's] (8) #10's [(4) #10's] (8) #10's [(4) #10's]

2nd Floor - Typ. 28' 30" 26" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's (8) #10's [(5) #10's]

2nd Floor - 10' Beam 10' 30" 26" (6) #10's [(2) #10's] (6) #10's [(2) #10's] (6) #10's [(4) #10's] (6) #10's [(4) #10's]

Rem. Floors - Typ. 28' 30" 24" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's (6) #10's [(5) #10's]

Rem. Floors - 10' Beam 10' 30" 24" (5) #10's [(2) #10's] (5) #10's [(2) #10's] (5) #10's [(4) #10's] (5) #10's [(4) #10's]

HILO TSUNAMI BULDING FORCES SMF BEAM FLEXURAL REINFORCING - SOIL D


Page 58

Table 8-2: Hilo SMRF Beam Flexural Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B


Table 8-3: Hilo SMRF Beam Shear Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil D


Table 8-4: Hilo SMRF Beam Shear Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B


8.1.3 Column Designs

Tables 8-5 through 8-7 display the beam flexural and shear reinforcing designs due to

the tsunami overall building drag force for the Hilo and Waikiki moment frames. Because

the building was oriented such that the broad side faces the flow, the columns in the north-

south moment frames were designed with the overall building drag force as indicated in

Figure 8-4.

Location Length Width Height Midspan Reinf (bot) Midspan Reinf (top) End Reinf. (bot) End Reinf. (top)

1st Floor - Typ. 28' 36" 32" (3) #10's [(2) #10's] (3) #10's [(2) #10's] (8) #10's [(5) #10's] (8) #10's [(5) #10's]

1st Floor - 10' Beam 10' 36" 32" (8) #10's [(2) #9's] (8) #10's [(2) #9's] (8) #10's [(4) #9's] (8) #10's [(4) #9's]

2nd Floor - Typ. 28' 30" 26" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's (8) #10's [(5) #10's]

2nd Floor - 10' Beam 10' 30" 26" (6) #10's [(2) #10's] (6) #10's [(2) #10's] (6) #10's [(4) #9's] (6) #10's [(4) #9's]

Rem. Floors - Typ. 28' 26" 22" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's (5) #10's

Rem. Floors - 10' Beam 10' 26" 22" (2) #10's (2) #10's (5) #10's [(4) #9's] (5) #10's [(4) #9's]

HILO TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES SMF BEAM FLEXURAL REINFORCING - SOIL B


1st Floor - Typ. 28' 36" 32" (2) #4 legs @ 4" [(2) #3's@5"] (5) #3 legs @ 4" [(3) #4's@5"]

1st Floor - 10' Beam 10' 36" 32" (6) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"] (6) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"]

Rem. Floors - Typ. 28' 30" 26" (2) #4 legs @ 6" [(2) #3's@5"] (4) #4 legs @ 5" [(3) #4's@5"]

Rem. Floors - 10' Beam 10' 30" 26" (5) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"] (5) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"]



HILO TSUNAMI BULDING FORCES SMF BEAM SHEAR REINFORCING - SOIL D


1st Floor - Typ. 28' 36" 32" (2) #4 legs @ 4" [(2) #3's@5"] (5) #3 legs @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"]

1st Floor - 10' Beam 10' 36" 32" (6) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"] (6) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"]

2nd Floor - Typ. 28' 30" 26" (2) #4 legs @ 6" [(2) #3's@5"] (4) #4 legs @ 5" [(3) #4's@4"]

2nd Floor - 10' Beam 10' 30" 26" (5) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"] (5) #4 legs @ 4" [(4) #4's@4"]



HILO TSUNAMI BULDING FORCES SMF BEAM SHEAR REINFORCING - SOIL B


Page 59

Figure 8-4: Location of Moment Frame Columns Affected by Overall Building Drag Force

The tsunami forces resulted in an increase in moment frame column size for the first floor

of the Hilo Soil Type D buildings and the first and second floors of the Hilo Soil Type B

buildings. Flexural reinforcement was also increased in several columns in the Hilo

building. Moment frame column size and reinforcing also needed increasing in the first

floor of the Oahu Soil Type B building. However, the columns in the Oahu Soil Type D

columns were adequate for tsunami building forces. Due to the relatively small overall

building drag forces in the Monterey building redesign of the columns was not needed.

Table 8-5: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil D



1 14' 36"x36" (24) #10's [(8) #10's] (5) #4's @4" [(3) #4's@4"] (5) #4's @5" [(2) #3's@6"]

2 12' 30"x30" (16) #10's [(8) #9's] (4) #4's @4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #4's @5" [(2) #3's@6"]

Rem. Floors 12' 28"x28" (8) #9's (3) #4's @ 4" (3) #3's @ 6"

HILO SPECIAL MRF COLUMNS SOIL D, TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES


Page 60

Table 8-6: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B


Table 8-7: Waikiki IMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Overall Building Drag Force - Soil B


Tables 8-8 through 8-11 display the beam flexural and shear reinforcing designs due

to the tsunami component forces for the Hilo and Waikiki moment frames. Because the

building was oriented such that the broad side faces the flow, the columns on the broad

side of the building, as indicated in Figure 8-5, are exposed to component forces.


1 14' 36"x36" (24) #10's [(8) #8's] (5) #4's @4" [(3) #4's@4"] (5) #4's @5" [(2) #3's@6"]

2 12' 30"x30" (16) #10's [(8) #8's] (4) #4's @4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #4's @5" [(2) #3's@6"]

Rem. Floors 12' 24"x24" (8) #8's (3) #4's @ 4" (3) #3's @ 6"

HILO SPECIAL MRF COLUMNS SOIL B, TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES


1 14' 24"x24" (8) #8's [(8) #7's] (2) #3's @ 9" (2) #3's @14" [(2) #3's@18"]

Rem. Floors 12' 20"x20" (8) #7's (2) #3's @ 9" (2) #3's @ 18"

OAHU INTERMEDIATE MRF COLUMNS SOIL B, TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES

Floor Height Size Flexural Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf.

1 14' 24" (8) #8's [(8) #7's] (2) #3's @ 9" (2) #3's @14" [(2) #3's@18"]

Rem. Floors 12' 20" (8) #7's (2) #3's @ 9" (2) #3's @ 18"

OAHU INTERMEDIATE MRF COLUMNS SOIL B, TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES


Page 61

Figure 8-5: Hilo SMRF Beam Flexural Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Building Forces - Soil D

Therefore, the columns on the broad side of the building were designed with either the

hydrodynamic drag component force or the impact force, whichever was larger. Because

the corner columns are both exposed to component forces and are also part of the

moment frame that resists overall building forces, the corner columns were designed

based on the controlling loading between the overall building force and the component

forces. Several columns in both the Hilo and Waikiki buildings needed an increase in

reinforcement due to the tsunami component forces. The columns in the Monterey building

were adequate for hydrodynamic component forces.

Table 8-8: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil D


Floor Height Size Flexural Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf. Controlling Load

1 14' 28" (16) #10's [(8) #10's] (4) #5's @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #4's @ 4" [(2) #3's@6"] HYDRODYNAMIC

2 AND 3 12' 28" (12) #10's [(8) #9's] (4) #5's @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #4's @ 4" [(2) #3's@6"] HYDRODYNAMIC

Rem. Floors 12' 28" (8) #10's [(8) #9's] (3) #4's @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #4's @ 4" [(2) #3's@6"] IMPACT

HILO SPECIAL MRF COLUMNS SOIL D, TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES


Page 62

Table 8-9: Waikiki IMF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil D


Table 8-10: Hilo SMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil B


Table 8-11: Waikiki IMRF Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces - Soil B


Figures 8-6 and 8-7 show the typical first floor beam reinforcement layouts for the

seismic designed Hilo Soil D building and the tsunami designed Hilo building, respectively.

Each figure has the beam reinforcing layout for the boundary and the midspan of the

beam.


1 14' 24" (8) #8's (3) #5's @ 5" [(3) #3's@9"] (3) #3's @ 4" [(2) #3's@14"] HYDRODYNAMIC

2 12' 24" (8) #8's (3) #4's @ 5" [(3) #3's@9"] (3) #3's @ 4" [(2) #3's@14"] HYDRODYNAMIC

Rem. Floors 12' 24" (8) #7's (2) #3's @ 9" (2) #3's @ 14" SEISMIC

OAHU INTERMEDIATE MRF COLUMNS SOIL D, TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES



2 AND 3 12' 28" (12) #10's [(8) #8's] (4) #5's @ 4"[(3) #4's@4"] (3) #4's @ 4" [(2) #3's@6"] HYDRODYNAMIC

Rem. Floors 12' 24" (8) #8's (3) #5's @ 5" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #5's @ 5" [(2) #3's@6"] IMPACT

HILO SPECIAL MRF COLUMNS SOIL B, TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES

Column Type Height Size Flexural Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf. Controlling Load



Rem. Floors 12' 20" (8) #7's (2) #3's @ 9" (2) #3's @ 18" SEISMIC

OAHU INTERMEDIATE MRF COLUMNS SOIL B, TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES


Page 63

Figure 8-6: Boundary reinforcing (left) and midspan reinforcing (right) for the Hilo Seismic Soil D first floor moment frame beams.

Figure 8-7: Boundary reinforcing (left) and midspan reinforcing (right) for the Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force first floor moment frame beams.

Figures 8-8 and 8-9 show the typical first floor column reinforcement layouts for the

seismic designed Hilo Soil D building and the Hilo tsunami designed building, respectively.

The figures display the boundary column reinforcing layout.


Page 64

Figure 8-8: Boundary reinforcing the Hilo Seismic Soil D first floor moment frame columns.

Figure 8-9: Boundary reinforcing for the Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force first floor moment frame columns.

8.2 Residential Building Tsunami Designs

8.2.1 Shear Wall Analysis

ETABS was used to apply the tsunami overall building drag forces to the broad side of

the shear wall building (Fig 8-10).


Page 65

Figure 8-10: ETABS Model of Special Shear Wall Building with Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force

The moment and shear values from ETABS were used to redesign the elevator shear

walls, which provide the main resistance against lateral loads perpendicular to the broad

side of the building. Figure 8-11 shows the ETABS moment distribution on an elevator

shear wall caused by the overall building drag force.


Page 66

Figure 8-11: ETABS Stairwell Shear Wall Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami Overall Building Drag Force

RISA-2D was used to determine the moment and shear values due to component

loading (which includes hydrodynamic drag component forces and impact forces) on

structural members. For the shear wall building, exterior columns, interior columns, and the

exterior portion of the elevator shear walls were analyzed for component loading. For

analysis of the elevator shear walls, the load was determined for a one-foot width section

of the wall. Figure 8-12 shows an example the hydrodynamic component loading and

moment diagram of a portion of the exterior elevator shear wall on RISA-2D.


Page 67

Figure 8-12: RISA 2-D 12” Width Elevator Shear Wall Segment Moment Diagram Due to Hilo Tsunami Hydrodynamic Component Drag Force

8.2.2 Elevator Shear Wall Designs

Tables 8-12, 8-13, and 8-14 display the shear wall flexural and shear reinforcing

designs due to the tsunami component forces for the Hilo, Waikiki, and Monterey elevator

shear walls. Because the building was oriented such that the broad side faces the flow, the

shear walls on the exterior of the building were designed with component forces. It was

determined that the debris impact loads controlled over the hydrodynamic component drag

forces. The vertical reinforcing was increased in the exterior (web) portion of the elevator

shear walls to resist out of plane bending. The width of this portion of the wall was also

increased from 10” to 12” to help resist out of plane shear. Due to the out of plane shear

force in the exterior portion of the elevator shear walls due to component forces, the

original shear wall design would fail in shear. Therefore, headed shear studs are needed to

resist the out of plane shear forces due to components on the exterior portion of the

elevator walls.

For the tsunami component design of the exterior (web) portion of the elevator shear

walls, note that the horizontal reinforcing, boundary reinforcing, and tie reinforcing do not

change from the seismic designed shear walls. Therefore, those respective columns have

been left out of Tables 8-12, 8-13, and 8-14.


Page 68

Table 8-12: Hilo Special Elevator Shear Wall Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces


Table 8-13: Waikiki Elevator Shear Wall Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces


Table 8-14: Monterey Elevator Shear Wall Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces


Figures 8-13 and 8-14 show the typical first floor elevator shear wall reinforcement

layouts for the seismic designed Hilo Soil D building and the tsunami designed Hilo

building, respectively.

Location Portion Length Width Vert. Reinf. Headed Studs Stud Row Spacing

All Floors Flange 132" 10" No Change n/a n/a

1st Floor Web 336" 12" #10's @ 10" E.F. [#8's @18" E.F.] #5's @ 4" 12"

2nd Floor Web 336" 12" #10's @ 10" E.F. [#7's @18" E.F.] #5's @ 4" 12"

Rem. Floors Web 336" 12" #10's @ 10" E.F. [#6's @18" E.F.] #5's @ 4" 12"

HILO SPECIAL ELEVATOR SHEAR WALL- TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES (DEBRIS IMPACT CONTROL)





3rd Floor Web 336" 12" #10's @ 16" E.F. [#6's @18" E.F.] #4's @ 5" 12"

Rem. Floors Web 336" 12" No Change n/a n/a

WAIKIKI ORDINARY ELEVATOR SHEAR WALL - TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES (DEBRIS IMPACT CONTROL)





Rem. Floors Web 336" 12" No Change n/a n/a

MONTEREY SPECIAL ELEVATOR SHEAR WALL - TSUNAMI COMPONENT FORCES (DEBRIS IMPACT CONTROL)


Page 69

Figure 8-13: Reinforcing for the Hilo Seismic Soil D first floor elevator shear walls.

Figure 8-14: Reinforcing for the Hilo Tsunami Component Force first floor elevator shear walls.

8.2.3 Stairwell Shear Wall Designs

Table 8-15 displays the shear wall flexural and shear reinforcing designs due to the

tsunami overall building drag forces for the Hilo special stairwell shear walls. Because the

building was oriented such that the broad side faces the flow, the stairwell shear walls on

the east and west side of the building was designed to resist the overall building drag

forces. The seismic designs of the Waikiki ordinary stairwell and the Monterey special

shear wall are adequate to resist tsunami overall building forces.


Page 70

Table 8-15: Hilo Special Stairwell Shear Wall Due to Overall Building Drag Force – Soil D


Table 8-16: Hilo Special Stairwell Shear Wall Due to Overall Building Drag Force – Soil B


8.2.4 External Gravity Column Designs

Tables 8-17 and 8-18 display the gravity column flexural and shear reinforcing designs

due to the tsunami component forces for the Hilo and Waikiki buildings. Because the

building was oriented such that the broad side faces the flow, the gravity on the exterior of

the building were designed with component forces. It was determined that the gravity

columns on the interior of the building would not need to be redesigned due to small

Location Portion Length Vert. Reinf. Horiz. Reinf. Boundary Vert. Reinf. Ties Req'd

1st Floor Flange 120" (2) #9's @ 12" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. (14) #10's [(8) #10's] Y

1st Floor Web 192" #9's @ 12" E.F. [#9's @ 18" E.F.] #9's @9" E.F. [#7's @9" E.F.] (24) #10's [(12) #10's] Y

1st Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 12" E.F. [#9's @ 18" E.F.] #9's @9" E.F. [#7's @9" E.F.] (14) #10's [(8) #10's] Y


2nd Floor Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. #8's @9" E.F. [#7's @9" E.F.] (8) #10's Y

2nd Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. #8's @9" E.F. [#7's @9" E.F.] (6) #10's Y

3rd Floor Flange 120" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#8's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's [(4) #10's] Y

3rd Floor Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#8's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (8) #10's [(4) #10's] Y

3rd Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#8's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's [(4) #10's] Y

4th Floor Flange 120" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#7's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's [(4) #7's] Y [N]

4th Floor Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#7's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (8) #10's [(4) #7's] Y [N]

4th Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#7's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's [(4) #7's] Y [N]

Rem. Floors Flange 120" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#6's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's [(4) #6's] Y [N]

Rem. Floors Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#6's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (8) #10's [(4) #6's] Y [N]

Rem. Floors Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#6's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. (6) #10's [(4) #6's] Y [N]

HILO SPECIAL STAIRWELL SHEAR WALL - TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES - SOIL D

Location Portion Length Vert. Reinf. Horiz. Reinf. Boundary Vert. Reinf. Ties Req'd

1st Floor Flange 120" (2) #9's @ 12" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (14) #10's [(8) #10's] Y

1st Floor Web 192" #9's @ 12" E.F. [#9's @ 18" E.F.] #9's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (24) #10's [(12) #10's] Y

1st Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 12" E.F. [#9's @ 18" E.F.] #9's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (14) #10's [(8) #10's] Y

2nd Floor Flange 120" #9's @ 18" E.F. #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (6) #10's [(4) #10's] Y

2nd Floor Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. #8's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (8) #10's [(4) #10's] Y

2nd Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. #8's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (6) #10's [(4) #10's] Y

3rd Floor Flange 120" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#8's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (6) #10's [(4) #8's] Y [N]

3rd Floor Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#8's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (8) #10's [(4) #8's] Y [N]

3rd Floor Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#8's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (6) #10's [(4) #8's] Y [N]

Rem. Floors Flange 120" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#6's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (6) #10's [(4) #6's] Y [N]

Rem. Floors Web 192" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#6's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (8) #10's [(4) #6's] Y [N]

Rem. Floors Door Wall 146" #9's @ 18" E.F. [#6's @ 18" E.F.] #7's @9" E.F. [#6's @8" E.F.] (6) #10's [(4) #6's] Y [N]

HILO SPECIAL STAIRWELL SHEAR WALL - TSUNAMI BUILDING FORCES - SOIL B


Page 71

hydrodynamic component forces on the interior columns. The original design of the

Monterey gravity columns was adequate to resist tsunami component forces.

Table 8-17: Hilo Residential Building Exterior Gravity Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces


Table 8-18: Oahu Residential Building Exterior Gravity Column Reinforcing Due to Tsunami Component Forces


Column Height Size Flexural Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf. Load Type

1st Floor 12' 24" (12) #10's [(8) #7's] (4) #5's @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #5's @ 5" [(3) #3's@5"] Hydrodynamic

2nd Floor 9' 24" (12) #9's [(8) #7's] (4) #5's @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #5's @ 5" [(3) #3's@5"] Hydrodynamic

Rem. Floors 9' 24" (12) #8's [(8) #7's] (3) #5's @ 4" [(3) #4's@4"] (3) #5's @ 5" [(3) #3's@5"] Impact

EXTERIOR GRAVITY COLUMNS - HILO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (TSUNAMI COMPONENT LOADING)

Column Height Size Flexural Reinf. Boundary Reinf. Shear Reinf. LOAD TYPE

1st Floor 12' 22" (12) #8's [(8) #7's] (3) #5 legs @ 4" (3) #4's @ 5" [(3) #3's@5"] Hydrodynamic

2nd Floor 9' 20" (8) #8's [(8) #7's] (3) #4 legs @ 4" (3) #4's @ 5" [(3) #3's@5"] Hydrodynamic

Rem. Floors 9' 20" (8) #7's (3) #4 legs @ 4" (3) #3's @ 5" Seismic

EXTERIOR GRAVITY COLUMNS - OAHU RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (TSUNAMI COMPONENT LOADING)


Page 72


Page 73

Material Quantity Comparison 9

9.1 Material Quantity Comparison

Tables 9-1 and 9-2 display the amount of concrete and steel required for the seismic

designed buildings and the tsunami designed buildings. The increase in volume of

concrete between the seismic buildings and tsunami buildings were minimal. However, the

designs for all buildings needed an increase in reinforcement tonnage for the tsunami

designs.

Table 9-1: Concrete Quantity Comparison

Building Seis. Conc Vol. (CY) TSU Conc Vol. (CY) % Increase

Hilo Special Moment Frame - D 5286 5405 2.25

Hilo Special Moment Frame - B 4908 5342 8.84

Intermediate Moment Frame - D 5057 5150 1.86

Intermediate Moment Frame - B 4696 5042 7.37

Monterey Special Moment Frame - D 5286 5286 0

Monterey Special Moment Frame - B 4908 4908 0

Hilo Special Shear Wall - D 3415 3483 1.99

Hilo Special Shear Wall - B 3415 3483 1.99

Ordinary Shear Wall - D 3415 3420 0.121

Ordinary Shear Wall - B 3415 3420 0.121

Monterey Special Shear Wall - D 3415 3420 0.121

Monterey Special Shear Wall - B 3415 3420 0.121

Concrete Quantity Comparison


Page 74

Table 9-2: Reinforcement Quantity Comparison

For the Hilo special moment frame buildings, an increase concrete volume of 2.3%

and 8.8% was required for the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B buildings,

respectively. An increase of reinforcement weight of 22.2% and 27.5% was also required

for the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B moment frame buildings, respectively. The

increase of concrete volume between both Hilo special shear wall buildings was only 2.2%.

However, an increase in reinforcement weight of 38.3% and 39.9% was also required for

the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B shear wall buildings, respectively. Much of the

reinforcement increase was due to the significant increase in reinforcing required for the

exterior portion of the elevator shear walls due to impact loads.

For the Waikiki intermediate moment frame buildings, an increase concrete volume of

1.86% and 7.37% was required for the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B buildings,

respectively. An increase in reinforcement weight of 3.21% and 4.24% was also required

for the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B moment frame buildings, respectively. The

increase of concrete volume between both Waikiki ordinary shear wall buildings was only

0.12%. However, an increase in reinforcement weight of 8.41% and 10.4% was also

Building Seis. Reinf. Wt (Ton) TSU Reinf. Wt (Ton) % Increase

Hilo Special Moment Frame - D 304 371 22.2

Hilo Special Moment Frame - B 284 362 27.5

Intermediate Moment Frame - D 220 228 3.41

Intermediate Moment Frame - B 201 210 4.24

Monterey Special Moment Frame - D 304 304 0

Monterey Special Moment Frame - B 284 284 0

Hilo Special Shear Wall - D 135 187 38.9

Hilo Special Shear Wall - B 132 184 39.9

Ordinary Shear Wall - D 120 130 8.41

Ordinary Shear Wall - B 112 124 10.4

Monterey Special Shear Wall - D 135 144 7.24

Monterey Special Shear Wall - B 132 139 5.53

Reinforcing Steel Quantity Comparison


Page 75

required for the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B shear wall buildings, respectively.

The increases in concrete and reinforcement were smaller in the Waikiki buildings than in

the Hilo buildings due to the smaller tsunami forces in the Waikiki location.

Due to the relatively low tsunami forces in Monterey, there was no difference in

concrete or reinforcement volume in the moment frame building. There was also a minimal

increase in concrete in the Monterey shear wall building. However, an increase in

reinforcing weight of 7.24% and 5.53% was required for the tsunami design of the Soil D

and Soil B shear wall buildings, respectively. This increase in reinforcement was primarily

due to the impact forces on the exterior shear walls and the exterior gravity columns on the

lower floors of the Monterey residential building.


Page 76


Page 77

Conclusions 10

After analyzing these prototype buildings for tsunami loads, the following conclusions

were made:

Tsunami forces resulted in redesign for members in Waikiki and Hilo buildings.

For the Monterey buildings, no redesign was required for the moment frame

building and minimal redesign was needed for the shear wall building.

The increase in concrete volume was small for each building analyzed. The

greatest required increase of concrete volume for the moment frame buildings

due to tsunami forces was 8.8%. For the shear wall buildings, the greatest

required concrete volume increase was 1.99%.

An increase in reinforcing weight of 7.24% and 5.53% was required for the

tsunami design of the Monterey Soil D and Soil B special shear wall buildings,

respectively.

An increase of reinforcement weight of 22.2% and 27.5% was also required for

the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B moment frame buildings,

respectively. In the lower floors of the building, column and beam size were

greatly increased due to overall building drag forces.

Impact loading on the Hilo and Waikiki exterior elevator shear walls resulted in

an increase of wall thickness, an increase in longitudinal steel and also required

the addition of shear studs.

An increase in reinforcement weight of 38.3% and 39.9% was required for the

tsunami design of the Hilo Soil D and Soil B shear wall buildings, respectively.


Page 78

Due to out of plane tsunami impact forces from shipping containers, the exterior

portion of the elevator shear wall required an increase in thickness of 2” and the

addition of shear headed studs.

In, Waikiki, an increase in reinforcement weight of 3.21% and 4.24% was also

required for the tsunami design of the Soil D and Soil B intermediate moment

frame buildings, respectively. An increase in reinforcement weight of 8.41% and

10.4% was also required for the tsunami design of the Waikiki Soil D and Soil B

ordinary shear wall buildings, respectively. The addition of shear headed studs

was required for the inundated floors of the shear wall buildings due to out of

plane impact forces.


Page 79

References 11

ACI, 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan ASCE, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. ASCE, 2014, ASCE 7 Chapter 6 Draft Tsunami Loads and Effects, ASCE 7 Tsunami Loads and Effects Subcommittee. CAEE, 2005, The December 26, 2004 Sumatra Earthquake and Tsunami, The Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. CCH 2000. Department of Planning and Permitting of Honolulu Hawai'i. City and County of Honolulu Building Code. Chapter 16 Article 11 Chock, G., Robertson, I.N., Kriebel D., Francis, M., and Nistor, I., 2011, Tohoku Japan Tsunami of March 11, 2011 Performance of Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute. FEMA 2000. Coastal Construction Manual. FEMA 55, Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA, 2008, Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis, FEMA P646 Report, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. Ghosh, S.K., and David A. Fanella (2003). Seismic and Wind Design of Concrete Buildings. Illinois: Country Club Hills IBC, 2012, International Building Code, International Code Council, Country Club Hills, Illinois. Mikhaylov, Y. and Robertson, I., 2009, Evaluation of Prototypical Reinforced Concrete Building Performance When Subjected to Tsunami Loading, Research Report UHM/CEE/09-01, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai’i. (http://www.cee.hawaii.edu/reports/UHM-CEE-09-01.pdf) Mohamed, A., 2008, Characterization of Tsunami-Like Bores in Support of Loading on Structures, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Pacheco, K. and Robertson, I., 2005, Evaluation of Tsunami Loads and Their Effect on Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Research Report UHM/CEE/05-06, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai’i. (http://www.cee.hawaii.edu/reports/UHM-CEE-05-06.pdf)


Page 80


Page 81

Appendix A – Hilo Tsunami Design Loads Sample Calculation

Prototype Concrete Buildings - Hilo

6-Story Office Building

Special Moment Resisting Frame on perimeter and interior frames; interior gravity columns with posttensioned floor slabs

Seismic Design Criteria: Ss = 1.5, S1 = 0.6; Seismic site class D; R = 8, o = 3, Cd = 5.5

Tsunami Risk Category II building located in Tsunami Design Zone per Figure 6.1-1. Mean height above grade plane = 74 ft > 65 ft, therefore tsunami design is required (per Section 6.1.1a).

7-Story Residential Building

Building Frame System with special reinforced concrete shear walls at exit stairs and elevator core, with concrete floor slabs on gravity columns

Seismic Design Criteria: Ss = 1.5, S1 = 0.6; Seismic site class D; R = 6, o = 2.5, Cd = 5

Tsunami Risk Category II building located in Tsunami Design Zone per Figure 6.1-1. Mean height above grade plane = 66 ft > 65 ft, therefore tsunami design is required (per Section 6.1.1a)

Assumed Conditions

A. Building oriented with longitudinal axis parallel to shoreline.

B. Building has no basement.

C. Foundation system is deep piles with pile caps supporting all shear walls and all exterior columns.

D. Ground floor – slab on grade with isolation joints at columns.

E. Top of first floor windows – 8 ft. above grade (window sill at 3 ft).

F. Section 6.6.4 - Tsunami Bores: Shall be considered where any of the following conditions exist:

1. Prevailing nearshore bathymetric slope is 1/100 or milder – Does not apply

2. Shallow fringing reefs or other similar step discontinuities – Does not apply

3. Where historically documented – Applies

4. As described in the Recognized Literature – Does not apply

5. As determined by a site-specific inundation analysis – not required for these buildings

Therefore bore loading must be considered in this design. G. Section 6.11 - Debris Impact Loads: Subject to shipping containers, ships or barges.

H. Exterior cladding spans vertically between floors.


Page 82

Tsunami Loading Summary

Table gives a summary of the tsunami loads determined for each of the two buildings located at each of the selected sites. Note that these values include the loading values for the Monterey and Waikiki locations. This sample calculation will only use the loading values for the Hilo location.

Table 1: Summary of Tsunami Loading for Office and Residential Buildings

Office Building Residential Building

Flow Parameters Hilo Waikiki Monterey Hilo Waikiki Monterey

Max. Inundation Depth, hmax (ft)

55 25 13 55 25 13

Max. Flow Velocity, umax (fps) 35.8 28 18 35.8 28 18

Overall Building Lateral Loading (kips)

Load Case 1 1047 874 974 1429 1554 974

Load Case 2 11490 3297 769 11490 3297 769

Load Case 3 1947 424 119 1915 424 119

Hydrodynamic Drag Component Loading

Exterior Column Hydrodynamic Drag (kips/ft)

55.3 33.8 14.0 55.3 33.8 14.0

Interior Column Hydrodynamic Drag (kips/ft)

5.6 3.45 1.4 4.7 2.9 1.2

Exterior Wall Hydrodynamic Drag (kips/ft)

- - - 79.0 48.3 27.9

Interior Wall Hydrodynamic Drag (kips/ft)

- - - 28.2 17.2 7.1

Exterior Wall Bore Force (kips/ft)

- - - 50.1 53.2 -

Debris Loading

Exterior Column Debris Impact (kips)

214.5 107.3 102.8 214.5 107.3 102.8

Exterior Wall Debris Impact (kips)

- - - 214.5 107.3 102.8


Page 83

Tsunami Design for Hilo Office Building

Overall Building Forces

Section 6.8.3.1 defines the following three Load Cases, which must be considered in the design.

Load Case 1: Maximum buoyancy and associated hydrodynamic drag.

The exterior inundation depth need not exceed the lesser of

hext < hmax = 55.0 ft

< 10 ft

< top of first story windows = 8 ft. CONTROLS

Because the ground floor consists of a slab-on-grade that is isolated from the building columns, any uplift pressures developed below the slab will cause localized slab failure but will not result in buoyancy of the building. Therefore overall buoyancy is not a consideration.

For the sake of illustration, if we had assumed that the ground floor consists of structural grade beams and integral slab on grade without isolation joints, and that the soil allowed ground water pressure increase below the building (ie. sandy or gravely subsoil), the buoyancy would need to be considered as follows:

Section 6.9.1, Eqn. 6.9.1-1 𝐹𝑣 = 𝛾𝑠𝑉𝑤 = (1.1x64.0)(254’ x 88’ x 8’)/1000 = 12,588 kips

Apply load combination: 0.9D + FTSU + 1.2 HTSU

where HTSU = 0 since scour is assumed uniform around the building perimeter.

and building dead weight, D = 25,100 kips, including foundation.

Therefore net uplift = - 0.9 x 25,100 + 12,588 = -10002 kips, downward.

Overall uplift would therefore not be a concern, even if the ground floor were a structural slab capable of resisting the associated buoyancy pressures. This example also ignores any uplift resistance provided by the deep foundations.

In combination with buoyancy, Load Case 1 requires application of the associated hydrodynamic drag on the entire building.

Section 6.10.2, Eqn. 6.10.2-1 gives 𝐹𝑑𝑥 =1


Where s = 1.1 x 2.0 = 2.2 slugs/cuft

Itsu = 1.0 (Table 6.8-1 – TRC II)

Cd = 1.45 (Table 6.10-1 based on B/hsx = 254/8 = 31.8)

𝐶𝑐𝑥 = 1.0 since the exterior walls are assumed to be intact for Load Case 1

B = 254’ overall width of building

h = 8’

Figure 6.8-1 is used to determine the flow velocity corresponding to an inundation depth of 8 ft. For h = 8’, h/hmax = 8/55.0 = 0.145. Identifying this point on the inflow side of Figure 6.8-1(a) indicates that this inundation depth occurs at t/(TTSU) = 0.04. At the same time in Figure 6.8-1(b) the flow velocity ratio is u/umax = 0.98. Therefore the flow velocity is u = 0.6 x 35.8 = 21.48 fps.

So 𝐹𝑑𝑥 =1

2𝜌𝑠𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢𝐶𝑑𝐶𝑐𝑥𝐵(ℎ𝑢2) =

1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 1.45 × 1.0 × 254(8 × 21.482)/1000 = 1495 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

This load is compared with the seismic base shear to determine if the lateral force resisting system has ample capacity to resist the overall tsunami loads. For the redesign of the lateral force resisting


Page 84

system, if needed, the force is distributed to each inundated floor and is applied to an ETABS model.

Load Case 2: Maximum Flow Velocity

According to Figure 6.8-1, LC2 occurs when the inundation depth is 2/3hmax = 2/3 x 55.0 = 36.67 ft.



Where all parameters are the same as for LC1 except:

Cd = 1.25 (Table 6.10-1 based on B/hsx = 254/36.67 = 6.93)

𝐶𝑐𝑥(𝑡𝑦𝑝) =∑(𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑙+𝐴𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙)+1.5𝐴𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚

𝐵ℎ𝑠𝑥=

∑((2.5′×36.67′×40+2′×36.67′×16)+0+1.5∗2′∗254′)

254′×36.67′= 0.601 < 0.7

Therefore 𝐶𝑐𝑥 = 0.7 controls per Section 6.8.7

Due to differing floor heights, the Ccx calculation was repeated for all floors. The Ccx value of the top inundated floor is also different due to the fact that the top inundated floor is only partially inundated by the tsunami. It was determined that Ccx = 0.7 controlled for all floors. For simplicity, only the Ccx calculation for the typical floor is shown.

h = 36.67 ft.

u = umax = 35.8 fps

So 𝐹𝑑𝑥 =1


1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.7 × 254(36.67 × 35.82)/1000 = 11489 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

This load is compared with the seismic base shear to determine if the lateral force resisting system has ample capacity to resist the overall tsunami loads. For the redesign of the lateral force resisting system, if needed, the force is distributed to each inundated floor and is applied to an ETABS model.

Load Case 3: Maximum Inundation Depth

According to Figure 6.8-1, LC3 occurs when the inundation depth is hmax = 55.0 ft. and the flow velocity is 1/3umax = 1/3 x 35.8 = 11.93 fps.



All other parameters are the same as LC2 parameters.

So 𝐹𝑑𝑥 =1


1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.7 × 254(55 × 11.932)/1000 = 1914 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠


Although LC3 does not control design of the lateral force resisting system, the intent of LC3 is to ensure evaluation of components up to the maximum inundation depth.

Evaluation of Lateral Force Resisting System

Because the structure has been designed for Seismic Design Category D, Section 6.8.3.4 permits

the use of 0.75oEh to evaluate the lateral force resisting system (LFRS), where Eh is the seismic base shear. From the seismic design of this structure, Eh = 2,435 kips. Therefore:

0.75Ω𝑜𝐸ℎ = 0.75 × 3 × 2,435 = 5,479 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠


Page 85

For this example, the controlling load case for overall building tsunami lateral load is LC2, with Fdx = 11490 kip.

0.75Ω𝑜𝐸ℎ = 5,479 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 < 11490 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 ∴ 𝑁𝐺

So the lateral force resisting system does not have ample capacity to resist the overall tsunami loads.

Component Loads

Drag Force on Components - Section 6.10.2.2

Exterior Columns

The exterior columns are assumed to have accumulated debris resulting in an increased tributary width of hydrodynamic load. Section 6.10.2.2 will require that Cd = 2.0 and the width dimension, b, be taken as the tributary width multiplied by the closure ratio value, Ccx, given in Section 6.8.7. Therefore b = 0.70x28’ = 19.6 ft.

The controlling load case will be LC2, when the inundated height of the element is he = 12 ft and umax = 35.8 fps.

The hydrodynamic drag is computed using Eqn 6.10.2-3 as:

𝐹𝑑 =1

2𝜌𝑠𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢𝐶𝑑𝑏(ℎ𝑒𝑢2) =

1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 2.0 × 19.6(12 × 35.82)/1000 = 663 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

This load is applied to the column as an equivalent uniformly distributed lateral load of 663/12 = 55.3 kips/ft over the entire length of the column. The column must be designed for this load combined with gravity loads using the load combinations in Section 6.8.3.3.

Interior Columns

Interior columns are 24” (2 ft) square R.C. columns. The controlling load case will be LC2, when the inundation height of the element is he = 12 ft and umax = 35.8 fps.

The hydrodynamic drag is computed using Eqn. 6.10.2-3 as:

𝐹𝑑 =1


Where Cd = 2.0 for square columns (Table 6.10-2)

Therefore 𝐹𝑑 =1


1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 2.0 × 2.0(12 × 35.82)/1000 = 67.7 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

This load is applied to the column as an equivalent uniformly distributed lateral load of 67.7/12 = 5.64 kips/ft over the height of the column. This load must be combined with gravity loads using the load combinations in Section 6.8.3.3 and the column capacity. Debris Impact Loads - Section 6.11

The inundation depth at the site exceeds 3 feet, therefore exterior structural elements below the flow depth must be designed for debris impact loads per Section 6.11.

Alternative Simplified Debris Impact Static Load - Section 6.11.1

In lieu of detailed debris impact analysis, the member can be designed for the maximum static load given by Eqn. 6.11.1-1:

𝐹𝑖 = 330𝐶𝑜𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢 = 330 × 0.65 × 1.0 = 214.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

Since the building location is in an impact zone for shipping containers, ships, and barges, this entire force is used, and cannot be reduced by 50%. This load must be applied to the exterior


Page 86

columns as a static lateral load at points critical for flexure and shear, in combination with gravity loads on the column. It is not combined with other tsunami loads and it need not be applied to interior columns.

In the event that this load exceeds the column capacity, a detailed debris impact analysis can be performed. This detailed analysis may result in a smaller debris impact load.


Page 87

Tsunami Design for Residential Building

Overall Building Forces

Section 6.8.3.1 defines the following three Load Cases, which must be considered in the design. Because the calculation procedures for the overall building force for the three load cases were shown for the Hilo office building, only the calculations for the controlling load case (Load Case 2) will be shown for the residential building for simplicity.

Load Case 2: Maximum Flow Velocity

According to Figure 6.8-1, LC2 occurs when the inundation depth is 2/3hmax = 2/3 x 55.0 = 36.67 ft.



Where all parameters are the same as for LC1 except:

Cd = 1.25 (Table 6.10-1 based on B/hsx = 254/36.67 = 6.93)

𝐶𝑐𝑥(𝑡𝑦𝑝) =∑(𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑙+𝐴𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙)+1.5𝐴𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚

𝐵ℎ𝑠𝑥=

∑((2′×36.67′×32)+(48′×36.67′)+1.5∗0.67′∗254′)

254′×36.67′= 0.468 < 0.7

Therefore 𝐶𝑐𝑥 = 0.7 controls per Section 6.8.7

Due to differing floor heights, the Ccx calculation was repeated for all floors. The Ccx value of the top inundated floor is also different due to the fact that the top inundated floor is only partially inundated by the tsunami. It was determined that Ccx = 0.7 controlled for all floors. For simplicity, only the Ccx calculation for the typical floor is shown.

h = 36.67 ft.

u = umax = 35.8 fps

So 𝐹𝑑𝑥 =1


1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 1.25 × 0.7 × 254(36.67 × 35.82)/1000 = 11489 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠


Evaluation of Lateral Force Resisting System

Because the structure has been designed for Seismic Design Category D, Section 6.8.3.4 permits

the use of 0.75oEh to evaluate the lateral force resisting system (LFRS), where Eh is the seismic base shear. From the seismic design of this structure, Eh = 3,273 kips. Therefore;

0.75Ω𝑜𝐸ℎ = 0.75 × 3 × 3,273 = 7,364 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

For this example, the controlling load case for overall building tsunami lateral load is LC2, with Fdx = 11490 kips.

0.75Ω𝑜𝐸ℎ = 7,364 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 < 11490 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 ∴ 𝑁𝐺

So the lateral force resisting system does not have ample capacity to resist the overall tsunami loads.


Page 88

Component Loads

Drag Force on Components - Section 6.10.2.2

Exterior Wall

Exterior walls are assumed to have accumulated debris resulting in an increase tributary width of hydrodynamic load. Section 6.10.2.2 requires that Cd = 2.0 and the width dimension, b, be taken as the tributary width multiplied by the closure ratio value, Ccx, given in Section 6.8.7. However, Ccx should be taken as 1.0, because the exterior shear wall has no openings over 28’.Therefore b = 1.0x28’ = 28.0 ft.

The controlling load case will be LC2, when the inundation depth is he = 36.67 ft and umax = 35.8 fps.

The hydrodynamic drag is computed using Eqn 6.10.2-3 as:

𝐹𝑑 =1


1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 2.0 × 28.0(36.67 × 35.82)/1000 = 2895 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

This load is applied to the wall as an equivalent uniformly distributed lateral load of 2895/(36.67*28) = 2.82 kips/ft over 36.67’ of a 1 ft section of wall. The wall must be designed for this load combined with gravity loads per Section 6.8.3.3.

Exterior Gravity Columns

Interior columns are 20” (1.67 ft) square R.C. columns. The controlling load case will be LC2, when the inundation depth is is he = 36.67 ft and umax = 35.8 fps. . Section 6.10.2.2 requires that Cd = 2.0 and the width dimension, b, be taken as the tributary width multiplied by the closure ratio value, Ccx, given in Section 6.8.7. Therefore b = 0.7x28’ = 19.6 ft.

The hydrodynamic drag is computed using Eqn. 6.10.2-3 as:

𝐹𝑑 =1


Therefore 𝐹𝑑 =1


1

2× 2.2 × 1.0 × 2.0 × 19.6(36.67 × 35.82)/1000 = 2027 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

This load is applied to the column as an equivalent uniformly distributed lateral load of 2027/36.67 = 55.3 kips/ft over the lower 36.67 feet of the column. This load must be combined with gravity loads per Section 6.8.3.3 and the column capacity verified.

Tsunami Loads on Structural Walls, Fw – Section 6.10.2.3

Since tsunami bores are anticipated at this location, the lateral load on the structural walls given by Eqn. 6.10.2-4b must also be checked, and is given as:

𝐹𝑑 =3


Where Cd = 2.0 for a wall per Table 6.10-2, and

b = 28’ and 10’ for the elevator and stairwell walls respectively.

Because the wall to inundation depth ratio must be three or more, the inundation depth is limited to 28’/3=9.33’. Therefore, h/hmax = 9.33/55 = 0.17. From Figure 6.8-1(a) and 6.8-1(b), the corresponding u/umax = 0.65. Therefore, u = (0.65)(35.8) = 23.3 fps. Therefore:

𝐹𝑑 =3

4× 2.2 × 1.0 × 2.0 × 28(9.33 × 23.32)/1000 = 468 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

These loads are applied to the walls as a uniformly distributed load of 468/(9.33*28) = 1.79 kips/ft < 2.82 kips/ft over the lower 9.33 ft of a 1 ft section of wall. Therefore, bore loads will not control the hydrodynamic tsunami loading on the shear walls.


Page 89

Debris Impact Loads - Section 6.11

The inundation depth exceeds 3 feet, therefore exterior structural elements below the flow depth must be

Alternative Simplified Debris Impact Static Load - Section 6.11.1

In lieu of detailed debris impact analysis, the member can be designed for the maximum static load given by Eqn. 6.11.1-1:

𝐹𝑖 = 330𝐶𝑜𝐼𝑡𝑠𝑢 = 330 × 0.65 × 1.0 = 214.5 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

Since the building location is in an impact zone for shipping containers, ships, and barges, this entire force is used, and cannot be reduced by 50%. This load must be applied to the exterior columns as a static lateral load at points critical for flexure and shear, in combination with gravity loads on the column. It is not combined with other tsunami loads and it need not be applied to interior columns.

In the event that this load exceeds the column capacity, a detailed debris impact analysis can be performed. This detailed analysis may result in a smaller debris impact load.

This equivalent static impact load of 214.5 kips must also be applied to any structural walls on the perimeter of the building. This applies to the 28 ft wide elevator walls on both exterior sides of the building (GLs A and D) since impact must be considered during inflow and outflow conditions


Page 90


Page 91

Appendix B – ETABS Moment and Shear Diagrams

SEISMIC LOADING DIAGRAMS – SOIL D

Hilo Soil D– Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 92

Hilo Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 93

Oahu Soil D– Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 94

Oahu Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 95

Monterey Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 96

Monterey Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 97

Hilo Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 98

Hilo Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 99

Oahu Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 100

Oahu Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 101

Monterey Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 102

Monterey Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 103

Hilo Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 104

Hilo Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 105

Oahu Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 106

Oahu Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 107

Monterey Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 108

Monterey Soil D – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 109

Hilo Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 110

Hilo Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 111

Oahu Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 112

Oahu Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 113

Monterey Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 114

Monterey Soil D – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 115

SEISMIC LOADING DIAGRAMS – SOIL B

Hilo Soil B– Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 116

Hilo Soil B – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 117

Oahu Soil B– Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 118

Oahu Soil B – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 119

Hilo Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 120

Hilo Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 121

Oahu Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 122

Oahu Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Moment Diagrams)


Page 123

Hilo Soil B – Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 124

Hilo Soil B – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 125

Oahu Soil B – Elevator Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 126

Oahu Soil B – Elevator Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 127

Hilo Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 128

Hilo Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 129

Oahu Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls EW Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 130

Oahu Soil B – Stairwell Shear Walls NS Seismic Loading (Shear Diagrams)


Page 131

SEISMIC LOADING DIAGRAMS – SOIL D MOMENT FRAME

Hilo EW Seismic Loading – 24x28 Beams (Controlling Beam and Column Moment)


Page 132

Hilo EW Seismic Loading – 24x28 Beams (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 133

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Beam Moment)


Page 134

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Column Moment)


Page 135

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 136

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Column Shear)


Page 137

Oahu EW Seismic Loading – 24x28 Beams (Controlling Beam and Column Moment)


Page 138

Oahu EW Seismic Loading – 24x24 Columns (Controlling Beam and Column Shear)


Page 139

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 24x28 Beams (Controlling Beam Moment)


Page 140

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 24x24 Columns (Controlling Column Moment)


Page 141

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 24x28 Beams (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 142

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 24x24 Columns (Controlling Column Shear)


Page 143

SEISMIC LOADING DIAGRAMS – SOIL B MOMENT FRAME

Hilo EW Seismic Loading – 22x26 Beams (Controlling Beam and Column Moment)


Page 144

Hilo EW Seismic Loading – 22x26 Beams (Controlling Beam and Column Shear)


Page 145

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Beam Moment)


Page 146

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Column Moment)


Page 147

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 148

Hilo NS Seismic Loading – 10’ Beams (Controlling Column Shear)


Page 149

Oahu EW Seismic Loading – 26x20 Beams (Controlling Beam and Column Moment)


Page 150

Oahu EW Seismic Loading – 20x20 Columns (Controlling Beam and Column Shear)


Page 151

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 26x20 Beams (Controlling Beam Moment)


Page 152

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 20x20 Columns (Controlling Column Moment)


Page 153

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 26x20 Beams (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 154

Oahu NS Seismic Loading – 20x20 Columns (Controlling Column Shear)


Page 155

TSUNAMI LOADING DIAGRAMS – MOMENT FRAME BUILDING

Hilo Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Beam Moment)


Page 156

Hilo Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Column Moment)


Page 157

Waikiki Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Beam Moment)


Page 158

Waikiki Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Column Moment)


Page 159

Hilo Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 160

Hilo Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Column Shear)


Page 161

Waikiki Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Beam Shear)


Page 162

Waikiki Office Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Column Shear)


Page 163

TSUNAMI LOADING DIAGRAMS – SHEAR WALL BUILDING

Hilo Residential Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Moment)


Page 164

Hilo Residential Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Shear)


Page 165

Waikiki Residential Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Moment)


Page 166

Waikiki Residential Building Tsunami Loading – (Controlling Shear)


Page 167

Appendix C – Energy Grade Line Transect Profile Plots

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

Elev

atio

n (

m)

Distance to shore (m)

Transect Profile Plots - Hilo

22.5 Clockwise

Center

22.5 Counterclockwise

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.011.012.013.014.015.016.017.018.019.020.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

Elev

atio

n (

m)

Distance to shore (m)

Transect Profile Plots - Waikiki

22.5 Clockwise

Center

22.5 Counterclockwise

evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings when subjected ...building prototypical designs were...

Documents