Design Guide 38

SpeedCore Systems
for Steel Structures
Design Guide 38

SpeedCore Systems
for Steel Structures
Amit H. Varma, PhD
Morgan Broberg
Soheil Shafaei, PhD
Ataollah Anvari Taghipour

American Institute of Steel Construction

 © AISC 2023

by

American Institute of Steel Construction

All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced
in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
The AISC logo is a registered trademark of AISC.

The information presented in this publication has been prepared following recognized principles of design
and construction. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon
for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy,
suitability and applicability by a licensed engineer or architect. The publication of this information is not a
representation or warranty on the part of the American Institute of Steel Construction, its officers, agents,
employees or committee members, or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable
for any general or particular use, or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. All represen-
tations or warranties, express or implied, other than as stated above, are specifically disclaimed. Anyone
making use of the information presented in this publication assumes all liability arising from such use.

Caution must be exercised when relying upon standards and guidelines developed by other bodies and
incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time to time sub-
sequent to the printing of this edition. The American Institute of Steel Construction bears no responsibility
for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial publication
of this edition.

Printed in the United States of America

 Authors
Amit H. Varma, Ph.D., is the Karl H. Kettelhut Professor and Director of the Bowen Laboratory for Large-Scale CE Research
in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University. Professor Varma is the chair of AISC Task Committee 8 on Fire
Design, a member of AISC Task Committee 5 on Composite Structures, and the AISC Committee on Specifications. He is a
recipient of the 2003 ASCE Milek Faculty Fellowship, the 2017 and 2020 AISC Special Achievement Awards, and the 2021
AISC T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award. He is also a recipient of the 2019 ASCE Shortridge Hardesty Award. Professor Varma led
the overall organization, editing, and finalization of this Design Guide.

Morgan Broberg is a Ph.D. candidate in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University. She is doing her Ph.D.
research on the seismic behavior, analysis, and design of uncoupled and coupled SpeedCore systems. She led the writing, edit-
ing, formatting, and finalization of this Design Guide, with particular emphasis on Chapters 3, 4, and 5 and the corresponding
design examples.

Soheil Shafaei, Ph.D., is a post-doctoral researcher in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University. Dr. Shafaei
did his PhD research on the cyclic behavior, testing, analysis, and design of SpeedCore walls for seismic and wind design. He
led the writing, editing, formatting, and finalization of this Design Guide, with particular emphasis on Chapters 1 and 2 and the
corresponding design examples. He also reviewed and contributed to the design examples in Chapters 3 and 4 and the figures in
Chapter 5, and he reviewed Chapter 6.

Ataollah Anvari Taghipour is a Ph.D. candidate in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University. He is doing his
Ph.D. research on the fire behavior, analysis, and design of SpeedCore walls and composite floor-to-wall connections. He led
the writing, editing, formatting, and finalization of Chapter 6 of this Design Guide. He also reviewed all the design examples in
Chapters 2, 3, and 4.

Acknowledgments
This Design Guide would be incomplete and inadequate without the valuable input and contributions from the following indi-
viduals. The authors would like to thank:
• Mr. Ron Klemencic, Chairman and CEO of Magnusson Klemencic Associates, and their team of engineers for their signifi-
cant intellectual and engineering contributions.
• Michel Bruneau and his graduate student, Emre Kizilarslan, for their significant intellectual contributions and research
camaraderie.
• AISC Engineers (Mr. Larry Kruth, Dr. Charlie Carter, Dr. Devin Huber, Ms. Margaret Matthew, and Ms. Cindi Duncan) for
their patience and belief that we would get it done!
• AISC Task Committee 5 (TC5) members and Committee on Specification (COS) members for all their comments and sug-
gestions that have significantly improved the SpeedCore design provisions in the 2022 AISC Specification and 2022 AISC
Seismic Provisions.
• Members of the review committee: Ron Hamburger, Mark Holland, Tom Kuznik, Jim Malley, Brian Morgen, G.A. Rassati,
and Rafael Sabelli.
• Members of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and Issue Team 4 (IT-4), ASCE/SEI 7 Seismic Sub-Committee (Mr.
John Hooper, Chair), and the ASCE/SEI 7 Standards Committee for all their comments that have significantly improved the
SpeedCore seismic design provisions in the 2021 ASCE/SEI 7 Standard, Chapter 14.3.5, and NEHRP 2020.
• Professor Saahas Bhardwaj (University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa) and Professor Jungil Seo (Purdue University) for getting this
Design Guide started, which was a mammoth task.
•  Mr. Mubashshir Ahmad and Mr. Josh Harmon for their assistance with connection design calculations.

iii

0iii-viii_DG38_FM.indd 3 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Preface
This Design Guide is intended to facilitate the design of composite plate shear walls—concrete filled (C-PSW/CF) and coupled
composite plate shear walls—concrete filled (CC-PSW/CF), also referred to as uncoupled and coupled SpeedCore systems, for
shear walls and elevator core walls in building structures. This Guide is to be used in conjunction with the 2022 AISC Specifica-
tion for Structural Steel Buildings and the 2022 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. The Design Guide dis-
cusses the behavior, design, and detailing of uncoupled and coupled SpeedCore systems for wind (Chapter 2), seismic (Chapter
3 for uncoupled and Chapter 4 for coupled), and fire (Chapter 6) loading combinations.

iv

0iii-viii_DG38_FM.indd 4 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 COMPOSITE PLATE SHEAR EXAMPLE 2.2—WIND DESIGN OF 15-STORY
WALLS—CONCRETE FILLED (SPEEDCORE STRUCTURE USING COUPLED
SYSTEMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
EXAMPLE 2.3—WIND DESIGN OF 22-STORY
1.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STRUCTURE USING COUPLED
1.2 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C-SHAPED SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . 50
1.3 SAFETY-RELATED
NUCLEAR STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC DESIGN OF UNCOUPLED
1.4 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . 6
SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
1.5 SPECIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS . . . . . . 7
1.6 DESIGN GUIDE OUTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS BASED ON
2022 AISC SEISMIC PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . 71
CHAPTER 2 WIND DESIGN OF SPEEDCORE 3.2.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
COUPLED AND UNCOUPLED 3.2.2 Basis of Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.2.4 System Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.1 DESIGN FOR NONSEISMIC LOADING
3.2.5 Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
COMBINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.6 Connection Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.7 Protected Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.1.2 Section Detailing and Geometric
3.2.8 Demand Critical Welds in
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.1.3 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
2.1.4 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
UNCOUPLED WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.1.5 Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1 Step 1. Design Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.2 NONSEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
3.3.2 Step 2. Analysis for Design . . . . . . . . . 76
FOR SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3 Step 3. Design of Composite Walls . . . . 76
2.2.1 Section Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.4 Step 4. Design of Connections . . . . . . . 76
2.2.2 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 DESIGN EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.2.3 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
EXAMPLE 3.1—SEISMIC DESIGN OF 6-STORY
2.3 COUPLING BEAM DESIGN
STRUCTURE USING UNCOUPLED
REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.3.1 Section Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
EXAMPLE 3.2—SEISMIC DESIGN OF
2.3.2 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
18-STORY STRUCTURE USING
2.3.3 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
UNCOUPLED C-SHAPED
2.3.4 Steel Coupling Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.4 CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 DIAPHRAGMS, COLLECTORS,
CHAPTER 4 SEISMIC DESIGN OF COUPLED
AND CHORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
2.6 WIND DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
2.6.1 Wind Design Procedure for Uncoupled 4.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
SpeedCore Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2.6.2 Wind Design Procedure for Coupled 4.2.2 Basis of Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
SpeedCore Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2.7 DESIGN EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.4 System Requirements for Coupled
EXAMPLE 2.1—WIND DESIGN OF 15-STORY SpeedCore Walls with Flange
STRUCTURE USING UNCOUPLED (Closure) Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.5 System Requirements for Composite
Coupling Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

0iii-viii_DG38_FM.indd 5 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 4.2.6 Composite Wall Strength . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.3.1 Structure Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
4.2.7 Composite Coupling 5.3.2 Incremental Dynamic
Beam Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
4.2.8 Coupling Beam-to-Wall 5.3.3 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.2.9 Composite Wall-to-Foundation CHAPTER 6 FIRE DESIGN OF SPEEDCORE
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.2.10 Other Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.1 PERFORMANCE OF SPEEDCORE
4.2.11 Protected Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
SYSTEMS UNDER FIRE LOADING . . . . . . 213
4.2.12 Demand Critical Welds in
6.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.1.2 Standard Time-Temperature
4.3 GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
(Fire Loading) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
COUPLED WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.1.3 Failure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
4.3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.1.4 Thermal Response of SpeedCore
4.3.2 Step 1. Design Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Systems under Fire Loading . . . . . . . . 214
4.3.3 Step 2. Analysis for Design . . . . . . . . 124
6.1.5 Structural Response of SpeedCore
4.3.4 Step 3. Design of Coupling Beams . . . 125
Walls under Fire Loading . . . . . . . . . 215
4.3.5 Step 4. Design of Composite Walls . . . 126
6.1.6 Vent Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
4.3.6 Step 5. Design of Connections . . . . . . 127
6.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SPEEDCORE
4.4 DESIGN EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
WALLS UNDER FIRE LOADING . . . . . . . . 216
EXAMPLE 4.1—SEISMIC DESIGN OF
6.2.1 Temperatures under Fire Conditions . . 216
8-STORY STRUCTURE USING
6.2.2 Design for Compression . . . . . . . . . . 216
COUPLED, PLANAR SPEEDCORE
6.2.3 Fire Resistance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . 218
SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2.4 General Structural Integrity . . . . . . . . 218
EXAMPLE 4.2—SEISMIC DESIGN OF
6.3 GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
22-STORY STRUCTURE USING
SPEEDCORE WALLS UNDER
COUPLED, C-SHAPED SPEEDCORE
FIRE LOADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.3.1 Design Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
EXAMPLE 4.3—CONTINUOUS WEB PLATE
6.3.2 Fire Resistance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . 218
CONNECTION—SEISMIC DESIGN OF
6.3.3 Heat Transfer Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 218
COUPLING BEAM-TO-SPEEDCORE
6.3.4 Compressive Strength of SpeedCore
WALL CONNECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Walls at Elevated Temperatures . . . . . . 220
EXAMPLE 4.4—LAPPED WEB PLATE
6.3.5 Design of Vent Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
CONNECTION—SEISMIC DESIGN
6.4 DESIGN EXAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
OF COUPLING BEAM-TO-WALL
EXAMPLE 6.1—FIRE DESIGN OF
CONNECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
CHAPTER 5 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
APPENDIX A NOMINAL FLEXURAL STRENGTH
EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
OF SPEEDCORE WALLS AND COMPOSITE
5.1 MODELING APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 COUPLING BEAMS (PLASTIC STRESS
5.1.1 Material Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 DISTRIBUTION METHOD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.1.2 2D Finite Element Model . . . . . . . . . 202
A.1 PLANAR SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . . 229
5.1.3 Fiber-Based Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
A.1.1 Planar SpeedCore Walls Subjected
5.1.4 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
to Flexure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.2 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF COUPLED
A.1.2 Planar SpeedCore Walls Subjected
SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
to Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.2.1 Nonlinear Pushover
A.1.3 Planar SpeedCore Walls Subjected
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
to Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.2.2 Nonlinear Time-History
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.3 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION—
FEMA P-695 ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

vi

0iii-viii_DG38_FM.indd 6 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 A.2 C-SHAPED SPEEDCORE WALLS . . . . . . . . 231
A.2.1 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with
PNA in Flanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
A.2.2 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with
PNA in Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
A.2.3 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with
PNA in Flanges Subjected
to Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A.2.4 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with
PNA in Flanges Subjected
to Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
A.2.5 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with
PNA in Web Plate Subjected
to Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
A.2.6 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls Bent
about the Major Axis . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
A.3 COMPOSITE COUPLING BEAMS . . . . . . . 237

SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

vii

0iii-viii_DG38_FM.indd 7 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 viii

0iii-viii_DG38_FM.indd 8 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Chapter 1
Composite Plate Shear Walls—Concrete Filled
(SpeedCore Systems)
1.1 INTRODUCTION walls. Boundary elements for planar walls can be semicircu-
lar or circular concrete-filled steel hollow structural sections
Composite plate shear walls—concrete filled (C-PSW/CF),
(HSS). For C-shaped or I-shaped walls, the individual linear
hereafter referred to as SpeedCore systems, are the subject
segments can be referred to as flange walls or web walls,
matter of this Design Guide. SpeedCore systems are being
depending on the direction of lateral loading.
considered and designed as an alternative to conventional
Figure 1-2 shows the structural elements of a planar
reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls and core wall structures.
SpeedCore linear wall segment. As shown, the web plates
Similar to RC walls, composite walls provide lateral load
define the length, and the concrete thickness plus the web
resistance to the building structure. In non­seismic design,
plate thicknesses define the overall thickness of the wall.
composite wall systems provide the stiffness and strength
The web plates are connected to each other using regularly
needed to resist lateral forces resulting from wind loading.
spaced tie bars in the horizontal and vertical directions. The
In seismic design, they provide the stiffness, strength, and
steel web and flange plates can also have steel headed stud
deformation capacity needed to serve as the primary lateral
anchors (located on the internal surface) to anchor them to
force-resisting system.
the concrete infill. The concrete infill can be normal weight
Similar to RC walls, SpeedCore systems may be used as
concrete or self-consolidating concrete as needed.
the elevator core structure in high-rise buildings or as indi-
Depending on the design, the flange plates can be a bit
vidual shear walls in low-to-midrise buildings. Two versions
wider than the wall thickness (as shown in Figure 1-2) or fit
of SpeedCore systems are possible: uncoupled and coupled.
in between the web plates with width equal to the concrete
For a given building structure, it is possible to have an
thickness. In nonseismic design, it is possible to replace
uncoupled system in one direction and a coupled system in
the flange plates with I-shaped or C-shaped sections that fit
the orthogonal direction.
within the web plates and serve as the boundary elements.
SpeedCore walls can be planar, C-shaped, or I-shaped,
The coupling beams in the coupled version of SpeedCore
and may consist of linear wall segments connected together.
can also be filled composite sections; for example, rectan-
Each linear wall segment consists of two steel web plates
gular built-up box sections filled with concrete, as shown in
along the length of the segment and flange (or closure) plates,
Figure 1-3, may be used. Another possibility is to use steel
boundary elements, or other linear segments at the ends. For
coupling beams in nonseismic design.
example, Figure 1-1 shows several potential SpeedCore

(a)  Planar rectangular wall

with flange plates and tie bars

(b)  Planar wall with semicircular

boundary elements and tie bars

(d)  C-shaped walls with flange (e)  I-shaped walls with flange
(c)  Planar wall with circular
(closure) plates and tie bars (closure) plates and tie bars
boundary elements and tie bars
Fig. 1-1.  SpeedCore system with boundary elements or flange (closure) plates.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 1

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 1 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 It is important to note that there are no additional rein- schedule of about 30 to 40% can have a significant impact on
forcing bars needed in SpeedCore systems. The steel plates the overall project economy.
provide all the reinforcement needed to resist axial, flexural, For example, the Rainier Square project in downtown
and in-plane shear forces. The steel plates, tie bars, and steel Seattle has used the SpeedCore system to achieve a 40%
headed stud anchors together form steel modules that can be reduction in the construction schedule. The Rainier Square
prefabricated in the shop and shipped to the field for assem- project is an extraordinary building and construction
bly and erection. The stiffness and stability of steel modules achievement that is discussed in more detail in the follow-
(before concrete filling) is governed by the diameter and ing section. Other projects, such as 200 Park Avenue in San
spacing of the tie bars, and the slenderness of steel plates Jose, California, are being constructed using the SpeedCore
(after concrete filling) is governed by the maximum spacing system to actualize construction schedule contraction and
of the tie bars and steel headed stud anchors (if used). After optimize overall project economy.
assembly and erection, the modular steel structure serves
as falsework for construction activities and as formwork 1.2 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
for placing the concrete infill. This enables the erection and
The Rainier Square tower is a 58-story office plus residential
construction activities for the gravity framing system to con-
use building structure with seven levels of below grade park-
tinue in parallel with the assembly and construction of the
ing. It totals 1.4 million ft2, including 722,000 ft2 of office
core and shear wall structure. The erection tolerances for the
space. A rendering of the elevation view of the project is
core and shear wall structure are comparable and compatible
shown in Figure 1-4. The structural floor plans for the lower,
with those for the steel gravity framing system.
mid, and higher stories are shown in Figure 1-5(a), (b), and
Commercial interest in the SpeedCore system stems from
(c), respectively. In the structural floor plans, the core wall
these potential advantages of modularity, reduction in con-
structures (shown in red shading) are SpeedCore walls. Fig-
struction schedule, and improvement of the overall project
ure  1-6(a) and (b) show photographs of the coupled core
economy. The reduction in construction schedule results
wall system during construction.
from (1)  elimination of rebar cages and related activity,
The composite wall thicknesses varied from 45 in. at the
(2) elimination of falsework and formwork for the construc-
base to about 21  in. at the top. The tie bars were 1  in. in
tion of the core walls, (3) simultaneous construction of the
diameter and located at 12 in. spacing in both the horizon-
core walls and the gravity system, and (4) reduction in toler-
tal and vertical directions throughout. No steel headed stud
ance issues between the gravity system and core walls due
anchors were used in this design. The typical steel plate
to misaligned embedment plates. Reduction in construction
thickness was 2 in.
For this structure, the original RC construction schedule
estimated topping out in 21 months after steel arrival on site.
Switching to the SpeedCore system reduced the construction
schedule to 12 months, that is, a 43% reduction in schedule
for this first of its kind mega project. It is evident that the
SpeedCore system can indeed deliver on its initial promise.
Figure 1-7 shows a 3D rendering and structural floor plan
of one of the levels of the 200 Park Avenue project being con-
structed in San Jose, California. This is a 19‑story structure
located in a high seismic region. The lateral force-resisting

Fig. 1-2.  A typical SpeedCore wall

and its components (Shafaei et al., 2021b). Fig. 1-3.  Coupling beam cross section.

2 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 2 1/30/23 3:24 PM

   

Fig. 1-4.  3D rendering view of Rainier Square (image courtesy of Wright Runstadt & Co.).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 3

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 3 1/30/23 3:24 PM

      
(a)  Typical low-rise office (b)  Typical mid-rise office (c)  Typical high-rise residential

Fig. 1-5.  Structural floor plans highlighting SpeedCore system in Rainier Square (image courtesy of Magnusson Klemencic Associates).

  
(a)  SpeedCore wall core (b)  Close-up view of SpeedCore wall core

Fig. 1-6.  Photographs of coupled SpeedCore system under construction in Rainier Square
(photos courtesy of Magnusson Klemencic Associates).

4 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 4 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 system is the coupled SpeedCore system shown in Fig- plan is typically made of structural wall systems (no
ure 1-7(b). This building has 937,000 ft2 of floor space at an columns and no beams.)
average of 54,000 ft2 per floor. The target completion date 2. The wall structures of safety-related nuclear structures
for this project is May 2023. are typically short, resulting in low height-to-length
ratios (typically less than 2).
1.3 SAFETY-RELATED NUCLEAR STRUCTURES
3. The large thickness of wall structures (typically greater
Concrete filled composite plate shear walls have also been than 36 in.) for safety-related nuclear applications may
used in the design of safety-related nuclear structures, where be governed by nonstructural considerations, such as
they are referred to as steel-plate composite or SC struc- radiation shielding, or by extreme events such as mis-
tures. However, there are significant differences between SC sile impact or pressure impulse loading.
structures in nuclear design and SpeedCore in commercial
4. The walls of safety-related nuclear structures are ana-
building structures. The design of SC structures is governed
lyzed and designed for seismic plus accidental thermal
by ANSI/AISC N690, Specification for Safety-Related Steel
or pressure loading combinations resulting in simulta-
Structures for Nuclear Facilities (AISC, 2018), hereafter
neous application of three in-plane membrane forces,
referred as the AISC Nuclear Specification. AISC Design
three membrane moments, and two out-of-plane shears.
Guide 32, Design of Modular Steel Plate Composite (SC)
Walls for Safety-Related Nuclear Facilities (Bhardwaj and 5. Safety-related nuclear structures are designed to
Varma, 2017), demonstrates the use of the AISC Nuclear undergo the first onset of significant inelastic defor-
Specification to design safety-related nuclear structures. Pri- mation at the safe shutdown earthquake level with no
mary differences between safety-related nuclear facilities seismic response modification factors, R, or specific
and commercial building structures are as follows: requirements for ductility.
1. Safety-related nuclear structures are labyrinthine in Despite these differences, there are some elements of
plan, and there are no clear gravity framing systems behavior and design that are applicable to SpeedCore walls
or lateral force-resisting systems. The entire structural

(a) 3D rendering (b) Floor plan at one level

Fig. 1-7. 200 Park Avenue under construction (images courtesy of Gensler).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 5

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 5 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 in commercial buildings. These include plate slenderness al., 2014; Seo et al., 2016; Ji et al., 2017; Booth et al.,
requirements for local buckling, axial compressive strength, 2020).
and in-plane shear strength of composite walls. All these 2. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the local
elements are included and discussed in this Design Guide buckling behavior and axial compressive strength
as applicable. SC walls have been used extensively in the of composite walls (Zhang et al., 2014; Zhang et al.,
design and construction of AP1000® at Plant Vogtle in Geor- 2020).
gia, United States. SC walls are being used for containment
internal structures, such as the 1,100-ton CA20 module 3. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the stiffness
shown in Figure 1-8(a). This module is more than five sto- and stability of empty steel modules during transporta-
ries tall and will house various plant components, including tion, erection, and construction (Varma et al., 2019).
the used fuel storage area. SC wall modules were fabricated 4. Experimental investigation of the cyclic behavior of
and assembled in a dedicated module assembly building, and planar composite walls with flange plates (Shafaei et
Figure 1-8(b) shows a photograph of an SC submodule being al., 2021b).
assembled. SC walls were also used as the external shield 5. Experimental investigation of the cyclic behavior of
building used to provide aircraft impact resistance (in addi- C-shaped composite walls (Kenarangi et al., 2021).
tion to other functions) for AP1000. Figure 1-9 shows a pho-
tograph of the cylindrical shield building being assembled at 6. Development and benchmarking of numerical models
Plant Vogtle. for the cyclic behavior of composite walls (Alzeni and
Bruneau, 2017; Shafaei et al., 2021a; Bruneau et al.,
2019).
1.4 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH
7. FEMA P-695, Quantification of Building Seismic Per-
Over the past few years, significant research has been con- formance (FEMA, 2009), hereafter referred to as FEMA
ducted on the behavior, analysis, and design of composite P-695, studies of the seismic behavior and design fac-
plate shear walls. These include research projects focusing tors for coupled composite wall systems (Bruneau et
on: al., 2019).
1. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the cyclic
in-plane shear behavior of composite walls (Varma et

 
(a)  Module erected at site (b)  Submodule wall in module assembly building

Fig. 1-8.  SC modules and submodules used for AP1000 construction at Plant Vogtle, Georgia (photos courtesy of Georgia Power).

6 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 6 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 8. FEMA P-695 studies of the seismic behavior and design The design specification provisions relevant to this Design
factors for uncoupled composite wall systems (Agarwal Guide are as follows:
et al., 2020; Kenarangi et al., 2021). 1. Specifications for the design of uncoupled or coupled
9. Structural fire engineering and fire-resistant design of C-PSW/CF (SpeedCore) walls for nonseismic appli-
composite walls (Anvari et al., 2020a, 2020b). cations in the 2022 version of the AISC Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2022b), hereafter
At the time of publication, research is still ongoing on the referred to as the AISC Specification. These provisions
following topics: are in Chapter I of the 2022 AISC Specification.
10. Experimental evaluation of coupling beam-to-composite 2. Specifications for the design of C-PSW/CF (Speed-
wall connections for seismic design. Core) walls for fire loading in the 2022 version of the
11. Experimental evaluation of bolted splices and connec- AISC Specification. These provisions are in Appen-
tions for composite walls for wind design. dix 4 of the 2022 AISC Specification.
12. Experimental evaluation of wall-to-foundation connec- 3. Seismic design provisions for uncoupled C-PSW/CF
tions for seismic and wind design. (SpeedCore) wall systems in the 2022 version of the
13. Experimental and numerical evaluation of composite AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
floor-to-wall connections for fire design. (AISC, 2022a), hereafter referred to as the AISC Seis-
mic Provisions. These provisions are in Section H7 of
14. Experimental evaluation of T-shaped composite walls. the 2022 AISC Seismic Provisions.
4. Seismic design provisions for coupled C-PSW/CF
1.5 SPECIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS (SpeedCore) wall systems in the 2022 version of the
AISC Seismic Provisions. They are located in Sec-
This Design Guide is based on (1) research results and find- tion  H8 of the 2022 AISC Seismic Provisions. These
ings available so far, (2) AISC design specifications and pro- design provisions are referenced in the NEHRP Rec-
visions, and (3) implementation of SpeedCore for building ommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and
construction projects.

Fig. 1-9.  SC modules using in the AP1000 shield building at Plant Vogtle, Georgia (photo courtesy of Georgia Power).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 7

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 7 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Other Structures (FEMA, 2020). They are also refer- Each section follows the same general format:
enced in the 2022 version of ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum 1. Presentation of the design specifications and provisions
Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings for the system along with extended commentary, which
and Other Structures (ASCE, 2022), hereafter referred includes discussions based on relevant research.
to as ASCE/SEI 7.
2. A detailed, step-by-step design procedure for the sys-
tem along with flowcharts to assist with the design
1.6 DESIGN GUIDE OUTLINE
procedure.
This Design Guide has been organized into five chapters: 3. Detailed design examples showcasing the use of the
• Chapter 2 focuses on the nonseismic (wind) design of design specification and procedure. Each design exam-
uncoupled and coupled SpeedCore wall systems. ple has been programmed in Mathcad (PTC, 2010,
• Chapter 3 focuses on the seismic design of uncoupled 2017) using the same variables for all the designs across
SpeedCore wall systems. the guide. These Mathcad files can be downloaded and
used by engineers for future work at the link given on
• Chapter 4 focuses on the seismic design of coupled
the AISC Design Guide 38 webpage (www.aisc.org/
SpeedCore wall systems.
dg).
• Chapter 5 summarizes the results from the seismic per-
formance evaluation of SpeedCore wall systems.
• Chapter 6 focuses on the design of SpeedCore walls for
fire resistance.

8 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

001-008_DG38_Chapter 1.indd 8 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Chapter 2
Wind Design of SpeedCore
Coupled and Uncoupled Systems
2.1 DESIGN FOR NONSEISMIC LOADING The behavior and design of SpeedCore systems for non-
COMBINATIONS seismic, wind-governed loading combinations depend on
a few key elements, such as section detailing, stiffness,
2.1.1 General strength, and connection design requirements.
The SpeedCore system is used in building structures pri-
2.1.2 Section Detailing and Geometric Considerations
marily to provide lateral force resistance. It may be used as
the elevator core wall structure or as individual shear wall SpeedCore walls do not utilize any additional steel reinforc-
systems. It is important to note that the SpeedCore system ing bars. The steel plates serve as the primary reinforcement
may be uncoupled or coupled for lateral load resistance. In for resisting in-plane shear and flexural demands. Conse-
some cases, the SpeedCore system may be uncoupled in quently, section detailing is an important aspect of the design.
one direction and coupled in the orthogonal direction. The Section detailing includes steel plate thickness and reinforce-
coupled SpeedCore system consists of composite (C-PSW/ ment ratio, tie bar spacing and size, and plate slenderness
CF) walls connected by coupling beams, which may be com- ratio.
posite concrete-filled box sections or steel beams, depending The steel plate thicknesses used for composite walls are
on the design. governed by practical fabrication, assembly, and erection
As shown in Figure  2-1, SpeedCore walls may be pla- considerations. Plate thickness less than a in. is impractical
nar, C-shaped, or I-shaped in cross section. In all of these for most fabrication and assembly activities. In most design
cases, the wall cross section consists of one or more con- cases, particularly for nonseismic load combinations, plate
nected linear wall segments to make up the cross-sectional thickness of a to s in. will be more than adequate to resist
shape. Each linear wall segment consists of two steel web the calculated demands. This is particularly true because the
plates along its length and flange plates (or closure plates) geometric plan size and layout of the SpeedCore system is
at the ends. Planar walls can also be constructed using com- typically governed by architectural considerations, elevator
posite filled columns or steel I-shaped or C-shaped sections core size requirements, and bay size limitations.
for boundary elements. For example, Alzeni and Bruneau The reinforcement ratio of the composite wall cross sec-
(2017) have tested planar walls with semicircular or circular tion is defined as the area of the steel plates divided by the
filled composite columns for boundary elements.

(a)  Planar rectangular wall

with flange plates and tie bars

(b)  Planar wall with semicircular

boundary elements and tie bars

(d)  C-shaped walls with flange (e)  I-shaped walls with flange
(c)  Planar wall with circular (closure) plates and tie bars (closure) plates and tie bars
boundary elements and tie bars
Fig. 2-1.  SpeedCore systems with boundary elements or flange (closure) plates.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 9

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 9 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 gross area of the composite wall, As /Ag. According to the The SpeedCore system provides lateral resistance to the
AISC Specification, a minimum steel reinforcement ratio of overall building structure and is modeled appropriately when
1% is required for the section to be classified as composite. performing different analyses (for serviceability or strength
An upper limit on the reinforcement ratio of 10% is specified load combinations).
based on the range of parameters included in the experimen- The lateral stiffness of uncoupled SpeedCore walls is gov-
tal investigations. Reinforcement ratios greater than 10% are erned by the extent of concrete cracking and its influence
rarely needed in design or construction and may indicate sig- on the effective flexural stiffness, EIeff. The lateral stiffness
nificant overdesign. of coupled walls is also governed by the extent of concrete
The tie bars connecting the steel web plates serve various cracking and its influence on both the effective flexural stiff-
important roles in the behavior and design of composite walls. ness and effective axial stiffness, EAeff. For coupled wall
In the pre-composite phase, before concrete casting, the tie systems, the axial stiffness of the walls is just as relevant as
bar size, dtie, and spacing, S, govern the stiffness and stability the flexural stiffness due to the extensive contribution of the
of the empty modules during transportation, assembly, erec- coupling action and moment to the overall lateral resistance.
tion, and other construction-related activities. During con- The extent of concrete cracking can vary along the height
crete casting, the tie bar spacing governs the flexibility of the of the structure. This is particularly true for high-rise build-
steel plates to resist local bending induced by the hydrostatic ings (greater than 15 stories in height). However, this may
pressure during concrete casting. After the concrete sets— also be relevant for mid-rise buildings (less than or equal
that is, it is in the composite phase—the maximum spacing to 15  stories in height) depending on the extent of over­
of the tie bars, b (or tie bars and steel headed stud anchors, design in the SpeedCore system due to the limitations and
if they are included in the design), governs the plate slender- constraints imposed by architectural considerations, eleva-
ness ratio, b/ t. Additionally, the effective diameter of the tie tor core geometry, bay size, and minimum plate thickness
bar, dtie, and largest clear spacing of the tie bar, S, govern requirements. In such cases, it may be important to estimate
the out-of-plane shear strength of the composite walls, which the cracking moment, Mck , of the wall cross section and use
(if needed) can be calculated using AISC Nuclear Specifica- it to define the appropriate portion of the wall height with
tion Section N9.3.5. This out-of-plane shear strength is rarely uncracked (composite) stiffnesses.
needed in building design. For both coupled and uncoupled SpeedCore systems, the
The tie bar size and spacing requirements are based on effective shear stiffness, GAv.eff , of the composite walls is not
research conducted by Varma et al. (2019) on the behavior, a relevant parameter if the behavior is flexurally dominant
analysis, and stability of empty steel modules before and (i.e., the overall wall height-to-length aspect ratio is greater
during concrete casting. The plate slenderness requirements, than or equal to 3.0.) Consequently, the uncracked shear
which lead to the maximum spacing of the tie bars (or tie stiffness can be used to model flexurally dominant compos-
bars and steel headed stud anchors), are based on research ite walls.
conducted by Zhang et al. (2014, 2020) on the local buckling Walls with an aspect ratio less than 3.0 can be shear criti-
behavior and axial compressive strength of composite walls. cal, but this depends on several parameters, including the
These are discussed in more detail in the following chapter relative ratio of the nominal flexural strength of the wall, Mn,
along with the specific requirements. to the nominal shear strength of the wall, Vn. Shear-critical
In the coupled SpeedCore system, the coupling beams walls are not recommended for design of building structures,
may be filled composite sections—that is, rectangular built- but they are used prominently in the design of safety-related
up box sections filled with plain concrete—or steel beams. nuclear facilities (AISC, 2018), and the engineer can use
Filled composite sections need to meet the requirements of other references, such as AISC Design Guide 32, to design
AISC Specification Chapter  I. They are classified as com- them.
pact, noncompact, or slender for flexure in accordance with Additional details of the recommended lateral stiffness
AISC Specification Section I1.4. The limitations for filled values are discussed in the following chapter along with the
composite members are provided in AISC Specification Sec- specific requirements.
tion I2.2a, which requires the area of steel in the cross sec- The flexural stiffness of composite coupling beams can
tion to be at least 1% of the total composite cross section. be estimated in accordance with AISC Specification Sec-
tions  I1.5 and I2.2b. According to the User Note in Sec-
2.1.3 Stiffness tion I1.5, the flexural stiffness of filled composite members
is estimated as 0.64EIeff to account for the effects of concrete
The building structure is modeled and analyzed in accor- cracking due to flexure and steel partial yielding due to resid-
dance with the requirements of ASCE/SEI  7 and AISC ual stresses. The flexural stiffness, EIeff , can be calculated
Specification Chapter C to calculate the design demands for using Equation  I2-12 in AISC Specification Section  I2.2b,
various load combinations, including lateral (wind) loading. which accounts for the contributions of the steel section and

10 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 10 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 the cracked concrete section. Similarly, the flexural stiffness 0.06Ac fc′, where ƒ′c is the specified compressive strength
of steel beams can be determined in accordance with AISC of concrete in ksi, and A c is the area of the concrete. The
Specification Section C2.3. equations developed by Kenarangi et al. (2021) indicate that
the concrete contribution can be much higher for rectangu-
2.1.4 Strength lar filled composite members with shear span-to-depth ratios
less than or equal to 0.75. However, this will rarely be the
The design demands, in terms of the required flexural
case for filled composite coupling beams.
strength, Mr, required axial force, Pr, and required shear
strength, Vr, are obtained from the analysis of the structure
2.1.5 Connections
for the applicable load combinations. The flexural strength
of the composite wall, Mn, can be calculated using the plastic The behavior and design of SpeedCore systems for non­
stress distribution method, while accounting for the effects seismic, wind-governed load combinations have no explicit
of axial force and using nominal steel and concrete mate- ductility or performance requirements for connections
rial properties. This plastic stress distribution method is beyond those of adequate strength for the design demands
provided in AISC Specification Section I1.2a and has been (required strengths) calculated from analyses conducted for
verified by Shafaei et al. (2021b) and Kenarangi et al. (2021) the applicable factored load combinations. The different
for composite walls. types of connections include:
Other methods listed in the same section of the AISC Spec- • Connections at the section level; for example, tie bar to
ification can also be used to estimate the flexural strength. steel plate connections, flange-to-web plate connections,
For example, AISC Specification Section  I1.2b describes and wall segment connections to each other.
the strain compatibility method similar to ACI 318, Build-
• Connections at the member level; for example, splices
ing Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI, 2019),
between wall modules and coupling beam-to-wall
and Section I1.2d describes the effective stress-strain method
con­­nections.
that can be used with section fiber analysis (Shafaei et al.,
2021b). • Connections at the structure level; for example, floor
The in-plane nominal shear strength of composite walls, system-to-wall connections and wall-to-foundation
Vn, can be calculated using equations developed and verified connections.
by Seo et al. (2016). These equations account for the ortho-
Welded and bolted connections are designed in accor-
tropic, cracked, composite behavior of the wall as shown in
dance with the requirements of AISC Specification Chap-
Varma et al. (2014). This in-plane nominal shear strength,
ter  J. Connections at the section level may be designed to
Vn, includes the contribution of the steel web plates acting
achieve tensile yielding of the gross section as the governing
compositely with the cracked orthotropic concrete infill. It
limit state and, thus, achieve local ductility. For example, tie
corresponds to the ductile limit state of von Mises yielding
bar-to-steel plate connections can be designed for the yield
in the steel web plates. It is important to note that there is
strength of the tie bar. Similarly, flange-to-web plate con-
additional reserve capacity beyond the yielding of the steel
nections can be designed (if needed) to develop the yield
plates. Booth et al. (2020) have developed and verified equa-
strength of the weaker of the two connected plate elements.
tions for calculating the ultimate shear strength of composite
Connections at the member and structure levels can be
walls, which account for the failure of the concrete diagonal
designed in accordance with the calculated design demands
compression struts after von Mises yielding of the steel web
(required strengths) at the level and location of the connec-
plates. These equations provide ultimate strengths that are
tions, and the applicable provisions of AISC Specification
approximately 25 to 30% greater than the yield strength.
Chapter J.
Additional details of the recommended flexural and
strength equations are discussed in the following sections
2.2 NONSEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
along with the specific requirements.
FOR SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS
The flexural strength of filled composite coupling beams
are calculated in accordance with AISC Specification Sec- Nonseismic design of SpeedCore systems is performed
tion  I3.4. The shear strength of filled composite coupling according to the requirements of the AISC Specification.
beams can be calculated in accordance with the equations
developed by Kenarangi et al. (2021) to account for the 2.2.1 Section Detailing
contributions of the steel web plates and concrete infill.
According to AISC Specification Section  I1.6, the steel
These equations are included in the AISC Specification in
plates comprise at least 1% but no more than 10% of the
Section I4.2. The steel webs of the filled composite section
total composite cross-sectional area. The opposing steel
are assumed to develop their shear yield strength, and the
plates are connected to each other using tie bars consisting
concrete infill contribution is limited to the equivalent of

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 11

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 11 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 of bars, structural shapes, or built-up members. The steel b = largest clear distance between rows of steel anchors
plates are also anchored to the concrete infill using tie bars or tie bars, in.
or a combination of tie bars and steel anchors. Walls with- tp = thickness of steel plate, in.
out flange (closure) plates or boundary elements are not
included as part of this system and are not discussed further The steel plates in a SpeedCore wall are required to be
in this Design Guide. nonslender (i.e., yielding in compression must occur before
The two steel plates in a SpeedCore wall must be con- local buckling). When subjected to compressive stresses, the
nected using tie bars. These tie bars govern the structural plate undergoes local buckling between the steel tie bars or
behavior and stability of the empty steel modules before con- anchors, as shown in Figure 2-2. The horizontal lines join-
crete placement. Additional steel headed stud anchors may ing the steel anchors (or tie bars) act as fold lines, and local
be used along with tie bars to reduce the slenderness and buckling occurs between them. The buckling mode indicates
improve the stability of steel plates after concrete placement. fixed ends along the vertical lines with steel anchors, and
partial fixity along the vertical lines between steel anchors.
2.2.1.1 Slenderness Zhang et al. (2014, 2020) have summarized the results from
experimental studies and conducted additional numerical
According to AISC Specification Section I1.6a, the slender- analyses to confirm and expand the experimental database.
ness ratio of the steel plates, b/ tp, is limited as follows: Figure 2-2 from Zhang et al. (2020) shows the relationship
b E between the normalized critical buckling strain (buckling
≤ 1.2 s (2-1)
tp Fy  strain of steel/yield strain of steel, εcr/ εy) and the normalized

plate slenderness ratio [(b/tp)(Fy/Es)]. As shown, εcr is rea-
where sonably consistent with Euler’s curve with a partially fixed
(K = 0.8) end condition. This leads to Equation 2-1 for the

   
(a)  Local buckling between rows (b)  Normalized critical buckling strain vs. slenderness ratio
of steel anchors or tie bars

Fig. 2-2.  Local buckling of steel plates and plot of normalized critical buckling strain vs. slenderness ratio (Zhang et al., 2014, 2020).

12 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 12 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 slenderness limit for nonseismic conditions. Because tie bars ⎛ Es Ip ⎞ Stp3
may also act as anchors, the equation considers the largest ⎜ ⎟ 12S
unsupported length between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, α = 24 ⎜ ESI ⎟= 4 (2-7)
⎜ s t
⎟ π d tie
b. When slenderness exceeds the limit of Equation 2-1, local
⎝ tsc − 2tp ⎠ 64 ( tsc − 2tp )
buckling will occur when the compressive stress reaches Fcr , 
which can be calculated using Equation 2-2, and the nominal ⎡ Es ⎤ 1
compressive strength of the composite wall section can be σcr = ⎢ 2⎥ (2-8)
⎢⎛ S⎞ ⎥
( 2α + 1)
estimated using Equation 2-3 (Zhang et al., 2020).
⎢⎜t ⎟ ⎥
π 2 Es ⎣ ⎝ p⎠ ⎦ 
Fcr = ≤ Fy (2-2)
12 ( 0.8 ) ( b tp )
2 2
 After assembly and before concrete casting, the empty
modules provide structural support for construction activi-
Pno = As Fcr + 0.7Ac fc′ (2-3)
ties, loads, and the steel framework connected to it. The buck-
where ling of the empty module subjected to compression loading
Ac = area of concrete, in.2 is also governed by its effective shear stiffness, GAv.eff, and
can be estimated conservatively using Equation  2-6. If the
As = area of steel plates, in.2
value of α obtained from Equation 2-7 is equal to or greater
ƒ′c = specified compressive strength of concrete, ksi than 25, it will result in a critical buckling stress equal to
or greater than 1  ksi, which is equivalent to a distributed
2.2.1.2 Tie Bars load of 12 kips per linear ft for walls with two 2‑in.-thick
According to AISC Specification Section I1.6b, tie bar spac- steel plates. The stresses and deflections induced by con-
ing can be no greater than 1.0 times the wall thickness, tsc. crete casting hydrostatic pressure can also be estimated as
The tie bar spacing to plate thickness ratio, S/ tp, is also lim- shown in Varma et al. (2019). Research by Bhardwaj et al.
ited as follows: (2018) indicates that modules that meet the plate slender-
ness requirement of this section can be typically cast with
S Es concrete pour heights of up to 30 ft without significant influ-
≤ 1.0 (2-4)
tp 2α + 1  ence of induced deflections and stresses on the compressive
4 strength or buckling of the steel plates.
⎛ tsc ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
α = 1.7 −2 (2-5)
⎝ tp ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠  2.2.2 Stiffness
where According to AISC Specification Section I1.5, the flexural,
S = largest clear spacing of the tie bars, in. axial, and shear stiffnesses of SpeedCore walls account for
dtie = effective diameter of the tie bar, in. the extent of concrete cracking corresponding to the required
strength. The following equations estimate the stiffnesses:
tp = thickness of plate, in.
tsc = thickness of SpeedCore wall, in. EIeff = Es Is + 0.35Ec Ic(2-9)

The tie bar spacing requirement is based on the flexibility EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac(2-10)
and shear buckling of empty steel modules before concrete GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Ac(2-11)
placement, discussed in detail in Varma et al. (2019). The
flexibility of the empty modules for transportation, shipping, where
and handling activities is dominated by their effective shear Asw = area of steel plates in the direction of in-plane
stiffness, GAv.eff , which can be estimated accurately using shear, in.2
numerical models as shown in Varma et al. (2019) or calcu- Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
lated conservatively for a unit cell of the module using Equa- = wc1.5 fc′, ksi
tion 2-6. In this equation, Ip and It represent the moments of Es = modulus of elasticity of steel
inertia of the steel faceplates and steel tie bar. S and dtie rep- = 29,000 ksi
resent the tie bar spacing and diameter. Equation 2-7 defines
Gc = shear modulus of elasticity of concrete
α, which is the ratio of the flexural stiffness of the steel plate
to the flexural stiffness of the tie bar and simplifies to the = 0.4Ec, ksi
form of Equation 2-8. Gs = shear modulus of elasticity of steel
⎛ Es Ip ⎞ 1 = 11,200 ksi
GAv.eff = 24 (2-6) Ic = moment of inertia of the concrete section about the
⎝ S 2 ⎠ ( 2α + 1)
 elastic neutral axis of the composite section, in.4

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 13

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 13 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Is = moment of inertia of steel shape about the elastic imposed by architectural considerations, elevator core geom-
neutral axis of the composite section, in.4 etry, bay size, and minimum plate thickness requirements.
wc = weight of concrete per unit volume, lb/ft3 ( 90  ≤ In such cases, it may be important to estimate the cracking
wc ≤ 155 lb/ft3) moment, Mck, of the wall cross section and use it to define
the portion of the wall height with uncracked (composite)
The lateral stiffness of uncoupled SpeedCore walls is gov- stiffnesses (Shafaei et al., 2022.)
erned by the extent of concrete cracking and its influence
on the effective flexural stiffness, EIeff . The lateral stiffness 2.2.3 Strength
of coupled walls is also governed by the extent of concrete
cracking and its influence on both the effective flexural stiff- The design compressive, tensile, flexural, combined axial
ness and effective axial stiffness, EAeff . For coupled wall force and flexural, and in-plane shear strength of SpeedCore
systems, the axial stiffness is just as relevant as the flexural systems are calculated according to the following subsec-
stiffness due to the extensive contribution of the coupling tions. These requirements and equations for calculating
action and moment (force couple) to the overall lateral the axial tensile strength, compressive strength, flexural
resistance. strength, in-plane shear strength, and combined axial force
The stiffness of composite plate shear walls must account and flexural strength are based on the corresponding sections
for the extent of concrete cracking corresponding to the cal- in AISC Specification Chapter I. The resistance factors for
culated required strengths (design demands). These stiff- load and resistance factor design (LRFD) are equal to 0.90
nesses can be estimated conservatively using equations for all these calculated strengths.
developed in Agarwal et al. (2020) for uncoupled composite According to AISC Specification Section I2.3a, the nomi-
plate shear walls. The effective stiffness of composite plate nal compressive strength of axially loaded composite plate
shear walls can be approximated reasonably using Equa- shear walls is determined for the limit state of flexural buck-
tion 2-9. This stiffness, EIeff , is representative of the secant ling in accordance with AISC Specification Section  I2.1b.
flexural stiffness corresponding to 60% of the nominal flex- The value of flexural stiffness, EIeff, from Section  2.2.2 is
ural strength, Mn, of walls subjected to axial compression used along with the section nominal compressive strength,
of about 10% of the concrete capacity, Agƒ′c , where Ag is Pno, calculated using Equation 2-12. The unsupported length
the gross area of the composite section. Equation 2-10 for for flexural buckling of composite walls is typically assumed
axial stiffness was calibrated to match the concrete cracking to be equal to the story height.
associated with the flexural stiffness of Equation 2-11. Equa- Pno = Fy As + 0.85 fc′Ac (2-12)
tion 2-11 corresponds to the use of uncracked shear stiffness
of SpeedCore walls. SpeedCore walls with overall height- The nominal tensile strength of axially loaded SpeedCore
to-length ratio greater than or equal to 3.0 will be flexurally shear walls is determined for the limit state of yielding as
dominant and the shear stiffness can be approximated using follows:
uncracked values for ease. Pn = Fy As (2-13)
When drift limits and stiffness requirements govern
design, SpeedCore walls may be overdesigned with respect According to AISC Specification Section I3.5, the nomi-
to the required strengths. Overdesigned walls may endure nal flexural strength of the SpeedCore wall is determined
less concrete cracking and their stiffness may be underes- in accordance with AISC Specification Section  I1.2 using
timated using Equations 2-9 to 2-11. In such cases, it may either the plastic stress distribution method or the effec-
be appropriate to use rational analysis methods to estimate tive stress-strain method. For the plastic stress distribution
the flexural stiffness of the walls, while accounting for the method, the nominal strength is computed assuming that
extent of concrete cracking corresponding to the calculated steel components have reached a stress of Fy in either ten-
required strength (design demands). For example, the stiff- sion or compression, and concrete components in compres-
ness of SpeedCore walls can be estimated accurately using sion due to axial force and/or flexure have reached a stress
fiber-based analysis methods, as the secant flexural stiff- of 0.85ƒ′c , where ƒ′c is the specified compressive strength of
ness corresponding to 60% of the calculated plastic moment concrete in ksi. For the effective stress-strain method, the
capacity of the wall cross section (Shafaei et al., 2021b). nominal strength is computed assuming strain compatibility
However, this procedure can be a bit cumbersome. and effective stress-strain relationships for steel and concrete
It is also important to note that the extent of concrete components accounting for the effects of local buckling,
cracking can vary along the height of the structure. This is yielding, interaction, and concrete confinement.
particularly true for high-rise buildings that are greater than According to AISC Specification Section I4.4, the nomi-
15 stories in height. However, this may also be relevant for nal in-plane shear strength, Vn.wall, of the SpeedCore wall
mid-rise buildings, depending on the extent of overdesign in is determined while accounting for the contributions of the
the SpeedCore system due to the limitations and constraints steel section and concrete infill as follows:

14 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 14 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Ks + Ksc concrete compression strut and is typically 25 to 30% greater
Vn.wall = Fy Asw (2-14) than the shear yield strength calculated using Equation 2-14.
3K s2 + K sc
2
 The out-of-plane shear strength of SpeedCore walls rarely
Ks = Gs Asw (2-15) governs the design. However, if perimeter SpeedCore walls
are used on the exterior surfaces of the building, then out-
0.7 ( Ec Ac )( Es Asw ) of-plane shear strength may have to be checked for wind
Ksc = (2-16)
4Es Asw + Ec Ac  pressure. Equations for calculating out-of-plane strength are
included in the AISC Nuclear Specification Section N9.3.5
The in-plane shear behavior of the composite wall is (AISC, 2018). Their development is presented in Varma et
governed by the plane stress behavior of the plates and the al. (2014), and their use is demonstrated in AISC Design
orthotropic elastic behavior of concrete cracked in principal Guide 32 (Bhardwaj and Varma, 2017).
tension. Varma et al. (2014) and Seo et al. (2016) discuss the According to AISC Specification Section I5, for composite
fundamental mechanics-based model (MBM) for in-plane plate shear wall sections, the interaction between axial force
shear behavior of composite walls. The in-plane shear behav- and flexure is based on methods defined in Section I1.2. The
ior can be estimated as the trilinear shear force-strain curve flexural strength of composite plate shear walls subjected to
shown in Figure 2-3. The first part of the curve is before the axial compression can be estimated using the plastic stress
concrete cracks. The second part is after the concrete crack- distribution method of Section I1.2a or the effective stress-
ing but before the plate yielding. The third part of the curve strain method of Section I1.2d (Bruneau et al., 2019; Agar-
corresponds to the onset of plate von Mises yielding. The wal et al., 2020). Bruneau et al. (2019) and Shafaei et al.
shear force corresponding to this onset of von Mises yield- (2021b) have reported the results of experimental investiga-
ing is given by Equation 2‑14. The corresponding principal tions on planar walls subjected to different axial load and
compressive stress in the cracked (orthotropic) concrete is cyclic lateral loading up to failure.
less than 0.7ƒ′c for typical composite walls with reinforce-
ment ratios less than or equal to 10%. For walls with very 2.3 COUPLING BEAM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
high reinforcement ratios (i.e., walls with very thick steel
plates compared to overall thickness), the concrete principal For nonseismic applications, filled composite sections or
compressive stress can be the limiting failure criterion (Seo steel beams can be used as the coupling beams for coupled
et al., 2016; Varma et al., 2014). However, recent research SpeedCore systems. The composite coupling beams can be
by Booth et al. (2020) quantified the post-yield ultimate concrete-filled, built-up box sections, or rectangular hollow
shear strength of composite walls with boundary elements. structural sections (HSS). The requirements for composite
This ultimate shear strength is governed by the failure of the coupling beams are based on those in AISC Specification
Chapter I as identified in the following subsections.

 
(a)  In-plane shear force-strain response of composite walls (b)  Comparison of experimental results with
shear strength calculated using Equation 2-14

Fig. 2-3.  In-plane shear force-strain response of composite walls and comparison of
experimental results with shear strength calculated using Equation 2-14 (Seo et al., 2016).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 15

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 15 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 2.3.1 Section Detailing where
Asr = area of continuous reinforcing bars, in.2
AISC Specification Section  I2.2a requires that the cross-
sectional area of the steel section comprise at least 1% of the C3 = coefficient for calculation of effective rigidity of
total composite cross section. filled composite compression member
Isr = moment of inertia of reinforcing bars about the elas-
2.3.1.1 Slenderness tic neutral axis of the composite section, in.4

According to AISC Specification Table I1.1b, the compos-

2.3.3 Strength
ite coupling beams are classified as compact, noncompact,
or slender for flexure based on the steel section width-to- As required by AISC Specification Section I3.4b, the nomi-
thickness limits in AISC Specification Table I1.1b. There are nal flexural strength of a composite coupling beam is cal-
no limitations on the use of noncompact or slender sections culated using the plastic stress distribution method. For
for nonseismic design. example, Figure 2-4 shows typical steel and concrete stress
blocks for determining the nominal flexural strength of a
2.3.2 Stiffness compact filled rectangular box section. The nominal flex-
ural strengths calculated using the plastic stress distribution
As required by AISC Specification Section I2.2b, the effec-
method compare conservatively with experimental results
tive flexural stiffness, EIeff , of concrete-filled composite
(Lai et al., 2014; Lai and Varma, 2015). Longitudinal and
coupling beams is calculated using Equation  2-17. In this
transverse reinforcing bars are neither required nor needed
Equation, C3 accounts for effects of cracking on the concrete
for filled composite beams.
rigidity contribution to EIeff and is estimated using Equa-
According to AISC Specification Section I4.2, the nomi-
tion  2-18 given in AISC Specification Section  I2.2b. The
nal shear strength of a filled composite coupling beam,
stiffness reduction factors in AISC Specification Section I1.5
Vn.CB , includes the contributions of the steel box section and
result in the use of 0.64EIeff for the flexural stiffness to fur-
concrete infill as shown in Equation 2-19:
ther account for the effects of concrete cracking at low axial
load levels and steel inelasticity due to residual stresses. The Vn.CB = 0.6Fy Av + 0.06Kc Ac fc′ (2-19)
stiffness reduction factors require the use of 0.8 times the
nominal axial stiffness of filled composite members. where
Av = Shear area of the steel portion of a composite mem-
EI eff = Es I s + Es I sr + C3 Ec I c (2-17) ber; the shear area for a circular section is equal to
⎛ A + Asr ⎞ 2As/ π, and for a rectangular section is equal to the
C3 = 0.45 + 3 ⎜ s ⎟ ≤ 0.9 (2-18) sum of the areas of webs in the direction of in-plane
⎝ Ag ⎠ shear, in.2

Fig. 2-4. Stress blocks for calculating nominal flexural strengths of compact filled rectangular box sections (Lai et al., 2014).

16 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 16 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Kc = 1 for members with shear span-to-depth (Mu/ Vu)/ d ≥ collect and transfer the lateral forces at each story level to
0.7, where Mu and Vu are equal to the maximum the SpeedCore wall systems. The framing elements (gird-
moment and shear demands, respectively, along the ers or beams) that are directly connected to the SpeedCore
member length, and d is equal to the member depth wall system eventually transfer these lateral forces to the
in the direction of bending SpeedCore wall system as shown in Figures  2-6 and 2-7.
= 10 for members with rectangular compact cross sec- The composite floor systems typically consist of trapezoi-
tions and (Mu/ Vu)/ d less than 0.5 dal metal decks, steel beams, and girders, all composite with
the concrete floor slab. The gravity loads and lateral forces
= 1 for members having other than compact cross sec-
resisted by the diaphragms can be calculated using appli-
tions irrespective of (Mu/ Vu)/ d
cable ASCE/SEI 7 provisions. The diaphragms are designed
Linear interpolation between the Kc values is used for the calculated in-plane shear and bending stresses. The
for members with compact cross sections and (Mu/ Vu)/ d chords are designed for the induced tension and compression
between 0.5 and 0.7. For most coupling beam design situ- forces. The collectors (girders) are designed to collect the
ations, Kc will be equal to 1.0. The nominal shear strength inertial forces from the floor beams and transfer them to the
calculated using Equation 2-19 was compared with the shear SpeedCore system. The connections between the collector
test database from the existing literature and found to be (girders) and the SpeedCore system are designed to transfer
safe; it accurately captures the contribution of the steel HSS the lateral forces and the gravity loads as applicable.
or built-up box to the total shear strength and conservatively There are limited studies and guidelines on the seismic
approximates that of the concrete (Kenarangi et al., 2021). design of diaphragm components. Sabelli et al. (2011) dis-
cussed the design of composite steel deck diaphragms for
2.3.4 Steel Coupling Beams seismic loads. Rational analysis methods can be used to
distribute lateral forces and calculate their effects (stresses,
Using steel coupling beams is an alternative option for cou- forces, etc.) on various elements of the diaphragms. Col-
pled SpeedCore systems for nonseismic applications. The lectors and chords can be conservatively designed as non-
design of steel coupling beams for flexure and shear can composite members to resist the axial forces induced by the
be accomplished using AISC Specification Chapter  F and diaphragm forces (AISC, 2018). The connections between
Chapter G, respectively. collectors (girders) and SpeedCore are designed to trans-
fer gravity loads and diaphragm lateral loads to SpeedCore
2.4 CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS walls. Currently, there are no research studies on the specific
The behavior and design of SpeedCore systems for non­ design of SpeedCore walls to floor connections. However,
seismic or wind-governed load combinations have no explicit single-plate shear connections can be designed and used to
ductility or performance requirements for the connections transfer forces from the collectors to the SpeedCore walls.
beyond those of adequate strength. Welded and bolted con- Single-plate shear connections, also referred to as shear tabs,
nections are designed in accordance with the requirements should be designed for the generated shear forces (gravity
of AISC Specification Chapter J. loads), axial loads (diaphragm forces), imposed bending
Connections of the tie bars to the steel plate are designed moments (eccentricity), and the interaction of the loads.
to develop the yield strength of the tie bar in axial tension.
This enables yielding of the tie bars before failure of the tie
bar-to-plate connection. Samples of tie bar-to-plate connec-
tion details are shown in Figure 2-5 for round tie bars.
Connections at the member and structure levels are
designed to withstand the required strengths at the corre-
sponding levels and location. Some examples of the differ-
ent types of connections in the systems include (1) coupling
beam-to-composite wall connections, (2) composite wall-to-
foundation or subgrade structure connections, and (3) splice
connections in composite walls.

2.5 DIAPHRAGMS, COLLECTORS,

AND CHORDS
SpeedCore wall systems act as the vertical elements of the
overall lateral force-resisting system. The composite floor
systems serve as the horizontal elements or diaphragms that Fig. 2-5.  Round tie bar-to-plate connection detail samples.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 17

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 17 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Fig. 2-6.  Components of a diaphragm for a building with SpeedCore systems and a floor collector-to-wall connection.

18 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 18 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Fig. 2-7.  Direction of the generated force in collectors and chords due to diaphragm loads.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 19

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 19 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 2.6 WIND DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR Step 1. General Information of the
SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS Considered Building
This section describes the wind design procedure for uncou- In this step, the initial design information such as building
pled and coupled SpeedCore walls. This design procedure location, geometry and form of the building, number of sto-
considers the requirements discussed in the previous sec- ries, story height, floor dimension, building importance, and
tions and applicable building codes. material properties are collected.
Step 2. Calculation of the Wind Loads
2.6.1 Wind Design Procedure for Uncoupled
SpeedCore Walls SpeedCore systems are designed to resist the code-specified
wind loads. Design wind loads are determined based on the
Figure  2-8 summarizes the general wind design procedure
location and geometry of the buildings according to ASCE/
for planar uncoupled SpeedCore walls.
SEI 7 in the absence of any wind tunnel testing or other spe-
cial requirements for the given structure. Wind loads at mean

Fig. 2-8.  Flowchart showing general wind design procedure for uncoupled SpeedCore walls.

20 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 20 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 recurrence interval (MRI) of 10-year or 25-year wind speed wall-to-foundation connections may need to be considered
are used to check the drift limit state. Generally, an MRI of in the calculation of lateral displacements. If the drift check
10-year wind speed is appropriate to check the lateral drift is not satisfied, the size of uncoupled SpeedCore walls is
of SpeedCore systems. revised and the procedure restarts from Step 4.
Step 3. Calculation of Base Shear and Step 7. Detail Design of Uncoupled
Overturning Moment SpeedCore Systems
The design wind loads determined in Step 2 for the specific Tie bar size (diameter) and spacing of planar SpeedCore
risk category are used to calculate the demand base shear walls are designed to satisfy the slenderness limits and tie
and overturning moment (OTM). For uncoupled SpeedCore bar reinforcement ratio requirements. Slenderness limits and
systems, the required base shear and OTM can be simply tie bar requirements are presented in Section  2.2.1.1 and
calculated by hand (if needed) without detailed computa- 2.2.1.2.
tional analysis.
Step 8. Connection Design of Uncoupled
Step 4. Select Preliminary Size for the Uncoupled SpeedCore Systems
SpeedCore Walls
The composite wall-to-foundation (or subgrade structure)
The size of uncoupled SpeedCore walls is selected in this connections are designed based on the calculated demands
step considering the floor layout, architectural design, and (required strengths). The composite wall splices are also
required base shear and moment. It includes selecting the designed based on the calculated demands at the correspond-
total wall length, Lwall, thickness, tsc, and steel plate thick- ing locations.
ness, tp . Engineering experience and judgment are needed
for selecting initial sizes. 2.6.2 Wind Design Procedure for Coupled
SpeedCore Systems
Step 5. Strength Check of Uncoupled SpeedCore
Walls Figure  2-9 summarizes the general wind design procedure
for coupled SpeedCore systems.
The flexural strength of the selected planar SpeedCore wall
is calculated according to Section 2.2.3 and compared with Step 1. General Information of the Considered
the required OTM. The shear strength is calculated using Building
Equation 2-14 and compared with the required base shear.
This step is similar to Step 1 of uncoupled SpeedCore sys-
If the strength check is not satisfied, the size of the uncou-
tems. The building information is collected and compiled,
pled SpeedCore wall is revised, and the procedure restarts
which includes the building location, floor dimension, num-
from Step  4. In the design of mid- or high-rise buildings,
ber of stories, and story height.
the strength of planar SpeedCore walls can be considerably
higher than the demand forces because drift limits (wall Step 2. Calculation of the Wind Loads
stiffness considerations) govern the design.
Step 2 for coupled SpeedCore systems is similar to Step 2
Step 6. Serviceability Check of Uncoupled for uncoupled SpeedCore systems.
SpeedCore Walls
Step 3. Select Preliminary Sizes for SpeedCore Walls
The lateral deflection is checked to evaluate the service- and Coupling Beams
ability of the uncoupled SpeedCore system. The deflection
The SpeedCore walls and coupling beams are sized in this
limit for wind loads in common usage for building design
step considering floor layout and architectural design. This
is on the order of 1/ 600 to 1/ 400 of the building or story
includes selecting the wall length, Lwall, wall thickness, tsc,
height (Griffis, 1993). In AISC Design Guide 3, Serviceabil-
steel plate thicknesses, tp, and infill concrete core thick-
ity Design Considerations for Steel Buildings (West et al.,
ness. In addition, the coupling beam depth, hCB, width, bCB,
2003), it is recommended that the lateral deflection and story
web plate thickness, tpw.CB, flange plate thickness, tpf.CB, and
drift due to 10-year mean recurrence interval (MRI) wind
length, L, are also selected in this step. Engineering experi-
loading be limited to H/ 500 and h/ 400, where H is the total
ence and judgment are needed for selecting initial sizes.
height of the building and h is the story height.
A commercial structural analysis software program can be Step 4. Calculation of Base Shear and
used to calculate the roof displacement and interstory drift Overturning Moment
(ID) of uncoupled SpeedCore walls. The effective stiffnesses
The distribution of forces along the height of a coupled
of planar walls, as discussed in Section  2.2.2, are used in
SpeedCore wall is directly influenced by the stiffnesses of
the computer models to generate conservative but reasonable
the SpeedCore wall and coupling beams. A finite element
estimates. Additionally, the effect of rotational stiffness of
model of the coupled SpeedCore system is developed using
AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 21

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 21 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Fig. 2-9. Flowchart showing general wind design procedure of coupled SpeedCore systems.

22 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 22 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 effective stiffnesses for the composite walls and coupling the story height (West at al., 2003). Although the rotational
beams in accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2, respec- stiffness of the wall-to-foundation connection has a small
tively. A commercial structural analysis program can be used effect on coupled systems due to the benefits of coupling
to conduct the analysis and calculate the required strengths. action, the connection stiffness can be included to improve
the estimation of lateral displacements. If the roof displace-
Step 5. Strength Check of SpeedCore Walls and
ment or ID requirements are not met, the sizes of members
Coupling Beams
(SpeedCore walls or coupling beams) are revised and the
The flexural strength of the selected SpeedCore wall is procedure restarts from Step 3.
calculated according to Section  2.2.3 and compared with
Step 7. Detail Design of Coupling Beams
the required OTM. The shear strength is calculated using
Equation 2-14 and compared with the required base shear. The section slenderness requirements and limits for the
Additionally, the design flexural and shear strengths of cou- coupling beams are checked. These slenderness limits were
pling beams are calculated according to Section 2.3.3. If the identified in Section 2.3.1. The geometric size and details of
strength check is not satisfied, the size of coupling beams the coupling beams are used to assess coupling beam-to-wall
or SpeedCore walls are revised, and the procedure restarts connection possibilities.
from Step 4. In the design of mid- to high-rise buildings, the
Step 8. Detail Design of SpeedCore Walls
coupling beam strength typically governs the design, and the
strengths of SpeedCore walls are considerably higher than Tie bar size (diameter) and spacing of planar SpeedCore
the demand forces. In some cases, the lateral drift limits for walls are designed to satisfy the slenderness limits and tie
wind loading govern the design of coupled SpeedCore walls. bar reinforcement ratio requirements. Slenderness limits and
tie bar requirements are presented in Section  2.2.1.1 and
Step 6. Serviceability Check of Coupled
2.2.1.2.
SpeedCore Walls
Step 9. Connection Design
A structural analysis is conducted in this step using an MRI
of 10-year wind loads to check the drift limits. Appropri- The composite wall-to-foundation (or subgrade structure)
ate effective stiffnesses of the composite walls and coupling connections are designed based on the calculated demands
beams are used in the structural analysis models of the cou- (required strengths). The coupling beam-to-composite wall
pled SpeedCore walls. The lateral deflection due to wind connections are designed based on the calculated demands
loading is limited to H/ 500, where H is the total height of the at the corresponding levels. The composite wall splices are
building, and the story drift is limited to h/ 400, where h is also designed based on the calculated demands at the cor-
responding locations.

2.7 DESIGN EXAMPLES

Example 2.1—Wind Design of 15-Story Structure Using Uncoupled SpeedCore Systems

This example presents the wind design of a 15-story office building located in Chicago with typical design loads, floor geometry,
and wind loads (ASCE/SEI 7, Category B). Figure 2-10 shows the floor plan of the building with 200 ft length and 120 ft width
(a total of 24,000 ft2 of area). Two uncoupled SpeedCore walls in the east-west direction and two coupled SpeedCore walls in the
north-south direction are used to resist the wind loads. Example 2.1 and Example 2.2 present the wind design of uncoupled and
coupled walls of this building, respectively.
Design the uncoupled, planar SpeedCore walls shown in Figure 2-10 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads.

Given:
Material properties and calculated wind loads for this example are given in Steps 1 and 2, respectively. The self-weight of the
walls (axial compression force) is not considered in this example.
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Gs = 11,200 ksi

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 23

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 23 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Concrete:
fc′ = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
Building geometry:
Hwall = wall height
= 213 ft
Lf = building length
= 200 ft
Wf = building width
= 120 ft
htyp = typical story height
= 14 ft
h1 = first-story height
= 17 ft
n = number of stories
= 15
Floor load:
DL = floor dead load
= 0.12 ksf

Fig. 2-10. Building floor plan for Examples 2.1 and 2.2.

24 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 24 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-1.  Wind Speeds for Chicago
(ASCE/SEI 7, Chapter 26, Appendix CC)
Wind Hazard Basic Wind Speed (mph)
MRI 10-Year 74
MRI 25-Year 80
MRI 50-Year 85
MRI 100-Year 92
Risk Category I 100
Risk Category II 107
Risk Category III 114
Risk Category IV 119

For ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel, from the AISC Steel Construction Manual (AISC, 2017), hereafter referred to as the
AISC Manual, Table 2-4, the material properties are as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Step 2. Calculation of the Wind Loads
The building is located in Chicago and wind speeds for this city are shown in Table 2-1. Wind speeds at ASCE/SEI 7, Risk Cat-
egory II, and a 10-year mean recurrence interval (MRI), are used to calculate wind loads for the design and serviceability checks,
respectively. The calculated wind loads for the design of each uncoupled wall in the east-west direction are shown in Table 2-2.

Solution:
Step 3. Calculation of Base Shear and Overturning Moment
The wind loads given in Step  2 are used to calculate the required base shear and overturning moment (OTM), as shown in
Table 2-2. The Risk Category II values are larger and will be used as the required values for the remainder of this example.
Required base shear for each planar SpeedCore wall (Risk Category II):
Vr.wall = 490 kips

Required moment for each planar SpeedCore wall (Risk Category II):
Mr.wall = (57,900 kip-ft) (12 in./ft)
= 695,000 kip-in.
Step 4. Select Preliminary Size for the Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls
The size of the uncoupled SpeedCore walls including wall length, Lwall, wall thickness, tsc, and steel plate thickness, tp, as shown
in Figure 2-11, are selected to resist the required base shear and OTM. The wall and plate dimensions selected are as follows:
Lwall = wall length
= 300 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= 2 in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 18 in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 25

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 25 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-2.  Wind Loads in East-West Direction
Wind Loads East-West Direction Wind Loads East-West Direction
(Risk Category II) (MRI 10-Year)
Story Windward Leeward Windward Leeward
Story Elevation Wall Wall Moment Wall Wall Moment
No. (ft) (kips) (kips) (kip-ft) (kips) (kips) (kip-ft)
1 17 19.0 −13.5 553 8.90 −6.30 258
2 31 17.3 −11.1 880 8.20 −5.20 415
3 45 18.5 −11.1 1,330 8.70 −5.20 626
4 59 19.4 −11.1 1,800 9.10 −5.20 844
5 73 20.1 −11.1 2,280 9.50 -5.20 1,070
6 87 20.7 −11.1 2,770 9.80 −5.20 1,310
7 101 21.3 −11.1 3,270 10.0 −5.20 1,540
8 115 21.8 −11.1 3,780 10.2 −5.20 1,770
9 129 22.2 −11.1 4,300 10.5 −5.20 2,030
10 143 22.6 −11.1 4,820 10.6 −5.20 2,260
11 157 23.0 −11.1 5,350 10.8 −5.20 2,510
12 171 23.3 −11.1 5,880 11.0 −5.20 2,770
13 185 23.6 −11.1 6,420 11.1 −5.20 3,020
14 199 23.9 −11.1 6,970 11.3 −5.20 3,280
15 213 24.2 −11.1 7,520 11.4 −5.20 3,540
321 −169 57,900 150 −79.1 27,200
Sum
Base Shear 490 Base Shear 229

Step 5. Strength Check of Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls

In this step, design flexural and shear strengths of the selected uncoupled SpeedCore walls are calculated and compared with
the required base shear and OTM. Figure 2-12 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension force
regions in the wall.

Design Flexural Strength of the Uncoupled Walls

Plastic neutral axis location:
2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
C=
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp )
2 (2 in.) (300 in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 (6 ksi) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 ( 2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.)
=
4 (2 in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 (6 ksi) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 80.6 in.

Fig. 2-11.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

26 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 26 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the flange plate is:
C1 = ( tsc − 2t p ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) (50 ksi)
= 425 kips

The compression force in the web plate is:

C2 = 2tp CFy
= 2 (2 in.) (80.6 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 4,030 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3 = 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp) (C − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣18.0 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (80.6 in. − 2 in.)
= 6,940 kips

The tension force in the web plate is:

T1 = ( tsc − 2t p ) t p Fy
= [18 in. − 2 (2 in.)](2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 425 kips

The tension force in the flange plate is:

T2 = 2tp ( L wall − C ) Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 300 in. − 80.6 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 11.000 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the planar SpeedCore wall is:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ C⎞ ⎛ C − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛L −C⎞
MP.wall = C1 C − + C2 + C3 + T1 L wall − C − + T2 wall
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 80.6 in. ⎞ ⎛ 80.6 in. − 2 in.⎞
= ( 425 kips ) 80.6 in. − + ( 4,030 kips ) + ( 6,940 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 300 in. − 80.6 in.⎞
+ ( 425 kips ) 300 in. − 80.6 in. − + (11,000 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 1,770,000 kip-in.

Fig. 2-12.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 27

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 27 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The nominal flexural strength of the planar SpeedCore wall is:
Mn.wall = MP.wall = 1,770,000 kip-in.

Using ϕb = 0.90, the design flexural strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
ϕb M n.wall = 0.90 (1,770,000 kip-in.)
= 1,590,000 kip-in. > Mr.wall = 695,000 kip-in.

Design Shear Strength of the Uncoupled Wall

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:
Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 (300 in.) (2 in.)
= 300 in.2

The area of steel in the wall is:

As = tp ⎡⎣2 (L wall − 2tp ) + 2tsc⎤⎦

{
= ( 2 in. ) 2 ⎡⎣300 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ + 2 (18 in.)}
= 317 in.2

The area of concrete in the wall is:

Ac = L wall tsc − As
= ( 300 in.) (18 in.) − 317 in.2
= 5,080 in.2
Ks = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 300 in.2 )
= 3,360,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Ac )( Es Asw)
K sc = (2-16)
4Es Asw + Ec Ac
0.7 ( 4,500 ksi )( 5,080 in.2 ) ( 29,000 ksi ) (300 in.2 )
=
4 (29,000 ksi ) (300 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) (5,080 in.2 )
= 2,410,000 kips 

The nominal shear strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is calculated using Equation 2-14 of this Design Guide:
Ks + Ksc
Vn.wall = Asw Fy (2-14)
3Ks2 + Ksc2
( 3,360,000 kips ) + ( 2,410,000 kips )
= (300 in.2 ) ( 50 ksi )
3 ( 3,360,000 kips) + ( 2,410,000 kips)
2 2

= 13,700 kips 

28 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 28 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
ϕ vVn.wall = 0.90 (13,700 kips)
= 12,300 kips > Vr.wall = 490 kips

Step 6. Serviceability Check of Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls

In this step, the lateral deflection of the uncoupled wall is checked to evaluate serviceability. A 10-year MRI wind load and the
effective stiffness of the uncoupled wall are used in a finite element model to check the drift limits.

Effective Flexural and Shear Stiffnesses of the Uncoupled Wall

The area of steel in the wall was calculated in Step 5 as As = 317 in.2
The area of concrete in the wall was calculated in Step 5 as Ac = 5,080 in.2
The effective axial stiffness of the wall is:
EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (317 in. ) + ⎡⎣0.45 ( 4,500 ksi ) (5,080 in. )⎤⎦
2 2

= 1.95 × 10 7 ksi-in. 2 

The steel area in the direction of shear was calculated in Step 5 as Asw = 300 in.2
The effective shear stiffness of the wall is:
GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Ac (2-11)
= (11,200 ksi) (300 in.2 ) + (1,800 ksi) (5,080 in.2 )
= 1.25 × 10 7 ksi-in.2 

The moment of inertia of steel in the wall is:

⎡ tp ( L wall − 2tp )3 ⎤ ⎡⎛ t t 3 ⎞ ⎛L t ⎞ 2⎤
Is = 2 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 ⎢ sc p + tsc tp wall − p ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2⎠ ⎥
⎦
⎧⎪ (2 in.) ⎡300 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ 3 ⎫⎪ ⎡(18 in.) (2 in.)3 ⎛ 300 in. 2 in. ⎞ ⎤
2
⎣ ⎦ + (18 in.) (2 in.)
= 2⎨ ⎬+ 2 ⎢ ⎝ 2
− ⎥
⎪⎩ 12 ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣ 12 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
6 4
= 2.63 × 10 in.

The moment of inertia of concrete in the wall is:

3
( tsc − 2tp )( L wall − 2tp )
Ic =
12
3
⎡⎣18in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣300 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
=
12
7 4
= 3.79 × 10 in.

The effective flexural stiffness of the wall is:

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 29

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 29 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 EI eff = Es I s + 0.35Ec I c (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (2.63 × 10 in. ) + 0.35 (4,500 ksi ) (3.79 × 10 in. )
6 4 7 4

= 1.36 × 1011 kip-in.2 

Because the rotational stiffness of the wall-to-foundation connection has a considerable effect on the lateral deflection of the
uncoupled wall, it is included in the finite element model to check the serviceability. It is assumed the wall-to-foundation con-
nection provides a fully restrained connection. The rotational stiffness of a fully restrained wall-to-foundation connection, Ks.con,
is calculated according to AISC Specification Commentary Figure C-B3.3:
20EI eff
K s.con =
H wall
20 (1.36 × 1011 kip-in.2 )
=
( 213 ft )(12 in./ft )
= 1.06 × 109 kip-in. / rad

The lateral deflection due to a 10-year MRI wind load is limited to a roof displacement of Hwall/ 500, where Hwall is the total height
of the building, or an ID of h/ 400, where h is the story height.
Allowable roof displacement:
Hwall ( 213 ft ) (12 in./ft )
=
500 500
= 5.11 in.

Allowable ID for a typical floor:

h (14 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
400 400
= 0.420 in.
= 0.25%

The ID ratio normalizes the ID by the height of the story. This gives a consistent value to check against for different story heights.
The ID ratio of each story can be calculated as the change in lateral deflection along the story divided by the height of the story.
A commercial structural analysis software program is used to check roof displacement and ID. Figure 2-13 shows the lateral
deformation shape, lateral displacement, and ID of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall. Additionally, Table 2-3 summarizes lateral
displacement and ID.
Step 7. Detail Design of Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls
The required steel reinforcement ratio of the uncoupled wall is checked first. From Section 2.2.1, the steel plates must comprise
at least 1% but no more than 10% of the total composite cross-sectional area.
The minimum steel required is:
As.min = 0.01L wall tsc
= 0.01( 300 in.) (18.0 in.)
= 54.0 in.2

As = 317 in.2 > As.min = 54.0 in.2

The maximum steel required is:

30 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 30 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 As.max = 0.10 L wall tsc
= 0.10 ( 300 in. ) (18.0 in.)
= 540 in.2

As = 317 in.2 < As.max = 540 in.2

The tie bar spacing, S, is selected to be 12 in. for the uncoupled wall, and the slenderness requirement is checked as follows:
b E
≤ 1.2 s (2-1)
tp Fy

where b is the maximum tie bar spacing = S = 12 in.

b 12in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0

(a) Deformed shape (b) Lateral displacement (c) ID

Fig. 2-13. Uncoupled SpeedCore wall deformed shape, lateral displacement, and ID.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 31

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 31 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-3.  Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Story Story Height Displacement ID
No. (ft) (in.) (%)
15 14 4.93 0.25
14 14 4.51 0.24
13 14 4.10 0.25
12 14 3.68 0.24
11 14 3.27 0.24
10 14 2.86 0.24
9 14 2.46 0.23
8 14 2.08 0.22
7 14 1.71 0.21
6 14 1.36 0.19
5 14 1.04 0.18
4 14 0.74 0.15
3 14 0.49 0.13
2 14 0.28 0.10
1 14 0.12 0.06
Base 17 0.00 0.00

Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9

And therefore, the slenderness requirement is satisfied.

A tie bar diameter of s in. is selected for the uncoupled wall, and the bar requirement considering the stability of the empty steel
module during construction is checked as follows:
S Es
≤ 1.0 (2-4)
tp 2α + 1 
S 12 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0

⎛ tsc ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ 4
α = 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2-5)
⎝ tp ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 18.0 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 in. ⎠ ⎝ s in.⎠
= 23.7 
Es 29,000 ksi
1.0 = 1.0
2α + 1 2 ( 23.7 ) + 1
= 24.5

32 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 32 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Therefore, the bar requirement is satisfied.
Step 8. Connection Design of Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls
Connections are designed in accordance with the requirements of AISC Specification Chapter J. Either welded or bolted connec-
tions are permitted. The composite wall-to-foundation (or subgrade structure) connections are designed based on the calculated
demands (required strengths). The composite wall splices are also designed based on the calculated demands at the correspond-
ing locations.

Example 2.2—Wind Design of 15-Story Structure Using Coupled SpeedCore Walls

This example presents the design of coupled SpeedCore walls in the north-south direction of the same building presented in
Example 2.1. The coupled north-south walls are shown in Figure 2-10.
Design the coupled, planar SpeedCore walls shown in Figure 2-10 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads.

Given:
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
Material properties, building geometry, and floor loads are shown in Step 1 of Example 2.1.
Step 2. Calculation of the Wind Loads
Calculated wind loads for this example are given in Table 2-4.

Solution:
Step 3. Select Preliminary Sizes for SpeedCore Walls and Coupling Beams
The size of the coupled SpeedCore walls and coupling beams are selected in this section as shown in Figures 2-14 and 2-15.
Wall dimensions:
Lcb = coupling beam length
= (10 ft) (12 in./ ft)
= 120 in.
Lwall = wall length
= (12.5 ft) (12 in./ ft)
= 150 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= 2 in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 18 in.
Coupling beam dimensions:
bCB = coupling beam width
= 18 in.
hCB = coupling beam depth
= 24 in.
tpf.CB = coupling beam flange plate thickness
= w in.
tpw.CB = coupling beam web plate thickness
= 2 in.
Step 4. Calculation of Base Shear and Overturning Moment
The effective stiffnesses for composite coupling beams and planar walls are considered in a software analysis program to calcu-
late the moment and force distribution in the members.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 33

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 33 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-4.  Wind Loads in North-South Direction for Each Coupled Wall
Wind Loads Wind Loads
North-South Direction North-South Direction
Story (Risk Category II) (MRI 10-Year)
Story Elevation Windward Wall Leeward Wall Windward Wall Leeward Wall
No. (ft) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
1 17 31.0 −30.1 14.7 −14.3
2 31 28.4 −24.8 13.4 −11.7
3 45 30.3 −24.8 14.3 −11.7
4 59 31.7 −24.8 15.0 −11.7
5 73 32.9 −24.8 15.6 −11.7
6 87 34.0 −24.8 16.1 −11.7
7 101 34.8 −24.8 16.5 −11.7
8 115 35.6 −24.8 16.9 −11.7
9 129 36.4 −24.8 17.2 −11.7
10 143 37.0 −24.8 17.5 −11.7
11 157 37.6 −24.8 17.8 −11.7
12 171 38.2 −24.8 18.1 −11.7
13 185 38.7 −24.8 18.3 −11.7
14 199 39.2 −24.8 18.6 −11.7
15 213 39.7 −24.8 18.8 −11.7
526 −377 249 −178
Sum
Base Shear 903 Base Shear 427

Fig. 2-14.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

Fig. 2-15.  Coupling beam cross-section dimensions.

34 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 34 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Effective Flexural and Shear Stiffnesses of Composite Coupling Beams and Planar SpeedCore Walls
The area of steel in each wall is:
As = tp ⎡⎣ 2 ( L wall − 2tp ) + 2tsc⎤⎦

{
= (2 in.) 2 ⎡⎣150 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ + 2 (18 in.) }
2
= 167 in.

The area of concrete in each wall:

Ac = L wall tsc − As
= (150 in.) (18 in.) − 167 in.2
= 2,530 in.2

The effective axial stiffness of each wall is:

EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (167 in.2 ) + 0.45 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 2,530 in.2 )
= 9,970,000 kips 

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:

Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 (150 in.)(2 in.)
= 150 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of each wall is:

GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Ac (2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) (150 in. ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 2,530 in. )
2 2

= 6,230,000 kips 

The moment of inertia of the steel in each wall is:

⎡ tp ( L wall − 2tp )3 ⎤ ⎡⎛ t t 3 ⎞ ⎛L t ⎞ 2⎤
Is = 2 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 ⎢⎜ sc p ⎟ + tsc tp ⎜ wall − p ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎦⎥
⎣
⎧⎪ (2 in.) ⎡150 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ 3 ⎫⎪ ⎡(18 in.) (2 in.)3 ⎛ 150 in. 2 in.⎞ ⎤⎥
2
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ ( ) ( )
= 2⎨ ⎬ + 2 + 18 in. 2 in. −
12 ⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭ ⎦
4
= 376,000 in.

The moment of inertia of concrete in each wall is:

3
( tsc − 2tp)( L wall − 2tp )
Ic =
12
3
⎡18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣150 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
=⎣
12
= 4,690,000 in.4

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 35

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 35 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The effective flexural stiffness of each wall is:
EI eff = Es Is + 0.35Ec Ic (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 376,000 in. ) + 0.35 (4,500 ksi ) ( 4,690,000 in. )
4 4

= 1.83 1010 kip-in.2 

Coupling Beam Properties

The area of steel in the coupling beam is:
As.CB = 2t pw.CB hCB + 2 ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) t pf.CB

{ }
= ⎡⎣2 (2 in.) ( 24 in.) ⎤⎦ + 2 ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( w in.)
2
= 49.5 in.

The area of concrete in the coupling beam is:

Ac.CB = ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) ( hCB − 2tpf .CB )
= ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (w in.)⎤⎦
= 383 in.2

The uncracked axial stiffness of concrete in the coupling beam is:

EAuncr.CB = Es As.CB + Ec Ac.CB
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (49.5 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 383 in.2 )
= 3,160,000 kips

The moment of inertia of the steel section about the elastic neutral axis in the coupling beam is:
⎡ tpw.CB hCB
I s.CB = 2 ⎢
3
+
( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf3 .CB + ( b − 2t ) t ⎛ hCB − tpf .CB ⎞ 2 ⎤⎥
CB pw.CB pf .CB
⎢⎣ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎧ (2 in.) ( 24 in.)3 [18 in. − 2 (2 in.)]( w in.)3 ⎛ 24 in. w in.⎞ ⎫
2
= 2⎨ + + [18 in. − 2 (2 in.)]( w in.) − ⎬
⎩ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎭
= 4,600 in.4

The moment of inertia of the concrete section about the elastic neutral axis in the coupling beam is:
3
( bCB − 2t pw.CB )( hCB − 2tpf .CB )
Ic.CB =
12

=
[18 in. − 2 ( 2 in. )][ 24 in. − 2 ( w in.)] 3
12
4
= 16,100 in.

36 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 36 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 From AISC Specification Section I2.2b, Equation I2-13, the effective rigidity coefficient is:
⎛ As.CB ⎞
C3.CB = 0.45 + 3 ≤ 0.9 (from Eq. 2-18)
⎝ bCB hCB ⎠
⎡ 49.5 in.2 ⎤
= 0.45 + 3 ⎢ ⎥
⎣(18 in.) ( 24 in.) ⎦
= 0.794 

The effective flexural stiffness of the coupling beam is:

EI eff .CB = Es I s.CB + C3.CB Ec I c.CB (from Eq. 2-17)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 4,600 in. ) + 0.794 ( 4,500 ksi ) (16,100 in. )
4 4

= 1.91 108 kip-in.2 

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:

Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in.) (2 in.)
= 24.0 in.2
GAv.CB = Gs Asw.CB + Gc Ac.CB (from Eq. 2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 24.0 in.2 ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 383 in.2 )
= 958,000 kips 

The effective flexural stiffness of the coupling beam, from Section 2.3.2, is:
0.64EI eff .CB = 0.64 (1.91 × 108 kip-in.2 )
= 1.22 × 10 8 kip-in.2

The reduced axial stiffness of the coupling beam, from Section 2.3.2, is:
0.8EAuncr.CB = 0.8 ( 3,160,000 kips)
= 2,530,000 kips

Because the rotational stiffness of the wall-to-foundation connection has effects on the moment and force distribution and lateral
deflection of the coupled SpeedCore wall, it is included in the finite element model.

Rotational Stiffness of the Wall-to-Foundation Connection

It is assumed that the wall-to-foundation connection provides a fully restrained connection. The rotational stiffness of a fully
restrained wall-to-foundation connection, Ks.con, is calculated according to AISC Specification Figure C-B3.3:
20EI eff
K s.con =
Hwall
20 (1.83 × 1010 kip-in.2 )
=
( 213 ft )(12 in./ft )
= 1.43 × 108 kip-in./rad

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 37

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 37 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 From a structural analysis program, the required forces and moments in each of the two SpeedCore walls and coupling beam for
Risk Category II are as follows:
Mr.CB = required flexural strength for coupling beams
= 22,800 kip-in.
Mr.wall = required flexural strength for each planar SpeedCore wall
= 147,000 kip-in.
Pr.wall = required compression force in the compression SpeedCore wall
= 6,110 kips
Tr.wall = required tensile force in the tension SpeedCore wall
= 1,310 kips
Vr.CB = required shear force for coupling beams
= 381 kips
Vr.wall = required shear strength for each planar SpeedCore wall
= 458 kips
Step 5. Strength Check of SpeedCore Walls and Coupling Beams
In this step, the design flexural and shear strengths of coupling beams and uncoupled SpeedCore walls are calculated and com-
pared with the required shear forces and moments.

Flexural Strength of the Coupling Beam

The width of concrete in the coupling beam is:
tc.CB = bCB − 2tpw.CB
= 18 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 17.0 in.

The plastic neutral axis location is:

2t pw.CB hCB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB tpf .CB
CCB =
4tpw.CB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB
2 (2 in.) ( 24 in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (17.0 in.) ( w in.)
=
4 (2 in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (17.0 in.)
= 6.78 in.

(Note: The plastic neutral axis location, CCB ; compression forces, C1, C2, C3; and tension forces, T1, T2, for a rectangular cou-
pling beam are depicted in Appendix A, Figure A-13.)
The compression force in the flange is:
C1 = ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( w in.) ( 50 ksi)
= 638 kips

The compression force in the web is:

C2 = 2tpw.CB CCB Fy
= 2 (2 in.)( 6.78 in.) (50 ksi)
= 339 kips

38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 38 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the concrete is:
C3 = 0.85 fc′ tc.CB (CCB − tpf .CB )
= 0.85 (6 ksi) (17.0 in.) ( 6.78 in. − w in.)
= 523 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1 = t pf .CB ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) Fy
= ( w in.) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 50 ksi )
= 638 kips

The tension force in the web is:

T2 = 2tpw.CB ( hCB − CCB ) Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 24 in. − 6.78 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 861 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam is:

⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CCB − tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ h − CCB ⎞
MPn.CB = C1 CCB − + C2 CB + C3 + T h − CCB − + T2 CB
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1 ⎝ CB 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ w in.⎞ ⎛ 6.78 in. ⎞ ( ⎛ 6.78 in. − w in.⎞
= ( 638 kips ) 6.78 in. − + ( 339 kips ) + 523 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ w in.⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 6.78 in.⎞
+ ( 638 kips ) 24 in. − 6.78 in. − + (861 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 25,000 kip-in.

The nominal flexural strength of the coupling beam is:

Mn.CB = MPn.CB = 25,000 kip-in.

Using ϕb = 0.90, the design flexural strength of the coupling beam is:
ϕb Mn.CB = 0.90 ( 25,000 kip-in.)
= 22,500 kip-in. < M r.CB = 22,800 kip-in.

The ratio of required flexural strength to design flexural strength exceeds 1.0. The coupling beam design would be adjusted so
that the beam’s design strength is greater than the required strength. Increasing the coupling beam flange plate thickness, tpf.CB, to
d in. would satisfy the required flexural strength. The iterative design process is not fully shown in this example.

Shear Strength of the Coupling Beam

The area of the steel web in shear in the coupling beam is:
Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in.) (2 in.)
= 24.0 in.2

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 39

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 39 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The nominal shear strength of the coupling beam is:
Vn.CB = 0.6Fy Asw.CB + 0.06Ac.CB fc′ (from Eq. 2-19)
= 0.6 ( 50 ksi ) ( 24.0 in.) + 0.06 ( 383 in. ) 6 ksi
2

= 776 kips 

Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the coupling beam is:
ϕvVn.CB = 0.90 ( 776 kips )
= 698 kips > Vr.CB = 381 kips

Flexural Strength of the SpeedCore Wall in Tension

It is assumed that the tensile axial force acts at the elastic centroid of the walls. Figure 2-16 illustrates the plastic neutral axis
location and the compression and tension force regions in the wall.
As stated in the Given, the tensile force in the wall is:
Tr.wall = 1,310 kips

Plastic neutral axis location:

− Tr.wall + 2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
CT =
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ (tsc − 2tp )
−1,310 kips + 2 (2 in.) (150 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.)
=
4 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 33.4 in.

The compression force in the flange plate is:

C1.T = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 425 kips

The compression force in the web plate is:

C2.T = 2tp CT Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 33.4 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,670 kips

Fig. 2-16.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of wall in tension.

40 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 40 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The concrete compression force is:
C3.T = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) (CT − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 33.4 in. − 2 in.)
= 2,850 kips

The tension force in the flange plate is:

T1.T = tp ( tsc − 2tp ) Fy
= (2 in.) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 50 ksi )
= 425 kips

The tension force in the web plate is:

T2.T = 2tp ( L wall − CT ) Fy
= 2 (2 in.) (150 in. − 33.4 in.) (50 ksi)
= 5,830 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the planar SpeedCore wall in tension is:
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CT − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ L − CT ⎞
MPT .wall = C1.T CT − + C2.T T + C3.T + T1.T L wall − CT − + T2.T wall
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ L ⎞
+ Tr.wall CT − wall
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 33.4 in. ⎞ ⎛ 33.4 in. − 2 in.⎞
= ( 425 kips ) 33.4 in. − + (1,670 kips ) + ( 2,850 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 150 in. − 33.4 in.⎞
+ ( 425 kips ) 150 in. − 33.4 in. − + ( 5,830 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 150 in.⎞
+ (1,310 kips ) 33.4 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 424,000 kip-in.

The nominal flexural strength of the planar SpeedCore wall in tension is:
MnT .wall = MPT .wall = 424,000 kip-in.

Flexural Strength of the SpeedCore Wall in Compression

Figure 2-17 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension force regions in the wall.
As stated in the Given, the compression force in the compression wall is:
Pr.wall = 6,110 kips

The location of the plastic neutral axis is:

Pr.wall + 2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
CC =
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp )
6,110 kips+ 2 (2 in.) (150 in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 (6 ksi) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.)
=
4 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 73.1 in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 41

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 41 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the flange plate is:
C1.C = ( tsc − 2tp ) t p Fy
= ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 425 kips

The compression force in the web plate is:

C2.C = 2tp CC Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 73.1 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,660 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.C = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) (CC − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 73.1 in. − 2 in.)
= 6,290 kips

The tensile force in the flange plate is:

T1.C = (tsc 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 425 kips

The tensile force in the web plates is:

T2.C = 2tp ( L wall − CC ) Fy
= 2 (2 in.) (150 in. − 73.1 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,850 kips

Fig. 2-17.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of wall in compression.

42 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 42 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The plastic flexural strength of the planar SpeedCore wall in compression is:
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CC − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ L − CC ⎞
M PC.wall = C1.C CC − + C2.C C + C3.C +T L − CC − + T2.C wall
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1.C ⎝ wall 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛L ⎞
+ Pr.wall wall − CC
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 73.1 in.⎞ ⎛ 73.1 in. − 2 in.⎞
= ( 425 kips ) 73.1 in. − + (3,660 kips) + ( 6,290 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 150 in. − 73.1 in.⎞
+ ( 425 kips ) 150 in. − 73.1 in. − + ( 3,850 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 150 in. ⎞
+ ( 6,110 kips ) − 73.1 in.
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 585,000 kip-in.

The nominal flexural strength of the planar SpeedCore wall in compression is:
MnC.wall = MPC.wall = 585,000 kip-in.

The design flexural strength of the tension wall is:

ϕb MnT .wall = 0.90 ( 424,000 kip-in.)
= 382,000 kip-in. > Mr.wall = 147,000 kip-in.

The design flexural strength of the compression wall is:

ϕb MnC.wall = 0.90 ( 585,000 kip-in.)
= 527,000 kip-in. > Mr.wall = 147,000 kip-in.

The ratio of demand to capacity is:

Mr.wall 147,000 kip-in.
=
ϕb MnT .wall 382,000 kip-in.
= 0.385
Mr.wall 147,000 kip-in.
=
ϕb MnC.wall 527,000 kip-in.
= 0.279

Shear Strength of the SpeedCore Wall

The steel area in the direction of shear is:
Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 (150 in.) (2 in.)
= 150 in.2

Ac = ( L wall − 2tp ) ( tsc − 2tp )

= ⎡⎣150 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣18in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 2,530 in.2

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 43

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 43 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Ks = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) (150 in. ) 2

= 1,680,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Ac )( Es Asw )
K sc = (2-16)
4Es Asw + Ec Ac
0.7 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 2,530 in.2 ) ( 29,000 ksi ) (150 in.2 )
=
4 ( 29,000 ksi ) (150 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 2,530 in.2 )
= 1,200,000 kips 
Ks + K sc
Vn.wall = Fy Asw (2-14)
3Ks2 + K sc2
1,680,000 kips + 1,200,000 kips
= ( 50 ksi )(150 in.2 )
3 (1,680,000 kips ) + (1,200,000 kips )
2 2

= 6,860 kips 

The design shear strength of the SpeedCore wall is:

ϕvVn.wall = 0.90 ( 6,860 kips )
= 6,170 kips > Vr.wall = 458 kips

Ratio of demand-to-capacity is:

Vr.wall 458 kips
=
ϕvVn.wall 6,170 kips
= 0.0742

The tensile strength of the SpeedCore wall is:

PnT = Fy As (from Eq. 2-13)
= ( 50 ksi ) (167 in. ) 2

= 8,350 kips 

Using ϕT = 0.90, the design tensile strength of the SpeedCore wall is:
ϕT PnT = 0.90 (8,350 kips )
= 7,520 kips > Tr.wall = 1,310 kips

The compression strength of the SpeedCore wall is:

Pno = Fy As + 0.85 fc′Ac (2-12)
= ( 50 ksi ) (167 in.2 ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 2,530 in.2 )
= 21,300 kips 

The moment of inertia of the steel about the minor axis is:

44 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 44 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 ⎡( L wall − 2tp ) tp
3 2 3
⎛ tsc − tp ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ tp tsc ⎞
I s.min = 2 ⎢ + ( L wall − 2tp ) tp + 2
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ 12 ⎠
⎣ ⎦
⎧[150 in. − 2 (2 in.)](2 in.)3 ⎛ 18 in. − 2 in. ⎞ ⎫
2
⎡(2 in.) (18 in.)3 ⎤
= 2⎨ + [150 in. − 2 (2 in.)](2 in.) ⎬ +2⎢ ⎥
⎩ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎭ ⎣ 12 ⎦
= 11,900 in.4

The moment of inertia of concrete about the minor axis is:

3
(L wall − 2tp )( tsc − 2tp )
I c.min =
12

=
[150 in. − 2 (2 in.)][18 in. − 2 (2 in.)]3
12
= 61,000 in.4

The effective flexural stiffness of the wall about the minor axis is:
EI eff .min = Es I s.min + 0.35Ec Ic.min (from Eq. 2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (11,900 in. ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 61,000 in. )
4 4

= 4.41 × 108 kip-in.2 

The critical unsupported length for buckling of the wall is:

Lc = max ( h1 ,h typ )
= max (17 ft,14 ft )
= 17 ft

where h1 is the first story height and htyp is the typical story height.
The Euler buckling load from AISC Specification Equation I2-4 is:
π 2 EI eff .min
Pe =
L2c
π 2 ( 4.41 × 10 8 kip-in.2 )
= 2
⎡⎣(17 ft ) (12 in./ft )⎤⎦
= 105,000 kips
Pno 21,300 kips
=
Pe 105,000 kips
= 0.203 < 2.25

The nominal compressive strength of the wall from AISC Specification Equation I2-2 is:
⎛ Pno ⎞
PnC = Pno ⎝ 0.658 Pe ⎠
⎛ 21,300 kips ⎞
= ( 21,300 kips ) ⎝0.658105,000 kips ⎠
= 19,600 kips

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 45

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 45 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The design compressive strength of the SpeedCore wall is:
ϕc PnC = 0.90 (19,600 kips )
= 17,600 kips > Pr.wall = 6,110 kips

Step 6. Serviceability Check of Coupled SpeedCore Walls

In this step, the lateral deflection of the coupled SpeedCore wall is checked to evaluate the serviceability. Wind loads at a 10-year
MRI are used in a finite element model to check the drift limits. Effective flexural and shear stiffnesses of the coupling beams
and SpeedCore walls are used in the model.
The lateral deflection due to wind loads at a 10-year MRI is limited to a roof displacement of Hwall / 500, where Hwall is the total
height of the wall, or an ID of h/ 400, where h is the story height. In this design example, allowable roof displacement and ID
are 5.11 in. and 0.25%, respectively. The interstory ratio is determined as lateral displacement between two consecutive floors
divided by story height.
Allowable roof displacement:
Hwall ( 213 ft ) (12 in./ft )
=
500 500
= 5.11 in.

Allowable ID ratio for h/ 400:

ID = 0.25%
A commercial structural analysis software program is used to check roof displacement and ID. Figure 2-18 shows the deformed
shape, lateral displacement, and ID of the coupled SpeedCore wall. Table 2-5 summarizes lateral displacement and ID.
Step 7. Detail Design of Coupling Beams
The clear width of the coupling beam flange plate is:
bc.CB = bCB − 2t pw.CB
= 18 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 17.0 in.

The clear width of the coupling beam web plate is:

hc.CB = hCB − 2tpf .CB
= 24 in. − 2 ( w in.)
= 22.5 in.

As stated in Section 2.3.1.1 of this Design Guide, the coupling beam is classified as compact, noncompact, or slender based on
the limits given in AISC Specification Table I1.1b.
bc.CB 17.0 in.
=
tpf .CB w in.
= 22.7
Es 29,000 ksi
2.26 = 2.26
Fy 50 ksi
= 54.4
bc.CB E
< 2.26 s
tpf .CB Fy

46 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 46 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 (a) Deformed shape (b) Lateral displacement (c) ID

Fig. 2-18. Coupled SpeedCore walls deformed shape, lateral displacement, and ID.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 47

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 47 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-5.  Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Story Story Height Displacement ID
No. (ft) (in.) (%)
15 14 4.15 0.16
14 14 3.88 0.16
13 14 3.61 0.17
12 14 3.32 0.17
11 14 3.03 0.18
10 14 2.73 0.18
9 14 2.42 0.18
8 14 2.11 0.18
7 14 1.80 0.18
6 14 1.49 0.18
5 14 1.19 0.17
4 14 0.90 0.17
3 14 0.62 0.14
2 14 0.38 0.13
1 14 0.17 0.08
Base 17 0.00 0

hc.CB 22.5 in.

=
tpw.CB 2 in.
= 45.0
Es 29,000 ksi
3.00 = 3.00
Fy 50 ksi
= 72.2
hc.CB E
< 3.00 s
tpw.CB Fy

The coupling beam section is compact. Note that compact sections are not required for wind design.

Step 8. Detail Design of SpeedCore Walls

The required steel reinforcement ratio of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is checked as shown in the following.
The minimum steel area required according to AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:
As.min = 0.01L wall tsc
= 0.01(150 in.) (18.0 in.)
= 27.0 in.2

As = 167 in.2 > As.min = 27.0 in.2 o.k.

48 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 48 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The maximum steel area required according to AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:
As.max = 0.1L wall tsc
= 0.1(150 in.) (18.0 in.)
= 270 in.2

As = 167 in.2 < As.max = 270 in.2 o.k.

A tie bar spacing, Stie, of 12 in. is selected for the SpeedCore wall, and the slenderness requirement is checked as follows:
Stie 12 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0

Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9
Stie E
<1.2 s o.k. (from Eq. 2-1)
tp Fy 

The tie bar diameter, dtie, is selected as s in. for the SpeedCore wall, and the bar requirement considering the stability of the
empty steel module is checked as follows:
Tie bar requirement for empty steel module stability:
4
⎛ tsc ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
α = 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2-5)
⎝ tp ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 18 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2l in. ⎠ ⎝ s in. ⎠
= 23.7 
Stie
= 24.0
tp

Es 29,000 ksi
1.0 = 1.0
2α + 1 2 ( 23.7 ) + 1
= 24.5
Stie Es
< 1.0 o.k. (from Eq. 2-4)
tp 2α + 1 

Step 9. Connection Design

Connections are designed in accordance with the requirements of the AISC Specification Chapter J. Either welded or bolted
connections are permitted. The composite wall-to-foundation (or subgrade structure) connections are designed based on the cal-
culated demands (required strengths). The coupling beam-to-composite wall connections are designed based on the calculated
demands at the corresponding levels. The composite wall splices are also designed based on the calculated demands at the cor-
responding locations.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 49

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 49 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 EXAMPLE 2.3—Wind Design of 22-Story Structure Using Coupled C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls
Example 2.3 presents the wind design of a 22-story office building located in Chicago. This example presents the wind design of
the coupled C-shaped SpeedCore walls of the building in the north-south direction, as shown in Figure 2-19.
Design the coupled, C-shaped SpeedCore walls shown in Figure 2-19 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads.

Given:
Material properties and building information are given in Step 1.
Calculated wind loads for this example are given in Step 2. The gravity load (axial compression force) of the C-shaped Speed-
Core walls is not considered in this example.
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
Building geometry:
Hwall = total wall height
= 311 ft
Lf = building length
= 200 ft
Wf = building width
= 120 ft
htyp = typical story height
= 14 ft
h1 = first-story height
= 17 ft
n = number of stories
= 22

Fig. 2-19.  Building floor plan for Example 2.3.

50 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 50 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Floor load:
DL = floor dead load
= 0.12 ksf
Material properties are as follows:
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Gs = 11,200 ksi
Concrete:
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
For ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel, from AISC Manual Table 2-4, the steel material properties are as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Step 2. Calculation of the Wind Loads
The building is located in Chicago and wind speeds for this city (ASCE/SEI 7, Chapter 26) are shown in Table 2-1. Wind speeds
at Risk Category II and a 10-year MRI are used to calculate wind loads for the design and serviceability checks, respectively. The
calculated wind loads for the design of coupled C-shaped SpeedCore walls in the north-south direction are given in Table 2-6.

Solution:
Step 3. Select Preliminary Sizes for SpeedCore Walls and Coupling Beams
The size of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall and coupling beam are selected in this section. C-shaped SpeedCore walls and coupling
beam dimensions are as follows (see Figures 2-20 and 2-21):
Lcb = clear span coupling beam length
= 10 ft (12 in./ ft)
= 120 in.
Lwall = web wall length
= 30 ft (12 in./ ft)
= 360 in.
Wwall = flange wall length
= 14 ft (12 in./ ft)
= 168 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= 2 in.
tsc.w = web wall thickness
= 14 in.
tsc.f = flange wall thickness
= 24 in.
Coupling beam dimensions:
bCB = coupling beam width
= 24 in.
hCB = coupling beam depth
= 24 in.
tpf.CB = coupling beam flange plate thickness
= w in.
tpw.CB = coupling beam web plate thickness
= 2 in.
AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 51

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 51 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-6.  Wind Loads in North-South Direction
Wind Loads Wind Loads
North-South Direction North-South Direction
Story (Risk Category II) (MRI 10-Year)
Story Elevation Windward Wall Leeward Wall Windward Wall Leeward Wall
No. (ft) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips)
1 17 62.4 −64.6 29.4 −30.5
2 31 57.0 −53.2 26.9 −25.1
3 45 60.8 −53.2 28.7 −25.1
4 59 63.8 −53.2 30.1 −25.1
5 73 66.2 −53.2 31.2 −25.1
6 87 68.2 −53.2 32.2 −25.1
7 101 70.0 −53.2 33.0 −25.1
8 115 71.6 −53.2 33.8 −25.1
9 129 73.1 −53.2 34.4 −25.1
10 143 74.4 −53.2 35.1 −25.1
11 157 75.6 −53.2 35.6 −25.1
12 171 76.7 −53.2 36.2 −25.1
13 185 77.8 −53.2 36.7 −25.1
14 199 78.8 −53.2 37.1 −25.1
15 213 79.7 −53.2 37.6 −25.1
16 227 80.6 −53.2 38.0 −25.1
17 241 81.4 −53.2 38.4 −25.1
18 255 82.2 −53.2 38.8 −25.1
19 269 83.0 −53.2 39.1 −25.1
20 283 83.7 −53.2 39.5 −25.1
21 297 84.5 −53.2 39.8 −25.1
22 311 85.1 −53.2 40.1 −25.1

Step 4. Calculation of Base Shear and Overturning Moment

The effective stiffnesses for composite coupling beams and C-shaped SpeedCore walls are considered in a structural analysis
software program to calculate the moment and force distribution in the members.

Effective Flexural and Shear Stiffnesses of Composite Coupling Beams and C-Shaped Walls

Coupling Beam Properties

The area of steel in the coupling beam is:
As.CB = 2tpw.CB hCB + 2( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB
= 2 (2 in.) (24 in.) + 2 ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( w in.)
= 58.5 in.2

The area of concrete in the coupling beam is:

52 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 52 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Ac.CB = ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) (hCB − 2tpf .CB )
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( w in.)⎤⎦
= 518 in.2

The uncracked axial stiffness of the concrete in the coupling beam is:
EAuncr.CB = Es As.CB + Ec Ac.CB
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 58.5 in.2 ) + (4,500 ksi ) ( 518 in.2 )
= 4,030,000 kips

The moment of inertia of the steel section about the elastic neutral axis in the coupling beam is:

Fig. 2-20.  Wall cross-sectional dimensions.

Fig. 2-21.  Coupling beam cross-sectional dimensions.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 53

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 53 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 3
⎛ 2tpw.CB hCB ⎞ ⎡⎢ 2 ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf3 .CB ⎤
⎥ + 2 ⎡( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB⎤ ⎛ hCB − tpf .CB ⎞
2
I s.CB = ⎜ ⎟+⎢
⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎝ 2 2 ⎠
⎡ 2 (2 in.) ( 24 in. )3 ⎤ ⎧ 2 ⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ ( w in.)3 ⎫ ⎛ 24 in. w in. ⎞
2
=⎢ ⎥+⎨ ⎣ ⎦
⎬ + 2 ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( w in.) ⎝ −
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎩ 12 ⎭ 2 2 ⎠

= 5,820 in.4

The moment of inertia of the concrete section about the elastic neutral axis in the coupling beam is:
(bCB − 2tpw.CB )(hCB − 2tpf .CB ) 3
I c.CB =
12
3
⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( w in.)⎤⎦
=⎣
12
= 21,800 in.4

From AISC Specification Section I2.2b, Equation I2-13, the effective rigidity coefficient is:
⎛ As.CB ⎞
C3.CB = 0.45 + 3 ≤ 0.9
⎝ bCB hCB ⎠
⎡ 58.5 in.2 ⎤
= 0.45 + 3 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ (24 in.) (24 in.) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 0.755

The effective stiffness of the coupling beam from AISC Specification Equation I2-12 is:
EI eff .CB = Es I s.CB + C3 Ec I c.CB
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 5,820 in.4 ) + 0.755 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 21,800 in.4 )
= 2.43 × 10 8 kip-in.2

The area of the steel web of the coupling beam in the direction of shear is:
Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in. ) (2 in.)
= 24 in.2
GAv.CB = Gs Asw.CB + Gc Ac.CB (from Eq. 2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 24.0 in. ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 518 in. )
2 2

= 1,200,000 kips 

From Section 2.3.2, the effective flexural stiffnesses of the coupling beam is:
0.64EI eff .CB = 0.64 ( 2.43 × 108 kip-in.2 )
= 1.56 × 108 kip-in.2

The reduced axial stiffness of the coupling beam, from Section 2.3.2, is:
0.8EAuncr.CB = 0.8 ( 4.03 × 106 kips )
= 3.22 × 106 kips

54 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 54 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 C-Shaped SpeedCore Wall Properties
The area of steel in the wall is:
As = tp ( 4Wwall + 2L wall + 2tsc. f − 12tp )
= (2 in.) ⎡⎣4 (168 in.) + 2 ( 360 in.) + 2 ( 24 in.) − 12 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 717 in.2

The area of concrete in the wall is:

Ac = 2Wwall tsc. f + ( L wall − 2tsc. f ) tsc.w − As
= 2 (168 in.) ( 24 in. ) + ⎡⎣( 360 in.) − 2 ( 24 in. )⎤⎦ (14 in. ) − 717 in.2
= 11,700 in.2

The effective axial stiffness of the wall is:

EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 717 in. ) + 0.45 (4,500 ksi) (11,700 in. )
2 2

= 4.45 10 7 kips 

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:

Asw = 4Wwall tp
= 4 (168 in.) (2 in.)
= 336 in.2

The area of concrete in the direction of shear is:

Acw = 2 (Wwall − 3tp ) ( tsc. f − 2tp)
= 2 ⎡⎣168 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 7,660 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of the wall is:

GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Acw (from Eq. 2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 336 in.2 ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 7,660 in.2 )
= 1.76 × 10 7 kips 

The center of area in the Y-direction of the C-shaped wall is:

∑ Ay
y=
E
As + c Ac
Es

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 55

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 55 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Wwall ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
∑ Ay = 4Wwall tp + (L wall − 4 tp ) tp tsc.w − + ( L wall − 4tp ) tp + 2 ( tsc. f − 2tp ) tp Wwall −
2 ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
E ⎡ ⎛ Wwall − tsc.w − tp ⎞ ⎛t ⎞⎤
+ c ⎢2 (Wwall − tsc.w − tp ) ( tsc. f − 2tp ) + tsc.w + (L wall − 4tp ) ( tsc.w − 2tp ) sc.w ⎥
Es ⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
⎛168 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= 4 (168 in.) (2 in.) + [ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)](2 in.) 14 in. − + [360 in. − 4 (2 in.)](2 in.)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞
+2 [ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)](2 in.) 168 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎧ 168 in. − 14 in. − 2 in. ⎫
2 (168 in. − 14 in. − 2 in.)[ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)] ⎛ + 14 in.⎞ ⎪
4,500 ksi ⎪⎪ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎪
+ ⎨ ⎬
29,000 ksi ⎪ ⎛ 14 in.⎞
⎪ + [ 360 in. − 4 ( 2 in. ) ][14 in. − 2 ( 2 in. ) ] ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎭
= 139,000 in.3
∑ Ay
y=
E
As + c Ac
Es
139,000 in.3
=
⎛ 4,500 ksi ⎞
717 in.2 + ⎜ ⎟ (11,700 in. )
2
⎝ 29,000 ksi⎠
= 54.9 in.

The moment of inertia of the steel in the wall is:

⎡ ( tsc. f − 2tp ) t p
3 2 3 2
⎡ tpWwall W ⎤ tp ⎤
I s = 4 ⎢⎢ + (Wwall tp ) ⎛ wall − y ⎞ ⎥⎥ + 2 ⎢⎢ + ( tsc. f − 2tp ) tp ⎛Wwall − − y ⎞ ⎥⎥
⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
⎡ ( L wall − 4tp ) tp3 ⎤ t 2 ⎡ (L − 4t p ) tp3 ⎤ 2
⎥⎥ + ( Lwall − 4 tp ) tp ⎡ y − ⎛ tsc.w − p ⎞ ⎤
t
+ ⎢⎢ ⎥⎥ + ( L wall − 4t p ) tp ⎛ y − p ⎞ + ⎢⎢ wall
⎣ 12 ⎦
⎝ 2⎠ ⎣ 12 ⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦⎥
⎡(2 in.) (168in.)3 2⎤
⎛ 168 in. ⎞
= 4⎢ + (168in.) (2 in.) − 54.9 in. ⎥
⎢ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎧⎪ ⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ (2 in.)3 2⎫
⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎪
+2 ⎨ ⎣ ⎦ + ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) 168 in. − − 54.9 in. ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎭
3
⎡360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ⎛ 2 in.⎞ 2
+⎣ + ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) 54.9 in. −
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
3
⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ⎡ ⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎤
2
+ + ⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎦ (2 in.) ⎢54.9 in. − 14 in. −
⎡ ⎤ ⎥
12 ⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
= 2,210,000 in.4

56 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 56 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The moment of inertia of concrete in the wall is:
⎡ ( tsc. f − 2tp ) (Wwall − tsc.w − tp )3 ⎤ ⎛W − t −t ⎞
2
Ic = 2 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 ( tsc. f − 2tp ) (Wwall − tsc.w − tp ) wall sc.w p + tsc.w − y
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
3
( L wall − 4tp )( tsc.w − 2tp ) ⎛ t ⎞ 2
+ + ( tsc.w − 2tp ) ( L wall − 4tp ) y − sc.w
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎧⎪ ⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ (168 in. − 14 in. − 2 in.) 3 ⎫⎪
⎣ ⎦
= 2⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 ⎪⎭
2
⎛ 168 in. − 14 in. − 2 in. ⎞
+2 ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (168in. − 14 in. − 2 in.) + 14 in. − 54.9 in.
⎝ 2 ⎠
3
⎡480 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣14 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎛ 14 in.⎞ 2
+⎣ + ⎡⎣14 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ 54.9 in. −
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 3.37 × 10 7 in.4

The effective flexural stiffness of the wall is:

EI eff = Es I s + 0.35Ec Ic (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 2,210,000 in.4 ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 3.37 10 7 in.4 )
= 1.17 1011 kip-in.2 

Because the rotational stiffness of the wall-to-foundation connection has an effect on the moment and force distribution and the
lateral deflection of the coupled C-shaped wall, it is included in the finite element model. It is assumed that the wall-to-foundation
connection provides a fully restrained connection. The rotational stiffness of a fully restrained wall-to-foundation connection,
Ks.con, is calculated according to AISC Specification Figure C-B3.3:
20EI eff
K s.con =
H wall
20 (1.17 × 1011 kip-in.2 )
=
( 311 ft )(12 in./ft )
= 6.27 × 108 kip-in./rad

From a structural analysis program, the required flexural and shear strengths of the SpeedCore wall and coupling beams are:
Vr.wall = required shear strength of each planar wall (Risk Category II)
= 1,410 kips
Mr.wall = required moment for each planar wall (Risk Category II)
= 722,000 kip-in.
Pr.wall = compression
 force in the compression wall (Risk Category II)
= 12,300 kips
Tr.wall = tensile force in the tension wall (Risk Category II)
= 12,300 kips
Vr.CB = required shear force for coupling beams (Risk Category II)
= 438 kips
Mr.CB = required moment for coupling beams (Risk Category II)
= 26,300 kip-in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 57

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 57 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Step 5. Strength Check of SpeedCore Walls and Coupling Beams
In this step, the design flexural and shear strengths of the coupling beams and C-shaped SpeedCore walls are calculated and
compared with the required strengths.

Design Flexural Strength of the Coupling Beam

The width of concrete in the coupling beam is:
tc.CB = bCB − 2tpw.CB
= 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

The plastic neutral axis location is:

2tpw.CB hCB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB tpf .CB
CCB =
4tpw.CB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB
2 (2 in.) ( 24 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.) ( w in. )
=
4 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.)
= 5.93 in.

(Note: The plastic neutral axis location, CCB; compression forces, C1, C2, C3; and tension forces, T1, T2, for a rectangular coupling
beam are depicted in Appendix A, Figure A-13.)
The compression force in the flange is:
C1 = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( w in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 863 kips

The compression force in the web is:

C2 = 2tpw.CB CCB Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 5.93 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 297 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3 = 0.85 fc′ tc.CB (CCB − t pf .CB )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.) ( 5.93 in. − w in.)
= 608 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1 = ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= [ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)]( w in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 863 kips

The tensile force in the web is:

T2 = 2tpw.CB (hCB − CCB ) Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 24 in. − 5.93 in.) (50 ksi)
= 904 kips

58 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 58 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The plastic moment of the coupling beam is:
⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CCB − tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ h − CCB ⎞
M Pn.CB = C1 CCB − + C2 CB + C3 + T h − CCB − + T2 CB
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1 ⎝ CB 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ w in. ⎞ ⎛ 5.93 in. ⎞ ⎛ 5.93 in. − w in.⎞
= 863 kips 5.93 in. − + 297 kips + 608 kips
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ w in. ⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 5.93 in.⎞
+ 863 kips 24 in. − 5.93 in. − + 904 kips
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 30,700 kip-in.

The nominal flexural strength of the coupling beam is:

Mn.CB = M Pn.CB

Using ϕb = 0.90, the design flexural strength of the coupling beam is:
ϕ b Mn.CB = 0.90 ( 30,700 kip-in.)
= 27,600 kip-in. > M r.CB = 26,300 kip-in.

Shear Strength of the Coupling Beam

The area of the steel web in shear in the coupling beam is:
Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in.) (2 in.)
= 24.0 in.2

The nominal shear strength of the coupling beam is:

Vn.CB = 0.6Fy Asw.CB + 0.06Ac.CB fc′ (from Eq. 2-19)
= 0.6 ( 50 ksi) ( 24.0 in. ) + 0.06 ( 518 in. ) 6 ksi
2 2

= 796 kips 

Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the coupling beam is:
ϕ vVn.CB = 0.90 ( 796 kips )
= 716 kips > Vr.CB = 438 kips

Flexural Strength of the C-Shaped SpeedCore Wall in Tension

Figure 2-22 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension force regions in the tension wall.
It is assumed that the axial force acts at the elastic centroid of the walls.
As stated in the Given, the tensile force in the tension wall is:
Tr.wall = 12,300 kips
tc. f = tsc. f − 2t p
= 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 59

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 59 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 tc.w = tsc.w − 2tp
= 14 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 13.0 in.

The plastic neutral axis location is:

Tr.wall + 4t p Wwall Fy + 2tptc. f Fy + 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (Wwall − t p ) − 2tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
CT =
8tp Fy + 0.85 fc 2tc. f
12,300 kips + 4 (2 in.) (168 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 2 (2 in.) ( 23.0 in.) ( 50 ksi )
+ 0.85 ( 6 ksi )[ 2 ( 23.0 in.)](168 in. − 2 in.) − 2 (2 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi )
=
8 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 2 ) ( 23 in.)
= 119 in.

The compression force in the flange wall edge plate is:

C1.T = 4 (Wwall − CT ) tp Fy
= 4 (168 in. − 119 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 4,900 kips

The compression force in the flange wall end plate is:

C2.T = 2tc. f tp Fy
= 2 ( 23.0 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,150 kips

Fig. 2-22.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

60 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 60 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the concrete is:
C3.T = 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (Wwall − CT − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi )[ 2 ( 23.0 in.)](168 in. − 119 in. − 2 in.)
= 11,400 kips

The tensile force in the flange wall edge plate is:

T1.T = 4CT tp Fy
= 4 (119 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 11,900 kips

The tensile force in the web wall inside steel plate is:
T2.T = ( L wall − 4tp ) tp Fy
= [ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)](2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

The tensile force in the web wall outside steel plate is:
T3.T = ( L wall − 4tp ) tp Fy
= [ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)](2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall in tension is:
⎛ Wwall − CT ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ Wwall − CT − tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞
M PT .wall = C1.T + C2.T Wwall − CT − + C3.T + T1.T T
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
+ T2.T CT − tsc.w + + T3.T CT − + Tr.wall ( y − CT )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
⎛ 168 in. − 119 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= ( 4,900 kips ) + (1,150 kips ) 168 in. − 119 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 168 in. − 119 in. − 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 119 in.⎞
+ (11,400 kips ) + (11,900 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
+ (8,950 kips ) 119 in. − 14 in. + + (8,950 kips ) 119 in. − + (12,300 kips ) ( 54.9 in. − 119 in.)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 2,380,000 kip-in.

The nominal flexural strength of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall in tension is:
MnT .wall = MPT .wall = 2,380,000 kip-in.

Flexural Strength of the C-Shaped SpeedCore Wall in Compression

Figure 2-23 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension force regions in the compression wall.
The compression force in the compression wall is:
Pr.wall = 12,300 kips

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 61

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 61 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The plastic neutral axis location is:
Pr.wall − t p ( Lwall − 4t p ) Fy + ( tc.w + t p ) ( Lwall − 4t p ) Fy − tc.w ( L wall − 4tp ) 0.85 fc′ + 4t p Wwall Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy
+tsc.w ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
CC =
8tp Fy + 2 ( Lwall − 4tp ) Fy
12,300 kips − (2 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi ) + (13.0 in. + 2 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi )
− (13.0 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)] 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) + 4 (2 in.) (168 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 2 (2 in.) ( 23.0 in.) ( 50 ksi )
+ (14 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 ( 2 in. )]( 50 ksi )
=
8 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 2 [ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi )
= 13.6 in.

The compression force in the flange wall edge plate is:

C1.C = 4CC tp Fy
= 4 (13.6 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,360 kips

The compression force in the web wall exterior plate is:

C2.C = tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
= (2 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

The compression force in the web wall interior plate is:

C3.C = (CC − tc.w − tp ) ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
= (13.6 in. − 13.0 in. − 2 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi )
= 1,790 kips

Fig. 2-23.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of compression wall.

62 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 62 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the concrete is:
C4.C = 0.85 fc′ tc.w ( L wall − 4t p )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (13.0 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]
= 23,700 kips

The tensile force in the flange wall edge plate is:

T1.C = 4 (Wwall − CC ) tp Fy
= 4 (168 in. − 13.6 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 15,400 kips

The tensile force in the web wall interior plate is:

T2.C = ( tsc.w − CC ) (L wall − 4tp ) Fy
= (14 in. − 13.6 in.)[ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)]( 50 ksi )
= 7,160 kips

The tensile force in the flange wall end plate is:

T3.C = 2tp tc. f Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 23.0 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,150 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall in compression is:
⎛ CC ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ CC − tc.w − tp ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ Wwall − CC ⎞
M PC.wall = C1.C + C2.C CC − + C3.C + C4.C CC − tp − c.w + T1.C
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛t − CC ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
+T2.C sc.w +T W − CC − + Pr.wall ( y − CC )
⎝ 2 ⎠ 3.C ⎝ wall 2⎠
⎛ 13.6 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 13.6 in. − 13.0 in. − 2 in.⎞
= (1,360 kips ) + (8,950 kips ) 13.6 in. − + (1,790 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 13.0 in. ⎞ ⎛ 168 in. − 13.6 in. ⎞
+ ( 23,700 kips ) 13.6 in. − 2 in. − + (15,400 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 14 in. − 13.6 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in. ⎞
+ ( 7,160 kips ) + (1,150 kips ) 168 in. − 13.6 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
+ (12,300 kips ) ( 54.9 in. − 13.6 in.)
= 2,160,000 kip-in.

The nominal flexural strength of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall in compression is:
MnC.wall = MPC.wall = 2,160,000 kip-in.

The design flexural strength in the tension wall:

ϕb MnT .wall = 0.90 ( 2,380,000 kip-in.)
= 2,140,000 kip-in. > M r.wall = 722,000 kip-in.

The design flexural strength in the compression wall is:

ϕb MnC.wall = 0.90 ( 2,160,000 kip-in.)
= 1,940,000 kip-in. > M r.wall = 722,000 kip-in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 63

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 63 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Shear Strength of the SpeedCore Wall
The area of steel in the direction of shear is:
Asw = 4Wwall tp
= 4 (168 in.) (2 in.)
= 336 in.2

The area of concrete in the direction of shear is:

Acw = 2 (Wwall − 3tp ) ( tsc. f − 2tp )
= 2 [168 in. − 3 (2 in.)][ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)]
= 7,660 in.2
K s = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 336 in.2 )
= 3,760,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Acw )( Es Asw )
K sc = (from Eq. 2-16)
( 4Es Asw ) + ( Ec Acw )
0.7 ⎡⎣( 4,500 ksi ) ( 7,660 in.2 )⎤⎦ ⎡⎣( 29,000 ksi ) ( 336 in.2 )⎤⎦
=
4 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 336 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 7,660 in.2 )
= 3,200,000 kips 
Ks + K sc
Vn.wall = AswFy (2-14)
3Ks2 + K sc2
3,760,000 kips + 3,200,000 kips
= ( 336 in.2 )( 50 ksi )
3 ( 3,760,000 kips ) + ( 3,200,000 kips )
2 2

= 16,100 kips 

Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the coupling beam is:
ϕ vVn.wall = 0.90 (16,100 kips )
= 14,500 kips > Vr.wall = 1,410 kips

The nominal tensile strength of the SpeedCore wall is:

Pn.T = As Fy (from Eq. 2-13)
2
= (717in. )(50 ksi)
= 35,900 kips 

Using ϕt = 0.90, the design tensile strength of the SpeedCore wall is:
ϕt Pn.T = 0.90 ( 35,900 kips )
= 32,300 kips > Tr.wall = 12,300 kips

The compression strength of the SpeedCore wall is:

Pno = As Fy + 0.85 fc′Ac (2-12)
= ( 717 in.2 ) ( 50 ksi ) + ⎡⎣0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (11,700 in.2 )⎤⎦
= 95,500 kips 
64 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 64 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The moment of inertia of steel about the minor axis is:
⎡ (Wwall − 3tp ) tp3 ⎛L tp ⎞ 2⎤ ⎡ t p tsc.
3
⎛ L wall tsc. f ⎞ ⎤
2
+ (Wwall − 3t p ) tp wall − tsc. f +
f
I s.min = 2 ⎢ ⎥ +2⎢ + tp tsc. f − ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎡ (Wwall − 3tp ) tp3 ⎛L tp ⎞ 2 ⎤ ⎛ tp L wall
3
⎞
+2⎢ + (Wwall − 3tp) tp wall − ⎥ +2⎜ ⎟
⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
2 ⎥⎦ ⎝ 12 ⎠
⎧ ⎡⎣168 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.)3 ⎛ 360 in. 2 in. ⎞ ⎫
2
= 2⎨ + ⎡⎣168 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) − 24 in. + ⎬
12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎭
⎩
⎡ (2 in.)( 24 in.)3 ⎛ 360 in. 24 in. ⎞ ⎤
2
+2⎢ + (2 in.) ( 24 in.) − ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
⎧ ⎡⎣168 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.)3 ⎛ 360 in. 2 in.⎞ ⎫
2 ⎡(2 in.) (360 in.)3 ⎤
+2⎨ + ⎡⎣168 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) − ⎬+2⎢ ⎥
12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎭ ⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦
⎩
= 1.40 10 7 in.4

The moment of inertia of concrete about the minor axis is:

⎡ ( tsc.w − 2tp ) ( Lwall − 2tsc. f )3 ⎤ ⎡ (Wwall − 3tp ) ( tsc. f − 2t p )3 ⎛L tsc. f ⎞ 2 ⎤
I c.min =⎢ ⎥+2⎢ + (Wwall − 3tp )( tsc. f − 2tp ) ⎝ wall − ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 12 2 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
⎧ [14 in. − 2 (2 in.)][ 360 in. − 2 ( 24 in.)]3 ⎫
=⎨ ⎬
⎩ 12 ⎭
⎧ [168 in. − 3 (2 in.)][ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)]3 ⎫
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 12 ⎪
+2⎨ 2⎬
⎪ + 168 in. − 3 2 in. 24 in. − 2 2 in. ⎛ 360 in. − 24 in.⎞ ⎪
⎪ [ ( ) ][ ( ) ] ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎭
⎪
⎩
= 2.49 × 10 8 in. 4

The effective stiffness of the wall about the minor axis is:
EI eff.min = ( Es Is.min ) + ( 0.35Ec Ic.min ) (from Eq. 2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (1.40 × 10 7 in.4 ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi )( 2.49 × 108 in.4 )
= 7.98 × 1011 kip-in.2 

The critical unsupported length for buckling of the wall is:

Lc = max ( h1 ,htyp )
= max (17ft,14 ft )
= 17 ft

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 65

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 65 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The Euler buckling load, from AISC Specification Equation I2-5 is:
π 2 EI eff .min
Pe =
L c2
π 2 ( 7.98 × 1011 kip-in.2 )
= 2
⎡⎣(17ft )(12 in./ft )⎤⎦
= 1.89 × 108 kips
Pno 95,500 kips
=
Pe 1.89 108 kips
= 0.001 < 2.25

The nominal compressive strength from AISC Specification Equation I2-2:

⎛ Pno ⎞
Pn.C = Pno ⎝ 0.658 Pe ⎠
⎛ 95,500 kips
⎞
= ( 95,500 kips ) ⎝ 0.658 1.89 ×108 kips
⎠
= 95,500 kips

Using ϕc = 0.90, the design compression strength of the SpeedCore wall is:
ϕc Pn.C = 0.90 ( 95,500 kips )
= 86,000 kips > Pr.wall = 12,300 kips

Step 6. Serviceability Check of Coupled SpeedCore Walls

In this step, the lateral deflection of coupled C-shaped SpeedCore walls is checked to evaluate serviceability. Wind loads at a
10-year MRI and the effective stiffness of the uncoupled walls are used in a finite element model to check the drift limits. Effec-
tive flexural and shear stiffnesses of the coupling beams and C-shaped SpeedCore walls are used in the model.
The lateral deflection due to wind loads at a 10-year MRI is limited to a roof displacement of Hwall /500, where Hwall is the total
height of the building, or an ID of h/400, where h is the story height. In this design example, the allowable roof displacement and
ID are 7.46 in. and 0.25%, respectively.
Allowable roof displacement:
H wall ( 311 ft ) (12 in./ft )
=
500 500
= 7.46 in.

Allowable ID ratio:
ID = 25%

A commercial structural analysis software program is used to check roof displacement and ID. Figure 2-24 shows the lateral
deformation shape, lateral displacement, and ID of the coupled walls. Table 2-7 summarizes lateral displacement and ID.
Step 7. Detail Design of Coupling Beams
The clear width of the coupling beam flange plate:
bc.CB = bCB − 2t pw.CB
= 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

66 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 66 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 2-7.  Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Story Height Displacement ID
Story No. (ft) (in.) (%)
22 14 4.85 0.13
21 14 4.63 0.13
20 14 4.41 0.14
19 14 4.18 0.14
18 14 3.94 0.14
17 14 3.70 0.14
16 14 3.46 0.15
15 14 3.21 0.15
14 14 2.96 0.15
13 14 2.70 0.15
12 14 2.45 0.15
11 14 2.19 0.15
10 14 1.93 0.15
9 14 1.68 0.15
8 14 1.43 0.14
7 14 1.19 0.14
6 14 0.95 0.13
5 14 0.73 0.13
4 14 0.52 0.11
3 14 0.34 0.10
2 14 0.18 0.07
1 14 0.07 0.03
Base 17 0.00 0.00

The clear width of the coupling beam web plate:

hc.CB = hCB − 2tpf .CB
= 24 in. − 2 ( w in. )
= 22.5 in.

The limiting width-to-thickness ratios from AISC Specification Table I1.1b are:
bc.CB 23.0 in.
=
tpf .CB w in.
= 30.7
Es 29,000 ksi
2.26 = 2.26
Fy 50 ksi
= 54.4
bc.CB E
< 2.26 s
tpf .CB Fy

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 67

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 67 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 hc.CB 22.5 in.
=
t pw.CB 2 in.
= 45

Es 29,000 ksi
3.00 = 3.00
Fy 50 ksi
= 72.2
h c.CB E
< 3.00 s
tpw.CB Fy

The coupling beam section is compact; however, noncompact/slender sections can be selected for the wind design.
Step 8. Detail Design of SpeedCore Walls
Required steel reinforcement ratio of the C-shaped walls is checked and shown in the following:
The gross area of the C-shaped wall is:
Ag = ( L wall tsc.w ) + 2 (Wwall − tsc.w ) tsc. f
= ( 360 in.) (14 in.) + 2 (168 in. − 14 in.) ( 24 in. )
= 12,400 in.2

(a) Deformed shape (b) Lateral displacement (c) ID

Fig. 2-24. Coupled SpeedCore walls deformed shape, lateral displacement, and ID.

68 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 68 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The minimum steel area required according to AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:
As.min = 0.01 Ag
= 0.01(12,400 in.2 )
= 124 in.2

As = 717 in.2 > As.min = 124 in.2

The maximum steel area required according to AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:
As.max = 0.1 Ag
= 0.1(12,400 in.2 )
= 1,240 in.2

As = 717 in.2 < As.max = 1,240 in.2

A tie bar spacing, Stie, of 12 in. is selected for the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, and the slenderness requirement is checked as
follows:
Stie 12 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0
Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9
Stie E
<1.2 s o.k. (from Eq. 2-1)
tp Fy 

The tie bar diameter, dtie, of w in. is selected for the C-shaped wall, and the bar requirement considering the stability of the empty
steel module is checked as follows:
4
tsc tp ⎞
α = 1.7 ⎛ − 2⎞ ⎛ (2-5)
⎝ tp ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 24 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in. ⎞
= 1.7 −2
⎝ 2 in. ⎠ ⎝ w in. ⎠
= 15.5 
Stie 12 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0

Es 29,000 ksi
1.0 = 1.0
2α + 1 2 (15.4 ) + 1
= 30.2

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 69

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 69 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Stie Es
< 1.0 o.k. (from Eq. 2-4)
tp 2α + 1 

Step 9. Connection Design

Connections are designed in accordance with the requirements of the AISC Specification Chapter J. Either welded or bolted
connections are permitted. The composite wall-to-foundation (or subgrade structure) connections are designed based on the cal-
culated demands (required strengths). The coupling beam-to-composite wall connections are designed based on the calculated
demands at the corresponding levels. The composite wall splices are also designed based on the calculated demands at the cor-
responding locations.

70 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

009-070_DG38_Chapter 2.indd 70 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Chapter 3
Seismic Design of Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls
3.1 OVERVIEW recommendations of Shafaei et al. (2021a) and Bruneau et
al. (2019). The results from the numerical analyses con-
This chapter covers the design of composite plate shear
firmed that the seismic response was governed by the lateral
walls—concrete filled (C-PSW/CF), hereafter referred to
stiffness and strength of uncoupled SpeedCore walls and
as SpeedCore walls, with rectangular flange plates for seis-
the eventual formation of flexural plastic hinges at the base
mic regions. Seismic response modification factors, R, Ω0,
of the walls. Inelastic behavior occurs primarily at the base
and Cd for C-PSW have been included in ASCE/SEI  7,
of the walls because they are mostly responding as vertical
Table 12.2-1, for several years (ASCE, 2022). Due to fun-
cantilever structural systems. All the SpeedCore walls in
damental differences in behavior, the AISC Seismic Provi-
the archetype structure were flexure dominant with overall
sions (AISC,  2016), divided the system into two separate
structure height-to-length ratios greater than or equal to 3.
systems: (1) composite plate shear walls—concrete encased
The in-plane shear strengths of the walls were much greater
and (2)  composite plate shear walls—concrete filled. The
than the calculated demands. The analytical results of the
2016 AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7 included seis-
6- and 18-story uncoupled SpeedCore structures from this
mic design provisions for uncoupled C-PSW/CF. However,
FEMA study are included in Chapter 5.
these provisions were limited to planar walls with (1) semi-
The behavior and design of uncoupled SpeedCore wall
circular or circular concrete-filled steel tube boundary ele-
systems for seismic loading combinations depends on a
ments or (2)  walls without any boundary elements. These
few key elements, including (1) system limitations and sec-
provisions were based on research studies conducted by
tion detailing, (2) stiffness, (3) strength, and (4) connection
Alzeni and Bruneau (2017), Kurt et al. (2016), and Seo et
design requirements. These topics are presented in detail in
al. (2016), and they included provisions for section detail-
the remainder of this chapter, along with an extended com-
ing, including plate slenderness and tie bar size and spacing,
mentary. This is followed by the detailed design procedure in
member stiffness, calculating strength, and requirements for
steps and flowcharts. Two detailed design examples are pre-
wall-to-foundation connections.
sented, including a 6-story structure with uncoupled planar
Over the past few years, significant research has been
SpeedCore walls and an 18-story structure with uncoupled
conducted on the seismic behavior, analysis, and design of
C-shaped SpeedCore walls.
uncoupled SpeedCore walls. This work included experimen-
tal investigations of the cyclic lateral loading behavior of
3.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS BASED ON 2022
planar SpeedCore walls with flange plates acting as bound-
AISC SEISMIC PROVISIONS
ary elements (Shafaei et al., 2021b) and the cyclic lateral
loading behavior of C-shaped SpeedCore walls (Kenarangi This section details the seismic design provisions in the
et al., 2021). Analytical investigations were also conducted 2022 version of the AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7 for
to develop and calibrate numerical models for estimating the the design of uncoupled C-PSW/CF. However, the design
cyclic lateral loading behavior of SpeedCore walls (Shafaei provisions and examples included in this Design Guide are
et al., 2021a; Bruneau et al., 2019). Additionally, detailed limited to C-PSW/CF with rectangular flange plates.
studies following FEMA P-695, Quantification of Build-
ing Seismic Performance Factors: Component Equivalency 3.2.1 Scope
Methodology (FEMA, 2009), were conducted by Agarwal et
As specified in AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7.1,
al. (2020) to verify the seismic response modification fac-
composite plate shear walls—concrete filled (C-PSW/CF),
tors, R, Ω0, and Cd, for uncoupled walls.
which are referred to in this Design Guide as SpeedCore
Agarwal et al. (2020) used the seismic design criteria
walls, consist of planar, C-shaped, or I-shaped walls, where
presented in detail (along with extended commentary) in
each wall element consists of two planar steel plates with
the following chapter to design archetype structures. Four
concrete infill between them. Composite action between the
archetype structures with planar walls with flange plates (3-,
plates and concrete infill is achieved using either tie bars or a
6-, 9-, and 12-story), and three archetype structures with
combination of tie bars and steel headed stud anchors.
C-shaped SpeedCore walls (15-, 18-, and 22-story) were
SpeedCore walls are an alternative to reinforced concrete
designed using the detailed design procedure presented in
shear walls or special plate shear walls (SPSW), especially
Section 3.3. The nonlinear inelastic numerical models were
when relatively large seismic demand on the walls leads to
developed and analyzed using OpenSEES and the modeling
dense reinforcement and large thicknesses in conventional

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 71

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 71 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 concrete shear walls, or to relatively large wall thicknesses 3.2.2 Basis of Design
of the web infill and boundary elements in SPSW. SpeedCore
As required in AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7.2,
walls can also be provided with concrete-filled HSS bound-
SpeedCore walls are expected to provide significant inelastic
ary elements in lieu of flange (closure) plates to address high
deformation capacity through developing the plastic moment
seismic demands.
strength of the composite wall cross section, by yielding of
In each wall element, the two steel plates are of equal
the steel plate and the concrete attaining its compressive
nominal thickness and connected using tie bars. The steel
strength. The cross section is detailed such that the section
plates comprise at least 1% but no more than 10% of the wall
is able to attain its plastic moment strength. Shear yielding
element cross section.
of the steel web plates is not the mechanism governing sys-
Flange or closure plates or boundary elements are required
tem behavior. This behavior was seen in the experimental
at the open ends of the wall elements. The boundary ele-
investigations of Shafaei et al. (2021b) detailed herein. Sha-
ments can be (1) half-circular sections of diameter equal to
faei et al. (2021b) conducted experimental investigations on
the distance between the two web plates, or (2) circular filled
planar C-PSW subjected to different axial load and cyclic
composite members.
lateral loading up to failure. The parameters included in the
Examples of the types of wall cross sections addressed
experimental investigations were the axial load level, tie bar
by AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7 are shown in Fig-
spacing, and steel plate slenderness. All the wall specimens
ure  3-1. These include planar walls with flange or closure
developed and exceeded the plastic flexural strength corre-
plates, planar walls with circular or half-circular boundary
sponding to the axial load level. Shafaei et al. (2021a) have
elements, and C- or I-shaped walls with flange and web walls
also developed and recommended effective stress-strain
with closure plates. Previous editions of the AISC Seismic
curves that can be used to model the cyclic behavior and cal-
Provisions permitted walls without any flange or closure
culate the flexural strength of SpeedCore walls. The typical
plates or boundary elements. However, the 2022 AISC Seis-
cyclic lateral load-displacement of a planar wall is shown in
mic Provisions do not permit such designs, as recent stud-
Figure 3-2. The peak moment was reached due to yielding
ies (Agrawal et al., 2020) have shown that flange or closure
followed by local buckling of the flanges and webs of the
plates enhance the ductility of these systems.
walls. Strength degradation occurred due to fracture initia-
The wall height-to-length ratio, Hwall / Lwall, of the com-
tion in the flange plates of the wall. After fracture initiation,
posite wall are required to be greater than or equal to 3. This
cyclic loading caused stiffness and strength degradation
height-to-length ratio limit is based on the range of available
along with propagation of fracture through the flanges and
test data for flexure-critical composite walls, and the range
webs of the wall cross section. The specimen exceeded a
of Hwall / Lwall values considered in the archetype structures
drift ratio of 3% before cyclic loading reduced the flexural
(Agrawal et al., 2020). The limits in the scope are gener-
strength of the wall to 0.8Mp. This occurred during the first
ally associated with the range of parameters considered in
cycle with a drift ratio of five times the yield drift ratio corre-
the investigations conducted on uncoupled walls (Alzeni and
sponding to a plastic rotation of 0.02 rad in the plastic hinge
Bruneau, 2017; Agarwal et al., 2020).
at the base of the wall.

(a)  Planar rectangular wall with flange plates and tie bars

(b)  Planar wall with semicircular

boundary elements and tie bars

(d)  C-shaped walls with flange (e)  I-shaped walls with flange
(c)  Planar wall with circular boundary elements and tie bars (closure) plates and tie bars (closure) plates and tie bars

Fig. 3-1.  SpeedCore walls with boundary elements or flange (closure) plates.

72 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 72 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 3.2.3 Analysis In regions that are not subjected to flexural yielding, the
steel plate slenderness ratio, b/ tp, is limited per AISC Speci-
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7.3, the
fication Section I1.6a as follows:
effective stiffness of composite walls is calculated in accor-
dance with AISC Specification Section I1.5. This section of b E
≤ 1.2 s (3-2)
the AISC Specification is discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this tp Fy 
Design Guide.
For seismic applications, the plates dissipate energy
3.2.4 System Requirements through yielding and consequently need to meet the more
stringent requirement of Equation  3-1 (in regions where
SpeedCore walls with flange plates are designed to meet the flexural yielding is expected). Outside zones of flexural
criteria outlined in Section 2.2.1 of this Design Guide. Addi- yielding, the slenderness limit for nonseismic walls as pre-
tional provisions specific to seismic design are also required sented in Section  2.2.1.1 and replicated in Equation  3-2
as follows. is sufficient. Because tie bars may also act as anchors, the
equation considers the largest unsupported length between
3.2.4.1 Slenderness Requirement rows of steel anchors or tie bars, b.
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7.5a, in When the plate slenderness exceeds the limit of Equa-
regions of flexural yielding (at the base), the steel plate slen- tion  3-1, local buckling will occur when the compressive
derness ratio, b/ tp, is limited as shown in Equation 3-1. stress in the steel plate reaches Fcr, which can be calculated
using Equation  3-3, and the compressive strength of the
b Es
≤ 1.05 (3-1) composite wall section can be estimated using Equation 3-4
tp Ry Fy  (Zhang et al., 2014). This is identical to the discussion pre-
sented in Section 2.2.1.1 of this Design Guide.
where
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel π 2 Es
Fcr = ≤ Fy (3-3)
= 29,000 ksi 12 (0.8)2 (b / tp )2

Fy = specified minimum yield stress of steel, ksi
Ry = ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified Pno = As Fcr + 0.7Ac fc′ (3-4)
minimum yield stress, Fy where
b = largest unsupported length of plate between rows of Ac = area of concrete in SpeedCore wall, in.2
steel anchors or tie bars, in. As = area of steel section, in.2
tp = thickness of plate, in. Fcr = critical buckling stress for steel elements of filled
composite members, ksi
ƒ′c = specified compressive strength of concrete, ksi

Fig. 3-2.  Typical cyclic lateral load-displacement response of SpeedCore walls (Shafaei et al., 2021b).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 73

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 73 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 3.2.4.2 Tie Bar Requirement boundary elements are complete-joint-penetration (CJP)
groove welds.
Tie bar spacing is selected to meet the requirements of
Section 2.2.1.2.
3.2.6.3 Composite Wall-to-Foundation Connections
3.2.5 Members According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7.7c,
where the composite walls are connected directly to the
3.2.5.1 Flexural Strength foundation at the point of maximum moment in the walls,
the composite wall-to-foundation connections are detailed
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7.6a,
such that the connection is able to transfer the base shear
the available plastic moment strength of the SpeedCore
force and the axial force acting together with the overturning
wall is determined in accordance with AISC Specification
moment, corresponding to 1.1 times the plastic composite
Section I1.2a.
flexural strength of the wall. The plastic flexural composite
strength of the wall is obtained by the plastic stress distribu-
3.2.5.2 Shear Strength
tion method described in AISC Specification Section I1.2a.
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H7.6b, the Applicable Ry and Rc factors are used for different elements
available shear strength of the wall is determined in accor- of the cross section while establishing section force equilib-
dance with AISC Specification Section I4.4. rium and calculating the flexural strength.
When connected directly to the foundation at the point
3.2.5.3 Required Flexural Strength of maximum moment, the wall-to-foundation connections
are designed for the expected flexural strength of the com-
The required flexural strength for composite walls is calcu-
posite wall accounting for axial effects and the amplified
lated in accordance with applicable seismic design require-
shear force demand (amplification of 4). Some preliminary
ments and analyses.
examples of wall-to-foundation connections are shown in
Figure  3-3. Details of wall-to-foundation connections vary
3.2.5.4 Required Shear Strength
from project to project, and projects may incorporate walls
The required shear strength for composite walls is calculated that are not connected to the foundation at the point of maxi-
as the shear force obtained from the seismic analysis ampli- mum moment.
fied by a factor of 4.0.
A base shear amplification factor of 4.0 is used to account 3.2.7 Protected Zones
for amplification due to higher mode effects in tall struc-
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7.8, regions
tures. This amplification factor is used only to calculate shear
subjected to inelastic straining at the base of the composite
demand and is not used for overturning moment calculation.
walls are designated as protected zones. The requirements
For reinforced concrete walls, ACI  318, Section  18.10.3.1
for protected zones are in accordance with AISC Seismic
(ACI, 2019), prescribes a base shear amplification factor
Provisions Section D1.3 and Section I2.1.
based on the number of stories and the ratio of the probable
For the SpeedCore system, the protected zones are des-
flexural strength of the member, Mpr , to the required flexural
ignated as the regions of the composite walls undergoing
strength, Mu. In ACI 318, this amplification is limited to 3.0.
significant inelastic straining and plastic hinging. The extent
However, the 4.0 factor used in this design is to conserva-
of the plastic hinge region undergoing significant inelastic
tively account for similar phenomenon without developing
strains (and the protected zone) can depend on wall cross-
and validating an equation.
section geometry, web plate and flange (closure) plate thick-
ness and lengths, and the height-to-length ratios of the walls.
3.2.6 Connection Requirements
The extent of the protected zone can be determined from
analysis.
3.2.6.1 Connection between Tie Bars and Steel Plates
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7.7a, con- 3.2.7.1 Splices
nections of tie bars to the steel plate are designed to develop
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7.8a, steel
the full tensile strength of the tie bar.
plate and boundary element splices located in the designated
protected zones are designed to develop the full strength of
3.2.6.2 Connection between SpeedCore Wall Steel
the weaker of the two connected elements.
Components
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7.7b, welds
between the steel web plates and flange or closure plates or

74 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 74 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 3.2.8 Demand Critical Welds in Connections welds are generally CJP groove welds because they are sub-
jected to yield level or higher stress demand and located in
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H7.9, where
joints where failure can result in significant degradation in
located within protected zones, the following welds are
strength or stiffness. Welds that meet these criteria and are
demand critical and are designed to satisfy the applicable
within the protected zone are designated as demand critical
requirements:
and, therefore, required to meet the corresponding require-
(1) Welds connecting the composite wall closure plates to ments. As applicable, these may include CJP groove welds
the faceplates connecting the composite wall flange (closure) plates to the
(2) Welds in the composite wall steel plate splices web plates, CJP groove welds used in composite wall steel
(3) Welds at composite wall steel plate-to-base plate plate splices, and CJP groove welds used in composite wall
connections steel plate-to-base plate connections.

Demand critical welds are defined in the AISC Seismic Pro- 3.3 GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
visions, and the requirements are specified in Sections A3.4b UNCOUPLED WALLS
and I2.3. These include requirements for the filler metals in
This chapter describes the design approach for uncoupled
terms of minimum levels of Charpy V-notch (CVN) tough-
SpeedCore walls. This design approach considers the guid-
ness using two different test temperatures and specified test
ance discussed in Section 3.2 and applicable building codes.
protocols, unless exempted from testing. Demand critical

(a)  Wall with welded base plate and rebar couplers (Bhardwaj and Varma, 2017)

(b)  Wall embedded into the concrete foundation (Bruneau et al., 2019)

Fig. 3-3.  Composite wall-to-foundation connections.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 75

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 75 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 This design procedure has four main steps: (1) collecting 3.3.2.3 Interstory Drift Check
design inputs, (2)  analysis for design, (3)  design of com-
Story drift values from the elastic analysis are amplified by
posite walls, and (4)  design of connections. Design charts
Cd , which is given in ASCE/SEI 7. The ID ratio (IDR) for
are presented in Figures 3-4 to 3-7. This design procedure
each level is calculated as the ratio of the difference in the
is implemented for a 6- and 18-story uncoupled SpeedCore
story displacement of two adjacent levels to the story height
system in Examples 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
at that level. The maximum IDR is to be checked against the
limits provided in ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.12-1.
3.3.1 Step 1.  Design Inputs
To begin the design procedure, design input information is 3.3.3 Step 3.  Design of Composite Walls
collected. These design inputs include the governing build-
The composite wall design check includes steel plate slen-
ing code, floor loading, location considerations (i.e., site
derness requirements, tie bar reinforcement requirements,
class, soil conditions, and seismic hazard level), building
empty module requirements, shear and flexural strength
importance factor, and steel and concrete material proper-
checks, and an ID check. The required design checks are
ties. Additional information from the project architect is
summarized in this section.
also collected at this stage such as the floor layout, length of
walls, and story heights.
3.3.3.1 Minimum and Maximum Area of Steel
3.3.2 Step 2.  Analysis for Design The minimum and maximum reinforcement ratios are
checked per Section 3.2.1.
The seismic forces acting on the composite walls are calcu-
lated following ASCE/SEI 7 guidelines. ASCE/SEI 7 offers
3.3.3.2 Wall Steel Plate Slenderness Requirement
multiple options for determining the seismic force demand
including equivalent lateral force (ELF) and response spectra The composite wall steel plate slenderness requirement
analysis. From this analysis, the overturning moment, base must satisfy tie bar spacing, S, requirement before and after
shear, and story forces values are calculated. Using these placement of concrete using the guidelines provided in Sec-
values, the amplified base shear is calculated, preliminary tion 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2.
sizes are chosen for wall elements, and additional analysis
is performed to check that the ID meets prescribed limits. 3.3.3.3 Wall Shear Strength
The in-plane shear strength required for the composite walls
3.3.2.1 Base Shear and Amplified Base Shear
is calculated according to Section  3.2.5.4. The amplified
For the determination of shear demand, the base shear, Vbase, base shear is then distributed to all walls to determine the
is amplified to 4.0 times the base shear calculated by analy- required shear strength. The design shear strength is calcu-
sis. This base shear amplification factor is used to account lated according to Section 3.2.5.2.
for amplification due to higher mode effects in tall struc-
tures. This amplification factor is used only to calculate 3.3.3.4 Wall Flexural Strength
shear demand and is not used for the overturning moment
The required flexural strength of the composite wall is cal-
calculation:
culated as the overturning moment (OTM) distributed to the
Vamp = 4.0Vbase (3-5) walls according to their relative stiffness. The design flex-
ural strength of composite walls is calculated according to
Section 3.2.5.1.
3.3.2.2 Preliminary Section Sizes and Wall Stiffness
Preliminary sizes are selected for wall length, total wall 3.3.4 Step 4. Design of Connections
thickness, and steel plate thickness. Selection of these ele- Three connections should be considered: (1)  tie bars to
ments is often iterative. These sections will need to meet steel plates, (2)  steel plate to steel plate, and (3)  wall-to-
drift requirements (Section 3.3.2.3) and wall section checks foundation connections. The requirements for these connec-
(Section 3.3.3). These dimensions are used to calculate the tions are established in Section 3.2.6.
axial, flexural, and shear stiffnesses.

76 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 76 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Fig. 3-5.  Detailed chart for Analysis for Design step.

Fig. 3-4.  Overview of uncoupled SpeedCore wall design steps.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 77

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 77 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Fig. 3-6.  Detailed flowchart for Design of Composite Walls step.

78 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 78 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Fig. 3-7.  Detailed chart for Design of Connections step.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 79

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 79 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 3.4 DESIGN EXAMPLES

EXAMPLE 3.1—Seismic Design of 6-Story Structure Using Uncoupled SpeedCore Walls

This example presents the seismic design of a 6-story building using uncoupled SpeedCore walls with typical design loads, floor
geometry, and high seismic design loads. The steps followed in this design mirror the design procedure laid out in Chapter 3.
For simplicity, this design example does not consider accidental eccentricity and assumes a seismic redundancy factor of 1.0.
Design the uncoupled, planar SpeedCore walls shown in Figure 3-8 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads. In
this example, the wall configuration is equivalent in both perpendicular directions; therefore, the design for both sets of walls
will be the same.
The Mathcad file for this design example can be downloaded from the link given on the AISC Design Guide 38 webpage
(www.aisc.org/dg).

Given:
Building geometry:
Lf = building length
= 205 ft
Wf = building width
= 105 ft
htyp = typical story height
= 14 ft
h1 = first story height
= 17 ft
n = number of stories
=6

Fig. 3-8. Building floor plan for Example 3.1.

80 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 80 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 3-1.  Seismic Design Loads Calculated from ASCE/SEI 7
Story Story Height Story Force Story Shear
No. (ft) (kips) (kips)
6 14 530 530
5 14 433 963
4 14 339 1,300
3 14 248 1,550
2 14 161 1,710
1 17 81.2 1,790
Total base shear, Vbase 1,790 kips
Overturning moment, OTM 1,380,000 kip-in.

Floor load:
DL = floor dead load
= 0.12 ksf
Seismic design loads are given in Table 3-1.
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
The steel and concrete material properties are as follows:
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Gs = 11,200 ksi
Concrete:
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Rc = 1.3
Seismic design coefficients:
Cd = deflection amplification factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 5.5
Ie = importance factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 11.5.1, for an office building)
=1
R = seismic response modification coefficient (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 6.5
Risk Category = II (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 1.5-1)
Ω0 = overstrength factor (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 2.5
ρ = seismic redundancy factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.3.4)
=1

Solution:
For ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel, from AISC Manual Table 2-4 and AISC Seismic Provisions Table A3.2, the material
properties are as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Ry = 1.1

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 81

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 81 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 SpeedCore members are sized based on initial estimates of loads and then refined through iteration. Acceptable dimensions are
presented here so that this example can focus on the appropriate limit states to check.
Wall dimensions as shown in Figure 3-9:
Lwall = wall length
= 300 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= c in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 16 in.
Step 2. Analysis for Design
In this step an elastic computer model is built and analyzed to determine the force on system members and overall system
deflection.

Planar Wall Geometric Properties

The effective axial, shear, and flexural stiffnesses are calculated for SpeedCore elements for elastic analysis.
The area of steel in the wall is:
As = tp ⎡⎣2 ( L wall − 2tp ) + 2tsc⎤⎦

{
= ( c in.) 2 ⎡⎣300 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ + 2 (16 in.)}
2
= 197 in.

The area of concrete in the wall is:

Ac = L wall tsc − As
= ( 300 in.) (16 in.) − 197 in.2
= 4,600 in.2

The effective axial stiffness of the wall is:

EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (197 in. ) + 0.45 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 4,600 in. )
2 2

= 1.50 × 10 7 kips 

The steel area in the direction of shear is:

Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 ( 300 in.) ( c in.)
= 188 in.2

Fig. 3-9.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

82 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 82 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The effective shear stiffness of the wall is:
GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Ac (2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) (188 in.2 ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 4,600 in.2 )
= 1.04 × 10 7 kips 

The moment of inertia of the steel in the wall is:

⎡ tp ( L wall − 2tp )3 ⎤ ⎡⎛ t t 3 ⎞ ⎛L t ⎞ 2⎤
Is = 2 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 ⎢ sc p + tsc tp wall − p ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

⎧⎪ ( c in.) ⎡300 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤ 3 ⎫⎪ ⎡ (16 in.) ( c in.)3

⎛ 300 in. c in.⎞ ⎤
2
= 2⎨ ⎣ ⎦ +2⎢ + (16 in.) ( c in.) − ⎥
⎬ ⎝ 2
⎪⎩ 12 ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣ 12 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
= 1,620,000 in.4

The moment of inertia of the concrete in the wall is:

3
( tsc − 2tp )( L wall − 2tp )
Ic =
12
3
⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣300 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦
=
12
7 4
= 3.44 × 10 in.

The effective moment of inertia of the wall is:

EIeff = Es Is + 0.35Ec Ic (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (1,620,000 in. ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 3.44 × 10 in. )
4 7 4

= 1.01 × 1011 kip-in.2 

Numerical Model
To determine the ID ratio, an analysis model was built using commercial software. First-order, linear elastic analysis was per-
formed on a model consisting of frame elements for the SpeedCore wall. This model was subjected to the earthquake loading
previously defined, and all mass was applied at the story level. A representation of the model is shown in Figure 3-10.
Lateral displacement values are amplified by the Cd factor to obtain the amplified displacement. These amplified values are then
used to calculate the ID ratio. The ID is the difference in displacement between two floors normalized by the story height. The
maximum design ID is limited according to ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.12.1. In this case, the maximum design ID is 2%. The story
displacement, amplified displacement, and ID are presented in Table 3-2.
From Table 3-2, the maximum ID ratio is 1.64%, which is less than 2%.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 83

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 83 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 3-2.  Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Amplified
Story Story Height Displacement Displacement ID
No. (ft) (in.) (in.) (%)
6 14 2.26 12.4 1.64
5 14 1.76 9.68 1.57
4 14 1.28 7.04 1.51
3 14 0.82 4.51 1.24
2 14 0.44 2.42 0.95
1 14 0.15 0.83 0.40
Base 17 0.00 0.00 0.00

Required Shear and Flexural Strength

Required shear strength of each planar wall:
The base shear, shown in Table  3-1, is amplified by a shear amplification factor of 4.0, following the recommendations of
Section 3.3.2.1:
Vamp = 4.0Vbase (3-5)
= 4.0 (1,790 kips )
= 7,160 kips 
Vamp
Vr.wall =
2
7,160 kips
=
2
= 3,580 kips

Earthquake
loads

Lumped mass

Elastic wall
element

Fixed base

Fig. 3-10.  Analysis model.

84 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 84 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The required flexural strength of each planar wall using the overturning moment, OTM, given in Table 3-1 is:
OTM
M r.wall =
2
1,380,000 kip-in.
=
2
= 690,000 kip-in.

Step 3. Design of Composite Walls

Step 3-1. Minimum and maximum area of steel
The minimum steel area required by AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:
As.min = 0.01L wall tsc
= 0.01( 300 in.) (16 in.)
= 48.0 in.2

As = 197 in.2 > As.min = 48.0 in.2 o.k.

The maximum steel area required by AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:

As.max = 0.1L wall tsc
= 0.1( 300 in.) (16 in.)
= 480 in.2

As = 197 in.2 < As.max = 480 in.2 o.k.

Step 3-2. Steel plate slenderness requirements for composite walls

The largest unsupported length between rows of steel anchors or tie bars is selected assuming that all support is through the tie
bars and not the steel anchors, and therefore, plate slenderness and tie bar spacing requirements must be met. As discussed in
Section 3.2.4.1 of the Design Guide, tie bars and steel anchors can be spaced farther apart outside of flexural yielding zones. The
extent of the flexural yielding zones is addressed in depth in the following.
A tie bar spacing of 6 in. is selected for the first story of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall, and a tie bar spacing of 9 in. is selected
for the other stories:
Stie = 6 in.
Stie.top = 9 in.

From Section 3.2.4.1, the steel plate slenderness ratio, b/ tp, is limited to:
b Es
≤ 1.05 (3-1)
tp Ry Fy 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 85

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 85 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 where b is the largest unsupported length of the plate between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, which in this case is Stie.
b Stie
=
tp tp
6 in.
=
c in.
= 19.2

Es 29,000 ksi
1.05 = 1.05
Ry Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 24.1

b 29,000 ksi
= 19.2< 1.05 = 24.1 o.k.
tp 1.1( 50 ksi )

From Section 3.2.4.1, the steel plate slenderness ratio, b/ tp, in the remainder of the stories is limited to:
b E
≤ 1.2 s (3-2)
tp Fy 

where b is the largest unsupported length of the plate between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, which in this case is Stie.top.
b Stie.top
=
tp tp
9 in.
=
c in.
= 28.8

Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9

b 29,000 ksi
= 28.8< 1.2 = 28.9 o.k.
tp 1.1(50 ksi )

The slenderness ratio requirements for the steel plates are met.

Flexural Yielding Zone

Tie bar or stud spacing is intended to meet a more stringent requirement in zones of the wall where compression buckling is likely
to occur or in the plastic hinge region.
Compression buckling of the faceplate is more likely to occur when the stress in the faceplate exceeds Fy. This load level will be
called the yield moment in compression, Myc. In addition to this limit, the plastic hinge region also requires more stringent tie
bar or stud spacing. This region is assumed to have a moment greater than 0.8Mp. The lesser of these two limits (Myc or 0.8Mp)
is used to determine where the tighter tie bar or stud spacing can be relaxed in the SpeedCore walls.
Mp, Myc, and the yield moment in tension, Myt, are calculated and compared to determine the height to which the more stringent
tie bar spacing requirement should be applied. To calculate this height, the moment distribution is assumed to vary linearly with
a magnitude of Mp at the base of the wall and 0 at the top of the structure.
Figure 3-11 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension regions in the wall.

86 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 86 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The location of the plastic neutral axis of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
C=
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp)
2 ( c in.) (300 in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( c in.)
=
4 (c in.) (50 ksi) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦
= 66.7 in.

The compression force in the flange is:

C1 = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( c in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 240 kips

The compression force in the web is:

C2 = 2tp C Fy
= 2 ( c in.) ( 66.7 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 2,080 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3 = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) (C − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( 66.7 in. − c in.)
= 5,210 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1 = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( c in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 240 kips

The tension force in the web is:

T2 = 2tp ( L wall − C ) Fy
= 2 ( c in.) ( 300 in. − 66.7 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 7,290 kips

Fig. 3-11.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 87

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 87 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The plastic moment of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ C⎞ ⎛ C − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛L −C⎞
MP.wall = C1 C − + C2 + C3 +T L −C − + T2 wall
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1 ⎝ wall 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ c in. ⎞ ⎛ 66.7 in. ⎞ ⎛ 66.7 in. − c in.⎞
= ( 240 kips) 66.7 in. − + ( 2,080 kips ) + ( 5,210 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ c in.⎞ ⎛ 300 in. − 66.7 in.⎞
+ ( 240 kips) 300 in. − 66.7 in. − + ( 7,290 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 1,160,000 kip-in.

0.8MP.wall = 0.8 (1,160,000 kip-in.)

= 928,000 kip-in.

Yield Moments Myt and Myc

The yield moment is calculated from section moment curvature analysis considering nominal properties, see Figure 3-12 for the
moment curvature plot. This case did not consider axial load.
From analysis:
Myt = 665,000 kip-in.
Myc = 1,010,000 kip-in.

The ratio of the tensile yield moment to the plastic moment of the uncoupled wall is:
M yt 665,000 kip-in.
=
MP.wall 1,160,000 kip-in
= 0.573

Fig. 3-12. Moment curvature plot.

88 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 88 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The ratio of the compressive yield moment to the plastic moment of the uncoupled wall is:
M yc 1,010,000 kip-in.
=
MP.wall 1,160,000 kip-in.
= 0.871

The ratio of the limiting moment to Mp.wall is:

min ( M yc ,0.8MP.wall )
r1 =
MP.wall
min (1,010,000 kip-in., 932,000 kip-in.)
=
1,160,000 kip-in.
= 0.803

The portion of the wall with demand higher than the moment limit is:
(1 − r1 ) ⎡⎣h1 + ( n − 1) h typ⎤⎦ = (1 − 0.803)[17 ft + ( 6 − 1)14 ft ]
= 17.1ft

Based on these calculations, the steel anchor and tie bar spacing would be 6 in. o.c. to just above the first story and then could
transition to 9 in. o.c. for the remainder of the height.
Step 3-3. Tie bar spacing requirements for composite walls
A tie bar diameter of 2 in. is selected for the uncoupled SpeedCore wall. The bar requirement considering the stability of the
empty steel module is checked as follows:
dtie = 2 in.
Stie = 6 in.
Stie.top = 9 in.

From Section 2.2.1.2, the tie bar spacing to plate thickness ratio, S/ tp, is limited as stated in Equation 2-4:
S Es
≤ 1.0 (2-4)
tp 2α + 1 

The value of α is calculated using Equation 2-5:

4
⎛t ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
α = 1.7 ⎜ sc − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2-5)
⎝ p
t ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 16 in. ⎞ ⎛ c in.⎞
= 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ c in. ⎠ ⎝ 2 in. ⎠
= 12.8 
Es 29,000 ksi
1.0 = 1.0
2α + 1 2 (12.8 ) + 1
= 33.0

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 89

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 89 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 For the first-floor tie bars:
Stie 6 in.
=
tp c in.
= 19.2
Stie Es
= 19.2 < 1.0 = 33.0 o.k.
tp 2α + 1

For the remainder of the floor tie bars:

Stie.top 9 in.
=
tp c in.
= 28.8
Stie.top Es
= 28.8 <1.0 = 33.0 o.k.
tp 2α + 1

The tie bar spacing requirements are met.

Step 3-4. Required wall shear strength
As previously determined, the required shear strength of each planar wall is:
Vr.wall = 3,580 kips

Step 3-5. Required wall flexural strength

As previously determined, the required flexural strength of each planar wall is:
Mr.wall = 690,000 kip-in.

Step 3-6. Composite wall resistance factor

From AISC Specification Section I4.4, the resistance factor for a composite wall in shear is:
ϕv = 0.90

From AISC Specification Section I3.5, the resistance factor for a composite wall in flexure is:
ϕb = 0.90

Step 3-7. Composite wall flexural strength check

The plastic flexural strength of the wall was calculated in Step 3-2:
Mn.wall = MP.wall = 1,160,000 kip-in.

The design flexural strength of the wall is:

ϕ b Mn.wall = 0.90 (1,160,000 kip-in.)
= 1,040,000 kip-in.
> Mr.wall = 690,000 kip-in. o.k.

Step 3-8. Composite wall shear strength check

The design shear strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is calculated as follows.

90 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 90 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The area of steel in the direction of in-plane shear is:
Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 ( 300 in.) ( c in.)
= 188 in.2

The area of concrete in the wall is:

Ac = L wall tsc − As
= ( 300 in.) (16 in.) − 197 in.2
= 4,600 in.2

The K factors for shear calculation are as follows:

Ks = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) (188 in.2 )
= 2,110,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Ac )( Es Asw )
K sc = (2-16)
4Es Asw + Ec Ac
0.7 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 4,600 in.2 ) ( 29,000 ksi ) (188 in.2 )
=
4 ( 29,000 ksi ) (188 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 4,600 in.2 )
= 1,860,000 kips 

The nominal shear strength of the wall is:

K s + Ksc
Vn.wall = Fy Asw (2-14)
3K s2 + K sc2
2,110,000 kips + 1,860,000 kips
= ( 50 ksi )(188 in.2 )
3 ( 2,110,000 kips ) + (1,860,000 kips )
2 2

= 9,100 kips 

Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
ϕvVn.wall = 0.90 ( 9,100 kips )
= 8,190 kips
> Vr.wall = 3,580 kips

The ratio of demand-to-capacity is:

Vr.wall 3,580 kips
=
ϕ vVn.wall 8,190 kips
= 0.437

Step 4. Design of Connections

No connection design details are included in this design example. This section determines the length of the protected zone and
the demands for the wall-to-foundation connection.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 91

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 91 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Protected zones extend from the base of the structure until no yielding in the cross section is expected; in other words, from the
base to where the moment demand is the yield moment in tension, Myt. The moment at the base is considered to be the expected
moment, Mp.exp, because this is the moment associated with the structure’s plastic mechanism. This moment is calculated and
compared to the yield moment (from Step 3-2) to determine the height of the protected zone.
Figure 3-13 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension force regions in the wall.
The location of the expected plastic neutral axis of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall:
2tp L wall Ry Fy + Rc 0.85 fc′ (tsc − 2tp ) tp
Cexp =
4tp Ry Fy + Rc 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp )
2 ( c in.) ( 300 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 1.3 ( 0.85) ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( c in.)
=
4 ( c in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 1.3 ( 0.85) ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦
= 60.6 in.

The compression force in the flange is:

C1.exp = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Ry Fy
= ⎡⎣16in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( c in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 264 kips

The compression force in the web is:

C2.exp = 2tp Cexp Ry Fy
= 2 ( c in.) ( 60.6 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 2,080 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.exp = Rc 0.85 fc ( tsc − 2tp ) (Cexp − tp)
= (1.3) ( 0.85) ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( 60.6 in. − c in.)
= 6,150 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1.exp = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Ry Fy
= ⎡⎣16 in. − 2 ( c in.)⎤⎦ ( c in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 264 kips

Fig. 3-13.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

92 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 92 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The tension force in the web is:
T2.exp = 2tp ( L wall − Cexp ) Ry Fy
= 2 ( c in.) ( 300 in. − 60.6 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 8,230 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ Cexp ⎞ ⎛ Cexp − t p ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ L wall − Cexp ⎞
M P.exp.wall = C1.exp Cexp − + C2.exp + C3.exp + T1.exp L wall − Cexp − + T2.exp
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ c in.⎞ ⎛ 60.6 in.⎞ ⎛ 60.6 in. − c in. ⎞
= ( 264 kips ) 60.6 in. − + ( 2,080 kips ) + ( 6,150 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ c in.⎞ ⎛ 300 in. − 60.6 in.⎞
+ ( 264 kips ) 300 in. − 60.6 in. − + (8,230 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 1,310,000 kip-in.

The ratio of the limiting moment to Mp.exp.wall is:

M yt
r2 =
M p.exp.wall
665,000 kip-in.
=
1,310,000 kip-in.
= 0.508

The portion of the wall with demand higher than the moment limit is:
(1 − r2 ) ⎡⎣h1 + ( n − 1) htyp⎤⎦ = (1 − 0.508 )[17 ft + ( 6 − 1)14 ft ]
= 42.8 ft

Based on these calculations, the protected zone extends to the 3rd floor (45 ft).

Wall-to-Foundation Connection Demands

The flexural demand for a connection at the base of the wall is based on the system’s failure mechanism (i.e., hinging at the base
of the walls):
1.1Mp.exp.wall = 1.1(1,310,000 kip-in.)
= 1,440,000 kip-in.

The shear demand on a connection at the base of the wall is the amplified equivalent lateral force (ELF) shear:
Vr.wall = 3,580 kips

EXAMPLE 3.2—Seismic Design of 18-Story Structure Using Uncoupled C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls
This example presents the seismic design of an 18-story building using uncoupled SpeedCore walls with typical design loads,
floor geometry, and high seismic design loads. The steps followed in this design follow the design procedure presented in
Chapter 3. For simplicity, this design example does not consider accidental eccentricity and assumes a seismic redundancy factor
of 1.0.
Design the uncoupled, C-shaped SpeedCore walls shown in Figure 3-14 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 93

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 93 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Given:
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
The steel and concrete material properties are as follows:
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Gs = 11,200 ksi
Concrete:
ƒc′ = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Rc = 1.3
Building geometry:
Lf = building length
= 120 ft
Wf = building width
= 210 ft
htyp = typical story height
= 14 ft
h1 = first-story height
= 17 ft
n = number of stories
= 18

Fig. 3-14.  Building floor plan for Example 3.2.

94 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 94 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 3-3.  Seismic Design Loads from ASCE/SEI 7
Story Story Elevation Story Force Story Shear
No. (ft) (kips) (kips)
18 255 398 398
17 241 363 761
16 227 329 1,090
15 213 296 1,390
14 199 265 1,650
13 185 235 1,890
12 171 206 2,090
11 157 180 2,270
10 143 154 2,430
9 129 130 2,560
8 115 107 2,660
7 101 86.9 2,750
6 87 68.0 2,820
5 73 51.0 2,870
4 59 35.9 2,900
3 45 23.0 2,930
2 31 12.5 2,940
1 17 4.6 2,940
Total Base Shear, Vbase 2,940 kips
Overturning Moment, OTM 6,720,000 kip-in.

Floor loads:
DL = floor dead load
= 0.12 ksf
Seismic design loads along the major axis of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall are listed in Table 3-3.
Seismic design coefficients:
Cd = deflection amplification factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 5.5
Ie = importance factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 11.5.1, for an office building)
=1
R = seismic response modification coefficient (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 6.5
Risk Category = II (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 1.5-1)
Ω0 = overstrength factor from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1
= 2.5
ϕ = seismic redundancy factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.3.4)
=1
For ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel, from AISC Manual Table 2-4 and AISC Seismic Provisions Table A3.2, the material
properties are as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Ry = 1.1

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 95

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 95 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Solution:
SpeedCore members are sized based on initial estimates of loads and are then refined through iteration. Acceptable dimensions
are presented here so that this example can focus on the appropriate limit state checks.
The wall and plate dimensions, shown in Figure 3-15, are selected as follows:
Lcb = clear span coupling beam length
= 120 in.
Lwall = web wall length
= 480 in.
Wwall = flange wall length
= 120 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= 2 in.
tsc.f = flange wall thickness
= 18 in.
tsc.w = web wall thickness
= 18 in.
Step 2. Analysis for Design
In this step, an elastic computer model is built and analyzed to determine the forces on system members and overall system
deflection.

C-Shaped SpeedCore Wall Geometric Properties

The effective axial, shear, and flexural stiffnesses are calculated for SpeedCore elements for elastic analysis.
The area of steel in the wall is:
As = tp ( 4Wwall + 2L wall + 2tsc. f − 12tp )
= (2 in.) ⎡⎣4 (120 in.) + 2 ( 480 in.) + 2 (18 in.) − 12 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 735 in.2

Fig. 3-15.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

96 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 96 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The area of concrete in the wall is:
Ac = 2Wwall tsc. f + ( L wall − 2tsc. f ) tsc.w − As
= 2 (120 in.) (18 in.) + ⎡⎣480 in. − 2 (18 in.)⎤⎦ (18 in.) − 735 in.2
= 11,600 in.2

The effective axial stiffness of the wall is:

EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 735 in.2 ) + 0.45 ( 4,500 ksi ) (11,600 in.2 )
= 4.48 10 7 kips 

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:

Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 ( 480 in.) (2 in.)
= 480 in.2

The area of concrete in the direction of shear is:

Acw = ( L wall − 4tp ) ( tsc.w − 2tp )
= ⎡⎣480 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 8,130 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of the wall is:

GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Acw (from Eq. 2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 480 in. ) + (1,800 ksi ) (8,130 in. )
2 2

= 2.00 10 7 kips 

The moment of inertia of steel in the wall is:

⎡ tp ( Lwall − 2tp)3 Wwall t p3 ⎛ L wall tp ⎞
2
tp ( tsc. f − 2tp )
3
⎛L tsc. f ⎞ 2⎤⎥
Is = 2 ⎢ + + (Wwall tp ) − + + ( tsc. f − 2t p ) t p wall −
⎢ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2⎠ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ (Wwall − 2tp) t p3 ⎛L tp ⎞ 2 ⎤
+ 2⎢ + (Wwall − 2tp ) tp wall − tsc. f − ⎥
⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 2⎠ ⎦
⎧⎪ (2 in.) ⎡480 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ 3 (120 in.) (2 in.)3 2⎫
⎣ ⎦ + ⎛ 480 in. 2 in.⎞ ⎪
= 2⎨ + (120 in.) (2 in.) − ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎭
⎧⎪ (2 in.) ⎡18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ 3 2⎫
⎣ ⎦ + ⎡18 in. 2 2 in. ⎤ 2 in. ⎛ 480 in. 18 in.⎞ ⎪
+ 2⎨ ⎣ − ( )⎦ ( ) − ⎬
12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎩⎪ ⎭
⎧⎪ ⎡120 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ (2 in.)3 ⎫
⎛ 480 in. 2 in.⎞ 2 ⎪
+ 2⎨ ⎣ ⎦ + ⎡⎣120 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) − 18 in. − ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎭
= 2.28 × 10 7 in. 4

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 97

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 97 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The moment of inertia of concrete in the wall is:
3
( tsc.w − 2tp )( L wall − 2tsc. f ) ⎡ (Wwall − 3tp ) ( tsc. f − 2tp )3 ⎛L tsc. f ⎞ 2⎤
Ic = +2⎢ + (Wwall − 3tp ) ( tsc. f − 2tp ) wall − ⎥
12 ⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
3
⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣480 in. − 2 (18 in.)⎤⎦
=
12
3
⎪⎧ ⎡⎣120 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ 2⎫
⎛ 480 in. 18 in.⎞ ⎪
+ 2⎨ + ⎡⎣120 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ − ⎬
12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎭
8 4
= 3.39 × 10 in.

Therefore, the effective moment of inertia of the wall is:

EI eff = Es Is + 0.35Ec Ic (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 2.28 × 10 7 in.4 ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 3.39 × 108 in.4 )
= 1.20 × 1012 kip-in.2 

Numerical Model
To determine the ID ratio and shear demand on the wall, an analysis model was built using commercial software. First-order,
linear elastic analysis was performed on a model consisting of frame elements for the SpeedCore wall. This model was subjected
to the earthquake loading previously defined and all mass was applied at the story level. The model is shown in Figure 3-16.
Wall elements were assigned section properties that were previously calculated:
EAeff = 4.48×107 kips
GAv.eff = 2.00×107 kips
EIeff = 1.20×1012 kips-in.2

Lateral displacement values are amplified by the Cd factor to obtain the amplified displacement. These amplified values are
then used to calculate the ID, which is the difference in displacement between two floors normalized by the story height. The
maximum design ID is limited according to ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.12.1. In this case, the maximum design ID is 2%. The story
displacement, amplified displacement, and ID are presented in Table 3-4.
The maximum ID ratio = 1.87% < 2% o.k.

Required Shear and Flexural Strength

The base shear given in Table 3-3 is amplified by a shear amplification factor of 4.0, following the recommendations of Sec-
tion 3.3.2.1 of this Design Guide.
Vamp = 4.0Vbase (3-5)
= 4.0 ( 2,940 kips )
= 11,800 kips 
Vamp
Vr.wall =
2
11,800 kips
=
2
= 5,900 kips

98 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 98 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Earthquake Elastic wall
loads element

Lumped mass

Fixed base

Fig. 3-16.  Analysis model components.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 99

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 99 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Table 3-4.  Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Amplified
Story Story Elevation Displacement ID
Displacement
No. (ft) (in.) (%)
(in.)
18 255 7.48 41.1 1.87
17 241 6.91 38.0 1.83
16 227 6.35 34.9 1.87
15 213 5.78 31.8 1.83
14 199 5.22 28.7 1.83
13 185 4.66 25.6 1.80
12 171 4.11 22.6 1.74
11 157 3.58 19.7 1.70
10 143 3.06 16.8 1.60
9 129 2.57 14.1 1.54
8 115 2.10 11.6 1.41
7 101 1.67 9.18 1.31
6 87 1.27 6.99 1.15
5 73 0.92 5.06 1.01
4 59 0.61 3.36 0.82
3 45 0.36 1.97 0.62
2 31 0.17 0.94 0.39
1 17 0.05 0.28 0.13
Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

The required flexural strength of each C-shaped wall is:

MOT
M r.wall =
2
6,720,000 kip-in.
=
2
= 3,360,000 kip-in.

Step 3. Design of Composite Walls

Step 3-1. Minimum and maximum area of steel
Gross area of the C-shaped wall:
Ag = L wall tsc.w + 2 (Wwall − tsc.w ) tsc. f
= ( 480 in.) (18 in.) +2 (120 in. − 18 in.) (18 in.)
= 12,300 in.2

100 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 100 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The minimum steel required (AISC Specification Sec­tion I1.6) as given in Section 2.2.1:
As.min = 0.01 Ag
= 0.01(12,300 in.2 )
= 123 in.2

As = 735 in.2 > As.min = 123 in.2 o.k.

The maximum steel required according to AISC Specification Section I1.6 is:

As.max = 0.1 Ag
= 0.1(12,300 in.2 )
= 1,230 in.2

As = 735 in.2 < As.max = 1,230 in.2 o.k.

Step 3-2. Steel plate slenderness requirements for composite walls

The largest unsupported length between rows of steel anchors or tie bars is selected under the assumption that all support is
through the tie bars and not the steel anchors; therefore, the plate slenderness and tie bar spacing requirements must be met. As
discussed in Section 3.2.4.1 of the Design Guide, tie bars and steel anchors can be spaced farther apart outside of flexural yielding
zones. The extent of the flexural yielding zones is addressed in the following.
A tie bar spacing of 12 in. is selected for the first story of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall, and a tie bar spacing of 14 in. is selected
for the other stories.
Stie = 12 in.
Stie.top = 14 in.

From Section 3.2.4.1, the steel plate senderless ratio, b/ tp, is limited to:
b Es
≤ 1.05 (3-1)
tp Ry Fy 

where b is the largest unsupported length of plate between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, which is this case is Stie.
b Stie
=
tp tp
12 in.
=
2 in.
= 24.0

Es 29,000 ksi
1.05 = 1.05
Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 24.1
b Es
= 24.0 < 1.05 = 24.1 o.k.
tp Ry Fy

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 101

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 101 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 From Section 3.2.4.1, the steel plate senderless ratio, b/ tp, in the remainder of the stories is limited to:
b Es
≤ 1.2 (3-2)
tp Fy 

where b is the largest unsupported length of plate between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, which in this case is Stie.top.
b Stie.top
=
tp tp
14 in.
=
2 in.
= 28.0

Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9

b E
= 28.0 < 1.2 s = 28.9 o.k.
tp Fy

The slenderness ratio requirements for the steel plates are met.

Flexural Yielding Zone

Tie bar and anchor spacing is intended to meet a more stringent requirement in zones of the wall where compression buckling is
likely to occur or in the plastic hinge region.
Compression buckling of the faceplate is more likely to occur when the stress in the faceplate exceeds Fy. This load level will be
called the yield moment in compression, Myc. In addition to this limit, the plastic hinge region also requires more stringent tie bar
and anchor spacing. This region is assumed to have a moment greater than 0.8Mp. The lesser of these two limits, Myc or 0.8Mp,
is used to determine where the tighter tie bar and anchor spacing can be relaxed in the SpeedCore walls.
The moments Mp, Myc, and the yield moment in tension, Myt , are calculated and compared to determine the height to which the
more stringent tie bar spacing requirement should be applied. To calculate this height, the moment distribution is assumed to vary
linearly with a magnitude of Mp at the base of the wall and 0 at the top of the structure.
The plastic neutral axis location of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
2L wall tp Fy + 0.85 fc′( tc.wtsc. f − tc. f Wc )
C=
4t p Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.w

The length of the flange wall without perpendicular steel plates is:
Wc = Wwall − 3tp
= 120 in. − 3 (2 in.)
= 119 in.

The width of concrete in the web wall is:

t c.w = tsc.w − 2tp
= 18 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 17.0 in.

102 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 102 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The width of concrete in the flange wall is:
tc. f = t sc. f − 2tp
= 18 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 17.0 in.

And thus,
2 ( 480 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣(17.0 in.) (18 in.) − (17.0 in.) (119 in.)⎤⎦
C=
4 (2 in.) (50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (17.0 in.)
= 81.6 in.

The compression force in the exterior steel flange plate is:

C1 = Wc t p Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 2,980 kips

The compression force in the interior steel flange plate is:

C2 = Wc tp Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 2,980 kips

The compression force in the flange steel end plate is:

C3 = tsc.f tp Fy
= (18 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 450 kips

Fig. 3-17.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 103

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 103 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the steel plate in the web is:
C4 = 2C tp Fy
= 2 (81.6 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 4,080 kips

The compression force in the concrete in the flange is:

C5 = 0.85 fc′ tc. f Wc
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (17 in.) (119 in.)
= 10,300 kips

The compression force carried by the concrete in the web is:

C6 = 0.85 fc′ tc.w (C − tsc. f )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (17.0 in.) (81.6 in. − 18 in.)
= 5,510 kips

The tensile force in the exterior flange steel plate is:

T1 = Wc tp Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 2,980 kips

The tension force in the interior flange steel plate is:

T2 = Wc tp Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 2,980 kips

The tension force in the flange end steel plate:

T3 = tsc. f tp Fy
= (18 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 450 kips

The tension force carried by the steel plate in the web is:
T4 = 2 ( L wall − C ) tp Fy
= 2 ( 480 in. − 81.6 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 19,900 kips

104 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 104 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The plastic flexural strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛C⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛ C − tsc. f ⎞
M P.wall = C1 C − + C2 C − tsc. f + + C3 C − + C4 + C5 C − + C6
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛L − C⎞
+ T1 L wall − C − + T2 L wall − C − tsc. f + + T3 L wall − C − + T4 wall
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 18 in.⎞
= ( 2,980 kips ) 81.6 in. − + ( 2,980 kips ) 81.6 in. − 18 in. + + ( 450 kips ) 81.6 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 81.6 in.⎞ ⎛ 18 in.⎞ ⎛ 81.6in. − 18 in.⎞
+ ( 4,080 kips ) + (10,300 kips ) 81.6 in. − + ( 5,510 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
+ ( 2,980 kips ) 480 in. − 81.6 in. − + ( 2,980 kips ) 480 in. − 81.6in. − 18in. +
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 18 in.⎞ ⎛ 480 in. − 81.6 in.⎞
+ ( 450 kips ) 480 in. − 81.6 in. − + (19,900 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 8,200,000 kip-in.

0.8MP.wall = 0.8 (8,200,000 kip-in.)

= 6,560,000 kip-in.

Yield Moments, Myt and Myc

The yield moment is calculated from section moment curvature analysis considering nominal properties. The moment curvature
plot is shown in Figure 3-18. This case did not consider axial load but considering the effects of axial loads in the analysis is also
possible.

Fig. 3-18. Moment curvature plot.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 105

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 105 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 From analysis:
Myt = 5,450,000 kip-in.
Myc = 7,620,000 kip-in.
Myt 5,450,000 kip-in.
=
MP.wall 8,200,000 kip-in.
= 0.665
Myc 7,620,000 kip-in.
=
MP.wall 8,200,000 kip-in.
= 0.929

The ratio of limiting moment to MP.wall is:

min ( M yc ,0.8M P.wall )
r1 =
M P.wall
min ( 7,620,000 kip-in., 6,560,000 kip-in.)
=
8,200,000 kip-in.
= 0.800

The portion of the wall with demand higher than the moment limit is:
(1 − r1 ) ⎡⎣h1 + ( n − 1) htyp ⎤⎦ = (1 − 0.800 )[17 ft + (18 − 1)(14 ft )]
= 51.0 ft

Based on these calculations, the steel anchor and tie bar spacing would be 12 in. o.c. through the fourth story (59 ft) and then
could transition to 14 in. o.c. for the remainder of the height.
Step 3-3. Tie bar spacing requirements for composite walls
A tie bar diameter of 1 in. is selected for the uncoupled SpeedCore wall, and the tie bar requirement considering the stability of
the empty steel module is checked as follows:
dtie = 1 in.
Stie.top = 14 in.

From Section 2.2.1.2, the tie bar spacing to plate thickness ratio, S/ tp, is limited as stated in Equation 2-4:
Stie.top Es
≤ 1.0 (2-4)
tp 2α + 1 

The value of α is calculated using Equation 2-5:

⎛ tsc ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ 4
α = 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2-5)
⎝ tp ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 18 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 in. ⎠ ⎝ 1 in. ⎠
= 3.61 

106 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 106 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Es 29,000 ksi
1.0 = 1.0
2α + 1 2 ( 3.61) + 1
= 59.4
Stie.top 14 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 28.0
Stie.top Es
= 28.0 < 1.0 = 59.4 o.k.
tp 2α + 1

The tie bar spacing requirements are met.

Step 3-4. Required wall shear strength
The required shear strength of each planar wall, including the amplification factor, was calculated in Step 2 as:
Vr.wall = 5,900 kips
Step 3-5. Required wall flexural strength
The required flexural strength of each planar wall, including the amplification factor, was calculated in Step 2 as:
Mr.wall = 3,360,000 kip-in.
Step 3-6. Composite wall resistance factor
The resistance factor for a composite wall in shear according to AISC Specification Section I4.4 is:
ϕ v = 0.90

The resistance factor for a composite wall in flexure according to AISC Specification Section I3.5 is:
ϕb = 0.90
Step 3-7. Composite wall flexural strength check
The plastic flexural strength of wall as calculated in Step 3-2:
Mn.wall = MP.wall = 8,200,000 kip-in.

ϕb M n.wall = 0.90 (8,200,000 kip-in.)

= 7,380,000 kip-in. > M r.wall = 3,360,000 kip-in. o.k.

Step 3-8. Composite wall shear strength check

Design Shear Strength of the Uncoupled SpeedCore Wall

The steel in the direction of shear is:
Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 ( 480 in.) (2 in.)
= 480 in.2

The area of concrete in the direction of shear is:

Acw = ( Lwall − 4t p ) ( tsc.w − 2tp )
= ⎡⎣480 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣18 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 8,130 in.2

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 107

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 107 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The K factors for the shear calculations are:
Ks = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) (480 in.)
= 5,380,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Acw )( Es Asw )
Ksc = (from Eq. 2-16)
( 4Es Asw ) + ( Ec Acw )
0.7 ( 4,500 ksi ) (8,130 in.2 ) ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 480 in.2 )
=
4 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 480 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) (8,130 in.2 )
= 3,860,000 kips 

The nominal shear strength of the wall is:

Ks + Ksc
Vn.wall = Fy Asw (2-14)
3Ks2 + K sc2
5,380,000 kips + 3,860,000 kips
= ( 50 ksi )( 480 in.2 )
3 ( 5,380,000 kips ) + ( 3,860,000 kips )
2 2

= 22,000 kips 

Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
ϕvVn.wall = 0.90 ( 22,000 kips )
= 19,800 kips > Vr.wall = 5,900 kips o.k.

Step 4. Design of Connections

No connection design details are included in this design example. This section outlines the length of the protected zone and
demands for the wall-to-foundation connection.
Protected zones extend from the base of the structure until no yielding in the cross section is expected; in other words, from the
base to where the moment demand is yield moment in tension, Myt. The moment at the base is considered to be the expected
moment, Mp.exp, because this is the moment associated with the structure’s plastic mechanism. This moment is calculated and
compared to the yield moment from Step 3-2 to determine the height of the protected zone.
Figure 3-19 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension force regions in the wall.
The expected plastic neutral axis location of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:
2L wall tp Ry Fy + 0.85Rc fc′( tc.wtsc. f − t c. f Wc )
Cexp =
4tp Ry Fy + 0.85Rc fc′ tc.w
2 ( 480 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣(17.0 in.) (18 in.) − (17.0 in.) (119 in.)⎤⎦
=
4 (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi) (17.0 in.)
= 67.4 in.

The compression force in the exterior steel flange plate is:

C1.exp = Wc tp Ry Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,270 kips

108 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 108 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The compression force in the interior steel flange plate is:
C2.exp = Wc tp Ry Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,270 kips

The compression force in the flange end steel plate is:

C3.exp = tsc. f tp Ry Fy
= (18 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 495 kips

The compression force in the steel plate in the web is:

C4.exp = 2Cexp tp Ry Fy
= 2 ( 67.4 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,710 kips

The compression force carried by the concrete in the flange is:

C5.exp = 0.85Rc fc′tc. f Wc
= 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) (17 in.) (119 in.)
=13,400 kips

The compression force in the concrete in the web is:

C6.exp = 0.85Rc fc′tc.w (Cexp − tsc. f )
= 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi)(17.0 in.) ( 67.4 in. − 18 in.)
= 5,570 kips

Fig. 3-19.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 109

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 109 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 The tension force in the exterior steel flange plate is:
T1.exp = Wc tp Ry Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,270 kips

The tension force in the interior steel flange plate is:

T2.exp = Wc tp Ry Fy
= (119 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,270 kips

The tensile force in the steel flange end plate is:

T3.exp = tsc. f tp Ry Fy
= (18 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 495 kips

The tensile force in the steel plate in the web is:

T4.exp = 2 ( L wall − Cexp ) tp Ry Fy
= 2 (480 in. − 67.4 in.) (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 22,700 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is calculated as:
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛ Cexp ⎞
Mp.exp.wall = C1.exp Cexp − + C2.exp Cexp − tsc. f + + C3.exp Cexp − + C4.exp
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛ Cexp − tsc. f ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
+ C5.exp Cexp − + C6.exp + T1.exp L wall − Cexp −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛ L wall − Cexp ⎞
+ T2.exp L wall − Cexp − tsc. f + + T3.exp L wall − Cexp − + T4.exp
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= ( 3,270 kips ) 67.4 in. − + ( 3,270 kips ) 67.4 in. − 18 in.+
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 18 in.⎞ ⎛ 67.4 in.⎞
+ ( 495 kips ) 67.4 in. − + ( 3,710 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 18 in.⎞ ⎛ 67.4 in. − 18 in.⎞
+ (13,400 kips ) 67.4 in. − + ( 5,570 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
+ ( 3,270 kips ) 480 in. − 67.4 in. − + ( 3,270 kips ) 480 in. − 67.4 in. − 18 in. +
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 18 in.⎞ ⎛ 480 in. − 67.4 in.⎞
+ ( 495 kips ) 480 in. − 67.4 in. − + ( 22,700 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 8,980,000 kip-in.

110 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 110 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Ratio of limiting moment to Mp.exp.wall:
Myt
r2 =
Mp.exp.wall
5,450,000 kip-in.
=
8,980,000 kip-in.
= 0.607

Portion of wall with demand higher than moment limit:

(1 − r2 ) ⎡⎣h1 + ( n − 1) h typ⎤⎦ = (1 − 0.608 )[17 ft + (18 − 1)14 ft ]
= 100 ft

Based on these calculations, the protected zone extends beyond the seventh floor (101 ft).

Wall-to-Foundation Connection Demands

The flexural demand for a connection at the base of the wall is based on the system’s failure mechanism (hinging at the base of
the walls):
1.1Mp.exp.wall = 1.1( 8,980,000 kip-in. )
= 9,880,000 kip-in.

The shear demand for a connection at the base of the wall is the amplified ELF shear as calculated previously in Step 2:
Vr.wall = 5,900 kips

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 111

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 111 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 112 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

071-112_DG38_Chapter 3.indd 112 1/30/23 3:24 PM

 Chapter 4
Seismic Design of Coupled SpeedCore Walls
4.1 OVERVIEW beams and walls, and the connections between the walls and
foundations; and (5)  identification of protected zones and
Coupled composite plate shear walls (CC-PSW/CF), also
demand critical welds. Following the design criteria and
known as coupled SpeedCore walls, consist of two or more
extended commentary, a detailed seismic design procedure
composite plate shear walls connected together using com-
along with flowcharts is presented.
posite coupling beams. The composite walls may be planar,
The seismic design criteria and the design procedure
C-shaped, I-shaped, L-shaped, or closed cell cores where
presented herein were used to develop archetype structures
each linear wall segment consists of two steel web plates
for a FEMA P-695 study of these walls. These structures
connected to flange (or closure) plates or other linear seg-
included (1)  3-, 8-, and 12‑story archetype structures with
ments at the ends. The coupling beams are rectangular steel
planar composite walls and (2) 18- and 22‑story archetype
built-up box sections filled with concrete. There are no addi-
structures with C-shaped composite walls and composite
tional reinforcing bars in the system (in the walls or the cou-
coupling beams. For each story height, three different struc-
pling beams), thus making the system a complete modular
tures were designed with coupling beam length-to-depth
steel-concrete composite structure.
ratios of 3, 4, and 5. Nonlinear inelastic numerical models
Coupled SpeedCore walls are being considered as an
of the coupled SpeedCore archetype structures were devel-
alternative to coupled reinforced concrete shear wall sys-
oped and analyzed using OpenSEES and the modeling rec-
tems. Significant research has been conducted to develop
ommendations of Shafaei et al. (2021a) and Bruneau et al.
seismic design provisions for coupled SpeedCore systems.
(2019). The results from the numerical analyses confirmed
Experimental research has been conducted on the cyclic lat-
that the archetype structures performed as designed, and
eral loading behavior of planar (Shafaei et al., 2021b) and
significant inelastic deformations occurred through the for-
C-shaped composite plate shear walls (Kenarangi et al.,
mation of flexural plastic hinges at the ends of the coupling
2021). Detailed FEMA P-695 studies have been conducted
beams along the height of the structure and eventually by the
to justify seismic design factors R, Ω0, and Cd for coupled
formation of flexural plastic hinges at the base of the walls.
composite plate shear walls (FEMA, 2009; Bruneau et al.,
A brief summary of the seismic behavior and results from
2019).
the FEMA P-695 studies of the system are included in Chap-
Capacity design principles were used to develop seismic
ter 5. The results from the numerical analyses indicated that
design criteria for coupled SpeedCore systems. These prin-
coupled SpeedCore systems have excellent seismic perfor-
ciples are presented in detail along with extended commen-
mance. Statistical analyses of the extensive numerical inves-
tary in the following section. As explained in the basis of
tigations indicated that the system designed in accordance
design in Section 4.2.2, the system is designed to undergo
with the seismic design criteria and procedure presented
significant inelastic deformation in large seismic events. The
in the following sections have adjusted collapse margin
inelastic deformation has two sources: (1)  flexural plastic
ratios that are acceptable according to FEMA P-695 crite-
hinges at the ends of the coupling beams and (2)  flexural
ria (Bruneau et al., 2019). Consequently, coupled Speed-
yielding in the walls. The preferred inelastic response con-
Core systems have been included in the 2020 edition of the
sists of forming plastic hinges at both ends of the coupling
NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Build-
beams and in the composite walls. The design implements
ings and Other Structures (FEMA, 2020), and in the 2022
a strong wall-weak coupling beam design approach for
ASCE/SEI  7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
appropriate sizing of the composite members. This design
Other Structures (ASCE, 2022). ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2.‑1,
approach helps achieve extensive plastic hinging in most of
includes the seismic response modification factors for cou-
the coupling beams before significant yielding of the walls.
pled SpeedCore systems: R = 8, Ω0 = 2.5, and Cd = 5.5.
The detailed design criteria presented in the following
Two detailed design examples are presented at the end of
section include: (1) system requirements and section detail-
this chapter: an 8-story structure with coupled, planar Speed-
ing requirements for both composite walls and coupling
Core walls and a 22‑story structure with coupled C-shaped
beams; (2)  stiffness, modeling, and analysis recommenda-
walls. These examples include detailed calculations for the
tions for calculating the design demands for the coupling
design of the composite walls, coupling beams, and coupling
beams and composite walls; (3) recommendations for calcu-
beam-to-wall connections. Results from nonlinear analysis
lating the strengths of composite walls and coupling beams;
of seismic behavior of these structures are discussed and
(4) requirements for the connections between the coupling
included in Chapter 5.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 113

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 113 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 4.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS occurs. The shortest archetype structure that was evaluated
using the FEMA P-695 (FEMA, 2009) approach for this sys-
This section details the seismic design provisions for cou-
tem was three stories with two 45-ft-tall composite walls of
pled SpeedCore systems. These provisions are covered in
10 ft length, corresponding to a height-to-length ratio equal
the 2022 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
to 4.5 for each wall that constituted the coupled wall.
(AISC, 2022b) and the 2022 AISC Seismic Provisions for
Coupling beams consist of concrete-filled built-up box
Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2022a).
sections of uniform cross section along their entire length
and with a width equal to or greater than the wall thickness
4.2.1 Scope
at the connection. For at least 90% of the stories of the build-
Coupled SpeedCore systems are synonymous with the ing, the clear length-to-section depth ratios, Lcb/ hCB, of the
seismic system addressed in AISC Seismic Provisions Sec- coupling beams is greater than or equal to 3 and less than
tion  H8.1: composite plate shear walls—concrete filled or equal to 5. This requirement for coupling beams to have
(CC-PSW/CF), consisting of concrete-filled composite plate length-to-depth ratios greater than or equal to 3 and less than
shear walls and filled composite coupling beams. or equal to 5 is based on (1) the range of parameters included
The composite plate shear walls of coupled SpeedCore in the FEMA P-695 studies conducted in order to establish
systems consist of planar, C-shaped, I-shaped, or L-shaped the seismic response modification coefficient, R, for the
walls, where each wall element consists of two planar steel system and (2) the fact that coupling beams with length-to-
plates with concrete infill between them. Composite action depth ratios less than 3 tend to be shear-critical, which is
between the plates and concrete infill is achieved using not recommended. AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.5c
either tie bars or a combination of tie bars and steel headed explicitly requires coupling beams to be flexure-critical—
stud anchors. In each wall element, the two steel plates that is, flexural yielding and failure governs their behavior
have equal nominal thickness and are connected using tie rather than shear failure.
bars. Examples of coupled SpeedCore systems are shown in
Figure 4-1. 4.2.2 Basis of Design
Coupled SpeedCore systems are an alternative to coupled
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.2, Speed-
reinforced concrete shear walls or steel plate shear walls
Core walls are expected to provide significant inelastic
(SPSW), especially when relatively large seismic demand on
deformation capacity through developing the plastic flex-
the walls leads to dense reinforcement and large thicknesses
ural strength of the composite SpeedCore cross section
in conventional concrete shear walls and coupling beams,
by yielding of the steel plate and the concrete attaining its
or to relatively large wall thicknesses of the web infill and
compressive strength. The cross section is detailed such
boundary elements in coupled SPSW. The limits set forth in
that the section is able to attain its plastic flexural strength.
the scope are associated with the range of parameters con-
Shear yielding of the steel web plates is not the governing
sidered in the investigations conducted on coupled Speed-
mechanism.
Core systems (Bruneau et al., 2019; Agarwal et al., 2020).
The system uses coupled walls to resist lateral loads as
A flange or closure plate is used at the open ends of the
shown in Figure  4-2. This system is expected to undergo
wall elements. No additional boundary elements besides
significant inelastic deformation in large (design-basis and
the closure plate are required to be used with the composite
maximum considered) seismic events. The inelastic defor-
walls. Walls without flange plates are not permitted. While
mation has two sources: (1)  flexural plastic hinges at the
their performance may be adequate, their construction can
ends of coupling beams and (2) flexural yielding at the base
be difficult due to the absence of closure plates and need
of walls. The preferred inelastic failure mechanism consists
for additional formwork. This need for additional formwork
of forming flexural plastic hinges at both ends of the cou-
defeats the whole purpose of the composite plate shear walls
pling beams and at the base of the composite walls. It should
and compromises their construction advantage. Future pro-
be noted that flexural yielding in the walls is anticipated at
visions may allow other steel sections (I-shaped sections or
the base of the wall element, but the location of yielding is
C-shaped sections) as a closure element.
dependent on the building geometry. For irregular buildings,
The height-to-length ratio, Hwall/Lwall, of the composite
the location of yielding in the walls should be confirmed by
walls is greater than or equal to 4. This requirement ensures
analysis.
that the walls are flexure-critical (i.e., flexural yielding and
The design implements a strong wall/weak coupling beam
failure govern behavior rather than shear failure.) Calcula-
approach for appropriately sizing the composite members.
tions can also be performed to show that the wall is flexure-
This design approach helps achieve development of exten-
critical—that is, plastic hinges with flexural strength equal
sive plastic hinging in most of the coupling beams before
to 1.2Mp.exp form at the base of the wall before shear failure
significant yielding of the walls.

114 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 114 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 (a)  CC-PSW/CF with planar rectangular C-PSW/CF

(b)  CC-PSW/CF with C-shaped and I-shaped C-PSW/CF

  
(c)  CC-PSW/CF with L-shaped C-PSW/CF (d)  CC-PSW/CF with C-shaped C-PSW/CF

Fig. 4-1.  Examples of SpeedCore wall configurations.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 115

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 115 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 4.2.3 Analysis 2019). This FEMA P-695 study demonstrated that coupled
composite plate shear walls considered here can be designed
The design philosophy expressed in Section 4.2.2 leads to
with a greater R factor of 8. This increase in the value of R
structures with the characteristic pushover behavior depicted
for coupled walls is due to the spread of plastic hinging and
in Figure 4-3. The initial branch represents the elastic behav-
inelastic deformations (energy dissipation) in the coupling
ior of the structure, and the slope of this branch represents
beams along the height of the structure. This lateral load
the effective structural stiffness, which is approximated by
behavior is illustrated in Figure  4-4 and Figure  4-5 using
elastic models. On the base shear-roof displacement curve,
finite element analysis for an eight-story archetype structure
Point A represents the lateral load level corresponding to the
having coupling beams with span-to-depth ratio of 5. The
design level seismic load distribution. The coupling beams
nonlinear static pushover behavior predicted by the finite
are designed to reach their flexural capacity at this demand.
element model in Figure 4-4 follows the expected behavior
As the lateral load (and base shear force) increases, the
presented in Figure 4-3.
coupling beams along the height of the structure undergo
In the FEMA P-695 study, archetype structures having 3,
flexural plastic hinging at both ends. The response reaches
8, 12, 18, and 22 stories and coupling beam span-to-depth
the next milestone, Point B, where all coupling beams have
ratios of 3, 4, and 5 were designed. The archetypes were
developed flexural hinges. The composite walls are designed
designed using a seismic response modification coefficient,
to have a flexural capacity adequate to resist this demand
or R factor, of 8 and a Cd value of 5.5. The 3-, 8-, and 12‑story
level. The next milestone on the response, Point  C, cor-
archetype structures used planar composite walls, while the
responds to the overall inelastic mechanism with flexural
18- and 22‑story archetype structures used C-shaped walls.
plastic hinging in all the coupling beams and the base of
These archetype structures were doubly symmetric in plan
the composite walls. A final milestone, Point D, represents
and the wall thickness was uniform along the height of the
fracture of the composite walls. The overstrength factor for
structure. For the 18- and 22‑story archetype structures, the
this system, defined as the ratio of ultimate load capacity-
thickness of the steel plates for the composite walls and the
to-capacity, is approximately the ratio of base shear force at
coupling beams was reduced in the top half of the structure.
Point C to Point A.
The 22‑story archetype had an overall height of 311 ft. These
The seismic response modification coefficient, R, given in
structures were designed to meet the composite member and
ASCE/SEI  7, Table  12.2-1, for uncoupled composite plate
system requirements outlined in Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5.
shear walls is 6.5. A FEMA P-695 study was conducted to
The coupling ratio for the archetype structures was about
evaluate an appropriate seismic response modification coef-
50 to 80%, where the taller buildings had higher coupling
ficient, or R factor, for SpeedCore systems (Bruneau et al.,
ratios. In this context, coupling ratio is defined at Point  B
on the characteristic pushover curve as the proportion of the
total overturning moment resisted by coupling action. It is
important to note that there is no specific required or recom-
mended coupling ratio for the coupled SpeedCore system.
Seismic demands followed standards set in ASCE/SEI 7
and the FEMA P-695 procedure. The numerical models for
the structures accounted for the various complexities of flex-
ural behavior of the coupling beams and composite walls,
including the effects of concrete cracking, steel yielding,
local buckling, concrete crushing, and steel inelastic behav-
ior up to fracture due to cumulative plastic strains and low
cycle fatigue. The numerical models were benchmarked
using experimental data available in the literature.
Results from the FEMA P-695 analyses indicated that all
archetypes reached collapse at drifts greater than 5%, but all
collapse margin ratios established in this study were conser-
vatively calculated based on results obtained at 5% drift (i.e.,
at less than actual collapse points). Results of the FEMA
P-695 studies indicated that collapse margin ratios increased
for the taller buildings, which is consistent with the fact that
code-specified drift limits governed the design of the 18- and
22‑story archetypes.
Fig. 4-2.  Deformed shape of coupled
SpeedCore walls under lateral loads.

116 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 116 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Fig. 4-3. Characteristic pushover (base shear-roof displacement) behavior for eight-story archetype structure.

Fig. 4-4. Pushover behavior from 3D FEM analysis for eight-story archetype structure.

Fig. 4-5. Extent of steel yielding for points on pushover curve for eight-story archetype structure.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 117

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 117 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 An elastic model of the structure is used to conduct struc- where
tural analysis for design by the ELF procedure outlined in ∑1.2Mp.exp.CB = sum of the expected flexural strength of
ASCE/SEI 7. The results of this analysis are used to deter- coupling beams along structure height,
mine the design demands for the coupling beams and the kip-in.
maximum elastic story drift ratio, which is amplified by ∑Mu.CB = sum of the flexural design demands
Cd to estimate the inelastic story drift ratio for design. This for the coupling beams along structure
analysis can be performed in accordance with AISC Speci- height, kip-in.
fication Section I1.5, which is based on the direct analysis n = number of coupling beams along struc-
method, and includes recommendations for the flexural, ture height
shear, and axial effective stiffnesses of composite walls and
filled composite members (i.e., composite coupling beams). The earthquake-induced axial force in the walls used in
These recommendations and stiffness values were discussed determining the required wall strength is calculated as the
in detail in Section 2.2.2 of this Design Guide. sum of the capacity-limited coupling beam shear forces
along the height of the structure. The portion of the total
4.2.3.1 Stiffness overturning moment resisted by the coupling action can be
estimated as the equal and opposite axial forces at the base
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.3a, the
of the walls, Pw, multiplied by the distance between them.
effective flexural, axial, and shear stiffnesses of composite
The remaining portion of the total overturning moment can
walls and filled composite coupling beams are calculated
be distributed to the individual walls based on their effec-
in accordance with AISC Specification Section I1.5. These
tive flexural stiffness, accounting for the effects of tensile or
equations and stiffnesses are discussed in detail in Sec-
compressive axial force.
tion 2.2.2 of this Design Guide.
The required axial and flexural strengths for the compos-
ite walls are determined directly from this analysis, while the
4.2.3.2 Required Strengths for Coupling Beams
required wall shear strengths determined from this analysis
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.3b, are amplified by a factor of 4.0.
analy­ses in conformance with the applicable building code The shear force is amplified by a factor of 4.0 to conserva-
are performed to calculate the required strengths for the cou- tively account for (1) effects of higher modes and (2) the over-
pling beams. strength in the walls resulting from the difference between
their expected flexural strength (at Point C in Figure 4-3) and
4.2.3.3 Required Strengths for Composite Walls design demand (Point B). For reinforced concrete walls, this
amplification factor is approximately 2.0 to 3.0 (ACI, 2019).
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.3c, the
A conservative value of 4.0 was used for composite walls in
required strengths for the composite walls are determined
the absence of better information, and in recognition of their
using the capacity-limited seismic load effect. The capacity-
inherent shear strength. The shear strength of these compos-
limited seismic load effect is also presented in Section 4.2.3.4
ite walls is very high due to the significant contribution of
in this Design Guide.
the steel plates and composite action.
4.2.3.4 Capacity-Limited Seismic Load
4.2.4 System Requirements for Coupled SpeedCore
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.3c, the Walls with Flange (Closure) Plates
capacity-limited horizontal seismic load effect, Ecl, is deter-
System requirements for coupled SpeedCore components
mined from an analysis in which all the coupling beams
are the same as those described in Section  3.2.4 of this
are assumed to develop plastic hinges at both ends with an
Design Guide for uncoupled walls.
expected plastic flexural strength of 1.2Mp.exp.CB, and the
maximum overturning moment is amplified to account for
4.2.5 System Requirements for Composite
the increase in lateral loading from the formation of the ear-
Coupling Beams
liest plastic hinges to the formation of plastic hinges in all
coupling beams over the full wall height. This amplification Composite coupling beams are designed in accordance with
factor, γ1, can be calculated using Equation 4-1. the requirements of Section 2.3 and additional requirements
∑1.2Mp.exp.CB presented in this section.
n
γ1 = (4-1)
∑ Mu.CB 4.2.5.1 Slenderness Requirement for Coupling Beams
n 
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.5b,
the slenderness ratios of the flanges and webs of the filled

118 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 118 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 composite coupling beam, bc/tf and hc/tw, are limited as where
follows: Lcb = clear span length of the coupling beam, in.
bc.CB Es Mp.exp = 
expected flexural strength of composite cou-
≤ 2.37 (4-2) pling beam calculated in accordance with Sec-
tpf.CB Ry Fy 
tion  2.2.3 using the expected yield strength,
hc.CB Es RyFy, for steel and the expected compressive
≤ 2.66 (4-3) strength, Rc ƒ′c , for concrete, kip-in.
tpw.CB Ry Fy 
This requirement is based on achieving flexure-critical
where
behavior in composite beams. The requirement increases
bc.CB = clear width of the coupling beam flange plate, in.
the capacity-limited shear force capacity (2Mp.exp / Lcb) by
hc.CB = clear width of the coupling beam web plate, in. a factor of 1.2 to account for the effects of steel inelastic
tpf.CB = thickness of the coupling beam flange plate, in. hardening in tension, concrete confinement, and the biaxial
tpw.CB = thickness of the coupling beam web plate, in. (tensile) stress effect in the steel tension flange (Bruneau et
al., 2019).
The slenderness requirements are based on compact sec-
tion requirements in the AISC Specification Section  I1.4 4.2.6 Composite Wall Strength
for filled composite members. The web slenderness ratio
requirement is based on developing the shear yielding The nominal strengths of the composite walls are calculated
strength of the web plates before shear buckling as per AISC in accordance with AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.6.
Specification Section G4. Figure 4-6 shows a schematic of This section refers the user to AISC Specification Chapter I.
the coupling beam cross section along with the clear widths The nominal compressive, tensile, flexural, shear, and com-
of the flange and web plates. bined flexure and axial strengths from the AISC Specifica-
tion are detailed in Section 2.2.3 of this Design Guide.
4.2.5.2 Flexure-Critical Coupling Beams
4.2.7 Composite Coupling Beam Strength
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.5c,
composite coupling beams are proportioned to be flexure- The nominal strengths of the composite coupling beams are
critical with the expected shear strength, Vn.exp, calculated calculated in accordance with AISC Seismic Provisions Sec-
in accordance with AISC Specification Section  I4.2 using tion H8.7. This section refers the user to AISC Specification
the expected yield strength, Ry Fy , for steel and the expected Chapter I. The nominal flexural and shear strengths are cov-
compressive strength, Rc ƒ′c , for concrete. The equations for ered in Section 2.3.3 of this Design Guide.
calculating the shear strength of composite filled sections
were discussed in detail in Section  2.3.3 of this Design 4.2.8 Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections
Guide. The expected shear strength is calculated as follows: According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.8, the
2.4Mp.exp coupling beam-to-wall connections are designed to develop
Vn.exp ≥ (4-4)
L cb  and transfer the expected flexural strength and correspond-

ing capacity-limited shear force of the associated coupling
beams. The required flexural and shear strengths are calcu-
lated based on the expected flexural strengths of the cou-
pling beams. The nominal flexural strength, with or without
concurrent axial force, can be calculated using nominal
steel strength, Fy, and nominal concrete strength, ƒ′c . The
expected flexural strength can be calculated using expected
strengths, RyFy and Rc ƒ′c , for steel and concrete, respectively.
The expected flexural strength, Mp.exp, of filled composite
members is amplified by a factor of 1.2 to account for the
effects of steel inelastic hardening in tension, concrete con-
finement, and the biaxial (tensile) stress effect in the steel
tension flange. The coupling beam-to-wall connection is
designed and detailed to resist this amplified (1.2Mp.exp) flex-
ural strength of the beam and the associated capacity-limited
Fig. 4-6.  Coupling beam cross section. shear (2.4Mp.exp/ Lcb).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 119

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 119 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Figure  4-7 shows the envelope of the inelastic moment- 4.2.8.2 Required Shear Strength
rotation response assumed in the FEMA P-695 (analytical)
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.8b, the
studies for the flexural plastic hinges in the coupling beams.
required shear strength, Vu, for the coupling beam-to-wall
As shown, the plastic rotation before degradation of flexural
connection is determined using the capacity-limited seismic
strength due to fracture failure was assumed to be equal to
load effect as follows:
0.025 rad.
Coupling beam-to-wall connections have been tested in 2 (1.2Mp.exp.CB )
the past—for example, Nie et al. (2014)—and additional Vu = (4-5)
L cb 
testing of coupling beam-to-wall connections is ongoing
(Ahmad et al., 2021). Some details that have been dem-
onstrated to be acceptable by testing (Ahmad et al., 2021) 4.2.8.3 Rotation Capacity
include those shown in Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9.
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.8c, the
Figure 4-8 shows a connection where (i) the web plates
coupling beam-to-wall connection is detailed to develop
are continuous between the coupling beam and the compos-
a rotation capacity of 0.030 rad before flexural strength
ite walls, (ii) the coupling beam flange plates are extended
decreases to 80% of the flexural plastic strength of the beam.
into the wall and welded to the wall web plates to develop
Connection details that have been previously demonstrated
their expected tensile strength, and (iii) the wall closure plate
to have adequate rotation capacity—for example, Ahmad
is interrupted at the coupling beam.
et al. (2021)—are approved for use. The available rotation
Figure 4-9 shows a connection where (i) coupling beam
capacity of the coupling beam using other connection details
web plates are lapped and welded to the composite wall web
can be verified through testing, advanced analysis calibrated
plates, (ii) the coupling beam flange plates are continued into
to physical testing, or a combination thereof. The accept-
the wall and welded to the wall web plates to develop their
able envelope of coupling beam end moment-chord rotation
expected tensile strength, and (iii) the wall closure plate is
behavior is shown in Figure 4-10.
not interrupted at the coupling beam.
To meet these requirements, designers select a connec-
tion that has either been verified through testing or advanced
4.2.8.1 Required Flexural Strength
analysis calibrated to testing. In any nonlinear models, typi-
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.8a, the cal for performance-based design, the coupling beam-to-wall
required flexural strength, Mu , of the coupling beam-to-wall connections are assumed to degrade to 80% of Mp at a chord
connection is 120% of the expected flexural strength of the rotation of 0.030 rad beyond which complete or gradual loss
coupling beam, Mp.exp.CB. of flexural strength can be assumed. In modeling approaches
able to capture this loss, the analysis can continue beyond
this point.

Fig. 4-7.  Envelope of cyclic moment-chord rotation response and hysteretic

behavior of plastic hinges in composite coupling beams (Broberg et al., 2022).

120 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 120 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Fig. 4-8.  Coupling beam connection with continuous web plate and interrupted wall closure plate.

Fig. 4-9.  Coupling beam connection with lapped web plate and continuous wall closure plate.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 121

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 121 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 4.2.9 Composite Wall-to-Foundation Connections to have developed plastic hinges at the base with expected
flexural strength of 1.2Mp.exp, while accounting for the effects
AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.9 applies to the design
of simultaneous axial force. The required shear strength of
of composite wall-to-foundation connections, where the
the composite wall-to-foundation connections is equal to the
composite walls are connected directly to the foundation, at
required shear strength of the composite walls calculated in
the point of maximum moment in the walls.
accordance with the AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.3d
For structures with subgrade basement stories, the maxi-
(Section 2.2.3).
mum shear force and overturning moment in the composite
walls at the grade level can be transferred to the basement
4.2.10 Other Connections
stories through a transverse diaphragm. The rate of force
transfer depends on the diaphragm stiffness. In practice, Other connections such as connection between tie bars and
upper and lower bound assumptions for stiffness of the pri- steel plates and connections between SpeedCore steel com-
mary transfer diaphragm are often considered as discussed ponents are discussed in Section 2.4.
in Tall Buildings Initiative: Guidelines for Performance
Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (PEER, 2017). 4.2.11 Protected Zones
For structures that are connected to the concrete basemat
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.10, the
or foundation at the location of maximum shear force and
following regions are designated as protected zones and are
overturning moment, the wall-to-basemat connections are
designed to meet the requirements of AISC Seismic Provi-
designed for (1) the expected flexural strength of the com-
sions Section D1.3:
posite walls, accounting for the effects of axial force; (2) the
expected axial forces associated with capacity-limited shear 1. The regions at ends of the coupling beams subject to
forces in the coupling beams; and (3) and the amplified shear inelastic straining.
force demand, with an amplification factor of 4.0, used for 2. The regions at the base of the composite walls subject
the design of the composite walls. Some connection details to inelastic straining.
that have been used in the past include those discussed in
Section 3.2.6.3 with details such as welded base plates and Protected zones are defined in the AISC Seismic Provi-
rebar couplers or walls embedded in the concrete foundation sions as regions of members or connections of members
as shown in Figure 3-3. undergoing large inelastic strains or plastic hinging to pro-
vide significant inelastic deformation capacity and energy
4.2.9.1 Required Strengths dissipation during design-basis or higher magnitude earth-
quakes. FEMA/SAC testing has demonstrated the sensitivity
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.9a, the of these regions to discontinuities caused by fabrication or
required strength of the composite wall-to-foundation con- erection activities or from other attachments. For this rea-
nection is determined using the capacity-limited seismic son, operations specified in AISC Seismic Provisions Sec-
load effect. The coupling beams are assumed to have devel- tion I2.1 are prohibited in the protected zones.
oped plastic hinges at both ends with the expected flexural For the coupled SpeedCore system, the protected zones
strength of 1.2Mp.exp. The composite walls also are assumed are designated as the regions at the ends of coupling beams

Fig. 4-10.  Envelope of coupling beam end moment-chord rotation (M − θ).

122 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 122 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 that will undergo significant inelastic straining and plastic 4.2.12 Demand Critical Welds in Connections
hinging, and portions of the adjacent wall (if any) under-
According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section  H8.11,
going yielding at the connection. The typical length of the
where located within the protected zones identified in Sec-
plastic hinge region will extend from the face of the com-
tion H8.10, the welds in composite wall steel plate splices
posite wall to a distance equal to the coupling beam depth.
are demand critical and must satisfy the applicable require-
However, the extent of the plastic hinge (and the protected
ments of AISC Seismic Provisions Sections A3.4b and I2.3.
zone) can depend on the cross-section geometry, the flange
Coupled composite wall systems include connections
and web plate thicknesses, and the length-to-depth ratio of
with several welded details as shown in Figure 4-11. These
the coupling beam. The extent of the protected zone can be
include (1) welds connecting the coupling beam flanges and
determined from analysis.
web plates to composite wall steel plates, (2) welds connect-
Additionally, the regions of the composite walls under-
ing the coupling beam web plates to flange plates in built-
going significant inelastic straining and plastic hinging are
up box sections, (3) welds in the composite wall steel plate
also designated as protected zones. The extent of the plastic
splices, (4) welds connecting the composite wall flange (clo-
hinge region undergoing significant inelastic strains (and the
sure) plates to the web plates, and (5) welds at the composite
protected zone) can depend on wall cross-section geometry,
wall steel plate-to-base plate connections.
web plate and flange (closure) plate thickness and length,
Most of these welds can be designed and detailed appro-
and the height-to-length ratios of the walls. The extent of the
priately using AISC Specification Chapter J for the available
protected zone can be determined from analysis.

Fig. 4-11.  Critical welds in coupling beam-to-wall connection.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 123

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 123 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 strengths, such that the weld stresses remain in the elastic
range. Consequently, only the welds in the composite wall
steel plate splices, when located in the protected zones, are
designated as demand critical.

4.3 GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR

COUPLED WALLS

4.3.1 Overview
This section describes the overall design process for coupled
SpeedCore walls. This design process heavily references the
design requirements from Section 4.2. This process is sum-
marized in Figure 4-12.

4.3.2 Step 1.  Design Inputs

At the start of the design process, a series of parameters are
considered as inputs. These parameters include (1) require-
ments of the governing building code; (2)  floor loading;
(3)  location considerations (site class and soil conditions);
See Figure 4-13 for procedure.
(4) building importance factor (Ie); (5) material properties (ƒ′c
and Fy); and (6) architectural considerations like typical bay
widths, story heights, coupling beam length and depth, and
core wall configurations.

4.3.3 Step 2.  Analysis for Design

The seismic forces on the coupled SpeedCore walls are cal-
culated following ASCE/SEI 7. It is important to note that See Figure 4-14 for procedure.
ASCE/SEI  7 offers multiple options for determining the
seismic force demand, including the equivalent lateral force
method and response spectra analysis. From this analysis,
the overturning moment, base shear, story forces, and cou-
pling beam shear are calculated. Using these outputs, pre-
liminary sizes for wall and coupling beam elements are
selected. These components are then analyzed to determine
the capacity-limited seismic loads. The wall and coupling
dimensions may then be adjusted to meet these demands and See Figure 4-15 for procedure.
prescribed limits. An overview of this process is presented
in Figure 4-13.

4.3.3.1 Base Shear Force and Amplified Base Shear

The base shear, V, is amplified by a factor of 4.0. This base
shear amplification factor is used to account for various
effects discussed earlier. This amplification factor is used
only to calculate shear demand and is not used for overturn- See Figure 4-16 for procedure.
ing moment calculation.
Vamp = 4.0Vbase (4-6)

4.3.3.2 Wall and Coupling Beam Stiffnesses

Wall and coupling beam stiffnesses are determined based
on AISC Specification Section I1.5. These requirements are Fig. 4-12.  Overview of coupled SpeedCore design procedure.

124 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 124 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 discussed in Section 2.2.2 and Section 2.3.2 of this Design 4.3.3.4 Required Strength of Composite Walls
Guide for SpeedCore walls and composite coupling beams,
The required strength of the composite wall is determined
respectively.
using the capacity-limited seismic load effect in accordance
with Sections 4.2.3.3. and 4.2.3.4.
4.3.3.3 Required Strength for Coupling Beams
Analyses in conformance with the applicable building code 4.3.3.5 Interstory Drift
are performed to calculate the required strengths for the cou-
Analysis is performed in conformance with the applicable
pling beams.
building code to calculate the ID and compare against the
These analyses involve modeling the seismic force-
applicable limit.
resisting system, namely the SpeedCore walls and com-
This analysis follows the modeling approach and loads
posite coupling beams. Walls and coupling beams can be
described in Section 4.3.3.3. To calculate the ID, the story
modeled as general frame sections with effective stiffness
displacement results determined from this analysis are
properties (per Section  4.3.3.2). Wall frame elements are
amplified by Cd (Cd = 5.5 for this system) and normalized
located at the elastic centroid of the wall section. Coupling
by the story height to determine the ID. This drift is then
beam elements span from one wall node to the next and are
compared to the applicable limit. Per ASCE/SEI  7, Table
assigned rigid properties from the elastic centroid of the wall
12.12-1, this limit is 2% for a Risk Category II building with
to the start of the coupling beam. Design forces are applied
greater than four stories, where Risk Category is determined
at each story level. The analysis results can then be used to
by code requirements.
determine the shear and moment demand in the coupling
beams. The required coupling beam shear strength can be
4.3.4 Step 3.  Design of Coupling Beams
calculated from analysis. The required strength is the aver-
age shear demand of the coupling beams along the height of After initial analysis, the coupling beams are designed
the structure. Alternatively, the designer can choose to use to meet the average demands calculated in the analysis as
the maximum shear demand.

EIeff = EsIs + 0.35Ec Ic

Vamp = 4.0Vbase
EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac

GAeff = Gs As + Gc Ac

Estimate flexural, axial, and shear

stiffness using AISC Specification
Eq. I2-12 and I2-13
EIeff = Es Is + C3Ec Ic
⎡ As ⎤
C3 = 0.6 + 2 ⎢ ≤ 0.9
⎣Ac + As⎥⎦
In model apply reduced stiffnesses
(AISC Specification Section C2.3)
0.64EIeff ; 0.8EAg; 10GAg
RETURN TO
FIGURE 4-12

Fig. 4-13.  Analysis for design flowchart.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 125

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 125 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 discussed in Section 4.3.3.3. An overview of the process is 4.3.4.4 Slenderness Requirement
shown in Figure 4-14.
The slenderness ratios of the flange and web compo-
nents, bc.CB/ tpf.CB and hc.CB/ tpw.CB, are limited as detailed in
4.3.4.1 Expected Flexural Strength, Mp.exp.CB
Sec­tion 4.2.5.1.
The expected flexural strength of coupling beams is the
moment corresponding to a plastic stress distribution over 4.3.4.5 Coupling Beam Flexural Strength, Mn
the composite cross section. Steel components are assumed
The coupling beam flexural strength is calculated according
to have reached a yield stress of Ry Fy in either tension or
to Section 4.2.7.
compression, and concrete components in compression due
to axial force and/or flexure are assumed to have reached a
4.3.4.6 Coupling Beam Nominal Shear Strength, Vn
stress of Rcƒ′c .
The nominal shear strength is calculated as the summation
4.3.4.2 Flexure-Critical Coupling Beams of the nominal shear strengths of concrete infill, and nomi-
nal shear strength of the webs of the coupling beam. This
Coupling beams are proportioned to meet the minimum area
expression is presented in Section 2.3.3.
requirements of Section 2.3.
4.3.5 Step 4.  Design of Composite Walls
4.3.4.3 Minimum Area of Steel
This step discusses the calculation of the required strengths
The steel plates comprise at least 1% of the total composite
for the composite walls. These force demands are associated
cross-sectional area.

.
.

. 2.4Mp.exp
Vn ≥
Lcb

bc Es
≤ 2.37
tf RyFy Vn = 0.6AwFy + 0.06Ac fc′
h Es
≤ 2.66
tw RyFy

RETURN TO
FIGURE 4-12

Fig. 4-14.  Design of coupling beams flowchart.

126 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 126 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 with the formation of the plastic hinge mechanisms at the 4.3.6 Step 5.  Design of Connections
ends of the coupling beams and are calculated using the cou-
This step focuses on the design of various connections in the
pling beams designed in Step 3. An overview of this process
coupled SpeedCore system. The connection elements can be
is shown in Figure 4-15.
designed in accordance with AISC Specification Chapter J,
as applicable. As discussed in Section  2.1.5, these include
4.3.5.1 Minimum and Maximum Area of Steel
connections at the section, member, and structural level. For
Walls are proportioned to meet the minimum area require- example, consider Figure 4-11, which identifies various con-
ments discussed in Section 2.2.1. nections at the section, member, and structural levels. An
overview of this process is shown in Figure 4-16.
4.3.5.2 Steel Plate Slenderness Requirement for Composite At the section level, these include the tie bar-to-steel plate
Walls connections, composite coupling beam flange-to-web con-
nections (e.g., weld  2 in Figure  4-11), SpeedCore flange-
Wall slenderness ratios meet the requirements of
to-web plate connections (e.g., weld 4 in Figure 4-11), and
Sec­tion 4.2.4.
welds in SpeedCore splices (e.g., weld  3 in Figure  4-11).
All these section level connections are designed to achieve
4.3.5.3 Tie Bar Spacing Requirement for Composite Walls
tensile yielding of the gross section as the governing limit
The tie bar spacing to plate thickness ratio, Stie/ tp, is limited state and, thus, achieve local ductility. For example, the tie
according to Section 4.2.4. bar-to-steel plate connections are designed to develop the
yield strength of the tie bar in axial tension as mentioned
4.3.5.4 Required Wall Shear Strength earlier. Similarly, the flange-to-web plate connections can be
designed, if needed, to develop the expected yield strength
The required in-plane shear strength is Vamp per
of the weaker of the two connected plate elements.
Sec­tion 4.3.3.1.
Connections at the member level include the coupling
beam-to-composite wall connection (e.g., weld  1 in Fig-
4.3.5.5 Required Wall Flexural Strength
ure 4-11), and connections at the structural level include the
The required flexural strength is calculated per Sec- composite wall-to-foundation connection (e.g., weld  5 in
­tion 4.2.3.3. Figure 4-11 is a part of this connection). These connections
at the member and structural levels are designed in accor-
4.3.5.6 Wall Axial Tensile Strength dance with the calculated required strengths, namely Sec-
tions 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, and the applicable provisions of AISC
The nominal tensile strength, Pn, is determined using
Specification Chapter J for calculating available strengths.
Sec­tion 4.2.6.
4.3.6.1 Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections—Required
4.3.5.7 Wall Axial Compressive Strength
Strengths
The nominal compressive strength is determined using Sec-
The composite coupling beam is comprised of flange plates,
tion 4.2.6. The flexural stiffness calculated per Section 2.2.3
web plates, and concrete infill. The forces in each of these
should be calculated about the minor axis.
elements is transferred to the composite wall at the cou-
pling beam-to-wall connection. It is important to note that
4.3.5.8 Wall Flexural Strength
the composite wall is comprised of its web plates, flange/
The nominal flexural strength is determined using closure plate, and concrete infill. Thus, the forces from the
Sec­tion 4.2.6. coupling beam elements are transferred to the composite
wall elements through identifiable, robust force transfer
4.3.5.9 Combined Axial Force and Flexure for Wall mechanisms.
As explained earlier, the composite coupling beam devel-
The nominal strength of composite walls subjected to
ops its expected flexural strength (1.2Mp.exp) and shear force
combined axial force and flexure is determined using
(2.4Mp.exp/Lb) that must be transferred to the composite wall.
Section 4.2.6.
These section level strengths can be used to calculate the cor-
responding forces in the coupling beam elements, namely,
4.3.5.10 Wall Shear Strength
the flange plates, web plates, and concrete infill.
The nominal in-plane shear strength, Vn.wall, is determined For example, the corresponding force in the coupling
using Section 2.2.3. beam flange plates can be estimated as the lesser of 120% of
the expected tensile yield capacity or 100% of the expected

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 127

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 127 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 4
tsc tp
α = 1.7 −2
b Es tp dtie
≤ 1.05
tp RyFy S Es
b Es ≤ 1.00
tp 2α + 1
≤ 1.2
tp Fy

ϕv = 0.90 ϕb = 0.90

ϕc = 0.90 ϕt = 0.90
∑n1.2Mp.exp.CB
Y1 =
∑nMu.CB

ϕc Pn,c ≥ P
π2EIeff,minor
Pno = AsFy + 0.85fc′ Ac Pe =
Lc2
ϕt Pn.t ≥ P
Pno Pno
Pn.t = AsFy ≤ 2.25 Pn = Pno 0.658
Pe Pe ϕb Mn ≥ Mu

Pno
> 2.25 Pn = 0.877Pe
Pe

ϕvVn ≥ Vamp
Ks + Ksc RETURN TO
Vn = AswFy FIGURE 4-12
3Ks2 + Ksc
2

0.7(Ec Acs)(Es Asw)

Ksc =
4Es Asw + Ec Acs
Ks = Gs Asw

Fig. 4-15.  Design of composite walls flowchart.

128 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 128 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 START

Composite Wall-to-Coupling
Beam Flange Connections
Flange Welds
Connections between wall/coupling
beam must be able to develop the
full strength of the expected plastic
moment. Many design approaches REFER TO FIGURE 4-18
for the coupling beam flange and
web plate connection are possible,
two are demonstrated in these
figures. Web Welds

Composite Wall-to-Foundation
Connections
Wall-to-foundation connections are
designed to transfer 1.2 times the
plastic moment. The plastic moment
is calculated using the plastic stress
distribution method considering REFER TO FIGURE 4-19
steel components having reached
their expected yield strength, RyFy,
and concrete components having
reached a stress of 0.85f′c.

Interconnection of
Panels/Modules
Connections between
panel/modules must be able to
develop the full strength of the
smaller plate.

Tie Bars
Connections between steel plates
and tie bars must be able to develop
the full tension strength of the bar.

RETURN TO
FIGURE 4-12

Fig. 4-16.  Design of connections flowchart.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 129

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 129 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 tensile rupture capacity of the flange plate (Shafaei and The design of the welded connection between the cou-
Varma, 2021). This becomes the required strength for the pling beam flange and the composite wall web plates (weld 1
coupling beam flange plate-to-composite wall web plate in Figure  4-11) considers multiple limit states: (1)  weld
welded connection (shown as weld 1 in Figure 4-11 and also metal and base metal strength following AISC Specification
in Figures 4-8 and 4-9). Section J2.4 and (2) shear yielding and shear rupture of the
Similarly, the corresponding force in the coupling beam coupling beam flange plates and wall web plates following
web plates can be estimated as a combination of axial ten- AISC Specification Section J4.2. Additionally, the coupling
sion, flexure, and shear force by considering the stress beam flange is detailed such that its net section expected ten-
blocks in the composite coupling beam section as shown sion rupture strength is greater than its gross section expected
in Figure  4-17. As shown in Figure  4-17, the plastic neu- yield strength. This is done in order to achieve local ductility
tral axis for the composite section does not coincide with and prevent premature fracture of the coupling beam flange
the centroid. Consequently, the web plate is subjected to net plate before gross yielding. An overview of this procedure is
tension and flexure associated with the stress blocks, which shown in Figure 4-18.
are assumed to be at a stress level of the lesser of 1.2RyFy The design of the welded connection between the coupling
and RtFt. Additionally, the shear force (Vu = 2.4Mp.exp/Lcb) beam web plate and the composite wall web plates (weld 1
can conservatively be assumed to be transferred from the in Figure 4-11) can be performed in accordance with AISC
coupling beam web plates to the composite wall. Thus, Specification Section J2. The weld metal design strength for
the required strengths for the coupling beam web plate-to- simultaneous tension, flexure, and shear can be calculated
composite wall web plate welded connection (shown as weld directly by following the instantaneous center of rotation
1 in Figure 4-11 and also in Figure 4-9) become a combina- method for eccentrically loaded weld groups in AISC Man-
tion of net tension, flexure, and shear. ual Part 8; however, this may become complicated, requiring
The axial compression in the concrete infill of the cou- the development of a spreadsheet program. Alternately, the
pling beam is transferred through direct bearing to the weld metal design strength can be checked using the follow-
concrete infill of the composite wall. This assumption is ing method, which is generally conservative. An overview of
reasonable whether the composite wall flange/closure plate this procedure is shown in Figure 4-19.
is interrupted (Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-11) or uninterrupted The weld metal strength, Pweld.V, to resist simultaneous
(Figure 4-8). flexure and shear can be calculated following AISC Manual
Table 8-8, which considers an eccentric shear force, VC.weld,
4.3.6.2 Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections—Available creating an equivalent combination of simultaneous flex-
and Design Strengths ure and shear. The weld metal strength, Pweld.T, to resist the
simultaneous tension force, TC.weld, can be calculated con-
In this Design Guide, welded connections are used to trans-
sidering only the horizontal portion of the weld to resist ten-
fer forces from the coupling beam flanges and webs to the
sion following AISC Specification Section  J2.4. Then the
composite wall web plates. Alternative connection types are
utilization ratio for the weld group for simultaneous tension,
possible and would require a similar design procedure and
flexure, and shear can be calculated using Equation  4-7.
calculations.

Fig. 4-17.  Tension and moment in coupling beam web plates.

130 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 130 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 This utilization ratio uses the square root of the sum of the wall-to-foundation connection is located at grade level, the
squared terms (SRSS) method because the weld group has force demands for shear, moment, and axial load are dis-
to resist the vector shear resulting from all the demands. The cussed in Section 4.2.9. Some examples of composite wall-
utilization ratio must be less than 1.0 for design. to-foundation connections are shown in Section  3.2.6.3.
2 2 For example, if the base-plate connection design shown in
⎛ VC.weld ⎞ ⎛T ⎞ Figure 3-3(a) is used, several force transfers and associated
Utilization = + C.weld (4-7)
⎝ Pweld.V ⎠ ⎝ Pweld.T ⎠  limit states will have to be considered. Some of these are
listed in the following. Please note that this is only an indica-
tive list, not an exhaustive one:
4.3.6.3 Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connections—Rotation
1. The welded connection between the composite wall plates
Capacity
and the base plate will have to be designed to develop the
Connections should meet the requirements of Section 4.2.8.3. expected tensile strength of the web plate.
Example connections that satisfy the rotation requirements 2. The rebar below the base plate will have to be designed
are included in Ahmad et al. (2021) and are similar to those to be stronger than the composite wall plates—that is, the
shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-11. expected yield strength of the rebar will have to be greater
than or equal to the tensile strength of the wall plates.
4.3.6.4 Composite Wall-to-Foundation Connections
3. The base plate will have to be designed to transfer the
Composite wall-to-foundation connections demands can tensile strength of the composite wall plates to the welded
be difficult to conceptualize as the wall-to-foundation rebar anchors, while considering the limit state of base
connection may not occur at grade, where the moment plate bending and prying action.
and shear demands are generally calculated. When the

Tflange
Tflange = 1.2RyFy Af.CB Tflange ≤ ϕ0.6Ry Fy Af.SY
Lreq ≥ 2
≤ Rt Fu Af.CB 2ϕ0.6RyFytp.f.CB
Tflange
ϕ = 1.0 ≤ ϕ0.6RtFu Af.SR
2
ϕ = 1.0

RETURN TO
FIGURE 4-16
Tflange
≤ ϕ0.6Ry Fy Aw.SY
2
Tflange
≤ ϕ0.6RtFu Aw.SR
2 RyFy Af.g ≤ Rt Fu Af.n
ϕ = 1.0

Fig. 4-18.  Coupling beam-to-wall connection design: flange weld design flowchart.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 131

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 131 1/30/23 3:25 PM

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 132
Calculate the shear and moment strength
of the "C" shape weld using AISC
Manual Table 8-8, which considers
an equivalent shear and moment on the
weld group by considering an eccentric
shear force.
Mc.weld
. .
eccentricity = e =
Vc.weld
.
Tweb = 1.2(T2.exp − C2.exp) 2LH.weld (0.5LH.weld)
cg =
LH.weld + LV.weld
Mweb = 1.2[T2.exp0.5CCB.exp Tc.weld = 0.5Tweb
ex = e + LH.weld − cg
+ C2.exp0.5(hCB − CCB.exp)] Mc.weld = 0.5Mweb
LH.weld ex
1.2(2Mp.exp.CB) Vc.weld = 0.5Vweb k= a=
Vweb = LV.weld LV.weld
LCB
Interpolate weld group coefficient, C8.8,
from AISC Manual Table 8-8 for
calculated "k" and "a". Choose weld
electrode coefficient, C1,8.3, from AISC
Manual Table 8-3 for given weld electrode.
Pweld.V = ϕC8.8C1,8.3(16D)LV.weld
ϕ = 0.75

132 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

RETURN TO
FIGURE 4-16
Pweld.H = ϕ0.6FEXX(2LH.weld )(0.7071D)
2 2
ϕ = 0.75 Vc.weld Tc.weld
1.0 ≥ +
Pweld.V Pweld.H

Fig. 4-19.  Coupling beam-to-wall connection design: web weld design flowchart.

1/30/23 3:25 PM
 4. The connection between the rebar and the base plate will calculations in AISC Design Guide 32, Design of Modular
have to be designed to develop the tensile strength of the Steel Plate Composite (SC) Walls for Safety-Related Nuclear
rebar. This can be achieved using commercial weldable Facilities (Bhardwaj and Varma, 2017) (refer to Chapter 11.5
couplers or other options. and Appendix A, Step 12). However, it is important to note
5. The base plate connection detail will also have to be that there are fundamental differences between the wall-to-
checked for transferring the shear force in the walls. This foundation connections discussed in Design Guide 32 and in
can be done using shear friction on the rebar or direct this Design Guide. Not all of the limit states and calculations
bearing on the rebar and associated couplers. from Design Guide 32 are applicable; it should be used only
as a reference.
Some of these force transfer mechanisms and associ-
ated limit states are discussed in detail along with example

4.4 DESIGN EXAMPLES

EXAMPLE 4.1—Seismic Design of Eight-Story Structure Using Coupled, Planar SpeedCore System
This example details the design of an eight-story office building with typical design loads, floor geometry, and high seismic
design loads. The steps followed in this design mirror the design procedure presented in Section 4.2. For simplicity, this design
example does not consider accidental eccentricity and assumes a seismic redundancy factor of 1.0.
Design the coupled, planar SpeedCore walls as shown in Figure 4-20 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads.
The effects of gravity loads, which can slightly increase the axial compression in the composite walls, have been conservatively
ignored. However, design calculations including the effects of axial compression from gravity loads are included in the Mathcad
file that can be downloaded from the link given on the AISC Design Guide 38 webpage (www.aisc.org/dg).

Fig. 4-20.  Building floor plan for Example 4.1.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 133

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 133 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 4-1.  Seismic Design Loads Calculated from ASCE/SEI 7
Story Story Elevation Story Force
No. (ft) (kips)
1 17 19.6
2 31 41.4
3 45 65.8
4 59 92.1
5 73 120
6 87 149
7 101 180
8 115 211
Total base shear, Vbase 879
Overturning moment, OTM 890,000 kip-in.

Given:
Building geometry:
Lf = building length
= 200 ft
Wf = building width
= 120 ft
htyp = typical story height
= 14 ft
h1 = first story height
= 17 ft
n = number of stories
=8
Floor loads:
DL = floor dead load
= 0.12 ksf
Seismic design loads:
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
The steel and concrete material properties are as follows:
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Gs = 11,200 ksi
Concrete:
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Rc = 1.3
Weld metal (E70XX):
FEXX = 70 ksi

134 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 134 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Seismic design coefficients:
Cd = deflection amplification factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 5.5
Ie = importance factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 11.5.1 for an office building)
=1
R = seismic response modification coefficient (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
=8
Risk Category = II (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 1.5-1)
Ω0 = overstrength factor (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 2.5
ρ = seismic redundancy factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.3.4)
=1

Solution:
For ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50 steel, from AISC Manual Table 2-4 and AISC Seismic Provisions Table A3.2, the material
properties are as follows:
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
Ry = 1.1
SpeedCore walls and coupling beam components are sized based on initial estimates of loads; these sizes are refined through
iteration. Acceptable dimensions are presented here so that this example can focus on the appropriate limit states to check.
The SpeedCore wall dimensions are shown in Figure 4-21.
Lwall = wall length
= 132 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= b in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 24 in.
Coupling beam dimensions as shown in Figure 4-22:
Lcb = coupling beam length
= 96 in.
bCB = coupling beam width
= 24 in.
hCB = coupling beam depth
= 24 in.
tpf.CB = coupling beam flange plate thickness
= 2 in.
tpw.CB = coupling beam web plate thickness
= a in.

Fig. 4-21.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 135

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 135 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 2. Analysis for Design
In this step, a computer model is built and analyzed using an elastic method to determine the force on system members and
overall system deflection.
The effective distance between wall centroids as shown in Figure 4-23 is:
L eff = L cb + L wall
( 96 in. + 132 in.)
=
12 in./ft
= 19.0 ft

Planar SpeedCore Wall Properties

The effective axial, shear, and flexural stiffnesses are calculated for SpeedCore elements for elastic analysis.
The area of steel in the wall is:
As = tp ⎡⎣2 ( L wall − 2tp ) + 2tsc⎤⎦

{ }
= ( b in.) 2 ⎡⎣132 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ + 2 ( 24 in.)

= 174 in.2

Fig. 4-22.  Coupling beam cross-section dimensions.

Fig. 4-23.  Effective length.

136 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 136 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The area of concrete in the wall is:
Ac = L wall tsc − As
= (132 in.) ( 24 in.) − 174 in.2
= 2,990 in.2

The effective stiffness of the wall is calculated from Equation 2-10 as:

EA eff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (174 in.2 ) + 0.45 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 2,990 in.2 )
= 1.11 × 10 7 kips 

The steel area in the direction of shear is:

Asw = 2L wall tp
= 2 (132 in.) ( b in.)
= 149 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of the wall is:

GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Ac (2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) (149 in.2 ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 2,990 in.2 )
= 7.05 × 106 kips 

The moment of inertia of steel in the wall is:

3
⎡ tp ( L wall − 2tp ) ⎤ ⎡ 3 2⎤
Is = 2 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 ⎢⎛ tsc tp ⎞ + tsc tp ⎛ L wall − tp ⎞ ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦

⎧⎪ ( b in.) ⎡132 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤ 3 ⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ ( 24 in.) ( b in.) ⎡132 in. ( b in.)⎤ ⎫⎪

2
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
= 2⎨ ⎬+ 2⎨ + ( 24 in.) ( b in.) − ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ 12 ⎢⎣ 2 2 ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎭
= 327,000 in.4

The moment of inertia of concrete in the wall is:

(L wall − 2tp )3 (tsc − 2tp)
Ic =
12
3
⎡⎣132 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦
=
12
= 4,270,000 in.4

The effective flexural stiffness of the wall is:

EI eff = Es Is + 0.35Ec Ic (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 327,000 in.4 ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 4,270,000 in.4 )
= 1.62 × 1010 kip-in.2 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 137

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 137 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Coupling Beam Geometric Properties
The effective axial, shear, and flexural stiffnesses are calculated for the coupling beam elements for elastic analysis.
The area of steel in the coupling beam is:
As.CB = 2tpw.CB hCB + 2 (bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB
= 2 ( a in.) ( 24 in.) + 2 ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.)
= 41.3 in.2

The area of concrete in the coupling beam is:

Ac.CB = (bCB − 2tpw.CB )( hCB − 2tpf .CB )
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 535 in.2

The axial stiffness of the uncracked section is:

EAuncr.CB = Es As.CB + Ec Ac.CB
= ( 29,000 ksi )( 41.3 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi )( 535 in.2 )
= 3,610,000 kips

The moment of inertia of steel in the coupling beam is:

⎡ tpw.CB hCB3 ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB3 ⎛h tpf.CB ⎞ 2 ⎤
I s.CB = 2 ⎢ + + ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB CB − ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
3 3
⎪⎧ ( a in.) ( 24 in.) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ⎛ 24 in. 2 in.⎞ ⎫⎪
2
= 2⎨ + + ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) − ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎭
= 4,070 in.4

The moment of inertia of the concrete in the coupling beam is:

3
( bCB − 2tpw.CB )(hCB − 2tpf .CB )
I c.CB =
12
3
⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
=
12
= 23,600 in.4

From AISC Specification Section I2.2b, Equation I2-13, the effective rigidity coefficient is:
⎛ As.CB ⎞
C3.CB = 0.45 + 3 ≤ 0.9 (from Eq. 2-18)
⎝ bCB hCB ⎠
⎡ 41.3 in.2 ⎤
= 0.45 + 3 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ( 24 in.) ( 24 in.) ⎦
= 0.665 

138 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 138 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The effective stiffness of the coupling beam is:
EI eff .CB = Es Is.CB + C3 Ec I c.CB (from Eq. 2-17)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 4,070 in.4 ) + 0.665 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 23,600 in.4 )
= 1.89 × 108 kip-in.2 

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:

Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in.) ( a in.)
= 18.0 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of the coupling beam is:

GAv.CB = Gs Asw.CB + Gc Ac.CB (from Eq. 2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) (18.0 in. ) + (1,800 ksi ) ( 535 in. )
2 2

= 1,160,000 kips 

From Section 2.3.2:

0.64EI eff .CB = 0.64 (1.89 × 108 kips )
= 1.21 × 108 kip-in.2

0.8EAuncr.CB = 0.8 ( 3,610,000 kips )

= 2,890,000 kips

Numerical Model
To determine the ID ratio and shear demand on coupling beams, an analysis model was built using commercial software. First-
order, linear elastic analysis was performed on a model consisting of frame elements for only the SpeedCore walls and composite
coupling beams. This model was subjected to the earthquake loading previously defined. It employed rigid offsets at the end of
the coupling beams to account for wall length. All mass was applied at the story level and distributed to the two joints. A pictorial
representation of the model is shown in Figure 4-24.
Frame elements were assigned the axial, flexural, and shear stiffnesses calculated in the preceding calculations.
From this analysis model, the required coupling beam shear strengths, as shown in Table 4-2, and story displacement values, as
shown in Table 4-3, were determined. This model also confirms the base shear and overturning moment values presented in the
Given section.
Lateral displacement values are amplified by the Cd factor to obtain the amplified displacement. These amplified values are
then used to calculate the ID, which is the difference in displacement between two floors normalized by the story height. The
maximum design ID is limited according to ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.12.1. In this case, the maximum design ID is 2% for Risk
Category II. The story displacement, amplified displacement, and ID are presented in Table 4-3. This distribution corresponds to
the deflected shape shown in Figure 4-25.
The maximum ID = 1.34% < 2%.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 139

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 139 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 4-2.  Coupling Beam Required Shear Strengths
Coupling Beam
Story Story Elevation Required Shear Strength
No. (ft) (kips)
1 17 297
2 31 393
3 45 420
4 59 404
5 73 359
6 87 299
7 101 234
8 115 185
Average 324

Elastic coupling
beam element
Earthquake Rigid link
loads

Lumped
mass

Elastic wall
element

Fixed base

Leff

Fig. 4-24.  Pictorial representation of analysis model.

140 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 140 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 4-3. Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Amplified
Story Story Height Displacement ID
Displacement
No. (ft) (in.) (%)
(in.)
8 14 2.74 15.1 1.14
7 14 2.39 13.1 1.24
6 14 2.01 11.1 1.31
5 14 1.61 8.86 1.34
4 14 1.20 6.60 1.28
3 14 0.81 4.46 1.18
2 14 0.45 2.48 0.95
1 17 0.16 0.88 0.43

Required Shear and Flexural Strength

The required coupling beam shear strength is calculated as the average of all coupling beam shear demands. Shear demand dif-
fers along the height of the structure due to the seismic load distribution and the nature of linear elastic modeling. Alternatively,
the designer can choose to use the maximum shear demand. Because a portion of the overturning moment will be resisted by
the coupling action and the remainder by the individual walls, the result of this choice is the relative proportioning of wall and
coupling beam elements. The system is designed to ensure plasticity spreads along the height of the structure, and therefore,
either method is acceptable.
From Table 4-2, the required coupling beam shear strength is:
Vr.CB = 324 kips
The coupling beam required flexural strength is:
Vr.CB Lcb
Mr.CB =
2
( 324 kips )( 96 in.)
=
2
= 15,600 kip-in.

Fig. 4-25. Analysis model deflected shape.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 141

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 141 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The base shear for each planar wall is amplified by a shear amplification factor of 4.0, following the recommendations of Sec-
tion 4.3.3.1. The shear associated with the earthquake loads is Vbase, as provided in the Given section.
Vamp = 4.0Vbase (4-6)
= 4.0 (879 kips )
= 3,520 kips 
Vamp
Vr.wall =
2
3,520 kips
=
2
= 1,760 kips

Step 3. Design of Coupling Beams

Step 3-1. Flexure-critical coupling beams
Composite coupling beams are proportioned to be flexure critical with design shear strength:
2.4M p.exp
Vn.exp ≥ (4-4)
L cb 

Because this equation requires knowing the capacity of the coupling beam, this check will be completed at the end of the section.
Step 3-2. Expected flexural strength (Mp.exp.CB)
The expected flexural strength of the composite coupling beams is calculated using the plastic stress distribution method with the
assumed stress blocks noted in Figure 4-26. This is used in Step 3-7 as part of the shear strength check.
The width of concrete in the coupling beam is:
tc.CB = bCB − 2tpw.CB
= 24 in. − 2 ( a in.)
= 23.3 in.

The plastic neutral axis location of the coupling beam from the top flange is:
2tpw.CB hCB Ry Fy + 0.85Rc fc′ tc.CB tpf .CB
CCB.exp =
4tpw.CB Ry Fy + 0.85Rc fc′ tc.CB
2 ( a in.) ( 24 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.3 in.) (2 in.)
=
4 ( a in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.3 in.)
= 4.50 in.

Fig. 4-26.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of coupling beam.

142 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 142 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The expected compression force in the flange is:
C1.exp = (bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB Ry Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 639 kips

The compression force in the web is:

C2.exp = 2tpw.CB CCB.exp Ry Fy
= 2 ( a in.) ( 4.50 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
=186 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.exp = 0.85Rc fc′tc.CB (CCB.exp − tpf .CB )
= 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.3 in.) ( 4.50 in. − 2 in.)
= 618 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1.exp = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) t pf .CB Ry Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 639 kips

The tension force in the web is:

T2.exp = 2tpw.CB ( hCB − CCB.exp ) Ry Fy
= 2 ( a in.) ( 24 in. − 4.50 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 804 kips

The expected plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam is:

⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ CCB.exp ⎞ ⎛ CCB.exp − tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ tpf .CB ⎞
Mp.exp.CB = C1.exp CCB.exp − + C2.exp + C3.exp + T1.exp hCB − CCB.exp −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ hCB − CCB.exp ⎞
+ T2.exp
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 4.50 in.⎞ ⎛ 4.50 in. − 2 in.⎞
= ( 639 kips ) 4.50 in. − + (186 kips ) + ( 618 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 4.50 in. ⎞
+ ( 639 kips ) 24 in. − 4.50 in. − + (804 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 24,500 kip-in.

Step 3-3. Minimum area of steel

The minimum area of steel required according to AISC Specification Section I2.2a is:
As.CB.min = 0.01bCB hCB
= 0.01( 24 in.) ( 24 in.)
= 5.76 in.2

As.CB = 41.3 in.2 > As.CB min = 5.76 in.2 o.k.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 143

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 143 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 3-4. Steel plate slenderness requirement for coupling beams
The clear width of the coupling beam flange plate is:
bc.CB = bCB − 2tpw.CB
= 24 in. − 2 ( a in.)
= 23.3 in.

The clear width of the coupling beam web plate is:

hc.CB = hCB − 2tpf .CB
= 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

The slenderness requirements for coupling beams are checked using AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.5b.
Slenderness check for coupling beam flange plates:
bc.CB 23.3 in.
=
tpf .CB 2 in.
= 46.6

Es 29,000 ksi
2.37 = 2.37
Ry Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 54.4
bc.CB Es
= 46.6 < 2.37 = 54.4 o.k.
tpf .CB Ry Fy

Slenderness check for coupling beam web plates:

hc.CB 23.0 in.
=
tpw.CB a in.
= 61.3

Es 29,000 ksi
2.66 = 2.66
Ry Fy 1.1(50 ksi)
= 61.1
hc.CB Es
= 61.3 > 2.66 = 61.1
t pw.CB Ry Fy

The coupling beam design would be adjusted so that the beam’s web plates are compact, i.e., they satisfy the limit given in Sec-
tion H8.5b. Increasing the coupling beam flange plate thickness, tpw.CB, to v in. would satisfy that requirement. The iterative
design process is not fully shown in this example.
Step 3-5. Flexural strength, Mp.CB
The flexural strength of the composite coupling beams is calculated using the plastic stress distribution method with the assumed
stress blocks noted in Figure 4-26.

144 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 144 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The plastic neutral axis location of the coupling beam from the top flange is:
2tpw.CB hCB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB tpf .CB
CCB =
4tpw.CB Fy + 0.85 fc′tc.CB
2 (a in.) ( 24 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.3 in.) (2 in.)
=
4 ( a in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.3 in.)
= 4.95 in.

Note: The plastic neutral axis location, CCB; compression forces, C1, C2, C3; and tension forces, T1, T2, for a rectangular coupling
beam are depicted in Appendix A, Figure A-13.
The compression force in the top flange is:
C1 = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 581 kips

The compression force in the web is:

C2 = 2tpw.CB CCB Fy
= 2 ( a in.) ( 4.95 in.) ( 50 ksi )
=186 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3 = 0.85 fc′tc.CB (CCB − tpf .CB )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.3 in.) ( 4.95 in. − 2 in.)
= 529 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1 = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( a in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 581 kips

The tension force in the web is:

T2 = 2tpw.CB ( hCB − CCB ) Fy
= 2 ( a in.) ( 24 in. − 4.95 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 714 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam is:

⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CCB − tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ t pf .CB ⎞ ⎛ h − CCB ⎞
M Pn.CB = C1 CCB − + C2 CB + C3 + T1 hCB − CCB − + T2 CB
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 4.95 in. ⎞ ⎛ 4.95 in. − 2 in.⎞
= ( 581 kips ) 4.95 in. − + (186 kips ) + ( 529 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 4.95 in.⎞
+ ( 581 kips ) 24 in. − 4.95 in. − + ( 714 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 22,100 kip-in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 145

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 145 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Using AISC Specification Section I3.4b with ϕb = 0.90, the design flexural strength is:
Mn.CB = MPn.CB (AISC Spec. Eq. I3-5a)
ϕb Mn.CB = 0.90 ( 22,100 kip-in.)
= 19,900 kip-in. > Mr.CB = 15,600 kip-in. o.k.

Step 3-6. Nominal shear strength

The area of steel in the webs was calculated in Step 2:
Asw.CB = 18.0 in.2

The nominal shear strength of the coupling beam is:

Vn.CB = 0.6Fy Asw.CB + 0.06Kc Ac.CB fc′  (from Eq. 2-19)

From Section 2.3.3, Kc = 1.0:

Vn.CB = 0.6 ( 50 ksi ) (18.0 in.2 ) + 0.06 (1.0 ) ( 535 in.2 ) 6 ksi
= 619 kips

Using ϕv = 0.90, the design shear strength of the coupling beam is:
ϕvVn.CB = 0.90 ( 619 kips )
= 557 kips > Vr.CB = 324 kips o.k.

Step 3-7. Flexure-critical coupling beams (revisited)

The expected shear strength for the coupling beam is:
Vn.exp = 0.6Ry Fy Asw.CB + 0.06Ac.CB Rc fc′ (from Eq. 2-19)

= 0.6 (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) (18.0 in.2 ) + 0.06 ( 535 in.2 ) 1.3 ( 6 ksi )
= 684 kips 
2.4Mp.exp.CB
Vu = (from Eq. 4-5)
Lcb
2.4 ( 24,500 kip-in.)
=
96 in.
= 613 kips 
2.4M p.exp.CB
Vn.exp = 684 kips > = 613 kips o.k.
L cb

Step 4. Design of Composite Walls

Step 4-1. Minimum and maximum area of steel
The minimum and maximum areas of steel are calculated according to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.4a.
The minimum area of steel required is:
As.min = 0.01L wall tsc
= 0.01(132 in.) ( 24 in.)
= 31.7 in.2

As = 174 in.2 > As.min = 31.7 in.2 o.k.

146 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 146 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The maximum area of steel allowed is:
As.max = 0.1L wall tsc
= 0.1(132 in.) ( 24 in.)
= 317 in.2

As = 174 in.2 < As.max = 317 in.2 o.k.

Step 4-2. Steel plate slenderness requirements for composite walls

The largest unsupported length between rows of steel anchors or tie bars for this example is selected under the assumption that all
support is through tie bars (no steel anchors). Plate slenderness and tie bar spacing requirements must be met with this choice. As
discussed in Section 3.2.4.1, tie bars and steel anchors can be spaced farther apart outside of flexural yielding zones. Calculating
the extent of the flexural yielding zone is discussed in Examples 3.1 and 3.2 but omitted here for simplicity.
Tie bar spacing is selected to meet the limits shown in the following checks. In this case, a uniform tie bar spacing of 12 in. was
acceptable for the entire structure.
Tie bar spacing in the flexural yielding zone is checked as follows:
Stie = 12 in.
Stie 12 in.
=
tp b in.
= 21.3

Es 29,000 ksi
1.05 = 1.05 (from Eq. 3-1)
Ry Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 24.1 
Stie Es
= 21.3 < 1.05 = 24.1 o.k.
tp Ry Fy

The tie bar spacing above the flexural yielding zone is:
Stie.top = 12 in.
Stie.top 12 in.
=
tp b in.
= 21.3

Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2 (from Eq. 3-2)
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9 
Stie.top E
= 21.3 < 1.2 s = 28.9 o.k.
tp Fy

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 147

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 147 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 4-3. Tie bar spacing requirements for composite walls
A tie bar diameter of 1 in. is selected for the SpeedCore wall. The bar requirement considering the stability of the empty steel
module is checked as follows:
dtie = 1 in.
4
⎛ tsc ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
α = 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2-5)
⎝ p
t ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 24.0 in. ⎞ ⎛ b in.⎞
= 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ b in. ⎠ ⎝ 1 in. ⎠
= 6.92 
Stie 12 in.
=
tp b in.
= 21.3

Es 29,000 ksi
1.0 = 1.0 (from Eq. 2-4)
2α + 1 2 ( 6.92 ) + 1
= 44.2 
Stie Es
= 21.3 < 1.0 = 44.2 o.k.
tp 2α + 1

Step 4-4. Required wall shear strength

The amplified shear force to be resisted by the wall as calculated in Step 1:
Vr.wall = 1,760 kips
Step 4-5. Required wall flexural strength
The required wall flexural strength is determined based on the capacity-limited forces in the coupling beam elements. Walls
are sized to resist the axial load associated with the formation of plastic hinges in every coupling beam and the flexural load
associated with the amplified overturning moment less the contribution from the axial force couple in the adjacent walls (see
Figure 4-27).
The expected plastic flexural strength of the coupling beams as calculated in Step 3-2 is:
Mp.exp.CB = 24,500 kip-in.

The coupling beam shear strength corresponding to the expected moment is:
2 (1.2Mp.exp.CB )
Vn.Mp,exp = (4-5)
L cb
2 (1.2 ) ( 24,500 kip-in.)
=
96 in.
= 613 kips 

The amplification factor discussed in Section 4.2.3.4, and considering Mr.CB = Mu.CB calculated in Step 2, is:
∑1.2Mp.exp.CB
n
γ1 = (4-1)
∑ Mu.CB
n

8 (1.2 ) ( 24,500 kip-in.)

=
8 (15,600 kip-in.)
= 1.88 

148 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 148 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The axial force applied to the walls is:
Pr = ∑ Vn.Mp,exp
n

= 8 ( 613 kips )
= 4,900 kips

The total factored moment in the walls, calculated using the overturning moment from the Given section and the effective length
of the wall as calculated in Step 2, is:
OTM = 890,000 kip-in.
M walls = γ 1OTM − Pr L eff
= 1.88 (890,000 kip-in.) − (4,900 kips ) (19.0 ft ) (12 in. / ft )
= 556,000 kip-in.

A cross-sectional analysis was performed using commercial structural analysis software. The results of this analysis are pre-
sented in Figure 4-28. The assumed material behavior for this analysis is shown in Figure 4-29.
EIT .walls = 7.70 × 109 kip-in.2

EIC.walls = 1.81 × 1010 kip-in.2

Fig. 4-27.  Forces acting within the coupling beams.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 149

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 149 2/1/23 3:59 PM

 The portion of the overturning moment resisted by the individual wall is:
⎛ EI T .wall ⎞
MUT .wall = M
⎝ EI T .wall + EIC.wall ⎠ walls
⎛ 7.70 × 109 kip-in.2 ⎞
=⎜ 9 2 10 2 ⎟ (556,000 kip-in.)
⎝ 7.70 × 10 kip-in. + 1.81 × 10 kip-in. ⎠
= 166,000 kip-in.

⎛ EIC.wall ⎞
MUC.wall = M walls
⎝ EI T .wall + EIC.wall ⎠
⎛ 1.81 × 1010 kip-in.2 ⎞
=⎜ 9 2 10 2 ⎟ (556,000 kip-in.)
⎝ 7.70 × 10 kip-in. + 1.81 × 10 kip-in. ⎠
= 390,000 kip-in.

Fig. 4-28.  Moment curvature plot from commercial structural analysis software.

Strain (in./in.)  

Fig. 4-29.  Stress-strain behavior of steel and concrete from commercial structural analysis software.

150 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 150 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 4-6. Composite wall resistance factor
The resistance factor for the composite wall in shear is given in AISC Specification Section I4.4:
ϕ v = 0.90

The resistance factor for the composite wall in flexure, from AISC Specification Section I3.5, is:
ϕb = 0.90

The resistance factor for the composite wall in compression from Section 2.2.3 of this Design Guide is:
ϕc = 0.90

The resistance factor for the composite wall in tension from Section 2.2.3 of this Design Guide is:
ϕt = 0.90

Step 4-7. Wall tensile strength

The nominal tensile strength is:
Pn.T = Fy As (2-13)
= ( 50 ksi ) (174 in.2 )
= 8,700 kips 

The design tensile strength is:

ϕt Pn.T = 0.90 (8,700 kips )
= 7,830 kips > Pr = 4,900 kips o.k.

Step 4-8. Wall compression strength

The nominal compressive strength of the SpeedCore wall without consideration of length effects is:
Pno = Fy As + 0.85 fc′ Ac (2-12)
= 8,700 kips + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 2,990 in.2 )
= 23,900 kips 

The moment of inertia of the steel in the wall about the minor axis is:
⎡ ( L wall − 2tp ) tp3 ⎛ tsc − tp ⎞ ⎤
2 3
⎛ tp tsc ⎞
I s.min = 2 ⎢ + ( L wall − 2tp ) tp ⎥ +2
⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ 12 ⎠
⎦
⎪⎧ ⎡⎣132 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) 2⎫
3
⎛ 24 in. − b in.⎞ ⎪ ⎡( b in.) ( 24 in.)3 ⎤
= 2⎨ + ⎣132 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎦ ( b in.)
⎡ ⎤ +2⎢ ⎥
⎪⎩ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎬⎪ ⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦
⎭
= 21,500 in.4

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 151

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 151 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 About the minor axis, the moment of inertia of the concrete in the wall is:
(L wall − 2tp)(tsc − 2tp)3
I c.min =
12
3
⎡⎣132 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦
=
12
4
= 131,000 in.

The effective flexural stiffness of the wall about the minor axis is:
EI eff . min = Es I s.min + 0.35Ec I c.min (from Eq. 2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 21,500 in. ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) (131,000 in. )
4 4

= 8.30 × 108 kip-in.2 

The critical unsupported height for buckling of the wall is:

L c = max ( h1,h typ )
= max (17 ft,14 ft )
= 17 ft

The elastic critical buckling load is:

π 2 EI eff . min
Pe = (from AISC Spec. Eq. I2-4)
L2c
π 2 (8.30 × 108 kip-in.2 )
= 2
⎡⎣(17 ft ) (12 in./ft )⎤⎦
= 197,000 kips 
Pno 23,900 kips
=
Pe 197,000 kips
= 0.121

Because Pno Pe < 2.25, AISC Specification Equation I2-2 applies, and the nominal compressive strength is:
⎛ Pno ⎞
Pn = Pno ⎝ 0.658 Pe ⎟⎠
⎜ (AISC Spec. Eq. I2-2)
⎛ 23,900 kips ⎞
⎜
= ( 23,900 kips ) ⎝ 0.658 197,000 kips ⎟
⎠
= 22,700 kips 

The design compression strength is:

ϕc Pn = 0.90 ( 22,700 kips )
= 20,400 kips > Pr = 4,900 kips o.k.

Step 4-9. Wall flexural strength

The flexural strength of the SpeedCore wall is calculated using the plastic stress distribution method with the assumed stress
blocks noted in Figure 4-30 and Figure 4-31 for tension and compression walls, respectively. The axial force is assumed to act
at the elastic centroid of the walls.

152 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 152 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 As calculated previously, the axial forces in the walls are:
Pr.wall = 4,900 kips
Tr.wall = 4,900 kips

Flexural Strength of Tension SpeedCore Wall

The location of the plastic neutral axis of the wall is:
−Tr.wall + 2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
CT =
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp )
− 4,900 kips + 2 ( b in.) (132 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.)
=
4 ( b in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦
= 11.3 in.

The compression force in the flange is:

C1.T = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 643 kips

The compression force in the webs is:

C2.T = 2tp CT Fy
= 2 ( b in.) (11.3 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 636 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.T = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) (CT − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ (11.3 in. − b in.)
= 1,250 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1.T = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 643 kips

Fig. 4-30.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 153

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 153 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The tension force in the web is:
T2.T = 2tp ( L wall − CT ) Fy
= 2 ( b in.) (132 in. − 11.3 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 6,790 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the composite wall in tension is:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CT − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ L − CT ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞
MPT .wall = C1.T CT − + C2.T T + C3.T + T1.T L wall − CT − + T2.T wall + Tr.wall CT − wall
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛ 11.3 in.⎞ ⎛11.3 in. − b in.⎞
= ( 643 kips ) 11.3 in. − + ( 636 kips) + (1,250 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛132 in. − 11.3 in.⎞
+ ( 643 kips ) 132 in. − 11.3 in. − + ( 6,790 kips)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 132 in.⎞
+ ( 4,900 kips ) 11.3 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 237,000 kip-in.
MnT.wall = MPT .wall = 237,000 kip-in.

Flexural Strength of Compression SpeedCore Wall

The plastic neutral axis location in the compression wall is:
Pr.wall + (2tp L wall Fy ) + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
CC =
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp )
4,900 kips+ 2 ( b in.) (132 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.)
=
4 ( b in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦
= 54.1 in.

The compression force in the flange is:

C1.C = ( tsc − 2t p ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 643 kips

Fig. 4-31.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of compression wall.

154 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 154 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The compression force in the webs is:
C2.C = 2tp CC Fy
= 2 ( b in.) ( 54.1 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,040 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.C = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) (CC − tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( 54.1 in. − b in.)
= 6,250 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1.C = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 643 kips

The tension force in the webs is:

T2.C = 2tp ( L wall − CC ) Fy
= 2 ( b in.) (132 in. − 54.1 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 4,380 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the SpeedCore wall in compression is:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CC − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛L − CC ⎞ ⎛L ⎞
MPC.wall = C1.C CC − + C2.C C + C3.C + T1.C Lwall − CC − + T2.C wall + Pr.wall wall − CC
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛ 54.1 in.⎞ ⎛ 54.1 in. − b in.⎞
= ( 643 kips) 54.1 in. − + ( 3,040 kips ) + ( 6,250 kips)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛ 132 in. − 54.1 in.⎞ ⎛ 132 in. ⎞
+ ( 643 kips ) 132 in. − 54.1 in. − + ( 4,380 kips ) + ( 4,900 kips ) − 54.1 in.
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 563,000 kip-in.
MnC.wall = MPC.wall = 563,000 kip-in.

The available flexural strength of the tension wall is:

ϕb MnT.wall = 0.90 ( 237,000 kip-in.)
= 213,000 kip-in. > MUT .wall = 166,000 kip-in. o.k.

The available flexural strength of the compression wall is:

ϕ b MnC.wall = 0.90 ( 563,000 kip-in. )
= 507,000 kip-in. > MUC.wall = 390,000 kip-in. o.k.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 155

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 155 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 4-10. Wall shear strength
The K factors for the shear calculations are as follows:
Ks = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) (149 in.2 )
= 1,670,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Ac )( Es Asw )
K sc = (2-16)
4Es Asw + Ec Ac
0.7 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 2,990 in.2 ) ( 29,000 ksi ) (149 in.2 )
=
4 ( 29,000 ksi ) (149 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 2,990 in.2 )
= 1,320,000 kips 

The nominal shear strength of the wall is:

Ks + K sc
Vn.wall = Fy Asw (2-14)
3Ks2 + Ksc2
1,670,000 kips + 1,320,000 kips
=
2 2
( 50 ksi )(149 in.2 )
3 (1,670,000 kips ) + (1,320,000 kips )
= 7,010 kips 

The design shear strength of the uncoupled SpeedCore wall is:

ϕ vVn.wall = 0.90 ( 7,010 kips )
= 6,310 kips > Vr.wall = 1,760 kips o.k.

EXAMPLE 4.2—Seismic Design of 22-Story Structure Using Coupled, C-Shaped SpeedCore Wall
This example details the design of a 22-story office building with typical design loads, floor geometry, and high seismic design
loads. The steps followed in this design mirror the design procedure laid out in Section 4.2. For simplicity, this design example
does not consider accidental eccentricity and assumes a seismic redundancy factor, ρ, of 1.0.

Given:
Design the coupled, C-shaped SpeedCore walls shown in Figure 4-32 using the given geometry, material properties, and loads.
The effects of gravity loads, which can slightly increase the axial compression in the composite walls, have been conservatively
ignored. However, design calculations, including the effects of axial compression from gravity loads, are included in the Mathcad
file that can be downloaded from the link given on the AISC Design Guide 38 webpage (www.aisc.org/dg).
Building geometry:
Lf = building length
= 200 ft
Wf = building width
= 120 ft
htyp = typical story height
= 14 ft
h1 = first story height
= 17 ft
n = number of stories
= 22

156 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 156 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Floor loads:
DL = floor dead load
= 0.10 ksf
Seismic design loads in the east-west direction are listed in Table 4-4.
Step 1. General Information of the Considered Building
The steel and concrete material properties are as follows:
ASTM A572/A572M, Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Gs = 11,200 ksi
Concrete:
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Rc = 1.3
Weld metal (E70XX):
FEXX = 70 ksi

Fig. 4-32.  Building floor plan for Example 4.2.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 157

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 157 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 4-4.  Seismic Design Loads Calculated from ASCE/SEI 7
Story Story Elevation Story Force
No. (ft) (kips)
1 17 1.52
2 31 4.45
3 45 8.66
4 59 14.1
5 73 20.6
6 87 28.1
7 101 36.7
8 115 46.3
9 129 56.9
10 143 68.4
11 157 80.8
12 171 94.1
13 185 108
14 199 123
15 213 139
16 227 156
17 241 174
18 255 192
19 269 211
20 283 232
21 297 252
22 311 274
Total base shear, Vbase 2320
Overturning moment, OTM 6,520,000 kip-in.

Seismic design coefficients:

Cd = deflection amplification factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 5.5
Ie = importance factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 11.5.1, for an office building)
=1
R = seismic response modification coefficient (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
=8
Risk Category = II (ASCE/SEI 7, Table 1.5-1)
Ω0 = overstrength factor (from ASCE/SEI 7, Table 12.2-1)
= 2.5
ρ = seismic redundancy factor (ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.3.4)
=1

158 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 158 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Solution:
From AISC Manual Table 2-4 and AISC Seismic Provisions Table A3.2, the material properties are as follows:
Fu = 65 ksi
Fy = 50 ksi
Ry = 1.1
SpeedCore wall and coupling beam components are sized based on initial estimates of loads and these sizes are refined through
iteration. Acceptable dimensions are presented here so that this example can focus on the appropriate limit states to check.
SpeedCore wall dimensions as shown in Figure 4-33:
Lwall = wall web length
= (30 ft) (12 in./ft)
= 360 in.
Wwall = wall flange length
= (16 ft) (12 in./ft)
= 192 in.
tp = wall plate thickness
= 2 in.
tsc.f = wall flange thickness
= 24 in.
tsc.w = wall web thickness
= 14 in.

Fig. 4-33.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 159

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 159 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 As shown in Figure 4-34, the coupling beam dimensions are:
Lcb = coupling beam length
= (8 ft) (12 in./ft)
= 96.0 in.
bCB = coupling beam width
= 24 in.
hCB = coupling beam depth
= 24 in.
tpf.CB = coupling beam flange plate thickness
= b in.
tpw.CB = coupling beam web plate thickness
= 2 in.
Step 2. Analysis for Design
In this step, an elastic computer model is built and analyzed to determine the force on system members and overall system
deflection.

C-Shaped SpeedCore Wall Properties

The effective axial, shear, and flexural stiffnesses are calculated for SpeedCore elements for elastic analysis.
The area of steel in the C-shaped wall is:
As = tp ⎡⎣4Wwall + 2L wall + 2tsc. f − (12tp )⎤⎦
= (2 in.) ⎡⎣4 (192 in.) + 2 ( 360 in.) + 2 ( 24 in.) − 12 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 765 in.2

The area of concrete in the wall is:

Ac = 2Wwall tsc. f + ( L wall − 2tsc. f ) tsc.w − As
= 2 (192 in.) ( 24 in.) + [ 360 in. − 2 ( 24 in.)](14 in.) − 765 in.2
= 12,800 in.2

The effective axial stiffness of the wall is:

EAeff = Es As + 0.45Ec Ac (2-10)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 765 in.2 ) + 0.45 ( 4,500 ksi ) (12,800 in.2 )
= 4.81 × 10 7 kips 

Fig. 4-34.  Coupling beam cross-section dimensions.

160 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 160 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The area of steel in the direction of shear is:
Asw = 4Wwall tp
= 4 (192 in.) (2 in.)
= 384 in.2

The area of concrete in the direction of shear is:

Acw = 2 (Wwall − 3t p ) ( tsc. f − 2tp )
= 2 [192 in. − 3 (2 in.)][ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)]
= 8,760 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of the wall is:

GAv.eff = Gs Asw + Gc Ac (2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 384 in. ) + (1,800 ksi ) (8,760 in. )
2 2

= 2.01 × 10 7 kips 

The center of area in the y-direction of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall is:
∑ Ay
y=
E
As + c Ac
Es
Wwall ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
∑ Ay = 4Wwall tp + ( L wall − 4tp ) tp tsc.w − + ( L wall − 4t p ) tp + 2 ( tsc. f − 2t p ) tp Wwall −
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
E ⎡ ⎛ Wwall − tsc.w − tp ⎞ ⎛t ⎞⎤
+ c ⎢2 (Wwall − tsc.w − tp) ( tsc. f − 2tp ) + tsc.w + ( L wall − 4t p ) ( tsc.w − 2tp ) sc.w ⎥
Es ⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
⎛ 192 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= 4 (192 in.) (2 in.) + [ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)](2 in.) 14 in. − + [ 360 in. − 4 (2 in.)](2 in.)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞
+ 2 [ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)](2 in.) 192 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎧ ⎛ 192 in. − 14 in. − 2 in. ⎞⎫
⎪2 (192 in. − 14 in. − 2 in.)[ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)]
⎪
+ 14 in. ⎪
4,500 ksi ⎝ 2 ⎠⎪
+⎛ ⎞
⎨ ⎬
⎝ 29,000 ksi ⎠ ⎪ ⎛ 14 in.⎞
⎪⎩+ [360 in. − 4 (2 in.)][14 in. − 2 (2 in.)] ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎪
⎪⎭
= 179,000 in.3

179,000 in.3
y=
⎛ 4,500 ksi ⎞
765 in.2 + (12,800 in.2 )
⎝ 29,000 ksi ⎠
= 65.1 in.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 161

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 161 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The effective distance between the centroids of the two coupled walls is:
L eff = L cb + 2 (Wwall − y )
= 96.0 in. + 2 (192 in. − 65.1 in.)
= 350 in.

The moment of inertia of steel in the wall is:

⎡ tpWwall
3
⎛W ⎞ ⎤
2 ⎡( tsc. f − 2tp ) tp3 ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎤
2
Is = 4 ⎢ + (Wwall tp ) wall − y ⎥ + 2 ⎢ + ( tsc. f − 2tp ) tp Wwall − y ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎦
⎡ (L wall − 4tp ) t p3 ⎤ ⎛ tp ⎞ 2 ⎡ ( L wall − 4tp) tp
3
⎤ ⎡ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎤
2
+⎢ ⎥ + (L wall − 4tp ) tp y − +⎢ ⎥ + (L wall − 4tp) tp ⎢y − tsc.w − ⎥
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
⎧⎪(2 in.) (192 in. )3 2⎫
⎛ 192 in. ⎞ ⎪
=4⎨ + ⎡⎣(192 in.) (2 in.)⎤⎦ − 65.1 in. ⎬
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎩⎪ ⎭
⎧⎪ ⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ (2 in.)3 2⎫
⎣ ⎦ ⎛ 2 in. ⎞ ⎪
+ 2⎨ + ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) 192 in. − − 65.1 in. ⎬
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎭
3
⎡360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ⎛ 2 in.⎞ 2
+ ⎣ + ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) 65.1 in. −
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
3
⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ⎡ ⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎤
2
+ + ⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎦ (2 in.) ⎢65.1 in. − 14.0 in. −
⎡ ⎤
12 ⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
= 3,140,000 in.4

The moment of inertia of concrete in the wall is:

⎡ ( tsc. f − 2tp ) (Wwall − tsc.w − tp )3 ⎤ ⎛W −t −t ⎞
2
Ic = 2 ⎢ ⎥ + 2 ( tsc. f − 2tp) (Wwall − tsc.w − t p ) wall sc.w p + tsc.w − y
⎢⎣ 12 ⎥⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
3
( L wall − 4tp ) ( tsc.w − 2tp ) ⎛ t ⎞ 2
+ + ( tsc.w − 2tp ) ( L wall − 4tp ) y − sc.w
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
3
⎧⎪ ⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ (192 in. − 14 in. − 2 in.) ⎪⎫
⎣ ⎦
= 2⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 ⎪⎭
2
⎛192 in. − 14 in. − 2 in. ⎞
+ 2 ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (192 in. − 14 in. − 2 in.) + 14 in. − 65.1 in.
⎝ 2 ⎠
3
⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣14 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎛ 14 in.⎞ 2
+ + ⎡⎣14 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ 65.1 in. −
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 4.88 × 10 7 in.4

The effective flexural stiffness of the wall is:

EIeff = Es Is + 0.35Ec I c (2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 3.14 × 106 in.4 ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 4.88 × 10 7 in.4 )
= 1.68 1011 kip-in.2 

162 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 162 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Coupling Beam Geometric Properties
The effective axial, shear, and flexural stiffnesses are calculated for the coupling beam.
The area of steel in the coupling beam is:
As.CB = 2t pw.CB hCB + 2 ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB
= 2 (2 in.) ( 24 in.) + 2 ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.)
= 49.9 in.2

The area of concrete in the coupling beam is:

Ac.CB = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) (hCB − 2tpf .CB )
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦
= 526 in.2

The axial stiffness of the uncracked section is:

EAuncr.CB = Es As.CB + Ec Ac.CB
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 49.9 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 526 in.2 )
= 3,810,000 kips

The moment of inertia of steel in the coupling beam is:

⎡ tpw.CB hCB3 ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) t pf .CB3 ⎛h tpf .CB ⎞ 2 ⎤⎥
Is.CB = 2 ⎢ + + ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) t pf .CB CB −
⎢ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎣
⎧⎪ (2 in.) ( 24 in.)3 ⎡24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤ ( b in.)3 24 in. b in.⎞ 2 ⎫⎪
⎣ ⎦
= 2⎨ + + ⎡⎣ 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ⎛ − ⎬
⎪⎩ 12 12 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎪
⎭
= 4,710 in.4

The moment of inertia of concrete in the coupling beam is:

3
( bCB − 2t pw.CB )( bCB − 2t pf .CB )
Ic.CB =
12
⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ 3
=
12
4
= 22,900 in.

From AISC Specification Section I2.2b, Equation I2-13, the effective rigidity coefficient is:
⎛ As.CB ⎞
C3.CB = 0.45 + 3 ⎜ ≤ 0.9 (from Eq. 2-18)
⎝ bCB hCB ⎟⎠
⎡ 49.9 in.2 ⎤
= 0.45 + 3 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ( 24 in.) ( 24 in.) ⎦
= 0.710 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 163

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 163 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The effective flexural stiffness of the coupling beam is:
EI eff.CB = Es Is.CB + C3 Ec I c.CB (from Eq. 2-17)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 4,710 in. ) + 0.710 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 22,900 in. )
4 4

= 2.10 × 108 kip-in.2 

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:

Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in.) (2 in.)
= 24.0 in.2

The effective shear stiffness of the coupling beam is:

GAv.CB = Gs Asw.CB + Gc Ac.CB (from Eq. 2-11)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 24 in. ) + (1,800 ksi ) (526 in. )
2 2

= 1,220,000 kips 

From Section 2.3.2:

0.64EI eff .CB = 0.64 ( 2.10 × 108 kip-in.2 )

= 1.34 × 108 kip-in.2

0.8EAuncr.CB = 0.8 ( 3.81 × 106 kips )

= 3.05 × 106 kips

Numerical Model
To determine the ID ratio and shear demand on coupling beams, an analysis model was built using commercial software. First-
order, linear elastic analysis was performed on a model consisting of frame elements for only the SpeedCore walls and composite
coupling beams. This model was subjected to the earthquake loading previously defined. It employed rigid offsets at the end of
the coupling beams to account for wall length. All mass was applied at the story level and distributed to the two joints. A picto-
rial representation of the model is shown in Figure 4-35. To model the structure as a 2D frame, the area and moment of inertia
properties assigned to the coupling beams are doubled to simulate the two coupling beams as depicted in Figure 4-36.
The frame elements were assigned section properties calculated previously.
From this analysis model, the required coupling beam shear strengths and story displacements are determined and shown in
Tables 4-5 and 4-6. This model also confirms the base shear and overturning moment values presented in the Given section.
Lateral displacement values are amplified by the Cd factor to obtain the amplified displacement. These amplified values are then
used to calculate the ID, which is the difference in displacement between two floors divided by the story height. The maximum
design ID is limited according to ASCE/SEI 7, Section 12.12.1. In this case, the maximum design ID limit is 2% for Risk Cat-
egory II. The story displacement, amplified displacement, and ID are presented in Table 4-6. This distribution corresponds to the
deflected shape shown in Figure 4-37.
The maximum ID ratio = 1.95%, which is less than 2%.

Required Shear and Flexural Strength

The required coupling beam shear strength, determined from analysis, considers two coupling beams. Demand on individual
coupling beams is found by dividing the shear by 2.

164 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 164 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Earthquake
loads Rigid link

Elastic coupling
beam element

Lumped mass

Elastic wall
element

Fixed base

Leff

Fig. 4-35.  Pictorial representation of analysis model.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 165

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 165 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 4-5.  Coupling Beam Required Shear Strengths
Required Coupling Beam
Story Story Elevation Shear Strength
No. (ft) (kips)
1 17 438
2 31 648
3 45 777
4 59 855
5 73 899
6 87 920
7 101 925
8 115 918
9 129 902
10 143 878
11 157 847
12 171 810
13 185 766
14 199 716
15 213 661
16 227 599
17 241 533
18 255 464
19 269 394
20 283 327
21 297 269
22 311 232
Average 672

Fig. 4-36.  Analysis model equivalencies.

166 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 166 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 4-6.  Lateral Displacement and ID Summary
Amplified
Story Story Height Displacement Displacement ID
No. (ft) (in.) (in.) (%)
22 14 10.6 58.3 1.82
21 14 10.1 55.3 1.84
20 14 9.48 52.2 1.87
19 14 8.91 49.0 1.90
18 14 8.33 45.8 1.93
17 14 7.74 42.6 1.94
16 14 7.15 39.3 1.95
15 14 6.55 36.0 1.95
14 14 5.96 32.8 1.94
13 14 5.37 29.5 1.91
12 14 4.78 26.3 1.87
11 14 4.21 23.2 1.82
10 14 3.65 20.1 1.76
9 14 3.12 17.1 1.69
8 14 2.60 14.3 1.59
7 14 2.11 11.6 1.49
6 14 1.66 9.13 1.36
5 14 1.24 6.84 1.22
4 14 0.87 4.79 1.05
3 14 0.55 3.02 0.85
2 14 0.29 1.59 0.61
1 14 0.10 0.56 0.34
Base 17 0.00 0.00 0.00

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 167

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 167 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The required coupling beam shear strength is calculated as the average of the coupling beam shear demand at each story from
analysis. Shear demand differs along the height of the structure due to the applied seismic force distribution using the ASCE/
SEI 7 equivalent lateral force procedure, and due to the nature of linear elastic modeling. Alternatively, the designer can choose
to use the maximum shear demand. Because a portion of the overturning moment will be resisted by the coupling action and
the remainder by the individual walls, the result of this choice is the relative proportioning of wall and coupling beam elements.
Because the system is designed to ensure that plasticity spreads along the height of the structure, either method is acceptable.
672 kips
Vr.CB =
2
= 336 kips

The coupling beam required flexural strength is:

Vr.CB L cb
Mr.CB =
2
( 336 kips )( 96 in.)
=
2
= 16,100 kip-in.

The base shear is amplified by a shear amplification factor of 4.0, following the recommendations of Section 4.3.3.1.
Vamp = 4.0Vbase (4-6)
= 4.0 ( 2,320 kips )
= 9,280 kips
Vamp
Vr.wall =
2
9,280 kips
=
2
= 4,640 kips

Fig. 4-37. Deflected shape.

168 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 168 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Because the required flexural strength of the SpeedCore wall is determined using a capacity-based seismic load effect, these
calculations are presented later.
Step 3. Design of Coupling Beams
Step 3-1. Flexure-critical coupling beams
Composite coupling beams are proportioned to be flexure-critical with design shear strength calculated from:
2.4M p.exp.CB
Vn.exp ≥ (from Eq. 4-4)
L cb 

Because this equation is based on the strength of the coupling beam, this check will be completed at the end of the section.
Step 3-2. Expected flexural strength
Figure 4-38 illustrates the plastic neutral axis location and the compression and tension regions in the coupling beam.
The width of concrete in the coupling beam is:
tc.CB = bCB 2tp.w.CB
= 24 in. 2(2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

The expected plastic neutral axis location of the coupling beam is:
2t pw.CB hCB Ry Fy + 0.85Rc fc′ tc.CB tpf .CB
CCB.exp =
4tpw.CB Ry Fy + 0.85Rc fc′ tc.CB
2 (2 in.) ( 24 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.) ( b in.)
=
4 (2 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.)
= 5.36 in.

The compression force in the flange is:

C1.exp = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) t pf .CB Ry Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 712 kips

Fig. 4-38.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of coupling beam.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 169

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 169 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The compression force in each web is:
C2.exp = 2tpw.CB CCB.exp Ry Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 5.36 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 295 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.exp = 0.85Rc fc′tc.CB (CCB.exp − tpf .CB )
= 0.85 (1.3) ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.) ( 5.36 in. − b in.)
= 732 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1.exp = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB Ry Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 712 kips

The tension force in the web is:

T2.exp = 2tpw.CB (hCB − CCB.exp ) Ry Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 24.0 in. − 5.36 in.) (1.1) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,030 kips

The expected plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam is:

⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛ CCB.exp ⎞ ⎛ CCB.exp − tpf .CB ⎞
M p.exp.CB = C1.exp CCB.exp − + C2.exp + C3.exp
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ t pf .CB ⎞ ⎛ CB
h − C CB.exp ⎞
+ T1.exp hCB − CCB.exp − + T2.exp
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛ 5.36 in.⎞ ⎛ 5.36 in. − b in.⎞
= ( 712 kips ) 5.36 in. − + ( 295 kips ) + ( 732 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in. ⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 5.36 in.⎞
+ ( 712 kips ) 24 in. − 5.36 in. − + (1,030 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 28,800 kip-in.

Step 3-3. Minimum area of steel

The minimum area of steel required according to AISC Specification Section I2.2a is:
As.CB.min = 0.01bCB hCB
= 0.01( 24 in.) ( 24 in.)
= 5.76 in.2

As.CB = 49.9 in.2 > As.CB.min = 5.76 in.2 o.k.

170 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 170 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 3-4. Steel plate slenderness requirement for coupling beams
The clear width of the coupling beam flange plate is:
bc.CB = bCB − 2tpw.CB
= 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

The clear width of the coupling beam web plate is:

hc.CB = hCB − 2tpf .CB
= 24 in. − 2 ( b in.)
= 22.9 in.

Slenderness check for coupling beam flange plates

According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.5b, the maximum slenderness ratio for the coupling beam flanges is:
Es 29,000 ksi
2.37 = 2.37
Ry Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 54.4

The width-to-thickness ratio of the coupling beam flange is:

bc.CB 23.0 in.
=
tpf .CB b in.
= 40.9
bc.CB Es
= 40.9< 2.37 = 54.4 o.k.
tpf .CB Ry Fy

Slenderness Check for Coupling Beam Web Plates

According to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.5b, the maximum slenderness ratio for coupling beam webs is:
Es 29,000 ksi
2.66 = 2.66
Ry Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 61.1

The width-to-thickness ratio of the coupling beam web is:

hc.CB 22.9 in.
=
tpw.CB 2 in.
= 45.8
hc.CB Es
= 45.8< 2.66 = 61.1 o.k.
tpw.CB Ry Fy

The slenderness ratio requirements for the steel plates are met, and therefore the coupling beam section is considered compact.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 171

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 171 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 3-5. Flexural strength
The plastic neutral axis location in the coupling beam is:
2tpw.CB hCB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB tpf .CB
CCB =
4tpw.CB Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.CB
2 (2 in.) ( 24 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.) ( b in.)
=
4 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.)
= 5.83 in.

Note: The plastic neutral axis location, CCB; compression forces, C1, C2, C3; and tension forces, T1, T2, for a rectangular coupling
beam are depicted in Appendix A, Figure A-13.
The compression force in the flange is:
C1 = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 647 kips

The compression force in the webs is:

C2 = 2tpw.CB CCB Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 5.83 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 292 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3 = 0.85 fc′tc.CB (CCB − tpf .CB )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 23.0 in.) ( 5.83 in. − b in.)
= 618 kips

The tension force in the flange is:

T1 = ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( b in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 647 kips

The tension force in the webs is:

T2 = 2t pw.CB (hCB − CCB ) Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 24 in. − 5.83 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 909 kips

172 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 172 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam is:
⎛ t pf .CB ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CCB − t pf .CB ⎞ ⎛ t pf .CB ⎞ ⎛ h − CCB ⎞
Mpn.CB = C1 C CB − + C2 CB + C3 + T h − CCB − + T2 CB
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1 ⎝ CB 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛ 5.83 in.⎞ ⎛ 5.83 in. − b in.⎞
= ( 647 kips ) 5.83 in. − + ( 292 kips ) + ( 618 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ b in.⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 5.83 in. ⎞
+ ( 647 kips) 24 in. − 5.83 in. − + ( 909 kips)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 25,900 kip-in.

The design flexural strength according to AISC Specification Section I3.4b is:

ϕb = 0.90
Mn.CB = M Pn.CB

ϕb Mn.CB = 0.90 ( 25,900 kip-in.)

= 23,300 kip-in. > Mr.CB = 16,100 kip-in. o.k.

Step 3-6. Nominal shear strength

The area of the steel web in the direction of shear for the coupling beam is:
Asw.CB = 2hCB tpw.CB
= 2 ( 24 in.) (2 in.)
= 24.0 in.2

According to Equation 2-19 and AISC Specification Section I4.2, the nominal shear strength of the coupling beam is:
Vn.CB = 0.6Fy Asw.CB + 0.06Kc Ac.CB fc′ (from Eq. 2-19)
= 0.6 ( 50 ksi ) ( 24.0 in. ) + 0.06 (1) ( 526 in. ) 6 ksi
2 2

= 797 kips 

The design shear strength is:

ϕv = 0.90

ϕ vVn.CB = 0.90 ( 797 kips )

= 717 kips > Vr.CB = 336 kips o.k.

Step 3-7. Flexure-critical coupling beams (revisited)

The expected shear strength is calculated using Equation 2-19, using the expected material strengths:
Vn.exp.CB = 0.6Ry Fy Asw.CB + 0.06Ac.CB Rc fc′ (from Eq. 2-19)

= 0.6 (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) ( 24.0 in.2 ) + 0.06 ( 526 in.2 ) 1.3 ( 6 ksi )
= 880 kips 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 173

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 173 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The required shear strength of the coupling beam is determined according to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.5c:
2.4Mp.exp.CB 2.4 ( 28,800 kip-in.)
= (from Eq. 4-5)
L cb 96 in.
= 720 kips 
Vn.exp.CB = 880 kips > 720 kips o.k.

Step 4. Design of Composite Walls

Step 4-1. Minimum and maximum area of steel
The gross area of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall is:
Ag = L wall tsc.w + 2 (Wwall − tsc.w ) tsc. f
= ( 360 in.) (14 in.) + 2 (192 in. − 14 in.) ( 24 in. )
= 13,600 in.2

The minimum area of steel required according to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.4a is:
As.min = 0.01Ag
= 0.01(13,600 in.2 )
= 136 in.2

As = 765 in.2 > As.min = 136 in.2 o.k.

The maximum area of steel required according to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.4a is:
As.max = 0.1Ag
= 0.1(13,600 in.2 )
= 1,360 in.2

As = 765 in.2 < As.max = 1,360 in.2 o.k.

Step 4-2. Steel plate slenderness requirements for composite walls

The largest unsupported length between rows of steel anchors or tie bars for this example is selected under the assumption that
all support is through tie bars (no steel anchors). Therefore, the anchor and tie bar spacing are different. As discussed in Sec-
tion 3.2.4.1, tie bars and steel anchors can be spaced farther apart outside of flexural yielding zones. Calculating the extent of the
flexural yielding zone is discussed in Example 3.1 and 3.2 and omitted here for simplicity.
A tie bar spacing of 12 in. is selected for all stories.
Stie = 12 in.
Stie.top = 12 in.

From Section 3.2.4.1, the steel plate slenderness ratio, b/ tp, is limited to:
b Es
≤ 1.05 (3-1)
tp Ry Fy 

174 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 174 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 where b is the largest unsupported length of the plate between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, which in this case is Stie.
b 12 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0

Es 29,000 ksi
1.05 = 1.05
Ry Fy 1.1( 50 ksi )
= 24.1
b Es
= 24.0 < 1.05 = 24.1 o.k.
tp Ry Fy

From Section 2.2.1.1, the steel plate slenderness ratio, b/ tp, in the remainder of the stories is limited to:
b E
≤ 1.2 s (3-2)
tp Fy 

where b is the largest unsupported length of the plate between rows of steel anchors or tie bars, which in this case is Stie.top.
b Stie.top
=
tp tp
12in.
=
2 in.
= 24.0

Es 29,000 ksi
1.2 = 1.2
Fy 50 ksi
= 28.9
b E
= 24.0 < 1.2 s = 28.9 o.k.
tp Fy

The slenderness ratio requirements for the steel plates are met.
Step 4-3. Tie bar spacing requirements for composite walls
A tie bar diameter of 1 in. is selected for the SpeedCore wall, and the bar requirement considering the stability of the empty steel
module is checked as follows, according to AISC Seismic Provisions Section H8.4c:
Stie = 12 in.
dtie = 1 in.
4
⎛ tsc ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
α = 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (2-5)
⎝ tp ⎠ ⎝ dtie ⎠
4
⎛ 24 in. ⎞ ⎛2 in.⎞
= 1.7 ⎜ − 2⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 in. ⎠ ⎝ 1 in. ⎠
= 4.89 
Stie 12 in.
=
tp 2 in.
= 24.0

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 175

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 175 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The slenderness limit is given in AISC Seismic Provisions Equation H8-2:
Es 29,000 ksi
1.00 = 1.00 (from Eq. 2-4)
2α + 1 2 ( 4.89 ) + 1
= 51.9 
Stie Es
= 24.0 < 1.00 = 51.9 o.k.
tp 2α + 1

Step 4-4. Required wall shear strength

The amplified shear force to be resisted by the wall, as calculated in Step 2, is:
Vr.wall = 4,640 kips

Step 4-5. Required wall flexural strength

The required wall flexural strength is determined based on the capacity-limited forces in the coupling beam elements. Walls are
sized to resist the axial load associated with the formation of plastic hinges in every coupling beam and the flexural load associ-
ated with the amplified overturning moment, less the contribution from the axial force couple in the adjacent walls.
The expected plastic flexural strength of the coupling beams, as calculated in Step 3-2, is:
Mp.exp.CB = 28,800 kip-in.

The coupling beam shear corresponding to the expected flexural strength is calculated from Equation 4-5:
2 (1.2Mp.exp.CB )
Vn.Mp.exp = (from Eq. 4-5)
L cb
2 (1.2 ) ( 28,800 kip-in.)
=
96 in.
= 720 kips 

The overstrength factor, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.4 of this Design Guide, is calculated as follows using Equation 4-1, with
Mr.CB calculated in Step 2:
∑1.2Mp.exp.CB
n (4-1)
γ1 =
∑ Mr.CB
n
22 (1.2 ) ( 28,800 kip-in.)
=
22 (16,100 kip-in.)
= 2.15 

The walls are subjected to the following axial force:

Pr.wall = 2∑ Vn.Mp.exp
n
= 2 ( 22 ) ( 720 kips )
= 31,700 kips

176 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 176 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The overturning moment in the walls is:
OTM = 6,520,000 kip-in.
M wall = γ 1OTM − Pr.wall L eff
= 2.15 (6,520,000 kip-in.) − (31,700 kips) ( 350 in.)
= 2,920,000 kip-in.

Cross-section analysis was performed using commercial structural analysis software. The results of this analysis are presented in
Figure 4-39. The secant stiffness method used herein often yields effective stiffness values for the tension and compression walls
close to EsIs and EsIs + 0.7EcIc, respectively. The agreement between these values depends on the axial load level. The assumed
material behavior for this analysis is shown in Figure 4-40.
EI T .walls = 8.67 × 1010 kip-in.2

EIC.walls = 2.06 × 1011 kip-in.2

EIeff_Tension = 8.67E+10 kip-in.2

EIeff_Compression = 2.06E+11 kip-in.2

  

Fig. 4-39.  Moment curvature plot from computer model.

Strain (in./in.)
  

Fig. 4-40.  Stress strain behavior of steel and concrete from computer model.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 177

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 177 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The portion of the OTM resisted by the individual walls is:
⎛ EI T .wall ⎞
MUT .wall = ⎜ ⎟ Mwall
⎝ EI T .wall + EIC.wall ⎠
⎛ 8.67 × 1010 kip-in.2 ⎞
=⎜ 10 2 11 2 ⎟ ( 2,920,000 kip-in.)
⎝ 8.67 × 10 kip-in. + 2.06 × 10 kip-in. ⎠
= 865,000 kip-in.
⎛ EIC.wall ⎞
MUC.wall = ⎜ ⎟ M wall
⎝ T .wall
EI + EI C.wall ⎠

⎛ 2.06 × 1011 kip-in.2 ⎞

=⎜ 10 2 11 2 ⎟ ( 2,920,000 kip-in.)
⎝ 8.67 × 10 kip-in. + 2.06 × 10 kip-in. ⎠
= 2,060,000 kip-in.

Step 4-6. Composite wall resistance factor

The resistance factor for the composite wall in shear is given in AISC Specification Section I4.4:
ϕv = 0.90

The resistance factor for the composite wall in flexure is given in AISC Specification Section I3.5:
ϕb = 0.90

The resistance factor for a composite wall in compression is from Section 2.2.3 of this Design Guide:
ϕc = 0.90

From Section 2.2.3, the resistance factor for a composite wall in tension is:
ϕt = 0.90

Step 4-7. Wall tensile strength

Equation 2-13 is used to calculate the nominal tensile strength:
Pn.T = Fy As (from Eq. 2-13)
= ( 50 ksi ) ( 765 in. )
2

= 38,300 kips 

The design tensile strength is:

ϕt Pn.T = 0.90 ( 38,300 kips )
= 34,500 kips > Tr.wall = 31,700 kips o.k.

Step 4-8. Wall compression strength

The compression strength of the SpeedCore wall is given by Equation 2-12:
Pno = Fy As + 0.85 fc′ Ac (2-12)
= ( 50 ksi ) ( 765 in.2 ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (12,800 in.2 )
= 104,000 kips 

The moment of inertia of steel about the minor axis as calculated in Step 2 is:
Is.min = 3,140,000 in.4

178 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 178 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The moment of inertia of concrete about the minor axis as calculated in Step 2 is:
Ic.min = 4.88 × 10 7 in.4

The effective stiffness of the wall about the minor axis:

EI eff.min = Es Is.min + 0.35Ec I c.min (from Eq. 2-9)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 3.14 × 10 in. ) + 0.35 ( 4,500 ksi ) ( 4.88 × 10 in. )
6 4 7 4

= 1.68 1011 kip-in.2 

The critical unsupported length for buckling of the wall:

L c = max ( h1 ,h typ )
= max (17 ft,14 ft )
= 17 ft

The elastic critical buckling load from AISC Specification Equation I2-5 is:
π 2 EI eff .min
Pe =
L2c
π 2 (1.68 × 1011 kip-in.2 )
= 2
⎡⎣(17 ft ) (12 in./ft )⎤⎦
= 3.98 × 10 7 kips
Pno 104,000 kips
=
Pe 3.98 × 10 7 kips
= 2.61 × 10 −3 < 2.25

The Euler buckling load is calculated from AISC Specification Equation I2-2:

Pno
Pn.C = Pno 0.658 Pe
(from AISC Spec. Eq. I2-2)
⎛ 104,000 kips ⎞
⎜
= (104,000 kips ) ⎝ 0.658 3.98 10 7 kips ⎟
⎠
= 104,000 kips 

The design compression strength is:

ϕc Pn.C = 0.90 (104,000 kips)
= 93,600 kips > Pr.wall = 31,700 kips o.k.

Step 4-9. Wall flexural strength

The flexural strength of the SpeedCore wall is calculated using the plastic stress distribution method with the assumed stress
blocks noted in Figures 4-41 and 4-42 for tension and compression walls, respectively. The axial force is assumed to act at the
elastic centroid of the walls.
The axial forces in the walls are:
Pr.wall = 31,700 kips
Tr.wall = 31,700 kips

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 179

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 179 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Flexural Strength of Tension Wall
The width of concrete in the flange is:
tc. f = tsc. f − 2tp
= 24 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 23.0 in.

Fig. 4-41.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of tension wall.

Fig. 4-42.  Cross section with labeled regions for plastic moment calculation of compression wall.

180 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 180 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The width of concrete in the web is:
tc.w = tsc.w − 2tp
= 14 in. − 2 (2 in.)
= 13.0 in.

The location of the plastic neutral axis of the tension wall is calculated assuming that the plastic neutral axis is in the concrete
flange:
Tr.wall + 4tp Wwall Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy + 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (Wwall − tp ) − 2tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
CT =
8tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f
31,700 kips + 4 (2 in.) (192 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 2 (2 in.) ( 23.0 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 2 ) ( 23.0 in.) (192 in. − 2 in.)
− 2 (2 in.) ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 50 ksi )
=
8 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 2 ) ( 23.0 in.)
= 182 in.

The plastic neutral axis location, CT = 182 in., was correctly assumed to be in the concrete flange.
The compression force in the flange edge plates is:
C1.T = 4 (Wwall − CT ) tp Fy
= 4 (192 in. − 182 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,000 kips

The compression force in the flange end plates is:

C2.T = 2tc. f tp Fy
= 2 ( 23.0 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,150 kips

The compression force in the concrete is:

C3.T = 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (Wwall − CT − t p )
= 0.85 (6 ksi ) ( 2 ) ( 23.0 in.) (192 in. − 182 in. − 2 in.)
= 2,230 kips

The tensile force in the steel in the wall perpendicular to the web is:
T1.T = 4CT tp Fy
= 4 (182 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 18,200 kips

The tensile force in the inside steel plate in the web is:
T2.T = (L wall − 4tp) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 181

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 181 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The tensile force in the web is:
T3.T = ( L wall − 4tp ) tp Fy
= ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

The plastic moment of the composite wall in tension is:

⎛ Wwall − CT ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ Wwall − CT − tp ⎞
MPT .wall = C1.T + C2.T Wwall − CT − + C3.T
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ⎞
C ⎛ t p⎞ ⎛ t p⎞
+ T1.T T + T2.T CT − tsc.w + + T3.T CT − + P ( y − CT )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
⎛ 192 in. − 182 in. ⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= (1,000 kips ) + (1,150 kips ) 192 in. − 182 in. −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 192 in. − 182 in. − 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 182 in.⎞
+ ( 2,230 kips ) + (18,200 kips )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
+ (8,950 kips ) 182 in. − 14 in. + + (8,950 kips) 182 in. − + ( 31,700 kips ) ( 65.1 in. − 182 in.)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 1,110,000 kip-in.
Mn.T.wall = MPT .wall = 1,110,000 kip-in.

Flexural strength of compression wall

The location of the plastic neutral axis of the compression wall is calculated with the assumption that the plastic neutral axis is
in the concrete flange:
Pr.wall − 2tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy − tc.w ( L wall − 4tp ) 0.85 fc′ + 2tc. f tsc.w 0.85 fc′ + 4tp Wwall Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy
CC =
8tp Fy + 2tc. f 0.85 fc′
31,700 kips − 2 (2 in.) ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 50 ksi ) − (13.0 in.) ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 0.85) ( 6 ksi )
+ 2 ( 23.0 in.) (14 in.) ( 0.85) ( 6 ksi ) + 4 (2 in.) (192 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 2 (2 in.) ( 23.0 in.) ( 50 ksi )
=
8 (2 in.) ( 50 ksi ) + 2 ( 23.0 in.) 0.85 ( 6 ksi )
= 31.5in.

The compression force in the steel plates perpendicular to the web is:
C1.C = 4CC tp Fy
= 4 ( 31.5 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 3,150 kips

The compression force in the outside steel plate of the web is:
C2.C = tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
= (2 in.) ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

182 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 182 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The compression force in the inside steel plate of the web is:
C3.C = tp ( L wall − 4tp) Fy
= (2 in.) ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ( 50 ksi )
= 8,950 kips

The compression force in the concrete in the web is:

C4.C = 0.85 fc′ tc.w ( L wall − 4tp )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) (13.0 in.) ⎡⎣360 in. − 4 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 23,700 kips

The compression force in the concrete in the flange is:

C5.C = 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (CC − tsc.w )
= 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 2 ) ( 23.0 in.) ( 31.5 in. − 14 in.)
= 4,110 kips

The tensile force in the steel in the wall perpendicular to the web is:
T1.C = 4 (Wwall − CC ) tp Fy
= 4 (192 in. − 31.5 in.) (2 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 16,100 kips

The tension force in the flange end plate is:

T2.C = 2tp tc. f Fy
= 2 (2 in.) ( 23.0 in.) ( 50 ksi )
= 1,150 kips

The plastic flexural strength of the composite wall in compression is:

⎛ CC ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ ⎛C −t ⎞
M PC.wall = C1.C + C2.C CC − + C3.C CC − tsc.w + + C4.C CC − sc.w + C5.C C sc.w
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
W − CC ⎞ tp
+ T1.C ⎛ wall + T2.C ⎛Wwall − CC − ⎞ + P ( y − CC )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
⎛ 31.5 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞ ⎛ 2 in.⎞
= ( 3,150 kips ) + (8,950 kips ) 31.5 in. − + (8,950 kips ) 31.5 in. − 14 in. +
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 14 in.⎞ ⎛ 31.5 in. − 14 in.⎞ ⎛192 in. − 31.5 in.⎞
+ ( 23,700 kips ) 31.5 in. − + ( 4,110 kips ) + (16,100 kips)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 2 in.⎞
+ (1,150 kips ) 192 in. − 31.5 in. − + ( 31,700 kips ) ( 65.1 in. − 31.5 in.)
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 3,650,000 kip-in.
MnC.wall = MPC.wall = 3,650,000 kip-in.

The available flexural strength in the tension wall is:

ϕb Mn T .wall = 0.90 (1,110,000 kip-in.)
= 999,000 kip-in. > Mr.wall = 865,000 kip-in. o.k.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 183

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 183 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The available flexural strength in the compression wall is:
ϕb MnC.wall = 0.90 ( 3,650,000 )
= 3,290,000 kip-in. > Mr.wall = 2,060,000 kip-in. o.k.

Step 4-10. Wall shear strength

The area of steel in the direction of shear is:
Asw = 4Wwall tp
= 4 (192 in.) (2 in.)
= 384 in.2

The area of concrete in the direction of shear is:

Acw = 2 (Wwall − 3tp ) ( tsc. f − 2tp)
= 2 ⎡⎣192 in. − 3 (2 in.)⎤⎦ ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 (2 in.)⎤⎦
= 8,760 in.2

The K factors for the shear calculations are calculated according to Equations 2-15 and 2-16 of this Design Guide:
Ks = Gs Asw (2-15)
= (11,200 ksi ) ( 384 in. )2

= 4,300,000 kips 
0.7 ( Ec Acw )( Es Asw)
Ksc = (from Eq. 2-16)
4Es Asw + Ec Acw
0.7 ( 4,500 ksi ) (8,760 in.2 ) ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 384 in.2 )
=
4 ( 29,000 ksi ) ( 384 in.2 ) + ( 4,500 ksi ) (8,760 in.2 )
= 3,660,000 kips 

The nominal shear strength of the wall is calculated from Equation 2-14:

Ks + K sc
Vn.wall = Fy Asw (from Eq. 2-14)
3K s2 + K sc2
4,300,000 kips + 3,660,000 kips
= ( 50 ksi )( 384 in.2 )
3 ( 4,300,000 kips ) + ( 3,660,000 kips )
2 2

= 18,400 kips 

The design shear strength of the uncoupled wall:

ϕ vVn.wall = 0.90 (18,400 kips )
= 16,600 kips > Vr.wall = 4,640 kips o.k.

EXAMPLE 4.3—Continuous Web Plate Connection—Seismic Design of Coupling Beam-to-SpeedCore Wall Connection

This example details the design of a composite coupling beam-to-SpeedCore wall connection. This design example can be down-
loaded as a Mathcad file from the link given on the AISC Design Guide 38 webpage (www.aisc.org/dg).
Design a welded connection for the composite coupling beam-to-planar wall connection using the given coupling beam and wall
geometry, material properties, and loads.

184 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 184 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Given:
For the coupling beam connection to the wall, the coupling beam flange plates are CJP groove welded to the inside of the wall
web plates. Coupling beam web plates are continuous with the wall web plate (i.e., the coupling beam web plate and wall plate
thickness must be the same). See Figure 4-43 for further details.
The steel and concrete material properties are as follows:
For ASTM A572/A572M, Grade 50 steel, from AISC Manual Table 2-4:
Fu = 65 ksi
Fy = 50 ksi
From AISC Seismic Provisions Table A3.2:
Rt = 1.2
Ry = 1.1
Concrete:
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Rc = 1.3
Weld metal (E70XX):
FEXX = 70 ksi
SpeedCore wall dimensions (see Figure 4-44):
tp = wall plate thickness
= b in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 24 in.

Fig. 4-43.  Coupling beam connection for Example 4.3.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 185

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 185 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Coupling beam dimensions (see Figure 4-45):
bCB = coupling beam width
= 24 in.
hCB = coupling beam depth
= 24 in.
tpf.CB = coupling beam flange plate thickness
= 2 in.
tpw.CB = coupling beam web plate thickness
= b in.

Solution:
This connection is designed for the expected connection strength using the capacity-limited design philosophy implemented for
coupled SpeedCore system design.
Step 1. Flange Plate Connection Demand
The required strength of the coupling beam flange plate connection is the minimum of 120% of the tensile yield strength and
100% of the tensile rupture strength of the flange plate, accounting for the expected material strength.
The area of the coupling beam flange plate is:
A f.CB = ( bCB − 2t pw.CB ) tpf .CB
= [ 24 in. − 2 ( b in.)](2 in.)
= 11.4 in.2

The required strength of the flange plate connection is:

T flange = min (1.2Ry Fy A f .CB , Rt Fu A f .CB )

= min ⎡⎣(1.2 ) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) (11.4 in.2 ) , (1.2 ) ( 65 ksi ) (11.4 in.2 )⎤⎦
= min ( 752 kips, 889 kips )
= 752 kips

Fig. 4-44.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

Fig. 4-45.  Coupling beam cross-section dimensions.

186 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 186 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 2. Estimate Length of Weld Required
From AISC Specification Section J4.2, determine the length of the flange plate CJP groove weld by assuming that shear yielding
of the flange plate will govern the weld strength. The welds of interest are depicted in Figure 4-46.
The design strength of the CJP flange plate weld on one edge of the flange plate must be greater than half the tensile demand on
the flange plate.
T flange
≤ ϕ 0.60Fy tpf .CB L req
2

Therefore, the required weld length, Lreq, is:

T flange
Lreq ≥
2ϕ 0.60Fy t pf .CB
752 kips
=
2 (1.00 ) ( 0.60 ) ( 50 ksi ) (2 in.)
= 25.1 in.

Try a flange weld length of Lf.w = 26 in.

Step 3. Check Shear Strength of Coupling Beam Flange Plate
The shear yielding and rupture plane of interest for the flange plate is shown in Figure 4-47. Multiple shear rupture planes can be
checked depending upon the weld type, but only one plane will be checked in this example.
The gross shear area of the coupling beam flange plate for shear yielding is:
A f.SY = tpf .CB L f .w
= (2 in.) ( 26 in.)
= 13.0 in.2

For shear yielding, the design strength of the coupling beam flange plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-3 is:
ϕ 0.60Fy A f.SY = (1.00 ) ( 0.60 ) ( 50 ksi ) (13.0 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-3)
= 390 kips 

Fig. 4-46.  Flange plate connection detail.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 187

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 187 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The net shear area of the coupling beam flange plate for shear rupture is equal to the gross area:
A f.SR = A f.SY
= 13.0 in.2

For shear rupture, the design strength of the coupling beam flange plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-4 is:
ϕ 0.6Fu A f.SR = ( 0.75) ( 0.60 ) ( 65 ksi ) (13.0 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-4)
= 380 kips 

Shear rupture controls, and the shear strength of the coupling beam flange plate is adequate:
ϕ 0.6Fu A f .SR = 380 kips > T flange 2 = 376 kips

Step 4. Check Shear Strength of Wall Web Plates

The shear yielding and rupture planes of interest for the web plates are shown in Figure 4-48. Multiple shear rupture planes can
be checked depending upon the weld type, but only one plane is checked in this example.
The gross shear area of the wall web plate for shear yielding is:
Aw.SY = 2tp L f .w
= 2 ( b in.) ( 26 in.)
= 29.3 in.2

For shear yielding, the design strength of the wall web plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-3 is:
ϕ 0.60Fy A w.SY = 1.00 ( 0.60 ) ( 50 ksi ) ( 29.3 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-3)
= 879 kips 

Fig. 4-47.  Coupling beam flange plate shear yielding and shear rupture plane of interest.

Fig. 4-48.  Wall web plate shear yielding and shear rupture planes of interest.

188 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 188 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The net shear area of the wall web plate for shear rupture is equal to the gross area:
Aw.SR = Aw.SY
= 29.3 in.2

For shear rupture, the design strength of the wall web plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-4 is:
ϕ0.60Fu Aw.SR = 0.75 ( 0.60 ) ( 65 ksi ) ( 29.3 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-4)
= 857 kips 

Shear rupture controls, and the shear strength of the wall plate is adequate:
ϕ 0.60Fu Aw.SR = 857 kips > T flange 2 = 376 kips

Step 5. Check Ductile Behavior of Flange Plates

The flange plate connection is designed such that the available tension rupture strength of the flange plate is greater than the
available tensile yield strength.
The gross area of the flange plate in tension is:
A f.g = (tsc − 2tp ) t pf .CB
= [ 24.0 in. − 2 ( b in.)](2 in.)
= 11.4 in.2

The net area of the flange plate in tension is equal to the gross area:
A f.n = A f.g
= 11.4 in.2

The shear lag factor from AISC Specification Table D3.1 is:

3L f2.w ⎛ x ⎞
U= 2 ⎜1 − ⎟
3L f2.w + ( tsc − 2t p ) ⎝ L f.w ⎠

3 ( 26 in.)2 ⎛ 0 ⎞
= 1−
3 ( 26 in.) + [ 24 in. − 2 ( b in.)] ⎝ 26 in.⎠
2 2

= 0.795

The effective area of the flange plate in tension from AISC Specification Equation D3-1 is:
A f.e = UA f.n
= ( 0.795) (11.4 in.2 )
= 9.06 in.2

The available tensile yield strength from AISC Specification Equation J4-1 is:
Ry Fy A f .g = (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) (11.4 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-1)
= 627 kips 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 189

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 189 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The available tensile rupture strength from AISC Specification Equation J4-2 is:
Rt Fu A f.e = (1.2 ) ( 65 ksi ) ( 9.06 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-2)
= 707 kips 

The available tension rupture strength of the flange plate is greater than the available tensile yield strength, and the design intent
is met.
This check completes the weld design for the composite coupling beam-to-SpeedCore wall connection. The coupling beam
flange plate is CJP groove welded to the SpeedCore wall web plate.

EXAMPLE 4.4—Lapped Web Plate Connection—Seismic Design of Coupling Beam-to-Wall Connection

This example details the design of a composite coupling beam-to-SpeedCore wall connection. This design example can be down-
loaded as a Mathcad file from the link given on the AISC Design Guide 38 webpage (www.aisc.org/dg).

Given:
Design a welded connection for the composite coupling beam-to-planar wall using the lapped web plate connection detail show
in Figure 4-49 using the given coupling beam and wall geometry, material properties, and loads.
For the coupling beam connection to the wall, the coupling beam flange plate is inserted into slots in the wall web plates. The
edge of the flange plate extends 1 in. out from the wall section on both sides of the connection. The wall web plates are beveled
on two sides of the slot and CJP groove welded to the coupling beam flange plate. Coupling beam web plates are lapped over the
exterior of the wall web plates. The depth of the coupling beam web plates is reduced to fit between the coupling beam flange
plates. Coupling beam web plates are fillet welded to the wall web plate on three sides to form a C-shaped weld.
The steel and concrete material properties are as follows:
For ASTM A572/A572M, Grade 50 steel, from AISC Manual Table 2-4:
Fu = 65 ksi
Fy = 50 ksi

Fig. 4-49.  Coupling beam connection for Example 4.4.

190 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 190 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 From AISC Seismic Provisions Table A3.2:
Rt = 1.2
Ry = 1.1
Concrete:
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,500 ksi
Gc = 1,800 ksi
Rc = 1.3
Weld metal (E70XX):
FEXX = 70 ksi

SpeedCore wall dimensions (see Figure 4-50):

tp = wall plate thickness
= 2 in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 24 in.
Coupling beam dimensions (see Figure 4-51):
LCB = coupling beam length
= 96 in.
bCB = coupling beam width
= 26 in.
hCB = coupling beam depth
= 24 in.
tpf.CB = coupling beam flange plate thickness
= b in.
tpw.CB = coupling beam web plate thickness
= 2 in.

Fig. 4-50.  Wall cross-section dimensions.

Fig. 4-51.  Coupling beam cross-section dimensions.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 191

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 191 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Expected Coupling Beam Forces
These forces are typically determined in the design process of the coupled wall system and considered as givens for the sake of
the coupling beam-to-wall connection design. Refer to Examples 4.1 and 4.2 for similar calculations.
The expected plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam is:
Mp.exp.CB = 28,800 kip-in.

The expected tensile force in the web is:

T2.exp = 1,030 kips

The expected compression force in the web is:

C2.exp = 295 kips

The location of the coupling beam plastic neutral axis considering expected strength is:
CCB.exp = 5.36 in.

Solution:
The connection was designed for the expected connection strength using the capacity-limited design philosophy implemented
for coupled SpeedCore wall design.
Step 1. Flange Plate Connection Demand
The required strength of the coupling beam flange plate connection is the minimum of 120% of the tensile yield strength and
100% of the tensile rupture strength of the flange plate, accounting for the expected material strength.
The area of the coupling beam flange plate is:
A f.CB = bCB t pf .CB
= ( 26 in.) ( b in.)
= 14.6 in.2

The coupling beam flange plate connection required strength is:

T flange = min (1.2Ry Fy A f .CB ,Rt Fu A f .CB )

= min ⎡⎣(1.2 ) (1.1) ( 50 ksi ) (14.6 in.2 ) , (1.2 ) ( 65 ksi ) (14.6 in.2 )⎤⎦
= min ( 964 kips, 1,140 kips )
= 964 kips

Step 2. Estimate Length of Weld Required

From AISC Specification Section J4.2, determine the length of the flange plate CJP groove weld by assuming that shear yielding
of the flange plate will govern the weld strength. The welds of interest are shown in Figure 4-52.
The design strength of the CJP flange plate weld on one edge of the flange plate must be greater than half the tensile demand on
the flange plate.
T flange
≤ ϕ 0.60Fy tpf .CB L req
2

192 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 192 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Therefore, the estimated required weld length, Lreq, is:
T flange
L req ≥
2ϕ 0.60Fy tpf .CB
964 kips
≥
2 (1.00 ) ( 0.60 ) ( 50 ksi ) ( b in. )
≥ 28.6 in.

Try a flange weld length of Lf.w = 30 in.

Step 3. Check Shear Strength of Coupling Beam Flange Plate
The shear yielding and rupture plane of interest for the flange plate is shown in Figure 4-53. Multiple shear rupture planes can be
checked, depending upon the weld type but only one plane will be checked in this example.
The gross shear area of the coupling beam flange plate for shear yielding is:
A f .SY = t pf .CB L f.w
= ( b in.) ( 30 in.)
= 16.9 in.2

For shear yielding, the design strength of the coupling beam flange plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-3 is:
ϕ 0.60Fy A f.SY = 1.00 ( 0.60 ) ( 50 ksi ) (16.9 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-3)
= 507 kips 

Fig. 4-52.  Flange plate connection detail for Example 4.4.

Fig. 4-53.  Coupling beam flange plate shear yielding and shear rupture planes of interest.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 193

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 193 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The net shear area of the coupling beam flange plate for shear rupture is equal to the gross area:
A f .SR = A f.SY
= 16.9 in.2

For shear rupture, the design strength of the coupling beam flange plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-4 is:
ϕ 0.60Fu A f .SR = 0.75 ( 0.60 ) ( 65 ksi ) (16.9 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-4)
= 494 kips 

Shear rupture controls, and the shear strength of the coupling beam flange plate is adequate:
ϕ 0.60Fu A f .SR = 494 kips > T flange 2 = 482 kips

Step 4. Check Shear Strength of Wall Web Plates

The shear yielding and rupture planes of interest for the web plates are shown in Figure 4-54. Depending upon the weld type,
shear rupture may also need to be checked.
The gross shear area of the wall web plate for shear yielding is:
Aw.SY = 2tp L f .w
= 2(2 in.)(30 in.)
= 30.0 in.2

For shear yielding, the design strength of the wall web plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-3 is:
ϕ 0.60Fy Aw.SY = 1.00 ( 0.60 ) ( 50 ksi ) ( 30.0 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-3)
= 900 kips > 483 kips 

The net shear area of the wall web plate for shear rupture is equal to the gross area:
Aw.SR = Aw.SY
= 30.0 in.2

For shear rupture, the design strength of the wall web plate from AISC Specification Equation J4-4 is:
ϕ 0.6Fu Aw.SR = 0.75 ( 0.60 ) ( 65 ksi ) ( 30.0 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-4)
= 878 kips > 446 kips 

Fig. 4-54.  Wall web plate shear yielding and shear rupture planes of interest.

194 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 194 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Shear rupture controls, and the shear strength of the wall web plate is adequate:
ϕ0.6Fu Aw.SR = 878 kips > T flange 2 = 446 kips

Step 5. Check Ductile Behavior of Flange Plates

The flange plate connection is designed such that the available tensile rupture strength of the flange plate is greater than the avail-
able tensile yield strength.
The gross area of the flange plate in tension is:
A f .g = bCB t pf .CB
= ( 26 in.) ( b in.)
= 14.6 in.2

The net area of the flange plate in tension is:

A f.n = ( bCB − 2 in.) t pf .CB
= ( 26 in. − 2 in.) ( b in.)
= 13.5 in.2

The shear lag factor from AISC Specification Table D3.1 is:

3L f2. w ⎛ x ⎞
U= ⎜1 − ⎟
3L f2.w + ( bCB − 2 in.)2 ⎝ L f.w ⎠
3 ( 30 in.)2 ⎛ 0 in. ⎞
= 1−
3 ( 30 in.)2 + ( 26 in. − 2 in.)2 ⎝ 30 in.⎠
= 0.824

The effective area of the flange plate in tension from AISC Specification Equation D3-1 is:
A f.e = UA f.n
= ( 0.824 ) (13.5 in.2 )
= 11.1 in.2

The available tensile yield strength from AISC Specification Equation J4-1 is:
Ry Fy A f . g = 1.1( 50 ksi ) (14.6 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-1)
= 803 kips 

The available tensile rupture strength from AISC Specification Equation J4-2 is:
Rt Fu A f. n = 1.2 ( 65 ksi ) (11.1 in.2 ) (from AISC Spec. Eq. J4-2)
= 866 kips 

The available tensile rupture strength of the flange plate is greater than the available tensile yield strength, and the design intent
is met.
Step 6. Calculate Forces in Web Plates
Design the coupling beam web-to-wall web C-shaped fillet weld, as shown in Figure 4-55, for 120% of the ratio of the moment
contribution of the coupling beam web plate to the plastic flexural strength of the coupling beam, accounting for the expected
material strength. Also design the weld for 120% of the resulting tensile force in the coupling beam web due to flexure about

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 195

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 195 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 the plastic neutral axis of the coupling beam and 120% of the shear in the coupling beam corresponding to the plastic flexural
strength of the coupling beam. Figure 4-56 shows the forces and moments for the C-shaped fillet weld.
The tensile force in the webs of the coupling beam is:
Tweb = 1.2 ( T2.exp − C2.exp )
= 1.2 (1,030 kips − 295 kips )
= 882 kips

The moment in the web of the coupling beam relative to the centroid of the web is:
⎡ CCB.exp ⎛ hCB − CCB.exp ⎞ ⎤
Mweb = 1.2 ⎢T2.exp + C2.exp
⎣ 2 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎡ ⎛ 5.36 in.⎞ ⎛ 24 in. − 5.36 in.⎞ ⎤
= 1.2 ⎢(1,030 kips ) + ( 295 kips )
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
= 6,610 kip-in.

Fig. 4-55.  Web plate connection detail.

Fig. 4-56.  Forces on web plate connection.

196 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 196 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Shear in the web of the coupling beam corresponding to the plastic flexural strength is:
2 (1.2Mp.exp.CB )
Vweb = (from Eq. 4-5)
L cb
2 ⎡⎣1.2 ( 28,800 kip-in.)⎤⎦
=
96 in.
= 720 kips 
Note that this is conservative because the concrete contribution is not considered.
Step 7. Calculate Force Demand on C-Shaped Weld
Assign half the forces in the coupling beam web to each C-shaped weld.
The tensile demand on the C-shaped weld is:
Tweb
TC.weld =
2
882 kips
=
2
= 441 kips

The moment demand on the C-shaped weld is:

Mweb
MC.weld =
2
6,610 kip-in.
=
2
= 3,310 kip-in.

The shear demand on the C-shaped weld is:

Vweb
VC.weld =
2
720 kips
=
2
= 360 kips

Step 8. Select Weld Geometry

The vertical length of the weld is:
L V.weld = hCB − 2 in.
= 24 in. − 2 in.
= 22.0 in.

An initial assumption for the horizontal length of the weld is:

L H.weld = 44 in.

The minimum fillet weld size is x in. according to AISC Specification Table J2.4, and according to AISC Specification Sec-
tion J2.2b, the maximum fillet weld size is v in. A a-in. weld diameter is selected for the weld size.
Step 9. Calculate C-Shaped Weld Shear and Flexural Strength
The moment and shear demand on the C-shaped welds, as shown in Figure 4-57(a), can be designed for an eccentric shear force,
as shown in Figure 4-57(b).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 197

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 197 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Use AISC Manual Table 8-8 to calculate the available strength of the C-shaped weld group for shear and flexure. AISC Manual
Table 8-8 uses an eccentric shear force to represent an equivalent shear and moment acting on a C-shaped weld group.
The eccentricity of shear force to generate equivalent moment is:
MC.weld
e=
VC.weld
3,310 kip-in.
=
360 kips
= 9.19 in.

The horizontal centroid of the weld group is:

2
LH.weld
cg =
2LH.weld + LV.weld
( 44.0 in.)2
=
2 ( 44.0 in.) + 22.0 in.
= 17.6 in.

The horizontal eccentricity of shear from the vertical weld is:

ex = e + LH.weld − cg
= 9.19 in. + 44 in. − 17.6 in.
= 35.6 in.

(a)  Moment and shear demand

(b)  Equivalent eccentric shear force

Fig. 4-57.  Weld strength for eccentric shear and moment.

198 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 198 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The ratio of horizontal weld length to vertical weld length is:
LH.weld
k=
L V.weld
44 in.
=
22.0 in.
=2

The ratio of force eccentricity to vertical weld length is:

ex
a=
L V.weld
35.6 in.
=
22.0 in.
= 1.62

The coefficient for eccentrically loaded weld groups, linearly interpolated from AISC Manual Table 8-8 for calculated k and a
values is:
C8.8 = 4.60

From AISC Manual Table 8-3, the electrode strength coefficient for an E70 weld electrode is:
C1−8.3 = 1.00

The design weld strength to resist eccentric shear is:

Pweld.V = ϕC8.8C1− 8.3 (16D) L V.weld
= 0.75 ( 4.60 ) (1.00 )[16 (a in.)]( 22.0 in.)
= 455 kips

Step 10. Calculate C-Shaped Weld Tensile Strength

Consider the horizontal portion of the weld to calculate the tensile strength, as shown in Figure 4-58.
The design weld strength to resist tension from AISC Manual Equation 8-1 is:
Pweld.T = ϕ 0.60FEXX 2LH.weld 0.707D (from AISC Manual. Eq. 8-1)
= 0.75 ( 0.60 ) ( 70 ksi ) ( 2 ) ( 44 in.) ( 0.707 ) ( a in.)
= 735 kips 

Fig. 4-58.  Weld strength in tension.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 199

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 199 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 11. Calculate the Utilization of C-Shaped Weld Strength
Calculate the overall utilization of weld strength for shear, moment, and tension by taking the square root of the sum of the
squared utilization of the eccentric shear strength and tensile strength. Refer to Section 4.3.6.2.
2 2
⎛ VC.weld ⎞ ⎛T ⎞
Utilization = + C.weld (4-7)
⎝ Pweld.V ⎠ ⎝ Pweld.T ⎠
2 2
⎛ 360 kips ⎞ ⎛ 441 kips ⎞
= +
⎝ 455 kips ⎠ ⎝ 735 kips ⎠
= 0.993 < 1.0 o.k. 

This check completes the weld design for the composite coupling beam-to-SpeedCore wall connection. The coupling beam
flange plate is CJP groove welded to the wall web plate. The coupling beam web plate is welded to the wall web plate using a
C-shaped a-in. fillet weld.

200 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

113-200_DG38_Chapter 4.indd 200 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Chapter 5
Seismic Performance Evaluation
The discussion presented in this chapter is based on the level behavior. This section will focus on modeling both
research results presented in Bruneau et al. (2019) and SpeedCore and coupled SpeedCore systems using 2D finite
Agarwal et al. (2020). Seismic performance evaluation is element and fiber analysis.
performed on SpeedCore system designs to better under-
stand the behavior of the system. This performance evalu- 5.1.1 Material Models
ation can range from nonlinear static to linear time history
A variety of nonlinear material models for steel and concrete
to nonlinear time history to incremental dynamic analysis.
components have been proposed for various applications.
This chapter briefly discusses modeling SpeedCore systems
Any reasonable material models that capture existing experi-
for seismic performance evaluation, nonlinear static and
mental results for SpeedCore and composite coupling beam
dynamic analysis, and incremental dynamic analysis using
materials could be used. The material models used herein
procedures defined in FEMA P-695, Quantification of Build-
were derived from 3D finite element models and analyses
ing Seismic Performance (FEMA, 2009). The 8-story planar
(Shafaei et al., 2021a) of the experimental tests presented in
coupled example structure detailed in Chapter 4 is used for
Shafaei et al. (2021b) and Nie et al. (2014) on planar Speed-
nonlinear static and dynamic analyses in Section 5.2. Incre-
Core systems and composite coupling beams, respectively.
mental dynamic results for all four example structures from
To develop these material models, the SpeedCore walls and
Chapters  3 and 4 are discussed in Section  5.3. The focus
composite coupling beams were modeled in commercially
of this chapter is largely on coupled SpeedCore systems as
available software and subjected to the loading protocol of
the behavior of uncoupled SpeedCore systems is straight-
the appropriate test. Effective stress-strain curves appropri-
forward. The modeling and analysis techniques discussed
ate for 2D and finite element analysis were extracted from
herein would also be appropriate for both uncoupled and
these models.
coupled systems.
This enabled the 2D and fiber-based models to indirectly
account for 3D phenomena like steel yielding, local buck-
5.1 MODELING APPROACH
ling, biaxial stress states, steel fracture, concrete confine-
As discussed in Bruneau et al. (2019), SpeedCore walls and ment, and composite action. The SpeedCore and composite
composite coupling beams can be modeled using different coupling beam material models are shown in Figure 5-1 and
approaches. Three common approaches are 3D finite ele- Figure 5-2, respectively. The steel behavior is elastic-plastic
ment analysis, 2D finite element analysis, and fiber analy- in compression and elastic-plastic with strain hardening in
sis. While 3D finite element methods can directly capture tension. The model includes an increase in the tensile capac-
complexities like local buckling, multiaxial stress states, and ity of steel due to the biaxial stress state of the steel (Shafaei
concrete confinement, this level of analysis is computation- et al., 2021a). The concrete model follows the confined con-
ally expensive and often not needed to understand system crete model proposed by Tao et al. (2013). The unloading

   
(a) Steel (b) Concrete

Fig. 5-1.  Material models for SpeedCore walls.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 201

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 201 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 branch of this model is modified to account for the residual elements with reduced integration (S4R). Steel flange plates
capacity of the concrete due to confinement after crushing. of shear walls and coupling beams were modeled using two-
This confinement has a greater impact on the coupling beam node truss elements (T3D2). Additionally, to consider P-Δ
behavior because the coupling beam concrete is confined to effects, the gravity frames are modeled with truss elements
a higher degree. For further discussion on the development (T3D2). A typical 2D multi-story finite element model of
of these effective stress-strain curves, refer to Shafaei et al. coupled SpeedCore walls is shown in Figure 5-5.
(2021a).
In addition to nonlinear materials, fiber-based models can 5.1.3 Fiber-Based Model
also use nonlinear hinge elements. The hinge serves as a
For fiber-based models, additional simplifications were
representation of the behavior of the coupling beam plastic
made. Elements outside of the expected plastic hinge zone
hinge without requiring discretization into individual fibers.
in wall elements were assigned effective elastic properties.
Many concentrated hinges have been recommended in liter-
Coupling beam elements were assigned concentrated plas-
ature and implemented in finite element software. The hinge
ticity elements to capture all nonlinear behavior, and these
used herein was able to capture the backbone curve, account
elements were connected to elements with effective stiffness
for cyclic deterioration, and be computationally stable. The
properties. This modeling approach was chosen because the
behavior of the concentrated plasticity hinge was calibrated
concentrated plasticity elements are more computationally
to fit the hysteretic behavior seen from trial coupling beam
efficient than the distributed plasticity elements. A represen-
fiber models. A comparison between a distributed plasticity
tation of this model is presented in Figure 5-6. The model
coupling beam model and a concentrated plasticity model is
also included an elastic P-delta column connected to the
shown in Figure 5-3. After looking at 12 example structures,
walls via rigid links (not depicted in the figure).
a generalized behavior for these hinges was extracted. This
generalized hinge backbone curve is replicated in Figure 5-4.
5.1.4 Analysis
When applicable, linear elements with effective properties
can be assigned to elements not expected to undergo yield- Nonlinear pushover analysis was performed by applying
ing. These elements include upper stories of the building and monotonically increasing lateral loads until failure. This
middle sections of coupling beams. Effective properties are analysis used the load distribution established for equiva-
assigned to these elements following the axial, shear, and lent lateral force analysis as presented in ASCE/SEI  7.
flexural stiffness recommendations presented in Chapter 2 of Uncoupled systems are expected to form a plastic hinge at
this Design Guide. the base of each wall; coupled systems are expected to have
the characteristic pushover curve presented in Chapter 4 of
5.1.2 2D Finite Element Model this Design Guide. Time-history analysis was performed for
design basis, maximum considered, and failure level earth-
A 2D multi-story finite element model of coupled Speed-
quakes. Earthquake records were scaled to these hazard
Core walls was modeled using the effective stress-strain
levels. The results from these nonlinear pushover and time-
curves presented in Section  5.1.1. Shear walls and cou-
history analyses for an 8-story structure are presented in the
pling beams were modeled using four-node composite shell
following section.

   
(a) Steel (b) Concrete

Fig. 5-2  Material models for composite coupling beams.

202 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 202 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Fig. 5-3. Moment versus rotation behavior for coupling beams.

Fig. 5-4. Concentrated plasticity generalized hinge backbone curve.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 203

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 203 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Fig. 5-5.  2D multi-story finite element model of coupled SpeedCore walls.

Fig. 5-6.  Depiction of element and node distribution in fiber models.

204 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 204 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Incremental dynamic analyses were performed follow- previously, a fiber-based model was developed to analyze the
ing the recommendations of FEMA P-695, which outlines nonlinear pushover behavior of the 8‑story coupled wall sys-
a suite of 22  ground motions (44  components). This set tem and track the occurrence of events or milestones. This
includes diverse earthquakes from across the world with model was subjected to a loading profile proportional to the
differing intensity, peak ground velocity, and peak ground equivalent lateral force analysis loads prescribed in ASCE/
acceleration. To normalize these ground motions, their peak SEI  7. This load was increased monotonically resulting in
ground velocity is used. These normalized ground motions the pushover base shear-roof displacement curve shown in
can then be scaled until the model structure reaches failure. Figure 5-8(a). The occurrence of various events was identi-
Please refer to FEMA P-695 for a full list of ground motions fied by post-processing the analysis results and marked on
and further details of ground motion scaling (FEMA, 2009). the response.
Following the progression of events shown in Fig-
5.2 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF COUPLED ure  5-8(a), the structure reached equivalent lateral force
SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS (ELF) level loads, initiation of yielding in the coupling
beam, yielding of all coupling beams, yielding at the base
This section describes the seismic performance of the
of the walls, and coupling beam fracture. From this analysis,
8‑story design example from Section 4.3. The geometry of
an analytical γ1 factor can be derived as the ratio of the base
these coupled walls is depicted in Figure 5-7.
shear corresponding to the initiation of wall yielding to the
initiation of coupling beam yielding. This ratio is 1.6. The γ1
5.2.1 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
value calculated using Equation 4-1 is 1.9, which is conser-
The coupled SpeedCore system is proportioned such that vative for design.
the general order of events is yielding of coupling beams, Figure  5-8(b) compares the moment contributions from
followed by the formation of plastic hinges in the coupling the tension and compression walls and the axial couple
beams, yielding of the walls, and formation of a plastic hinge moments with the total overturning moment. The axial
at the base of the walls. Using the material models discussed couple moment initially contributes over 60% of the total

Fig. 5-7.  Structure geometry.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 205

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 205 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 (a)  Base shear versus roof displacement

(b)  Moment versus roof displacement

Fig. 5-8.  Pushover results for the 8‑story structure.

206 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 206 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 moment, but levels out at approximately 50% of the total expected in the nonlinear time-history analysis match those
moment contribution, then drops as the coupling beams observed in the nonlinear pushover analysis.
begin to fracture. As expected, the compression wall carries Figure 5-9 shows the ground motion record and the time-
a higher portion of the moment in the individual walls due history responses of the roof displacement for design basis,
to its higher effective stiffness. The compression and ten- maximum considered, and failure level (5% interstory drift)
sion wall contributions approach each other as the coupling earthquakes. As shown in the figure, the general order of
beams fracture and the walls begin to act as two independent events—namely, coupling beam yielding, wall yielding, and
systems. coupling beam fracture—remained relatively unchanged for
the design basis, maximum considered, and failure level (5%
5.2.2 Nonlinear Time-History Analysis interstory) earthquakes. For the design basis earthquake, only
yielding occurred in the coupling beam and wall elements.
Nonlinear time-history analysis was performed using the
The maximum considered earthquake resulted in fractur-
fiber model described previously. Analyses were conducted
ing of a coupling beam. For the failure level (5% interstory
for design basis, maximum considered, and failure level (5%
drift) earthquake, all coupling beams failed. For this hazard
interstory drift) earthquakes. The 1987 Superstition Hills
level, a distinct change (elongation) in the structural period
ground motion (PEER NGA SUPERST/B-ICC090) was
is observed after fracturing all coupling beams.
amplified to these hazard levels after normalizing the records
To better illustrate these events, the 2D finite element
by their peak ground velocity. The performance milestones
model mentioned earlier was analyzed and post-processed.

 
(a)  Superstition Hills acceleration versus time ground motion (b)  Design basis earthquake response

 
(c)  Maximum considered earthquake response (d)  Failure level earthquakes response

Fig. 5-9.  Fiber analysis results for the 8‑story structure.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 207

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 207 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The response of this structure to the failure level (5% inter- 5.2.3 Summary
story drift) earthquake is shown in Figure 5-10. These results
This example looked at the nonlinear static pushover and
are further post-processed to highlight the events as shown
nonlinear time history response of an 8-story coupled Speed-
in Figure 5-11. These illustrations represent the equivalent
Core wall structure. The structure was designed following
plastic strain (PEEQ) in the steel at the points indicated in
the recommendation of Chapter 4 and the resulting behavior
Figure 5-10(b). The red shading indicates the strain exceeds
followed anticipated events of coupling beam yielding fol-
the yield strain and the black shading indicates the strain
lowed by wall yielding.
exceeds the fracture criteria.

(a) Acceleration vs. time (b) Roof displacement vs. time

Fig. 5-10. 2D finite element results for the 8-story structure subjected to the failure level earthquake.

208 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 208 1/30/23 3:25 PM

    
(a)  Coupling beams yield (b)  Wall yields

    
(c)  Propagation of yielding (d)  Fracture initiation of coupling beams and wall

   
(e)  Total fracture of coupling beams (f)  End of ground motion

Fig. 5-11.  Milestones observed in failure level finite element analysis of the 8-story structure.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 209

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 209 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 5.3 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION— FEMA P-695 analysis procedure. For further information on
FEMA P-695 ANALYSIS the seismic performance evaluation of these and other struc-
tures refer to Bruneau et al. (2019) and Agrawal et al. (2020).
FEMA P-695 specifies the methodology for performing
nonlinear analyses to quantify seismic performance of lat-
5.3.1 Structure Designs
eral force-resisting systems. This document outlines the
procedure to verify or confirm the seismic performance of Coupled and uncoupled structures were designed accord-
systems designed with the assumed response modification, ing to the provisions of Chapters 3 and 4. These structures
R, displacement amplification, Cd, and overstrength, Ω0, fac- were intended to represent typical configurations and load-
tors. These parameters are of interest because they are part ings of mid- to high-rise buildings. Two wall configurations
of the ASCE/SEI 7 approach for estimating equivalent linear were used—planar and C-shaped—as shown in Figure 5-12.
elastic loads for expected seismic loading scenarios. Design- Depending on the direction of consideration, these types are
level earthquakes can cause buildings to undergo nonlinear either coupled or uncoupled (uncoupled in the north-south
deformations, but using R, Cd, and Ω0 factors allows engi- direction, coupled in the east-west direction).
neers to consider the inherent system ductility and design The member sizes of the example structures designed in
for less severe loads without having to develop or bench- Chapters 3 and 4 are replicated in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. These
mark nonlinear models. Instead, these models are developed dimensions are depicted on planar and C-shaped walls in
and verified for several scenarios to ensure that the resulting Figure 5-13.
design factors are appropriate for general use.
This process includes (1)  developing a concept for the 5.3.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
system; (2)  collecting design inputs such as design crite-
Nonlinear analysis for 44 records (22 ground motions with
ria, seismic coefficient, and system nonlinear behavior;
two  components each) was performed on each example
(3) designing archetype structures covering the design space
structure. This analysis is performed so that earthquake
of interest; (4)  developing and benchmarking numerical
intensity—in this case, spectral acceleration at collapse
models; (5) conducting incremental dynamic analysis for a
for each ground motion—can be recorded. From this set of
set of ground motions; and (6) analyzing the results. FEMA
failure spectral acceleration levels, the value corresponding
P-695 goes into extensive detail for the requirements of each
to the median collapse is identified and normalized by the
of these components.
design spectral acceleration for the structure. This value is
Design examples introduced in Chapter  3 (uncoupled
called the collapse margin ratio, CMR. This value is then
SpeedCore systems) and Chapter 4 (coupled SpeedCore sys-
adjusted based on confidence in the modeling approach,
tems) of this Design Guide are evaluated according to the
design parameters, and analysis methods and aptly renamed

(a)  Type I Coupled and uncoupled walls

(b)  Type II C-shaped coupled walls

Fig. 5-12.  Basic configuration Type I and II.

210 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 210 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 5-1.  Planar Wall Geometry
Coupled Wall Wall Thickness, Plate Thickness, Coupling Beam
Length, Lwall tsc tp Length Coupling Beam
Structure R Factor (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) Section
6-story,
6.5 300 16 c N/A N/A
uncoupled
8-story, 24×24×2(f),
8 132 24 b 96
coupled a(w)

Table 5-2.  C-Shaped Wall Geometry

Wall Flange Coupling Coupling
Depth, Lwall Length, hw tsc.f tsc.w tp Beam Length Beam Section
Structure R Factor (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
18-story,
6.5 480 120 18 18 2 N/A N/A
uncoupled
22-story, 24×24×v(f),
8 360 192 24 14 2 96
coupled a(w)

   
(a)  Planar wall (b)  C-shaped walls

Fig. 5-13.  Labeled dimensions for planar and C-shaped walls.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 211

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 211 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 5-3.  CMR and ACMR Values
Period, Overstrength FEMA ACMR
Structure s Factor, Ω0 CMR ACMR Threshold Criteria
6-story, uncoupled 1.03 1.69 2.12 3.08
8-story, coupled 1.08 2.00 2.45 3.64
1.56
18-story, uncoupled 2.49 2.66 2.82 4.53
22-story, coupled 3.31 2.00 1.98 2.84

the adjusted collapse margin ratio, ACMR. This ACMR this limit, the assumptions made to design the structure—
value is then compared to limits prescribed in FEMA P-695. namely, R, Cd, and Ω0—are adequate for this design. This
For further details on this process, please refer to FEMA process is repeated for other structures and the limits are
P-695 (2009). similarly checked.
This process is shown for the 8‑story coupled structure
in Figure  5-14. Hundreds of analyses were performed to 5.3.3 Summary of Results
develop this plot and ultimately extract one number—the
A summary of important results for the four example struc-
ACMR. The design level earthquake spectral acceleration
tures in Chapters 3 and 4 is shown in Table 5-3. All structures
for this structure was 0.84g, while the median collapse spec-
pass the required ACMR threshold, as seen by comparing
tral acceleration was 2.05g. This resulted in a CMR of 2.45.
the ACMR and the FEMA ACMR Threshold Criteria col-
This number is then adjusted by a factor accounting for the
umns. Passing this criterion indicates that the seismic design
level of uncertainty in the process; in this case, the factor
values used were appropriate for the nonlinear behavior.
was 1.3. This adjustment leads to an ACMR of 3.10. The
This analysis is extensively detailed in Bruneau et al. (2019)
ACMR is then compared to the limit defined by FEMA,
and Agrawal et al. (2020) for several more coupled and
1.56. Because the ACMR from the analysis is greater than
un­coupl­ed SpeedCore systems, respectively.

Fig. 5-14.  Annotated incremental dynamic analysis results.

212 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

201-212_DG38_Chapter 5.indd 212 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Chapter 6
Fire Design of SpeedCore Systems
6.1 PERFORMANCE OF SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS analytical parametric studies to expand the database. The
UNDER FIRE LOADING temperature-dependent thermal and mechanical properties
recommended by Eurocode standards were using in the
6.1.1 General analysis. The parameters considered were the wall thick-
ness (8–24  in.), wall slenderness (story height/thickness
An important aspect of SpeedCore design for commercial
ratio, L/tsc, in the range of 5–20), axial loading (Pu ≤ 30%
construction is performance under fire loading. SpeedCore
of section concrete strength, Ac ƒ′c ), fire scenario (uniform
systems, like other structural systems, must have the capabil-
and nonuniform heating), boundary conditions (pinned and
ity to endure fire loading during a fire incident. The system
fixed), steel plate reinforcement ratio (area of steel plates/
should have sufficient fire endurance to resist the applied
wall cross-section area, As / Ag in the range of 1.3–5.3%),
mechanical and thermal loads to provide sufficient time for
steel plate slenderness (tie or stud spacing/plate thickness
the occupants to evacuate the building and extinguish the fire
ratio, S/ tp, varying from 20 to 75), tie bar spacing to wall
before failure or collapse. Because steel plates (faceplates)
thickness ratio (Stie/tsc = 0.5–1.0), and concrete compressive
are on the exterior surface of the walls, they are directly
strength (ƒ′c  = 5.8–8.0 ksi).
exposed to elevated temperatures from fire in the absence of
The research results reported by Anvari et al. (2020a)
fire protection. Fire loading results in elevated temperatures
were used to develop the SpeedCore fire resistance design
in the steel and concrete components and causes nonlinear
provisions and methods presented in this chapter. These
thermal gradients through the cross section of the wall. Ele-
provisions and methods conform to the requirements of
vated temperatures result in the degradation of the mechani-
International Building Code, Section 703.3 (ICC, 2018),
cal properties of steel and concrete that may cause local or
with particular reference to method 5—alternative protec-
global instability. Elevated temperatures in SpeedCore walls
tion methods allowed by Section  104.11 of the code. This
can result in the collapse of walls at gravity load magnitudes
chapter is focused on determining the load bearing capacity
lower than the axial capacity of the walls at ambient temper-
under fire loading and the fire resistance rating of SpeedCore
atures. The walls can be designed to provide the required fire
systems. The post-fire residual capacity of the system to lat-
resistance rating under fire loading based on the guidelines
eral loading was not evaluated. This post-fire residual capac-
provided in this chapter.
ity depends on the duration of the fire incident, permanent
In a research study performed by Anvari et al. (2020a),
deformations and damage after exposure, etc. Additional
the results from prior experimental investigations were
research may be needed to evaluate the post-fire perfor-
compiled, and five additional fire tests were conducted to
mance of the SpeedCore system under lateral loading.
address knowledge gaps in the performance of SpeedCore
walls under fire loading. The tests were conducted on labo-
6.1.2 Standard Time-Temperature (Fire Loading)
ratory-scale specimens subjected to axial loading and simu-
lated standard fire loading (heating). During the fire tests, the During fire tests and numerical studies (Anvari et al., 2020a),
applied axial load to the wall specimens was kept constant the temperature of the gas around the specimens (or models)
until the tests were terminated. The parameters considered followed the ISO 834 standard time-temperature curve. Due
in the fire tests were axial loading magnitude (20–28% of to losses associated with heat conduction, convection, and
section concrete strength, Ac ƒ′c ); steel plate slenderness (tie radiation, the surface temperatures of members are much
spacing/plate thickness in the range of 24–48); maximum lower than the gas temperature. In Figure 6-1, a comparison
steel surface temperature (1,427–1,909°F); and fire scenario of measured surface temperature for a SpeedCore wall with
(uniform and nonuniform heating), where Ac is the area of the applied time-temperature fire curve is shown.
concrete in the composite cross section, As is the area of steel
in the composite cross section, and ƒ′c is the specified com- 6.1.3 Failure Criteria
pressive strength of concrete.
ISO 834 (ISO, 1999) thermal and structural failure criteria
Anvari et al. (2020a) simulated SpeedCore walls under
were investigated in both experimental and analytical stud-
fire loading using two independent numerical methods—
ies. Walls were considered failed when the axial shortening
namely, finite element analysis (FEA) and fiber-based analy-
of walls exceeded L / 100, where L is the height of walls. For
sis. The numerical models were benchmarked using test
single-sided fire scenarios, walls were considered failed
results, and the benchmarked models were used to conduct
when the average temperature increase on the unexposed

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 213

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 213 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 surface of the wall exceeded 252°F above the initial temper- temperature difference for x in. and 2 in. thick faceplates
ature or the temperature increase at any point on the unex- reached about 338°F at 35 minutes. Because the rate of tem-
posed surface exceeded 324°F above the initial temperature. perature rise decreases in the standard fire time-temperature
curve, surface temperatures converged after about 80  min-
6.1.4 Thermal Response of SpeedCore Systems utes of heating.
under Fire Loading The temperature profiles through the thickness of walls
with a thickness of 12 in. and 24 in. at different time points
The analytical parametric studies showed that the faceplate
are plotted in Figure  6-3. The walls experienced a nonlin-
thickness variation leads to minor differences in the surface
ear thermal gradient through the wall thickness. Low ther-
temperature. A comparison of surface temperatures with
mal conductivity of concrete resulted in lower temperatures
various faceplate thicknesses is illustrated in Figure  6-2.
in the middle of the wall. The temperature profile through
The surface temperature of walls with thicker faceplates was
wall thickness is symmetric about the walls’ mid-thickness.
slightly lower than the thinner faceplates. Surface temper-
The comparison of the temperature profiles (Figure  6-3)
atures diverged at the early stages of heating. The surface

Fig. 6-1.  Comparison of surface temperature and ISO 834 time-temperature curve.

Fig. 6-2.  Comparison of the surface temperature of SpeedCore walls with different faceplate thicknesses.

214 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 214 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 shows that temperature in the middle of the wall is a func- concrete infill. Due to temperature increase, the shortening
tion of the wall thickness. After 4 hr of heating, the mid- happened at a quicker rate (DE). Finally, a rapid wall short-
thickness temperature of the 12  in. and 24  in. thick walls ening occurred that resulted in the wall failure (EF).
achieved a temperature of 492°F and 111°F with similar sur- The results from the analytical parametric studies (Anvari
face temperatures, respectively. The cooler parts of concrete et al., 2020a, 2020b) indicated that wall slenderness ratio
in the middle of the walls improve the axial compressive (story height/wall thickness), wall thickness, applied load
capacity of SpeedCore walls during a fire incident. Due to ratio, and end conditions have a significant influence on
the heat sink effect of concrete, the thermal bridging effect the fire resistance of the walls. Local buckling of faceplates
of the tie bars was negligible. No major temperature increase between tie bars was observed, but local buckling did not
was observed at the center of the wall thickness due to the result in significant degradation of the structural performance
thermal bridging effect of the tie bars. of the walls. Higher wall slenderness ratios and load ratios
had a detrimental effect on the fire resistance of SpeedCore
6.1.5 Structural Response of SpeedCore Walls walls. Walls with higher wall slenderness ratios failed due
under Fire Loading to global buckling. In thicker walls, the lower temperatures
in the middle regions of the concrete core helped to main-
The axial displacement of SpeedCore walls followed a gen-
tain the axial load-bearing capacity of walls at elevated tem-
eral trend under fire loading in the experimental and numeri-
peratures. Limiting the plate slenderness ratio can slightly
cal studies, as shown in Figure 6-4. In Figure 6-4, point A
improve the fire resistance of unprotected walls.
represents the beginning of the heating. At early steps of
The results from the analytical parametric studies were
fire exposure (AB), the walls experienced a thermal expan-
simplified into Equation  6-1 for the design of SpeedCore
sion. Faceplates were exposed to fire, and they expanded due
walls under fire loading. The load-bearing capacity of the
to the temperature increase. The thermal expansion length
walls can be estimated at elevated temperatures by using
depended on the wall height; taller walls expanded more than
Equation  6-1. This equation is appropriate for unprotected
shorter walls. The load-bearing capacity of faceplates was
walls with the range of parameters described in the para-
reduced due to the local buckling in faceplates and degrada-
metric studies. The wall story height-to-wall thickness ratio,
tion of material strength and stiffness at elevated tempera-
L/ tsc, has a limiting value of 20, which is quite large and
tures. Thus, a large portion of the axial load was sustained
generally beyond the practical range. Walls with slenderness
by the concrete infill. Axial shortening due to degradation
ratios greater than 20 should be fire protected, at least on the
of concrete mechanical properties overcame the thermal
side exposed to fire. The expansion of the exposed face of
expansion (BC). The shortening of the walls continued at
SpeedCore walls imposes moments on the wall cross sec-
a slower rate (CD) due to the temperature increase of the
tion in nonuniform fire scenarios. This causes early failure

 
(a)  24-in.-thick wall (b)  12-in.-thick wall

Fig. 6-3.  Comparison of the through-wall thickness temperature.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 215

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 215 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 of walls with wall slenderness ratios greater than 20 (Anvari vertical directions. The water-to-cement ratio of the concrete
et al., 2021). mix design has a minor influence on the pressure buildup
The total (linear) width of a SpeedCore wall can be dis- but can be controlled to reduce the buildup pressure due to
cretized into unit width columns, where each column’s width concrete water evaporation.
is equal to the tie bar spacing. Stie . Thus, each unit width is
like a column with steel plates on the surfaces, concrete infill, 6.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SPEEDCORE
and tie bars distributed uniformly along the height. The tem- WALLS UNDER FIRE LOADING
perature profile through the wall thickness can be calculated
by discretizing the section into fibers (or elements). Since the 6.2.1 Temperatures under Fire Conditions
temperature of the elements is uniform along the height and
Temperatures within structural members, components, and
width of walls, 1D thermal analysis (through wall thickness)
frames due to the heating conditions posed by the design-
can be performed using heat transfer equations or the fiber
basis fire can be determined by a heat transfer analysis. In
tool developed in the study (presented later in Equations 6-1
the case of SpeedCore walls with uniform heating along the
to 6-4) can be utilized to calculate the axial load capacity
width, a 1D analysis can be conducted per unit width of the
of a unit width column of the wall at elevated temperature
wall. A 2D or 3D analysis may be required for composite
(Anvari et al., 2021). The axial load capacity of the wall can
plate shear wall systems with nonuniform heating or with
be estimated conservatively as the axial load capacity of the
special configurations or boundary conditions.
unit width wall multiplied by the linear width of the wall
divided by unit width (tie bar spacing). Equation 6-5 can be
6.2.2 Design for Compression
used to conservatively estimate the fire resistance rating (in
hours) of unprotected SpeedCore walls exposed to the ISO- According to AISC Specification Appendix  4, Sec-
834 standard fire time-temperature curve. tion 4.2.4d, the nominal compression strength for concrete-
filled composite plate shear walls can be determined using
6.1.6 Vent Holes the provisions of AISC Specification Section I2.3 with steel
and concrete properties as stipulated in AISC Specification
Anvari et al. (2020a) recommended the use of vent holes
Appendix  4.2.3b and Equation  6-1 to calculate the nomi-
to relieve the buildup of vapor (or steam) pressure between
nal compressive strength for flexural buckling at elevated
the steel plates and concrete due to the evaporation of water
temperatures:
from concrete drying at elevated temperatures. They devel-
⎧⎪ ⎫⎪
0.3
oped a rational method to design vent holes for SpeedCore ⎡Pno (T )⎤
walls, which depends on the allowable pressure, concrete Pn (T ) = ⎨0.32 ⎣ Pe (T ) ⎦ ⎬ Pno (T ) (6-1)
moisture content, vent hole spacing, and thermal gradient ⎩ ⎭ 
through the wall thickness. The vent hole size should be at
least 1 in. diameter and the vent hole spacing should not be where Pno (T ) is calculated at elevated temperature using
larger than the story height or 12  ft in the horizontal and Equation 6-2, and Pe(T ) is calculated at elevated tempera-
ture using Equation  6-4. Fy (T ), ƒ′c (Tc), Es(Tc), and Ec (Tc)

Fig. 6-4.  Overall axial displacement of SpeedCore wall under fire loading.

216 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 216 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 are obtained using coefficients from AISC Specification corresponding to the design-basis fire. The temperature dis-
Tables A-4.2.1 and A-4.2.2. tribution in concrete infill can be calculated using 1D or 2D
heat transfer equations. The regions of concrete infill will
Pno (T ) = As Fy (T ) + ∑ 0.85 fc′(Ti ) Aci (6-2)
i=elements  have varying temperatures and mechanical properties. The
concrete contribution to axial strength and effective stiffness
EI eff (T ) = Es (T ) Is + 0.35 ∑ Ec (Ti ) Ici (6-3) can, therefore, be calculated by discretizing the cross sec-
i=elements  tion into smaller elements, with each concrete element con-
π 2 EI eff (T ) sidered to have a uniform temperature and summing up the
Pe (T ) = (6-4) contribution of individual elements.
L2c  Simple methods may suffice when a structural member
where or component can be assumed to be subjected to uniform
Aci = area of a concrete element, in.2 heat flux on all sides and the assumption of a uniform tem-
perature is reasonable as, for example, in a free-standing
As = area of a steel element, in.2
column surrounded by fire. For composite shear walls, the
Ec(T) = modulus of elasticity of concrete at elevated tem- simplified analyses can be conducted per unit width of the
peratures, ksi wall and 1D heat-transfer equations can be used to model the
Es(T) = modulus of elasticity of steel at elevated tempera- thermal response. The unit width method for shear walls is
tures, ksi conservative and can be used for different configurations of
Fy(T) = s pecified minimum yield stress of steel at ele- the walls, including planar walls and C-shaped walls (Anvari
vated temperatures, ksi et al., 2020b).
Ici = moment of inertia of a concrete element about the The equations for compression strength of composite
elastic neutral axis of the composite section, in.4 plate shear walls at elevated temperatures have been devel-
Is = moment of inertia of steel section about the elas- oped based on parametric studies conducted by Anvari et al.
tic neutral axis of the composite section, in.4 (2020b) using 3D finite element models validated against
experimental data. Figure  6-5 shows the comparison of
Lc = effective length of the member, in.
Equation 6-1 with results from finite element analyses. The
ƒ′c (T) = specified compressive strength of concrete at ele- data plotted includes both complete planar walls and their
vated temperatures, ksi corresponding unit width columns (with no flange plates).
For composite members, the steel temperature is deter- Equation 6-1 provides a lower-bound estimate of composite
mined using heat transfer equations with heat input shear wall compression strength at elevated temperatures.

Fig. 6-5.  Comparison of compression strength of SpeedCore walls with Equation 6-1.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 217

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 217 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 6.2.3 Fire Resistance Rating 6.2.4 General Structural Integrity
For unprotected composite plate shear walls meeting the The size and spacing of steam vent holes in concrete-filled
requirements of AISC Specification Chapter I and Appen- columns and concrete-filled composite plate shear walls can
dix 4, the fire resistance rating is permitted to be determined be evaluated using any rational method that considers heat
in accordance with Equation 6-5. To calculate Pn in Equa- transfer through the cross section, water content in concrete,
tion  6-5, Pno is calculated at ambient temperature using fire protection, and the allowable pressure in the member.
Equation 6-6b, Pe is calculated at ambient temperature using For example, Anvari et al. (2020a) have developed a ratio-
Equation 6-6c, and EIeff is calculated at ambient temperature nal method that considers these factors and can be used to
using Equation 6-6d. These equations are based on compres- calculate the size and spacing of vent holes required to limit
sion design of SpeedCore walls discussed in Sections 2.2.2 the internal pressure build-up to a chosen design (allowable)
and 2.2.3 of this Design Guide. value.
The use of Equation  6-5 is limited to unprotected walls
satisfying all the following conditions: 6.3 GENERAL DESIGN PROCEDURE
(1) Wall slenderness ratio (L/ tsc) is less than or equal to 20. FOR SPEEDCORE WALLS UNDER
FIRE LOADING
(2) Axial load ratio (Pu /Pn) is less than or equal to 0.2.
This section describes the design approach for SpeedCore
⎡ ⎛0.24 − L tsc ⎞ ⎤ walls at elevated temperatures. This design approach consid-
⎢ ⎛ Pu ⎞ ⎝ 230 ⎠ ⎥ ⎛ 1.9tsc ⎞
R = ⎢− 18.5 ⎜ ⎟ + 15⎥ − 1 ≤ 8 hr (6-5) ers the provisions discussed in Section 6.2 and the applicable
⎣ ⎝ Pn ⎠ ⎦⎝ 8 ⎠
 building code. This design procedure has five main steps:
where (1) collecting design input, (2) calculating the fire resistance
L = length of member, in. rating, (3) heat transfer analysis, (4) calculation of compres-
sive strength at elevated temperatures, and (5) design of vent
Pn = compressive strength at ambient temperature, kips
holes. A summary of this design approach is presented in
Pu = ultimate axial load, kips Figure 6-6.
R = fire resistance rating, hr
tsc = wall thickness, in. 6.3.1 Design Inputs

⎛ Pno
⎞ The design inputs include the governing building code,
Pn = ⎝ 0.658 Pe ⎠ Pno (6-6a) applied axial load, geometric properties of the wall such as

wall thickness, wall height, steel and concrete material prop-
Pno = Fy As + 0.85 fc′Ac (6-6b) erties at ambient temperature, fire scenario (uniform or non-
uniform heating), and target fire resistance rating.
π 2 EI eff
Pe = (6-6c)
L2c  6.3.2 Fire Resistance Rating

EI eff = Es Is + 0.35Ec Ic (6-6d) The fire resistance rating can be calculated using Equa-
tion  6-5. This equation is a function of the ratio of the
Equation 6-5 for determining the fire resistance rating of required strength to the nominal compressive strength at
composite plate shear walls is based on research conducted ambient temperature, Pu /Pn, wall slenderness ratio, L/ tsc,
by Anvari et al. (2020a). Equation 6-5 provides conservative and wall thickness, tsc.
failure times for walls subjected to standard ISO or ASTM
fire scenarios. This equation is based on data obtained from 6.3.3 Heat Transfer Analysis
experiments and benchmarked numerical models. The equa-
tion can be used for composite plate shear walls that meet The axial strength of a wall depends on the strength of the
the detailing and design requirements of AISC Specification mechanical material properties of the wall’s component at
Chapter I—namely, the steel plate slenderness and tie spac- elevated temperatures. Thus, transient heat transfer analy-
ing requirements identified in Sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2, sis is required to obtain the temperature profile through the
respectively, of this Design Guide. The limits of applicabil- wall thickness. The wall thickness can be divided into sev-
ity of Equation  6-5 are based on the range of parameters eral elements and the material properties of each element
considered in the study. For walls with slenderness greater can be calculated based on the temperature of each element.
than 20, nonuniform fire scenarios may start controlling the The temperature profile through the wall thickness can be
failure of the wall, and additional fire protection may need obtained using the program by Varma et al. (2020). A pre-
to be provided. Typical axial load ratios for composite plate view of this tool is provided in Section 6.5.
shear walls are in the range of 10–20%.

218 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 218 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Fig. 6-6.  Overview of fire design of SpeedCore systems under fire loading.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 219

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 219 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 6.3.4 Compressive Strength of SpeedCore Walls at bottom of a wall. The horizontal and vertical spacing of the
Elevated Temperatures vent holes should not exceed the story height or 12 ft. The
minimum diameter of vent holes is 1 in.
The nominal compressive strength of SpeedCore walls at
In this method, the following assumptions were made to
elevated temperatures can be calculated using Equations 6‑1
design vent holes:
to 6‑4. The compressive strength of walls can be calculated
per unit width of the wall. A unit width column of the wall • Temperature of vapor does not exceed (392°F) while
has a width equal to the tie bar spacing. This method uses traveling inside the wall until it reaches a vent hole (T =
the temperature-dependent material properties of concrete 392°F, γ = 1.315).
and steel. One-dimensional (for unit width columns) or • Water content of concrete evaporates when the tempera-
2D (for whole wall section) heat transfer analysis is con- ture exceeds 212°F.
ducted to calculate the temperature distribution through the • The flow of vapor through vent holes is reversible and
wall thickness. The variation of the temperature distribution isentropic.
through the width and height of the wall can be neglected
conservatively in the heat transfer analysis. The mechanical • Vent holes have a square edge for calculation purposes.
properties of each element can be calculated based on the • The generated vapor rate is equal to the vapor discharge.
calculated element temperature.
Equation  6-10 was obtained after simplifying Equa-
6.3.5 Design of Vent Holes tion 6-7 and taking into account all the listed assumptions.
m
The existing water in the concrete infill of SpeedCore walls A= (6-7)
evaporates at elevated temperatures. The faceplate surround- ⎛ γ +1⎞

ing the concrete infill can trap vapor between faceplates γ Mm ⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎝ γ −1⎠
Kd P
and concrete, and the wall can act like an enclosed vessel RT ⎝ γ + 1⎠ 
during a fire event. The temperature rise builds up pressure
s1 s2 Tdc ω ρw
between faceplates and concrete. This pressure can build up m= (6-8)
to large values, resulting in yielding of the steel plates. Pro- tdc 
viding vent holes can help to release the built-up pressure. P = ρc ghc (6-9)

Vent holes should not be blocked by any structural or non-
structural elements. A rational method has been developed s1 s2 Tdc ω ρw
A = 116 (6-10)
by Anvari et al. (2020a) based on using spring-operated relief tdc ρc hc 
pressure device design methods (Crowl and Tipler, 2013).
Equation  6-7 can be used to calculate the required vent where
hole size for a designated effective area. It is assumed that A = vent hole area, ft2
vent holes are located in the middle of the effective area. The Kd = discharge coefficient (a square edge hole = 0.62)
maximum allowable vapor pressure can be equated to the Mm = molar weight of water, lb/mol
maximum allowable hydrostatic pressure on the steel plates P = allowable pressure, lb/ft-s2
during concrete casting. This allowable hydrostatic pressure
R = ideal gas constant, lb-ft2/s2-K-mol
was calculated by Bhardwaj et al. (2018) on the basis of not
significantly altering the local buckling behavior and com- T = maximum vapor temperature, K
pressive strength of SpeedCore walls in the composite phase Tdc = dry concrete thickness, ft
after concrete casting. g = gravitational acceleration, ft/s2
The vapor generation rate, m, can be determined based on hc = concrete pouring height, ft
the thickness of the dried concrete. This can be calculated by m = vapor generation rate, lb/s
dividing the amount of evaporated water content from the
s1 = horizontal spacing of vent holes, ft
dry concrete thickness, t dc, with the time duration in seconds
associated with drying. The discharge rate of every vent hole s2 = vertical spacing of vent holes, ft
can be conservatively taken equal to the vapor generation tdc = h eating duration associated with the selected dry
rate, m. The vapor generation rate and the allowable pressure concrete thickness, s
based on the concrete pouring height can be calculated using γ = specific heat ratio
Equations 6-8 and 6-9, respectively. At least one vent hole ρc = concrete density, lb/ft3
should be provided at the top and bottom of the wall at every ρw = water density, lb/ft3
floor. Based on the height of the wall, additional vent holes
ω = concrete water content, % by volume
should be provided between the vent holes at the top and

220 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 220 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 6.4 DESIGN EXAMPLE

EXAMPLE 6.1—Fire Design of SpeedCore Walls

This example presents the fire design of a SpeedCore wall, which includes calculating the fire resistance rating and the axial
strength of the wall. It is assumed that a fire resistance rating of 3 hr is required for the wall. It is also assumed that the wall is
exposed to uniform fire loading and both sides of the wall are heated. A simplified design method using unit width columns of the
wall can be used to calculate the compressive axial strength of the wall at elevated temperatures. This is a conservative method
that can be used for walls with different configurations such as planar and C-shaped walls. Tie bars are located in the middle of
the unit width columns, which have width equal to the tie bar spacing as shown in Figure 6-7.

Given:
ASTM A572/A572M, Grade 50 steel:
Es = 29,000 ksi
Concrete (self-consolidating):
ƒ′c = 6 ksi
Ec = 4,280 ksi
Kd = discharge coefficient (square edge)
= 0.62
Lwall = wall length
= 11 ft
Mm = molar weight of water
= 0.04 lb/mol
Pu,wall = applied axial load to the wall
= 3,600 kips
R = ideal gas constant
= 199.9 lb-ft2/(s2-K-mol)
Stie = tie bar spacing
= 12 in.
T = assumed maximum vapor temperature
= 473 K
h = story height
= 17 ft
hc = assumed concrete pouring height
= 14 ft
s1 = horizontal spacing of vent holes
= 10 ft
s2 = vertical spacing of vent holes
= 10 ft
tp = wall plate thickness
= b in.
tsc = wall thickness
= 24 in.
γ = specific heat ratio at 392°F
= 1.315
ρc = concrete density
= 145 lb/ft3
ρw = water density
= 62.5 lb/ft3
ω = concrete water content
= 15%

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 221

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 221 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Solution:
Step 1. Calculation of the Fire Resistance Rating
To use Equation 6-5 for calculating the fire resistance rating of the wall, the properties of the wall or the unit width column need
to satisfy the limitations of Equation 6-5.
Check that the wall slenderness ratio limit, L/ tsc, is less than or equal to 20.
Member length:
L = h = 17 ft

L 17 ft (12 in./ft )
=
tsc 24 in.
= 8.50 < 20

Check that the applied axial load ratio limit, Pu/Pn, is less than or equal to 0.2.
The area of steel in the cross section of the unit width column is:
As = 2 Stie tp
= 2 (12 in.) ( b in.)
= 13.5 in.2

The area of concrete in the cross section is:

Ac = ( tsc − 2tp ) Stie
= ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦ (12 in.)
= 275 in.2

Fig. 6-7.  SpeedCore cross section and unit width column for fire design.

222 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 222 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The nominal axial compressive strength of a zero length (stub) column at ambient temperature is calculated from Equation 6-6b:
Pno = As Fy + 0.85 fc′Ac (6-6b)
= (13.5 in. ) ( 50 ksi ) + 0.85 ( 6 ksi ) ( 275 in. )
2 2

= 2,080 kips 

The moment of inertia of the concrete section about the elastic neutral axis of the composite section for a unit width is:
3
Stie ( tsc − 2tp )
Ic =
12
3
(12 in.) ⎡⎣24 in. − 2 ( b in.)⎤⎦
=
12
= 12,000 in.4

The moment of inertia of steel about the elastic neutral axis of the composite section is:
Stie tsc3
Is = − Ic
12
(12 in.)( 24 in.)3
= − 12,000 in.4
12
= 1,820 in.4

The effective moment of inertia of a unit width column at ambient temperature is calculated from Equation 6-6d:
EI eff = Es I s + 0.35Ec I c (6-6d)
= ( 29,000 ksi ) (1,820 in.4 ) + 0.35 ( 4,280 ksi ) (12,000 in.4 )
= 7.08 × 10 7 kip-in.2 

The elastic critical buckling load at ambient temperature is:

π 2 EI eff
Pe = (6-6c)
L c2 

Using K= 1.0 for a pinned-end member:

π 2 ( 7.08 × 10 7 kip-in.2 )
Pe = 2
⎡⎣(1.0 ) (17 ft ) (12 in./ft )⎤⎦
= 16,800 kips

The axial compressive strength of the unit width column at ambient temperature is calculated using Equation 6-6a:
⎛ Pno
⎞
Pn = ⎝ 0.658 Pe ⎠ Pno (6-6a)
⎛ 2,080 kips
⎞
⎠ ( 2,080 kips )
16,800 kips
= ⎝ 0.658
= 1,970 kips 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 223

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 223 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 The applied axial load to a unit width column of the wall is:
S
Pu = Pu,wall ⎛ tie ⎞
⎝ L wall ⎠
⎡ 12 in. ⎤
= ( 3,600 kips ) ⎢ ⎥
⎣ (11 ft ) (12 in./ft ) ⎦
= 327 kips

Check the load ratio against the limitation:

Pu 327 kips
=
Pn 1,970 kips
= 0.166 < 0.20 o.k.

The limitations of Equation 6-5 are satisfied, and the fire-resistance rating is:
⎡ ⎛
0.24 −
L tsc ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ⎛ P ⎞ ⎝ 230 ⎠ ⎛ 1.9 tsc ⎞
R = ⎢−18.5 ⎜ ⎟u
+ 15⎥⎥ − 1.0 (6-5)
⎢⎣ P
⎝ n⎠ ⎥
⎦ ⎝ 8 ⎠
⎧ ⎡ (17 ft )(12 in./ft ) ( 24 in.) ⎤ ⎫
⎢0.24 − ⎥
⎪ ⎛ 327 kips ⎞ ⎣ 230 ⎦ ⎪ ⎡1.9 ( 24 in.) ⎤
= ⎨ −18.5 ⎜ ⎟ +15 ⎬ ⎢ − 1.0⎥
⎝ 1,970 kips ⎠ ⎢ 8 ⎥⎦
⎩ ⎭⎣
= 10.1 hr > 8 hr
= 8 hr 

Step 2. Calculation of the Thermal Profile Through Wall Thickness

Heat transfer analysis was conducted to calculate the temperature profile through the wall thickness after 3 hr (the target fire
rating) of heating following ISO 834 gas time-temperature. This analysis was performed using the program developed by Varma
et al. (2020).
The concrete infill was divided into several elements through the width and thickness of the unit width column. The thermal and
mechanical material properties of each element were calculated based on the element’s temperature. The calculated temperature
profile through the wall thickness is shown in Figure 6-8.

Location along wall thickness (in.)

Fig. 6-8.  Temperature profile through the wall thickness after 3 hr of heating.

224 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 224 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Step 3. Calculation of the Material Properties at Elevated Temperatures
Table 6-1 shows a summary of the thermal analysis and the mechanical properties of each element at elevated temperatures. The
size of elements through the wall thickness is shown in Table 6-1. The cross section of the concrete infill was discretized into
26 elements (13 elements for half of the wall thickness), and the steel plate was discretized into one element. The required fire
resistance rating for this example was defined as 3 hr (180 min). The temperature of each element was obtained from the ther-
mal analysis results using the computer program developed by Varma et al. (2020). Because the temperature profile through the
wall thickness is symmetric, the material properties of the elements [Fy (T), ƒ′c (T), Es (T), Ec (T)] for half of the wall thickness are
calculated after 180 min in Table 6-1. The modulus of elasticity and material strength for each element at elevated temperatures
were calculated using AISC Specification Tables A-4.2.1 and A-4.2.2.
The area of the elements, Aelement, was calculated by multiplying the thickness of each element by the tie bar spacing (unit width
column’s length as shown in Figure 6-7). The distance of each element, delement, to the neutral axis (wall mid-thickness) is calcu-
lated in Table 6-1. The moment of inertia for each element, Ielement, was calculated using the area of elements and the distance of
elements to the neutral axis ( Iy = Ielement + Aelement delement
2
).
The moment of inertia about the mid-thickness of the wall and the area for each element will be needed to calculate the nominal
axial compressive strength, Pno(T), and the effective stiffness of the composite section, EIeff (T), in the next steps of this example.
Step 4. Calculation of Compressive Strength at Elevated Temperatures
To calculate the compressive strength of the cross section at elevated temperatures, the nominal axial compressive strength,
Pno (T), and effective stiffness of the composite section, EIeff (T), can be calculated based on the mechanical properties of the ele-
ments through the cross section of the unit width column at elevated temperatures.
The effective stiffness of the cross section, EIeff (T), is calculated using Equation 6-3 based on the material mechanical properties
of elements at elevated temperatures (see Step 3) for half of the cross section in Table 6-1:
EI eff (T )
= Es (T ) I s + 0.35 ∑ Ec (Ti ) I ci (from Eq. 6-3)
2 i=elements

= (1,270 ksi ) ( 924 in.4 )

⎡( 292 ksi ) (1,280 in.4 ) + (1,140 ksi ) (1,080 in.4 ) + ( 2,060 ksi ) ( 906 in.4 ) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢+ ( 2,680 ksi ) ( 742 in.4 ) + ( 3,180 ksi ) ( 594 in.4 ) + ( 3,570 ksi ) ( 462 in.4 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
+ 0.35 ⎢+ ( 3,870 ksi ) ( 347 in.4 ) + ( 4,040 ksi ) ( 249 in.4 ) + ( 4,130 ksi ) (167 in.4 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢+ ( 4,190 ksi ) (101 in.4 ) + ( 4,220 ksi ) ( 52.0 in.4 ) + ( 4,240 ksi ) (19.2 in.4 )⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢+ ( 4,250 ksi ) ( 2.73 in.4 ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 5,640,000 kip-in.2 

The calculated EIeff (T) based on the summation of element contributions in Table 6-1 is multiplied by 2 to obtain EIeff (T) for the
entire unit width column cross section:
EI eff (T ) = 2 ( 5,640,000 kip-in.2 )
= 1.13 × 10 7 kip-in.2

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 225

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 225 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 6-1.  Obtained Temperatures and Calculated Properties for Each Element
at Elevated Temperatures for Half of the Wall Thickness at 180 Min
Material
Properties Steel Concrete
Thickness
0.563 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880
(in.)
Temperature
1840 1450 927 694 533 406 305 229 173 134 108 92.0 83.0 79.0
(°F)
Fy(T) or ƒ′c (T)
1.80 1.09 3.61 4.64 5.19 5.39 5.54 5.66 5.76 5.85 5.91 5.95 5.97 5.98
(ksi)
Es(T) or Ec(T)
1270 292 1140 2060 2680 3180 3570 3870 4040 4130 4190 4220 4240 4250
(ksi)
Distance to N.A.
11.7 11.0 10.1 9.24 8.36 7.48 6.60 5.72 4.84 3.96 3.08 2.20 1.32 0.44
delement (in.)
Aelement
6.75 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6
(in.2)
Iy
924 1280 1080 906 742 594 462 347 249 167 101 52.0 19.2 2.73
(in.4)

The nominal axial compressive strength, Pno (T), based on the calculated material mechanical properties of elements in Table 6-1
is calculated from Equation 6-2:
Pno (T )
= Fy (T ) As + ∑ 0.85 fc′(Ti ) Aci (from Eq. 6-2)
2 i=elements

= (1.80 ksi ) ( 6.75 in.2 )

⎡ (1.09 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) + ( 3.61 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) + ( 4.64 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢+ ( 5.19 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) + ( 5.39 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) + ( 5.54 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 )⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
+ 0.85 ⎢+ ( 5.66 ksi ) (10.6 in. ) + ( 5.76 ksi ) (10.6 in. ) + ( 5.85 ksi ) (10.6 in. ) ⎥
2 2 2
⎢ ⎥
⎢+ ( 5.91 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) + ( 5.95 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) + ( 5.97 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢+ ( 5.98 ksi ) (10.6 in.2 ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 612 kips 

The calculated Pno(T) based on the summation of element contributions for half of the cross section in Table 6-1 is multiplied by
2 to obtain Pno (T) for the entire unit width column cross section:
Pno (T ) = 2 ( 612 kips )
= 1,220 kips

The elastic critical buckling load at elevated temperatures is calculated from Equation 6-4:
π 2 EI eff (T )
Pe (T ) = (6-4)
L c2
π 2 (1.13 × 10 7 kip-in.)
= 2
⎡⎣(1) (17ft ) (12in./ft )⎤⎦
= 2,680 kips 

226 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 226 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 From Equation 6-1, the nominal axial compressive strength of the unit width column at 180 minutes is:
0.3
⎧⎪ ⎡Pno (T )⎤ ⎫⎪
Pn (T ) = ⎨ 0.32 ⎣ Pe (T ) ⎦ ⎬ Pno (T ) (6-1)
⎩ ⎭
⎡ ⎛ 1,220 kips ⎞ ⎤
0.3

⎢ ⎜ 2,680 kips⎟ ⎥
= ⎣ 0.32 ⎝ ⎦ (1,220 kips )
⎠

= 496 kips 

The design axial compressive strength of the unit width column at 180 minutes is:
ϕPn (T ) = 0.90 ( 496 kips)
= 446 kips >330 kips

The axial compressive strength of the unit width column is more than the applied axial load after 3 hr of heating. The wall will
be able to resist the applied axial load for more than 3 hr under fire loading.
The design axial compressive strength of the SpeedCore wall at 180 minutes can be calculated conservatively as the axial design
strength of the unit width column multiplied by the linear width of the wall divided by the unit width (tie bar spacing):
⎛ L wall ⎞
ϕPn (T ) wall = ϕPn (T )
⎝ Stie ⎠
⎡(11 ft ) (12 in./ft ) ⎤
= ( 446 kips ) ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12 in. ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 4,910 kips > 3,600 kips

Step 5. Design of Vent Holes

The size and spacing of vent holes can be calculated based on the vapor generation rate during a fire event. The evaporated
volume/weight of water is needed to estimate the vapor generation rate. The computer program developed by Varma et al. (2020)
was used to calculate the temperature profile through the wall thickness during the heating phase. The thickness of the concrete
with a temperature exceeding 212°F (on a single face) was assumed as the dry concrete thickness. Table 6-2 presents the heating
time, the thickness of the dry concrete, and the calculated vapor generation rate for 10 ft vent hole spacing in both the horizontal
and vertical directions. The vapor generation rate in Table 6-2 is calculated using Equation 6-8.
The heating duration and dry concrete thickness associated with the maximum vapor generation rate, shown as the highlighted
column in Table 6-2, are selected to design the vent holes.
tdc = 1,790 sec
1.50 in.
Tdc =
12 in./ft
= 0.125 ft

The vent hole area is calculated using Equation 6-10:

s1 s2 Tdc ω ρ w
A = 116 (6-10)
tdc ρc hc
(10 ft )(10 ft )( 0.125 ft )( 0.15)( 62.5 lb/ft 3 )
= 116 (144 in.2 /ft 2 )
(1,790 sec )(145 lb/ft )(14 ft )
3

= 0.539 in.2 

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 227

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 227 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Table 6-2.  Calculation of Maximum Vapor Generation Rate
Dry Concrete Thickness,
0.00 0.750 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50
Tdc (in.)
Heating Duration,
391 952 1790 2830 4070 5570 7340
tdc (sec)
Vapor Generation Rate,
0.00 6.33 6.70 6.39 5.92 5.41 4.92
m (lb/sec ×10−2)

The vent hole diameter is:

A
d=2
π
0.539 in.2
=2
π
= 0.828 in.

Use vent holes with a diameter of 1 in. spaced at 10 ft along the height (vertical) and width (horizontal) of the wall.

228 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

213-228_DG38_Chapter 6.indd 228 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Appendix A
Nominal Flexural Strength of SpeedCore Walls and
Composite Coupling Beams
(Plastic Stress Distribution Method)
Equations for the nominal flexural strength of planar and C-shaped SpeedCore walls and composite coupling beams are listed in
this Appendix. These equations were developed using the plastic stress distribution method. Cases considering the effect of axial
loads for SpeedCore walls are also considered. Additional cases for walls of different geometry, neutral axis location, or location
of applied load are possible.

A.1 PLANAR SPEEDCORE WALLS

Flexural strength calculations for planar SpeedCore walls consider the section geometry as shown in Figure A-1.

A.1.1 Planar SpeedCore Walls Subjected to Flexure

The nominal flexural strength of a planar SpeedCore wall is calculated as follows (see Figure A-2):
2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp) tp Plastic neutral axis location
C=
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ (tsc − 2tp)c 
C1 = ( tsc − 2tp) tp Fy Flange plate compression force
C2 = 2t pCFy Web plate compression force
C3 = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2t p ) (C − tp ) Concrete compression force
T1 = ( tsc − 2tp) tp Fy Flange plate tensile force
T2 = 2tp ( L wall − C ) Fy Web plate tensile force

Nominal flexural strength of planar SpeedCore wall:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C⎞ ⎛ C − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ L − C⎞
MP.wall = C1 C − + C2 + C3 + T1 L wall − C − + T2 wall
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

A.1.2 Planar SpeedCore Walls Subjected to Tension

The nominal flexural strength of a planar SpeedCore wall subjected to tension load is calculated as follows (see Figure A-3):

Fig. A-1.  Geometry of planar SpeedCore wall. Fig. A-2.  Plastic stress distribution and
component forces in planar SpeedCore wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 229

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 229 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Note: The applied axial load, Tr.wall, is positive in these equations.
−Tr.wall + 2t p L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp) tp
CT = Plastic neutral axis location
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2t p ) 
C1.T = ( tsc − 2t p ) tp Fy Flange plate compression force
C2.T = 2tp CT Fy Web plate compression force
C3.T = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) (CT − tp ) Concrete compression force
T1.T = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy Flange plate tensile force
T2.T = 2tp ( L wall − CT ) Fy Web plate tensile force

Nominal flexural strength of planar SpeedCore wall:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CT − tp ⎞ + T ⎛L tp ⎞ ⎛ L wall − CT ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞
MPT .wall = C1.T CT − + C2.T T + C3.T 1.T wall − CT − + T2.T + Tr.wall CT − wall
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

A.1.3 Planar SpeedCore Walls Subjected to Compression

The nominal flexural strength of a planar SpeedCore wall subjected to compression load is calculated as follows (see Figure A-4):
Note: The applied axial load, Pr.wall, is positive in these equations.
Pr.wall + 2tp L wall Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tsc − 2tp ) tp
CC = Plastic neutral axis location
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) 
C1.C = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy Flange plate compression force
C2.C = 2tp CC Fy Web plate compression force
C3.C = 0.85 fc′( tsc − 2tp ) ( CC − tp ) Concrete compression force
T1.C = ( tsc − 2tp ) tp Fy Flange plate tensile force
T2.C = 2t p ( L wall − CC ) Fy Web plate tensile force

Nominal flexural strength of planar SpeedCore wall:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CC − tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛L − CC ⎞ ⎛L ⎞
MPC.wall = C1.C CC − + C2.C C + C3.C + T1.C L wall − CC − + T2.C wall + Pr.wall wall − CC
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

Fig. A-3.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in Fig. A-4.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in
planar SpeedCore wall with applied tensile force. planar SpeedCore wall with applied compression force.

230 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 230 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 A.2 C-SHAPED SPEEDCORE WALLS
Flexural strength calculations for C-shaped SpeedCore walls consider the section geometry as shown in Figure A-5.
Additional geometric properties used for C-shaped SpeedCore wall calculations:
Wc = Wwall − 3tp  Length of flange wall without perpendicular steel plates

tc.w = tsc.w − 2tp Width of concrete in web wall

tc.f = tsc.f − 2tp Depth of concrete in flange wall

A.2.1 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with PNA in Flanges

Assuming the plastic neutral axis is located in the flange of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, the nominal flexural strength of the
C-shaped SpeedCore wall is calculated as follows (see Figure A-6):
4tpWwall Fy + 2tp tc.f Fy + 2tc.f (Wwall − tp) 0.85 fc′ − 2t p ( L wall − 4tp) Fy
C= Plastic neutral axis location
8tp Fy + 2tc.f 0.85 fc′ 
C1 = 4tp (Wwall − C ) Fy Flange walls, edge plates, compression force
C2 = 2tc. f tp Fy Flange walls, end plates, compression force

C3 = 2tc. f (Wwall − C − tp ) 0.85 fc′ Concrete compression force

T1 = 4tpCFy Flange walls, edge plates, tension force

T2 = tp ( Lwall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, inside steel plate, tension force

T3 = tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, outside steel plate, tension force

Fig. A-5.  Geometry of C-shaped SpeedCore wall. Fig. A-6.  Plastic stress distribution and component
forces in C-shaped SpeedCore wall (bent about minor
axis subjecting flange wall tips to compression).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 231

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 231 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Nominal flexural strength of C-shaped SpeedCore wall:
⎛ Wwall − C ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ Wwall − C − tp ⎞ ⎛C⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
MP.wall = C1 + C2 Wwall − C − + C3 +T + T2 C − tsc.w + + T3 C −
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠

A.2.2 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with PNA in Web

Assuming the plastic neutral axis is located in the web of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, the nominal flexural strength of the
C-shaped SpeedCore wall is calculated as follows (see Figure A-7):
( L wall − 4tp ) tp 0.85 fc′ + 4Wwall t p Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy
C= Plastic neutral axis location
8tp Fy + ( L wall − 4tp) 0.85 fc′ 
C1 = 4tpCFy Flange walls, edge plates, compression force

C2 = tp (L wall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, exterior plate, compression force

C3 = ( L wall − 4t p ) (C − tp ) 0.85 fc′ Concrete compression force

T1 = 4 (Wwall − C ) tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, tension force

T2 = tp ( L wall − 4tp) Fy Web wall, interior steel plate, tension force
T3 = 2tp tc. f Fy Flange wall, end plates, tension force

Nominal flexural strength of C-shaped SpeedCore wall:

⎛ C⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ C − tp ⎞ ⎛ Wwall − C ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp⎞
MP.wall = C1 + C2 C − + C3 +T +T t −C − + T3 Wwall − C −
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 1⎝ 2 ⎠ 2 ⎝ sc.w 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠

Fig. A-7.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in C-shaped

SpeedCore wall (bent about minor axis subjecting web wall to compression).

232 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 232 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 A.2.3 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with PNA in Flanges Subjected to Tension
Assuming the plastic neutral axis is located in the flange of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, the nominal flexural strength of the
C-shaped SpeedCore wall subjected to tension load is calculated as follows (see Figure A-8):
Note: The applied axial load, Tr.wall, is positive in these equations.
Tr.wall + 4tp Wwall Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy + 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (Wwall − tp ) − 2tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy
CT = Plastic neutral axis location
8tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f 
C1.T = 4 (Wwall − CT ) tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, compression force
C2.T = 2tc. f tp Fy Flange wall, end plates, compression force

C3.T = 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (Wwall − CT − tp ) Concrete compression force

T1.T = 4CT tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, tension force

T2.T = ( L wall − 4tp ) tp Fy Web wall, interior steel plate, tension force

T3.T = ( L wall − 4tp) t p Fy Web wall, exterior steel plate, tension force

Nominal flexural strength of C-shaped SpeedCore wall:

⎛ Wwall − CT ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ Wwall − CT − tp ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
MPT .wall = C1.T + C2.T Wwall − CT − + C3.T + T1.T T + T2.T CT − tsc.w +
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
⎛ tp ⎞
+ T3.T CT − + Tr.wall ( y − CT )
⎝ 2⎠

Fig. A-8.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in C-shaped SpeedCore wall
with applied tension force (bent about minor axis subjecting flange wall tips to compression).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 233

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 233 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 A.2.4 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with PNA in Flanges Subjected to Compression
Assuming the plastic neutral axis is located in the flange of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, the nominal flexural strength of the
C-shaped SpeedCore wall subjected to compression load is calculated as follows (see Figure A-9):
Note: The applied axial load, Pr.wall, is positive in these equations.
Pr.wall − 2tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy − tc.w ( L wall − 4tp ) 0.85 fc′ + 2tc. f tsc.w 0.85 fc′ + 4t p Wwall Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy
CC =
8tp Fy + 2tc. f 0.85 fc′
 Plastic neutral axis location
C1.C = 4CC tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, compression force

C2.C = tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, exterior plate, compression force

C3.C = tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy  Web wall, interior plate, compression force

C4.C = 0.85 fc′ tc.w ( L wall − 4tp )  Web wall, concrete compression force

C5.C = 0.85 fc′ 2tc. f (CC − tsc.w ) Flange walls, concrete compression force

T1.C = 4 (Wwall CC ) tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, tension force

T2.C = 2tp tc. f Fy Flange wall, end plates, tension force

Nominal flexural strength of C-shaped SpeedCore wall:

⎛ CC ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ CC − tsc.w ⎞ + T ⎛ Wwall − CC ⎞
M PC.wall = C1.C + C2.C CC − + C3.C CC − tsc.w + + C4.C CC − sc.w + C5.C 1.C
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
tp
+ T2.C ⎛ Wwall − CC − ⎞ + Pr.wall ( y − CC )
⎝ 2⎠

Fig. A-9.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in C-shaped SpeedCore wall with applied
compression force (bent about minor axis subjecting web wall to compression resulting in PNA in flange concrete).

234 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 234 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 A.2.5 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls with PNA in Web Plate Subjected to Compression
Assuming the plastic neutral axis is located in the web steel plate of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, the nominal flexural strength
of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall subjected to compression load is calculated as follows (see Figure A-10):
Note: The applied axial load, Pr.wall, is positive in these equations.
Pr.wall − tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy + ( tc.w + tp ) ( Lwall − 4tp ) Fy
CC = Plastic neutral axis location
8tp Fy + 2 ( L wall − 4tp) Fy
−tc.w ( L wall − 4tp ) 0.85 fc′ + 4tp Wwall Fy + 2tp tc. f Fy + tsc.w ( Lwall − 4tp ) Fy
+
8tp Fy + 2 ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy 
C1.C = 4CC tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, compression force

C2.C = tp ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, exterior plate, compression force

C3.C = (CC − tc.w − tp ) ( L wall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, interior steel plate, compression force

C4.C = 0.85 fc′tc.w ( L wall − 4tp ) Concrete compression force

T1.C = 4 (Wwall − CC ) tp Fy Flange walls, edge plates, tension force

T2.C = ( tsc.w − CC )( Lwall − 4tp ) Fy Web wall, interior steel plate, tension force
T3.C = 2tp tc. f Fy Flange wall, end plates, tension force

Nominal flexural strength of C-shaped SpeedCore wall:

⎛ CC ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ CC − tc.w − tp ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞
MPC.wall = C1.C + C2.C CC − + C3.C + C4.C CC − tp − c.w
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ Wwall − CC ⎞ ⎛ t − CC ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞
+ T1.C + T2.C sc.w + T3.C Wwall − CC − + Pr.wall ( y − CC )
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠

Fig. A-10.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in C-shaped SpeedCore wall considering applied
compression force (bent about minor axis subjecting web wall to compression resulting in PNA in web steel).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 235

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 235 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 A.2.6 C-Shaped SpeedCore Walls Bent about the Major Axis
Assuming the plastic neutral axis is located in the web of the C-shaped SpeedCore wall, the nominal flexural strength of the
C-shaped SpeedCore wall is calculated as follows (see Figure A-11):
2L wall tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ ( tc.w tsc. f − tc. f Wc )
C= Plastic neutral axis location
4tp Fy + 0.85 fc′ tc.w 
C1 = Wctp Fy Flange wall, exterior steel plate, compression force
C2 = Wc tp Fy Flange wall, interior steel plates, compression force
C3 = tsc. f tp Fy Flange wall, end plates, compression force
C4 = 2Ctp Fy Web wall, steel plates, compression force
C5 = 0.85 fc′Wc tc. f  Flange wall, concrete compression force

C6 = 0.85 fc′(C − tsc. f ) tc.w Web wall, concrete compression force

T1 = Wc tp Fy Flange wall, exterior steel plate, tension force
T2 = Wc tp Fy Flange wall, interior steel plate, tension force
T3 = tsc. f tp Fy Flange wall, end plate, tension force

T4 = 2 (L wall − C ) tp Fy Web wall, steel plates, tension force

Nominal flexural strength of C-shaped SpeedCore wall:

⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛C⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛ C − tsc. f ⎞
M P.wall = C1 C − + C2 C − tsc. f + + C3 C − + C4 + C5 C − + C6
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tp ⎞ ⎛ tsc. f ⎞ ⎛L −C⎞
+ T1 L wall − C − + T2 L wall − C − tsc. f + + T3 L wall − C − + T4 wall
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

Fig. A-11.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in C-shaped SpeedCore wall (bent about major axis).

236 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 236 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 A.3 COMPOSITE COUPLING BEAMS
Flexural strength calculations for the composite coupling beam use the section geometry as shown in Figure A-12.
The nominal flexural strength of a composite coupling beam is calculated as follows (see Figure A-13):
2t pw.CB h CB Fy + 0.85 fc′tc.CB tpf.CB
CCB = Plastic neutral axis location
4tpw.CB Fy + 0.85 fc′tc.CB 
C1 = ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) tpf .CB Fy Flange plate, compression force
C2 = 2t pw.CB CCB Fy Web plate, compression force

C3 = 0.85 fc′tc.CB (CCB − tpf .CB ) Concrete compression force

T1 = t pf .CB ( bCB − 2tpw.CB ) Fy Web plate, tension force

T2 = 2tpw.CB (h CB − CCB ) Fy Flange plate, tension force

Nominal flexural strength of composite coupling beam:

⎛ tpf .CB ⎞ ⎛C ⎞ ⎛ CCB − t pf .CB ⎞ ⎛ tpf.CB ⎞ ⎛ h − CCB ⎞
MPn.CB = C1 CCB − + C2 CB + C3 + T1 h CB − CCB − + T2 CB
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

Fig. A-12.  Geometry of composite coupling beam.

Fig. A-13.  Plastic stress distribution and component forces in composite coupling beam.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 237

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 237 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 238 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

229-238_DG38_AppA.indd 238 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Symbols
A Area of cross-sectional element C Plastic neutral axis location in SpeedCore wall,
2 in.
Ac Area of concrete in SpeedCore wall, in.
CC Plastic neutral axis location in SpeedCore wall in
A Vent hole area, ft2
compression, in.
Aci Area of concrete element, in.2
CCB Plastic neutral axis location in the coupling
Acw Area of concrete section in the direction of shear, beam, in.
in.2
CCB.exp Plastic neutral axis location in the coupling beam
Ac.CB Area of concrete in coupling beam, in.2 considering expected strength, in.
Af.e Effective area of flange plate, in.2 Cd Deflection amplification factor
2
Af.g Gross area of flange plate, in. Cexp Expected plastic neutral axis location in Speed-
Core wall, in.
Af.n Net area of flange plate, in.2
CT Plastic neutral axis location in SpeedCore wall in
Af.CB Area of coupling beam flange plate, in.2
tension, in.
Af.SR Net shear area of coupling beam flange plate for
C1.C Compression force in the steel plate perpendicu-
shear rupture, in.2
lar to the web in C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
Af.SY Gross shear area of coupling beam flange plate
C1.T Compression force in flange edge plate in C-
for shear yielding, in.2
shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
Ag Gross area of composite member, in.2
C2.C Compression force in the outside steel plate of
As Area of steel in SpeedCore wall, in.2 the web in C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
As Areas of steel plates, in.2 C2.T Compression force in flange end plate in C-
2 shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
As Areas of steel section, in.
C3 Coefficient for calculation of effective rigidity of
As.CB Area of steel in coupling beam, in.2
filled composite compression member
As.CB.min Minimum area of steel required in coupling
C3.C Compression force in the inside steel plate of the
beam, in.2
web in C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
As.min Minimum steel required in SpeedCore wall, in.2
C3.CB Coefficient for calculation of effective rigidity of
As.max Maximum steel required in SpeedCore wall, in.2 filled composite beam
Asw Area of steel plates in the direction of in-plane C3.T Compression force in the concrete in C-shaped
shear, in.2 SpeedCore wall, in.
Asr Area of continuous reinforcing bars, in.2 C4.C Compression force in the concrete in the web of
C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
Asw.CB Area of steel web of coupling beam in the direc-
tion of shear, in.2 C5.C Compression force in the concrete in the flange
of C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
Auncr.CB Area of uncracked concrete in the coupling
beam, in.2 C8.8 Coefficient for eccentrically loaded weld groups,
linearly interpolated from AISC Manual Table
Av Shear area of the steel portion of a composite
8-8
member, in.2
C1-8.3 Electrode strength coefficient from AISC Manual
Aw.SR Net shear area of wall web plate for shear
Table 8-3
rupture, in.2
DL Floor dead load, ksf
Aw.SY Gross shear area of wall web plate for shear
yielding, in.2 EAeff Effective axial stiffness of SpeedCore wall, kips

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 239

239-244_DG38_Symbols.indd 239 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 EAuncr.CB Uncracked axial stiffness of concrete in coupling Ici Moment of inertia of a concrete element about
beam, kips the elastic neutral axis of the composite section,
in.4
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete, ksi
Ic.min Moment of inertia of the concrete section about
Ec (T) Modulus of elasticity of concrete at elevated
the minor axis in coupling beam, in.4
temperatures, ksi
Ie Building Importance factor
EIeff Effective flexural stiffness of SpeedCore wall,
kip-in.2 Ip Moment of inertia of the steel faceplates, in.4
EIeff (T) Effective flexural stiffness of SpeedCore wall at Is Moment of inertia of the steel section about the
elevated temperatures, kip-in.2 elastic neutral axis of the composite section, in.4
EIeff.CB Effective flexural stiffness of coupling beam, Is.CB Moment of inertia of the steel section about the
kip-in. elastic neutral axis in coupling beam, in.4
EIeff.CB Effective flexural stiffness of coupling beam, Is.min Moment of inertia of the steel section about the
kip-in.2 minor axis in SpeedCore wall, in.4
EIeff.min Effective flexural stiffness of SpeedCore wall Isr Moment of inertia of the reinforcing bars about
about the minor axis, kip-in.2 the elastic neutral axis of the composite section,
in.4
EIC.walls Flexural stiffness of compression wall calculated
from cross-sectional analysis, kip-in.2 It Moment of inertia of the steel tie bar, in.4
EIT.walls Flexural stiffness of tension wall calculated from K Effective length factor
cross-sectional analysis, kip-in.2
Kc Stiffness of concrete
Es Modulus of elasticity of steel, ksi
Kd Discharge coefficient
Es (T) Modulus of elasticity of steel at elevated tem-
Ks.con Rotational stiffness of wall-to-foundation con-
peratures, ksi
nection, kip-in./rad
Fcr Critical buckling stress for steel elements of
L Length of the unit width column or height of
filled composite members, ksi
composite plate shear wall at a floor, in.
FEXX Filler metal classification strength, ksi
L Length of member, in.
Fu Specified minimum tensile strength of steel, ksi
Lc Effective length of the member, in.
Fy Specified minimum yield stress of steel, ksi
Lcb Clear span coupling beam length, in.
Fy(T) Specified minimum yield stress of steel at
Leff Effective distance between wall centroids, in.
elevated temperature, ksi
Lf Building length, ft
GAv.eff Effective shear stiffness of SpeedCore wall, kips
Lf.w Length of flange weld, in.
GAv.CB Effective shear stiffness of coupling beam, kips
LH.weld Horizontal length of web weld, in.
Gc Shear modulus of elasticity of concrete, ksi
Lreq Required weld length, in.
Gs Shear modulus of elasticity of steel, ksi
LV.weld Vertical length of web weld, in.
H Total building height, ft
Lwall Length of planar SpeedCore wall, in.
Hwall Total wall height, ft
Lwall C-shaped SpeedCore web wall length, in
Ic Moment of inertia of the concrete section about
the elastic neutral axis of the composite section, Mck Cracking moment, kip-in.
in.4
MC.weld Moment demand on C-shaped weld, kip-in.
Ic.CB Moment of inertia of the concrete section about
Mm Molar weight of water, lb/mol
the elastic neutral axis in coupling beam, in.4
Mn Nominal flexural strength, kip-in.

240 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

239-244_DG38_Symbols.indd 240 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Mn.CB Nominal flexural strength of coupling beam, P Hydrostatic pressure on steel plates associated
kip-in. with concrete pour height (allowable pressure),
lb/ft-s2
MnC.wall Nominal flexural strength of SpeedCore wall in
compression, kip-in. PAxial Percentage of axial compression force (gravity
load) level, kips
MnT.wall Nominal flexural strength of SpeedCore wall in
tension, kip-in. Pe Euler buckling load (compressive strength), kips
Mn.wall Nominal flexural strength of SpeedCore wall, Pe(T) Euler buckling load at elevated temperatures,
kip-in. kips
Mp Plastic flexural strength, kip-in. Pn Compressive strength at ambient temperature,
kips
MPC.wall Plastic flexural strength of SpeedCore wall in
compression, kip-in. Pn Nominal tensile strength, kips
Mp.exp Expected flexural strength, kip-in. Pn(T) Nominal compressive strength for flexural
buckling at elevated temperatures, kips
Mp.exp.CB Expected plastic flexural strength of coupling
beam, kip-in. Pn.C Compressive strength of the SpeedCore wall,
kips
Mp.exp.wall Expected plastic flexural strength of uncoupled
SpeedCore wall, kip-in. Pn.T Tensile strength of the SpeedCore wall, kips
MPn.CB Plastic flexural strength of coupling beam, kip-in. Pno Nominal compressive strength of SpeedCore
wall, kips
Mpr Probable flexural strength, kip-in.
Pno(T) Compressive strength of SpeedCore wall at
MPT.wall Plastic flexural strength of SpeedCore wall in
elevated temperatures, kips
tension, kip-in.
Pr Required axial force, kips
MP.wall Plastic flexural strength of SpeedCore wall,
kip-in. Pr.wall Required compression force in compression
SpeedCore wall, kips
Mr Required flexural strength, kip-in.
Pu Ultimate axial load, kips
Mr.CB Required moment for coupling beam, kip-in.
Pweld.T Design weld strength to resist tension, kips
Mr.wall Required flexural strength for SpeedCore wall,
kip-in. Pweld.V Design weld strength to resist eccentric shear,
kips
Mu Maximum moment demand along the member
length, kip-in. R Fire resistance rating, hr
Mu.CB Flexural design demands for the coupling beam, R Seismic response modification coefficient
kip-in.
R Ideal gas constant, lb-ft2/ s2-K-mol
MUC.wall Portion of overturning moment resisted by
Rc Factor to account for expected strength of
SpeedCore wall in compression, kip-in.
concrete
MUT.wall Portion of overturning moment resisted by
Rt Ratio of the expected tensile strength to the
SpeedCore wall in tension, kip-in.
specified minimum tensile strength, Fu
Mwalls Total factored moment in SpeedCore walls,
Ry Ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified
kip-in.
minimum yield stress, Fy
Mweb Moment in the web of the coupling beam relative
S Largest clear spacing of the tie bars, in.
to the centroid of the web, kip-in.
Stie Tie spacing, in.
Myc Yield moment in compression, kip-in.
Stie.top Tie spacing above the flexural yielding zone, in.
Myt Yield moment in tension, kip-in.
T Temperature, °F

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 241

239-244_DG38_Symbols.indd 241 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 T Maximum vapor temperature, K Vweb Shear in web of coupling beam corresponding to
plastic flexural strength, kips
TC.weld Tensile demand on C-shaped weld, kips
Wc Length of flange wall without perpendicular steel
Tdc Dry concrete thickness, ft
plates, in.
Tflange Required strength of flange plate connection,
Wf Building width, ft
kips
Wwall C-shaped SpeedCore flange wall length, in.
Tweb Tensile force in coupling beam web, kips
a Ratio of force eccentricity to vertical weld
Tr.wall Required tensile force in tension SpeedCore
length, in.
wall, kips
b Largest unsupported length of plate between
T1.C Tensile force in the steel in the wall perpendicu-
rows of steel anchors or ties, in.
lar to the web in C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
bCB Width of coupling beam, in.
T1.T Tensile force in the steel in the wall perpendicu-
lar to the web in C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in. bc.CB Clear width of coupling beam flange plate, in.
T2.C Tensile force in the flange end plate in C-shaped cg Horizontal centroid of the weld group, in.
SpeedCore wall, in.
d Vent hole diameter, in.
T2.T Tensile force in the inside steel web plate in
d Member length in the direction of bending, in.
C-shaped SpeedCore wall, in.
dtie Effective diameter of the tie bar, in.
T3.T Tensile force in the web in C-shaped SpeedCore
wall, in. e Eccentricity, in.
U Shear lag factor ex Horizontal eccentricity of shear from vertical
weld, in.
Vamp Amplified base shear, kips
fc′ Specified compressive strength of concrete, ksi
Vbase Base shear calculated by analysis, kips
fc′(T ) Specified compressive strength of concrete at
VC.weld Shear demand on C-shaped weld, kips
elevated temperatures, ksi
Vc Shear strength of concrete infill, kips
g Gravitational acceleration, 32.2 ft/s2
Vn Nominal shear strength, kips
h Story height
Vn.CB Nominal shear strength of coupling beam, kips
hc.CB Clear width of the coupling beam web plate, in.
Vn.exp Expected shear strength of coupling beam cal-
hc Concrete pouring height, ft
culated using expected yield strength, Ry Fy, for
steel and expected compressive strength, Rcƒ′c , hCB Depth of coupling beam, in.
for concrete, kips
htyp Typical story height, ft
Vn.Mp,exp Shear strength of coupling beam corresponding
h1 First-story height, ft
to the expected moment, kips
k Ratio of horizontal weld length to vertical weld
Vn.wall Nominal in-plane shear strength of SpeedCore
length
wall, kips
m Vapor generation rate, lb/s
Vr Required shear strength, kips
n Number of stories
Vr.CB Required shear force for coupling beam, kips
r1 Ratio of limiting moment to MP.wall
Vr.wall Required shear strength for SpeedCore wall, kips
r2 Ratio of limiting moment to Mp.exp.wall
Vs Shear strength of the webs of the coupling beam,
kips s1 Horizontal spacing of vent holes, ft
Vu Maximum shear demand along the member s2 Vertical spacing of vent holes, ft
length, kips
tc Width of concrete in SpeedCore wall, in.

242 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

239-244_DG38_Symbols.indd 242 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 tc.CB Width of concrete in coupling beam, in. α Ratio of the flexural stiffness of the steel plate to
the flexural stiffness of the tie bar
tc.f Thickness of concrete in SpeedCore flange wall,
in. γ Specific heat ratio
tc.w Thickness of concrete in SpeedCore web wall, γ1 Amplification factor accounting for increase in
in. lateral loading from the formation of the earliest
plastic hinges to the formation of plastic hinges
tdc Heating duration associated with the selected dry
in all coupling beams over the full wall height
concrete thickness, s
εc Strain at maximum concrete stress, in./in.
tp Steel plate thickness in SpeedCore wall, in.
εcr Buckling strain of steel, in./in.
tpf.CB Thickness of steel flange plate in coupling beam,
in. εy Yield strain of steel, in./in.
tpw.CB Thickness of steel web plate in coupling beam, εu Ultimate strain of steel, in./in.
in.
ρ Seismic redundancy factor
tsc Thickness of SpeedCore wall, in.
ρc Concrete density, lb/ft3
tsc.f Thickness of SpeedCore flange wall, in.
ρw Water density, lb/ft3
tsc.w Thickness of SpeedCore web wall, in.
ϕb Resistance factor for flexure
wc weight of concrete per unit volume, lb/ft3
ϕc Resistance factor for compression
y Distance from the centroid of a cross-sectional
ϕt Resistance factor for tension
element to the elastic neutral axis, in.
ϕv Resistance factor for shear
y Elastic centroid of SpeedCore wall, in.
ω Concrete water content, % by volume
Ω0 Overstrength factor

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 243

239-244_DG38_Symbols.indd 243 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 244 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

239-244_DG38_Symbols.indd 244 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 References
ACI (2019), Building Code Requirements for Structural ASCE (2022), Minimum Design Loads and Associated
Concrete, ACI 318-19 and ACI 318M-19, American Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. 7-22, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
Agarwal, S., Broberg, M., and Varma A.H. (2020), “Seismic Bhardwaj, S. and Varma, A.H. (2017), Design of Modular
Design Coefficients for SpeedCore or Composite Plate Steel Plate Composite (SC) Walls for Safety-Related
Shear Walls—Concrete Filled (C-PSW/CF),” Bowen Nuclear Facilities, Design Guide 32, AISC, Chicago, Ill.
Laboratory Research Report, Lyles School of Civil Bhardwaj, S., Wang, A.Y., and Varma, A.H. (2018),
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. “Slenderness Requirements for CF-CPSW: The Effects of
Ahmad, M., Shafaei, S., and Varma, A.H. (2021), Concrete Casting,” Proceedings of the Eighth International
“Summary of Cyclic Tests Conducted on Coupling Conference on Thin-Walled Structures, ICTWS, Lisbon,
Beam-to-SpeedCore Wall Connections,” Charles Pankow Portugal, July 24–27.
Foundation Project #06-16, Semi-Annual Report, April. Booth, P.N., Bhardwaj, S.R., Tseng, T.Z., Seo, J., and Varma,
AISC (2016), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel A.H. (2020), “Ultimate Shear Strength of Steel-Plate
Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-16, American Institute of Composite (SC) Walls with Boundary Elements,” Journal
Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 165:105810.
AISC (2017), Steel Construction Manual, 15th Ed., Broberg, M., Shafaei, S., Seo, J., Kizilarslan, E., Klemencic,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. R., Varma, A.H., and Bruneau, M. (2022), “Capacity
AISC (2018), Specification for Safety-Related Steel Design of Coupled Composite Plate Shear Wall—Concrete
Structures for Nuclear Facilities, ANSI/AISC N690-18, Filled System,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. Vol. 148, No. 4, April.
AISC (2022a), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Bruneau, M., Varma, A.H., Kizilarslan, E., Broberg, M.R.,
Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-22, American Institute of Shafaei, S., and Seo, J. (2019), “R-Factors for Coupled
Steel Construction, Chicago, Ill. Composite Plate Shear Walls/Concrete Filled (CC-PSW/
CF),” Charles Pankow Foundation CPF#05-17 and
AISC (2022b), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Final Report.
ANSI/AISC 360-22, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Ill. Crowl, D.A. and Tipler, S.A. (2013), “Sizing Pressure-Relief
Devices,” Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol.  109,
Alzeni, Y. and Bruneau, M. (2017), “In-Plane Cyclic Testing
No. 10, pp. 68–76.
of Concrete-Filled Sandwich Steel Panel Walls with
and without Boundary Elements,” Journal of Structural FEMA (2009), Quantification of Building Seismic
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 143, No. 9. Performance Factors: Component Equivalency
Methodology, FEMA P-695, Federal Emergency
Anvari, A.T., Bhardwaj, S.R., Wazalwar, P., and Varma,
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
A.H. (2020a), “Structural Fire Engineering and Design of
Filled Composite Plate Shear Walls or SpeedCore,” Final FEMA (2020), NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions
Report, Charles Pankow Foundation, American Institute for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-2082,
of Steel Construction, and Steel Institute of New York, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/research-library/ D.C.
final_report_cpsw_fire_design_cpf_03-18.pdf Griffis, L. (1993), “Serviceability Limit States under Wind
Anvari, A.T., Bhardwaj, S.R., Wazalwar, P., and Varma, Load,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 30, No. 1.
A.H. (2020b), “Stability of SpeedCore Walls under Fire ICC (2018), International Building Code, International
Loading: Summary of Numerical Analyses,” Proceedings Code Council, Washington, D.C.
of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural Stability ISO (1999), Fire-Resistance Tests—Elements of Building
Research Council, Atlanta, Ga., April 21–24. Construction Part 1: General Requirements, International
Anvari, A.T., Wazalwar, P., Bhardwaj, S.R., and Varma, A.H. Standard ISO 834, Geneva, Switzerland.
(2021), “Stability of Concrete-Filled Composite Plate Ji, X., Cheng, X., Jia, X., and Varma, A.H. (2017), “Cyclic
Shear Walls Exposed to Non-Uniform Fire Loading,” In-Plane Shear Behavior of Double-Skin Composite
Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference, Structural Walls in High-Rise Buildings,” Journal of Structural
Stability Research Council, Louisville, Ky., April 13–16. Engineering, Vol. 143, No. 6.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / 245

245-246_DG38_References.indd 245 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Kenarangi, H., Kizilarslan, E., and Bruneau, M. (2021), Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., Broberg, M., Seo, J., and
“Cyclic Behavior of C-Shaped Composite Plate Shear Klemencic, R. (2021a), “Modeling the Cyclic Behavior
Walls–Concrete Filled,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 226. of Composite Plate Shear Walls/Concrete Filled (C-PSW/
Kurt, E.G., Varma, A.H., Booth, P.N., and Whittaker, A. CF),” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 184,
(2016), “In-Plane Behavior and Design of Rectangular September.
SC Wall Piers without Boundary Elements,” Journal of Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., Seo, J., and Klemencic, R. (2021b),
Structural Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 6. “Cyclic Lateral Loading Behavior of Plate Shear Walls/
Lai, Z. and Varma, A.H. (2015), “Noncompact and Slender Concrete Filled,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Circular CFT Members: Experimental Database, Analysis, Vol. 147, No. 10.
and Design,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Shafaei, S., Varma, A.H., Seo, J., Huber, D., and Klemencic,
Vol. 106, pp. 220–233. R. (2022), “Wind Design of Composite Plate Shear Walls/
Lai, Z., Varma, A.H., and Zhang, K. (2014), “Noncompact Concrete Filled (SpeedCore) Systems,” Engineering
and Slender Rectangular CFT Members: Experimental Journal, AISC, Vol. 59, No. 3.
Database, Analysis, and Design,” Journal of Con­struc­ Tao, Z., Wang, Z., and Yu, Q. (2013), “Finite Element
tional Steel Research, Vol. 101, pp. 455–468. Modelling of Concrete-Filled Steel Stub Columns under
Nie, J.-G., Hu, H.-S., and Eatherton, M.R. (2014), Axial Compression,” Journal of Constructional Steel
“Concrete Filled Steel Plate Composite Coupling Beams: Research, Vol. 89, pp. 121–131.
Experimental Study,” Journal of Constructional Steel Varma, A.H., Malushte, S.R., Sener, K.C., and Lai, Z.
Research, Vol. 94, pp. 49–63. (2014), “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls for Safety
PEER (2017), Tall Buildings Initiative: Guidelines for Related Nuclear Facilities: Design for In-Plane Forces
Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, and Out-of-Plane Moments,” Nuclear Engineering and
Version 2.03, May. Design, Vol. 269, pp. 240–249.
PTC (2010), Mathcad 15.0, Version 15.0 F000, Parametric Varma, A.H., Shafaei, S., and Klemencic, R. (2019), “Steel
Technology Corporation, Boston, Mass. Modules of Composite Plate Shear Walls: Behavior,
Stability, and Design,” Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 145.
PTC (2017), Mathcad Prime 4.0, Version 4.0, Parametric
Technology Corporation, Boston, Mass. Varma, A.H., Anvari, A.T., Wazalwar, P., Bhardwaj, S.R.,
and Hariharan, H. (2020), “Fire Design of SpeedCore
Sabelli, R., Sabol, T.A., and Easterling, W.S. (2011),
Walls and CFT Columns,” Purdue University Research
Seismic Design of Composite Steel Deck and Concrete-
Repository, West Lafayette, Ind.
Filled Diaphragms: A Guide for Practicing Engineers,
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No.  5, NIST West, M., Fisher, J., and Griffis, L. (2003), Serviceability
GCR 11-917-10, National Institute of Standards and Design Considerations for Steel Buildings, Design Guide
Technology Gaithersburg, Md. 3, AISC, Chicago, Ill.
Seo, J., Varma, A.H., Sener, K., and Ayhan, D. (2016), “Steel- Zhang, K., Varma, A.H., Malushte, S.R., and Gallocher, S.
Plate Composite (SC) Walls: In-Plane Shear Behavior, (2014), “Effect of Shear Connectors on Local Buckling
Database, and Design,” Journal of Constructional Steel and Composite Action in Steel Concrete Composite
Research, Vol. 119, pp. 202–215. Walls,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.  269,
pp. 231–239.
Shafaei, S. and Varma, A.H. (2021), “Chapter 5: Coupled
Composite Plate Shear Walls/Concrete Filled (C-PSW/ Zhang, K., Seo, J., and Varma, A.H. (2020), “Steel-Plate
CFs) as a Distinct Seismic Force-Resisting System in Composite (SC) Walls: Behavior and Design and Behavior
ASCE/SEI 7-22,” 2021 NEHRP Recommended Seismic for Axial Compressive Loading,” Journal of Structural
Provisions: Design Examples, Training Materials, and Engineering, Vol. 146, No. 4.
Design Flow Charts, FEMA P-2192-1, Vol. I: Design
Examples.

246 / SPEEDCORE SYSTEMS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 38

245-246_DG38_References.indd 246 1/30/23 3:25 PM

 Smarter. Stronger. Steel.
American Institute of Steel Construction
312.670.2400 | www.aisc.org

D838-23