‘THE STRUCTURAL e109 OF TLL AND SPECIAL BURL DINGS ‘Pie ene Wie enka (evn wy so), OK: 1010245 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL REINFORCED CONCRETE DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS [RON KLEMENCIC®,. ANDREW FRY AND JOHN D. HOOPER ges me Asc ea, Mego A “The te of perfomance bast design have ben and fr cde, ye steely eg led othe sig of bps tpentrecres Stoel pce uing sat coe wal tec ye alow romance bad eign ebodsogy, hve Yen inplenesed by Magen Klee Anais and ‘sen in compledsrwaes od te was However provi ccn teu ploce ne caret fe ‘Sipe Balding Cole Gearing hight tsa agro fr exam ae Sak Tr te Ing oral sel reinforcing of coping beam Aciosly ecko er row proce sande pit wel-imended pins past exch eer ih bldg Geng ual changed pr be reves Te lage anoae ot Sgt rent eee ne ea {even route, and he ap and hyo per evo shold be wanda Copyright © 5088 eke Wikya Som 1. INTRODUCTION Beginning in 195 Magnusson Klemeacie Asoiates (MEA) insted the structual engivering for the first of 12 al buildings utilizing a reinoced conree dice core wall system (DCWS) {0 resist lateral int. The dain of each spstem followed performance sed design (PDD) ‘pprech considering various levels of wind nd seismic demands, These buildings nclade tho sown in Table In adton to these completed projects, MKA is cureny designing several cts all buildings ‘sing similar approach n Sate, San Francisco, Sarumeat, and Los Angeles ‘While PBD princples have ben accepted fr many years, ony recently hae these methodologies teen applied to the design of tl bling. During design of these 12 projets, numerous technical cfallenges resuted thoughtful design decisions. With the limited amount of publshed research sailabe to guide tie designs, MKA. along with numerous conslans serving as per reviewers. psformed countess sds to aie it appropri decisions ‘A acusion of some of te more chabeging issues is presented in he paper While each of these technical challenges perains to all ofthe projets, the One Rincon Hil project in San Francisco is ‘igighed in ore fo provide more specnc commentary and deal (ee Figure 1) The primary Issues tobe discus nla Sareea Ba Sees ar em Anan 10 ee, Se, See, WA ‘Conyriaht © 2006 Jn Wily & Sone, Lid Ccm 1 KLEMENCC. 1A FRY AND J.D, HOOPER ‘ale, Duce core wall system projec designed by MKA, 2 z| aaeuareunes a Ls gue | Redring of One Rica il in Sn Fanci, Close ReenO aeereDPERFORMANCE.BASED DESIGN OPTALL RCDUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS 73, Beip mis ' Selection ofthe response modification factor, R ¢ Sleaion of ground motions “© Shea demands Higher mode dynamic effecs '# Founlations ‘© Deng | Peer eview process 2. HEIGHT LIMITS (One ofthe fist and most cetious issues hasbeen surpassing the specific hegh limite detailed in ‘Table 16 ofthe Uniform Building Code foe buildings in Seismic Zones 3 ad 4. This able Lis {he eight of shear walls in baling frame tro 240 fn and ints wl oe prt of bearing ‘wal systems to 160 fet. Te Interalsytome fr buldnge reaching above these heh ar limited {0 be moment fame sysens or dul fae systems In each ofthe buildings stdin Table 1, some form of DCWS was developed. Asan example, the primary latra-force resin system fo the One Rincon Hil project x depited in Figures 2 and 3. ‘While this system includes concrete wal, these walls ae araiged la he form of perforated sac ‘tual tube, Coupling beams above the core wall penetrations provide theft ne of eneeydispe tin in the lnginna diet ofthe core. The coupling beams (activated by shes lag), together with supplemental buckling restained bres (BRB), provide theft ine of energy dsipaon in the tranrverse dieedon ofthe bling. “Aqulitaive comparison betwee ths system an planar wall structure dominated by shear beh jor suggest the possibly of a more dace respoase. Howeves,curent preerpve builsing code Provision donot diferente between planar sear walls and oopled wal In eserching the arpa of the 160 and 240-f0ct eight lis, oe leas the frst mention of this limits made in he early 19505 nan ASCE commie paper th sugess moment-eiig frames Ol 4 1 eet ee a reap eee 0206 ey 2S at Set yt sae 8 9-9 9ST a om BR KLEMENCIG, A. FRY AND J.D HOOPER: aeae aa gue 3, ome iw of be ere essing system in One Riso Hi be inaed inal buildings taller than 13 ses. No quantitative basis is provided fortis recom- | s ‘mendatin Later hs [story linlation wae more specially splaed as 150 fet. As the 10-fot i lmlton was writen into code language, «typoarphical ror resulted in te bung code prov sion being published a 160 feet The ypo was never coested ‘using th 1980s, noting significant advancements nthe understanding of shear wal behavior based con rumeros research programs, the 1GD-fot Init was increased to 240 feet for building tame | ‘Sjstems. This 50% height limi increate was based Solely on 2 greater comfort level wih individual | ‘wll performance and nt ona comprehensive assessment of building systems. | ‘Siace it appears the bai forthe eight linia in mre folklore than science, is reasonable to | ‘suggest these restrictions are mo abso nstead, «variety of balding geometries, including coe Wall and coupled wal eyteme f propel designed and consircted, can mest or exceed the per omance objecves inherent in cstent bldg code provisions. Performance based design provides ‘atonal metodoogy to pau sich designs 3, SELECTION OF THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, & In oie o determine base stengt requirement forthe balling design, a response moication i actor, ns be selected sch hit dep lve bas shear canbe established. Selecting an factor 1 ‘Consseat with bearing wall yom (R45) or buldng fame system (R= 55) may a fst, seem : Somewhat logical As shown in Figure 2, the One Rincon Hil balding does Include shear walls a ofthe eral cre assemblySauniaes ga RERREEEEnmmmmmeseememment et FERFORMANCE.BASED DESIGN OFTALL RC DUCTILECORE WALL SYSTEMS 575 ‘The design of tal buldings is peneraly contraled by dit imitations and not he strength of the Intra elements, Therefore. i is conuadictory at's relatively stiff system suchas 2 wall sssomblage is asigned a higher basic sueagth requirement (45 or $3) than 8 mh more exile moment fame system (R= 8) as the resuling design forces we ased to ansss bung deformations In adiion, tis inconsistent hat all wall or wall systems be asigne the sme vale of Ris asilyundersood tha coupled wall dominated by Rexaral behavior il have super ductiy when compared to «plas wall domiated by shear deformation, However, caren buling code pov sions do ot reet this fundamental ference inbulng response. It should be need the he ‘Nation! Building Code of Canaca does include provisions which recognize hese feat bean Finally if capacity design apyroach simplemente fer astrctare suchas One Rincon il, whew the lnk beams. BRR, ant hae the core wal ae elated ete primary seas of tty de on, assigning «high sng eqiement to these components wil signfcamlyinteee undeer ble sear demands on coe walls diaphragms, nd foundations Based on thi fact alone consideration ‘fa higher value fr is waraned. Unfortunatly, nuenced by the bounds ofthe curentBuling Code, mos! bing officials and ‘ec evowers have insisted onthe selection of R= 55 on he case of San France R=t3. A ‘was obscrved drt inthe design of One Ritcon Hl, shes demands on the are wall pbragies, ‘nd foundations were increased net infoeabe levels ‘A reassessment of R values which are more reflective fatal building behaviors ward, sch that desirable behaviors (Sexual yen) are promsed, and undesible demands (shes) ae i, ‘mized. For very tal building, o for buldings im aggressive wind lites sch sth Pilipins, Dethaps itis more appropriate wallow wind demands to determine te base sueagth requirement, With he seismic desin primarily fecused on docity and robusines. 4. SELECTION oF GROUND MomioNS Selection of eproprit seismic pound motions and response peta with which to eval the builé- i Ing design is xia. Generally tee level of demand have been assessed © Servieabiliy earthquake (SE)—S0% probability of exceatance in 20 years (43-year return patos) © Design bass earhquake (DBE—10% probably f excetance in SO years (472year return esiod) ‘¢ Maximum consisere earbuake (MCE)—26 probability ofexosdince in SO years (2478-year ‘tum period), with determi iit in epyoprnt locations ‘Common pracsice indesign sto begin wih an assent ofthe building when subjected tothe DBE, ‘edveed by the selected tfc. ns shown im Figur forte One Rincon Ill pojee Por ne tal udings, he fundamental bung prio wil range between and 8 seconds Pefatiog ates mensional elastic analysis of the primary Ineralond-eristingsysem subjeed to is level of ‘demand determines te base strength requirement forthe buldng ‘Affestng he design ofl bildngs arth minim base her equations, Egution 30-6, egies a 'n al seismic reson, represents te ‘38 base seu vale that has ben inte ode for decade, « regions of high seismicity, lowerbound limitation is paced onthe bale stengthreglemen, 2 represented by Equation 30-7 of ths Uniform Building Code (cen in gure 4) Bquaton 30.6, veo.1iciw ‘oy 280 Wy La Se ee Se: 31-9) oor a36 KLEMENCIC.1.A. FRY AND J.D, HOOPER F gu 4. Compaen of eign mt ft One Rio i quation 30-7 (SAL Ny As in he case of an Francisco, te lower bound limitation on bate shear is signicanly greater ‘han teste speciic-esign DBE specoum, reduced by R, would thevise suggest The One Rincon il projec adhered tothe lower bound strength imitation of Equation 307. ‘An assessment of the One Rincon Hil project tthe SE indices thecal coupling beams meet the ‘nope itera as suggested in ecenly published dexgn proces by te Lox Angeles Tall, Buildings Stuctral Design Council (LATBSDC) and the Department of Building Inspection in San Francisco (see Figure 5) However, close inspection of Figure 4 nicates that without the lower ‘ound imitaons of UBC Equation 30-7 he SE would coool the eength design ofthe coupling ems ‘An assessment of collapse prevention performance was investigated foreach ofthese project well. Selecting appropriate ground motion records fo the nonlinear ine Ristory analysis (NLTHA) is more dificult tan might nally apes. A large dtabaee of trong ground moton records which wil excie the building srctre inthe period range of intrest not avilable. Furthermore the fundamental period of vibration fo tl ings i vara ery lng (to seconde) Sealing an [MCE spectrum, which is appcable inthis prod range, withostorerpedcting shore period demands ‘sa challenge. The duration of selected ground maton recor is also important ay sever! cytes of coy © 308 Wy 8 ak Set De Tl 2-990) ‘soe ea Ree « @ o oe eee>PERFORMANCE BASED DESION OF TALLRC DUCTILE CORE WALLSYSTEMS S77 pr 3. Cooling beam servizbily foes vrs ove capaci or Oe Rincon Hi ‘motion are generally requited before amplified building response i obterved Lat, choosing records that lo eet the higher modes of vittion ofthe towers mmportat: however, tii el 10 sccomplish without overestimating ground motions nthe ower period range. ‘Summarizing MKA'sexpeience: (2) Given 43-year eur imeral fr the SE the no yi accepance vteia may be to str, and some modest amount of yielding maybe sccepable. An appropiate assesment of bull it [52 mor imporant parameter (2) The applica, o nk thereof, of Bguatons 3046 an 30-7 wil ely contol the basi eagth requirements fr he DBE. (6) Acareful selection of aproprite ground motion records fr the NLTHA, which properly est he eign, icra. 5. SHEAR DEMANDS ‘As previously note, shear demands are driven by the selection ofthe basic suength requirement for the Bexar element, Great care sbould be exercised in sclesting the basic strength reqirement, ‘thereby balancing stifness and strength wth the implications of posible undesirable increased shear demands (Great debate among consultants and building officials has oocued regarding the assessment of shear demands Whle all age sear allure’ undesirable thre ia clear lack of consensus on How {o propel assess demands, what constintes 2 ail’, and how to propel aes shear capacities ‘Based on MKA’s experience, it woud sem reasonible o assess shear demands consistent with something ger than the average demands predicted by « NLTHA. Some have suggested shear58 .KLEMENCIC, A. FRY AND J.D HOOPER demands be assessed a one standard deviaton greater than the sverage demande predicted by a suite of sven NLTHAS. Others have suggested that shear mix be assed athe peak response predicted by a ste of seven NLTHAS While iis posible to satis ether ofthese evo tera wih propery selected ground motions, shear demands eal 0 one standard deviation sbove the average predicted from a suite of seven NETHAS spears demu, 6. HIGHER MODE DYNAMIC EFFECTS Most ofthe srctures ited athe beginning ofthis paper re dominated by fist mode behavior, where higher mode dynamic effects played lite rle inthe outcome ofthe design. nthe ease of One Rincon Hil, however, higher mode dynamic elect played a mich mre sigan role. The combination of absolute building eight (625 fed, senders, and sit-specif pround mations produced significant higher mode eects. The rest of tes higher mode effects was significant edution Inthe ele: tive moment am ofthe lateral force dsubuton, erating signet shear demand atthe ase of ‘he building as well sigh flexural demands ner te buns midbeight A dete sty of his effect indicted he sear and lexral demands were nearly indepradet of he basi exeral eength ‘signed to the base ofthe core walls. Careful asesment ofthe ease DBE analyis can give cues of the potential importance of high mode dynamic effects, NLTAs, with propery selected ground reins, wll conf the buns behave, 7. FOUNDATIONS, ‘Very ite guidance i provided in the Building Code o pablset liters regaking the apprope- !e design of foundations fr seismic demands. Common practic iso design balding foundations forte basic seni requremeat ofthe DBE, with no cosiernin ofthe posible ver-stenth of the supertructre In the cas of the buildings listed atthe begining ofthis pgs, including One Rincon Hil the {oundations were designed considering demands imposed by th fll overstengthcapay of the superstructure, In most eases, this resulted ia foundations nearly two tines thicker tan thse Wad Sonaly designed. Frthermore, inthe case of One Rincon Hil, where » dep mat foundation (12 fee thick) is mpoyed asthe tower's foundation, sear enforcing was proved whee shear testes exceeded Wf in accordance with rceatrescarch by Michel Cline snd American Contes Lsiate (ACI) discussions regarding shear eiicalbebvir ofthc, one-way sytems 4. DETAILING Desig of reinforcing ste srt to promote the behavior ected by analysis Two areas of pariculr note ae biglghted below. 81 Couping beams ‘The confinement of diagonal reinecing in coupling beams specfied by cutent ACI provisions is ‘erly imposible to conic inthe fel Compromise nfl isla are common uagesing ‘he resulting behavior may no be as expected, As an alerative approach, the ete coupling beat seeton may be confined per ACT 21.44, elieving some ofthe consti isues. A ode change ropostalowing sch detling has recently been presented ACI and ie cuenty making it through the commie approval proces. i805 in yo ‘oe nt eu 9108[PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL RC DUCTILE CORE WALLSYSTENSS 579 82 Confinement of vera wal reinforcing ‘A comparison of sin demands predicted by NLTHAS with aborstory resus indicates tht predicted tensile sins agree well wih test resus, Compressive sans, however ay be unerpredicted by {8 mach as 1008. Gat care must be exercised in specifying confinement of vertical wall infor Ing based on these re. 9. PEER REVIEW PROCESS Because these unigo: building designs fll aside of the prescriptive language ofthe Building Code, denied and rigorous peer reviews hae ben th norm. In geri the procst has een piv and hs produced improved buldng designs. However, thee have been may inconsistencies betwee ‘eviews despite sia in systems and design methodology. Tes inconsistencies ae ved pr ‘marily onthe personal bases of the individual reviewer and ot any “ndusy standart, er has no been an ffecve means o resolve dering opinions when disagreement has arse. Rather, ‘the norm has forte fallen toward aceping the whims ofthe reviewer in favor an expe ent review proces. In the future, te eginerng community should work diligently loward stan arising the scope and mithortyof per reviews, 10. conciusion Despite numerous technical challenges, tl builings with unique structural systems canbe designed ‘o meet or exced the performance objectives of the cuest Bulging Coe, Given the iportance of | these ttre, great are and due coaservatsm ae warante, The Bulling Cade wat nt weiten with all buildings sis basis, Therefore, appropriate inerpretios are important and sd not oly be pemited, bot required. Buin officals shoud allow engoees to use raonalengineing netindologics and proper enginerng mechanics to demonsrate that a proposed desi meets of «exceeds Building Code performance expectations, and note he engineer ds by Hindi desis 10 the prescriptive requirements of the Code. AS a prominent engineer recently sa “Ces wee ‘writen by mere moras therefore, they ae not al-owing. i 65 hn Wg se ei i a 9 i