WCEE 16 Newsletter - Why Chilean Buildings Survive

Newsletter N 2
16th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering
RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile
Fig. 1 Chilean Reinforced Concrete (RC) high rise buildings in Santiago showing the two iconic buildings in first plane: Titanium
(200 m) and Costanera Center (300 m) the tallest building in Latin America and one of the tallest RC buildings in the world.
Considering the observed performance of high rise

buildings in last earthquakes it looks that the logic
solution to obtain control of damage is to use seismic
ductile concrete walls.
(Arturo Arias)
We know how to calculate concrete shear walls;

however we do not fully understand them.
(Rodrigo Flores)
This article is based on the work of a group of Chilean structural engineers with extensive local and international
experience as practitioners and academics. (Ref.: Lagos R. et al, 2012). The research work performed by this
group led to an article published by the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) under the title
Seismic Performance of High-Rise Concrete Buildings in Chile, in the International Journal of High-Rise Buildings of
Sept 2012.
By: Alfonso Larran and Andrs Larran - Alfonso Larran & Asociates Structural Engineers | Ren Lagos - Ren Lagos Engineers |
Toms Guendelman - IEC Structures Engineering and Consulting | Editor: Rodolfo Saragoni SyS Engineers
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
This article is organized with the following sections:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction
Characteristics of Chilean Buildings
Seismic Analysis of Buildings
Iconocic Buildings: Costanera Center & Titanium
Code Modification After Chile 2010 Earthquake.
Why Building are Resilient
Technical Visit to Buildings under Construction during 16WCEE
References.
1. INTRODUCTION
In April 1st 2014, a Mw 8.2 earthquake affected Iquique, a city with a large number of reinforced concrete (RC) high
rise buildings in the north of Chile. In September 16th 2015, a Mw 8.4 earthquake followed by a tsunami affected
Los Vilos and Coquimbo located in the central and northern part of the country. On these two earthquakes, no
collapses and very limited damage was reported on engineered buildings.
International press asked at that time why Chilean earthquake engineering produces almost resilient buildings for
such large magnitude earthquake. In this report we answer this question.
Chile is characterized by the largest seismicity in the world. This produces strong earthquakes every 839 years in
the Central part of country where 60% of the population lives and magnitude 8 or higher every 10 years in the
country. The short interval between large earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 or larger (3 in the last 5 years) has shown
that the Chilean seismic design practice has achieved almost "operational" performance level, despite the fact
that the Chilean Code declares life safe performance level.
The seismicity of Chile is controlled by the convergence of the Nazca and South American plates at approximately
8 cm/year. Contact and convergence of the Nazca and South American Plates gives origin to interplate type thrust
earthquakes, shallow earthquakes in the South American plate and intraplate intermediate depth earthquakes in
the Nazca plate.
The rapid convergence of the Nazca plate over South American plate and the youth of the Nazca plate, make Chile
prone to experience the largest subduction interplate thrust type earthquakes in the world. In south of Chile, in
Valdivia happened in 1960 the largest magnitude earthquake M = 9.5 ever recorded by humankind.
The different types of earthquakes experienced mean that a building can be affected severely by near source
events as well as far events. An example of this is Santiago, the capital, and Valparaso, the most populated cities
of the country. They have experimented three strong earthquakes in the last 30 years: Valparaiso 1985 (Mw=8.0),
Maule 2010 (Mw=8.8), and Illapel 2015 (Mw=8.4).
Therefore Chilean practice assumes that for a given building at least one large magnitude earthquake will strike it
in its life span.
This large seismicity of Chile leads to a deterministic strategy to assess seismic hazard for design of buildings
despite the most used probabilistic approach considered in more low or diffuse seismicity regions of the world.
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TIPICAL RC CHILEAN BUILDINGS

High rise buildings in Chile are typically RC structures. They can be classified according to their use in two main
categories: residential and office buildings. The main difference is that the later requires large open spaces in plan,
while the first must have partitions for occupant privacy. As a consequence the typical structural systems
historically adopted are:
Residential Buildings: (Fig. 2)
Floor system: flat concrete reinforced slab. Spans: 5 to 8 m., thickness: 14 to 18 cm supported on shear walls and
upturned beams at the perimeter with no interior beams. The vertical and lateral load systems are concrete walls.
Office Buildings: (Fig. 3)
Floor system: Flat post tension slab. Spans 8 to 10m., thickness: 17 to 20 cm. The vertical and lateral load systems
are concrete core walls and a concrete special moment resisting frame at the perimeter.
The main difference between office and residential buildings is that office buildings have shorter wall length and
wider thickness than residential buildings. On residential buildings it is easy to turn long partitions into thin
structural walls.
Parking facilities for residential and office buildings are always placed below street level requiring normally several
underground levels of floor space accounting for 30 to 40 % of the total construction area. Walls at underground
levels frequently present setbacks to increase parking space, generating important vertical stiffness irregularities.
Fig. 2 Typical residential concrete building
Fig. 3 Typical office concrete building
At the conceptual stage, most structural engineers in Chile, when allowed by architectural requirements,
selectively turn partitions into structural wall with the following simple criteria:
Assuming the building has an average unit weight per floor area of 10 KPa (1.0 tf/m2), the wall area in each
principal direction at the base floor level, divided by the total floor area above (wall density), must be larger
than 0.001 (Fig. 4). The reason for this comes from an historical code minimum seismic base shear of 6%P,
and a conservative average shear stress in walls below 0.6 MPa (6.0 kgf/cm2), not in the code. This criterion
also implicitly limits the average compression in walls to a value less than 5.0 MPa (50 kgf/cm2).
The distribution of walls in plan must be as uniform as possible, generating slabs of similar sizes, placing some
of the walls at the perimeter for building torsional stiffness.
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
The usual procedure among the local structural engineers for the definition and fine-tuning of the structural
system of a high-rise building after selecting the first array of walls has been:
Perform a preliminary response spectrum analysis (RSA) scaled to minimum base shear.
Verification of compliance of the story drift limit at the center of mass (C.M.) at every floor. Usually with the
suggested wall density this restriction is immediately achieved.
Check for the story drift limitation at the perimeter to be within the codes requirement of 0.001 from the
C.M. Normally it requires the addition of a perimeter frame formed by properly connecting piers with the
upturned-beams as spandrels.
Fine-tune the wall thickness of each wall along the height to comply with the desired shear stress.
This structuring has generated very stiff system (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6). Typical structures follow a period rule close to
T= N/20.
These simple rules have configured what has been called the typical Chilean RC building.
14
10
-3
dnp (x10 ) (m /tonf)
12
Data
Avg
6
4
2
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Y
Fig. 4 Wall Area at first story / Total Weight above first story
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
.
Height (Ho) and Period (T)

2622 Chilean Buildings Database by Guendelman
150
Ho/T=150
125
Ho/T=70
Ho/T=40
stiff buildings
normal stiffness
buildings
Height (m)
100
75
50
flexible buildings
25
0
0
0,5
1,5
2,5
3,5
Period (sec)
Fig. 5 Stiffness Index: Ho/T (Guendelman et al., 2010)
Top Level Drift for u=1.3 Sde (Soil Type II)

0,7
u/Ho=0.020
u/Ho=0.010
u/Ho=0.005
u/Ho=0.007
0,6
u (m)
0,5
u/Ho=0.004
0,4
0,3
u/Ho=0.002
0,2
0,1
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Ho (m)
Fig. 6 Top level displacement u (m) vs. height Ho (m) for Soil Type II. (Guendelman et al., 2010)
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
3.
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS
Building Practice and Code Provisions in Chile Pre-2010 Maule Earthquake

Chile has several loading and design codes, differentiated by their functionality or structural system. The loading
codes are: NCh433 for residential and office buildings (1996 version in English); NCh2369 for industrial facilities
and NCh2745 for base isolated buildings.
Chilean seismic code NCh433 had major changes in 1993 and 1996 (NCh433.Of96) where lessons learned after the
1985 Central Chile earthquake were incorporated. Seismic analysis procedures established in NCh433.Of96 for
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis, are essentially the same as in Uniform Building Code 1997, except that forces
from the code are allowable stress level and must be amplified for 1.4 for ultimate load level. Design requirements
for RC buildings has historically followed ACI 318-95 with few exceptions, being the most notable the exclusion of
the requirement for transverse reinforcement in boundary elements in walls. In 2008 with the introduction of the
new Concrete Design code NCh430.Of2008, which follows ACI318-05, this exclusion was removed.
3.1 Structure Computer Modelling.
With the rise of digital computing, the application of matrix analysis of structures began, leading to the
establishment of mathematical models of "equivalent frames", which replaced the equivalent rod. These models
still exist in spite of the development of much more sophisticated methods and analysis models, but they often
mask the understanding of a result that an equivalent frame would have demonstrated easily with an adequate
degree of precision.
The structural modeling of each resisting axis gives way to the construction of comprehensive three-dimensional
models of the whole building, the first being the pseudo three-dimensional one. This model considers two
dimensional independent resisting axes, infinitely rigid horizontal diaphragms in its own plane, displacement
compatibility on all floors, and restitution of the structural monolithism through the contribution of the
perpendicular axes, as collaborating flanges.
Technological changes in the mid-70s created a new generation of small-sized computers, lower in cost
compared to their big precedents. They also came with large storage capacity. With these new tools, formal
three-dimensional problems could be solved with 6 degrees of freedom per joint, and in reinforced concrete
buildings which are characterized by the low capacity of this material to withstand torsional stresses, by means of
pseudo three dimensional models composed of two dimensional resisting axes, connected to the floor slabs and
linked together in their common edges. Also, the use of the method of finite elements grew popular at that time;
a method which proved to be prohibitive in previous technological conditions.
3.2 Code Provisions Pre-2010.
A summary of the Code NCh433.Of96 provisions for the analysis of high rise buildings under seismic forces, used
in the design of most buildings affected by the 2010 Maule earthquake are:
Type of analysis: Modal spectrum linear elastic analysis, with 5% damping and CQC modal superposition method.
Seismic mass taken as: DL + 0.25LL.
Accidental torsion analysis: Accidental eccentricity at level k:
e = 0.10 b (Zk / H) in each principal direction
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
Base shear upper and lower limits: IA0 P/6g Base shear 0.35 SIA0P/g., where A0 is the maximum effective
acceleration.
If Base Shear is out of the range below the lower limit, forces and displacements must be scaled to the exceeded
limit. If Base Shear is out of the range above the upper limit, only forces (not displacements) may be scaled to the
exceeded limit.
Forces from the code are considered allowable stress level and must be amplified by 1.4 for ultimate load level.
Minimum base shear for normal buildings in seismic Zone 2 is 5% of the total weight (P) and in seismic Zone 3 is
6.7%P.
Drift limitations: For stiffness and torsional plan rotation control, including accidental torsion under design
spectrum forces, drift for design spectrum forces must not exceed:
- Interstory drift at Center of Mass: /hC.M. 0.002
- Interstory drifts at any point i in plan: (/hC.M. - 0.001) /hC.M. (/hC.M. + 0.001)
Earthquake Load combinations: Design Spectrum forces are reduced forces that must be amplified for ultimate
load combinations required in ACI 318. Load combinations are:
1.4 (DL + LL E)
0.9 DL 1.4 E
Seismic Zoning:
Seismic Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Types Soils:
Soil Type
I
II
III
IV
Geographic Area
A0
Andes Mountains area
0.20 g
Central strip of Chile between the Coastal
0.30 g
Mountains and the Andes Mountains
Costal area
0.40 g
Description
Rock
Dense gravel, and soil with vs 400 m/s in upper 10 m.
Unsaturated Gravel and sand with low compaction
Saturated cohesive soil with qu < 0.050 Mpa
T0
0.90
1.00
1.20
1.30
0.15
0.30
0.75
1.20
0.20
0.35
0.85
1.35
1.00
1.33
1.80
1.80
Building Category: Importance factor

Building
Description
Category
A
Governmental, municipal, public service or public use
B
Buildings with content of great value or with a great number of people.
C
Buildings not included in Category A or B
D
Provisional structures not intended for living
p
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
I
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.6
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
Design Spectrum: (Shown in Fig.7)

Parameter
Design Spectrum
Amplification factor
Formula
I Ao
Sa =
R*
Reduction factor
I : importance factor
A0 : zone maximum effective acceleration
R*: reduction factor
: period dependent amplification factor
Tn
1 + 4.5
To
=
Tn
1+
To
R* = 1 +
Comments
T*
T *
0.10To +
Ro
Tn : vibration period of mode n

T0 , P : soil parameters
R0 : structural system parameter
(i.e. R0 = 11 for shear wall and braced
systems)
T*: period of the mode with largest
translational
mass in the direction of
analysis
It must noticed that in Chilean code reduction factor R* is not constant as it is considered in most codes, in this
case it depended of mode period T*
Soil I
Soil II
Soil III
Soil IV
T (sec)
Fig. 7 Chilean Code NCh433.Of96, Elastic Design Spectrum (R*=1) for seismic Zone 3, for Soil Type I, II, III and IV
4. ICONOCIC BUILDINGS: COSTANERA CENTER & TITANIUM.
In this section two iconic reinforced concrete office buildings are described. Both are located in Santiago, the first
is the Costanera Center building, the tallest concrete building in Latin America and one of the tallest in the world
in seismic zone, and the Titanium a 200 m high building.
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
4.1 Costanera Center Towen 2 Building.

Located in Santiago Chile, Costanera Center Tower 2 is an office building, part of a multi-use development of
700,000 m2 of construction area, including four towers for office, apartments, hotels, a six level podium for retail,
and six levels of underground parking and service spaces. The architects are Pelli-Clarke-Pelli (USA) and Alemparte
Barreda (Chile) and the structural engineers Rene Lagos Engineers (Chile).
The total construction cost for the project is US$ 700,000,000. The complex is located in the intersection of
Costanera Av. and Nueva Tajamar Street on a site 240 by 250 meters.
Costanera Center Tower 2, the tallest, has 110,000 m2 of floor area, 62 occupied stories and a total high of 300
meters above street level plus19 meters below ground. The tower floor plate starts at its base with a dimension
of 47 meters by 47 meters and tapering to 40 meters by 40 meters from the 20th floor up.
On February 27th 2010, the Maule earthquake (Mw= 8.8) occurred and affected the city of Santiago where tall
buildings experienced large displacement demands, due to the unusual log period seismic waves observed. The
building structure that was at that time under construction at approximately 50% of the total eight, responded
elastically and no damage occurred.
Fig. 8 Costanera
Center Tower 2, 300
m. high, concrete
building, the tallest in
Latino America. Left:
In Construction. Right:
Costanera Center
including Tower 2.
4.1.1
Structural System.
The structural system adopted consists of a vertical reinforced concrete core at the center, formed by shear walls
connected with coupling beams at the perimeter of the plan, a special concrete moment resisting frame (Fig. 9)
confines the horizontal diaphragm slabs.
The floor framing system consists of steel beams spanning between core and perimeter frame supporting metal
deck and concrete composite floor slabs (Fig. 10). Inside the core the floor system are concrete slabs.
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
The foundations of the tower consist of a 3.0 meter thick mat foundation underling the complete floor plan of the
tower, resting on Santiagos typical gravel soil.
Considering the vertical load system was all concrete, special attention was taken in the evaluation of differential
shortening and settlements between the core and the surrounding columns. Detailed assessments, including lab
and field tests were performed for the determination of the concrete and soil properties. Levelness compensating
procedures were specified during construction to ensure long term serviceability of the floor system and curtain
wall frame alignment.
Fig. 9 Structural system for levels -5 to 51 and 52 to 62
Fig. 10 Floor system, composite slab + steel beam.
Fig. 11 Lateral structural system dimensions
10
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
4.1.2
Seismic Lateral Response.
The lateral load resisting system for Tower 2 essentially relies on the flexural and shears deformation of the core
and the axial stiffness of the columns. These factors control the efficiency of the system regarding stiffness.
For lateral load resistance, the shear forces and overturning moments from seismic and wind loads are mainly
resisted by the concrete core which takes more than 90 % of these forces.
Figure 10 shows a typical structural floor layout.
The fundamental periods of vibration are: T1(N-S) = 7.21 sec., T2(E-W) = 6.57 sec. and T3(rot) = 3.95 sec.
The use of outriggers at the mechanical floors was evaluated for increased lateral stiffness but finally disregarded
because the core was stiff enough to provide a drift limit of H/800 under design loads, which is less than H/500
required by the seismic code. Based on these values, the index H/T1 for the building has a value of 41, which
according to Chilean seismic design practice, historically has produced inter-story drifts below 0.5% on shear wall
buildings during earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 (Lagos et al. 2012). This, according to the basic objective of the
SEAOC VISION2000 criteria represents operational performance.
4.1.2.1 Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis (DRSA) according to the Chilean Code NCh 433.Of96 Seismic
Design of Buildings.
The building is located in Chilean Seismic Zone 2 with soil type II (Gravel). The minimum design base shear force
for this condition is 5% of the building weight (DL + 0.25LL).
The code requires drift ratios at the center of mass h/500 for inter-story drift, and H/500 for overall drift.
According to the code, buildings are expected to behave in the inelastic range and be able to withstand the design
earthquake without collapse. Nevertheless Tower 2 has a fundamental period of 7.2 seconds and the DRSA shows
the elastic response for the building has a base shear of 6% (< 5% x 1.4). This indicates that the building would not
enter the inelastic range under this earthquake level and the forces attracted are resisted by elastic
displacements. Tower 2 is expected to remain in the elastic range under this level of earthquake.
Figure 13 shows the drifts and lateral displacements for the seismic design loads.
11
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
Site Design
Code Design
Fig. 12 Comparison of Spectrums 27-F vs. Site Spectrum (S & S Consulting Engineers Ltd.) and
Chilean NCh433. Code Spectrum.
Fig. 13 Code spectrum vs. Site spectrum displacements and drifts.

12
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
4.1.2.2 Dynamic Time History Analysis:

The specific seismic hazard assessment study for the site was performed by S y S Consulting Engineers (Chile).
The hazard is controlled by the subduction between Nazca and South American plates.
For design, three subduction earthquakes were defined:
Off-shore interplate subduction earthquake of Richter magnitude Ms = 8.5 and at the hipocentral distance of
130 Km.This earthquake is characterized by a peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.42 g.
Far off-shore interplate subduction earthquake of Richter magnitude Ms = 8.5 and at the hipocentral distance
of 320 Km.This earthquake is characterized by a PGA = 0.18 g.
Intermediate depth intraplate subduction earthquake of Richter magnitude Ms = 8.0, with the epicenter at
only 20 Km East of the building site and a hipocentral depth of 80 Km. The PGA for this earthquake is 1.2 g.
Elastic acceleration response spectra were estimated for the three earthquakes.
For the time-history dynamic analysis of the building, design artificial accelerograms were generated for the two
last types of earthquakes. Figure 14 shows the lateral displacements for the time-history elastic analysis
performed with the artificial earthquake records.
Fig. 14 Lateral displacements for time-history elastic dynamic analysis in X and Y directions.
4.1.2.3 Static Non-linear analysis
A push-over analysis was performed for the building (Guendelman) and Capacity-Demand curves were
determined (Figure 15). The conclusions indicated the building would behave essentially in the elastic range under
the design earthquakes defined in the Assessment of Seismic Study.
Design Level
Fig. 15 Building
Capacity Curves
and Capacity
Demand for the
Design
Earthquakes
13
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
4.2 Titanium Building
Fig. 16 Titanium 200m reinforced concrete building in Santiago.

4.2.1
Project Description
Titanium La Portada is an office building located in the financial district Las Condes of Santiago. The building
reaches a height of nearly 200m at the roof, consisting of 52 floors and 7 underground floors mainly used for
parking. The structural design was done by Alfonso Larran Vial & Associated.
14
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
Fig 17 Titanium Typical floor plan. Steel braces orientated in slender direction at each end.
4.2.2
Tower Lateral System
The lateral force resisting system adopted for the Titanium Building is a concrete core, a concrete rigid frame in
the perimeter and 3 story steel high braced frames orientated in its slender direction. These steel braces include
seismic dampers to improve the occupants comfort.
The buildings footprint is 1350m2, but the first floors make use of an annex increasing the size to 1950m2. The
concrete wall thickness is 0.7m at the bottom, which reduces to 0.3m at the top. The octagonal columns change
size from 1.0x1.0 to 0.7x0.7m. The columns of the 14m high lobby are steel tubes filled with reinforced concrete.
Fig 18 Titanium Lateral system conformed of reinforced concrete walls and perimeter rigid frame.
15
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
The rigid walls and bracing formed a rigid structure that complied with the strict local codes allowing an interstory
drift of only h/500 for the service earthquake. The periods of the uncracked structure are:
Period [s]
Ty
Tx
5.88
4.61
Ttorsion
3.70
4.2.3 Tower Gravity System

The typical office floors use 16cm precast hollow concrete slabs with 7cm topping poured on site. Shallow
concrete beams connected the core with the perimeter rigid frame.
The precast hollow concrete slabs were designed to withstand the construction loads of the topping as a simple
supported beam, but in its final configuration as a fixed beam.
4.2.4
Site Condition and Foundation
The site conditions of the tower are relatively good. Santiagos gravel reached a resistance of 10 kg/cm2. The
foundation consists of 2.0m thickness mat with 3.2 foundation beams under the core and the rigid frame. Nearly
4000m3 of concrete was poured in the foundations. The soil seismic classification is actual class B, by Chilean
code.
Fig 19 Titanium building. Foundation mat and beams

16
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
4.2.5
Performance M = 8.8 Earthquake
The concrete core and rigid frame were detailed according to the ACI 318 Code considering special detailing for
seismic structures.
The rigid structure and the proper detailing of the concrete allowed the tower to perform without damages after
de 2010 Maule Mw = 8.8 Chile earthquake.
5.
CODE CHANGES AFTER CHILE 2010 EARTHQUAKE
After the 2010 Maule Earthquake, changes have been made to the codes through government administrative
procedures established in DS60 MINVU 2011 for the Design of RC Buildings and the DS61 MINVU 2011 for the
Seismic Demands for Buildings.
5.1 NCh433 changes introduced by DS61 MINVU 2011 for the Seismic Demands for Buildings:
A new Soil Type classification is introduced considering the dynamical soil properties based on Vs30
measurements below the surface level, defining soils types A, B, C, D, E and F, renaming approximately Soil
Type I as A, II as B, a new type C, III as D, IV as E and a new type F.
The existing pseudo-acceleration spectrum is multiplied by a new parameter S, dependent of the soil, with
values 0.9 for Soil Type A, 1.0 for soil B, 1.05 for soil C, 1.20 for soil D and 1.30 for soil E. Soil type F, requires a
site assessment of seismic hazard.
A new Elastic Displacement Response Spectra Sde is introduced.
The parameter C*d is dependent of the soil type and the natural period of the building, having values larger
than 1.0 for calibration with the observed displacements at ground level under the most severe earthquake
between 1985 and 2010. Conceptually this spectrum corresponds to an increase of the displacement derived
from the pseudo-acceleration spectrum in the code NCh433 and is close to the Displacement Spectra from
the Chilean Code NCh2745-2003 for base isolated buildings.
For concrete buildings, the Maximum Lateral Displacement at the roof of the building u is defined. This is
calculated as 1.3 times the value of the Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum at the top Sde for the cracked
translational period with the largest mass participation factor in that direction, for 5% of critical damping.
5.2 NCh430 changes introduced by DS60 MINVU 2011 for the design of RC buildings:
Adoption of ACI 318-08 provisions, with some minor exceptions, for the design of concrete special structural
walls. These provisions are intended to prevent crushing and spalling of concrete and buckling of vertical
17
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
reinforcement at boundary regions by providing a ductile behavior to individual walls and placing a limit of
0.008 to the maximum compression strains when the building reaches the Maximum Lateral Displacement at
the roof u .
Changes in the design for flexure and axial force:
21.9.5.2 - The whole flange width of a flanged section T, L, C, or other cross sectional shapes must be considered.
The total amount of longitudinal reinforcement present in the section must be considered when assessing the
flexural strength due to combined flexural and axial loads.
Alternatively, effective flange widths of flanged sections can be considered. The effective flange width shall extend
from the face of the web a distance equal to the smaller of one-half the distance to an adjacent wall web and 25
percent of the total wall height.
21.9.5.3 Factored axial load acting on transverse section defined in 21.9.5.2, must be less or equal to 0.35fcAg.
21.9.5.4 In every wall with an aspect ratio Ht / lw greater or equal to 3, in the critical section the curvature
capacity, , must be greater than the demand of curvature, u. Curvature capacity can be evaluated using
equation (21-7a) or (21-7b). The axial load is the greatest factored axial load that is consistent with the design load
combination that produces the design displacement u. Shortening strain, c, in the most compressed fiber in the
critical section of a wall, shall be less or equal to 0.008.
2
= =

0.008
+ =
(21- 7a)
0.008
(21- 7b)
lp value in equation (21-7b) shall not be greater than lw /2 and e and e must be justified.
The total amount of longitudinal reinforcement present in the transverse section defined in 21.9.5.2 must be
considered, subjected to the axial load Pu. The deformation capacity must be assessed in the wall plane consistent
with de direction of analysis.
Additional changes for the design for bending and axial load of shear walls in the code are:
6.
Slenderness: minimum wall of 1/16 of the unbraced length.

Splices in longitudinal reinforcement: transverse reinforcement must be provided at lap splices.
Bar buckling: spacing of transverse reinforcement must be 6 longitudinal bar diameter.
WHY BUILDINGS ARE RESILIENT
The earthquake experience has shown that the response of the Chilean buildings has been close to operational.
This can be attributed to the fact that the drift of most engineered buildings designed in accordance with the
Chilean practice falls below 0.5% (Fig. 21). It is also known by experience that for frequent and even occasional
earthquakes, buildings responded elastically and thus with fully operational performance. Taking the above into
account, it can be said that, although the basic objective of the Chilean code is similar to the SEAOC VISION2000
criteria, the actual performance for normal buildings is closer to the Essential/Hazardous objective.
18
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
6.1 Structural Indexes

Several Indexes have been widely used throughout the years in Chile to evaluate the structural characteristics of
concrete buildings, with the intent to find a correlation between general structural conception and successful
seismic performance. The Indexes presented are related only to global response of buildings under earthquake
loads and not to the behavior or design of individual elements.
The Macro approach is the definition of the global system and is the scope of this study. The Micro approach is
related to the principles behind the detailing of individual elements that is beyond the scope of this study. Both
approaches must be consistent with objectives that define a successful seismic performance.
6.1.1
Wall Density Index:
The wall density parameter, dnp, calculated as the wall area in the first floor on each principal direction divided by
the total weight of the floor area above this level is shown in Figure 4 (Gmez 2001 & Caldern 2007).
In the last 25 years the graphic shows dnp has a constant average value close to 0.002 and a constant minimum of
0.001. This is consistent with the basic criteria, described previously, for the determination of the wall area required
in each principal direction, assuming a unit weight per floor area of 10 KPa (1.0 tf/m2).
The inverse of the wall density Index has units of MPa (tf/m2) and is directly related with the average compression
forces and the seismic shear forces acting on the walls. A reduction in the value of the wall density Index implies a
direct increase in wall compression and shear stresses. Different authors have demonstrated (Wallace et al., 2012)
that the maximum roof lateral displacement is dependent of the relation c/lw that is directly related with the axial
load, the geometry and reinforcing of the wall. Walls with L or T shape and setbacks are especially vulnerable to
this situation due to large compression stresses at the web when subjected to large lateral displacements.
Evidence shows that an important percentage of the damaged walls in the 2010 earthquake fall in this category.
This type of situation is usually present in modern buildings below ground level where larger spaces for parking
facilities are needed.
Wall density values above 0.001m2/tf in each principal direction have proven to provide adequate earthquake
behavior when properly designed. It becomes evident that design of shear walls must follow capacity design
principles to provide individual ductile behavior in order to guarantee a global successful behavior for the building
under large lateral displacements. General practice, with some exceptions, prior to 2008 did not follow these
principles due to the Chilean code exclusion of the ACI 318 requirement for transverse reinforcement in boundary
elements in walls. This made walls vulnerable when subjected to large displacements such as the observed on soft
soils in Concepcin, Via del Mar and Santiago.
6.1.2
Stiffness Index or Structural Response Velocity V* = Ho / T:
It is the quotient of the Height of the building above ground level (Ho) divided by the uncracked First Translational
mode period of the building calculated from spectral analysis (T). The units are meters/sec. which represents a
velocity. Figure 5 show historical values from a database of 2622 Chilean buildings (Guendelman et al., 2010).
Values for Ho/T are in the range of 20 160 m/sec. Values below 40 m/sec. apply to flexible mostly frame
buildings; values between 40 and 70 m/sec. represent normal stiffness buildings and values over 70 m/sec. pertain
to stiff buildings. Historically, Chilean buildings can be classified in the range of stiff to normal according to the
Stiffness Index.
The use of the height above ground level Ho in lieu of the total height of the building H in the Index is due to the
19
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
fact that Ho represents better the vibrational properties of the buildings. This is because the underground portion
usually behaves as a stiff box with no significant drift under lateral loads due to the existence of large surrounding
concrete retaining walls at the perimeter of the building. Additionally at ground level is where the largest
curvature demand for the walls (u/Ho) takes place. Figure 6 illustrates values of the maximum top-level
displacement u obtained for historical values of Ho from 2622 Chilean buildings (Guendelman et al. 2010).
6.1.3
Elastic Performance Spectrum: D=Sde/Ho vs V*=Ho/T:
It is directly derived from the elastic displacement spectrum as shown on Figure 20. The Elastic Performance
Spectrum shows that the roof drift is inversely related to the Structural Response Velocity V*. The parameter Td is
site dependent (seismic Zone and Soil Type). The parameter is site dependent and also dependent of the
damping coefficient of the structure . The parameter Ho is a property of the building.
Fig. 20 Determination of the Elastic Performance Spectrum

6.1.4
Performance Index u / Ho:
The Performance Index is the top level drift (relative to ground level) evaluated according to current post
earthquake version of the Chilean code NCh433 established in DS61 MINVU 2011. The Maximum Lateral
Displacement of the roof u is calculated as 1.3 times the Elastic Displacement Spectrum at the top Sde for the
cracked translational period with the largest mass participation factor in that direction. This index can also be
assumed to be the curvature demand of walls at ground level for the Deterministic Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE), due to the high frequency of large magnitude earthquakes in Chile as commented in the
Chilean Seismicity section.
Figure 21 is a plot of the Elastic Performance Spectrum for 2622 Chilean buildings (Guendelman et al. 2010) that
illustrate the Performance Index u/Ho vs. the Structural Response Velocity (SRV) parameter V*=Ho/T. In the
graphic, 88% of the buildings have drift values bellow 0.005 which according to Vision 2000 Performance
20
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
Objectives (Figure 22), this represents operational behavior, and 54% have drift values bellow 0.002 which
represent a performance objective of fully operational behavior. Less than 2% have drift values above 0.01. It can
be noticed that this value is similar to the percentage of building failures reported during the Maule earthquake.
Drift and Stiffness

20
flexible
buildings
1000 u/Ho
15
normal
stiffness
buildings
stiff buildings
10
operational
fully operational
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Ho/T (m/sec)
Fig. 21 Performance Index: (u /Ho) vs. (Ho/T), (Guendelman et al., 2010)
This Figure also shows that the Operational and Fully Operational performance objectives defined in SEAOC
VISION 2000 are easily met by buildings with high values of the index Ho/T. It is also evident from the graphics that
the most efficient way to increase the seismic performance of a building is by increasing the Structural Response
Velocity of the System same as the value of the Index Ho/T. This comparison favors the adoption of shear wall type
systems instead of frame type systems as a strategy for increased earthquake performance in high-rise buildings
and is consistent with the historical Chilean practice.
Fig. 22 SEAOC Vision 2000 Performance Based Design: Seismic performance objectives.
21
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
6.1.5
Inter-story Drift Index i / hs:
It is defined as the ratio between the lateral displacement i between the same point i in plan, at any two
consecutive floors, and the floor story height hs. The Chilean code considers this parameter as a relevant index for
stiffness and torsional plan rotation control and damage control of nonstructural components and establishes the
following conditions:
- The Inter-story Drift Index must be evaluated under spectrum design forces (reduced forces) including accidental
torsion.
- When evaluated at the center of mass (C.M.), the inter-story drift must not exceed the value of 0.002.
- When evaluated at any other point i in plan, the inter-story drift must not exceed 0.001 from the value at the
C.M.
Studies based on inelastic models for Chilean earthquakes records (Bonelli, 2008) indicate ratios between
maximum roof drift vs maximum interstory drift between 1.2 and 2.0, the smallest values for shear wall type
buildings and the largest values for frame type buildings.
7.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (318R-05), Farmington Hills, MI., 2005, 430pp.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010). ASCE/SAI 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, Reston, Va., 650pp.
Bonelli P., 2008. Sistemas Estructurales, III Conferencia Ecuatoriana de Ingeniera Ssmica, XX Jornadas Nacional
de Ingeniera Estructura, Quito, Ecuador, Mayo 2008.
Bonelli P., 2010. Evaluacin de Daos y Normativa Terremoto en Chile Central-2010 (in Spanish), Presentacin
Congreso ACHISINA, Santiago Chile 2010.
Boroschek R., Soto P., and Leon R., 2010. Registros del Terremoto del Maule Mw=8.8 27 de Febrero de 2010, Red
Nacional de Acelergrafos del Departamento de Ingeniera Civil, Facultad de Ciencias y Matemticas, Universidad
de Chile, Informe RENADIC 10/05, 100pp. (p://www.terremotosuchile.cl/)
Caldern JA, 2007. Update on Structural System Characteristic used in RC Building Construction in Chile (in
Spanish), Civil Engineering Thesis, University of Chile, 76 pp.
Chopra and Goel, IX Chilean Conference of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 16-19 November 2005.
Comisin de Diseo Estructural en Hormign Armado y Albailera, Edificios Chilenos de Hormign Armado,
Cmara Chilena de la Construccin, pp. 117, June 2002
Comit Inmobiliario (real state committee). CChC, 2010. Communication based on INE data, Instituto Nacional de
Estadsticas (National Institute of Statistics), http://www.ine.cl/
Comte, D. A. Eisenberg, E. Lorca, M. Pardo, L. Ponce, R. Saragoni, S.K. Singh, G. Suarez. The 1985 Central Chile
Earthquake: A Repeat of Previous Great Earthquake in the Region, Science, Vol. 23. pp 393-500, July 1986.
D.S. N 60 MINVU (2011), Reglamento que fija los requisitos de diseo y clculo para el hormign armado y
deroga Decreto N 118, de 2010 (in Spanish), Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Diario Oficial 13 de Diciembre
22
Newsletter N 2

RESILIENCE
WHY
WHY CHILEAN
CHILEAN BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS SURVIVE?
SURVIVE?
del 2011
D.S. N 61 MINVU (2011), Reglamento que fija el diseo ssmico de edificios y deroga Decreto N 117, de 2010 (in
Spanish), Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Diario Oficial 13 de Diciembre del 2011
Gmez C.E., 2001. Structural System Characteristics used in RC and Reinforced Masonry Building Construction in
Chile (in Spanish), Civil Engineering Thesis, University of Chile.
GUC seismological services at the University of Chile, http://www.sismologia.cl/
Instituto de la Construccin, Comisin Provisoria Terremoto 2010, 30 Propuestas relativas al terremoto 27-F 2010
(in Spanish), Anexo 2, March 2010
Guendelman T., Guendelman M., Lindenberg J., Perfil Bio-Ssmico de edificios (in Spanish). VII Jornadas de
Sismologa e Ingeniera Antissmica y Primer Congreso Iberoamericano de Ingeniera Ssmica, La Serena, Chile,
1997
Guendelman T., Lindenberg J., Cambio en Solicitaciones Ssmicas en Edificios, Seminario Efectos del Terremoto en
el Nuevo Diseo Ssmico y Estructural en Chile, ICH Nov. 2010.
Lagos R., Kupfer M., Lindenberg J., Bonelli P., Saragoni R., Guendelman T., Massone L., Boroschek R. and Yaez F.
2012. Seismic Performance of High-Rise Concrete Buildings In Chile, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings
Saptember 2012, Vol 1, No 3, 181-194
Official Chilean Standard, NCh433.Of96, Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings (in English),
Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin, INN, 43pp, 1996
Official Chilean Standard, NCh430.Of2008, Reinforced Concrete Design and calculation requirements (in
Spanish), Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin, INN, 17pp., 2008
Official Chilean Standard, NCh2745.Of03, Analysis and Design of Buildings with Base Isolation (in Spanish)),
Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin, INN, 98pp, 2003
Official Chilean Standard, NCh2369.Of03, Earthquake Resistant Design of Industrial Structures and Facilities (in
Spanish)), Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin, INN, 120pp, 2003
Structural Engineers Association of California, Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings VISION2000,
1995.
Wallace John W., Leonardo M. Massone, Patricio Bonelli, Jeff Dragovich, Ren Lagos, Carl Lder, and Jack Moehle,
RC Building Damage and Implications for U.S. Codes, EERI, Earthquake Spectra Chile Special Issue, 2012.
23

WCEE 16 Newsletter - Why Chilean Buildings Survive

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WCEE 16 Newsletter - Why Chilean Buildings Survive

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Newsletter N 2

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Considering the observed performance of high rise

We know how to calculate concrete shear walls;

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

This article is organized with the following sections:

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TIPICAL RC CHILEAN BUILDINGS

Fig. 2 Typical residential concrete building

Fig. 3 Typical office concrete building

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

dnp (x10 ) (m /tonf)

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Height (Ho) and Period (T)

Top Level Drift for u=1.3 Sde (Soil Type II)

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS

Building Practice and Code Provisions in Chile Pre-2010 Maule Earthquake

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Building Category: Importance factor

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Design Spectrum: (Shown in Fig.7)

Tn : vibration period of mode n

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

4.1 Costanera Center Towen 2 Building.

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Fig. 9 Structural system for levels -5 to 51 and 52 to 62

Fig. 10 Floor system, composite slab + steel beam.

Fig. 11 Lateral structural system dimensions

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Seismic Lateral Response.

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Fig. 13 Code spectrum vs. Site spectrum displacements and drifts.

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

4.1.2.2 Dynamic Time History Analysis:

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

4.2 Titanium Building

Fig. 16 Titanium 200m reinforced concrete building in Santiago.

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Tower Lateral System

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

4.2.3 Tower Gravity System

Site Condition and Foundation

Fig 19 Titanium building. Foundation mat and beams

16th World Conference on

January 9th to 13th, 2017 | Santiago - Chile

Performance M = 8.8 Earthquake

CODE CHANGES AFTER CHILE 2010 EARTHQUAKE