Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUMMARY
Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA) performed the structural design for a sample building on behalf of the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center as part of the Tall Buildings Initiative. The research project is
done on behalf of the California Seismic Safety Commission and the California Office of Emergency Services.
The goal of the overall research project was to quantify and compare seismic performances and expected losses
of three hypothetical, yet realistic, tall buildings in California.
The sample building designed by MKA consists of a representative core wall building located in Los Angeles,
CA. For the purposes of reporting, the building is called building 1. Building 1 is a 42-storey hotel tower. Two
different designs for building 1 were performed, as summarized below:
(1) Prescriptive provisions of the 2006 edition of the International Building Code: All prescriptive provisions
of the building code were observed with one exception—the height limit. Capacity design principles were
not employed.
(2) Performance-based design (PBD): A PBD was performed according to the 2008 edition of the seismic design
criteria published by the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC), with the fol-
lowing exceptions:
(a) The serviceability analysis was for an earthquake event with a 25-year return period, assuming 2·5%
viscous damping. Only a limited number of elements were allowed to reach 120% of their capacity
under the serviceability check.
(b) The minimum base shear specified in the LATBSDC document was waived. The serviceability check
in conjunction with design for wind forces determined the minimum strength of the lateral system.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
Building 1 was proportioned to be representative of a typical residential or hotel tower on the West
Coast of the United States. A central elevator and stair core are surrounded by hotel rooms. A floor
plate of approximately 11 500 square ft was chosen. The building height was selected such that the
period of the first mode of vibration was approximately 5 s. This period target was used for all three
sample designs in order to utilize the same scaling approach for the ground motion records.
The core walls for building 1A were designed in accordance with the code provisions of the 2006
International Building Code (IBC) with the exception that the core-only lateral system exceeds the
specified height limit. A nonlinear model with properties corresponding to the design was created and
*Correspondence to: Ron Klemencic, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101,
USA. E-mail: rklemencic@mka.com
provided to Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) for their use in studying building
performance.
The core walls for building 1B were designed using a performance-based design (PBD) approach.
A serviceability-level response spectrum in combination with wind design was used to establish a
minimum strength of the lateral system. A ‘code-level’ design considering a design basis earthquake
was not performed, nor was an artificial minimum base shear included in the design. After initial
proportioning and design of the core walls, a nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) under the
maximum considered earthquake (MCE) was performed and compared against acceptance criteria to
verify the performance of the building under the MCE.
2. PROJECT IMAGES
Conceptual images of building 1 are shown in Figure 1.
3. DESIGN CRITERIA
The project is designed in accordance with the following building and material codes:
(1) International Building Code, 2006 edn (IBC 2006), with reference to ASCE 7, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2005 edn (ASCE 7-05), American Society of Civil
Engineers;
(2) Alternative Seismic Design Criteria, 2008 edn, Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design
Council;
(3) Reinforced Concrete: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
2008 edn (ACI 318-08), American Concrete Institute.
Parameter Value
Basic wind speed, 3 s gust (V) 85 mph
Exposure B
Occupancy category II
Importance factor (Iw) 1·0
Topographic factor (Kzt) 1·0
Enclosure classification Enclosed
Internal pressure coefficient (GCpi) 0·18
Mean roof height (h) 409 ft–10 in.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 63
Figure 1. Conceptual building images. (a) Building 1 tower plan, (b) building 1 tower isometric, (c) building 1
core wall elevations and (d) building 1 core wall isometric
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
64 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
Parameter Value
Building latitude/longitude 34·0495°N, 118·252°W
Occupancy category II
Importance factor (Ie) 1·0
Mapped spectral acceleration Ss = 2·147; S1 = 0·720
Site class C
Site class coefficients Fa = 1·0; Fv = 1·3
Spectral response coefficients SDS = 1·145; SD1 = 0·521
Seismic design category D
Lateral system Building frame, special reinforced concrete shear walls
Response modification coefficient (R) 6
Building period (Tcode), section 12.8.2 Tcode = 2·55 s (based on H = 409 ft–10 in.)
Cs (equation 12.8–2) S
Cs = DS = 0⋅19
(R I )
Csmax (equation 12.8–3) SD1
Cs max = = 0⋅034
Tcode ( R I )
Csmin (equation 12.8–5, including ASCE 7 Cs min = 0⋅044 SDS I = 0⋅050
supplement 2)
Csmin (equation 12.8–6) 0⋅5S1
Cs min = = 0⋅060 ← governs
R I
Seismic response coefficient Cs = 0·060
Seismic weight (weight above level 1) W = 89 500 kip
Design base shear* V = 0·85CsW = 0·051W = 4565kips
Analysis procedure used Modal analysis procedure
* 0·85 factor used per scaling requirements of ASCE 7-05, section 12.9.4.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 65
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
66 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 67
walls were neglected. Inelastic vertical fibre elements were used for the core walls and columns at all
levels, to capture nonlinearity of moment and axial load interaction. These elements are comprised of
two materials: (a) reinforcing steel; and (b) confined concrete (defined in such a way as to account
for the unconfined concrete outside the confinement steel).
Reinforcement was modelled per ASTM A706 material specifications. Confined and unconfined
concrete were modelled per the model for high-strength concrete proposed by Razvi and Saatcioglu
(1999), based on concrete strength and density of confinement.
Coupling beams were modelled as nonlinear shear links. Element stiffness, yield and degradation
characteristics were matched to recent coupling beam testing by Dr John Wallace at UCLA.
Slab outriggers were modelled with elastic wide, shallow concrete beams with moment hinges at
each end. The nonlinear properties of the moment hinges were matched to slab–wall testing by Dr
Jack Moehle at UC Berkeley (Klemencic et al., 2006).
6. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
6.1 Serviceability event check
The following acceptance criteria were selected for the serviceability event check (Table 4):
Item Value
Storey drift 0·5%
Coupling beams Shear strength to remain essentially elastic
Core wall flexure Remain elastic
Core wall shear Remain elastic
Slab outrigger beams End moment to remain essentially elastic
Columns Remain elastic
7. DESIGN SUMMARY
7.1 Building 1A
Key values from the design and selected element sizes are included in Table 5.
Displays some of the results from our analysis of building 1A.
7.2 Building 1B
The multiple stages of design employed for building 1B are summarized in Table 6. Key values from
the analysis and design for service-level hazard and wind, and selected element sizes are included in
Table 7. Key values from the analysis under the MCE are included in Table 8.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
68 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 69
Figure 4. Design results: building 1A (core-only building). (a) Accumulated core shear: X direction, (b)
accumulated core shear: Y direction, (c) overturning moment: X direction and (d) overturning moment:
Y direction
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
70 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
Item Value
Storey drift 3% under MCE, taken as the average of seven response history results
Coupling beam rotation 0·06 rad rotation limit, taken as the average of seven response history
results
Core wall reinforcement axial strain Rebar tensile strain = 0·05 in tension and 0·02 in compression, taken
as the average of seven response history results
Core wall concrete axial strain Fully confined concrete compression strain = 0·015, taken as the
average of seven response history results
Core wall shear Verification performed for elastic behaviour
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 71
Figure 5. Building maximum inter-storey drift. (a) X direction and (b) Y direction
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
72 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
Figure 6. Moment shear. (a) Accumulated core shear: X direction, (b) accumulated core shear: Y direction,
(c) overturning moment: X direction and (d) overturning moment: Y direction
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 73
Figure 7. Coupling beam rotations. (a) Coupling beam 21 and (b) coupling beam 33
Figure 8. Core wall tensile strains. (a) Southwest corner and (b) southeast corner
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
74 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
Figure 9. Core wall shear. (a) Pier 03, (b) pier 11, (c) pier 22 and (d) pier 32
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PEER/CSSC 75
10. CONCLUSIONS
The comparisons that PEER will be able to make between buildings designed following prescriptive
provisions and those utilizing PBD methodology are expected to be very informative. A comparative
look at building performance under different levels of seismic demand is expected to indicate that
buildings that are designed to specific performance objectives have a much higher probability of
resisting collapse. For this case study, the core walls in the building designed using PBD methods
were considerably thicker than those of the building designed using the prescriptive provisions of the
IBC. It is anticipated that shear failure may occur under MCE-level seismic demands in the building
designed following the 2006 IBC requirements.
REFERENCES
Razvi S, Saatcioglu M. March 1999. Confinement model for high-strength concrete. Journal of Structural Engi-
neering 281–289.
Klemencic R, Fry JA, Hurtado G, Moehle J. 2006. Performance of post-tensioned slab-core wall connections.
PTI Journal 4(2): 7–23.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal