542 FTP

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.
19, 197256 (2010) Published online 14 October 2009 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.542
PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH/ SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2
TONY GHODSI* AND JOSE A. FLORES RUIZ
Englekirk Partners Consulting Structural Engineers
SUMMARY The results from two methodologies for the structural design of a 42 story building located in Los Angeles, California, and a description of the properties used to model the structure for both cases are summarized. The building is laterally braced by a concrete shear wall core and two four-bay concrete special moment resisting frames (SMRF) in each direction. The rst design is based on a modal response spectrum analysis as prescribed by the International Building Code (ICC 2006). The second design, as prescribed by Los Angeles Tall Building Design Council An Alternative Design Approach for Tall buildings (LATBSDC 2008), with some exceptions, requires the building to satisfy service level criteria using a modal response spectrum analysis and a collapse prevention evaluation using 7 time-history non-linear analyses. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1.
DUAL SYSTEM BASIS OF DESIGN
This report shows the results obtained from two design approaches of a building located in Los Angeles, CA, laterally braced by a concrete shear wall elevator core and two four-bay concrete special moment-resisting frames (SMRFs) in each direction. The building consists of 42 stories and a penthouse above ground level and four subterranean levels. For the purpose of this report, this building is referred to as building 2 (Figure 1). The design was rst based on a modal response spectrum analysis as prescribed by International Building Code 2006 (ICC, 2006). The building was then redesigned to satisfy the service-level criteria, and its components were checked to comply with the collapse prevention criteria under the maximum considered seismic event (MCE) as described in Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council An Alternative Design Approach for Tall Buildings (LATBSDC, 2008) with the exceptions mentioned under the Building 2A-Code Design section. The resulting structure with its components designed per IBC 2006 is referred to as building 2A, and the structure with its components designed and revised to comply with the service and MCE level of forces is referred to as building 2B. In all cases, the X direction of the building is parallel to letter grid lines, and the Y direction is parallel to number grid lines as shown in Figure 2. 2. GENERAL BUILDING PROPERTIES
Figures 2 and 3 show the typical plan view of the ground oor and below, and of the second level and above. Table 1 shows the general building properties.
* Correspondence to: Tony Ghodsi, 3621 Harbor Blvd., Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92704. E-mail: tony.ghodsi@englekirk. com Correspondence to: Jose A. Flores Ruiz, 3621 Harbor Blvd., Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92704. E-mail: jose.ruiz@englekirk. com
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
198
T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ
Figure 1. Three-dimensional rendering of structure from ETABS (2008) model
Table 1. General building properties Storey height 105 ft at levels below ground 1367 ft from ground to second 105 ft typical from 2nd to 42nd 115 ft Roof 20 ft Penthouse 42 above-ground plus penthouse 4 below ground 10-in.-thick reinforced concrete at basement levels 12-in.-thick reinforced concrete at ground oor 8-in.-thick post-tensioned concrete typical above ground 10-in.-thick reinforced concrete at roof 30 in. Typical 16 in. thick, f c = 5 ksi (2) Four-bay SMRF in each direction
Number of stories Slab construction
Coupling beam depth Basement shear walls Moment frames
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 197256 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/tal
TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2
199
Figure 2. Typical plan view at ground oor and below
In addition to the self-weight of the structure, the loads listed in Table 2 are used for the calculation of superimposed dead and live loads. 2.1 Stiffness assumptions
The stiffness assumptions are listed in Table 3. When nonlinear behaviour of elements is modelled, stiffness modiers are applied to the assumed elastic portion of the forcedisplacement relationship.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 197256 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/tal
200
Figure 3. Typical plan view at level 2 and above
3. BUILDING 2A: CODE DESIGN The design of building 2A was performed in general compliance with the IBC 2006, which adopts the ASCE (2006) and ACI (2008). The specied core wall thickness and strength throughout the height are shown in Table 4. For SMRF properties and core wall reinforcing, see Figures 47. Table 5 shows the periods of building 2A using the stiffness assumptions listed in Table 3.
201
Table 2. Load criteria Use Parking Retail Cladding Outside plaza Corridors and exit areas Residential Mechanical Roof Location Four stories below ground Ground level inside area Perimeter of tower Ground level outside area Inside elevator core Second oor up to 42nd oor At roof oor only Roof oor Superimposed dead load (psf) 3 110 15 psf per elevation 350 28 28 100 kip 28 Live load (psf) 50 (Reducible) 100 (Non-reducible) 100 (Non-reducible) 100 (Non-reducible) 40 (Reducible) 25 (Reducible) 20 (Reducible)
Table 3. Stiffness assumptions Building 2A Element Modulus of elasticity Core walls Basement walls Coupling beams Ground level and basement slabs Moment frame beams Moment frame columns
A A
Building 2B Serviceability design Expected concrete strength Flexural: 09 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 10 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 05 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 05 EIg Shear: 08 GAg Flexural: 07 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 09 EIg Shear: 10 GAg
B
Code-level analysis Specied concrete strength Flexural: 06 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 08 EIg Shear: 08 GAg Flexural: 02 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 025 EIg Shear: 05 GAg Flexural: 035 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 07 EIg Shear: 10 GAg
MCE level Expected concrete strength Flexural: See note C Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 08 EIg Shear: 08 GAg Flexural: 02 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 025 EIg Shear: 025 GAg Flexural: 035 EIg Shear: 10 GAg Flexural: 07 EIg Shear: 10 GAg
Modulus of elasticity is based on the following equations: Ec = 57000 fc for f c 6000 psi Ec = 40 000 fc + 1 106 for f c > 6000 psi (per ACI 363R-921) B Per Table 2 of LATBSDC (2008), the expected material strengths are 13 f c for concrete and 117 fy for reinforcing steel. C Core walls are modelled using bre sections. If the concrete does not crack, EI is close to the gross concrete properties. (It is slightly bigger because of the steel.) As the strains on the bre elements increase, the effective EI decreases. Table 4. Building 2A specied core wall thickness and strength
Thickness Specied concrete strength ( f c) Specied reinforcing strength ( fy)
24 in. from foundation to 20th 18 in. above 20th 6000 psi from foundation to 20th 5000 psi above 20th 60 ksi (A706)
3.1
Building 2A: seismic design
A linear modal response spectrum analysis was used for the seismic design of building 2A. The design forces were obtained from a provided 5% damped site-specic response spectra scaled in accordance with ASCE (2006), chapter 21.
202
Figure 4. Elevation and properties of frames A and F for building 2A
203
Figure 5. Elevation and properties of frames 2 and 5 for building 2A
204
Figure 6. Elevation A and shear wall reinforcing for building 2A
205
Figure 7. Elevation B and shear wall reinforcing for building 2A
206
Table 5. Building 2A code design periods Vibration mode 1 2 3 Period (s) 550 497 298 Dominant direction Translation mode on X direction Translation mode on Y direction Torsional mode Mass participation (%) 67 68 75
Table 6. Linear dynamic site-specic response spectrum analysis parameters Ss S1 Fa Fv SMs SM1 SDS SD1 R Site class Cd Cs Seismic weight (W)B Modal combination method Redundancy factor ()C Accidental eccentricity Base shear V (see section 12.8) Modal base shear Vt (see section 12.9.2) Modal base shear scaled to match 085 V 1725 g 0602 g 1 13 1718 g 0782 g 1145 g 0521 g 70 C 55 0051A 102 000 kip Complete quadratic combination (CQC) 10 5% 5202 kipC Vtx = 11 436/R = 1634 kip Vty = 11 760/R = 1680 kip 085 5202 = 4421 kip
Notes: A Cs values for both cases are governed by equation 12.85 of ASCE (2006) as shown in its supplement 2. B Seismic weight accounts for the dead load of second level and above. C The structure complies with 12.3.4.2-b, the redundancy factor equals 1. D Per section 12.9.4 of ASCE (2006), Where the combined response for the modal base shear (Vt) is less than 85 percent of the calculated base shear (V) using the equivalent lateral force procedure, the forces, but not the drifts, shall be multiplied by 085 V/Vt. Hence, for strength design, the modal analyses are scaled to match 085V = 4421 kip. E Refer to ASCE (2006) for the denition of each design parameter.
Table 6 summarizes the factors used for this analysis. A comparison between the prescribed code spectra and the site-specic spectra is shown in Figure 8. The model for building 2A was created using the program ETABS (CSI, 2008) including only the lateral force-resisting elements with their stiffness modied per Table 3. Concrete shear walls and SMRF are modelled from the foundation level to the penthouse and roof levels, respectively. Soil structure interaction is ignored, and the lateral stiffness of gravity elements is not included. The design of structural components was based only on the modal analyses results. No special effort other than those prescribed by code was made to detail building 2A. The representative plots for the design of building 2A are shown in Figures 913.

1.60
207
1.40
1.20
Acceleration (%g)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Period (sec) Code Design spectra Site specific design spectra 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Figure 8. The 5% damped code and site-specic design response spectra

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0.000 0.005 0.010 Drift (in/in) Xdir Ydir 0.015 0.020 0.025
Figure 9. Building 2A inter-storey drifts from seismic forces on X and Y directions

208
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Shear X direction (kip) Story Shear Shear taken by Frames Shear taken by Shear walls
Figure 10. Building 2A modal analysis peak shear from seismic forces on X direction
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Shear Y direction (kip) Story Shear Shear taken by Frames Shear taken by Shear walls
Figure 11. Building 2A modal analysis peak shear from seismic forces on Y direction

45
209
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 200000 400000 600000 Moment (k-ft) My Overall My Core 800000 1000000 1200000
Figure 12. Building 2A modal analysis peak moments when seismic forces act parallel to the X direction (Ex)
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 200000 400000 600000 Moment (k-ft) Mx Overall Mx Core 800000 1000000 1200000
Figure 13. Building 2A modal analysis peak moments when seismic forces act parallel to the Y direction (Ey)
210
Table 7. Wind design parameters per ASCE (2006) Basic wind speed (V) Occupancy category Surface roughness Exposure type Gust effect factor (Gf) Enclosure classication Topographic factor (Kz) Per cent of critical damping ration () Wind shear at ground oor Wind overturning moment at ground oor 85 mph II B B 089 Enclosed 1 25% 1345 kip 272378 kip
3.2 Building 2A: wind design Wind forces were calculated using section 6 of ASCE (2006). Table 7 shows the parameters and resulting forces used for wind design. By comparing the base shears and overturning moment from the wind and seismic actions, it can be concluded that the design is governed by the seismic forces. 4. BUILDING 2B: PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
Building 2B was designed and checked for the following two performance levels: (a) serviceability level using an elastic ETABS (CSI, 2008) model; and (b) collapse prevention level using a threedimensional nonlinear step-by-step time history analysis with the program Perform 3D (CSI, 2007). For both models, the elastic stiffness is obtained from expected material properties and the modication factors given in Table 3. The provisions for seismic design according to the LATBSDC (2008) recommendations are followed with the following exceptions: (1) Service-level check is for an earthquake event of 25-year return period with 25% viscous damping. Up to 20% of the elements with ductile action are allowed to reach 150% of their capacity under the serviceability check. (2) The minimum base shear specied in the LATBSDC (2008) is waived. Building 2B properties are summarized in Table 8. Table 9 shows the periods obtained from both the serviceability and collapse prevention models using the stiffness assumptions from Table 3 and expected material properties (Figures 1417). The periods obtained by the program Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) from the model used for collapse prevention are obtained before the nonlinear analyses are performed. The frame beams, columns and coupling beams reect a reduced stiffness as described in the stiffness assumption table when calculating the period; however, the core shear walls are modelled using the uncracked properties of concrete. When the nonlinear analyses are run, the stiffness of the core shear walls is adjusted according to its strain prole. The periods obtained by the program ETABS (CSI, 2008) reect the stiffness of elements modied per Table 3. Table 9 shows a summary of the periods obtained for building 2B.
211
Table 8. Building 2B specied core wall thickness and strength Thickness Specied concrete strength ( f c) Expected concrete strengthA ( f cexp) Specied reinforcing strength ( f y) Expected reinforcing strengthB ( f yexp)
A B
24 in. from foundation to 20th 18 in. above 20th up to 30th 16 in. above 30th 8000 psi from foundation to 20th 6000 psi from 20th to 30th 5000 psi above 30th 10400 psi from foundation to 20th 7800 psi from 20th to 30th 6500 psi above 30th 60 ksi (A706) 70 ksi
fc expected equals 13 times specied f c. fy expected equals 117 times specied fy.
Table 9. Building 2B period summary from the computer models used to check serviceability and collapse prevention performance levels Period Vibration mode 1 2 3 At service level ETABS (s) 401 353 212 At collapse prevention level Perform 3D (s) 428 387 226 ETABS (s) 493 450 278 Dominant direction Translation mode on X direction Translation mode on Y direction Torsional mode
4.1
Serviceability analysis seismic force determination
The design forces are obtained using an elastic site-specic response spectrum analysis where the spectrum represents a mean recurrence interval of 25 years. This spectrum is shown in Figure 18. The stiffness assumptions used are those summarized in Table 3. Accidental eccentricity is not considered for serviceability checks per section 3.3.5 of the LATBSDC (2008) document. 4.1.1 Service-level design acceptance criteria Building 2B is checked for the load combinations using dead load, live load and wind load as described in IBC 2006, calculating the strength of each element as described in the same document. For the seismic design, the load combination used is described by Equation (1). DL + 025LL Eservice (1)
DL and LL are the dead and live loads, respectively, and Eservice refers to the earthquake demand at service level. The live load is not reduced; 025LL is also referred to as the expected live load. Orthogonal load combinations for earthquake loads are applied as required per section 12.5 of ASCE (2006). Per section 3.3.6 of the LATBSDC (2008) document, the overall inter-storey drift of the structure should not exceed 0005 hn.
212
Table 12. Concrete elastic modulus comparison fc (ksi) 5 6 8 10 Ec Per ACI (1992, 2008) (ksi) 4031 4098 4578 5000 Ec
expected
(114 Ec)
Initial elastic stiffness for nonlinear model (ksi) 3229 3597 4340 4941
(ksi) 4595 4671 5219 5700
Ec = 57000fc; for fc < 6 ksi per ACI (2008). Ec = 40000fc + 1 106; for fc 6 ksi per ACI (1992).
Figure 14. Elevation and properties of frames A and F for building 2B
213
Figure 15. Elevation and properties of frames 2 and 5 for building 2B
214
Figure 16. Elevation A and shear wall reinforcing for building 2B
215
Figure 17. Elevation B and shear wall reinforcing for building 2B
216
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25 Acceleration (%g)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0 Period (sec)
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Service Design Spectra
Figure 18. The 25% damped service-level site-specic response spectra
When checking against the load combination shown in Equation (1), 20% of the elements with ductile actions are allowed to have a demand-to-capacity ratio between 10 and 15. The remainder of elements should have a demand to capacity ratio of 10 or less. All elements with brittle actions should have a demand capacity ratio of 10 or less. For both ductile and brittle actions, strengths should be calculated using a strength reduction factor in accordance with current material codes. For brittle actions, strength is calculated using specied material properties. For ductile actions, expected material properties are used. Table 10 summarizes which actions are considered ductile and which are considered brittle. Figures 1923 show the representative plots of the response of building 2B at service-level. 4.2 Collapse prevention step-by-step nonlinear analysis
Seven pairs of ground motions modied to match the response spectrum shown on Figure 24, were used to represent the MCE with a mean recurrence interval of 2475 years (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years). A model was built in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) to represent the lateral system of the building. The seismic mass equivalent to the dead load and its associated rotational moment of inertia is assigned at levels above the ground oor. The mass associated to the ground level and below is ignored. The core walls and moment frames extend down to the foundation level. The diaphragms at the ground oor and below are modelled with a nite element mesh to account for their in-plane stiffness modied per Table 3. The diaphragms above-ground level are modelled as rigid diaphragms by slaving the horizontal translation degrees of freedom. Ground motions are input at the top of the mat foundation. The foundation is idealized as rigid by providing lateral and vertical supports at the top of the foundation. The lateral resistance of the soil surrounding the subterranean walls is neglected.

45
217
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 Drift (in/in) Xdir Ydir 0.004 0.005 0.006
Figure 19. Building 2B peak inter-storey drifts at service level from seismic forces on X and Y directions
Table 10. Design acceptance criteria for service level design earthquake Element Reinforced concrete frame beam Reinforced concrete frame column Reinforced concrete shear walls Reinforced concrete coupling beams
A
Action type Flexure ShearB Axialexure interactionC ShearB FlexureC ShearB ShearD
Classication Ductile Brittle Ductile Brittle Ductile Brittle Ductile
Notes: Care needs to be exercised when detailing elements for ductility. Refer to Paulay and Priestley (1992) or Englekirk (2003) for a detailed discussion on detailing reinforced concrete elements for ductility. B Shear design for shear walls, frame beams and columns should be done using capacity design procedures as described by Paulay and Priestley (1992). C To ensure that a column or a shear wall is ductile in exure, the maximum axial compression should be limited as described in the acceptability criteria for collapse prevention. D When detailed per ACI (2008), coupling beams behave in a ductile manner as shown by Naish et al. (2009).
218
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Shear on X direction (kips) Story Shear Frames Shear Core shear
Figure 20. Building 2B modal analysis peak shear at service level from seismic forces on X direction
45
40
35
30
25 Level
20
15
10
-5 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Shear on Y direction (kips) Story Shear Frames Shear Core shear
Figure 21. Building 2B modal analysis peak shear at service level from seismic forces on Y direction

45
219
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 200000 400000 600000 Moment (k-ft) 800000 1000000 1200000
My Overall at Service Level
My Core at Service Level
Figure 22. Building 2B modal analysis peak moments at service level when seismic forces are parallel to the X direction (Ex)
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 200000 400000 600000 Moment (k-ft) 800000 1000000 1200000
Mx Overall at Service Level
Mx Core at Service Level
Figure 23. Building 2B modal analysis peak moments at service level when seismic forces are parallel to the Y direction (Ey)
220
Per LATBSDC (2008), if during the serviceability evaluation the factor Ax as described in ASCE (2006) is greater than 15; accidental eccentricity should be considered during collapse prevention analysis. Because the building being studied is regular in plan and elevation, factor Ax is always less than 15. P-delta effects are considered in the model by the inclusion of a P-delta column at the centre of mass of the building with an axial load equivalent to the dead load plus the expected live load. This column is pinned at both ends on each level with its nodes slaved to the diaphragm dened at each oor. 4.2.1 Collapse prevention acceptance criteria To prevent collapse at the MCE level of forces, the acceptance criteria shown in Table 11 should be met. For actions classied as ductile, the strength should be calculated using expected material properties and a strength reduction factor of 1. For actions classied as brittle, the strength should be calculated using specied material properties and a strength reduction factor of 1. This capacity should exceed the smaller of the average demand from the seven time history records times 15 or the maximum force that the structural system can deliver. In order to achieve ductile behaviour, a plastic mechanism as described by the SEAOC Seismology Committee (2008) should be observed in the frames. Care needs to be exercised when detailing elements for ductility. Paulay and Priestley (1992), and Englekirk (2003) gave an in-depth discussion on
1.60
1.40
1.20
Acceleration (%g)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0 1 2 3 4 Period (sec.) 5 6 7 8
Figure 24. Target acceleration response spectra at MCE level

221
Table 11. Collapse prevention nonlinear model acceptance criteria

Element Reinforced concrete frame beam Reinforced concrete frame column Reinforced concrete shear walls Action type Plastic hinge rotation Beam Shear Axialexure interaction Shear Axialexure interaction Shear Shear Classication Ductile Brittle Ductile Brittle Ductile Brittle Ductile Expected behaviour Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear Acceptance limit for nonlinear behaviour Hinge rotation 0045 rad N.A. Axial compression 040 f c exp Ag Hinge rotation 0025 rad N.A. Concrete compression strain 0.015 Reinforcing rebar tension strain 005 Axial compression force 035f cAg N.A. 006 rad chord rotation
Reinforced concrete coupling beams
N.A., not applicable.
how to detail reinforced concrete elements to achieve ductile behaviour. ACI (2008) provides guidelines to detail coupling beams to sustain the allowed displacement demands as shown by Wallace (2007). 4.2.2 Core wall modelling properties The core walls are modelled using nonlinear vertical bre elements representing the expected behaviour of the concrete and reinforcing steel. The shear behaviour is modelled as elastic. The concrete stressstrain relationship is based on the modied Mander model for conned concrete (Mander et al., 1988) with a conning ratio as required per ACI (2008), section 21.4.4. The tension strength of concrete is neglected. For the bre elements, all concrete is dened as conned. The wall thickness used to calculate the exural and shear stiffness of the wall section corresponds to the conned thickness in anticipation of spalling. If in the MCE time history nonlinear analysis, the average concrete compression strain exceeds 0002; connement is provided. In order to match the curve dened by the modied Mander model (Mander et al., 1988), the initial elastic stiffness used to model the concrete material for the bre sections differs from that calculated by the equations given in ACI (1992, 2008). Figure 25 shows the curve dened by the modied Mander model (Mander et al., 1988) and the values that were used to model the stressstrain curve of concrete with specied strength ( f c) of 8 ksi in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007). Table 12 shows a comparison of the elastic modulus calculated per ACI (1992, 2008) using specied material properties, the same elastic modulus using expected material properties and the elastic modulus used in the nonlinear model adjusted to match the modied Mander model (Mander et al., 1988). Figures 26 and 27 show the Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) screen shots used to dene the concrete material for shear walls with a specied strength of 8 ksi. The steel stressstrain relationship is based on the material specications for A706 reinforcing steel. The steel material is modelled with a tri-linear stressstrain relationship with expected yield strength ( f yexpected) of 70 ksi and an ultimate strength of 105 ksi in both compression and tension. The post-yield stiffness and cyclic degradation of reinforcing steel has been adjusted by modelling in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) the rectangular wall described by Orakcal et al. (2006), and adjusting it
222
16.00
14.00 0.0043,13.54
0.0055,13.54
12.00
10.00 Stress (ksi)
0.0024,10.40
8.00 0.0156,7.54
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 Strain (in/in) Modified Mander model Tri-linear adjusted to match modified Mander Model 0.0150 0.0200
Figure 25. Expected stressstrain curve for conned concrete with specied concrete strength ( f c) of 8 ksi
Table 12. Concrete elastic modulus comparison f c (ksi) 5 6 8 10 Ec Per ACI (1992, 2008) (ksi) 4031 4098 4578 5000 Ec
expected
(114 Ec)
Initial elastic stiffness for nonlinear model (ksi) 3229 3597 4340 4941
(ksi) 4595 4671 5219 5700
Ec = 57 000f c; for f c < 6 ksi per ACI (2008). Ec = 40 000f c + 1 106; for f c 6 ksi per ACI (1992).
to match the lateral load versus top displacement curve. The parameters used to dene the reinforcing steel are shown in Figures 2829. Figure 30 shows the elastic shear material for a shear wall and gure 31 shows the cross-section used to dene a 24-in. wall with minimum reinforcing. As mentioned previously, the thickness is taken as 22 in. to account for concrete spalling. The reinforcing ratio is calculated per Equation (2). Figure 32 shows the compound element that denes a 24-in. shear wall with a reinforcing ratio of 00025 and specied concrete strength ( f c) of 8 ksi.
= 00025 24 in. 22 in. = 000272

(2)
223
Figure 26. Inelastic concrete material screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 27. Inelastic concrete material screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
224
Figure 28. Inelastic reinforcing rebar material screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 29. Inelastic reinforcing rebar material screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
225
Figure 30. Shear wall elastic shear material screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 31. Fibre wall cross-section screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
226
4.2.3 Coupling beam modelling properties The coupling beams are dened as elastic beam elements with a nonlinear displacement shear hinge at the mid-span of the beam. These are connected to the shear walls using embedded elements as suggested by Powell (2007). The shear hinge behaviour is based on test results by Naish et al. (2009). To obtain the nominal expected shear capacity, the angle of the diagonals () is calculated using a distance from the centre of gravity of the diagonal reinforcing to the face of the beam of 5 in. when the diagonal reinforcing consists of two layers of rebar, and 7 in. when it consists of three layers of rebar. Figure 33 shows a sketch of the coupling beam diagonal reinforcing. To dene the behaviour of the displacement shear hinge, the displacement is related to the rotation of the coupling beam as described in Equation (3).
= Lb
(3)
where is the rotation in radians, Lb is the length of the coupling beam and is the equivalent displacement at a rotation . Figures 3238 show the backbone parameters used to dene the shear displacement hinges for coupling beams and screen shots from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) for a typical coupling beam. 4.2.4 Moment frame beam properties The moment frame beams are dened as elastic beam elements with nonlinear rotation hinges and rigid end zones at each end. The rigid end zones extend from the column centreline to the face of the column, with a stiffness of 10 times the elastic stiffness of the beam. Tests performed by Popov et al. (1972) are used to dene the post-yield stiffness of the rotation hinges in beams. Figure 39 shows the set-up that was used to perform these tests as described by Englekirk (2003). Figure 40 shows the forcedisplacement relationship for this beam. Using a plastic hinge length of half the beam depth, the ultimate beam plastic rotation is 0046 rad. Strength degradation is not accounted for, given that the acceptable rotation for the plastic hinge is lower than that associated with this effect. To dene the post-yield stiffness, a ratio of 118 is observed between the strength at ultimate and at yield. Using these values, Figure 41 shows the backbone curve used to dene the behaviour of beam rotation plastic hinges in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) per gures 4247. 4.2.5 Moment frame column properties Plastic hinges are modelled at the top and bottom ends of every column. Columns at the upper levels are expected to remain elastic, but incursions into nonlinear behaviour are acceptable if the integrity of the structure is not compromised. To dene a column plastic hinge, a momentaxial capacity interaction curve is calculated using the columns expected material properties. The backbone curve is elastic-perfectly plastic, meaning the column strength does not change once it reaches the yield point. Figures 4850 show an example used in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) to dene a column at the seismic base with plastic hinges at the face of the beam. 4.2.6 Slab modelling at ground level and below The slabs at ground level and below are modelled as a shell element with its stiffness modied per Table 3. The stiffness factors are applied to the elastic modulus when dening the material. The shear
227
Figure 32. Shear wall compound component screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
L b = Coupling Beam Length
Distance to reinforcing C.G.
Diagonal reinforcing
Figure 33. Coupling beam diagonal reinforcing sketch
228
1.6
( 2%, Vuexp)
1.4
( 6%, Vuexp)
y = Maximum elastic displacement 2% = Equivalent displacement for 2% chord rotation 6% = Equivalent displacement for 6% chord rotation 10%= Equivalent displacement for 10% chord rotation
1.2
V y exp = 2 As 1.17 fy sin( )
Vu exp = 1.42V y exp

Vr exp = 0.25Vu exp
1
( y , Vyexp)
V / Vyexp 0.8
0.6
0.4
( 10%, Vrexp )
0.2
0 0 2 4 6 8 Rotation (rad) 10 12 14 16
Figure 34. Shear displacement hinge backbone curve
Figure 35. Coupling beam elastic segment screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
229
Figure 36. Coupling beam displacement shear hinge screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 37. Coupling beam displacement shear hinge screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
230
Figure 38. Coupling beam compound component screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 39. Backbone curve for beam rotation hinge

231
Figure 40. Beam test subassembly as performed by Popov et al., 1972 (gure taken from The Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings by Englekirk, 2003)
1400
1200
( u , M uexp)
1000
800
( y , M yexp)
Moment (k-ft)
y = Maximum elastic rotation u = Ultimate rotation observed in test (0.046 rad) Myexp = Expected moment nominal capacity Muexp = Expected moment ultimate capacity (1.18Myexp)
600
400
200
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Rotation (rad.)
Figure 41. Forcedeection curve from test performed by Popov et al., 1972
232
Figure 42. Frame beam cross-section screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 43. Frame beam cross-section screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
233
Figure 44. Frame beam rotation moment hinge screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
234
Figure 47. Frame beam compound component screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
235
modulus is calculated by Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) using Poissons ratio. Figures 5153 show the screen shots used to dene a slab in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007).
4.2.7 Basement wall properties Basement walls are modelled as elastic nite elements with its stiffness modied per Table 3. Figures 54 and 55 show the screen shots used to dene a basement wall in Perform 3D (CSI, 2007).
4.2.8 Damping Rayleigh damping is used to run the time history nonlinear analyses. To dene the damping curve, the damping is set at 25% of critical damping at a period of 02 T1 and at a period of 09 T1, T1 being the fundamental period of the structure. The and values are automatically calculated by Perform 3D (CSI, 2007). Figures 56 and 57 show the input to dene Rayliegh damping in the program Perform 3D (CSI, 2007) and the resulting damping curve.
Figure 48. Frame column compound component screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
236
Figure 49. Frame column plastic hinge screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 50. Frame column plastic hinge screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
237
Figure 51. Slab elastic material screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 52. Slab elastic cross-section screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
238
Figure 53. Slab compound component screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 54. Basement wall cross-section screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
239
Figure 55. Basement wall compound component screen shot from Perform 3D (CSI, 2007)
Figure 56. Rayleigh damping as dened in Perform 3D
240
Figure 57. Damping denition screen shot from Perform 3D
Table 13. Summary of building 2B behavior under MCE Shear at grade level Core average peak shear at grade level Core average peak overturning moment at grade level Average maximum storey drift from nonlinear analyses MCE, maximum considered seismic event. Vx = 10 732 kip Vx = 8240 kip My = 95 2328 kip-ft x = 15% Vy = 10 000 kip Vy = 7150 kip Mx = 73 9130 kip-ft y = 10%
4.3
Results from nonlinear analyses
Figures 5886 and Table 13 represent the behaviour of building 2B under the MCE records and its averages.

45
241
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 Drift (in/in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Drift 0.025 0.03 0.035
Figure 58. Peak inter-storey drifts on X direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 Drift (in/in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Drift 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Figure 59. Peak inter-storey drifts on Y direction

242
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Displacement (in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean
Figure 60. Peak displacements at centre of mass on X direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 10 20 30 Displacement (in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean 40 50 60
Figure 61. Peak displacements at centre of mass on Y direction


45
243
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Shear 10,000 12,000 14,000
Figure 62. Peak storey shear on X direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean shear 10,000 12,000 14,000
Figure 63. Peak storey shear on Y direction

244
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

Mean Shear
8,000
10,000
12,000
Figure 64. Building 2B core peak shear on X direction

45
40
35
30
25 Level
20
15
10
-5
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000 Shear (kips)
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Mean Shear
Figure 65. Building 2B core peak shear on Y direction


45
245
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
2000
4000
6000
8000 Shear (kips)
10000
12000
14000
16000
Mean Shear
1.5 x Mean
8 sqrt(f'c)
Figure 66. Building 2B average core peak shear values on X direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 5000 10000 Shear (kip) Mean Shear 1.5 x Mean 8 sqrt(f'c) 15000 20000 25000
Figure 67. Building 2B average core peak shear values on Y direction

246
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 Moment (k-ft) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Moment 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Figure 68. Building 2B core peak overturning moment over X

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
Moment (k-ft) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Moment
Figure 69. Building 2B core peak overturning moment over Y


45
247
40
Maximum compression strain allowed for unconfined concrete u = 0.003 in/in Maximum compression strain allowed for confined concrete u = 0.015 in/in
35
30
25 Level
20
15
10
-5 0.0000 -0.0005 -0.0010 -0.0015 -0.0020 -0.0025 -0.0030 -0.0035 Strain (in/in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean compression strain
Figure 70. Building 2B maximum compression strains at core corner by pier 1

45
40
Yield strain for reinforcing steel grade A706 with fy=60 ksi y = 60x 1.17 / 29,000 = 0.0024 in/in Maximum strain allowed for reinforcing steel grade A706 u = 0.05 in/in
35
30
25 Level
20
15
10
-5
0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060 0.0070 0.0080 0.0090 Strain (in/in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean tensionstrain
Figure 71. Building 2B maximum tension strains at core corner by pier 1

248
45
40
Maximum compression strain allowed for unconfined concrete u = 0.003 in/in Maximum compression strain allowed for confined concrete u = 0.015 in/in
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0.0000 -0.0005 -0.0010 -0.0015 -0.0020 -0.0025 -0.0030 -0.0035 Strain (in/in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean compression strain
Figure 72. Building 2B maximum compression strains at core corner by pier 2

45
40
Yield strain for reinforcing steel grade A706 with fy=60 ksi y = 60x 1.17 / 29,000 = 0.0024 in/in Maximum strain allowed for reinforcing steel grade A706 u = 0.05 in/in
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 Strain (in/in) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean tension strain 0.0080 0.0100 0.0120
Figure 73. Building 2B maximum tension strains at core corner by pier 2


45
249
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 1000 2000 3000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Shear 4000 5000 6000
Figure 74. Building 2B pier 1 peak shear on X direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
1000
2000
3000
4000 Shear (kips)
5000
6000
7000
8000
Mean Shear
1.5 x Mean
10 sqrt(f'c)
Figure 75. Building 2B pier 1 average peak shear on X direction

250
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 500 1000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Shear 1500 2000 2500
Figure 76. Building 2B pier 1 average peak shear on Y direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
500
1000
1500
2000 Shear (kips)
2500
3000
3500
Mean Shear
1.5 x Mean
10 sqrt(f'c)
Figure 77. Building 2B pier 1 average peak shear on Y direction


45
251
40
35
30
Maximum Coupling Beam rotation allowed u = 0.06 rad
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Chord rotation (rad) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean rotation
Figure 78. Building 2B elevation A coupling beam peak rotations

45
40
Maximum Coupling Beam rotation allowed u = 0.06 rad
35
30
Level
25
20
15
10
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Chord rotation (rad) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Average
Figure 79. Building 2B elevation B coupling beam peak rotations

252
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Shear 4,000 5,000 6,000
Figure 80. Peak frame shear on X direction

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
1,000
2,000
3,000
Shear (kips)
4,000
5,000
6,000
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Mean Shear
Figure 81. Peak frame shear on Y direction

253
45
40
35
30
25 Level
20
15
10
-5
-12,000 -10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0
Axial compression (kip) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean 0.4f'cexpAg
Figure 82. Corner column peak compression

45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
100
200
300
400 Shear (kips)
500
600
700
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Mean
Figure 83. Maximum shear on X direction at corner column on grid lines A-2
254
45
40
35
30
25
Level
20
15
10
-5
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Shear (kips) Mean Mean x 1.5 8 sqrt (f'c)
Figure 84. Mean shear on X direction at corner column on grid lines A-2
45 40 35 30 25 Level 20 15 10 5 0 -5 0.000
Maximum Frame Beam rotation allowed u = 0.045 rad
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
Rotation (rad)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean
Figure 85. Frame A beam rotation at face of column on grid lines A-2

0
255
-1
-2
Level
-3 -4 -5 0 5000 10000 15000 Shear (kips) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Mean Mean x 1.5 8 sqrt(f'c) 20000 25000 30000
Figure 86. Peak shear of basement wall on grid line Y1
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 1992. State-of-the-art report on high-strength concrete (ACI 363-92). ACI Manual of Concrete Practice. ACI: Detroit, 2005. ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2008. ACI 318-08: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete with Commentary, 2008 edn. ACI: Farmington Hills, MI. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2006. ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Including Supplement No. 1. ASCE: Reston, VA. CSI (Computers & Structures, Inc.). 2007. Perform 3D Version 4.0.3. Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment of 3D Structures. CSI: Berkeley, CA. CSI (Computers & Structures, Inc.). 2008. ETABS Nonlinear Version 9.2.0. Extended 3D Analysis of Building Structures. CSI: Berkeley, CA. Englekirk RE. 2003. Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY. ICC (International Code Council). 2006. 2006 International Building Code. ICC: Falls Church, VA. LATBSDC (Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council). 2008. An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. LATBSDC: Los Angeles, CA. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. 1988. Theoretical stressstrain model for conned concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8): 18041826. Naish D, Fry A, Klemencic R, Wallace J. 2009. Testing and modeling of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams. Paper submitted to ACI Structural Journal. Orakcal K, Wallace JW. 2006. Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete wallsexperimental verication. ACI Structural Journal 103(2): 196206. Orakcal K, Wallace JW, Conte JP. 2004. Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete wallsmodel attributes. ACI Structural Journal 101(5): 688698. Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY.
256
Popov EP, Bertero VV, Krawinkler H. 1972. Cyclic behavior of three R.C. exural members with high shear. Report no. EERC 72-5, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Powell GH. 2007. Detailed Example of a Tall Shear Wall Building Using CSIs Perform 3D Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis. CSI: Berkeley, CA. SEAOC Seismology Committee. 2008. Reinforced concrete structures, September 2008. The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations. SEAOC: Sacramento, CA. http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html [04/24/2009]. Wallace JW. 2007. Modeling Issues for Tall Reinforced Concrete Core Wall Buildings, Wiley Interscience, http://www.interscience.wiley.com [04/24/2009].

542 FTP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

542 FTP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.

DUAL SYSTEM BASIS OF DESIGN

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

Figure 1. Three-dimensional rendering of structure from ETABS (2008) model

Number of stories Slab construction

Coupling beam depth Basement shear walls Moment frames

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Figure 2. Typical plan view at ground oor and below

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

Figure 3. Typical plan view at level 2 and above

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Thickness Specied concrete strength ( f c) Specied reinforcing strength ( fy)

Building 2A: seismic design

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

Figure 4. Elevation and properties of frames A and F for building 2A

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Figure 5. Elevation and properties of frames 2 and 5 for building 2A

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

Figure 6. Elevation A and shear wall reinforcing for building 2A

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Figure 7. Elevation B and shear wall reinforcing for building 2A

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Figure 8. The 5% damped code and site-specic design response spectra

Figure 9. Building 2A inter-storey drifts from seismic forces on X and Y directions

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Serviceability analysis seismic force determination

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

(ksi) 4595 4671 5219 5700

Figure 14. Elevation and properties of frames A and F for building 2B

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Figure 15. Elevation and properties of frames 2 and 5 for building 2B

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

Figure 16. Elevation A and shear wall reinforcing for building 2B

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Figure 17. Elevation B and shear wall reinforcing for building 2B

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

0.25 Acceleration (%g)

5.0 Period (sec)

Service Design Spectra

Figure 18. The 25% damped service-level site-specic response spectra

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

Classication Ductile Brittle Ductile Brittle Ductile Brittle Ductile

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T. GHODSI AND J. A. F. RUIZ

TALL BUILDING DESIGN CASE STUDY 2

-5 0 200000 400000 600000 Moment (k-ft) 800000 1000000 1200000

My Overall at Service Level

My Core at Service Level