Core Wall Case Study Design For Pacific PDF

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)

Published online 14 October 2009 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.544
CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PACIFIC

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH/CALIFORNIA
SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION
J. ANDREW FRY, JOHN D. HOOPER AND RON KLEMENCIC*

Magnusson Klemencic Associates, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, Washington 98101, USA
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
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

62 J. A. FRY, J. D. HOOPER AND R. KLEMENCIC
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.
3.1 Wind loading

Wind loading is in accordance with the ASCE 7-05 requirements (Table 1).
3.2 Seismic design criteria

Seismic loads are in accordance with the ASCE 7-05 requirements. These code values are used only
in the design of building 1A (Table 2).
Table 1. Wind design criteria
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
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 2. Seismic design criteria (used for building 1A only)
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.
3.3 Seismic response spectra and ground motions for NLRHA

Seismic response spectra and seven pairs of site-specific ground motions were provided by PEER for
the NLRHA as part of this study. The ground motions provided by PEER were spectrally matched to
the MCE spectrum.
The design spectra for the project are shown in Figure 2.
4. BUILDING 1B: PBD APPROACH SUMMARY

4.1 Earthquake performance objectives
The specific performance objectives for the design of building 1B were as follows (Table 3):
4.2 Design approach

The core wall coupling beams, core wall flexural reinforcing and flexural yielding of slab ‘outrigger’
beams were designed in anticipation of nonlinear response. All other structural elements, along with
the shear response of the core walls, were designed to remain essentially elastic during the nonlinear
response of the yielding items.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 2. Design spectra
Table 3. Performance objectives
Level of earthquake Earthquake performance objectives

Frequent/service: 25-year return period, 2·5% Serviceability: structure to remain essentially elastic with minor
damping damage to structural and non-structural elements
Design basis earthquake: not used Code level: not used
Maximum considered earthquake: as defined Collapse prevention: extensive structural damage; repairs are
by ASCE 7–05, section 21.2, 5% damping required and may not be economically feasible
5. LATERAL MODEL SUMMARY

5.1 Elastic models
Complete, three-dimensional elastic computer models for each building were analysed using ETABS.
The models included the core walls, ground-level diaphragm, below-grade diaphragms and basement
walls. The diaphragms and walls were modelled using shell elements. The mass of all levels, including
the basement, was included in the models; however, the base shear was scaled based on the mass of
only the building above level 1. The coupling beams were modelled using frame elements. Openings
through the core walls were modelled with separate wall elements coupled together with concrete
beams.
The elastic model was used for both the code-level design and the serviceability check. The stiffness
parameters for the various elements were varied between the two analyses.
For the serviceability analysis only, slab outrigger effects were modelled using wide, shallow beams
connecting the core walls to lumped concrete columns in the ETABS model. A sketch of the model-
ling approach is provided as shown in Figure 3.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 3. Slab outrigger modelling approach (serviceability analysis)
5.2 Nonlinear model

1995 University Ave. Suite 540, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA. A nonlinear verification model was built
in CSI Perform-3D. The model included inelastic member properties for elements that were anticipated
to be loaded beyond their elastic limits. These included the coupling beams, core wall flexural behav-
iour and ‘slab beams’ to account for any outriggering effect of the flat slabs. Core wall shear behaviour,
diaphragm slabs, columns and basement walls were expected to remain elastic and were modelled
with elastic properties.
The Perform-3D model included the core walls from the mat foundation to the roof and a finite
element mesh to model the stiffness of the basement walls and below-grade diaphragms. Above level
1, inelastic outrigger beams supported by concrete columns were included in the model. The columns
extend through the basement slabs to the foundation.
Ground motions were applied at the level of the top of the mat foundation. The flexibility of the
subgrade and mat foundation was ignored, and the model was ‘fixed’ at the top of the mat. Vertical
and horizontal supports with no rotational restraints were assigned to all of the nodes of the model at
the foundation level. The lateral resistance and damping effects of the soil on the sides of the basement
DOI: 10.1002/tal
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):
Table 4. Serviceability acceptance criteria
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
Serviceability event acceptance criteria are summarized below:

(1) Essentially elastic behaviour for service-level analyses was defined as no more than 20% of the
elements with ductile actions in the building having a demand/capacity ratio between 1·0 and 1·5.
No elements were allowed to have a demand/capacity ratio greater than 1·5.
(2) Brittle actions were limited to demand/capacity ratio of 1·0. Element capacity was calculated using
specified material strengths and strength reduction factors in accordance with current material
codes. For this building, the only brittle action investigated was core wall shear.
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.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 5. Building 1A design summary
Parameter Value Value

Mode 1 TX = 6·7 s
Mode 2 TY = 4·8 s
Mode 3 TTOR = 2·6 s
Shear at grade level
Seismic VX = 4581 kip VY = 4581 kip
Factored wind VX = 2080 kip VY = 2080 kip
Overturning moment at grade level
Seismic MY = 587 000 kip-ft MX = 697 000 kip-ft
Factored wind MY = 540 000 kip-ft MX = 513 000 kip-ft
Maximum storey drift (calculated per section 12.8.6) ΔX = 1·1% ΔY = 0·8%
Core wall thickness Grade–level 25 = 24 in.
Level 25–roof = 21 in.
Level 1 diaphragm transfer force VX = 5186 kip VY = 4209 kip
Table 6. Building 1B design matrix
Parameter Service level Wind MCE

Acceptance criteria for brittle Demand/capacity ratio Demand/capacity ratio –
elements limited to 1·0 limited to 1·0
Averaging method for NLRHA – – 1·5 Times mean
demand
Acceptance criteria for ductile No more than 20% of the Demand/capacity ratio –
elements elements with ductile limited to 1·0
actions shall have
demand/capacity ratio
between 1·0 and 1·5
Averaging method for NLRHA – – Mean demand
φ for Brittle elements Per material codes Per material codes Set to 1·0
φ for Ductile elements Per material codes Per material codes Set to 1·0
Material properties used to Specified Specified Specified
calculate strength of brittle
elements
Material properties used to Specified Specified Expected
calculate strength of ductile
elements
DOI: 10.1002/tal
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
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 7. Building 1B design summary: service level and wind

Mode 1 TX = 4·2 s
Mode 2 TY = 3·1 s
Core shear at grade level
Seismic VX = 5013 kip VY = 6018 kip
Factored wind VX = 1816 kip VY = 1918 kip
Core overturning moment at grade level
Seismic MY = 591 000 kip-ft MX = 921 000 kip-ft
Factored wind MY = 431 000 kip-ft MX = 457 000 kip-ft
Maximum storey drift (service) ΔX = 0·25% ΔY = 0·20%
Core wall thickness Grade–level 13 = 28 in. (E–W) and 32 in. (N–S)
Level 13–level 31 = 24 in.
Level 31–roof = 21 in.
Level 1 diaphragm transfer force VX = 3929 kip VY = 3591 kip
Table 8. Building 1B design summary: MCE

Mode 1 (initial period, typical) TX = 4·2 s
Mode 2 TY = 3·4 s
Shear at grade level (Average of 7 EQs) VX = 12 556 kip VY = 13 409 kip
Overturning moment at grade level (Average of 7 EQs) MY = 1227 000 kip-ft MX = 1635 000 kip-ft
Maximum storey drift (Average of 7 EQs) ΔX = 2·0% ΔY = 1·4%
Level 1 diaphragm transfer force (Average of 7 EQs) VX = 10 750 kip VY = 8240 kip
7.3 NLRH acceptance criteria

The following acceptance criteria were selected for collapse prevention performance under the MCE-
level demand (Table 9).
MCE-level acceptance criteria are summarized below:
(1) Ductile actions and drift: Mean demands were used. Capacity was calculated using expected
material properties and strength reduction factors set to 1·0. For this building, all actions were
assumed to be ductile, except for core wall shear.
(2) Brittle actions: 1·5 Times the mean demands were used. Capacity was calculated using specified
material strengths and strength reduction factors set to 1·0. For this building, the only brittle action
investigated was core wall shear.
Table 9. NLRH acceptance criteria
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
DOI: 10.1002/tal
8. BUILDING 1B NONLINEAR VERIFICATION RESULTS

8.1 Inter-storey drift
The average of the maximum inter-storey drift at each level is presented in Figure 5. It is noted that
the average inter-storey drifts fall below the acceptance criteria of 3%.
8.2 Core wall global shear and overturning moment

The global accumulated storey shear and overturning moment for each ground motion couple, and the
mean values are presented in Figure 6. The shear and moment diagrams from the elastic analysis are
also included for reference.
9. COUPLING BEAM ROTATIONS

Graphs are presented in Figure 7 to illustrate a sample of the coupling beam chord rotations. It is noted
that the coupling beam rotation demands fall well below the acceptance criteria.
9.1 Core wall tension strains

It can be noted that at every level, the tensile strain demands meet the acceptance criteria as indicated
in Figure 8. Small amounts of distributed yielding are observed over nearly the full height of the tower,
with the largest tensile strains occurring at the base of the core walls.
Figure 5. Building maximum inter-storey drift. (a) X direction and (b) Y direction
DOI: 10.1002/tal
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
DOI: 10.1002/tal
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
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 9. Core wall shear. (a) Pier 03, (b) pier 11, (c) pier 22 and (d) pier 32
DOI: 10.1002/tal
9.2 Core wall shear

Figure 9 illustrates the shear design for the wall panels. The wall shear design was performed based
on the demands from the MCE-level, NLRHA analysis. 150% of the mean demands were used as the
basis for the selection of the rebar.
It can be noted that most of the wall panels are designed for roughly two to three times the shear
force calculated under the service-level analysis.
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.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

Core Wall Case Study Design For Pacific PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Core Wall Case Study Design For Pacific PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 61–75 (2010)

CORE WALL CASE STUDY DESIGN FOR PACIFIC

J. ANDREW FRY, JOHN D. HOOPER AND RON KLEMENCIC*

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3.1 Wind loading

3.2 Seismic design criteria

Table 1. Wind design criteria

Table 2. Seismic design criteria (used for building 1A only)

3.3 Seismic response spectra and ground motions for NLRHA

4. BUILDING 1B: PBD APPROACH SUMMARY

4.2 Design approach

Figure 2. Design spectra

Table 3. Performance objectives

Level of earthquake Earthquake performance objectives

5. LATERAL MODEL SUMMARY

Figure 3. Slab outrigger modelling approach (serviceability analysis)

5.2 Nonlinear model

Table 4. Serviceability acceptance criteria

Serviceability event acceptance criteria are summarized below:

Table 5. Building 1A design summary

Parameter Value Value

Table 6. Building 1B design matrix

Parameter Service level Wind MCE

Table 7. Building 1B design summary: service level and wind

Parameter Value Value

Table 8. Building 1B design summary: MCE

Parameter Value Value

7.3 NLRH acceptance criteria

8. BUILDING 1B NONLINEAR VERIFICATION RESULTS

8.2 Core wall global shear and overturning moment

9. COUPLING BEAM ROTATIONS

9.1 Core wall tension strains

9.2 Core wall shear

You might also like