Performance-Based Design of Tall Reinforced Concrete Ductile Core Wall Systems

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers © 2007 ASCE
Performance-Based Design of Tall Reinforced Concrete Ductile

Core Wall Systems
AUTHORS
Ron Klemencic, P.E., Magnusson Klemencic Associates, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle,
WA 98101, rklemencic@mka.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 09/06/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Andrew Fry, P.E., Magnusson Klemencic Associates, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle,
WA 98101, afry@mka.com
John D. Hooper, P.E., Magnusson Klemencic Associates, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200,
Seattle, WA 98101, jhooper@mka.com
ABSTRACT
The tenets of performance-based design have been around for decades, yet are just recently being
applied to the design of high-rise superstructures. Successful projects using a ductile core wall
structural system, using a performance-based design methodology, have been implemented by
Magnusson Klemencic Associates and can be seen in completed structures around the world.
However, provisions often arbitrarily placed in the current prescriptive Building Code
(regarding height limits and building response, for example), make it difficult for structural
engineers to apply rational engineering methodologies in design of performance-based
structures. Instead, engineers must incorporate less-than-ideal design practices, such as requiring
redundant dual frame systems on buildings more than 240 feet or allowing construction
compromises in the impractical regulations governing diagonal steel reinforcing of coupling
beams. Additionally, the lack of peer review process standards often pit two well-intended
opinions against each other, with the building design usually changed per the reviewer’s wishes
and for the sake of being expeditious.
To improve the design and construction process for performance-based tall buildings, among
other things, appropriate interpretations of the Building Code should be permitted, and even
required, and the scope and authority of peer reviews should be standardized.
INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1995, Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA) initiated the structural engineering
for the first of 12 tall buildings utilizing a reinforced-concrete ductile core wall system (DCWS)
to resist lateral loads. The design of each system followed a performance-based design (PBD)
approach considering various levels of wind and seismic demands. These buildings include:
Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
Project Name Number Height

of Stories
Millennium Tower; Seattle, Washington 21 stories 241 feet
Terry Avenue Apartments, Seattle, Washington 26 stories 245 feet
Asian Star Building; Manila, Philippines 23 stories 292 feet
Key Center; Bellevue Washington 22 stories 305 feet
1700 Seventh Avenue; Seattle Washington 23 stories 320 feet
Elliott Grand Hyatt Hotel; Seattle, Washington 30 stories 330 feet

Seventh at Westlake; Seattle, Washington 31 stories 358 feet
300 Spear Street; San Francisco, California 43 stories 400 feet
IDX Tower; Seattle Washington 35 stories 450 feet
Washington Mutual Tower; Seattle, Washington 42 stories 544 feet
Pacific Plaza Towers; Fort Bonafacio, Philippines 46 stories 617 feet
One Rincon Hill; San Francisco, California 57 stories 625 feet
TABLE 1 - DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEM PROJECTS DESIGNED BY MKA
In addition to these completed projects, MKA is currently designing several other tall buildings
using a similar approach in Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles.
While PBD principles have been accepted for many years, only recently have these
methodologies been applied to the design of tall buildings. During design of these 12 projects,
numerous technical challenges required thoughtful design decisions. With the limited amount of
published research available to guide the designs, MKA, along with numerous consultants
serving as peer reviewers, performed countless studies to arrive at appropriate decisions.
A discussion of some of the more challenging issues is presented in this paper. While each
of these technical challenges pertains to all of the projects, the One Rincon Hill project in San
Francisco is highlighted in order to provide more specific commentary and details (see Figure 1).
The primary issues to be discussed include:
• Height Limits
• Selection of the Response Modification Factor, R
• Selection of Ground Motions
• Shear Demands
• Higher Mode Dynamic Effects
• Foundations
• Detailing
• Peer Review Process

FIGURE 1 - RENDERING OF ONE RINCON HILL IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

HEIGHT LIMITS
One of the first and most contentious issues has been surpassing the specific height limits
detailed in table 16-N of the Uniform Building Code for buildings in Seismic Zones 3 and 4.
This table limits the height of shear walls in Building Frame Systems to 240 feet, and limits
shear walls as part of Bearing Wall Systems to 160 feet. The lateral systems for buildings
reaching above these heights are limited to be Moment Frame Systems or Dual Frame Systems.
In each of the buildings listed in Table 1, some form of a DCWS was developed. As an
example, the primary lateral-force-resisting system for the One Rincon Hill project is depicted in
Figures 2 and 3. While this system includes concrete walls, these walls are arranged in the form
of a perforated structural tube. Coupling beams above the core wall penetrations provide the first
line of energy dissipation in the longitudinal direction of the core. The coupling beams
(activated by shear lag), together with supplemental buckling restrained braces (BRBs), provide
the first line of energy dissipation in the transverse direction of the building.
FIGURE 2 - PLAN VIEW OF THE LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM IN ONE RINCON HILL.

FIGURE 3 - ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM IN ONE RINCON HILL.

A qualitative comparison between this system and a planar wall structure dominated by shear
behavior suggests the possibility of a more ductile response. However, current prescriptive
building code provisions do not differentiate between planar shear walls and coupled walls.
In researching the origin of the 160- and 240-foot height limits, one learns the first mention
of this limit is made in the early 1950s in an ASCE committee paper that suggests moment-
resisting frames be included in all buildings taller than 13 stories. No quantitative basis is
provided for this recommendation. Later, this 13-story limitation was more specifically
stipulated as 150 feet. As the 150-foot limitation was written into code language, a
typographical error resulted in the building code provision being published as 160 feet. The typo
was never corrected.
During the 1980s, noting significant advancements in the understanding of shear wall
behavior based on numerous research programs, the 160-foot limit was increased to 240 feet for
Building Frame Systems. This 50 percent height limit increase was based solely on a greater
comfort level with individual wall performance and not on a comprehensive assessment of
building systems.
Since it appears the basis for the height limits is more folklore than science, it is reasonable
to suggest these restrictions are not absolute. Instead, a variety of building geometries, including
core wall and coupled wall systems, if properly designed and constructed, can meet or exceed the
performance objectives inherent in current building code provisions. Performance-based design
provides a rational methodology to pursue such designs.
SELECTION OF THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, R

In order to determine a basic strength requirement for the building design, a Response
Modification Factor, R, must be selected such that a design-level base shear can be established.
Selecting an R factor consistent with a Bearing Wall System (R = 4.5) or Building Frame System
(R = 5.5) may, at first, seem somewhat logical. As shown in Figure 2 previously, the One
Rincon Hill building does include shear walls as part of the overall core assembly.
The design of tall buildings is generally controlled by drift limitations and not the strength of
the lateral elements. Therefore, it is contradictory that a relatively stiff system such as a wall
assemblage is assigned a higher basic strength requirement (R = 4.5 or 5.5) than a much more
flexible moment frame system (R = 8) as the resulting design forces are used to assess building
deformations.
In addition, it is inconsistent that all walls or wall systems be assigned the same value of R.
It is easily understood that a coupled wall dominated by flexural behavior will have superior
ductility when compared to a planar wall dominated by shear deformations. However, current
building code provisions do not reflect this fundamental difference in building response. It
should be noted that the National Building Code of Canada does include provisions which
recognize these different behaviors.
Finally, if a capacity design approach is implemented for a structure such as One Rincon
Hill, where the link beams, BRBs, and base of the core wall are selected as the primary areas of
energy dissipation, assigning a high strength requirement to these components will significantly
increase undesirable shear demands on core walls, diaphragms, and foundations. Based on this
fact alone, consideration of a higher value for R is warranted.
Unfortunately, influenced by the bounds of the current Building Code, most building officials
and peer reviewers have insisted on the selection of R = 5.5, or in the case of San Francisco, R =

4.5. As was observed directly in the design of One Rincon Hill, shear demands on the core
walls, diaphragms, and foundations were increased to nearly intolerable levels.
A re-assessment of R values which are more reflective of actual building behavior is
warranted, such that desirable behaviors (flexural yielding) are promoted, and undesirable
demands (shear) are minimized. For very tall buildings, or for buildings in aggressive wind
climates such as the Philippines, perhaps it is more appropriate to allow wind demands to
determine the basic strength requirements, with the seismic design primarily focused on ductility
and robustness.
SELECTION OF GROUND MOTIONS

Selection of appropriate seismic ground motions and response spectra with which to evaluate the
building design is critical. Generally, three levels of demand have been assessed:
• Serviceability Earthquake (SE): 50% Probability of Exceedance in 30 years (43-year
return period)
• Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years (472-year
return period)
• Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE): 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years
(2,475-year return period), with a deterministic limit in appropriate locations
Common practice in design is to begin with an assessment of the building when subjected to
the DBE, reduced by the selected R factor, as shown in Figure 4, on the following page, for the
One Rincon Hill project. For most tall buildings, the fundamental building period will range
between 4 and 8 seconds. Performing a three-dimensional elastic analysis of the primary lateral-
load-resisting system subjected to this level of demand determines the basic strength requirement
for the building.

FIGURE 4 - COMPARISON OF DESIGN SPECTRA FOR ONE RINCON HILL.
Affecting the design of tall buildings are the minimum base shear equations. Equation 30-6,
required in all seismic regions, represents the “3 percent” base shear value that has been in the
code for decades. In regions of high seismicity, a lower-bound limitation is placed on the basic
strength requirement, as represented by Equation 30-7 of the Uniform Building Code (seen
previously in Figure 4).
V = 0.11 Ca I W (Equation 30-6)
⎛ 0.8 Z N v I ⎞
V =⎜ ⎟W (Equation 30-7)
⎝ R ⎠
As in the case of San Francisco, the lower bound limitation on base shear is significantly
greater than the site-specific-design DBE spectrum, reduced by R, would otherwise suggest. The
One Rincon Hill project adhered to the lower bound strength limitation of Equation 30-7.
An assessment of the One Rincon Hill project at the SE indicates the critical coupling beams
meet the “no-yield” criteria as suggested in recently published design procedures by the Los
Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) and the Department of Building
Inspection in San Francisco (see Figure 5). However, a close inspection of Figure 4 indicates
that without the lower bound limitations of UBC Equation 30-7, the SE would control the
strength design of the coupling beams.

FIGURE 5 - COUPLING BEAM SERVICEABILITY FORCES VERSUS PROVIDED CAPACITY FOR ONE RINCON HILL.
An assessment of Collapse Prevention performance was investigated for each of these

projects, as well. Selecting appropriate ground motion records for the Non-Linear Time History
Analysis (NLTHA) is more difficult than it might initially appear. A large database of strong
ground motion records which will excite the building structure in the period range of interest is
not available. Furthermore, the fundamental period of vibration for tall buildings is generally
very long (4 to 8 seconds). Scaling an MCE spectrum, which is applicable in this period range,
without overpredicting short period demands is a challenge. The duration of selected ground
motion records is also important as several cycles of motion are generally required before
amplified building response is observed. Lastly, choosing records that also excite the higher
modes of vibration of the tower is important; however, this is difficult to accomplish without
over-estimating ground motions in the lower period range.
Summarizing MKA’s experience:
1) Given a 43-year return interval for the SE, the “no-yield” acceptance criteria may be too
strict, and some modest amount of yielding may be acceptable. An appropriate assessment of
building drift is a more important parameter.
2) The application, or lack thereof, of equations 30-6 and 30-7 will likely control the basic
strength requirements for the DBE.
3) A careful selection of appropriate ground motion records for the NLTHA, which properly
test the design, is critical.
SHEAR DEMANDS

As previously noted, shear demands are driven by the selection of the basic strength requirement
for the flexural elements. Great care should be exercised in selecting the basic strength
requirement, thereby balancing stiffness and strength with the implications of possible
undesirable increased shear demands.
Great debate among consultants and building officials has occurred regarding the assessment
of shear demands. While all agree shear “failure” is undesirable, there is a clear lack of
consensus on how to properly assess demands, what constitutes a “failure,” and how to properly
assess shear capacities.
Based on MKA’s experience, it would seem reasonable to assess shear demands consistent
with something larger than the average demands predicted by a NLTHA. Some have suggested
shear demands be assessed as one standard deviation greater than the average demands predicted
by a suite of seven NLTHAs. Others have suggested that shear must be assessed at the peak
response predicted by a suite of seven NLTHAs. While it is possible to satisfy either of these
two criteria, with properly selected ground motions, shear demands equal to one standard
deviation above the average predicted from a suite of seven NLTHAs appears adequate.
HIGHER MODE DYNAMIC EFFECTS

Most of the structures cited in the beginning of this paper are dominated by first mode behavior,
where higher mode dynamic effects played little role in the outcome of the design. In the case of
One Rincon Hill, however, higher mode dynamic effects played a much more significant role.
The combination of absolute building height (625 feet), slenderness, and site-specific ground
motions produced significant higher mode effects. The result of these higher mode effects was a
significant reduction in the effective moment arm of the lateral force distribution, creating a
significant shear demand at the base of the building as well as high flexural demands near the
building’s mid-height. A detailed study of this effect indicated the shear and flexural demands
were nearly independent of the basic flexural strength assigned to the base of the core walls.
Careful assessment of the elastic DBE analysis can give clues of the potential importance of
higher mode dynamic effects. NLTHAs, with properly selected ground motions, will confirm
the building’s behavior.
FOUNDATIONS
Very little guidance is provided in the Building Code or published literature regarding the
appropriate design of foundations for seismic demands. Common practice is to design building
foundations for the basic strength requirements of the DBE, with no consideration of the possible
over-strength of the superstructure.
In the case of the buildings listed in the beginning of this paper, including One Rincon Hill,
the foundations were designed considering demands imposed by the full over-strength capacity
of the superstructure. In most cases, this resulted in foundations nearly two times thicker than
those traditionally designed.
Furthermore, in the case of One Rincon Hill, where a deep mat foundation (12 feet thick) is
employed as the tower’s foundation, shear reinforcing was provided where shear stresses
exceeded 1 f ' c in accordance with recent research by Michael Collins and American Concrete
Institute (ACI) discussions regarding shear critical behavior of thick, one-way systems.

DETAILING
Detailing of reinforcing steel is critical to promote the behavior predicted by analysis. Two areas
of particular note are highlighted below:
Coupling Beams
The confinement of diagonal reinforcing in coupling beams specified by current ACI provisions
is nearly impossible to construct in the field. Compromises in field installation are common,
suggesting the resulting behavior may not be as expected. As an alternative approach, the entire
coupling beam section may be confined per ACI 21.4.4, relieving some of the constructability
issues. A code change proposal allowing such detailing has recently been presented to ACI and
is currently making its way through the committee approval process.
Confinement of Vertical Wall Reinforcing
A comparison of strain demands predicted by NLTHAs with laboratory results indicates that
predicted tensile strains agree well with test results. Compressive strains, however, may be
underpredicted by as much as 100 percent. Great care must be exercised in specifying
confinement of vertical wall reinforcing based on these results.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Because these unique building designs fall outside of the prescriptive language of the Building
Code, detailed and rigorous peer reviews have been the norm. In general, the process has been
positive and has produced improved building designs. However, there have been many
inconsistencies between reviews despite similarities in systems and design methodology. These
inconsistencies are based primarily on the personal biases of the individual reviewer and not any
“industry standard.” Further, there has not been an effective means to resolve differing opinions
when disagreement has arisen. Rather, the norm has unfortunately fallen toward accepting the
whims of the reviewer in favor of an expedient review process. In the future, the engineering
community should work diligently toward standardizing the scope and authority of peer reviews.
CONCLUSION
Despite numerous technical challenges, tall buildings with unique structural systems can be
designed to meet or exceed the performance objectives of the current Building Code. Given the
importance of these structures, great care and due conservatism are warranted. The Building
Code was not written with tall buildings as its basis. Therefore, appropriate interpretations are
important and should not only be permitted, but required. Building officials should allow
engineers to use rational engineering methodologies and proper engineering mechanics to
demonstrate a proposed design meets or exceeds Building Code performance expectations, and
not tie the engineers’ hands by limiting designs to the prescriptive requirements of the Code. As
a prominent engineer recently said, “Codes were written by mere mortals”; therefore, they are
not all-knowing.


Performance-Based Design of Tall Reinforced Concrete Ductile Core Wall Systems

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

Performance-Based Design of Tall Reinforced Concrete Ductile Core Wall Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers © 2007 ASCE

Performance-Based Design of Tall Reinforced Concrete Ductile

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Project Name Number Height

Elliott Grand Hyatt Hotel; Seattle, Washington 30 stories 330 feet

TABLE 1 - DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEM PROJECTS DESIGNED BY MKA

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

FIGURE 1 - RENDERING OF ONE RINCON HILL IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

FIGURE 2 - PLAN VIEW OF THE LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM IN ONE RINCON HILL.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

FIGURE 3 - ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM IN ONE RINCON HILL.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

SELECTION OF THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, R

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

SELECTION OF GROUND MOTIONS

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

FIGURE 4 - COMPARISON OF DESIGN SPECTRA FOR ONE RINCON HILL.

V = 0.11 Ca I W (Equation 30-6)

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

An assessment of Collapse Prevention performance was investigated for each of these

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

HIGHER MODE DYNAMIC EFFECTS

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Confinement of Vertical Wall Reinforcing

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

You might also like