Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance-Based Seismic
Design for Tall Buildings
An output of the CTBUH Performance-Based Seismic Design Working Group
Ramin Golesorkhi, Leonard Joseph, Ron Klemencic, David Shook & John Viise
Bibliographic Reference:
Golesorkhi, R., Joseph, L., Klemencic, R., Shook, D. & Viise, J. (2017). Performance-Based Seismic Design for Tall
Buildings: An output of the CTBUH Performance-Based Seismic Design Working Group. Chicago: Council on Tall
Buildings and Urban Habitat.
Principal Authors: Ramin Golesorkhi, Leonard Joseph, Ron Klemencic, David Shook & John Viise
Coordinating Editors: Jason Gabel & Benjamin Mandel
Layout: Kristen Dobbins & Annan Shehadi
The right of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat to be identified as author of this work has been asserted
by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN 978-0-939493-56-2
CTBUH Headquarters
The Monroe Building
104 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 620
Chicago, IL 60603, USA
Phone: +1 (312) 283-5599
Email: info@ctbuh.org
www.ctbuh.org
www.skyscrapercenter.com
The information contained in this guide is for educational purposes and obtained by CTBUH from sources believed
to be reliable. However, neither CTBUH or its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information
published herein, and neither CTBUH or its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising
out of the use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that CTBUH and its authors are
supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. The
recommendations should not be used to circumvent building codes or other municipal or governmental building
requirements. The recommendations are general in nature and may or may not be applicable to any particular
building or any specific circumstances.
Front Cover Image: Wilshire Grand, Los Angeles, under construction in 2015. © Gary Leonard/AC Martin
Opening Chapter Image: 350 Mission St., San Francisco, designed using PBSD principles. © Cesar Rubio
Principal Authors
Ramin Golesorkhi, Langan Engineering
Leonard Joseph, Thornton Thomasetti
Ron Klemencic, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
David Shook, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
John Viise, Thornton Thomasetti
Contributors
Jeff Dragovich, Engineering Consultant Seattle
Neville John Mathias, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Ian McFarlane, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Jerome Tobolski, Thornton Thomasetti
Preface 7
Glossary and Abbreviations 8
1.0 Introduction 10
4
4.0 Verification of Response Under MCER Using NRHA 36
4.1 Modeling and Analysis 38
4.2 Acceptance Criteria 43
5
Preface
In 2008, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) Seismic
Working Group authored the publication “Recommendations for the Seismic
Design of High-Rise Buildings." This document and subsequent working group
meetings established that a consensus of practitioners believe the process
of Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) is often more appropriate than
prescriptive code-based approaches for the design of tall buildings in regions of
high seismicity. Given that 75% of the tallest buildings completed in 2016 were
constructed in seismic regions of the world where some form of non-prescriptive
design and analysis was necessary for building approval (The Skyscraper Center,
2016), it is apparent that publishing the design principles inherent to the PBSD
design process would be useful to an international audience. As a result, the
CTBUH Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) Working Group was formed
with the goal of producing a publication to introduce PBSD principles to an
international audience and provide examples of its application.
Although the practice and protocol for non-prescriptive design is quite mature
in certain countries (e.g., China and Japan), the methods used for PBSD as
practiced in western regions of the United States are of high interest to other
countries. PBSD guidelines have been reconsidered based on local practice
and implemented into the design of tall buildings in areas including Turkey, the
Philippines, and Russia. The methods used for PBSD have produced innovative
and cost-effective buildings in these regions. As a result, this publication may be
an especially helpful reference for practitioners working internationally, and for
jurisdictions looking to develop their own PBSD guidelines and protocols for a
design approval process.
In adopting this methodology for use outside the US, it is recognized that local
design practices will vary internationally. Technical areas where significant
differences with US practice may occur would include performance criteria,
approvals processes, materials design standards, and definitions of seismic
hazard. Local structural engineers should closely review and resolve these issues
with local municipalities and appropriate approval authorities.
Preface | 7
1.0 Introduction
PBSD is currently accepted in understanding of building response ASCE 7, or as a group of guidelines such
numerous urban centers of the United in seismic events and allow for further as PEER/TBI and LATBSDC. Instead, this
States such as Los Angeles (see Figures innovations in seismic design. is a bridging document to introduce
1.1 and 1.2), San Francisco, Seattle, San PBSD methods to an international
Diego, and Salt Lake City. The current This publication provides structural audience. Structural engineers should
version of the American Society of engineers, developers, and contractors look to develop a project-specific basis
Civil Engineers loads standard (ASCE – in the US and internationally – a of design founded on the references
7–16) includes a detailed framework general understanding of the PBSD provided and engage their local
for PBSD, making it possible to use process and examples from leading jurisdictions for appropriate steps
PBSD methods in all US jurisdictions structural engineering firms with a needed for project approval. The PBSD
adopting this standard. The broad history of designing tall buildings in process is regularly evolving and the
acceptance of this methodology in high seismic zones. This publication latest standards and guidelines should
the US will lead to a more detailed is not intended as a standard such as be referenced.
12 | Introduction
1.1 Overview of Performance-Based results in cost-efficient solutions that caused significant damage and down-
Seismic Design satisfy the targeted performance levels time to large manufacturing businesses
more efficiently. Although PBSD requires in California. As a result of these seismic
Performance-based seismic design is a additional design effort, the benefits events, major market sectors like the
highly developed design methodology can be significant: reduced construction airline industry in the Los Angeles
that provides greater design flexibility costs, improved lease spaces, and area and the computing industry
to structural engineers than that enhanced seismic performance. in Silicon Valley desired to enhance
afforded by prescriptive code-based the performance of their buildings
approaches. However, the methodology to minimize the risk of casualties,
also involves significantly more effort 1.2 Goals of PBSD damage to facilities, and down-time
in the analysis and design stages, with of their existing and new facilities
verification of building performance Developers and structural engineers will should a more frequent event occur.
required at multiple seismic demand incorporate PBSD for a variety of reasons. This demand served as a catalyst to
levels using linear and advanced Common goals of PBSD include: the engineering community in the US
nonlinear analysis techniques. PBSD to develop design methods to assess
uses first principles of engineering to the ability to make exceptions to performance of existing structures and
proportion and detail structural systems specific code requirements, such to develop design methodologies to
and components to meet specific as height limits for select seismic enhance the performance of these
performance objectives. force-resisting systems; systems, as well as ways to quantify
the impact of these enhancements.
Using PBSD methodology, the focus of the use of seismic force-resisting Performance of existing structures
the structural engineer changes from systems and innovative designs not is quantified by the development of
a prescriptive “check list” approach prescribed by code; performance objectives that are defined
of code provisions to requiring the for structural systems and components
designer to more fully understand the use of high-strength materials of the system.
building performance and the code’s and mechanical devices not
intent. Finding solutions through a prescribed by code; and Principles central to PBSD were
more detailed knowledge of building developed to rationally and efficiently
behavior in a seismic event often the reduction of structural and guide the design of seismic retrofits to
non-structural damage through enhance the performance of existing
enhanced seismic damage structures. These provisions ultimately
performance objectives at specified resulted in ASCE 41. The current ASCE
levels of seismic intensity. 41-13 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Buildings) outlines a series of
A common example of a seismic force- evaluation levels for existing buildings.
resisting system not recognized by code Some levels of these types of retrofits
is a core-and-outrigger seismic force- are defined as Tier 1 and 2, which
resisting system. In the United States, involve more prescriptive procedures.
this is not one of the 82 seismic force- The Tier 3 methodology utilizes PBSD
resisting systems recognized in ASCE principles and includes performance
7. The use of PBSD methods facilitates objectives that are implied in the code
a method to evaluate and design such and illustrated in Figure 1.3.
seismic force-resisting systems.
Current PBSD documents such as PEER/
TBI (The Pacific Earthquake Engineering
1.3 Historical Development of PBSD Research Center/Tall Buildings Initiative)
Provisions and LATBSDC (Los Angeles Tall Buildings
Structural Design Center) refer to
Historically significant earthquake ASCE 41-13 for acceptance criteria at
5Figure 1.2: Wilshire Grand Center, Los Angeles, designed events (e.g., 1971 San Fernando, 1989 performance levels described in Section
using PBSD principles. © Gary Leonard/AC Martin Loma Prieta, and 1994 Northridge) 1.6 of deformation-controlled elements
Introduction | 13
2.0 Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment
2.1 Introduction of natural periods and a specified critical Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered
damping ratio. In recent building codes, Earthquake (MCER), which corresponds
The seismic design of structures starting with ASCE 7-10, the spectra for to a two percent probability of
should include proper evaluation design are quantified in the maximum exceedance in 50 years; however, in
of seismic hazards. These hazards direction rather than the geometric highly seismic active areas there is
include the level of ground shaking mean (geo-mean). The quantification typically a deterministic cap for the
for structural design and liquefaction, of the maximum-direction spectra MCER (see Section 2.5).
ground deformations, loss of bearing, are generally done by correcting the
and slope stability hazards that SDOF geometric mean spectrum Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis
may impact the performance of via correction factors. However, the (DSHA)
foundations. PBSD guidelines typically correction factors have been developed A DSHA represents a scenario
recommend establishing site-specific by computing the maximum response earthquake approach. It is a relatively
ground motions, rather than using a of an elastic two-degree-of-freedom simple approach that considers the
prescriptive code spectrum, scaled (TDOF) simple damped oscillator and occurrence of an earthquake of a
up for the Risk-Targeted Maximum comparing it to the SDOF oscillator particular magnitude, typically a
Considered Event or scaled down for response. Walker et al. (2010) present maximum earthquake on a particular
the Service Level Earthquake (SLE). a comprehensive discussion of the fault and the closest distance to the
maximum-direction spectra. fault. Uncertainty is considered through
Open communication between the the use of standard deviation of the
geotechnical and structural engineers predictive relationships. The typical
is critical in the development of 2.2 Developing Site-Specific Target spectral levels considered are the
site-specific ground motions for tall Response Spectra median or 84th percentiles.
buildings. These communications
ideally should be initiated at the outset Generally, the level of shaking Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS)
of projects. Information regarding quantified as a Target Response CMS is an alternative approach to the
structural periods for the fundamental Spectrum could be determined using target spectrum, determined either
and higher modes is imperative for the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using PSHA or DSHA. It can be used
development of appropriate ground (PSHA) (Cornell 1968 & McGuire 2004), as a target spectrum in the selection
motion criteria (e.g., time series) for deterministic seismic hazard analysis and scaling/matching of time series
structural evaluations and design. If (DSHA), Conditional Mean Spectrum for nonlinear structural analysis. The
a detailed Soil-Structure-Interaction (Baker and Cornell 2006), and NIST goal of this approach is to address
(SSI) analysis is performed, additional (2011) or ground response analysis. the conservatism in the UHS and
information regarding location, spacing, All of these methods result in a target the MCER deterministic spectra. CMS
and dimensions of structural elements spectrum for ground motion scaling provides a methodology such that the
(e.g., basement walls, basement floors, and matching. expected mean response spectrum
mat foundation, deep foundation is conditioned on the occurrence of a
elements, etc.) and properties of the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis target spectral acceleration value at the
structural elements (e.g., Poisson Ratio, (PSHA) period of interest. Because the Uniform
Young’s/Elastic Modulus, unconfined In a PSHA, a level of ground shaking is Hazard Spectrum (UHS) is a summation
compressive strength for concrete defined as a probability of exceedance of hazards from all sources, it does not
elements, minimum yield strength in a given period of time, typically 50 represent a scenario earthquake and
for steel elements, moment of inertia, years. The spectral values are developed provides higher spectral values than the
cross-sectional area, etc.) are needed. for the same mean annual frequency CMS at all periods except the period
of exceedance, which represents of interest. Therefore, CMS can be used
Levels of shaking for design (i.e., a uniform hazard, hence the term as the basis to develop and select an
earthquake-induced forces) are in Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS). A appropriate suite of time series for
general quantified by acceleration UHS includes earthquake hazard from different spectral periods.
response spectra. A response spectrum all considered sources in the area of
is the maximum response of an elastic study and does not represent a single Figure 2.1 presents an example of
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) earthquake. A typical level of hazard the PSHA, DSHA, and CMS for three
simple damped oscillator for a number defined in US building codes is the conditioning periods for the DSHA
spectral levels. CMS were developed for the use of NGA-West2 attenuation has become the preferred method
periods of 1.1, 2.3, and 5.6 seconds. relationships, which are based on Vs30 for the development of site-specific
values (average shear wave velocity in ground motions for structural
Ground Response Analysis the top 30 meters, measured from the evaluations and design. As presented
Ground response analysis is a ground surface or below the basement in Figure 2.1, CMS is equal to the
computational technique based on the level, see ASCE 7-16) could result in an target spectrum at the conditioning
theory of wave propagation through overestimation of long-period spectral periods and is less than the target
the soil. For this analysis, an idealized values, which are important for tall spectrum for other periods. The CMS
soil column is shaken by an earthquake buildings. For these site conditions, values presented in Figure 2.1 for the
(input) time series at the base layer. it is suggested to develop ground three conditioning periods are: 0.91g
The nonlinear soil behavior is modeled motion at the surface of rock/firm soil for a 1.1-second conditioning period,
by an equivalent-linear approach depth and perform ground-response 0.50g for a 2.3-second conditioning
(SHAKE-91; Idriss and Sun, 1992) and analysis to arrive at more reasonable period and 0.20g for a 5.6-second
nonlinear approach (DEEPSOIL; Hashash ground-surface or basement-level conditioning period. Therefore, it is
et al., 2015 and D-MOD 2000, Matasovic spectral response values. Two- and imperative that an adequate number
and Ordonez, 2011, etc.). To quantify three-dimensional nonlinear SSI of CMS is developed such that the drop
the interaction of the structure with analyses using computer programs – in the spectral values is not too severe.
the soil, SSI analyses are appropriate. such as FLAC, Plaxis, LS-DYNA, SASSI, The provisions of ASCE 7-16 require
While these types of evaluations are ADINA, OpenSees, and Midas – are that the envelope of the CMS does not
not routine and are not required, they some of the modeling techniques fall below 75% of the target spectrum.
are becoming more common in the used by geotechnical practitioners. In Typically, two conditioning periods,
development of site-specific ground addition, guidelines for incorporation of one representing the fundamental
motions for tall and supertall structures. kinematic and inertia interaction effects mode of the structure and one short
SSI models, which use nonlinear are provided in NIST (2012). period representing the second or
ground-response finite-element or higher mode vibrations, are considered.
finite-difference models of the soil and However, three or more conditioning
structure, quantify the stress-strain 2.3 Range of Structural Periods for period(s) of CMS may be required in
behavior of soil material in a more Consideration the event that the fundamental mode
direct fashion. It should be noted that period and the higher mode period
for a two-layer site condition (e.g., 40 The use of CMS as a tool for selection are too far apart. The determination
meters of fill and soft clay over rock), and scaling/matching of time series of these spectral periods is the
The initial proportioning of a building specific performance objectives are TBI and LATBSDC, with key parameters
consists of a complete design targeted at SLE-, DE-, and MCER-level in Tables 3.1 & 3.2.
process whereby all members of the ground shaking, verification at each
seismic force-resisting system are level may be required. The analysis model should include
proportioned. Linear design can be all lateral force-resisting elements,
done using SLE-, DE-, or MCER-level primary gravity system elements, and
earthquake demands. Most engineers 3.1 Modeling and Analysis basements. P-Delta effects should
prefer using SLE demands, with design be included. Slab openings affecting
methods appropriately adjusted For initial design using linear analysis, diaphragm stiffness should be included
for the lower demand level. Some modeling and design methods with semi-rigid diaphragm modeling.
engineers have utilized DE or MCER appropriate for the level of earthquake
level demands based on particular demands should be considered. Materials
building types or preference. When Response spectrum analysis is typically For SLE-level design, expected material
this is done, additional verification used. As mentioned above, for this properties should be utilized for
at DE or SLE may be required to document SLE demands are used for realistic estimates of stiffness. For
substantiate building performance and initial linear design. Material strength projects using ASCE 7 criteria and
code equivalency. SLE-based design is and stiffness assumptions, section specified ASTM material standards,
primarily considered in this document property modifiers, and material unless more detailed justification
and is described in detail in PEER/TBI strength reduction factors appropriate can be produced, expected material
and LATBSDC documents. The intent for SLE demands should be used and properties as shown in Table 3.1
of designing using SLE-level demands differ from DE-level assumptions. can be used. In jurisdictions not
is to inherently satisfy DE performance Material and section property using ASCE 7 and associated ASTM
objectives by verifying performance modifiers appropriate for SLE-level standards, robust testing of local
under SLE and MCER demands. If design are described in detail in PEER/ materials or historical information
Expected Yield Strength, fye , psi Expected Ultimate Strength, fue , psi
Plates
ASTM A36/A36M 1.3 fy 1.2 fu
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 50, 55 1.1 fy 1.2 fu
*fy is used to designate the specified (nominal) yield strength of steel materials in this Guideline. It is equivalent to fy or fyt used in ACI 318 and Fy used in AISC (2006) standards.
**fu is used to designate the specified (nominal) ultimate strength of steel materials in this Guideline. It is equivalent to Fu used in AISC (2006) standards.
***For steel materials not listed, refer to Table A3.1 of ANSI/AISC 341-16
†
f'c = specified compressive strength. Expected strength f'ce is strength expected at approximately one year or longer. Note that the multiplier on f'c may be smaller for high-strength concrete,
and can also be affected by (1) use of fly ash and other additives, and/or (2) local aggregates.
l l
Coupling beams with conventional or 0.07 Ec Ig 0.07 Ec Ig
1.0EcAg h 0.4EcAg 1.0EcAg h 0.4EcAg
diagonal reinforcement
≤ 0.3Ec Ig ≤ 0.3Ec Ig
With the seismic force-resisting system Component Modeling concrete, and unconfined
fully proportioned using linear analysis, All finite elements are composed of concrete. Each fiber has an
verification of performance under MCER deformation and force-controlled independent backbone curve.
level shaking using NRHA is conducted. actions identified in the linear analysis A graphical example of a fiber
The intent is to verify the design, but and design stage (see Table 3.3). arrangement in a core wall is
some design modifications can be made For components with force- and shown in Figure 4.1. Here, each
during this step to ensure design criteria deformation-controlled actions, red dot represents a steel fiber
and performance levels are satisfied. elements are composed of linear and and a concrete fiber. If the area
Generally, it is only required to repeat nonlinear responses. For components is shaded red the concrete fiber
linear analysis checks if the MCER analysis with only force-controlled actions, fully is confined, if it is not shaded red
and design leads to modifications linear elastic assumptions are utilized. it is unconfined. Fiber properties
to the non-negotiable dimensional are determined by the material
proportioning of the structure. Although there are a variety of within each zone. Typically two to
modeling methods available in a variety four fibers are located in boundary
MCER peak ground acceleration can be of software packages, commonly zones and only two are located
4–8 times higher than SLE. It is expected used component modeling methods in non-boundary areas between
that deformation-controlled actions are described in the following list. boundary zones. This allows for
of components of the structure will Further descriptions of these and other linear extrapolation of results
exhibit inelastic response, and as a result, component modeling methods can be outside of the fibers if desired.
a nonlinear analysis model that takes found in ATC-72 and ATC-114.
this inelastic response into account is 2. Coupling beams: These elements
necessary to appropriately evaluate the 1. Wall Elements: Shear is a are often modeled with “lumped”
building performance objectives. force-controlled action and plasticity as a mid-span hinge or
modeled elastically. Axial and as flexural hinges at each end.
With appropriate modeling applied, flexural behavior are represented Behavior needs to be closely
global and component acceptance with a series of nonlinear bar matched to representative physical
criteria need to be verified for elements. Three types are typically testing, similar with material
conformance with specified included, and are referred to strengths, detailing, and span/
performance objectives. as “fibers” representing vertical depth ratios. Care should be taken
wall reinforcement, confined to ensure the physical testing
Elastic segments Stiff end zone Rigid-plastic shear hinge Moment strength section
5Figure 4.2: Element with Hinges at Each End (left) and Elements with a Hinge at Mid-Span (right). Source: CTBUH based on ATC-72
substantiating the proposed be verified after analysis. If columns utilized and can yield significantly.
coupling beam is appropriate are modeled with nonlinear Refer to ATC 114 for modeling
(see Figure 4.2). Refer to ASCE 41 behavior, refer to ATC 114 for information and ASCE 41 for
and published physical testing modeling information and ASCE 41 rotation limits.
results. In most cases, specific for rotation limits.
nonlinear properties are published. In some instances, deformation-
If only a hysteresis is available in a 4. Slab Equivalent Frames: It is controlled actions are modeled
publication, engineers may need common to represent floor framing elastically. For example, while
to overlay the hysteresis resulting systems (beam or flat slab) using basement walls are categorized as
from a proposed nonlinear an equivalent frame with lumped deformation-controlled for flexure
backbone curve to verify their plasticity at each end where and force-controlled for shear, their
material model. yielding is anticipated. This is done non-linear behavior is not modeled, as
to account for the “micro-outrigger” they are not anticipated to yield.
3. Gravity Columns: Axial compression effect of flat slabs on columns,
is a force-controlled action and and to verify that framing rotation Nonlinear Behavior Modeling with
modeled elastically. If limited limits are satisfied. In tall buildings, Lumped Plasticity
nonlinear behavior is permitted floor framing systems will often For deformation-controlled elements
in the column, a flexural hinge at yield in the upper portion of the with a lumped plasticity, a nonlinear
each end is appropriate. If flexure is tower, where the core lifts up and backbone curve is employed in the
to remain elastic, linear response is the gravity columns do not. Often mathematical model using the general
appropriate and reinforcement can flat-plate post-tensioned slabs are force deformation shape as shown in
The purpose of a Basis of Design Describe the primary load path Gravity System
(BOD) document or design criteria if multiple systems are used, and, Describe the gravity system in more
document is to state deviations if so, their intended purposes. If detail, with typical dimensions and
from governing code requirements, higher occupancies require higher material strengths. Describe if gravity
either exceptions or enhancements, performance levels by the governing system components are intended to
and describe subsequent methods building code, specify. resist seismic actions as part of the
justifying these exceptions or seismic-force resisting system.
enhancements. Content will often Describe the site in terms of
include descriptions of all structural geographic coordinates and include
systems, description of design a description of site considerations. 5.3 Substructure
procedure, performance objectives, Describe the relationship of local and
analytical modeling methods, and national building code requirements Basement Levels
acceptance criteria. It is not intended to this project. Describe basement levels in more
to contain all information used for detail, with typical dimensions and
the design of the building, but should Describe locations of anticipated material strengths. For sloped sites,
be a standalone document with inelastic behavior and any enhanced describe how the site slopes. Provide
references to all needed information. seismic devices such as buckling plans/sections that schematically
No structural engineering results restrained braces, isolation bearings, describe unique considerations.
should be presented in the Basis of dampers, etc.
Design document. Typically, Basis of
Design documents range from 10 to Representative design drawings 5.4 Foundation System
25 pages in length. The BOD should should be included. This can be
be included in the design drawings satisfied by placing the BOD on a Describe the foundation system for the
for future reference by the building drawing sheet as part of the set of tower and podium including details,
owner, especially if exceptions to building structural drawings. dimensions, and material strengths.
code provisions are taken.
Geotechnical Investigations and Reports
The Basis of Design document is 5.2 Superstructure Reference geotechnical investigations
generally submitted to the peer review undertaken by the project geotechnical
panel and local governing jurisdictions This section will describe the engineer and provide a reference to
involved in building permitting for superstructure, which includes the their report. Specify if site-specific
review and comment early in the ground floor and above. For sloped information is being used in the design
building design process. In some sites, this would include all elements of the building.
jurisdictions, the BOD is submitted above grade.
with the architectural building site
permit. Typically, the document can If the building is connected to 5.5 Code Analysis and Design Criteria
be updated and revised through the multiple buildings sharing a common
design process, as appropriate, to basement, describe how they are Building Codes, Standards, Regulations
reflect the final design. interconnected (i.e., seismic joints, and Computer Software
common transfer diaphragm, etc.).
Engineers should review Appendix B of Include a schematic diagram showing Building Codes, Standards and
PEER/TBI for additional information. their overall configuration. Regulations
List all codes progressing from local to
Lateral System national. Also, list non-code sources of
5.1 General Describe the lateral system in more information that are directly used in
detail, with typical dimensions the design. Examples would include
Describe project location, structural and material strengths. Identify supporting publications of nonlinear
system types used, and the most primary transfer diaphragms at- and material/component behavior and their
important building considerations. above-grade. acceptance criteria.
Drift Limit
participation of 90% of the seismic
250
250
(CQC) method. The seismic mass
(ft)
Elevation
225
225
includes the building’s estimated 200
200
175
175
self-weight, the superimposed dead 150
150
load, and any live load required by ASCE 125
125
100
7 to be included, such as mechanical 100
75
75
equipment and a portion of storage 50
50
25
loads. Mass is only assigned above the 25
00
seismic base (ground level in this case). -25
-25
0.0000
-50
-50 0.0000 0.0010
0.0010 0.0020
0.0020 0.0030
0.0030 0.0040
0.0040 0.0050
0.0050 0.0060
0.0060
Drift
Drift
Acceptance Criteria: Story Drift
5Figure 6.3: Max SLE Seismic (Site-Specific) Story Drift. © Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Story drift is a measure of the building
deformations under the SLE event. By
placing a limitation on building drift,
damage of nonstructural elements
(such as cladding, wall partitions, etc.) spectrum is applied with no scaling points considered is identified in Figure
can be limited. The three-dimensional and no accidental torsion. Story drift 6.2. Many software analysis tools have
lateral analysis model includes the is calculated at each corner of the the ability to directly output story drift.
stiffness modification parameters building by taking the difference in The diagram in Figure 6.3 indicates the
identified above, which are consistent elastic displacement of adjacent floors maximum story drift recorded for all
with the anticipated behavior at SLE. divided by the story height. Story drift four corners considered plotted over
is calculated on a per-corner basis in the building height. The story drift
For the design example, the order to correctly include the effects reported is substantially less than the
acceptance criteria value for drift at of inherent torsion and the rotational acceptance criteria; therefore, the story
SLE is 0.5 percent. The full SLE response response. An example of the corner drift is considered acceptable.
W8X67
W.P.
W14X82
14 "
"x 10
10 "x
" 14 2
B
BR S-009.19.1 TYP.
58
927' - 0"
W33X318
BR 2
B
W14X82
"
10 14
"x
S-009.19
"x W.P.
14 10
"
B
W.P. BR W.P.
57
915' - 6"
W8X67
W.P. "x
BR 14
B
B
14 BR
"x
10
" 56
904' - 0"
2
W33X318 S-009.19
0" BR
W.P. "x 1
W14X82
B
14 W.P. 14
B "x
BR 10
"
W.P.
55
892' - 6"
W33X387 W.P.
W8X67
W.P.
W14X82
BR " 3
B 10 TYP.
14 "x S-009.19 U.N.O.
"x 14
10 B
BR
W.P. " 54
881' - 0"
9 W33X318 "
10 BR 4
"x
14
W14X82
B S-009.19
B 14
W8X67
BR W.P.
"x
10
"
W.P.
53
869' - 6"
5Figure 6.34: Bottom Outrigger Extending Through Three Stories. © Thornton Tomasetti 5Figure 6.35: Middle Outrigger Using Deep Girders to Cross Corridors.
© Brandow & Johnston
of long-term shortening on core-wall based on a 1,700-year mean recurrence the transverse (north–south) direction
concrete within the outrigger height. interval (MRI), ASCE 7-10 wind and 3.5 seconds in the longitudinal,
loads based on the building’s high east–west direction, and local high
Steel belt trusses at the bottom and occupancy, and checking dynamic seismicity. Note that in regions of
top outrigger levels, visible in Figure properties for occupant comfort using low seismicity, the minimum base
6.36, link the 10 outrigger columns 10-year MRI wind informed by local shear equations may not govern over
to all perimeter tower columns. By wind climate data. the spectrum-based shear value. For
engaging all 20 perimeter columns, overturning, scaled RSA results were
the stiffness of the lateral load-resisting Step two was estimating structural- used in preliminary checks. For shears,
system is maximized, and differential component seismic demands using scaled RSA results were tripled because
vertical movements between columns linear elastic response-spectrum higher modes are major sources of
are minimized. Belt trusses also act as analysis (RSA) results, scaled up to story shear (but not overturning) in tall
“virtual (or indirect) outriggers,” reducing provide base shear of at least 85% of flexible buildings. That behavior is not
tower deflections in the long direction. the minimum base shear equations addressed well by code methods that
The load path to accomplish this is in the prescriptive code. In this directly relate overturning and shear
described later. case, equivalent lateral force for the as appropriate for more common,
design earthquake level, as used for shorter buildings, and because a
General Steps in the PBSD Process conventional analysis and design, 1.5 factor is applied to mean results
Step one in the design process governed over spectrum-based for force-controlled shear checks.
was sizing core walls, columns, and shear. This was done by considering Subsequent NRHA results confirmed
outriggers for strength-level forces a building period of seven seconds in the reasonableness of this approach.
5Figure 6.62: Photos of Completed Building. © Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
6.15 Project Description adapted in an efficient manner for elevators, and back-of-house areas.
high-rise office application. The height-to-depth ratio of the core
The following is a structural system is approximately 9:1. The shear wall
description for a tower situated in Superstructure core extends from foundation to roof.
downtown San Francisco, California (see The superstructure consists of a central The shear walls vary in thickness from
Figure 6.62). The occupancy consists of reinforced concrete shear-wall core, 24” to 33” and in concrete compressive
office above grade and parking below perimeter gravity columns, and two- strength from 6,000 psi to 8,000 psi. The
grade. The 30-story tower is 384 feet way flat-plate slab framing. The tower is shear wall core is interconnected with
and two inches above grade with three roughly square in plan with dimensions the use of ductile diagonally-reinforced
basement levels below grade and a of 125’–0” x 130’–0”. The typical office link beams at openings required for
total building area of approximately floor-to-floor height is 13’-2”. doorways and corridors.
455,000 square feet. The seismic force-
resisting structural system consists of Lateral System Gravity System
reinforced concrete core walls from the The lateral system consists of a centrally The gravity framing system both
foundation to roof. The gravity system located reinforced concrete shear-wall inside and outside the core consists
is a long-span, flat plate, post-tensioned core. The shear wall core has an of a two-way post-tensioned (PT)
system. This combination of lateral and external plan area of 43’–0” x 52’–6” and flat-plate slab. The slab clears spans
gravity systems is common in high-rise is located around the service area of from the core to the perimeter and
residential construction, but has been the structure, passenger and service has a uniform thickness of 11”. The
RC Columns
11" Thick PT
Flat Slab
Ductile
RC Core
123 ft
45 ft
5Figure 6.63: Typical Floor Plan. © Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP 5Figure 6.64: Building Section. © Skidmore, Owings
& Merrill LLP
118 ft
PT Flat Slab
52 ft
RC Gravity
Column
E RC Link Beam
S
33 ft
RC Core Wall
91 ft
E E
S
E 31 ft
27 ft
5Figure 6.77: Rendering. © Skidmore, Owings 5Figure 6.78: Typical Floor Plan. © Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
& Merrill LLP
6.20 Project Description in plan with dimensions of 91’–0” to 1. This is a very slender application
x 118’–0” and a larger podium. The of a core-only lateral system approach.
The following is a structural system typical residential floor-to-floor height The shear wall core extends from
description for a residential tower is 9’–3” (see Figure 6.78). The podium is foundation to roof. At podium levels,
situated in downtown San Francisco, exceptionally large for similar buildings additional shear walls are included to
California (see Figure 6.77). The in San Francisco at nine floors, and assist the core, due to the added mass
occupancy consists of apartment plays a significant role in building’s and eccentricity. The shear walls vary in
residential units above grade, and response to lateral loading. thickness from 36” to 24”, and in concrete
parking below grade. The 42-story compressive strength of 8,000 psi at
tower is 420’–0” tall above grade with With the removal of the code- the core to 6,000 psi at the podium. The
six basement levels below grade and prescribed moment frame, the shear wall core is interconnected with
a total building area of approximately improvement of the typical floor the use of ductile diagonally-reinforced
743,500 square feet. The seismic force- section is demonstrated in Figures 6.79 link beams at openings required for
resisting structural system consists of and 6.80. By removing the moment doorways and corridors.
reinforced concrete core walls from the frame, inefficient material is removed,
foundation to roof. The gravity system is floor-to-floor height is reduced, and Core shear wall elevations are shown in
a long-span, flat-plate, post-tensioned constructability is improved. Figure 6.81, where the darker shading
system. This combination of lateral and indicates confined boundary zones.
gravity systems is common in high-rise Lateral System
residential construction. The lateral system consists of a Gravity System
centrally-located reinforced concrete The gravity framing system both inside
Superstructure shear wall core. The shear wall core has and outside the core consists of a two-
The superstructure consists of a an external plan area of 33’–0” x 52’–0” way post-tensioned (PT) flat-plate slab.
central reinforced concrete shear wall and is located around the service area The slab clear-spans from the core to the
core, perimeter gravity columns, and of the structure, passenger and service perimeter and has a uniform thickness
two-way flat-plate slab framing (see elevators, and back-of-house areas. The of seven inches. The long-span flat slab
Figure 6.77). The tower is roughly square height-to-depth ratio of the core is 12.1 is post-tensioned to maintain uncracked
5’-0”
5Figure 6.79: PBSD Core-Only Approach. © Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
5’-0”
5Figure 6.80: Code-Prescribed Dual System Approach. © Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
ROOM 1” FINISH
Structural Engineer:
Foundations
The foundation system consists of a
10’–0” thick conventional reinforced
concrete mat foundation. A perimeter-
reinforced concrete foundation wall
system consists of conventional
cast-in-place concrete walls. The Key Plan:
FIRST ST
SHEAR WALL
ELEVATIONS
213094
Drawn By: Author
5Figure 6.81: Shear Wall Elevations: West, North, East, and South (from left to right). © Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
geotechnical engineer.