Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings

Seminar and Workshop | 3 – 6 October 2017

Novotel Manila, Quezon City, Philippines

Procedure of Performance-based Design

Organized by: In collaboration with:

1
Performance-based Design
Performance-based design
• More explicit evaluation of the safety and reliability of structures.
• Provides opportunity to clearly define the levels of hazards to be designed
against, with the corresponding performance to be achieved.
• Code provisions are intended to provide a minimum level of safety.
• Shortcoming of traditional building codes (for seismic design) is that the
performance objectives are considered implicitly.
• Code provisions contain requirements that are not specifically applicable
to tall buildings which may results in designs that are less than optimal,
both from a cost and safety perspective.
• Verify that code-intended seismic performance objectives are met.

3
The Building Structural System - Conceptual

• The Gravity Load Resisting System

• The structural system (beams, slab, girders, columns, etc.) that acts primarily
to support the gravity or vertical loads

• The Lateral Load Resisting System

• The structural system (columns, shear walls, bracing, etc.) that primarily acts
to resist the lateral loads

• The Floor Diaphragm

• The structural system that transfers lateral loads to the lateral load resisting
system and provides in-plane floor stiffness
4
Structural System

Source: NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3 5

 PBD Guidelines

• PEER 2010/05, “Tall Building Initiative,

Guidelines for Performance Based
Seismic Design of Tall Buildings”
• PEER/ATC 72-1, “Modeling and
Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design
and Analysis of Tall Buildings”
• ASCE/SEI 41-13, “Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”
• LATBSDC 2014, “An Alternative
Procedure for Seismic Analysis and
Design of Tall Buildings Located in the
Los Angeles Region”

6
Required Information
Required Information

• Basis of design

• Geotechnical investigation report

• Site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment report

• Wind tunnel test report

8
Basis of Design

• Description of building
• Structural system
• Codes, standards, and references
• Loading criteria
• Gravity load, seismic load, wind load
• Materials
• Modeling, analysis, and design procedures
• Acceptance criteria

9
 Geotechnical Investigation Report
• SPT values
• Soil stratification and properties
• Soil type for seismic loading
• Ground water level
• Allowable bearing capacity (Factors to increase in capacity for transient loads and stress
peaks)
• Sub-grade modulus (Vertical and lateral)
• Liquefaction potential
• Pile foundation
• Ultimate end bearing pressure vs. pile length
• Ultimate skin friction pressure vs. pile length
• Allowable bearing capacity
• Allowable pullout capacity
• Basement wall pressure
10
Site-specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment Report
• Recommend response spectra (SLE, DBE, MCE)
• Ground motions scaled for MCE spectra
• If piles are modeled in nonlinear model,
• Depth-varying ground motions along the pile length
• Springs and dashpots
• If vertical members are restrained at pile cap level,
• Amplified ground motions at surface level

11
Depth-varying Ground Motions along Pile
Length

12
 Response Spectra
Response Spectra 2.5

2.0
• Service Level Earthquake (SLE)

SPECTRAL ACCELERATION
• 50% of probability of exceedance in 30 years 1.5
(43-year return period)

• Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) 1.0 SLE (g)

DBE (g)
• 10% of probability of exceedance in 50 years
MCE (g)
(475-year return period) 0.5

• Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)

• 2% of probability of exceedance in 50 years 0.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
(2475-year return period) NATURAL PERIOD (SEC)

13
Wind Tunnel Test Report

• Wind-induced structural loads and building motion study

• 10-year return period wind load

• 50-year or 700-year return period wind load

• Comparison of wind tunnel test results with various wind codes

• Floor accelerations (1-year, 5-year return periods)

• Rotational velocity (1-year return period)

• Natural frequency sensitivity study

14
Performance-based Design Procedure
 Geotechnical investigation
 Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment

Preliminary design

Wind tunnel test

Detailed code-
based design

SLE Evaluation

MCE Evaluation
Performance-based Design Procedure

Peer review 16
Preliminary design

Structural Finite Check Preliminary

system element overall member
development modeling response sizing

• Bearing wall • Linear analysis • Modal analysis • Structural density

system models • Natural period, ratios
• Dual system • Different stiffness mode shapes, • Slab thickness
• Special moment assumptions for modal • Shear wall
resisting frame seismic and wind participating thickness
loadings mass ratios
• Intermediate • Coupling beam
• Gravity load
moment resisting response sizes
frame • Building weight • Column sizes
per floor area
• Deflections
• Lateral load
response (DBE,
Wind)
• Base shear,
story drift,
displacement
17
Detailed Code-based Design
• Modeling
• Nominal material properties are used.
• Different cracked section properties for wind and seismic models
• Springs representing the effects of soil on the foundation system and basement walls
• Gravity load design
• Slab
• Secondary beams
• Wind design
• Apply wind loads from wind tunnel test in mathematical model
• Ultimate strength design
• 50-year return period wind load x Load factor
• 700-year return period wind load
• Serviceability check
• Story drift ≤ 0.4%, Lateral displacement ≤ H/400 (10-year return period wind load)
• Floor acceleration (1-year and 5-year return period wind load)

18
Detailed code-based design

• Seismic design (DBE)

• Use recommended design spectra of DBE from PSHA
• Apply seismic load in principal directions of the building
• Scaling of base shear from response spectrum analysis
• Consider accidental torsion, directional and orthogonal effects
• 5% of critical damping is used for un-modeled energy dissipation
• Define load combinations with load factors
• Design and detail reinforcement

19
Scaling of Response Spectrum Analysis Results

Source: FEMA P695 | June 2009

20
SLE Evaluation
• Linear model is used.
• Site-specific service level response spectrum is used without reduction
by scale factors.
• 2.5% of critical damping is used for un-modeled energy dissipation.
• 1.0D + 0.25 L ± 1.0 ESLE
• Seismic orthogonal effects are considered.
• Accidental eccentricities are not considered in serviceability
evaluation.
• Response modification coefficient, overstrength factor, redundancy
factor and deflection amplification factor are not used in
serviceability evaluation.
21
Acceptance Criteria (SLE)

• Demand to capacity ratios

• ≤ 1.5 for deformation-controlled actions
• ≤ 0.7 for force-controlled actions
• Capacity is computed based on nominal material properties with the
strength reduction factor of 1.
• Story drift shall not exceed 0.5% of story height in any story with the
intention of providing some protection of nonstructural components
and also to assure that permanent lateral displacement of the
structure will be negligible.

22
MCE Evaluation

• Nonlinear model is used.

• Nonlinear response history analysis is conducted.
• Seven pairs of site-specific ground motions are used.
• 2.5% of constant modal damping is used with small fraction of
Rayleigh damping for un-modeled energy dissipation.
• Average of demands from seven ground motions approach is used.
• Capacities are calculated using expected material properties and
strength reduction factor of 1.0.

23
Expected Material Strengths

Source: LATBSDC 2014 24

 Deformation-
controlled Actions

• Behavior is ductile and reliable

inelastic deformations can be
reached with no substantial
strength loss.
• Results are checked for mean
value of demand from seven sets
of ground motion records. Force-deformation relationship for
deformation-controlled actions

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13 25

 Force-controlled
Actions
• Behavior is more brittle and reliable
inelastic deformations cannot be
reached.
• Critical actions
• Actions in which failure mode poses severe
consequences to structural stability under
gravity and/or lateral loads.
• 1.5 times the mean value of demand from
seven sets of ground motions is used.
• Non-critical actions
• Actions in which failure does not result
structural instability or potentially life-
threatening damage.
Force-deformation relationship for
• Mean value of demand from seven sets of
force-controlled actions
ground motions is used with a factor of 1.
Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13 26
 Classification of Actions
Component Action Classification Criticality
Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Shear walls
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Coupling beams Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
(Conventional) Shear Force-controlled Non-critical
Coupling beams (Diagonal) Shear Deformation-controlled N/A
Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Girders
Shear Force-controlled Non-critical
Axial-Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Columns
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Diaphragms Shear (at podium and basements) Force-controlled Critical
Shear (tower) Force-controlled Non-critical
Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Basement walls
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Mat foundation
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Axial-Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Piles
Shear Force-controlled Critical
27
 Acceptance Criteria (MCE)
Item Value
Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 3%.
Peak transient drift
Maximum drift shall not exceed 4.5%.
Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 1%.
Residual drift
Maximum drift shall not exceed 1.5%.
Coupling beam inelastic rotation ≤0.05 radian for both conventional and diagonal reinforced beams
Flexural rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits
Column (Axial-flexural interaction and shear) Remain elastic for shear response.
(Column shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Shear wall reinforcement axial strain ≤0.05 in tension and ≤0.02 in compression
Intermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)
Shear wall concrete axial compressive strain
Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015
Shear wall shear Remain elastic (Check for 1.5 times mean value)

Girder inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits

Girders shear Remain elastic.

Remain elastic.
Mat foundation (Flexure and shear)
(Mat foundation shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Remain elastic.
Diaphragm (In-plane response)
(Podium diaphragm shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Remain elastic.
Piles (Axial-flexural interaction and shear)
(Pile shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
28
29
 Stiffness Assumptions in Mathematical Models
Concrete Element SLE/Wind DBE MCE
Flexural – 0.75 Ig Flexural – 0.6 Ig Flexural – **
Core walls/shear walls
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 0.2 Ag
Flexural – 1.0 Ig Flexural – 0.8 Ig Flexural – 0.8 Ig
Basement walls
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 0.8 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag
Coupling beams Flexural –0.3 Ig Flexural –0.2 Ig Flexural – 0.2 Ig
(Diagonal-reinforced) Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag
Coupling beams Flexural –0.7 Ig Flexural –0.35 Ig Flexural – 0.35 Ig
(Conventional-reinforced) Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag
Ground level diaphragm Flexural – 0.5 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig
(In-plane only) Shear – 0.8 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag Shear – 0.25 Ag
Flexural – 0.5 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig
Podium diaphragms
Shear – 0.8 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag Shear – 0.25 Ag
Flexural – 1.0 Ig Flexural – 0.5 Ig Flexural – 0.5 Ig
Tower diaphragms
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag
Flexural – 0.7 Ig Flexural – 0.35 Ig Flexural – 0.35 Ig
Girders
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.9 Ig Flexural – 0.7 Ig Flexural – 0.7 Ig
Columns
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag
30
Evaluation of Results
Evaluation of Results

• Results extraction, processing and converting them into presentable

form takes additional time.
• Results interpretation i.e. converting “numbers we have already
crunched” into “meaningful outcome for decision-making”.
• Since each of these performance levels are associated with a physical
description of damage, obtained results are compared and evaluated
based on this criterion to get performance insight.

32
 Overall Response

• Base shear
• Ratio between inelastic base shear and elastic base shear
• Story drift (Transient drift, residual drift)
• Lateral displacement
• Floor acceleration
• Energy dissipation of each component type
• Energy error

33
 Base Shear
300,000 16.0
14.67
269,170
14.0
250,000

12.0
201,762 11.00
200,000
Base shear (kN)

10.0

Base shear (%)

160,409 8.74

150,000 8.0 7.26

133,233

6.0
100,000 4.42
81,161
4.0 3.15
57,826
50,000 39,137 2.13
30,878 2.0 1.68

0 0.0
X Y X Y
Along direction Along direction
Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE

34
 Transient Drift
70
GM-1059

60 GM-65010

GM-CHY006
50
GM-JOS

40
Story level

GM-LINC

GM-STL
30

GM-UNIO

20
Average

Avg. Drift Limit

10

Max. Drift Limit

0
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Drift ratio

35
 Residual Drift
70
GM-1059

60 GM-65010

GM-CHY006
50
Story level GM-JOS

40 GM-LINC

GM-STL
30
GM-UNIO

20 Average

Avg. Drift Limit

10
Max Drift Limit

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Drift ratio

36
 Lateral Displacement
70
GM-1059

60
GM-65010

50 GM-CHY006
Story level

GM-JOS
40

GM-LINC

30
GM-STL

20 GM-UNIO

Average
10

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Lateral displacement (m)
37
 Floor Acceleration
70
GM-1059

60
GM-65010

50 GM-CHY006

GM-JOS
Story level

40

GM-LINC
30
GM-STL

20
GM-UNIO

10 Average

0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Absolute acceleration (g)

38
Energy dissipation (%)
Energy Dissipation

Energy dissipation (%)

Total dissipated
energy
Total dissipated
energy

Dissipated energy from conventional

reinforced coupling beams
Dissipated energy from shear walls
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Total dissipated
energy
Energy dissipation (%)

Dissipated energy from diagonal

reinforced coupling beams

39
Time (sec)
 Component Responses
Component Response
Pile foundation Bearing capacity, pullout capacity, PMM, shear
Mat foundation Bearing capacity, flexure, shear
Shear wall Flexure (axial strain), shear
Column PMM or flexural rotation, axial, shear
Beams Flexural rotation, shear
Conventional reinforced coupling beam Flexural rotation, shear
Diagonal reinforced coupling beam Shear rotation, shear
Flat slab Flexural rotation, punching shear
Basement wall In-plane shear, out-of-plane flexure and shear
Diaphragm Shear, shear friction, tension and compression

40
Peer Review
Peer Review Scope

• Earthquake hazard determination

• Ground motion characterizations
• Seismic design methodology
• Seismic performance goals
• Acceptance criteria
• Mathematical modeling and simulation
• Seismic design and results, drawings and specifications

42
Peer Review
• Involve as early in the structural design phase
• Establish the frequency and timing of peer review milestones
• Peer reviewer provides written comments to EOR
• EOR shall provide written responses
• Peer review maintains the log that summarizes reviewer’s comments,
EOR responses to comments, and resolution of comments
• At the conclusion of the review, peer reviewer shall submit the
references the scope of the review, includes the comment log, and
indicates the professional opinions of the peer reviewer regarding the
design’s general conformance to the requirements and guidelines in
this document
43