Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

PEER/CSSC Tall Building

Design Case Study


Building #1
J. Andrew Fry
John Hooper
Ron Klemencic
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Building Information
! Located in Los Angeles
! 42-Story
! 410 ft Tall
! 108 ft X 107 ft Plan Dimensions
! Core Wall System
! Approximate Period: 5 Sec
Tower Plan
Tower and Core Wall Isometric
Two Designs Performed
! Design #1A
! Prescriptive provisions of the 2006 IBC
! All prescriptive provisions observed
except height limit
! Capacity design principles were not
employed
Two Designs Performed
! Design #1B
! Performance-Based Seismic Design
conforming to the 2008 LATBSDC Seismic
Design Criteria, with the following two
exceptions:
! 25-year EQ used in Serviceability Analysis
! 2.5 % viscous damping
! Only a limited number of elements allowed to reach
120 % of their capacity
! The minimum base shear waived
! Minimum strength provided by 25-year EQ and Wind
Design #1AWind Design Criteria
! Basic Wind Speed: 85 mph
! Exposure: B
! Occupancy Category II: I
W
= 1.0
! Topographic Factor (K
ZT
): 1.0
Design #1ASeismic Design Criteria
! Occupancy Category II: I
e
= 1.0
! Mapped Spectral Accelerations:
! S
s
= 2.147; S
1
= 0.720
! Site Class C
! F
a
= 1.0; F
v
= 1.3
! Spectral Response Coefficients:
! S
DS
= 1.145; S
D1
= 0.521
! Seismic Design Category: D
Design #1ASeismic Design Criteria
! Lateral System:
! Building Frame, Special Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls, R = 6
! T
code
= 2.55 sec (based on H = 410)
! C
s
= 0.060 (Eq. 12.86 governs)
! V = 0.85C
s
W (w/ RSA scaling)
! V = 4,565 kips
Design #1AResults
! Core Wall Thickness
! Grade Level 25 = 24 inches
! Level 25 Roof = 21 inches
! Building Modes:
! Mode 1T
X
= 6.7 Sec
! Mode 2T
Y
= 4.8 Sec
! Mode 3T
Z
= 2.6 Sec
Design #1AResults
! Shears at Grade:
! Seismic V
X
= 4,581k V
Y
= 4,581k
! Wind V
X
= 2,080k V
Y
= 2,080k
! Overturning Moment at Grade
! Seismic M
Y
= 587,000 k-ft M
X
= 697,000 k-ft
! Wind M
Y
= 540,000 k-ft M
X
= 513,000 k-ft

! Maximum Story Drifts:
! !
X
= 1.1%
! !
Y
= 0.8%
Design #1BPerformance Objectives
! 25-yr EQ:
! Serviceability: Structure to remain
essentially elastic with only minor damage
! MCE:
! Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural
damage; repairs are required and may not
be economically feasible
Design #1BServiceability Model
! 3-D Model using
ETABS
! Elastic RSA
! Model Included Slab
Outriggers
Design #1BServiceability Acceptance
Criteria
! Story Drift Limitation: 0.5 percent
! Coupling Beams Shear: Remain
Essentially
Elastic
! Core Wall Flexure: Remain elastic
! Core Wall Shear: Remain elastic
! Slab Outriggers: Remain essentially
Elastic
! Columns: Remain elastic
Design #1BMCE Model
! 3-D model using CSI Perform-3D
! Modeled as inelastic:
! Coupling beams
! Core wall flexural behavior
! Slabbeams
! Modeled as elastic:
! Core wall shear behavior
! Diaphragm slabs
! Columns
! Basement walls
! Model extended to mat
Design #1BMCE Acceptance Criteria
! Story Drift: 3 %
! Coupling Beam Rotation: 0.06 radian limit
! Core Wall Reinforcement Axial Strain:
! Tensile strain = 0.05
! Compression strain = 0.02
! Core Wall Concrete Axial Strain: Fully Confined
Concrete Compression Strain = 0.015
! Core Wall Shear: Post-Analysis Verification
Performed
Design #1BSeismic Hazard Spectra
Design #1BResults
! Core Wall Thickness
! Grade Level 13 = 28 & 32 inches
! Level 13 Level 31 = 24 inches
! Level 31 Roof = 21 inches
! Building Modes:
! Mode 1--T
X
= 4.2 Sec
! Mode 2--T
Y
= 3.1 Sec
! Mode 3--T
Z
= 1.6 Sec
Design #1BServiceability Results
Design #1BServiceability Results
MCE Results: Building Story Drift
MCE Results: Core Wall Shear
MCE Results: Core Overturning
Moment
MCE Results: Coupling Beam
Rotations
MCE Results: Core Wall Tensile
Strains
Case Study #1 Observations
! Core wall shear is the governing design
parameter & governs wall thickness
! Walls thicker for Design #1B versus #1A
! T
#1B
= 28-32 at base & 21 at roof
! T
#1A
= 24 at base & 21 at roof
! Serviceability Design governed over Wind
Design
! V
Servicability
= 5,013 and 6,018 kips
! V
Wind Design
= 1,816 and 1,918 kips
Case Study #1 Observations
! Serviceability Design of #1B larger than Design
of #1A
! V
#1B
= 5,013 and 6,018 kips
! V
#1A
= 4,581 and 4,581 kips
! MCE Shear Design of #1B larger than Design of
#1A
! V
#1B
= 12,556 and 13,409 kips
! V
#1A
= 4,581 and 4,581 kips
! Tensile Strains are low, but yielding occurs over
height of core wall
! Spectral Matching reduced dispersion in the
results