PEER-CSSC tall building case studies:

Concrete core wall building

Tony Yang, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Acknowledgements:

Jack Moehle and Yousef Bozorgnia(PEER), Andy Fry and John

Hooper (MKA), Graham Powell (CSI)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER

2010 LATBSDC Annual meeting, May 7th 2010

Introduction
PEER SCCS Tall Building Systems

Concrete core shear wall buildings

MKA

Concrete core shear wall buildings

Core shear wall
PT slab

MKA

Link beam

Prototype model
Residential building in
Downtown Los Angeles.

42 stories
( 430)

108

4 stories
( 48)
MKA

107
View A-A

228

227

Building design
Building 1A
(Code design)

Building 1B
(PBEE design)

Building 1C
(PBEE+ design)

Designed using IBC Designed using

2006.
2008 LATBSDC
procedure.

Designed using
guideline.
PEER TBI draft
guideline.

All provisions were

followed except the
height limit.

Similar to 1B design
Except: 1) SLE was
check 43-yr EQ (w =
Performance-based
2.5%). 2)
All
ductile
design
guideline
for tall
buildings
elements such as the
coupling beams and
flexural yielding of
the concrete walls are
allowed to reach
150% of the code
specified capacity.

All provisions were

followed. Except: 1)
Vmin was waived. 2)
SLE was checked
using 25-yr EQ (w =
2.5%) instead of 43yr EQ (w = 5%). No
more than 20% of
the elements are
allowed to reach
150% of the code
specified capacity.

Building design
Building 1A
(Code design)

Building 1B
(PBEE design)

Wall
thickness

Designed using IBC Designed using

2006.
2008 LATBSDC
procedure.
B4 L24: 24
L25 Roof: 21

Building 1C
(PBEE+ design)
Designed using
PEER TBI draft
guideline.

B4 L13: 28 (N-S) B4 L13: 32 (N-S)

32 (E-W)
36 (E-W)
L14 L31: 24
L14 L31: 24
L32 Roof: 21
L32 Roof: 21

Building design: Wall vertical reinforcement

1B
1A

MKA

1C

Building design: Coupling beam reinforcement

1B

1A
1C

MKA

Building design comparison

1A: Code

24

24

1B: PBEE

28

28

1C: PBEE+

32

32

Wall:

Strong

Stronger

Strongest

Coupling
beam:

Stronger

Stronger

Strong

1st mode
Period:

T1X = 5.2 sec

T1X = 4.8 sec

T1X = 4.6 sec

T1Y = 4.0 sec

T1Y = 3.6 sec

T1Y = 3.5 sec

Nonlinear analytical model

3D nonlinear dynamic finite
element model (Perform3D).
Ignored the gravity system.

Nonlinear analytical model

Basement walls below grade were

modeled using elastic shear wall
elements (Eeff = 0.8 E)

Nonlinear analytical model

Slabs below grade were modeled

using elastic shear shell element (Eeff
= 0.25 E)

Nonlinear analytical model

Shear wall flexural behavior:
Nonlinear fiber wall element with
expected material property.
Shear wall shear behavior:
PCA
Nonlinear
shear material.
HSC - SP1 Wallace test data

1.5 Vn

test

n,ACI

Vexp/
Vn
V /V

Wallace, Massone, Orakcal - 2006

0
0

Displacementductility
Ductility
Curvature

10

12

14

Nonlinear analytical model

Analytical
Experimental

UCLA J. Wallace

Nonlinear dynamic analyses

3D bi-directional shaking.
GM: 5 Hazard levels.
SLE-25 (25 yr)
SLE-43 (43 yr)
DBE (475 yr)
MCE (2475 yr)
OVE (4975 yr)

Target Sa [g]

1.5

0.5

0
0

4
6
Period [sec]

10

Nonlinear dynamic analyses

15 pairs of GM were selected and amplitude scaled for
each hazard level.

Structural response

Structural response

Structural response (MCE)

PEERTBI-1AM

PEERTBI-1BM
MCE

MCE

L42

L42

L37

L37

L37

L32

L32

L32

L27
L22
L17

L27
L22
L17

L12

L12

L7

L7

L2

L2

B4
0

0.5
1
1.5
2
4
Core shear H1 [kips] x 10

Floor number [-]

L42

Floor number [-]

Floor number [-]

MCE

PEERTBI-1CM

B4
0

L27
L22
L17
L12

1B has 20% more core

shear force
than 1A and
L7
1C.
L2

0.5
1
1.5
2
4
Core shear H1 [kips] x 10

B4
0

0.5
1
1.5
2
4
Core shear H1 [kips] x 10

Demand vs. Capacity

Normalized probability density function (pdf):
-3

6
5

x 10

Demand
Capacity

Let X = C - D
When X < 0

Failure.

pdf [-]

4
3

D>C

Using basic
probability theory:
X = C - D

X = (C2 + D2)
1
0
Maximum shear force [kips]

Safety index
P(system failure) = P(X):
-3

3.5

Probability of failure

x 10

X = X
3

pdf [-]

2.5

X=
0

XX, where X = the safety index.

1.5
1
0.5

Area under the curve = probability of failure.

0
-100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

X

Reserved capacity Wall 2 shear stress (MCE)

PEERTBI-1AM Wall 2

PEERTBI-1BM Wall 2

50

x =
1.7

MCE
45

50

x = 1.4

MCE
45

40

40

35

35

35

30
25
20

Floor Number [-]

40

Floor Number [-]

Floor Number [-]

45

PEERTBI-1CM Wall 2

50

30
25
20

25
20

15

15

10

10

10

0
0.5
1
X - reserved strength [ksi]

0
-0.5

0
0.5
1
1.5
X - reserved strength [ksi]

MCE

30

15

0
-0.5

x = 6.0

0
0

0.5
1
1.5
2
X - reserved strength [ksi]

Structural response (MCE)

PEERTBI-1BM

PEERTBI-1AM

MCE

MCE

L42

L42

L37

L37

L37

L32

L32

L32

L27
L22

Floor number [-]

L42

Floor number [-]

Floor number [-]

MCE

PEERTBI-1CM

L27
L22

L27
L22

L17

L17

L17

L12

L12

L12

L7

L7

L7

L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

Structural response (MCE)

PEERTBI-1AM

PEERTBI-1BM
MCE

MCE

L43

L43

L38

L38

L38

L33

L33

L33

L28
L23
L18

Floor number [-]

L43

Floor number [-]

Floor number [-]

MCE

PEERTBI-1CM

L28
L23
L18

L28
L23
L18

L13

L13

L13

L8

L8

L8

L3

L3

L3

B3
0

2
4
6
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

B3
0

2
4
6
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

B3
0

2
4
6
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

Structural response (MCE)

PEERTBI-1AM

PEERTBI-1BM
MCE

MCE

L43

L43

L38

L38

L38

L33

L33

L33

L28
L23
L18

Floor number [-]

L43

Floor number [-]

Floor number [-]

MCE

PEERTBI-1CM

L28
L23
L18

L28
L23
L18

L13

L13

L13

L8

L8

L8

L3

L3

L3

B3
0

0.5
1
1.5
WallStrain01 [%]

B3
0

0.5
1
1.5
WallStrain01 [%]

B3
0

0.5
1
1.5
WallStrain01 [%]

Structural response (MCE)

PEERTBI-1BM

PEERTBI-1AM

MCE

MCE

L43

L43

L38

L38

L38

L33

L33

L33

L28
L23
L18

Floor number [-]

L43

Floor number [-]

Floor number [-]

MCE

PEERTBI-1CM

L28
L23
L18

L28
L23
L18

L13

L13

L13

L8

L8

L8

L3

L3

L3

B3

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05

WallStrain01 [%]

B3

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05

WallStrain01 [%]

B3

-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05

WallStrain01 [%]

Amplitude scaled vs. synthetic motions

PEERTBI-1CM

PEERTBI-1BM

PEERTBI-1AM

OVE - Scaled GM
L43
L38
L33
L28
L23
L18
L13
L8
L3
B3
0

L43
L38
L33
L28
L23
L18
L13
L8
L3
B3
0

L43
L38
L33
L28
L23
L18
L13
L8
L3
B3
0

2
3
4
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

2
3
4
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

2
3
4
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

OVE - Simulated GM

L43
L38
L33
L28
L23
L18
L13
L8
L3
B3
0

2
3
4
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

L43
L38
L33
L28
L23
L18
L13
L8
L3
B3
0

2
3
4
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

L43
L38
L33
L28
L23
L18
L13
L8
L3
B3
0

2
3
4
NodeXYZ-ISDRatioH1 [%]

Amplitude scaled vs. synthetic motions

PEERTBI-1CM

PEERTBI-1BM

PEERTBI-1AM

OVE - Scaled GM
L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
B4
0

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
B4
0

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
B4
0

0.5
1
1.5
SectionCore-ForceH1 [kips]

0.5
1
1.5
SectionCore-ForceH1 [kips]

0.5
1
1.5
SectionCore-ForceH1 [kips]

OVE - Simulated GM

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
B4
0

x 10

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
B4
0

x 10

2
4

x 10

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
B4
0

0.5
1
1.5
SectionCore-ForceH1 [kips]

0.5
1
1.5
SectionCore-ForceH1 [kips]

0.5
1
1.5
SectionCore-ForceH1 [kips]

2
4

x 10

2
4

x 10

2
4

x 10

Amplitude scaled vs. synthetic motions

PEERTBI-1CM

PEERTBI-1BM

PEERTBI-1AM

OVE - Scaled GM

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
0

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
0

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

4
CB1D [%]

4
CB1D [%]

OVE - Simulated GM

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

L42
L37
L32
L27
L22
L17
L12
L7
L2
0

4
CB1D [%]

Summary and conclusions

A 42-story residential concrete core wall building was
designed using three design procedures.
The response of the structures under 5 levels of
earthquake shaking was analyzed.
Structural design:
Wall thickness: 1A < 1B < 1C
Wall vertical reinforcement: 1A < 1B < 1C
Coupling beam reinforcement: 1C < 1A ~ 1B
Structural period: 1C < 1B < 1A
Structural response:
Wall stress safety index: 1B < 1A < 1C
Coupling beam demand: 1A < 1B < 1C
Inter-story drift and wall edge strain: 1C < 1B < 1A

Summary and conclusions

Amplitude scaled motions vs. simulated motions:
Story drift: No significant difference.
Core wall forces: No significant difference.
Coupling beam rotation: Amplitude scaled > simulated.
This leads to the need for additional research to
identify the characteristic of the ground motion
which promotes the inelastic action in the
coupling beams.

Thank you Question?

for your attention!

Contact information:
Tony Yang
yang@civil.ubc.ca
http://peer.berkeley.edu/~yang