This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Naveed Anwar

CEO AIT Consulting Bangkok, Thailand

**Thaung Htut Aung
**

Projects Coordinator AIT Consulting Bangkok, Thailand

Deepak Rayamajhi

External ernal Consultant AIT Consulting Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract

The case study building is 50-story 50 tower (about 166.8 meters above the ground level) and 3½story of below grade parking (extending approximately 13 m below the grade). The tower consists mainly of residential units, and a terrace and amenity deck. The ground level contains retail and back of the house space. This is the Phase 1 of the entire project which is comprised of three towers, connecting at the podium level (2nd floor level). The total floor area for Phase 1 is approximately 79,000 m2. It is a reinforced concrete building, which is laterally braced by ductile core wall system together with buckling restrained braces. Firstly, the preliminary design is performed against Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) (as defined by ASCE 7-05) 05) in accordance with the code based design procedures. Then, building is designed by performance formance based approach against the seismic hazard which is likely to happen, so that predictable and safe performance is achieved. Two levels of performance are checked; Serviceable/Operational Level performance under 43 43-year year return period earthquake (50% probability of exceedance in 30 years) and Collapse Prevention Level performance under Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with 2475-year 2475 year return period (2% of probability of exceedance in 50 years). Response spectrum analysis is conducted for Design Basis Basis Earthquake Level and Service Level response spectra. For the evaluation against collapse during extremely rare events, nonlinear time history analysis is performed for the site specific ground motion records. Average of seven ground motion approach is used used to check the demands in the primary structural members of the lateral force resisting system. Keywords: Maximum Considered onsidered Earthquake, Design Basis Earthquake arthquake, Service/Frequent

resting on the mat foundation. The building has 3½-story of below grade parking. gravity columns and post-tensioned flat slabs are utilized for gravity load resisting system. Reinforced concrete bearing walls. repairs are required and may not be economically feasible Design Approach To demonstrate that the design is capable of providing code equivalent seismic performance. Site specific response spectrum for DBE .earthquake. elastic response spectrum analysis and design are performed in accordance with the code based design approach by using appropriate load factors and strength reduction factors against the gravity loads. Fig.step analysis and design procedure is performed. connected by the buckling restrained braces. extensive repairs may be required Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural damage. 1: Building Plan Seismic Performance Objectives The specific performance objectives for the design of the building for three levels of earthquake hazards are shown in the following table. Section 11. 2. The lateral load resisting system consists of reinforced concrete bearing wall coupled with outrigger columns.8 meters (50-story) tall above the ground level with 11x11 meter plan area. Ductile behaviour. Philippines. wind load and seismic load. 5% damping Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE): 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year return period).4. It is built of reinforced concrete and 166. 2 to 3% damping Seismic Performance Objective Serviceability: Structure to remain essentially elastic with minor damage to structural and non-structural elements Code Level: Moderate structural damage. Brittle behaviour Introduction The case study tower is a residential tower located in Makati City. Table 1: Performance Objectives Level of Earthquake Frequent/Service: 50% probability of exceedance in 30 years (43-year return period). a three. Performance Based Design. Step 1 – Preliminary design phase Step 2 – Serviceability check Step 3 – Collapse prevention check at MCE Level Preliminary Design Phase In this phase.5% damping Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): As defined by ASCE 7.

coupling beam and shear wall capacity ratios are checked against the demands resulting from the response spectrum analysis using service level response spectrum with 43-year return period.level is used for the preliminary design phase. The design wind speed for the case study building is 200 kph and the exposure type is B. In addition to the uniform slab loads. The initial design is modified as required in order to meet the acceptance criteria. Live loads are reduced where permitted in accordance with Section 4. . The following structural elements are checked in anticipation of non-linear response: Core wall coupling beams Core wall flexural response Slab Outrigger beam The following structural elements are checked to remain essentially elastic during the non-linear response history analysis: Core wall shear Diaphragms Basement walls Foundations Columns Loading Criteria Gravity Load The minimum loading requirements have been taken from Table 4-1 of ASCE 7-05. Serviceability Check Primary response characteristics such as story drift. Seismic Load Frequent/Service Level Earthquake For the performance evaluation at Service Level seismic hazard. Structural components to be remained elastic are designed by applying the appropriate amplification factors. the following service level site specific response spectrum is used. Collapse Prevention Check at MCE Level Design verification is performed by non-linear response history analysis (NLRHA) against the MCE level earthquakes. Wind Load Wind load is determined in accordance with ASCE 7-05. a superimposed dead load is applied along the perimeter of plan to account for the weight of the cladding system.8 of ASCE 7-05.

0. Average of demands from seven ground motions approach is used for f design evaluation at MCE level.5 computational platform. . For the MCE level performance evaluation.Fig. The modelling and analysis of building for evaluation and design at Service Level earthquake and DBE level are carried out in ETABS 9. 3: Response Spectrum for Fault Normal and Fault Parallel Earthquakes at MCE Level Modelling and Analysis Tools A complete full three-dimensional dimensional finite element model is created which includes the tower and the whole podium.4) computational platform. 2: Response Spectrum at Service Level Earthquake arthquake (2. nonlinear three three-dimensional dimensional model is created in PERFORM-3D (Version ersion 4. An elastic model is created with the specified material properties and appropriate stiffness modifiers for the structural components. Fig.5% damping) Maximum Considered Earthquake arthquake Level Seven pairs of site specific ground motions are used to conduct the nonlinear response history analysis. The response spectra of seven ground motions are shown in figures figure below.

two parallel fibre sections are used to model the shear wall. Reinforcing Steel In nonlinear model. Since deep beams are dominated by shear behaviour. reinforcing steel material is modelled with tri-linear backbone curve. and second one is slender beam having span to depth ratio of 4. The deep coupling beam is modeled with elastic frame section with a nonlinear shear hinge located at mid span of the element. The shear capacity of diagonal reinforcement is calculated based on formula provided in ACI 318-08.Material Models Concrete In nonlinear model. In PERFORM 3D.15 times nominal strength and the ultimate strength is estimated as 1. 4: Fibre Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Coupling Beam In this building. PERFORM-3D shear wall element is used to model the nonlinear behavior of shear wall. they are modelled for shear deformation controlled while the slender beams are modelled for flexural deformation controlled.5 times expected strength with approximately 1% of strain hardening.9 (span/depth < 4). Yield strength is taken as 1. effect of confinements is taken into account for the compressive strength and ductility of concrete. Material cyclic hysteretic degradation is not considered in the model. Mander’s (1994) confinement model is used to determine the confinement effect. Basically. The capacity of the shear hinge is calculated based on the diagonal reinforcements. Shear behaviour in the wall is modelled with elastic material properties.16EIg. The elastic stiffness of the deep beams is reduced to 0. For the uniformly distributed steel. The first fibre section consists of only uniformly distributed steel (Steel only) and the second fibre section consists of both concrete and boundary zone steel reinforcement. two types of coupling beams are present. autosize fiber elements are used whereas for latter one. The . Fig. fixed size fibre elements are used. Tensile strength of concrete is neglected. concrete material is modelled with tri-linear backbone curve. First one is deep beam having span to depth ratio of 1.3 span/depth > 4). Shear Wall Fiber modeling technique is used to model the flexural behavior of the core wall.

Two different levels of designed forces are used for the BRBs in this building. The capacities of these members are checked against the forces extracted from MCE analysis.7 EIg and 0. Furthermore. Analysis Results Modal Analysis The natural periods of the building are 5.5EIg. Support/ Foundation The base of the reinforced concrete shear wall is modeled as pinned at the location of mat whereas the columns and basement walls are modeled as fixed support. BRBs can reduce the base shear in the building by dissipating the energy. principal minor.75 s and 4. for this analysis. Buckling Restrained Braces BRBs are used in the main lateral force resisting system in order to enhance the performance of the building. the slabs are modeled without rigid floor diaphragm.23rd floor and another from 43rd . The deformations capacities are taken from ASCE 41-06 for the flexural coupling beams. However. Moreover. The slab is not modeled for the tower portion. 16 BRBs are used in the building. The moment capacity of the slab beam is calculated based on the reinforcement in the slab. The elastic stiffness of the columns and girders are reduced to 0. However. At the podium and basements level. the stiffness of the ground floor and below–grade diaphragms are reduced to 0. the basement walls are also restrained by lateral springs in the lateral direction to take into account the restraining effect of lateral soil. Floor Slab In the tower portion.5EIg. One is from level 19th .23rd floor and rests are at 43rd .40 and . Eight BRB’s are located at 19th . The capacity of the moment-curvature hinges are calculated based on the longitudinal reinforcements provided in the beams.5Ig respectively. the performance of the moment hinges is not specifically reviewed. the floor is modeled as rigid floor diaphragm.47th floor. equivalent “slab outrigger beams” are modeled in order to study impact of slab to core and column only.33 times of the yielding capacity.86 s in principal directions with 0. The elastic stiffness of the slender beams is reduced to 0. The elastic flexural stiffness of the slabs and equivalent slab-beams are reduced to 0.1 Ag. The intended benefits of using BRB in this building are to reduce the story drifts and lateral displacement as well as to participate in the outriggering effect on the overturning moment in the tower. In order to consider the flexibility of the diaphragm.ultimate point is taken as the 1. Moment-curvature type of hinge is used to model nonlinearity in the slab-beam. Slab outrigger beams are modeled with nonlinear hinges at both the ends of the beam. Slabs in the podium and basement are modeled using shell element. The slender coupling beam is modeled with two moment hinges placed at the ends of the beam. Columns and Girders The columns and girders are modelled as elastic frame member.47th floor.

The seismic weight of the tower above the podium level is 616.) 21.691 47.56 3.0. showing the dominance of first modes in each principal direction. .) DBE level (Along principal minor dir. The base shear is calculated above the podium level and considered the tower portion only. Furthermore. Story Shear and Story Moment Story shears and story moment distributions are nearly triangular shape.012 22.900 kN.76 7. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Fig. Table 2: Base Shear Comparison Load Cases Base Shear (KN) DBE level (Along principal major dir.84 7.462 % of Weight 3.42 modal participating mass ratios.53 Seismic It is found that the base shear calculated from the MCE analysis in average is approximately two times higher than DBE level base shear.) MCE level (Along principal minor dir. the story shear at the basement level is generally decreased in most of the time history except some time histories where the story shear has increased. 5: Mode Shapes Base Shear The base shear is compared between DBE level response spectrum analysis and average of MCE level nonlinear response history analysis in the following table.) MCE level (Along principal major dir. This may happened due to the irregular distributions of basement walls and supports.892 46.

Y x Fig. 7: Story Moment Story Drifts The average story drifts distribution is higher in minor direction than major direction. earthquakes . The maximum story drifts envelopes for both principal directions are less than 3% which is acceptable limit against MCE level earthquakes. 6: Story Shear Y x Fig.

Moreover. idelines. Furthermore. 8: Story Drift Axial Strain Shear Wall The flexural capacity of shear wall is evaluated evaluated in terms of the yielding of steel and crushing of concrete materials.8% in each principal direction. which is typical in high rise buildings. shear walls in flexure and shear and buckling restrained re braces in axial direction are within the elastic limit.x Y Fig. it seems that choosing the R factor of 6 for the design purpose is a good estimation for the code based design of this . however. evaluation. the dynamic base shear calculated from the average of seven time histories is approximately two times higher than the design base shear. Findings Service Level Performance At service level earthquake. The response of the columns and coupling beams in shear and moment. MCE Level Performance The design base shear (shear calculated above the podium) is approximately 3. The compression strain of MCE analysis is increased by 2 times and compared with the limit mit set in the performance criteria.5%.5% and 3. The strain in steel fibre and concrete fibre are checked against the acceptable strain limits. There are a few elements in which the demand exceeds the capacity such as deep coupling b beams eams shear. which is higher than the minimum limit of 3%. from the above seismic performance evaluation. The capacity of each element at service level is higher than the corresponding demand in the element. which is permissible. set by the LATBSDCLATBSDC 2008 guidelines. all storey drifts are less than 0.

All the columns including the outrigger columns remain essentially elastic under MCE earthquake.building. is within the acceptable limit. 2008. “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located Los Angeles Region”. the limit set by ASCE41. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-08)”. From the storey shear and storey moment plots of seven time histories. 2008. Flexural deformation capacity of shear wall. From these results. and indicates that all the BRBs satisfy the performance criteria. evaluated by the axial strain of the fibres. American Concrete Institute Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council. all the BRB’s have ductility demand less than 9. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council . References [7] [8] ACI Committee 318. it seems that higher modes are not significantly affecting response. On average. in average the results demonstrate that the building is mainly dominated by first fundamental modes in both X and y direction.

- Investor Handbook
- รวยหุ้นด้วยกราฟ
- ML16 แผนเกษียณรวย
- Modern Railway Track
- Rail.vibrations.A4
- Ansys Structural Analys Guide.pdf
- API Norsok Standardise for Well Intervention Equipment
- [04093] - Design of Anchor Reinforcement in Concrete Pedestals.pdf
- Advanced Foundation.pdf
- [4122] - Reinforced Concrete Frame Connections Rehabilitated by Jacketing.pdf
- [04093] - Design of Anchor Reinforcement in Concrete Pedestals.pdf
- [04100] - Tall Buildings - Structural Systems and Aerodynamic Form.pdf
- [04098] - Handbook of Temporary Structures in Construction 2nd - Robert T.Ratay.pdf
- [04093] - Design of Anchor Reinforcement in Concrete Pedestals.pdf
- [04100] - Tall Buildings - Structural Systems and Aerodynamic Form.pdf
- Precast Concrete Structures.pdf
- Tension-leg Platform (Tlp) for Present
- Belenky, Vadim Sevastianov, Nikita B. Stability and Safety of Ships - Risk of Capsizing 2007
- Research Report Dr.chatr Suchinda 2554
- ADAPT TN290 Vibration Analysis
- AFESManual_3
- AFES-Tutorial 02 English 2006-07-20
- Vertical Vessel Fdn Design Guide
- Tank Foundation Design Procedure_english_2006!06!29
- AFES English Manual

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulPerformance based design

Performance based design

- Strength Analysis of Steel Concrete Composite Beam
- Joh+Goto_2000_Beam-column joint behaviour after beam yielding in RC ductile frames
- Computer Aided Design Beam
- Effect of Depth on Shear Capacity of Transfer Beam in High Rise Building Ppt
- Ada 309461
- Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams With Confinement Near Plastic Hinges
- 13_3239
- Ec2 Beam Anf
- Failures Due to Shear
- Information and Pool Etabs Manuals English e Tn Cfd Aci318!99!007
- 268798
- Artigo 1 reforço em vigas de transição
- 3 Restrained Beams - 2012
- Sy,Jose - Shanghai 2012
- Partial Strength 8091
- Table 1
- Strength Enhancement in Concrete Confined by Spirals
- 4b9b9dae-7789-407f-b376-8b24b84d9f7f.pdf
- Study of Reduced Beam Section Connections.pdf
- Composite Columns
- Shear strength
- CRP Workshop 08 Feb 2012 - Structural Members.pdf
- Step by Step Design(Engilish) (1)
- Shear Stresses in Beams PowerPoint Slides (1)
- Capacity Spectrum Method
- 1 - girgin
- SAFE Design Manual
- AECT210 Lecture 29
- Print
- 1. Steel Beam Design
- ACEE-P-136