THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)

Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.434

CASE STUDY USING THE LOS ANGELES TALL BUILDINGS

STRUCTURAL DESIGN COUNCIL GUIDELINES: 40-STOREY
CONCRETE CORE WALL BUILDING

ATILA ZEKIOGLU, MICHAEL WILLFORD, LIMIN JIN AND MURAT MELEK*

Arup, Los Angeles, USA

SUMMARY
Los Angeles Tall Building Design Council (LATBDC) 2005 guidelines for analysis and design of tall buildings
are utilized for the design of a 40 storey tall reinforced concrete building located in downtown Los Angeles. The
case study structure is a 415 feet tall reinforced concrete residential building with 118 feet by 96 feet plan area.
Lateral load carrying system of the building is bearing walls coupled with 32 to 60 inches deep spandrel beams.
Gravity system consists of 8″ thick post-tensioned concrete flat slabs resting on reinforced concrete gravity
columns and bearing walls. Linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures were followed using 475 and 2,475
year return period seismic events respectively. Design of core wall segments and spandrel beams connecting the
segments together were controlled by both of these seismic hazard levels and analysis procedures. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis of the 40 storey building showed inelastic flexural response at the spandrel beams over the
building height in addition to the first few levels of the core wall segments. As intended, recorded component
deformations were within the collapse prevention performance limits set by FEMA 356. The case study results
highlight a significant limitation for Step 2 (Life Safety for DBE) to demonstrate achievement of ‘life safety’.
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) guidelines for analysis and design
of tall buildings are utilized for the design of a 40-storey tall reinforced concrete building located in
downtown Los Angeles. The case study structure is a 415-feet tall reinforced concrete residential
building with 118 × 96 feet plan area (Figure 1). Typical storey height is 10 feet with a 20-feet high
lobby level.
Lateral load carrying system of the building is bearing walls coupled with 32- to 60-inch deep
spandrel beams. The gravity system consists of 8-inch-thick post-tensioned concrete flat slabs resting
on reinforced concrete gravity columns and bearing walls.
The building has three levels of basement, and the foundation sits on a bedrock stratum with allow-
able bearing capacity of 12 ksf. Site class is given as type D in accordance with Uniform Building
Code, 1997 (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997) edition, and California Building
Code, 2001 (California Buildings Standards Commission, 2001) edition.

* Correspondence to: Murat Melek, Arup 12777 W Jefferson Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA, USA 90066. E-mail: murat.
melek@arup.com

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

584 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

Figure 1. Building plan

2. DESIGN BASIS
2.1 Gravity loads
Gravity loads are given by case study guidelines and are in accordance with the 2002 Los Angeles
Building Code 2002 Los Angeles Building Code (California Buildings Standards Commission, 2002).
Gravity load values used are shown in Table 1.

2.2 Seismic loads

2.2.1 Service-level earthquake
Per LATBSDC alternative design guidelines, a designed building is required to remain serviceable
when subjected to frequent earthquake (50% probability of exceedance in 30 years). Three pairs of
50% probability of exceedance in 50 years time histories are provided (Figure 2). However, service-
level evaluation has not been undertaken at this stage of the study.

2.2.2 Design-basis earthquake (DBE)

Site-specific design response spectrum function with 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years
(Figure 3) was used for the design of the structure. Response spectrum function was reduced with an

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 585

Table 1. Gravity loads

Superimposed dead load (psf) Live load (psf)

Roof 40 25
Residential 28 40
Lobby 40 100
Garage 5 50*
* Or concentrated load of 2000 pounds acting on an area of 20 square
inches.
An additional load of 15 psf (cladding load) is applied on exterior
surfaces.

0.4
Chi Chi - TCU087
0.2
Acceleration (g)

-0.2

-0.4
0.4

Loma Prieta - Gilroy Array No 6

0.2
Acceleration (g)

-0.2

-0.4
0.4

Northridge - Century City North

0.2
Acceleration (g)

-0.2 EW - 90deg
NS - 0 deg

-0.4

0 20 40 60 80
t (sec)

Figure 2. Serviceability Level Earthquake (SE) acceleration time histories

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
586 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

1.4

1.2

Spectral Acceleration (g) 1

R=1
0.8

0.6

0.4
R = 4.5

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec)

Figure 3. Ten percent in 50 years site-specific design spectrum (5% damping)

R of 4.5 (concrete bearing wall system) and was checked against a minimum design base shear of
0·03 W.

2.2.3 Maximum considered earthquake (MCE)

An extremely rare event with 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (with deterministic limit)
is the final seismic evaluation step. The structure is required to satisfy collapse prevention limits set
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356 provisions. Seven time history pairs are
provided for the rare event analysis (Figure 4). Fault parallel direction is assumed to be parallel with
gridlines A through E (Figure 5). Resultant response spectrum functions are also shown in Figure 6.

2.3 Wind forces

Wind forces were calculated according to American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-05
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The sample building was assumed to be
in exposure B.

3. ANALYSIS MODELS
3.1 Elastic model for design-basis event
An ETABS (Version 9.1.6; Computers and Structures, Inc., 2007a) model was created for the elastic
analysis of the sample building (Figure 7). Member stiffness properties were adjusted in accordance
with effective stiffness values given in table 6-5 of FEMA 356 provisions.
The fundamental period of the building was calculated as 3·0 and 3·5 s in principal directions.
Table 2 and Figure 8(a) summarize the modal analysis findings.
The ETABS model was subjected to gravity loads (section 2·1), DBE site-specific response spectrum
function (section 2.2.2) and ASCE 7-05 design wind forces. 1997 Uniform Building Code live load

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 587
1.2

0.8 Chi Chi

TCU087

Acceleration (g)
0.4

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2
1.2

0.8 Denali
TAPS Pump Station No 9

Acceleration (g)
0.4

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2
1.2

0.8 Loma Prieta

Corralitos
Acceleration (g)

0.4

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2
1.2

0.8 Loma Prieta

Gilroy Array No 6
Acceleration (g)

0.4

-0.4
Fault Parallel
-0.8 Fault Normal

-1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

t (sec)

1.2
Morgan Hill
0.8 Anderson Dam
Acceleration (g)

0.4

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2
1.2

0.8 Northridge
Century City North
Acceleration (g)

0.4

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2
1.2

0.8 Erzincan
Acceleration (g)

0.4

-0.4
Fault Parallel
-0.8 Fault Normal

-1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

t (sec)

Figure 4. MCE acceleration time histories

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
588 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

Wind Forces

Fault Normal Direction

Fault Parallel Direction

Fault
Figure 5. Fault normal and parallel directions

2.5
Chi Chi

Denali
2 Erzincan

Loma Prieta, Corralitos

Total Acceleration (g)

1.5 Loma Prieta, Gilroy Array

Morgan Hill

Northridge
1

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T (seconds)

Figure 6. MCE elastic response spectrum, two-dimensional resultant

reduction factors were used for the design of the axial members including gravity columns and bearing
walls (Table 3).
The seismic weight of the building was calculated to be around 78 000 kips. Per LATBSDC Alter-
native Design Guidelines, the minimum base shear was 3% of the seismic weight (0·03 W). This
corresponded to 2334 kips for the case study building. Linear response spectrum analysis of the build-
ing, using DBE seismic hazard reduced with a ductility factor of 4·5, yielded base shears of 0·059 and
0·054 W in both principal directions (Figure 8(b)). Figure 9 presents storey shear and overturning

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 589

Figure 7. ETABS model

Table 2. Modal analysis results (using Ritz vectors)

Mode Period (s)

1 3·88
2 3·18
3 1·14
4 0·79
5 0·66
6 0·43
7 0·32
8 0·29
9 0·25
10 0·18

moments due to ASCE 7-05 wind forces. Wind-induced forces were around 40% of the applied seismic
forces.

3.2 Nonlinear model for maximum considered event

Nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed per LATBSDC Alternative Analysis and Design Procedure.
Perform 3D Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment software (Version 4; Computers and
Structures, Inc., 2006) is used for this task (Figure 10).
As mentioned in the preceding pages, lateral load-resisting system of the sample building consists
of bearing walls coupled with link (spandrel) beams. Conventional structural analysis programmes
(e.g., SAP, ETABS) do not allow nonlinear modelling of the shell elements. Hence, a general approach
to model nonlinear response of shear wall segments is utilizing linear elastic beam–column elements
which represents flexural and shear sectional properties of the considered segment. Then, plastic hinges
are placed where nonlinearity is expected (or forced). The plastic hinge length is given as the smaller

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
590 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

(a)

450 450

400 400

350 350

300 300

250 250
z (ft)

z (ft)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

-50 -50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0.0E+00 5.0E+05 1.0E+06
Story Shear (kips) Overturning Moment (kip-ft)

X Direction Y Direction X Direction Y Direction

(b)

Figure 8. (a) Mode shapes. (b) DBE response spectrum analysis storey shear and overturning moments

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 591

Table 3. Structural weight and gravity loads

First floor gravity Foundation gravity

forces (kips) forces (kips)
Self-weight 63 696 103 730
Superimposed dead load 11 604 15 118
Cladding 2504 2504
Unreduced live load 16 187 30 245
Reduced live load 6475 12 098

450 450

400 400

350 350

300 300

250 250
z (ft)

z (ft)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05
Story Shear (kips) Story Moment (kip-ft)

X Direction Y Direction X Direction Y Direction

Figure 9. Storey shear and overturning moment due to ASCE 7-05 design wind forces

of one-storey height, 50% of the element length for the wall segments and 0·5 times the flexural depth
of the element by FEMA 356. Although this approach is easy to implement, it makes it difficult to
assess the real structural performance of the structural members (e.g., strain distribution along the wall
height, wall segment rotations, etc.). For a better assessment of how the tower is going to react when
subjected to the performance-level earthquakes, a more detailed approach is necessary.
It is possible to increase the accuracy of the model without going into very detailed analysis
such as finite element modelling. CSI software Perform3D allows nonlinear modelling of the
core wall using wall elements which eliminates the need to use frame elements to model the wall
segments. These elements are defined by a number of fibres along the wall length which are assigned
to nonlinear material models. In turn, shear wall elements have both nonlinear moment–curvature
and axial force–axial deformation relationships. In addition, if nonlinear shear force–deformation
behaviour is expected, it is possible to include nonlinear shear response of the shell element in
the model (Figure 11).

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
592 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

Figure 10. Perform three-dimensional model

Coupling (Link) Beam

Floor Slab (Effective Beam
with Plastic Flexural
Width Element) with Plastic
Hinges at Both Ends
Flexural Hinges at Both Ends

Strain Gauge

Beam-Column Element with Rigid Link Member

P-M-M Hinges at Both Ends

Wall Elements (Fibre Section with

Nonlinear Concrete and Steel Material)

Figure 11. Components of the nonlinear model

3.2.1 Material models

Nonlinear material models are defined either using elastic-perfectly plastic or piecewise trilinear
stress–strain relationships. Two concrete grades (6 and 8 ksi) were specified for the sample building.
Considering the expected strength per FEMA 356, two concrete stress–strain relationships with com-
pressive strengths of 7·8 and 10·4 ksi were incorporated into the Perform 3D model. Per section 6.4.3.1
of FEMA 356, maximum usable compressive strain is given as 0·005.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 593

3.2.2 Structural components

3.2.2.1 Core wall and coupling beams
The core wall measured 36 × 50 feet with thicknesses varying from 30 to 18 inches along the building
height. It consisted of T-shaped and C-shaped segments coupled with each other with spandrel beams.
For the nonlinear analysis, wall segments were modelled using fibre wall sections. Strong axis flexural
and axial load deformation relationships were calculated by the software using user-specified nonlin-
ear material models discussed in section 3.2.1 of this report. In addition, the programme has the
capability of incorporating elastic or nonlinear shear force–deformation relationships into the wall
element. Provided that shear–flexure interaction is not significant, this option helps to increase the
accuracy of the model. Wall segments were detailed such that inelastic shear response of the segments
was avoided. Calculated shear demands were lower than the capacity of the wall segments; hence,
elastic shear behaviour was assigned to the wall members.
Nonlinear shear wall fibre sections were used over the entire height of the building in order to
account for cracking. However, the number of fibres in each section was reduced along the height to
decrease computation time of the model. Nonlinear analysis of the building showed that inelastic
flexural response of the wall segments was evident for up to four storeys.
Per ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318, 2005) section 21.7.6.3, special boundary elements are
required where compressive stresses due to design forces exceed 0·2f’c. This requirement led to con-
sidering all of the wall segments at the lower levels as special boundary elements. These elements
were continued up to the height where compressive stresses were less than or equal to 0·15f’c.
Coupling beams were included in the model as linear beam–column elements with plastic moment–
rotation hinges at the beam end locations. Due to high shear demand on the coupling beam members,
shear deformations were monitored to take into account the possible shear deformations.
Typical coupling beams have a span over depth ratio of 2·25. In addition to that, elastic analysis of
the structure revealed shear stress demands in excess of 4 fc′ . However, relatively low level of span
over depth ratio makes the use of diagonal reinforcement inefficient. As a result, coupling beams have
been heavily reinforced with transverse shear reinforcement with the exception of lobby-level link
beams.

3.2.2.2 Gravity columns

Fourteen columns were placed around the perimeter of the typical floor plan. Four sizes of columns
24 × 24, 28 × 28, 32 × 32 and 36 × 36 inches were used along the building height. Gravity columns
were modelled as Perform 3D FEMA 356 column elements. These elements consisted of linear
beam–column elements with plastic hinges on both ends of the member. Plastic hinge properties
included yield and ultimate bending moment capacities for any given axial load.

3.2.2.3 Post-tensioned and Reinforced Concrete (RC) slabs

Typical floor system consists of 8-inch-thick post-tensioned reinforced concrete slab. Elastic analysis
of the structure indicates that floor plates contribute more than 15% to the lateral stiffness of the
structure. As shown on Figure 12, two ETABS models with flexural stiffness of the 8-inch-thick post-
tensioned slabs undergo top lateral displacements of 6·3 and 12·2 inches when subjected to ASCE
7-05 design wind loading with stiffness of the slabs included and excluded, respectively. Henceforth,
slab members are included in the nonlinear model.
Slabs are modelled as effective width beam members with plastic hinges at both ends of the member.
Width of the member is calculated using the equation given by Hwang and Moehle (2000) as

beff = β ⋅ (5 ⋅ c1 + 0 ⋅ 25 ⋅ l1 )

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
594 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

450 450

400 400

350
350

300
300

250
250
z (ft)

z (ft)
200
200
150

150
100

100
50

0 50

-50 0
0 5 10 15 0 0.2 0.4
Lateral Displacement (in.) Diaphragm Drift (%)

Slab Stiffness Considered Slab Stiffness Ignored

Figure 12. Lateral displacement due to design wind forces

b is taken as 1·0 for the post-tensioned floors, and 0·5 for podium- and basement-level reinforced
concrete slabs. c1 and l1 represent column width and span length, respectively, in the direction that is
considered.
For the nonlinear analysis using Perform3D, the contribution of post-tensioning tendons to
the strength and stiffness of the slab was ignored. Considering that tendons are placed in accordance
with the shape of the gravity bending moment diagram, little contribution would be expected
from the tendons under seismic loading. Therefore, moment–rotation properties of the effective
beam width members were calculated considering the typical slab reinforcement. When calculating
properties of the plastic moment–rotation hinges, a total longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0·5%
was used.

4. NONLINEAR ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nonlinear time history analysis results were investigated in several aspects. Core wall flexural and
shear response was particularly critical. Flexural response of the wall segments was evaluated using
the strain gages included in the model. As shown in Table 4, measured strains are lower than the usable
strain limits (Figure 13). Shear strength of the core wall segments, namely, amount of shear reinforce-
ment are controlled by this level of analysis. Shear reinforcement of core wall segments were sized
and spaced considering the MCE-level shear demands.
Another important component of the lateral load-resisting system is the coupling beams connecting
the wall segments together. Flexural yielding was observed on most of these coupling beams. However,
measured end rotations were within the collapse prevention performance limit for the MCE-level
seismic hazard (Table 5). Shear forces due to MCE-level seismic event controlled the amount of shear

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 595

8.00E-03

6.00E-03

4.00E-03
Axial Strain

2.00E-03

0.00E+00

-2.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-6.00E-03

Figure 13. Sample axial load strain reading

Table 4. Core wall measured axial strain

Core wall measured strain

Maximum (tension) Minimum (compression)

Average strain 0·0066 −0·0019
Maximum strain 0·0085 −0·0025

Table 5. Spandrel beam end rotations

Average end rotation—total (rad)

FEMA 356 collapse Prevention
Group Maximum Minimum limit—plastic (rad)
Spandrel group 1 0·013 0·012 0·020
Spandrel group 2 0·016 0·015 0·020
Spandrel group 3 0·018 0·016 0·020

reinforcement that was put into the coupling beams. Contribution of concrete to the shear capacity
was ignored considering that the beams would get into tension during the earthquake.
As explained in section 3.2.2.3, post-tensioned slabs were included in the model as effective width
beam elements. Analysis results indicate that measured end rotations are within allowable limits set
by FEMA 356 collapse prevention limits. All gravity columns satisfy the collapse prevention perfor-
mance objective.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
596 A. ZEKIOGLU ET AL.

450

400

350

300
Height (ft)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Story Shear (kips) (X Direction)

Figure 14. Storey shear distribution

Finally, Figure 14 presents the average shear envelope over the building height. Calculated base
shear corresponds to approximately 18% of the seismic weight of the building which is substantially
higher than the DBE level seismic hazard.
Linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures were followed using 475- and 2475-year return
period seismic events, respectively. Design of core wall segments and spandrel beams connecting the
segments together was controlled by both of these seismic hazard levels and analysis procedures.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis of the 40-storey building showed inelastic flexural response at the spandrel
beams over the building height in addition to the first few levels of the core wall segments. Nonlinear
response history (NLRH) analysis controlled the shear design of the core wall segments and coupling
beams. As intended, recorded component deformations were within the collapse prevention perfor-
mance limits set by FEMA 356.

5. FINDINGS
Case study results highlight the importance of Step 3 NLRH analysis. Confirmation of ‘collapse pre-
vention’, for MCE hazard, can be demonstrated per Step 3 NLRH analysis. In addition, Step 3 NLRH
analysis identifies significant non-conservatism with Step 2 Linear Elastic Approach and non-conser-
vatism with R factors per code. This is due to the limitation of the Step 2 Linear Elastic Analysis
Approach which cannot capture dynamic amplification. Case study results show that confirmation of
‘life safety’ performance, for DBE hazard, cannot be demonstrated simply by completing Step 2 for
a tall building. Life safety may be demonstrated explicitly through NLRH for the DBE hazard or may
be implied by satisfactory collapse prevention performance for MCE.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 CASE STUDY USING LATBSDC GUIDELINES 597

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318. 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-05).
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, 430.
California Buildings Standards Commission. 2001. 2001 California Building Code, Part 2, Vol. 2. Sacramento,
CA.
California Buildings Standards Commission. 2002. 2002 Los Angeles Building Code ICBO 2002.
Computers and Structures, Inc. 2006. Perform 3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D
Structures User Guide, Version 4. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
Computers and Structures, Inc. 2007a. ETABS, Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems Software, Nonlinear
Version 9.1.6. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
Hwang S, Moehle JP. 2000. Models for laterally loaded slab-column frames. ACI Structural Journal 97(2):
345–353.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. Uniform Building Code, Vol. 2. Whittier, CA.
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council. 2005. An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and
Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region Los Angeles Tall Buildings, Structural Design
Council Los Angeles 27.

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 16, 583–597 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/tal