Special Considerations and Challenges

in Seismic Design of Tall Buildings

Asian Institute of Technology | Thailand
1-2 June 2018
 Buildings and Structures are expected to be

• Safe • Protective
• Secure • Friendly
• Serviceable • Sustainable
• Affordable
• Reliable

• The contents of the structures are often much more

valuable than structure itself

• The loss of service/operations/business is a often larger than

repair costs
2
3

How does CTBUH look at Tall

Relatively Tall.
Both for public and the professions
who design and construct

Proportion
Slenderness, in plan and in
elevations

Systems and Technologies

Uses something “different” than
ordinary buildings

3
 Key Challenges in (Tall) Buildings
• Taller
• Slender
• Twisting
• Unusual forms
• Multi Use
• Changing Plans
• Larger column free spaces
• Smaller Cores
• Minimizing Floor Height
• Minimize floor depth
• Minimize column size
• Minimize structural cost
• Inclined columns
• Free form
• Unusual requests
4
Main Challenges !
Optimizing for one, may de-optimize for others !

Wind
Gravity

emaze.com

Earthquake 5
5
 Focus of the Talk – “Tallness Range”

Low
Rise

<50 m >100 m >150m >200 m >300 m >500 m

6
Source: CTBU Report, 2018
 Main Structural Concerns

01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Stability and Strength and Deformation Drift Ductility Energy Motion
integrity Servivbility Dissipation Perception

7
 • Direct Load Transfer Systems
• Flat Slab and Flat Plate
• Beam-Slab
• Waffle Slab
• Wall Joist
Choosing the • Indirect Load Transfer System
“Right” Gravity Load • Beam, Slab
Resisting System • Girder, Beam, Slab
• Girder, Joist
Least weight
Fast Construction cycle • Materials
Least structural depth • Steel/ Composite Deck
• Reinforced Concrete
• Post-tensioned slab systems

8
 4 Commandments for Lateral Load Systems

1 2 3 4
Resist overturning forces Channel gravity loads to Link these vertical Axial loaded members in
due to lateral loads by those vertical elements elements together with compression to resist
using vertical elements resisting overturning shear-resisting structural overturning forces
placed as far apart as forces elements with minimum
possible shear lag to activate
entire perimeter of the
building

9
10

Wind Load Seismic Load

Depend on Depend on
• Wind speed •focus of earthquake
• terrain •Shaking intesity
• topography of the location •ground conditions
• Force increases with height •Mass and stiffness
• Geometry and exposed area distribution

v üg

A m

 Excitation is an applied pressure or  Excitation is an applied displacement

force on the facade at the base

 force will act mainly on exterior  force will be distributed along interior
frames then transferred to floor and exterior lateral load resisting
diaphragms elements
10
 Basic Physics of Dynamics
• Newton’s View, for rigid bodies

F = ma

11
Structural engineer’s View

𝑀𝑢 + 𝐶𝑢 + 𝐾𝑢 = 𝐹
for linear elastic, deformable bodies

12
Typical Linear Dynamic Response of Tall Building

13
Animation
 Dynamic Equilibrium

Mass-Acceleration Stiffness-Displacement External Force

𝑀𝑢 + 𝐶𝑢 + 𝐾𝑢 + 𝐹𝑁𝐿 = 𝐹

Damping-Velocity Nonlinearity
𝑀𝑢 + 𝐶𝑢 + 𝐾𝑢

The basic variable is displacement and its derivatives

14
Nonlinear and Analysis for PBD

15
 Building Industry relies on Codes and Standards
• Codes Specify requirements
• Give acceptable solutions
• Prescribe (detailed) procedures, rules, limits
• (Mostly based on research and experience but not always rational)

Spirit of the code is

Compliance to
to help ensure Public Safety and
letter of the code is
provide formal/legal basis for design indented to meet the spirit
decisions
16
 Seismic Response

Acceleration Records 𝑀𝑢 + 𝐶𝑢 + 𝐾𝑢 = 𝑀𝑢𝑔 Linear Time History Analysis

Nonlinear
Time History 𝑀𝑢 + 𝐶𝑢 + 𝐾𝑢 + 𝐹𝑁𝐿 = 𝐹
Analysis
Free Vibration Equivalent
Ku  FEQ Static Analysis
𝑀𝑢 + 𝐾𝑢 = 0
Pushover
Ku  FNL  FEQ Analysis

Ku  FEQ Response Spectrum

Analysis
Response Spectrums
17
The “Arbitrary Factors” in Codes

18
 Design for Wind Load
 For most buildings, dynamic wind response may
be neglected
 Gust factor approach  predict dynamic
response of buildings with reasonable accuracy
 Structures are designed to respond elastically
under factored loads
Design for Seismic Effects
 Structures are designed to respond inelastically
under factored loads
 it is not economically feasible to design structures
to respond elastically to earthquake ground
motion
19
 Design for Seismic Effects

 Structures are designed

to respond inelastically
under factored loads

 it is not economically
feasible to design
structures to respond
elastically to earthquake
ground motion

20
 The Problem with R Factor
• The R factor may vary from 2 to 8 45

depending on definition of structure 40

The elastic forces obtained from the
standard RSA procedure
type

Story Level
35
The RSA elastic forces reduced by 𝑅
30
The inelastic forces obtained from the
25
• R factor could “off” by a factor of 2
NLRHA procedure

The underestimation causing a “false

to 4
20
sense of safety” due to directly reducing
the RSA elastic forces by 𝑅 factor
15
The actual reduction in RSA
10 elastic forces. The “reward”
of making a nonlinear model
• Other names for R factor are 5

Response Factor, Behavior Factor 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(q), Structure Type factor (K) etc.,
Introducing AIT Solutions
Story Shear (x106 N)

Fawad Najam, 2017

21
Effect of Modes on Story Moment

22
22
Effect of Modes on Story Shear

23
23
 • All codes have different values of R and other
factors

Are All • If they differ, can all of them be correct ?

Buildings
Codes
• Did we inform the structures to follow which
Correct ? code when earthquake or hurricane strikes ?

• Codes change every 3 or years, should we

upgrade our structures every 3 or 5 years to
conform ?
24
 • Compare Performance of buildings designed
to different codes
• ACI 318-14 + ASCE 7-10
• BS 8110-1997 + EURO-8
• EURO-2-2004 + EURO-8
Code
Comparison for • For low-seismic and high seismic zone
• Manila > Very High
Seismic • Bangkok > Low to medium
Performance
• All produce different level or performance in
different components !!

Two MS Thesis, 2016 at AIT

25
 Shift From Prescriptive to
Performance Based Approach
 A Move Towards Performance-based Approach

• Prescriptive Codes restrict Prescribed

and discourage innovation Objective Requirements
Solution

• Performance Based approach Alternate

encourages and liberates it Objective Requirements
Solution

27
 Design Approaches

>>>

>>

Performance
Based Design
Prescriptive
Code Based
Intuitive Design Design

28
Looking at some Design Challenges

29
Providing (Hiding) the Outriggers

30
 Outrigger Effects

1+1 2

K: 1+1 = 2 K: 1 +1 =8 31
 Reduce Reduce the natural period – Good forwent response

Reduce Reduce top displacement

Reduce Reduce drift

Reduce Reduce moment in shear walls

Follow Follow the All 4 Commandments

Do not reduce Do not reduce shear in shear walls

Need Need space to implement

Effectiveness of Outriggers
32
 Real Vs Virtual Outriggers
• Virtual Outriggers are more acceptable” from
architectural planning and circulation viewpoint
• They are nearly as effective as “real” outriggers

In-direct or “viryual” Outriggers 33

Direct or “real” Outriggers
 Adding Belts

• More even distribution

of axial loads on
perimeter columns

• Reduces possibility of
tension in columns or
foundatons

• Provides virtual
outrigger effect in both
directon
34
Buckling Restraint Braces, BRB

35
BRB – An efficient Outrigger and Damper

36
 Flag Walls – an Alternative to Outriggers

37
Core Only N1-S1 N1-S2 N1-S3 N2-S3 N3-S3
 Flag Walls – an Alternative to Outriggers

38
Core Only Config 1 Config 2 Config 3 Config 4 Config 5
Staggered Walls as Outriggers

39
The Diaphragm Design Challenges

40
Podium Floor
Diaphragm
Behavior

41
Diaphragm Transfer Forces

Large diaphragm transfer forces

should be anticipated at offsets
or discontinuities of the vertical
elements of the seismic-force-
resisting system.

(a) Setback in the building profile

(b) Podium level at grade.

42
Podium and Backstay Effects
Backstay Effects

Title: Effects of podium interference on shear force distributions in tower walls supporting tall buildings
Author: Mehair Yacoubian, Nelson Lam, Elisa Lumantarna, John. L. Wilson, 2017
43
 Typical Diaphragm Components

1 Chord (Diaphragm) 4
Shear Friction
(Support)
Diaphragm
Shear Wall
2 Shear (Diaphragm)
3
Chord (Diaphragm) Collector
(Support)

44
 Realistic Model - Finite Element Model

Shear Walls Shear Walls Shear Walls

• Finite element modeling of a diaphragm can be useful for assessing the force transfer among
vertical elements, force transfer around large openings or other irregularities.

45
EFFECT OF COMMON PODIUM ON
THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
TOWERS

46
 Modeling Options

Single tower Single tower with Single tower with Twin tower with
without podium half podium whole podium whole podium

• Individual design of tower and podium separately in practice

• Restraint of resources such as software, processing time, understanding and references

48
 Problem Statement

Single tower with Twin towers with

Actual Building
whole podium whole podium

UNSAFE Single-tower Single-tower UNECONOMICAL

less than Design Results greater than
Design Multi-tower Multi-tower
Design

• Restraint of resources such as software, processing time, understanding and references

• To study the effect of various options on seismic response estimation
49
Towers and Podiums
50
Effect of Soil-Structure
Interaction on Seismic
Responses of Tall Buildings

51
A
C
Site effects

Soil-structure interaction

52
52
 MODELS

Without SSI With SSI

Fixed-base Code-based FE (Direct Approach)

(Substructure Approach)

Equivalent Linear Equivalent Linear Nonlinear

Model in practice Reference model

53
Model 1 Model 2A Model 2B Model 3A Model 3B
53
Way Forward
Continuous improvements in our
understanding, research, learning and
practice

54
Thank you