See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252477122

The Tall Buildings Initiative

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
12 376

3 authors, including:

Yousef Bozorgnia Tony Yang

University of California, Berkeley University of British Columbia - Vancouver
87 PUBLICATIONS   3,377 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   429 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Basin Effects on Earthquake Ground Motion View project

Engineering Implications of the 2014 South Napa Earthquake Strong Motions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yousef Bozorgnia on 11 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SEAOC 2007 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
The Tall Buildings Initiative
Jack Moehle, PhD, PE; Yousef Bozorgnia, PhD, PE; and T.Y. Yang, PhD
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California
Abstract
Several west coast cities are seeing an upsurge in the
construction of high-rise buildings. Many of these buildings
feature framing systems, materials, heights, and dynamic
properties not envisioned by our current building code
prescriptive provisions. Rather than force these buildings to
conform, many jurisdictions are allowing these new designs
to proceed under the alternative procedures provision of the
building code, which allows alternative lateral-force
procedures using rational analyses based on well-established
principles of mechanics in lieu of the prescriptive provisions.
Most designs are opting for a performance-based approach in
which a rational analysis demonstrates serviceability and
safety equivalent to that intended by the code prescriptive
provisions. Several questions arise in a performance-based
design. What is equivalent performance? How should it be
demonstrated? If dynamic analysis is conducted for a range
of anticipated earthquake ground motions, how should the
ground motions be selected and how should the design value
determined? How should performance designs be reviewed?
The Tall Buildings Initiative is funding a range of short to
intermediate-term projects in 2006-2009. The final product
will be a set of written guidelines containing principles and
specific criteria for tall building seismic design. The
document is intended to support ongoing guidelines and
code-writing activities of collaborating organizations, as well
as being a stand-alone reference for designers of high-rise
buildings.
Introduction
The west coast of the United States, a highly seismic region,
is seeing a surge in the design and construction of tall
buildings (defined here as buildings 240 feet (73 meters) or
taller). For example, at the time of this writing, the number of
tall buildings under construction or in various planning stages
is around 40 in San Francisco and 60 in Los Angeles. Many
of these buildings use high-performance materials and
framing systems that have not been commonly used for
building construction or that fall outside the height limits of
current buildings codes. In many cases, prescriptive
provisions of governing building codes are found to be overly
restrictive, creating pressure to design outside the limits of
the code prescriptive provisions. This is allowable through
the alternative provisions of clause of building codes. An
example of the alternative provisions clause of the San
Francisco Building Code [SFBC, 2001] is reproduced below:
104.2.8 Alternate materials, alternate design and
methods of construction. The provisions of this code are
not intended to prevent the use of any material, alternate
design or method of construction not specifically
prescribed by this code, provided any alternate has been
approved and its use authorized by the building official.
The building official may approve any such alternate,
provided the building official finds that the proposed
design is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of
this code and that the material, method or work offered
is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of
that prescribed in this code in suitability, strength,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and
sanitation.
The building official shall require that sufficient
evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any
claims that may be made regarding its use. The details of
any action granting approval of an alternate shall be
recorded and entered in the files of the code enforcement
agency.
Increasingly, nonlinear dynamic analysis is being used in a
performance-based design approach to demonstrate the
seismic performance of buildings that do not satisfy all the
prescriptive provisions of the building code. While guidelines
[FEMA 356, 2000; LATB 2006; SEAONC 2007] and code
requirements [ASCE 7-05, 2005; IBC, 2003; UBC, 1997]
exist, there still remain many undefined aspects of nonlinear
performance-based design for which additional guidance
would be helpful. Recent and ongoing research is providing
some of the answers, but many issues in performance-based
design remain unanswered.
The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
is leading the Tall Buildings Initiative to fund and coordinate
a range of short to intermediate-term projects in 2006-2009.
The final product will be a set of written guidelines
containing principles and specific criteria for tall building
1
seismic design. The document is intended to support ongoing
guidelines and code-writing activities of collaborating
organizations, as well as being a stand-alone reference for
designers of high-rise buildings.
The New Generation of Tall Buildings in the
Western US
Urban regions along the west coast of the United States are
seeing a boom in tall building construction. Figure 1
illustrates recent developments and plans in San Francisco.
Many of the buildings are residential or mixed-use (including
residential) occupancy. Functional requirements for tall
residential buildings have led to new building configurations
and systems that do not meet the prescriptive definitions and
requirements of current buildings codes. These include
efficient framing systems whose redundancy may be reduced
compared with more conventional buildings. High-strength
materials and specialized products are also being proposed to
help meet the unique challenges introduced by these
structures.
Figure 1 - San Francisco buildings built since 1999,
under construction, approved, and proposed (Steve
Boland).
Figure 2 illustrates one example of a 60-story building in San
Francisco (under construction at the time of this writing) in
which the seismic force-resisting system involves reinforced
concrete core walls with buckling-restrained steel braces
along one axis. The building exceeds prescriptive building
code height limits for core-wall-only systems by a factor of
approximately three. In this building the gravity framing
comprises unbonded post-tensioned concrete flat-plate
framing. Under earthquake ground shaking, this gravity
framing, while not designed as part of the primary seismic-
force-resisting system, will undergo lateral displacements and
will accumulate over its height significant axial forces owing
to unintended outrigger action. The unintended frame action
also will result in wall shears higher than those expected for a
wall-only system. These effects must be considered in design.
Other framing systems including moment frames, steel-plate
2
Figure 2 –
Schematic of
seismic-force-
resisting system
of 60-story
building in San
Francisco
(Magnusson -
Klemencic)
walls, and steel gravity frames mixed with concrete walls are
being considered for various buildings, each with its own
special design needs.
High occupancy levels and interest in re-occupancy following
an earthquake are leading to rethinking of performance
objectives. As a minimum, a building must be safe for rare
ground shaking demands, and must remain safe for
significant aftershocks. However, there is increasing concern
that serviceability for more frequent events ought to be
considered as well. In view of the very long vibration periods
of tall buildings, special treatment of design ground motions
is needed to ensure they are representative in their damage
potential, including proper duration and long-period energy
content, so designs based on them will safely represent
anticipated effects of future earthquakes. While equivalence
to building code minimum performance requirements is
likely to be the basic objective, there is no consensus on how
to translate that performance objective into specific
engineering demands and capacity checks in a performance-
based procedure. These are some of the performance-based
earthquake engineering challenges of the new generation of
tall buildings.
Anticipated Building Response
With the exception of special high-performance buildings and
buildings with special protective systems, it usually is not
economically feasible to design a building to remain fully
elastic for ground motions representative of the maximum
 0.25
R=5
Base Shear Coefficient
0.20
Soil Type B
0.15 Soil Type C
Soil Type D
0.10
Eqn. 30-7
0.05
Eqn. 30-6
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Period, sec
Figure 3 – UBC-97 required design base shear for
typical development site in San Francisco.
considered hazard level in regions of high seismicity.
Therefore, some nonlinear behavior should be anticipated
during design and analysis.
In US seismic design practice, the design strength of a
building satisfying the code prescriptive provisions is
established based on the forces that would occur for linear
seismic response divided by a force reduction factor R. Thus,
the value of R used in design provides a measure of the
degree of nonlinearity expected during a design earthquake.
For a tall building, the required strength commonly is
controlled by minimum base-shear requirements.
Consequently, the effective R value is reduced from the value
specified in the building code for that framing system to a
smaller value dependent on building period and other factors.
Figure 3 illustrates design base shears from the Uniform
Building Code [UBC, 1997] for a typical site under
development in San Francisco.
The Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
has issued a guideline for the performance-based seismic
design of buildings designed to the “alternative provisions”
clause of the San Francisco Building Code [SEAONC 2007].
This document can serve as a model for other jurisdictions. A
serviceability evaluation for ground motion levels having 43-
year mean return period anticipates that a building may not
remain fully elastic but that damage will be cosmetic and not
require major repairs. Structural and nonstructural systems
must be designed to be safe for ground motion levels having
475-year mean return period (10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years), and the structural system is required to remain
stable with maximum interstory drifts not exceeding 0.03 for
ground motions corresponding to the larger of 10%
probability of exceedance in 100 years or 1.5 times median
deterministic motions.
Ground Motions for Nonlinear Analysis
Seismic ground shaking for performance-based design of tall
buildings usually is represented using site-specific seismic
hazard analysis. Seismic hazard due to ground shaking should
be determined considering the location of the building with
respect to causative faults, the regional and local site-specific
geologic characteristics, and the selected earthquake hazard
level. In general, the seismic hazard should include
earthquake-induced geologic site hazards in addition to
ground shaking. The discussion here is limited to ground
10 shaking hazard.
Where nonlinear dynamic analysis is used, representative
ground motion records are required. The predominant current
practice is to select records from actual earthquakes
considering magnitude, distance, site condition, and other
parameters that control the ground motion characteristics.
The current practice is to use a comprehensive recorded
ground motion database compiled by PEER [PEER GM,
2007]. To help guide selection of ground motion records, the
seismic hazard can be deaggregated for each hazard level to
determine the contributions to the hazard from earthquakes of
various magnitudes and distances from the site. Because
magnitude strongly influences frequency content and duration
of ground motion, it is desirable to use earthquake
magnitudes within 0.25 magnitude units of the target
magnitude [Stewart, et al., 2001]. Duration can be especially
important for tall buildings because of the time required to
build up energy in long-period structures. For sites close to
active faults, selected motions should contain an appropriate
mix of forward, backward, and neutral directivity consistent
with the site [Bray and Rodriguez-Marek, 2004].
Once a suite of ground motions has been selected, these
commonly are manipulated to represent the target linear
response spectrum using either scaling or spectrum matching.
Scaling involves applying a constant factor to individual pairs
of horizontal ground motion records to make their response
match the design spectrum at a single period or over a range
of periods. Spectrum matching is a process whereby
individual ground motion records are manipulated (usually in
the time domain by addition of wave packets) to adjust the
linear response spectrum of the motion so it matches the
target design response spectrum. Resulting motions should be
compared with original motions to ensure the original
character of the motion is not modified excessively.
There currently is no consensus on which approach, scaling
or spectrum matching, is preferable for nonlinear dynamic
analysis. The advantage of scaling is that individual ground
motion records retain their original character including peaks
and valleys in the response spectrum. However, given the
long fundamental periods characteristic of tall buildings, it
3

Figure 4 – Uniform hazard spectrum and scenario
spectra that combine to create the envelope of the
uniform hazard spectrum [Abrahamson, 2006].
can be difficult to find records with sufficient energy in the
long-period range, therefore requiring relatively large scaling
factors that may result in unrealistic short-period response.
This procedure, therefore, if is not done appropriately, may
excessively affect response of higher modes. Spectrum
matching can alleviate the aforementioned problem with
scaling, but matching the uniform hazard spectrum at every
period also produces ground motions that are unrealistic and
may be excessively demanding.
Alternative approaches to ground motion selection and
scaling are being studied. PEER is coordinating a Ground
Motion Selection and Modification (PEER GMSM, 2007)
working group to examine various GMSM procedures for
nonlinear response history analysis. Abrahamson [2006] has
recommended that the ground motion selected for analysis
should represent a scenario earthquake, that is, just one of the
many earthquakes that contribute to the uniform hazard
spectrum at the site. In this case, the selected motion is
matched to the response spectrum of the scenario earthquake,
which is less broadband than the uniform hazard spectrum
(Figure 4). Baker [2006] and Cornell [2006] have
recommended that the scenario spectrum should be modified
to represent the conditional mean response spectrum, which
takes into account the lack of correlation between response
spectral amplitudes at different periods. This method is being
implemented in a user-friendly web-based tool, “Design
Ground Motion Library, DGML”, supported by PEER and
the California Strong-Motion Instrumentation Program.
These methods imply a deaggregation of the seismic hazard
to identify which earthquakes have the highest contribution to
4
the seismic hazard at a key vibration period of the building. A
problem that arises with a tall building is that different
engineering demands are controlled by different periods (for
example, overturning moment might be controlled by the
fundamental period while link beam demands are controlled
by higher “modes”). To the knowledge of the authors, this
question of how to use scenario-based ground motions for tall
buildings has not been completely resolved.
The Tall Buildings Initiative has several tasks on the subject
of earthquake ground motion selection and scaling. One task
is using validated broadband ground motion simulation
procedures to generate ground motion records in San
Francisco and Los Angeles for large-magnitude earthquakes
on the major faults governing design in those regions. The
records will be simulated for geographic areas of specific
interest for San Francisco and Los Angeles. These broadband
simulated records are to contain long-period effects such as
rupture directivity effects and basin effects that are specific to
the fault geometry and geological structure of the regions. A
main purpose of these simulations is to define types of
waveforms that result from large-magnitude earthquakes;
amplitudes for design will be established by probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis results. A series of review tasks also
will ensure the simulation procedures are producing realistic
results and are properly interpreted. Yet another task is
studying how tall buildings respond to different earthquake
ground motions. These studies will help define ground
motion selection and scaling procedures that will result in tall
building response simulations that adequately represent the
range of engineering design demands on critical building
components.
Another major task of the Tall Buildings Initiative is
examining input ground motions for buildings with
subterranean levels. It is well known that depth of
embedment affects the input motions to a structure. Soil-
foundation-structure interaction also affects building dynamic
properties and effective damping associated with soil
nonlinearity and radiation of energy away from the building
through the surrounding soil (so-called radiation damping).
Finally, dynamic soil pressures on basement walls has
important effects that need to be considered in design.
Analysis for Tall Buildings
Performance-based seismic analysis of tall buildings in the
US increasingly uses nonlinear analysis of a three-
dimensional model of the building. Lateral-force-resisting
components of the building are modeled as discrete elements
with lumped plasticity or fiber models that represent material
nonlinearity and integrate it across the component section and
length. Gravity framing elements (those components not
designed as part of the lateral force resisting system) may or
may not be directly modeled; if their contribution to seismic
resistance and their interaction with lateral-force-resisting
parts of the building are negligible, it is not necessary that
they be included. However, effective mass and P-delta effects
associated with “non-participating” parts of the building must
be included in the overall analytical model. Furthermore,
non-participating components that support gravity loads need
to be checked for performance at anticipated force and
deformation demands associated with MCE loadings,
including effects of unintended outrigger action, which can
result in significant axial forces in gravity columns of tall
buildings.
Because the behavior is nonlinear, nonlinear behavior at one
hazard level cannot be scaled from nonlinear results at
another hazard level. Additionally, conventional capacity
design approaches can underestimate internal forces in some
structural systems (and overestimate them in others) because
lateral force profiles and deformation patterns change as the
intensity of ground shaking increases [Kabeyasawa, 1993;
Eberhard and Sozen, 1993]. Figure 5 shows moment profiles
for a tall core wall building subjected to different levels of
earthquake ground motion. Twenty-seven ground motion
pairs for earthquakes of M7 at 10 km were factored by 1, 2,
and 4, resulting in the mean core wall moments over height as
shown. According to this analytical result, the wall develops
its plastic moment strength at the base, as intended in design,
and wall base moment remains close to the plastic moment
capacity as the intensity of ground motion increases. Wall
moments above the base, however, continue to increase with
increasing ground motion intensity even though the base has
reached its plastic moment capacity. This is because lateral
deformations in various “modes” and associated internal
forces continue to increase as shaking intensity increases.
Design studies of very tall wall buildings suggest that this
behavior can lead to formation of secondary wall plastic
hinges near midheight. Only by analyzing the building for the
target hazard level can these internal deformations and forces
be identified. Further study is needed on this subject.
Modeling of component load-deformation properties is
important to the final results of a nonlinear dynamic analysis.
In reinforced concrete building construction, component
effective stiffnesses should consider effects of cracking on
stiffness and slip of reinforcement from anchorage zones.
Some guidance is provided by FEMA 356 [2000] and
elsewhere [e.g., Paulay and Priestley, 1992; Adebar, 2004;
Elwood and Eberhard, 2006], but the level of guidance is
incomplete and commonly aimed at buildings of moderate or
lower height. Usual practice is to base nonlinear component
strengths on expected material properties. By so doing, the
computer model response is likely to be closer to best-
estimate response and internal actions (e.g., axial forces,
shears, and moments) on components expected to remain
elastic will be more conservatively estimated. Based on mill
tests of Grade 60 A615 bars in North America, Mirza and
MacGregor [1979] report mean yield strength is
approximately 1.15 times the nominal value. Strain-hardening
commonly results in ultimate strength approximately 1.5
times the actual yield value. Values close to these probably
should be used unless specific information regarding
reinforcement properties indicates other values are more
appropriate.
x1
x2
x4
Height
Figure 5 –
Variation of
mean core wall
moments for M7
ground motions
multiplied by
factors of 1, 2,
0 1 2 and 4.
Normalized core wall moment
Damping properties for concrete buildings normally are set
around five percent of critical damping for the periods
(vibration modes) likely to dominate response. Lower
damping values, in the range of two to three percent of
critical damping, commonly are used for steel buildings.
Little guidance on these matters, however, is available to
guide the engineer of record.
The Tall Buildings Initiative has embarked on a task to
improve nonlinear modeling and simulation practices for tall
buildings. The current focus of the work is subdivided in
three main tasks. The first task is developing guidelines for
good modeling and simulation practices, including subjects
such as equivalent damping, component strength modeling
principles, hysteresis rules, and strength-degradation
modeling. The second task is developing modeling guidelines
for commonly used reinforced concrete core wall buildings,
including initial stiffness assumptions, strength calculations
for complex geometries, deformation capacity models, and
good modeling practices so the outputs from computer
analyses (e.g., concrete strains) can be reliably interpreted.
Design Values
For buildings designed using nonlinear dynamic analysis
approaches, building codes and design guides [e.g., ASCE 7-
05, 2005; LATB, 2006; SEAONC, 2007] require/recommend
that a building design be subjected to a series of design-level
earthquake time series to determine the building design-level
5
response. A key question, then, is how to define the design-
level response when multiple design ground motions are
used. The problem is illustrated in the example building
results illustrated in Figure 6. This 40-story building was
subjected to 14 earthquake ground motions scaled to design
levels to obtain design response results [Maffei, 2005]. The
coefficients of variation shown in this example are not
atypical of results obtained for tall buildings. If design values
are taken equal to the median of the results, half the design
ground motions result in responses exceeding the design
ROOF Roof Wall
drift, ft base moment at
shear, k 13th floor,
1000 x k-ft
Minimum 2.1 7600
Maximum 6.7 29700
Mean (m) 4.2 15500
m+σ 5.4 22200
13th c.o.v. 0.23 0.43
Nonlinear 5500
static
BASE
(a) Building elevation (b) Summary of results
Figure 6 – Building elevation and summary of
nonlinear dynamic and nonlinear static analysis
results. Nonlinear static analysis results are for
inverted triangular floor acceleration pattern.
value. To achieve greater conservatism, the design can be
defined at some number of standard deviations above the
mean or median value. In this case, taking the design shear as
one standard deviation above the mean results in a 43 percent
increase in design base shear. From one perspective, this is a
significant increase in design demand with large cost and
functionality implications, but from another perspective it
anticipates a not insignificant probability of shear failure due
to exceeding the design value should the design-level of
ground shaking occur.
The SEAONC recommended procedure [SEAONC, 2007]
recommends that demands for ductile actions be taken not
less than the mean value obtained from the nonlinear
response history analysis, whereas demands for low-ductility
actions (e.g., axial and shear response of columns and shear
response of walls) should consider the dispersion of the
values. Further elaboration is provided in a commentary to
the guidelines, which recommends that in typical cases the
demand for low-ductility actions can be defined as the mean
plus one standard deviation of the values obtained from the
nonlinear response history analysis. Furthermore, it is
recommended that the procedures for selecting and scaling
ground motions, and for defining the demands for low-
ductility actions, should be defined and agreed to early in the
6
CW48 - MCE (Sa = 0.17 g)
L42 mean
mean + std
L37
data
L32
L27
Floor number [-]
L22
L17
L11
Wall L6
L1
B5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
513 ForceX [N]
x 10
7
1080 Figure 7 – Story shears in a case study core-wall
900
1090 building, from nonlinear response history
0.21 analysis, for ground motions scaled so the first-
mode spectral acceleration matches the uniform
760 hazard level value at the MCE hazard level.
review process. The tentative nature of the SEAONC
recommendation reflects the incomplete state of knowledge
on how best to define design values. Additionally, it is not
clear how reliable is the estimated “standard deviation” of the
response based on seven pairs of input ground motions.
One of the primary goals of the Tall Buildings Initiative is to
establish improved understanding on how to select and scale
earthquake ground motions, and how to define design values
from the nonlinear response history analysis. The studies are
under way at the time of this writing, so definitive
recommendations cannot be given at this time. Some insights
into the issue, however, are being developed through tall
buildings case studies. For example, Figure 7 illustrates the
distribution of story shears for a tall core-wall building with a
San Francisco building site for a series of earthquake ground
motions scaled so the spectral acceleration at the fundamental
period matches the uniform hazard spectral ordinate at the
same period for the MCE hazard level. The wide dispersion
in the results is apparent.
The database of results from the same case study building can
be mined to understand the probability of exceeding the
design shear value for various levels of earthquake ground
shaking. For example, Figure 8 illustrates over the building
height (vertical axis) the probability of exceeding the design
shear given that the ground shaking is at the 475-year
uniform hazard level spectral acceleration value, with the
design shear based on mean or mean plus one standard
deviation results from earthquake ground motions scaled to
DBE and MCE levels. For example, if the design shear is
based on mean plus one standard deviation at the MCE level,
as suggested by the SEAONC commentary [2007], the
probability of exceeding the design shear for ground motions
having 475-year mean return periods is approximately five
percent. Whether this is an acceptable result has not been
widely considered at this time.
Perhaps a more important question is whether it is sensible to
express safety in terms of probabilities of failure given that
ground shaking is at some predefined mean return period. It
may be more sensible to define mean return periods of
exceeding a safe response given the general seismic hazard to
which the building is exposed (for example, the mean return
period of a nonductile shear failure is 1000 years, or a 5
percent probability in 50 years). Studies to develop this
approach are under way at the time of this writing.
CW48 - P(ForceX > design value) in the DBE event
L42
L37
L32
L27
Floor number [-]
L22
L17
L11
L6
L1
B5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Probability of exceedance [-]
Figure 8 – Probability of exceeding the design
shear for ground shaking at the 475-year uniform
hazard level value, for design shears based on the
mean from DBE, mean from MCE, or mean plush
one standard deviation for DBE and MCE.
Structural Detailing
A significant percentage of high-rise building construction in
the western US will be for residential or mixed-use
occupancies. As such, much of it will be constructed of
reinforced concrete. Laboratory and field experience
demonstrates that getting the details right is critical to good
performance, and reviews of tall building designs and field
implementations suggests some areas where special attention
may be needed.
Reinforced concrete core walls have become increasingly
popular in high-rise construction in recent years. To function
properly under severe earthquake loading, the coupled core
walls require ductile link beams that can undergo large
inelastic rotations. In typical cases, the small aspect ratio and
high nominal shear stress dictate use of diagonally reinforced
coupling beams. While simple in concept, these beams can be
challenging to construct properly in the field following the
building code prescriptions [ACI 318, 2005]. As prescribed,
the individual diagonals are to be confined by transverse
reinforcement, with the remainder of the beam reinforced by
nominal transverse and longitudinal reinforcement. Two
problem areas commonly arise. First, it is difficult to confine
the complex geometry where the diagonals intersect (see “A”
in Figure 9(a)). A second area of difficulty is where the
diagonal bars enter the wall (see “B” in Figure 9(a));
especially in low-aspect-ratio walls, the steep inclination of
the diagonals can leave the diagonal bars unconfined in this
most critical zone. Selective placement of crossties often is
the only remedy to these confinement challenges.
mean DBE
mean MCE
mean + std DBE
mean + std MCE
A
B
0.8 0.9 1
(a) Diagonal-only confinement
(b) Full beam confinement
Figure 9 – Options for reinforcement of diagonally
reinforced beams
Figure 9(b) shows an alternative that meets the intent of the
code, in which the entire beam cross section is confined by
transverse reinforcement. (This detail is being incorporated
into ACI 318-08, which should be available in 2008). This
detail may prove more economical than that specified in
Figure 9(a) because of savings in labor costs. Interestingly,
the original tests on which the diagonally reinforced concrete
7
beam is based did not use heavy confinement of the of these frames relies on detailing of columns, beams, and
individual diagonals [Paulay and Binney, 1974; Barney et al., beam-column joints, as well as proportions that promote a
1978]. Tests at UCLA are demonstrating that full beam strong-column, strong-joint, yielding-beam mechanism
confinement (Figure 9(b)) is at least as effective as diagonal- dominated by flexural yielding without shear or
only confinement (Figure 9(a)) [ENR, 2007]. anchorage/splice failure. It has long been known that columns
with high axial loads have reduced flexural ductility capacity.
The core wall itself can be heavily stressed under significant Designs that maintain axial loads at or below balanced axial
inelastic deformations near the base (and elsewhere). Ductile load (approximately 0.35Agf’c) are encouraged. Designs with
performance requires an effectively continuous tension chord, higher axial loads can perform well if flexural yielding is
adequately confined compression zone, and adequate minimized or transverse reinforcement detailing is improved
proportions and details for shear resistance. In locations relative to code minimum requirements [Bayrak and Sheikh,
where yielding is anticipated, ACI 318-2005 requires use of 1997].
Type 2 mechanical splices or tension lap splices designed for
1.25fy, where fy is the nominal yield strength of the
longitudinal reinforcement. Furthermore, longitudinal
reinforcement is to be extended a distance 0.8lw past the point
where it is no longer required for flexure based on
conventional section flexural analysis, where lw is the
(horizontal) wall length. ACI 318-2005 specifies minimum
requirements for confinement of the compression zone. It is
recommended that not less than this amount of confinement
be used within potential plastic hinge zones, unless analysis
using models validated by experimental data indicate
compression strains well below the ACI limit of 0.003;
computer software for nonlinear earthquake response analysis
may produce strain as one of the output quantities, but such
values can be strongly dependent on modeling assumptions
(a) Boundary element plan A
and should be validated (by the engineer of record) against
strains measured in laboratory tests. Because ACI 318-05 was
written with moderate-rise buildings in mind, it does not
include requirements for confinement outside the intended
plastic hinge zone at the base. Nonetheless, some
confinement (perhaps half that specified in the fully confined
zone) should be provided to accommodate demands above
the base, because under severe earthquake loading demands
at intermediate levels may equal or exceed those at the base
because of higher-mode and nonlinear effects (Figure 5).

Details of transverse reinforcement for shear should include

development of the horizontal reinforcement to the far face of
the confined boundary zone; otherwise, the full length of the
wall is not effective in resisting shear. Figure 10 shows
example details for boundary element confinement and
anchorage of shear reinforcement. Figure 10(a) illustrates a
detail in which the horizontal reinforcement for shear is
lapped with an equal area of U-bars. Figure 10(b) shows a
detail using headed bars. The alternative of hooking the
horizontal reinforcement (not shown) is another acceptable
alternative, though it may not be feasible if large-diameter
horizontal bars are used.
Special moment frames also are widely used in highrise
building construction, either as the primary lateral-force-
resisting system or as part of a dual system. Ductile response
(b) Boundary element plan b
Figure 10 – Wall reinforcement details
Conventionally reinforced or post-tensioned floor slabs
supported by gravity frames commonly are used with either
core walls, special moment frames, or both. Slab-column
connections should be designed considering effect of vertical
slab shears on the lateral drift capacity of the connection. ACI
318-2005 includes requirements considering this interaction;
see the seismic requirements for members not designed as
part of the lateral-force-resisting system. Stud rails and other
alternative systems are seeing increasing use to reduce the

8
likelihood of punching around the connection under imposed
vertical loads and lateral deformations. Provisions for
structural integrity also should not be overlooked. For
conventionally reinforced slabs, ACI 318-2005 requires at
least two of the main bottom bars in each direction be
continuous over the column; ACI 352 [1989] recommends
additional bottom reinforcement based on equilibrium
considerations. For unbonded post-tensioned slabs, at least
two of the strands in each direction must pass through the
column cage.
Reinforced concrete gravity columns near the base of the
building may sustain relatively high axial loads and may
yield especially at locations where they frame into basement
walls or foundation elements. Minimum code requirements
[e.g., ACI 318, 2005] should be adhered to, of course, but
consideration also should be given to pursuing a higher
performance goal at this location by improving confinement
details (e.g., not permitting 90-deg hooks on cross ties) and
increasing quantities and lengths of confinement to improve
axial-load-carrying capacity following spalling of cover
concrete.
Building design review
Few building departments have the expertise to understand
and approve the code exceptions and alternative means
proposed in a performance-based design. Questions
invariably arise regarding use and performance of new
materials and systems, selection of appropriate hazard levels
and representative ground motions, nonlinear dynamic
analysis models and results interpretations, acceptance
criteria, and quality assurance in design and construction.
Peer review by independent qualified experts helps assure the
building official that the proposed materials and system are
acceptable. The Tall Buildings Initiative will develop a set of
written guidelines for the performance-based seismic design
of tall buildings. The guidelines will include technical
guidelines for the engineer and review guidelines for building
departments. By clarifying design and review requirements,
the overall process will be streamlined.
Conclusions
Performance-based earthquake engineering increasingly is
being used as an approach to the design of tall buildings in
the U.S. Available software, research results, and experience
gained through real building applications are providing a
basis for effective application of nonlinear analysis
procedures. Important considerations include definition of
performance objectives, selection of input ground motions,
construction of an appropriate nonlinear analysis model, and
judicious interpretation of the results. Implemented properly,
nonlinear dynamic analysis specific to the structural system
and seismic environment is the best way to identify nonlinear
dynamic response characteristics, including yielding
mechanisms, associated internal forces, deformation
demands, and detailing requirements. Proportions and details
superior to those obtained using the prescriptive requirements
of the building code can be determined by such analysis,
leading to greater confidence in building performance
characteristics including safety. Although performance-based
designs already are under way and are leading to improved
designs, several research needs have been identified, the
study of which can further improve design practices. The Tall
Buildings Initiative has been established to conduct problem-
focused studies that will better clarify design and review
requirements, thereby streamlining the overall process of
performance-based seismic design of tall buildings.
Acknowledgments
This work had several influences, including the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (National Science
Foundation award number EEC-9701568) and several
building performance-based engineering review projects in
California and Nevada. The Tall Buildings Initiative operates
with the support of the Applied Technology Council, the
California Geological Survey, California Seismic Safety
Commission, Charles Pankow Foundation, City and County
of San Francisco, City of Los Angeles, FEMA, The Los
Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, the
National Science Foundation, the Southern California
Earthquake Center, the Structural Engineers Association of
California, and the USGS. The views expressed are those of
the authors and not necessarily those of individuals or
organizations cited here or in the references.
References
Abrahamson, N.A., 2006. Selecting and scaling
accelerograms for dynamic analysis. Proceedings of the First
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Geneva, September 4-7, 2006.
Abrahamson, N.A., 2006. Seismic Hazard Assessment:
Problems with Current Practice and Future Developments,
Proceedings of the First European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, September 4-7, 2006.
ACI 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05),
American Concrete Institute, 430 pp.
ACI 352, 1989. Recommendations for Design of Slab-
Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 352.1R-89, Reapproved 1997), American Concrete
Institute, 22 pp.
9
Adebar, P., J. Mutrie, and R. DeVall, 2004. “Displacement-
Based Design of Concrete Wall Buildings; the 2004 Canadian
Code Provisions,” Proceedings, 13th World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, paper no.
1047.
ASCE 7-05, 2005. “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 424 pp.
Baker, J.W., 2006. Conditional mean spectrum for selection
and scaling. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Ground
Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) for Nonlinear
Analysis. PEER, Berkeley, October 27, 2006.
Barney, G. B., and N.K. Shiu, B. Rabbat, A. E. Fiorato, H.
Russell, and W. G. Corley, 1978. “Earthquake-Resistant
Structural Walls – Tests of Coupling Beams,” Report to
National Science Foundation, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL.
Bayrak, O., and S. A. Sheikh, 1997. “High Strength Concrete
Columns under Simulated Earthquake Loading,” ACI
Structural Journal, Vol.94, No.6, pp. 708-722.
Bray, J.D., and A. Rodriguez-Marek, 2004. “Characterization
of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault
region,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24, pp.
815-828.
Cornell, C.A., 2006. Should uniform hazard spectra be used
for design? How should design response spectra be
determined considering uniform hazard spectra from design
maps and hazard deaggregation data? Proceedings of the
Third ATC-35/USGS National Earthquake Ground Motion
Mapping Workshop, San Mateo, December 7-8, 2006.
Eberhard, M. O., and M. A. Sozen, 1993. “Behavior-based
Method to Determine Design Shear in Earthquake –Resistant
Walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119,
no. 2, pp. 619-640.
Elwood, K.J., and M. O. Eberhard, 2006. “Effective Stiffness
of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Research Digest No.
2006-1, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 4 pp.
ENR, 2007. “Good News for Tall, Concrete Cores,” story by
Nadine Post, Engineering News Record, 16 May 2007.
FEMA 356, 2000. “Prestandard and Commentary on the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” Report No. FEMA 356,
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
IBC, 2003. International Building Code, International Code
Council, 660 pp.
10
View publication stats
Kabeyasawa, T., 1993. "Ultimate-State Design of Wall-
Frame Structures," Chapter 4.5, Earthquake Resistance of
Reinforced Concrete Structures; a Volume Honoring
Hiroyuki Aoyama, U. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, Japan, pp.431-
440.
LATB, 2006. “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic
Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los
Angeles Region,” Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council, 27 pp.
Maffei, J., 2005. Presentation for LA Tall Buildings Council,
Rutherford & Chekene, Oakland, CA.
Mirza, S. A. and J.G. MacGregor. “Variability of Mechanical
Properties of Reinforcing Bars,” Proceedings, ASCE, Journal
of the Structural Division, Vol. 105, No. ST5, May 1979, pp.
921-937.
Paulay T., and J.R. Binney, 1974. “Diagonally Reinforced
Coupling Beams of Shear Walls”, Shear in Reinforced
Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, pp. 579-598.
Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestley, 1992. Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley & Sons.
PEER GM, 2007. Recorded Ground Motion Database,
http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/.
PEER GMSM, 2007. Ground Motion Selection and
Modification Working Group,
http://peer.berkeley.edu/gmsm/Mission.html
SEAONC, 2007. SEAONC Recommended Administrative
Bulletin for San Francisco, Structural Engineers Association
of Northern California, San Francisco.
SFBC, 2001. San Francisco Building Code.
Stewart, J.P., S.J. Chiou, J.D. Bray, R.W. Graves, P.G.
Somerville, N.A. Abrahamson, 2001. “Ground motion
evaluation procedures for performance-based design,” PEER-
2001/09, UC Berkeley.
UBC, 1997. “Uniform Building Code,” Vol. 2, International
Council of Building Officials, 492 pp.