Structural Design Tall Build - 2009 - Youssef - Seismic Performance of A 55 Storey Steel Plate Shear Wall

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 139–165 (2010)

Published online 4 November 2009 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.545
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A 55-STOREY STEEL PLATE

SHEAR WALL
NABIH YOUSSEF S.E. President, RYAN WILKERSON S.E. Vice President, KURT FISCHER P.E. SR.
Project Engineer AND DANIEL TUNICK P.E. Senior Engineer
Nabih Youssef Associates
SUMMARY
The Los Angeles Convention Center Hotel is a 55-storey steel-framed steel plate shear wall high-rise building
that takes full advantage of many of the performance-based design approaches and philosophies. The primary
lateral resistance system consists of thin steel plates (3/8–1/4 in. thick) within fully welded WUF-W moment
frames. Additional system stiffness is provided by several storey-high outrigger trusses at the mid-height and top
of the tower while using buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) as fuse elements to control the maximum force that
the outrigger trusses can develop. Full nonlinear time history record analyses were performed using a suite of
seven paired ground motions scaled to a 2475-year event. Modelling methods were developed for the expected
model system behaviour that correlated well with observations from independent research tests. While an essen-
tial part of the alternate design verification process, the nonlinear modelling needed to be carefully scrutinized at
every step to ensure that unanticipated results of the verification were true behaviours rather than artificial artefacts
of model limitations that were not indicative of actual system performance. Extensive analysis and design
were performed for the diaphragms of the tower for building set-back 26th level, as well as the ground floor
podium transfer slab. A bounding analysis was performed to ensure essentially elastic behaviour for the backstay
of the tower in the concrete basement wells and reinforced concrete mat. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION

The Los Angeles Convention Center Hotel and Condominium (LACCH) tower embodies many of the
characteristics and design philosophies that have come to be commonly known as ‘performance-based
design’. The architectural shape of the tower designed by Gensler Architects is as much a testament
to performance-based design as the structure that supports it. Encompassing a little over 1·2 million
square ft of floor space, the tower consists of two distinct segments, a 26-storey low-rise and 55-storey
high-rise portion (see Figure 1), integrally joined and each tapered with a floor plate that expands and
contracts to suit the requirements of the occupancy type. The programmatic stacking of the tower is
composed of 26 floors of hotel rooms within both wings, and 29 levels of condominiums rising above
within the upper tower. Each tower wing has a central double-loaded corridor that forms the basic
circulation spines of the project. With only one central spine, the overall width of the tower is minimal
reaching 654 ft above street level and yielding an overall aspect ratio of the lateral system at the base
of approximately 20:1.
A paramount concern of the owner in order to support the economic model of the project was to
maintain high ceilings while minimizing the curtain wall, as well as maximizing the sellable/rentable
* Correspondence to: Nabih Youssef, President, S.E., Nabih Youssef Associates 800 Wilshire, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA
90017. E-mail: nabih@nyase.com
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

140 N. YOUSSEF ET AL.
Figure 1. Los Angeles Convention Center Hotel tower rendering (Courtesy: Gensler)
floor space by minimizing circulation paths and back-of-house spaces that often become the safe haven
for the vertical lateral force-resisting systems. Challenges to accommodate these concerns included:
vertical circulation elements that are spread throughout the floor rather than being concentrated in one
central location; the sloping exterior; the desire to eliminate moment frames to minimize the depth of
spandrel beams on the perimeter, as well as the low floor-to-floor heights.
The project is the focal point of a much larger integrated development in varying stages of
construction stretching across two city blocks. Generally, the entire development is underlain by
up to three levels of parking extending up to 45 ft below street level with the LACCH tower site
being no exception. Since the adjacent projects on two sides of the tower were developed prior to the
tower site, and because it was required to keep the various projects structurally self-reliant (laterally
speaking), the basement structure beneath the tower only had basement walls on two of the four
sides.
2. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
The tower is a 55-storey steel-framed structure over three stories of a reinforced cast-in-place concrete
basement. As much as possible, the steel columns on the exteriors of the tower slope from one floor
to the next to maintain a constant slab edge distance and minimize disruption to useable floor space
as the floor footprints expand and contract. Beams were located at demising walls of hotel units with
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 139–165 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A 55-STOREY STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALL BUILDING 141
the metal deck clear spanning across the rooms to maximize the ceiling heights while minimizing the
floor heights. Large horizontal thrust forces develop where the column slopes shift from one floor to
the next, which need to be resisted by cross-ties into the building (see Figure 2), creating loading upon
much of the lateral seismic-resisting systems with gravity forces that need to be accounted for in their
design, making the rigorous system capacity verification associated with the performance-based design
all the more critical.
The lateral force-resisting system of the tower is provided by thin steel plate shear walls (SPSWs)
at critical locations and typically adjacent to vertical circulation elements. The thin shear wall infill
plates are 3/8–1/4 in. thick, A36 grade and are bounded by wideflange horizontal boundary elements
Figure 2. Sloping columns
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Horizontal Boundary Element (HBE)
1/4”to 3/8”Plate
Vertical
Boundary
Element (VBE)
Figure 3. Lateral force-resisting system overview
(HBEs) and steel built-up composite box columns (see Figure 3). Full moment connections between
the horizontal and vertical boundary elements (VBEs) of the wall provided a back-up moment frame
which provided additional frame stiffness to the walls, as well as resisting cyclic force reversals before
the steel plate engaged during post-bucking behaviour.
To further control the building drifts, a system of outriggers is used at the mid-height and top of
the tower (see Figure 4). With depths of a full floor or more, the outrigger system effectively engaged
the entire building width and reduced the aspect ratio of the tower from 20:1 to 10:1. Buckling-
restrained braces (BRBs) and portal frame sections were utilized in strategic locations within each
outrigger truss to control the maximum amount of force that could be delivered to the exterior build-
ing columns, thereby providing for capacity protection of the gravity column elements.
The system of thin steel plates, moment connections between the HBEs and VBEs and the BRBs
within the outriggers provide a redundant and enhanced level of energy dissipation and ductility for
resisting large-magnitude seismic events.
3. INDUSTRY CHALLENGES AND ADVANCEMENTS

Substantial advancements in understanding of system behaviour and ground motions were the key to
implementing the lateral seismic-resisting system for the tower. But, even with the great strides that
have been made, at the onset it was evident that many challenges existed in traditional design processes
and code prescriptions that needed to be overcome in order to successfully implement the intended
design.
3.1 System behaviour

Perhaps the most significant challenge was the absence of adopted codified language that even
addressed SPSW systems, requiring that alternate design approaches to be used. At the time, there
were several structural engineering councils that were developing guidelines for alternative design
procedures for high-rise structures, and the procedures that were used for the project were largely
based on the guidelines developed by the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council LATBSDC (2005).
However, none of the alternate design procedures had been used for an actual building project as
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 4. Outrigger placement along tower
yet, which left the LACCH design team to blaze the trail of performance-based high-rise SPSW
design.
No less significant was the absence of design precedence for thin steel plate wall systems in the
high seismic region of southern California. However, the newly proposed AISC Seismic Provisions
(AISC, 2005) did contain specifications for SPSW designs, and at this same time a new design guide-
line (DG 20) was being developed by AISC which in combination with the proposed specifications
was used as the baseline for the steel plate wall design. Similarly, there was no prior design applica-
tion precedence for the new specifications and guidelines that were adopted, which required a deep
understanding of the expected performance of the plates to be developed to ensure proper application
of the system. Fortunately, several recent test reports were available for research from several univer-
DOI: 10.1002/tal
sities in the USA and Canada, which proved to be invaluable tools in developing a confidence of
understanding the system and component behaviour.
3.2 Ground motions

As the field of seismology continues to gain knowledge, many challenges remain that require careful
consideration when verifying building performance. A sampling of a few of these include whether a
uniform hazard spectra or suite of spectra is appropriate, how many ground motions should be con-
sidered, how the ground motions should be scaled and what time step increment would be reasonable
for the ground motions data.
For the LACCH project, a uniform hazard spectrum was developed using three different attenuation
relationships, each with an equal weight. The SRSS of the ground motion pairs were spectrally
matched to 1·4 times the design spectra over a period range of 0·2T to 1·5T as is recommended by
ASCE 7-05. Seven ground motion pairs were used, rotated in their fault normal and fault parallel
orientations. The mean or mean-plus-one standard deviation of the maximum responses from all seven
analysis runs were used, depending on the element being considered. In some instances, using the
mean-plus-one standard deviation yielded a value larger than the max response of all seven analysis
runs due to the limited number of values and narrow band of results.
4. PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
It would be easy to quickly develop a list of the many differences between prescriptive code-based
design and performance-based design, but the primary difference between them is simply how a design
is verified to have achieved the desired safety level. Using traditional code-based methods implies that
the safety of the design is achieved through the application of many prescriptive requirements which
bound the design through limitations of analysis benchmarks such as: (a) ductility factors; (b) maximum
drifts; (c) minimum base shears; (d) story force distributions; (e) redundancy factors; and (f) impor-
tance factors.
For the LACCH project, these performance objectives were verified through alternate rational
analysis as listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Code equivalency procedures
Prescriptive code PBD equivalent

Ductility factor Three-dimensional nonlinear analysis including post-yield behaviour of lateral
force-resisting elements including expected material over-strength.
Maximum drifts Explicit modelling of P-Δ effects during post-yield behaviour with a cap of 3%
storey drift at MCE level.
Minimum base shears Analysis of three recurrence intervals of seismic events including 43-, 475- and
2475-year returns. Additionally, imposed a 2·5% minimum base shear for the
475-year event.
Storey force distributions Full three-dimensional linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis models with spatial
distribution of mass and stiffness modelled directly.
Redundancy factors Bounding nonlinear three-dimensional analysis with varying material properties
along the height and footprint of the tower.
Importance factors Adjustment of demand levels from nonlinear analysis through the use of standard
deviations of the mean of max responses combined with or without phi factors
for capacity checks on a building component level.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 2. Performance objectives
Event level Interval Design approach Analysis method

Frequent (serviceability level) 43 years Immediate occupancy Three-dimensional linear dynamic
50% in 30 years with little to no analysis using R = 1·5 with
structural damage expected strengths and capacity
reduction phi factors = 1·0
Rare (DBE) 475 years Life safety with Three-dimensional linear dynamic
10% in 50 years limited structural analysis using R = 7 with
damage nominal strengths and code-
defined capacity reduction phi
factors
Extreme (MCE) 2475 years Collapse prevention Three-dimensional nonlinear time
2% in 50 years with potential history analysis using a suite of
extensive structure seven ground motion pairs with
damage without expected strengths and capacity
collapse reduction phi factors = 1·0
The critical initial step on any performance-based design is to decide on the target performance. In
most instances, the target is to provide a code equivalency design, and the LACCH tower was no
exception. It has been somewhat debated exactly what a code equivalent building is, but the general
consensus is that the building should be designed for protection of life first and property second. Stated
another way, the LACCH project adopted the approach to achieve immediate occupancy for a frequent
seismic event, life safety for a rare event and collapse prevention for an extreme event. Table 2 pro-
vides the basic performance objectives used in the design.
5. THIN SPSW SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION

Thin SPSWs are an innovative lateral load-resisting system capable of effectively bracing a building
against both wind and earthquake forces. SPSWs possess properties that are fundamentally beneficial
in resisting seismically induced loads, including excellent ductility, a robust resistance to degradation
under cyclic loading, high initial stiffness and, when moment-resisting beam-to-column connections
are present, inherent redundancy and significant energy dissipation. Moreover, the low self-weight of
a SPSW, as compared with an equivalent reinforced concrete shear wall, reduces both gravity loads
and the seismic loads transmitted to the foundation.
Until the mid 1980s, the failure mode of SPSWs was considered to be out-of-plane buckling of the
infill plates. This led engineers to design heavily stiffened plates that offered little economic advantage
over reinforced concrete shear walls. However, several experimental and analytical studies using
both quasi-static and dynamic loading showed that the post-buckling strength of thin SPSW can be
substantial. A complete list of SPSW research/literature can be found in Design Guide 20, 2006.
Similar to plate-girder webs, the post-buckling tension field action of SPSW can provide substantial
strength, stiffness and ductility. However, the tension field inclination angles for SPSW are substan-
tially different from plate girders due to their different associated boundary conditions which lead to
different tension field strengths. A typical SPSW consists of horizontal and VBEs, and thin infill plates
that buckle in shear and form a diagonal tension field to resist lateral loads.
While previous design practice prohibited the buckling of the infill plates, for current steel plate
wall design, the buckling is encouraged as the first-order energy dissipation mechanism of the system.
To ensure this behaviour, it is necessary to design the boundary elements of the wall to resist the
DOI: 10.1002/tal
yielded capacity of the plates. For a small amount of plate, the yielded tension field of the infill plates
results in substantial force demands on the VBEs and HBEs. The HBE is typically bounded on both
sides by the yielding plate, which only requires the web of the boundary member to act as a non-yield-
ing component of the system. Of course, at the top and bottom of the entire wall, the horizontal
boundary must resist the entire unbalanced plate-yielding force. At those locations, the boundary
consisted of the two-storey cap truss and the mat foundation, respectively, each with substantial flexure
and shear capacity to resist the large demands from the plate.
The plates were ultimately allowed to yield up to five times their initial yield length, and were
verified through nonlinear models where the steel plates were modelled as discrete strip elements. It
was important to verify that the characteristic behaviour of the plate yielding was adequately captured
by the modelling methods, both for stiffness and strength. To develop the confidence in the modelling
approach, several iterative parametric studies were performed and calibrated to recent tests performed
at the University of Alberta by Kulak et al. (1997). The model was ultimately able to closely match
the initial stiffness, ultimate strength and ‘pinched’ hysteretic loop observed characteristic behaviour
of the plate system (Figure 5).
Generally, the principal energy dissipation occurs in the yielding and buckling of the infill plates
(Figure 6); however, the welded back-up frame for the plates also provided a secondary energy dis-
sipation method through flexural rotation of the frame joints. The infill plates restrained large rotations
from developing at the connections, so the connections were detailed and verified to meet the limited
amount of plastic rotation available for WUF-W ordinary moment frames based on FEMA acceptance
criteria for collapse prevention. The plastic rotation demands on the frame joints rarely exceeded
ultimate usage ratios of 0·5, and in most instances never reached a plastic deformation level.
To accommodate occupant circulation, large doors were often needed within the limits of the plate.
Through a series of parametric studies and based on recent tests performed at the University of Alberta
Figure 5. Analytic model comparison to test data
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 6. Yielding pattern of steel plates
for perforated steel plate walls, unlike traditional concrete shear walls the openings were determined
to optimally located directly adjacent to the VBEs of the walls. Locating the openings at the end of
the walls not only eliminated the need for one extra vertical boundary member; it also actually
improved the performance of the plate system by introducing yet another method of controlled energy
dissipation to the system via the link beam over the opening (Figures 7 and 8). The parametric studies
actually revealed that an appreciable ultimate strength gain could realized through the introduction of
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 7. Capacity comparison with wall penetrations of varying lengths
the link beams at the ends of the shear walls that actually behaved very similar to eccentrically brace
frame links. As a result, the links were detailed similarly to EBF link requirements to provide stabil-
ity under shear yielding behaviour. Plastic rotation limits of the link connection to the column were
limited below code allowable limits of 0·08 rad to only 0·05 rad as a result of recent tests performed
at the University of Texas by M. Enghelhardt of WUF-W connections used for EBF links adjacent to
columns Okazaki et al. (2006).
The VBEs are required to resist a multitude of force demands including the lateral and vertical plate
yielding forces, the moment frame flexural demands, the support of gravity floor framing, as well as
providing the majority of the flexural stiffness of the plate walls. With such enormous demands, it is
easy to envision why those elements typically become quite large, and the LACCH boundaries are no
exception. Through an exhaustive study of various built-up shape configurations, it was ultimately
concluded based on performance and constructability criteria that a built-up box with concrete infill
was the most optimal solution for this tower (Figure 9). The boxes were typically 24 × 44 in., with
50 ksi plate thicknesses ranging from 1 to 4 in. Based on research conducted at the University of
Washington by C. Roeder, interior baffle plates were used to ensure composite behaviour in lieu of
traditional welded studs. The internal baffle plates also served as the continuity plates for the moment
connections, as well as a stiffener for the walls of the box columns to resist the plate-yielding forces.
Many full-scale field tests were performed to design a concrete mix and plate configuration that would
support a pumped concrete placement operation to eliminate creation of voids within the boxes.
Due to the critical importance of these elements, they were verified to resist ultimate maximum
forces based on the suite ground motions, including dispersion of data which oftentimes yielded a
verification force in excess of the max response of all the analysis runs. Ultimate strains in the 8 ksi
infill concrete were monitored during the modelling process, and studies were performed to ensure
that the weldments of steel encasement could provide sufficient confinement of the concrete to develop
those stains.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 8. Detail of shear wall with door penetration
6. OUTRIGGER DESIGN
The intention of the outriggers was to provide control over the drifts of the tower, by essentially
running a stiff truss in both directions at the mid-height, as well as roof of the structure. While the
mid-height outrigger truss was designated to be one-storey tall, the roof outrigger would reach over
the top two stories of the tower (see Figure 10).
By creating such a localized stiff area, the truss attracted great amounts of force. To preserve the
elasticity of the elements within the truss and in particular the columns beneath the truss, BRBs were
chosen to act as structural fuses to ensure a limit to the maximum amount of demand that could be
imposed upon critical elements.
The size of the BRBs was determined from the maximum demands imposed upon the linear ETABS
model. As they were intended to act as a structural fuse during a MCE event only, the BRBs needed
to remain elastic during wind and DBE loading. In general, the wind loading became the governing
demand upon which the BRBs were sized. These loads reached up to 2200 kip, and therefore the
largest of the BRBs were actually four separate 550 kip BRBs combined into one brace element, and
at the time of this paper are the largest BRBs to be implemented anywhere in the USA.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 9. Vertical boundary element configuration
6.1 Nonlinear modelling/overstrength factors

Because the purpose of the BRBs was to protect the surrounding system’s columns while the truss
remained elastic, a capacity-based procedure was utilized in order to focus all inelastic activity only
to the BRBs (as explained in more detail within the discussion of the design of the outrigger elements).
Therefore, an overstrength was applied to the BRB to ensure that the surrounding elements would be
seeing the maximum possible demands. Values for overstrength of BRBs come directly from testing,
generally conducted by the manufacturer of the brace itself (as shown in Figure 11). To use these
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 10. Example wall from nonlinear modelling
overstrength values with confidence, the BRB strain values needed to be checked to confirm that they
were smaller than the strain values that occurred during the utilized brace testing data. The BRB
behaviour, as well as their affect upon the structure, was determined utilizing a nonlinear model of
the structure, running a suite of seven different ground motions. While the model did include a specific
component property-type exclusive for BRBs, the simpler ‘inelastic bar’ component was chosen, using
an elastic–perfectly plastic backbone curve (Figure 12).
While the BRBs did help dissipate energy, provide redundancy and control response, parametric
studies that involved adding, removing and altering the properties of the BRBs proved that the outrig-
gers were somewhat secondary compared to the SPSW in terms of affect on overall system
response.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 11. Example buckling-restrained brace backbone curve
Figure 12. Perform 3D buckling-restrained brace backbone curve
The outriggers were designed using capacity-based procedures to ensure that the only inelastic
activity was solely in the BRBs. This was accounted for by applying an overstrength to the ultimate
capacity of the BRBs, and designing the surrounding system assuming that the BRBs were delivering
this overstrength level of force. While this overstrength was accounted for in the model, the actual
axial forces that were seen within the beams that created the chords of the truss were not able to
extracted directly from the model, due to the fact that the floors of the model were idealized as rigid
diaphragms (no axial force was present within the beams). Therefore, while the strain in the BRBs
and their affect upon the behaviour of the structure overall were determined from the nonlinear model,
the design of the surrounding members of the truss was handled externally. For the situations where
the loading or geometry was more complicated (such as at the roof trusses), the system was replicated
in an external FEM model (see Figure 13). For those beams of the truss that the BRBs did not directly
influence, their acceptance was determined by checking that their rotations were within acceptable
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 13. External model of outrigger verification
Figure 14. Outrigger confirmation strategy
amounts. This situation was mainly present along the mid-height truss that spanned the longitudinal
direction of the tower (see Figure 14). The rotations were checked directly through the nonlinear
model.
Coordination with the manufacturer was critical due to the quick pace of design and construction.
Coordination included: confirmation of overstrength values, actual effective length/stiffness of the
braces and the gusset plate design. This coordination required an orchestrated process between engi-
neer and manufacturer in order to converge upon the optimal solution.
In the manufacturer’s calculations of overstrength, an updated equation had been used to determine
the overstrength factors compared to the equations which had been originally utilized. These newer
values were adopted wherever they yielded a more conservative overstrength demand.
When the BRBs were originally modelled in the nonlinear analysis, the inelastic bar elements rep-
resenting them were connected at the centerline workpoint nodes. This entire length of segment
therefore had the properties of the yielding core of the BRB. In reality, the actual length of the yield-
DOI: 10.1002/tal
ing core would be smaller, and the stiffnesses of the connections would come into play. This in turn
had an affect on the effective stiffness of the braces in the analysis model. Because of this, the actual
estimated stiffness per the manufacturer ended up being about two to three times larger than those
that were effectively created in the Perform model. This also meant that strains being recorded from
the model had to be modified to represent what the strain would be in the actual BRB with a shorter
yielding length.
In order to determine if/what affect this change in effective stiffness may have had, a separate
parametric study was created that focused just on a small section of one of the outrigger trusses that
included two BRBs (Figure 15). Two separate models were produced: one with the original modelling
of the BRBs, and one that altered the properties of the BRBs to match the more realistic effective
stiffness that the manufacturer had used in their calculations. Results from this study (shown in Figure
10) showed that the effective stiffness had little to no affect upon the system in terms of the strains
that were seen by the BRBs, as well as in terms of displacement of the system overall.
Another important aspect of coordination with the manufacturer was the design of the gusset plates.
Synchronization was required as the manufacturer was to design the sizes and geometry of the gusset
Figure 15. External buckling-restrained brace properties sensitivity parametric study
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 16. Sample buckling-restrained brace connection
plates (see Figures 16, 17), while structural analysis needed to ensure that the surrounding members
did not see local yielding or buckling due to the very large forces that the braces were designed to
resist (upwards of 2200 kip). In order to avoid a great deal of iteration, a worst case unit load that
could be applied from each brace was determined, and added stiffeners to the affected HBEs and
VBEs were designed as required per this value.
7. DIAPHRAGM DESIGN
Many traditional diaphragm design methods were tested. Most design methods intend for diaphragms
to remain essentially elastic during an earthquake, and current codes place prescriptive limits on the
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 17. Installation of buckling-restrained braces in roof outrigger
level of stress in the gross cross-section of a diaphragm before confinement is required. Assuming
overstrength forces, the limit is only 1/2 f ′c (ACI-318-05 21.9), but for the LACCH tower, the typical
floor construction was lightweight concrete fill over metal decks which ruled out the use of confine-
ment. However, before the verification of the slab stresses could be evaluated, a design method for
calculating the diaphragm inertia forces was needed.
The first method that was proposed was the use of the traditional UBC-97 eq 33-1, where Ca would
be increased by 1·5 to scale the forces up to MCE. After comparing these associated accelerations of
the diaphragms compared to the maximum diaphragm accelerations from the nonlinear model, it was
determined that the level of forces was too small. The next design method proposed was to use the
maximum diaphragm acceleration at each level as determined by the suite of ground motions to be
used as an inertial coefficient for the diaphragm masses. However, again, the level of force compared
to the sum of the maximum wall shears that the verification models were predicting seemed still too
low. Consequently, rather then using a code prescriptive equation to determine diaphragm inertia, the
maximum forces in all walls were conservatively summed and used as the total storey inertia force.
The diaphragms were then designed using the simple beam analogy with uniform distribution of shear
in the direction perpendicular to the lateral span. Where large openings in the diaphragm were present,
a strut-and-tie model was used rather than the simple beam approach to determine the diaphragm
forces. This design technique worked effectively for all the floors except at the outrigger levels.
Summing maximum wall forces at these levels was producing magnitudes of forces that were
unrealistic.
During the creation of the nonlinear Perform3d model, floors were to be modelled as rigid dia-
phragms. This assumption allowed for faster run times, days instead of weeks. Unfortunately, the rigid
diaphragm assumption created force reversals at the 26th floor that were unrealistic. Level 26 is
the floor at which the low tower stops, as well as where the low BRB outriggers are located (see
Figure 18).
When the rigid diaphragm assumption was used, the force transfer to the wall within the low-rise
portion at the 26th floor was nearly equal to the total shear at the base of the wall (see Figure 19).
Then, over the next two floors the force in the wall dropped by 90% and returned back into the main
body of the tower. This force reversal seemed unrealistic and was essentially an artefact of the infinite
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 18. Overview of setback in structure at level 26
Figure 19. Effects of flexible diaphragms
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 20. Global affects of flexible diaphragms
rigidity associated with a rigid diaphragm modelling assumption. Therefore, a more refined model
was needed to truly understand the amount of force needed to be transferred to the wall at the east
end of the low-rise portion. The nonlinear model was modified several times using a semi-rigid
assumption for multiple floors to see the effect it had on the force levels at the remote wall (see
Figure 19). Each time the number of floors modelled as semi-rigid was increased, the force reversal
amplitude would decrease substantially, as well as the peak transfer level would drop to the level
directly adjacent to semi-rigid/rigid interface. Quick comparisons of inter-storey drift and wall moment
were done to verify the overall performance of the model had not fundamentally changed the output
(see Figure 20).
Unfortunately, due to the time constraints of construction and the amount of analysis time needed
to verify that the rest of the structural elements were still adequate with the revised model, the semi-
rigid assumption was not used. However, due to the fact that the comparisons had shown that global
performance of the model had not been altered significantly, the peer review panel agreed that it would
be acceptable to use multiple floors to create the capacity needed to transfer the rigid diaphragm
transfer force to wall 22. The transfer force was then distributed of levels 24–26. Current codes now
explicitly require that the designer include considerations for the relative stiffness of a diaphragm
(ASCE7-05 12.3.1).
8. FOUNDATION AND BACKSTAY ANALYSIS

The foundation of the tower can be idealized as consisting of two key components: the mat foundation
for vertical forces, and the below-grade diaphragms and walls for lateral restraint. The design approach
of each of these was to maintain essentially elastic behaviour so that yielding of the structural system
can be limited to the steel plate and outrigger systems of the superstructure.
The 8′-0″ and 6′-0″ mat foundation was designed using enveloped forces from several full
three-dimensional linear and nonlinear models that varied the idealized support conditions of the
mat, as well as the mass eccentricity locations. The various support conditions considered are listed
in Table 3.
Based on the demands from box columns above, plain concrete shear stresses in the mat were limited
to 1·0√( f ′c) based on recent research conducted on deep beams that indicate resistance to shear stresses
in concrete diminish as deep beam action develops. Where stresses in the concrete exceeded this
threshold, shear steel was added in the form of vertical 10 ‘pins’ with headed anchors at each end
spaced in a grid pattern to match the contours of the shear stresses. Additionally, the flexural capacity
of the mat was designed to resist the forces from the MCE level seismic event using grade 75 rebar.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 3. Foundation model iterations
Case name Model name Modelling assumptions Intended use

Rigid base 01.edb Rigid diaphragms at all levels Design of the tower structure
Full shear stiffness of subgrade for lateral seismic forces
concrete system Verification of lateral story
Pinned end supports of column bases drifts
Soil interaction 01 spring.edb Rigid diaphragms at all levels Design of subgrade concrete
Full shear stiffness of subgrade system (maximum
concrete system distribution of lateral
Soil spring supports beneath columns forces to perimeter
supported by mat foundation concrete walls)
Semi-rigid base 01 mat.edb Rigid diaphragms at only tower Design of mat foundation
levels (minimum distribution of
Semi-rigid diaphragm of below- lateral forces to perimeter
grade slabs with shear stiffness concrete walls)
reduction of 70% gross section
Pinned end supports of column bases
Figure 21. Vertical boundary element embed detail
In order to transfer the enormous axial forces in the VBE elements (up to 28 000 kip in some
instances), the anchorage of the box columns of the shear walls boundary elements to the mat was
achieved through the implementation of embedded boxes rather than using a multitude of large-diam-
eter high-strength bolts. The bolt option was extensively studied, but was ultimately ruled out due to
the vast number that would have been required and the size of the based plates that would have been
needed. Additionally, a secondary benefit of the box column embed approach was that temporary
shoring of the embeds would be minimal due to the inherent stability of the embed shapes which
also aided in maintaining the level and plumb of the bases during the pouring of the mat concrete
(Figures 21 and 22).
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 22. Installed vertical boundary element embeds
Figure 23. Rigid beam diaphragm analogy
The backstay analysis and design were perhaps one of the more challenging aspects of the entire
design process due to the complication of the configuration tower, the inter-relation of the steel framing
within the concrete basement, the location of ramps and perimeter walls and the height of the tower
in relation to the depth of the basement. Even though the basement diaphragms were modelled as
semi-rigid diaphragms with shear and flexural stiffness explicitly accounted for, the backstay condition
led to very large demands on the ground floor slab in distributing lateral forces from the steel plate
walls to the surrounding concrete perimeter walls which resulted in substantial force reversals in each
of the steel plate walls. Consequently, the amount of shear that was transferred through the ground
floor slab was approximately twice the total MCE-level base shear developed in the superstructure.
Several methods were employed to design the diaphragms including a rigid beam analogy similar
to what was used for the superstructure diaphragms, an elastic shell element model of the entire dia-
phragm with openings and a strut-and-tie approach (see Figures 23–25). The rigid beam analogy
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 24. Strut-and-tie diaphragm analogy
Figure 25. Elastic shell diaphragm analogy
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 26. Diaphragm drag line
Figure 27. Diaphragm drag detail
tended to over-emphasize global behaviour, while ignoring local discontinuity effects, the elastic shell
model tended to overestimate capacities to distribute loads through discontinuities, while the strut-
and-tie analogy could rely too heavily on overly simplified assumptions of diagonal load paths since
current strut-and-tie methodologies were not developed with diaphragms in mind. The limitation and
strength of each method ultimately lead to the design to be based on an envelope of all three methods
which fundamentally means that diaphragm design is still highly dependent on sound engineering
judgment and rational load path analysis. A certain, but difficult to quantify, degree of redundancy is
built into the backstay diaphragm design due to the bounding approach to the force level and the
multiple load paths considered.
Once a force distribution was settled upon, the shear stresses were verified to be within ACI limits,
and drag beams were detailed to distribute the large shear wall forces into the diaphragm. In many
locations, to limit the thickness of the ground floor slab within the steel-framed sections, 10 ksi con-
crete was used to resist the large shear stresses that locally develop near the concrete shear walls. An
extensive study was performed for the drag elements, and their lengths were limited to address issues
of strain compatibility of the diaphragm and the drag element as axial stresses are converted to shear
stresses. Additionally, the drag elements were verified for eccentricity effects related to the width of
the drag elements and the centre of the drag element in relation to the centerline of the shear wall that
delivers the load, as well as when drag elements were required to pass through changes in the slab
elevation (Figures 26 and 27).
9. MODELLING PROCESS CALIBRATION AND LIMITATIONS

Mathematical nonlinear modelling and the resulting analysis of the structure have become an inte-
gral part of a performance-based design process, as it inherently includes in the model all affects
DOI: 10.1002/tal
(ductility, overstrength, ground acceleration, etc.) that prescriptive codes use certain adjustment
factors to account for via a linear analysis. Therefore, having a model that acts as reasonably real-
istic as feasible is important. These factors, in addition to the fact that the system behaviour/
modelling of SPSWs has been a relatively recent innovation, required careful calibration from
relevant testing data.
Originally, small linear studies were performed to capture sensitivity parameter calibration to
known test data. These studies were then translated into nonlinear models to obtain relative confir-
mation of modelling versus testing data. At controlled intervals, more and more detail was included
in the models. Along the way, this process included added openings to the wall being studied, then
performing a pushover analysis upon one entire wall of the tower, then running a time history upon
this wall, to finally running an initial pass at the entire structure.
Although the dependence upon the nonlinear model was substantial, it was always important to
constantly be critical of the analysis results. Multiple types of issues arose throughout the process that
greatly affected certain components of response that were not ever necessarily flagged as being incor-
rect or anomalous, even though scrutiny revealed that the behaviour of the model was not necessarily
realistic.
One of the causes of these issues is the still-advancing technology used for the modelling of the
structures. For example, during the finalization of the nonlinear model, although all properties, ground
motions, etc. seemed to be correct, and results seemed reasonable, the global behaviour of the structure
in general did not appear to intuitively be realistic (see Figure 28). After a great deal of investigation,
it was found that the implementation of damping within the program’s code itself was causing the
unexpected behaviour. After a program update, the exact same model provided a much more realistic
Figure 28. Anomalous global behaviour
DOI: 10.1002/tal
global response. Events like these are sure to be part of the learning process of the still-advancing
technologies of the nonlinear modelling process.
In addition, modelling techniques and assumptions could also have large affects upon the reliability
of the results produced. For example, as previously mentioned, while using rigid or semi-rigid dia-
phragms did not seem to have a large global affect, local diaphragm shear transfers through certain
walls were greatly influenced by whether a rigid or semi-rigid assumption was used.
While semi-rigid diaphragms would then seem to be the most appropriate solution, their use gener-
ally only affected results locally near the large set-back in the structure at the 26th floor where the
stiff outriggers were positioned. Therefore, their complete inclusion, which would require substantial
modelling effort (due to the differing plan locations of columns for each floor), as well as an increase
in run-time, is just one example of many important aspects that need to be considered by the design
engineer. For these reasons, even with the power of computing methods of the current day, the impor-
tance for performance-based design methods to rely on the computer analysis methods as a verification
tool rather than a design tool cannot be overemphasized.
10. FINAL COMMENTS

During the course of design, many challenges were met and overcome that relied on an unwavering
confidence in the fundamental principals of the design that was supported by intense collaboration
with leading research and construction professionals. The final result produced an innovative enhanced
building system that exhibits a more reliable and predictable behaviour at a reduced cost to the own-
ership and a shortened construction schedule.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Beyond the incredible dedication to the project by the engineers at NYA, the process of designing the
project benefited tremendously from extremely valuable collaboration with many leaders within the
A/E, construction, research and development industry. We would like to acknowledge their contribu-
tions to the project and deeply appreciate their involvement.
(1) Ownership team (Anshultz Entertainment Group): Ted Tanner, Kent Warden and Greg LeBon;
(2) Architecture team (Gensler Architects): Kap Malik, Warwick Wicksman and John Adams;
(3) Peer review panel members: Prof. Stephen Mahin (UC Berkeley), Prof. Jack Moehle (UC
Berkeley) and James Malley (Degenkolb Engineers);
(4) Steel fabricators (Herrick Steel): Bob Hazleton and Lee Becker;
(5) Researchers: Prof. Robert Driver (University of Alberta), Prof. Michael Englehardt (University
of Texas), Prof. Charles Roeder (University of Washington) and Rafael Sabelli (AISC Design
Guide 20).
REFERENCES
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2005. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC
341-05). AISC: Chicago, IL.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE 7-05). ASCE: Reston, VA.
Kulak G, Kennedy D, Driver R, Elwi A. 1997. Seismic behavior of steel plate shear walls. Report no. 215,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Structural Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB.
LATBSDC (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. LATBSDC: Los Angeles, CA.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Okazaki T, Engelhardt M, Nakashima M, Suita K. 2006. Experimental performance of link-to-column connections

in eccentrically braced frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering volume. 132, No. 8 August 2006:
1201–1211.
Sabelli R, Bruneau M. 2006. Design Guide 20—Steel Plate Shear Wall (DRAFT VERSION). American Institute
of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

Structural Design Tall Build - 2009 - Youssef - Seismic Performance of A 55 Storey Steel Plate Shear Wall

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Design Tall Build - 2009 - Youssef - Seismic Performance of A 55 Storey Steel Plate Shear Wall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 139–165 (2010)

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A 55-STOREY STEEL PLATE

1. INTRODUCTION AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 2. Sloping columns

Horizontal Boundary Element (HBE)

Figure 3. Lateral force-resisting system overview

3. INDUSTRY CHALLENGES AND ADVANCEMENTS

3.1 System behaviour

Figure 4. Outrigger placement along tower

3.2 Ground motions

Table 1. Code equivalency procedures

Prescriptive code PBD equivalent

Table 2. Performance objectives

Event level Interval Design approach Analysis method

5. THIN SPSW SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION

Figure 5. Analytic model comparison to test data

Figure 6. Yielding pattern of steel plates

Figure 7. Capacity comparison with wall penetrations of varying lengths

Figure 8. Detail of shear wall with door penetration

Figure 9. Vertical boundary element configuration

6.1 Nonlinear modelling/overstrength factors

Figure 10. Example wall from nonlinear modelling

Figure 11. Example buckling-restrained brace backbone curve

Figure 12. Perform 3D buckling-restrained brace backbone curve

Figure 13. External model of outrigger verification

Figure 14. Outrigger confirmation strategy

Figure 15. External buckling-restrained brace properties sensitivity parametric study

Figure 16. Sample buckling-restrained brace connection

Figure 17. Installation of buckling-restrained braces in roof outrigger

Figure 18. Overview of setback in structure at level 26

Figure 19. Effects of flexible diaphragms

Figure 20. Global affects of flexible diaphragms

8. FOUNDATION AND BACKSTAY ANALYSIS

Table 3. Foundation model iterations

Case name Model name Modelling assumptions Intended use

Figure 21. Vertical boundary element embed detail

Figure 22. Installed vertical boundary element embeds

Figure 23. Rigid beam diaphragm analogy

Figure 24. Strut-and-tie diaphragm analogy

Figure 25. Elastic shell diaphragm analogy

Figure 26. Diaphragm drag line

Figure 27. Diaphragm drag detail

9. MODELLING PROCESS CALIBRATION AND LIMITATIONS

Figure 28. Anomalous global behaviour

10. FINAL COMMENTS

Okazaki T, Engelhardt M, Nakashima M, Suita K. 2006. Experimental performance of link-to-column connections

You might also like