Structural Design Considerations

for Ultra Irregular 60 Storey Building

Using Performance Based Design
Approach
By: Jose A. Sy
50 Storey Residential Building
6 Levels Basement Parking
Designed by Daniel Libeskind
Interior Designed by Armani / Casa
Architect on Record, GF & Partners Architects
THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY MAKATI CITY
NOTABLE PROJECTS OF DANIEL LIBESKIND
CityLife Milan, Italy
Reflections at Keppel Bay Keppel Bay, Singapore
NOTABLE PROJECTS OF DANIEL LIBESKIND
Crystals at CityCenter - Las Vegas Nevada
NOTABLE PROJECTS OF DANIEL LIBESKIND
Bord Gis Energy Theatre and Grand Canal Commercial
Development Dublin, Ireland
NOTABLE PROJECTS OF DANIEL LIBESKIND
Extension to the Denver Art Museum, Frederic C. Hamilton Building
Denver, Colorado
NOTABLE PROJECTS OF DANIEL LIBESKIND
THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY MAKATI CITY
Cladding Axometric - A
THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY MAKATI CITY
Cladding Axometric - B
THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY MAKATI CITY
Section A Section B
FRAMING PLANS
Basement 2 Floor Framing Plan
FRAMING PLANS
4th Floor Framing Plan
FRAMING PLANS
14th Floor Framing Plan
FRAMING PLANS
33rd Floor Framing Plan
THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY MAKATI CITY
Structural Axometric - A
THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY MAKATI CITY
Structural Axometric - B
Mushrooming Column Diagonally Outward at
Different Levels
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
Diagonal Columns
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
Framing System of the Crown
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
Framing System of the Crown
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
West Facade Wall Section 03
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
South Facade Wall Section 04
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
South Facade Wall Section 02
SNAPSHOTS OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
South Facade Wall Section 04
OVERALL METHODOLOGY
* Do a prescriptive design approach (Code Based)
Design based earthquake (475 Years Return Period)
* Do a performance base design
Service Level Earthquake (43 Years Return Period)
Max considered earthquake (2475 Years Return
Period)
* Revise the design as appropriate based on the results of
the PBD
STANDARD AND GUIDELINES FO PBD
PEER 2010 , Tall buildings initiative guidelines for
performance based siesmic design
ATC 72-1 Interim Guidelines on modeling and acceptance
criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings
(ATC 72-1)
LATBSDC 2008 : An alternative procedure for seismic
analysis
ASCE 41-06: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
NEHRP 2008 : Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
Special Moment Frames
WHEN TO DO PBD?
Layout can not conform to code requirements
No back up of moment frames
Pure shearwall building exceed 74 meters
Buildings whose seismic resistance is not dual system
Belt trusses
Outrigger walls or BRBs
Damper
Very irregular buildings
Sloping columns
Mushrooming Columns
Transfer beams and columns
PBD can likewise be applied to buildings that are conforming
to the code.
LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL DESIGN CODES
Code do not have specific guidelines for irregular buildings
with outrigger, dampers, belt trusses, slope column, etc.
Codes are written for low and medium size building where
responses are dominated by transitional first mode
Enforce uniform detailing on all members without
justification
STEPS IN PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
Do a code based design
Evaluate appropriate overstrength factor R
Construct model including sizes, reinforcements, ties and
stirrups
Subject this model to 7 time histories representing past
major earthquake by NLTHA
Evaluate building performance
Revise and adjust sizes and reinforements
CASE STUDY : THE SPIRE AT CENTURY CITY
Undeformed Shape Elevations showing location
of outrigger walls
Plan showing location of
outrigger walls
CODE BASED DESIGN OUTPUT
MODE SHAPES
Mode 1: 6.917 Seconds
Mode 2: 5.92 Seconds
CODE BASED DESIGN OUTPUT
MODE SHAPES
Mode 3: 4.88 Seconds
CODE BASED DESIGN OUTPUT
MODE SHAPES
Mode 4: 2.0670 Seconds
CODE BASED DESIGN OUTPUT
MODE SHAPES
CODE BASED
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Story Shear (DBE)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
SPEC1
SPEC2
STORY SHEAR (DBE)
StoryShear (KN)
S
t
o
r
y
Drift (DBE)
CODE BASED
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Story Moment (DBE)
CODE BASED
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Displacement (DBE)
CODE BASED
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE
Level of Earthquake Seismic Performance Objective
Frequent/Service: 50%
probability of exceedance in 30
years (43-year return period),
2.5% of structural damping
Serviceability: Limited structural damage,
should not affect the ability of the structure to
survive future Maximum Considered
Earthquake shaking even if not repaired.
Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE): 2%
probability of exceedance in 50
years (2475-year return period),
2 to 3% of structural damping
Collapse Prevention: Building may be on the
verge of partial or total collapse, extensive
structural damage; repairs are required and
may not be economically feasible
Service :
1. Story Drift 0.5 percent
2. Coupling Beams Shear strength to remain essentially
elastic
3. Core wall flexure Remain essentially elastic
4. Core wall shear Remain essentially elastic
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) :
1. Story Drift 0.020 h
n
Acceptance Criteria :
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
SEISMIC INPUT
Figure 8. Uniform Hazard Spectrum
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
Figure 19. Story Displacement
Figure 20. Transient Drift
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
Figure 21. Residual Drift
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
Figure 22. Shear Wall Axial Strain
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
Figure 23. Link Beam Rotation
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
Figure 24. Shear Wall Shear Capacity after
Adjustment of Reinforcement
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
Figure 25. Story Acceleration
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN APPROACH
OUTPUT
CHANGES IN REINFORCEMENT FROM CODE BASED
TO PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
Vertical Reinforcement in Core Wall Shear Reinforcement in Core Wall
Code PBD Code PBD
4.0%-2.8%
(Entire section)
1.8%-0.8%
(Boundary zone)
0.5%-0.3%
(Middle zone)
1.0%-1.5% 1.88%-0.33%
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Code Based Design Approach
Not appropriate for buildings with numerous plans and
vertical irregularities
Cannot predict the performance for buildings with outrigger,
super columns, belt trusses and/or damper
Performance Based Design Approach
Check the global and component responses against
detailed acceptance criteria for multiple seismic events.
Results in a better performing building which guarantees
collapse prevention.
Generally lead to cost effective design buildings
Hopefully, it will become mandatory in our local code
considering we have the same seismic risk as California,
Japan, New Zealand, etc.
Thank you!