1629.10 Alternative Procedures.

1629.10.1 General. Alternative lateral-force procedures using

rational analyses based on well-established principles of mechanics
may be used in lieu of those prescribed in these provisions.
Buildings over 240 ft
(proposed, approved, or under construction)
San Francisco – 38; Los Angeles – 53; Seattle …
 Types of
Occupancy
CONDO

HOTEL

$ RETAIL

PARKING

$
 Framing systems

301 Mission – San Francisco wall and outriggers backup frame

 Framing systems

One Rincon Hill – San Francisco Lateral system

 Framing systems

LA Convention Center Framing plan

Washington Mutual /
Seattle Art Museum
Washington Mutual /
Seattle Art Museum
Wall reinforcement detailing

(a) Boundary element plan A (b) Boundary element plan b

Detailing
ACI 318 detail under review Spacing measured
Total area of reinforcement perpendicular to the axis of
SYM. in each group of diagonal
the diagonal bars not to
exceed 14 in., typical
SECTION bars, Avd

α
Wall boundary
reinforcement,
typical

ELEVATION SECTION

Option A
Spacing not exceeding smaller Spacing not to
of 6 in. and 6db, typical exceed 8 in., typical

SECTION

db

Alternate consecutive
crosstie 90-deg hooks,
both horizontally and
Spacing not to vertically, typical
exceed 8 in., typical

ELEVATION SECTION
Option B
Framing systems

Century Wilshire – Los Angeles

 Framing
systems Detail and Intended
Load Path

Paramount Building – San Francisco

What’s different about these buildings?

• Very “efficient” structural systems

• High-performance materials
• Unusual heights
• Long vibration periods

after MKA
 O
P
E
N

Sa
V≅ W
R
1.6
Sa
1.2

0.8
Eqn. 30-7
0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Vibration Period
(Shown for Site Class B, S1 = 0.6g, Ss = 1.5g)
 1.6

Acceleration, g 1.2

0.8
2 Eqn. 30-7
⎛ T ⎞
∆=⎜ ⎟ Sa g 0.4
⎝ 2π ⎠
0.0
100

Displacement, in. 80
Eqn. 30-7
60

40

20

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Vibration Period
(Shown for Site Class B, S1 = 0.6g, Ss = 1.5g)
1629.10 Alternative Procedures.
1629.10.1 General. Alternative lateral-force procedures using
rational analyses based on well-established principles of mechanics
may be used in lieu of those prescribed in these provisions.
 Alternative Design “Formula”

Alternative
Design
≡ (Code Prescriptive Requirements – Exceptions) + Enhancements
• Height limits
• Minimum strength and
associated drift limits

• Explicit capacity design

• Verification of safety
 Displacement Design/
Traditional Approach Capacity Design Approach

Vu Vpr l

Mu Mpr
W

W
M pr
φM M n ≥ M u V pr =
l
φV V n ≥ V u φV V n ≥ V pr
 Capacity design for wall moments
Roof

Design moments from DBE analysis

Moments amplified to account for
overdesign of the plastic hinge
Moments further amplified to account
for overstrength of the plastic hinge

Base of Wall
Mu Mn Mpr
 Verification of Safety
• Usually interpreted as a demonstration
that the building will not collapse under
MCE earthquake shaking.

O
P
E
N

OK Not OK
Building site
3-second spectral accelerations
 Selection and scaling of ground
motions

Math Problem: Find x.

x
3

4
Ground motion scaling
Nonlinear modeling
Core wall moments
 Core wall moments

Elevation

Increasing
Shaking
intensity

Moment
Wall design
verification
 Design values?
ROOF

Roof Wall Wall

drift, ft base moment at
shear, k 13th floor,
1000 x k-ft
Minimum 2.1 7600 513
Maximum 6.7 29700 1080
Mean (m) 4.2 15500 900
m+σ 5.4 22200 1090
c.o.v. 0.23 0.43 0.21
13th
Nonlinear 5500 760
static

(b) Summary of results

BASE
(a) Building elevation
 Are we asking the right questions?
A or B
What is the response of What is the response
the building given it is that has a 2500-year
subjected to earthquake return period, and how
ground shaking whose can I have confidence
spectral acceleration failure will not occur if
has a 2500-year return that response occurs?
period?
 Elevation

Moment
 Are we asking the right questions?
A or B
In an alternate Is code-equivalent
procedure design performance sufficient
approach, what is code- for tall buildings?
equivalent
performance?
 Tall Buildings Initiative
• 24 month initiative to advance seismic design of
tall buildings
• Main participants
– PEER, SCEC, USGS, SFDBI, LADBS, FEMA
– ATC, LATBSDC, SEAOC, SEAONC
– Project Management Committee
• Scope
– Tall buildings
– Seismic design of structural system
– Coastal California
– Concrete and steel
– Residential focus, but not excluding other
occupancies
 Tasks
– Consensus performance objectives
– Guidelines on ground motion selection and
modification
– Guidelines on modeling and acceptance
criteria
– Input ground motions for tall buildings with
subterranean levels
Final product

Guidelines for
performance-based
seismic design of
tall buildings

December 2008
 Building Regulations
• UBC 1946
This code …“is dedicated to the development of
This code …“is dedicated to the development of
better building construction and greater safety
better building construction and greater safety
to the public, through the elimination of
to the public, through the elimination of
needless red tape, favoritism and local politics
needless red tape, favoritism and local politics
by uniformity in building laws; to the granting
by uniformity in building laws; to the granting
of full justice to all building materials on the
of full justice to all building materials on the
fair basis of the true merits of each material;
fair basis of the true merits of each material;
and to the development of a sound economic
basis for the future growth of cities through
unbiased and equitable dealing with structural
design and fire hazards.”