Performance-based seismic design of an irregular tall building a case study

Ali Ruzi Ozuygur

PII: S2352-0124(15)00107-1
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2015.10.001
Reference: ISTRUC 62

To appear in:

Received date: 25 July 2014

Revised date: 2 September 2015
Accepted date: 2 October 2015

Please cite this article as: Ozuygur Ali Ruzi, Performance-based seismic design of an
irregular tall building a case study, (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2015.10.001

This is a PDF le of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its nal form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could aect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Performance-based seismic design of an irregular tall building a

case study
Ali Ruzi zuygur*1
Department of Structural Engineering, YPU Yap Proje Uygulama Co., Istanbul, Turkey

PT
SUMMARY

Structural design of a 50-story tall reinforced concrete residential building, which was planned to be

RI
constructed in Istanbul and given up afterwards by the investor, has been completed in accordance with
the draft version of Seismic Design Code for Tall Buildings in Istanbul that adopts performance-based
seismic design as the basic approach as Tall Buildings Initiative Guidelines do. Seismic design of the

SC
building has formed the main part of the structural design process due to high seismicity of the proposed
location and extremely irregular floor plan not conforming to usual tall building structures. The building
consists of two individual buildings linked through stronger link slabs at top 13 stories whereas relatively
weak slabs at lower stories. The building has been designed for design basis earthquake by elastic

NU
response spectrum analysis and its seismic performance has been checked for maximum considered
earthquake by nonlinear time history analyses carried out using PERFORM-3D.

KEY WORDS: performance-based seismic design, nonlinear time history analyses, tall building, irregular floor plan,
PERFORM-3D
MA
1. INTRODUCTION

Application of performance-based seismic design (PBSD) to tall buildings is relatively new although its
D

history goes back to 1980s. With the issue of PBSD recommendations such as Recommendations for the
Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings by Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH, 2008),
TE

An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles
Region by Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC, 2008), Requirements and
Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Review of New Tall Buildings using Non-Prescriptive Seismic-
Design Procedures by Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC, 2007), and
P

finally Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings by Tall Buildings Initiative
Guidelines Working Group (TBI, 2010), many buildings especially located in high seismicity regions
CE

have been designed using PBSD method around the world (Klemencic et al., 2006; Willford and Smith,
2008; elebi et al., 2013). As expressed in these documents, PBSD has many advantages over traditional
prescriptive code-based design methods whose regulations are not fully suitable for tall buildings for their
unique structural behavior. Traditional design codes, briefly, a) are basically prepared to regulate the
AC

design of low and medium rise buildings whose first translational mode is taken into account in seismic
analysis; b) have application limitations with regard to building height; c) impose rigid rules on the
analysis and structural system; d) prescribe elastic analysis with seismic force reduction factor which was
widely investigated by various researchers (Nassar and Krawinkler, 1991; Paulay and Priestley, 1992;
Miranda and Bertero, 1994; Whittaker et al., 1999; Elnashai and Mwafy, 2002; Thuat, 2014) in order to
account for the inelastic behavior of the buildings under major earthquakes, although it cannot be
theoretically defined especially for tall buildings due to their unique structural behavior. Unlike these
drawbacks of prescriptive code-based design, PBSD makes it possible to more realistically obtain
displacements and accelerations of stories, effects of higher modes and redistribution of shear forces of
tall buildings in inelastic behavior range (Klemencic et al., 2007; Moehle et al., 2011).

Few codes in the world have regulatory requirements towards PBSD of tall buildings. Seismic Design
Code for Tall Buildings in Istanbul (SDCTBI, 2008) was proposed in 2008; however it hasnt been put
into implementation yet. SDCTBI adopts PBSD method and has provisions like those of previously
mentioned documents. Design objectives in SDCTBI are briefly stated as a) negligible damage and
immediate occupancy performance level under earthquake with 50% probability of exceedance in 50
years (return period of 72 years) entitled D1 and service level earthquake (SLE); b) controllable damage
and life safety performance level under earthquake with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years

* Correspondence to: Ali Ruzi zuygur, YPU Yap Proje Uygulama, Morbasan Sok. No.10, Balmumcu, Beikta, Istanbul,
Turkey. E-mail: aruzi@ypu.com.tr, aliruzi@gmail.com
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(return period of 475 years) entitled D2 and design basis earthquake (DBE); c) extensive damage and
collapse prevention performance level under earthquake with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years
(return period of 2475 years) entitled D3 and maximum considered earthquake (MCE).

Various studies were conducted to investigate and advance the application of PBSD to tall buildings
especially in the last 10 years. Case studies (Moehle et al., 2011; Jones, 2011; Tuna, 2012) conducted by

PT
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley (PEER) aiming at
defining the seismic performance of tall buildings designed by alternative means have been among the
most important works in this regard so far.

RI
In this paper, structural design procedure of the proposed building whose first version was presented by
zuygur (2015) completed in accordance with the regulations of SDCTBI along with the
recommendations of other guidelines is presented. The building has been designed for DBE by elastic

SC
response spectrum analysis and its performance has been checked for MCE by nonlinear time history
analyses; and brief analyses results and observations have been summarized.

2. STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING BY LINEAR ANALYSIS

NU
2.1 The Structural System

The residential building whose architectural render is given in Figure 1 and which is planned to be
MA
constructed in Bomonti district of Istanbul has 50 stories above and two additional stories below grade.
Total height of the building from foundation level is 198 m with 3.8-m story height above grade and 4-m
story height below grade. The building has extremely irregular structural floor plan as shown in Figure 2
imposed by rigid architectural requirements which is not usually suitable for tall building structures. The
structural floor plan is antimetric about the axis 13. The vertical load bearing system of the building
D

consists of concrete slabs sitting on beams supported by shear walls and columns. The lateral load
carrying system of the building consists of shear walls with coupling beams distributed in floor plan as
TE

required by architectural needs. Dimensions of the structural elements of lower stories are summarized in
Table 1. General slab thickness is selected as 0.16 m by iterative analysis of vibration and long term
deflection under sustained loads. The slab of corridor area between shear walls is selected as 0.3 m in
order to increase lateral stiffness of the building. The structure can be considered as two individual
P

buildings (Building A and Building B) linked through weak corridor slabs (link slab) at most of the
CE

stories (Figure 2a) and fully continuous floor slab (link slab) at top 13 stories (Figure 2b). The slab
thickness of link area and adjacent spans at top 13 stories is selected as 0.3 m considering in-plane forces
of the slab caused by different dynamic behavior of the buildings under seismic forces. Thicknesses of the
shear walls are 0.8 m at lower stories and gradually reduced to 0.4 m at top stories. Thickness of the shear
AC

walls at the axis 11 and 15 is 0.8 m all over the height in order to support 18-m long-span beam at link
area. Diameter of the column is 1.5 m at lower stories and gradually reduced to 0.8 m at top stories.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
D

Figure 1. Architectural render of the building by Tago Architects.

P TE
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
D

(a) Typical floor plan below level 183.30 m.

TE
P
CE
AC

(b) Typical floor plan above level 187.10 m.

Figure 2. Typical floor plan.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2 Materials and Vertical Loads

Selected concrete class is C50 with characteristic strength fc = 50 MPa and reinforcing steel is S420 with
yield strength fsy = 420 MPa. Superimposed dead load is taken as 3.5 kPa which counts for floor coating
and separating walls in all residential areas. Live load is taken as 2 kPa in all residential areas, 5 kPa in all
public and car parking areas. Line load of 3.5 kN/m is taken as cladding weight on the beams at exterior

PT
line of each floor. Additional area load of 15 kPa is taken in mechanical areas based on the information
provided by the mechanical designer.

2.3 Site Specific Assessment of Seismic Hazard

RI
A site specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Report (PSHAR) was prepared by Erdik et al.
(2011) to develop the DBE and MCE response spectra and spectrally matched time history pairs. Istanbul

SC
has suffered from numbers of destructive earthquakes throughout history (Ambraseys and Finkel, 1991).
Seismic hazard of Istanbul and therefore of this building is caused by seismically active Marmara Fault
System which is the north branch of well-known North Anatolian Fault. One of fault segmentation
models used for the assessment of seismic hazard of Marmara region is given in Figure 3 (Erdik et al.,

NU
2004). All these fault segments have generated destructive earthquakes throughout history with moment
magnitudes mostly larger than 7.0.
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC

Figure 3. A fault segmentation model for Marmara region (Erdik et al., 2004).

A possible largest earthquake having Mw = 7.25 can be expected by rupture of 4 segments of Marmara
Fault System. Depth of hypocenter can be assumed to be 12 km based on previous earthquakes
experienced at North Anatolian Fault. The distance between the building location and Marmara Fault
System is about 23 km. Having S wave velocity of 760 m/s (ELC, 2009), the soil under the foundation
belongs to B/C class in SDCTBI and National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program of the U.S.A
(NEHRP). PSHAR using these earthquake characteristics gives peak ground accelerations (PGA) and
spectral accelerations (Sa) at short period (SS) and period of 1 second (S1) as shown in Table 2.

Uniform hazard response spectrum of each earthquake level for 5% damping, Fa = 1 and Fv = 1
(NEHRP/IBC/SDCTBI) as well as the elastic spectra for spectrally matched ground motion time histories
of MCE are given in Figure 4.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.6
ARC000
1.4 BRS000
CPE147
1.2 DSP000
LAMONT362E
1 MHV000

PT
Sa (g)
NPS000
0.8
MEAN
0.6 MCE, 2% in 50
DBE, 10% in 50

RI
0.4 SLE, 50% in 50

0.2

SC
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
T (sec)

NU
Figure 4. Uniform hazard response spectrum for 5% damping and elastic spectra for ground motion time
histories of MCE.

Seven pairs of spectrally matched ground motion time histories for MCE which are used in the nonlinear
MA
time history analyses are given in Figure 5.

KOCAELI-RMS-ARCELIK-000-Records (ARC000) KOCAELI-RMS-ARCELIK-090-Records (ARC090)

1 1
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.5 0.5
D

0 0
-0.5 -0.5
TE

-1 -1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t (sec) t (sec)
P

LANDERS-RMS-BARSTOW-000-Records (BRS000) LANDERS-RMS-BARSTOW-090-Records (BRS090)

1 1
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)
CE

0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
AC

t (sec) t (sec)

IMPERIAL VALLEY-RMS-CERRO-PRIETO147-Records (CPE147) IMPERIAL VALLEY-RMS-CERRO-PRIETO237-Records (CPE237)

1 1
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
t (sec) t (sec)

LANDERS-RMS-DESERT-HOT-SPRINGS-000-Records (DSP000) LANDERS-RMS-DESERT-HOT-SPRINGS-090-Records (DSP090)

1 1
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
t (sec) t (sec)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

DUZCE-RMS-LAMONT362E-Records (LAMONT362E) DUZCE-RMS-LAMONT362N-Records (LAMONT362N)

1 1

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1

PT
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
t (sec) t (sec)

LANDERS-RMS-MORONGO-VALLEY-000-Records (MHV000) LANDERS-RMS-MORONGO-VALLEY-090-Records (MHV090)

RI
1 1
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)
0.5 0.5
0 0

SC
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (sec) t (sec)

NU
LANDERS-RMS-NORTH-PALM-SPRINGS000-Records (NPS000) LANDERS-RMS-NORTH-PALM-SPRINGS090-Records (NPS090)
1 1
Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)
0.5 0.5
0 MA 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (sec) t (sec)

Figure 5. Time history pairs of ground motion of MCE.

D

2.4 Linear Elastic Seismic Analysis by DBE

TE

Effective stiffness values used in the linear elastic analysis are summarized in Table 3.

Sensitivity analyses with respect to soil-foundation modeling have been carried out for the following
P

three modeling approaches:

CE

1) The foundation is modeled with vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of foundation soil which
is 250000 kN/m3 provided by the geotechnical engineering consultant; and horizontal ones equal
to 2/3 of the vertical. Dynamic analysis is carried out using ETABS (CSI, 2011a) in this
approach.
AC

2) The foundation is modeled including foundation soil of 139 m x 122 m x 60 m volume having
modulus of elasticity Es = 900 MPa as provided by the geotechnical engineering consultant.
Dynamic analysis is carried out using SAP2000 (CSI, 2012) in this approach.
3) The foundation is modeled with fixed base.

Vibration periods of the first three modes obtained from the approaches given above are compared in
Table 4.

The first approach is utilized in the structural analysis and design of this building for timesaving, although
the second approach is evaluated the most suitable one to the real case. The analyses results except that of
foundation given hereafter are obtained from the analysis model of the first approach. Foundation design
is performed using the analysis results of the second approach.

First three mode shapes are given in Figure 6. As seen from the figure, the first and third mode shapes
have components in the two horizontal directions; and the second has torsional component.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
(a) (b) (c)

NU
Figure 6. First three mode shapes of the building: (a) first mode; (b) second mode; (c) third mode.

Different structural response modification factors are used in accordance with the provisions of SDCTBI
and based on structural design objectives. R = 6 is used for almost all flexure calculations because of
MA
expected ductile behavior; R = 2 is used for all shear calculations because of expected brittle behavior;
and R = 1 is used for flexure, shear and axial (in-plane) force calculations of link slab and beams between
Building A and Building B at top 13 stories in order to keep them elastic under the largest earthquake.

The internal forces obtained with R = 6 are scaled by a factor calculated as the inverse ratio of base shear
D

to the minimum base shear given in SDCTBI as below:

TE

Vb,min = 0.04 SMS(DBE) W (1)

where SMS = Fa SS is spectral acceleration for short period and W is the seismic weight of the building
calculated as the sum of all dead loads and 30% of live loads as specified in Turkish Earthquake Code
P

2007 (TEC, 2007).

CE

Seismic weight of the building is calculated as W = 2169303 kN. The minimum base shear is calculated
as Vb,min = 0.0356 W.

Lateral seismic loads are taken into account in four different directions based on the irregular shape of the
AC

building; and the base shear scale factor calculated from the minimum base shear is about 1.5 for all
seismic load directions.

Maximum elastic soil pressure beneath the foundation is obtained about 1100 kPa as given in Figure 7;
which is smaller than the allowed elastic soil pressure 1200 kPa given by the geotechnical engineering
consultant.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
Figure 7. Elastic soil pressure beneath the foundation.

2.5 Wind Design MA

Wind tunnel tests have been conducted by RWDI (RWDI, 2013) in order to define wind loads, wind-
induced structural response, cladding pressures and pedestrian level wind microclimate conditions. Wind
tunnel model is given in Figure 8. Wind-induced base shear is about 0.004 W, therefore seismic forces
dominate the structural design. Total lateral displacement due to the wind load of 50-year return period is
obtained as 0.045 m. As for the human comfort, the acceleration due to wind load at top story of the
D

building is obtained as 7.9, 11 and 12 milli-g for winds of 1, 5 and 10-year of return period respectively.
As shown in Figure 9, these acceleration values almost satisfy residential comfort requirements of RWDI
TE

and ISO 10137.

P
CE
AC

Figure 8. Wind tunnel model.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
Figure 9. Peak acceleration values due to wind load.

2.6 Design Challenges

Structural analysis and detailing of outer beams of link slabs at top 13 floors shown in Figure 10 have
D

been one of the most important design challenges in this project. Besides the response spectrum analysis
by R = 1, additional torsional moments MA and MB shown in Figure 10 with all possible sign
TE

combinations are applied in order to depict the worst case the beams can face considering the assumed
different behavior of Building A and B. MA and MB are calculated as follows:

MA = MB = 0.5 x (Vi+1 - Vi) x 0.05 x L, (2)

P

where Vi is the story shear of ith floor and L is the approximate length of Building A or B. The axial forces
CE

have also been checked by the results of nonlinear time history analysis by MCE.
AC

Figure 10. Torsional moments applied to the irregular floor.

3. PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN BY NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSES

Nonlinear time history analyses have been conducted by DBE ground motions for the evaluation of life
safety and MCE ground motions for the evaluation of collapse prevention performance level utilizing
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PERFORM-3D (CSI, 2011b). Only the results of nonlinear time history analyses by MCE ground
motions and performance evaluation for collapse prevention level are presented here.

3.1 Key Points of Nonlinear Modeling and Performance Evaluation

Nonlinear modeling features in PERFORM-3D are mostly referenced to (Powell, 2007; Ghodsi and Ruiz,

PT
2010). Key points of nonlinear modeling features and performance acceptance criteria are summarized
below:

a) Expected strength is used for concrete and reinforcing steel as fce = 1.3 fc and fse = 1.17 fsy

RI
respectively.
b) 2% of damping is used in the analyses.
c) The effective stiffness values of structural members used for linear elastic analysis by DBE are

SC
used herein as well.
d) All frame elements are modeled as FEMA Beam and FEMA Column.
e) Outer beams of link slabs at top 13 floors are modeled as FEMA Column to high axial forces.
f) Link slabs are modeled as elastic shell elements; and two separate diaphragms are assigned to

NU
Building A and Building B so as to more realistically obtain in-plane forces of link slab and axial
forces of beams at link slab area.
g) Boundary elements and the web of shear walls are modeled separately using their reinforcement
ratios. A considerable amount of modeling time has been saved by this way whereas the more
MA
amounts have been consumed for running the model due to its size.
h) Being the basic references for SDCTBI as well as other guidelines, FEMA 356 and ASCE 41 are
used for the reference of performance acceptance criteria.

3.2 Results of Nonlinear Time History Analyses

D

Nonlinear time history analyses results such as lateral displacements and story drift ratios; compression
TE

and tension strains, shear forces as well as axial forces of sample shear walls; chord rotation of sample
coupling beams are presented in this section to represent the overall seismic performance of the building
under MCE.
P

Lateral displacement of lower left point at the floor levels and the corresponding story drift ratio are given
CE

in Figure 11. Story drift ratio of this point is one of the maximum values and much smaller than the
allowed value 0.03 (LATBSDC, 2008; TBI, 2010; SDCTBI, 2008).

Maximum compression and tension strain of sample shear walls are given in Figure 12; and the peak
AC

compression strain is smaller than the allowed value 0.018 (SDCTBI, 2008) for unconfined concrete
noting that the boundaries of the shear walls are properly confined in accordance with the relevant codes
(TEC, 2007; ACI, 2011) which results in higher capacity of compression strain. Similarly, the peak
tension strain is smaller than the allowed value 0.06 (SDCTBI, 2008).

Shear force diagrams of sample shear walls are given in Figure 13. Shear forces obtained from nonlinear
time history analyses are compared with those obtained from linear elastic analysis by DBE with R = 2. It
is observed that the shear forces of linear elastic analysis are much smaller than that of nonlinear time
history analyses. Although the maximum shear stresses are under the allowed value of 0.83  (ACI,
2011) in both cases, extra amount of shear reinforcement are needed for the case of nonlinear time history
analyses. It is also observed that the shear profiles of walls are generally not affected by coupling effect of
stronger link slabs at top 13 floors; in other words, no extinct jump is observed at top 13 floor levels. This
shows that the weaker link slabs at lower stories behave as diaphragm elements affecting (smoothing)
shear profile of walls; furthermore the Building A and B dont vibrate as individual buildings under
seismic loadings.

Axial force diagrams of sample shear walls are given in Figure 14. Axial forces obtained from nonlinear
time history analyses are compared with that obtained from linear elastic analysis by DBE with R = 2. It
is observed that the axial forces of shear walls at outer boundary of irregular floor plan obtained from
nonlinear time history analyses are larger than that obtained from linear elastic analysis; and they exceed
the accepted axial force limit of 0.3 fce Acw (TBI, 2010) at lower stories. This result is probably caused by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

irregular distribution of shear walls at floor plan; and requires redesign or reconsideration of their axial
force capacity.

55 55
ARC000
50 50

PT
BRS000
45 CPE147 45

40 DSP000 40
LAMONT362E

RI
35 35
MHV000
Floor level

Floor level
30 30
NPS000
25 25

SC
MEAN
20 20

15 15

10 10

NU
5 5

0 0
-2 -1 0 1 2 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Lateral displacement (m) Story drift ratio
MA
(a) (b)
55 55
ARC000
50 50
BRS000
45 CPE147 45
D

40 DSP000 40
TE

LAMONT362E
35 35
MHV000
Floor level

Floor level

30 30
NPS000
25 MEAN 25
P

20 20

15 15
CE

10 10

5 5

0 0
AC

-2 -1 0 1 2 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01

Lateral displacement (m) Story drift ratio

(c) (d)

Figure 11. (a) Lateral displacement in H1 (x) direction; (b) story drift ratio in H1 (x) direction; (c) lateral
displacement in H2 (y) direction; (d) story drift ratio in H2 (y) direction.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

55 55
ARC000
50 50
BRS000
45 45
CPE147
40 DSP000 40

35 LAMONT362E 35

Floor level
Floor level

PT
30 MHV000 30
NPS000
25 25
MEAN
20 20

RI
15 15

10 10

5 5

SC
0 0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Compression (-) and tension (+)
Max. relative downward (-) &
strain
upward (+) displacement (m)

NU
(a) (b)

55 55
ARC000
50 50
BRS000
45
MA 45
CPE147
40 DSP000 40

35 LAMONT362E 35
Floor level
Floor level

30 MHV000 30
NPS000
D

25 25
MEAN
20 20
TE

15 15

10 10

5 5
P

0 0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002
Compression (-) and tension (+)
CE

Max. relative downward (-) &

strain
upward (+) displacement (m)
(c) (d)
AC

Figure 12. Maximum displacement and strain of boundaries of sample shear walls.

55 55
ARC000 ARC000
50 BRS000 50 BRS000
CPE147 CPE147
45 45
DSP000 DSP000
40 LAMONT362E 40 LAMONT362E
35 MHV000 35 MHV000
NPS000 NPS000
Floor level

Floor level

30 30
MCE MEAN MCE MEAN
25 DBE, R=2 25 DBE, R=2
20 0.83 fce^0.5 Acw 20 0.83 fce^0.5 Acw

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 -60000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 40000 60000
Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN)

(a) (b)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

55 55
ARC000 ARC000
50 BRS000 50 BRS000
CPE147 CPE147
45 45
DSP000 DSP000
40 LAMONT362E 40 LAMONT362E
35 MHV000 35 MHV000
NPS000 NPS000
Floor level

Floor level
30 30

PT
MCE MEAN MCE MEAN
25 DBE, R=2 25 DBE, R=2
20 0.83 fce^0.5 Acw 20 0.83 fce^0.5 Acw

15 15

RI
10 10

5 5

0 0

SC
-30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 40000
Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN)

(c) (d)

Figure 13. Shear force diagram of sample shear walls.

NU
55
ARC000
50
BRS000
45
MA CPE147
DSP000
40 LAMONT362E
35 MHV000
NPS000
Floor level

30 MCE MEAN
D

25 DBE, R=2
0.3 fce Acw
20
TE

15

10
P

0
CE

-150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000

Axial force (kN)

(a)
AC

55
ARC000
50
BRS000
45 CPE147
DSP000
40 LAMONT362E
35 MHV000
NPS000
Floor level

30 MCE MEAN
25 DBE, R=2
0.3 fce Acw
20

15

10

0
-150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000
Axial force (kN)

(b)

Figure 14. Axial force diagram of sample shear walls.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Chord rotation of sample coupling beams is given in Figure 15. It is observed that peak rotations of beams
are under the allowable value 0.04 (Naish et al., 2009). This shows that the approach of providing
coupling beams with maximum possible number of reinforcing bars considering constructability issues
ignoring the larger reinforcing demand generated by linear elastic analysis is reasonable.

55 55
ARC000 ARC000

PT
50 BRS000 50 BRS000
45 CPE147 45 CPE147
DSP000 DSP000
40 40

RI
LAMONT362E LAMONT362E
35 MHV000 35 MHV000
Floor level

Floor level
30 NPS000 30 NPS000

SC
MEAN MEAN
25 25
YIELD YIELD
20 20

15 15

NU
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
MA
Chord rotation (rad) Chord rotation (rad)
(a) (b)

Figure 15. Chord rotation of sample coupling beams.

D

4. CONCLUSIONS
TE

The building has extremely irregular structural floor plan imposed by rigid architectural requirements
which is not usually suitable for tall building structures. Despite the irregularities and coupling effects
P

induced by sky floors, all the design phases including linear elastic as well as nonlinear time history
analyses have successfully been completed.
CE

The approach of R = 2 usually underestimates shear demand of walls with regard to nonlinear time
history analyses by MCE; and accordingly more amount of shear reinforcement is needed based on the
result of nonlinear time history analyses.
AC

It is observed that the axial forces of shear walls at outer boundary of irregular floor plan obtained from
nonlinear time history analyses are larger than that obtained from linear elastic analysis with R = 2; and
they exceed the accepted axial force limit of 0.3 fc Acw at lower stories. This result is probably caused by
irregular distribution of shear walls at floor plan; and requires redesign or reconsideration of their axial
force capacities.

The approach of providing coupling beams with maximum possible number of reinforcing bars
considering constructability issues ignoring the larger reinforcing demand generated by linear elastic
analysis is reasonable. Furthermore, the rotation profile of coupling beams is affected by the coupling
effect of sky floors as that happens in shear walls.

It is recommended that special attention be paid to axial and shear force design of shear walls and
columns of irregular tall buildings by PBSD method.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author sincerely appreciates the valuable contributions of Macit Yurtsever, Cemile Aydn, Ali hsan
Gner along with other work team (of YPU); amil eref Polat (consultant to SNPA GYO, the
investor), Bora elik, Mesut alarm (of SNPA GYO); rfan Balolu, Cokun Kuzu (of Balkar
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mhendislik, the peer review company); and Bar Erku and other distinguished consultants (of Istanbul
Technical University and Boazii University, Turkey). The author exclusively thanks amil eref Polat
for his sincere guidance and help. The author also sincerely acknowledges the support of YPU as well as
SNPA GYO and thanks vn Tezer for proofreading of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

PT
ACI. 2011. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318M-11).
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, 430.
Ambraseys NN, Finkel CF. 1991. Long-term seismicity of Istanbul and of the Marmara Sea region. Terra

RI
Nova. 3: 527-539.
elebi M, Huang M, Shakal A, Hooper J, Klemencic R. 2013. Ambient response of a unique
performance-based design tall building with dynamic response modification features. Struct. Design

SC
Tall Spec. Build. 22, 816829, DOI: 10.1002/tal.1093.
CSI. 2011a. ETABS, Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems Software, Nonlinear Version 9.7.1.
Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
CSI. 2011b. PERFORM 3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures User

NU
Guide, Version 5. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
CSI. 2012. SAP2000, Structural Analysis Program, Nonlinear Version 15.2.1. Computers and Structures,
Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
CTBUH. 2008. Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings. Council on Tall
MA
Buildings and Urban Habitat. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.
ELC. 2009. Soil investigation report for Sinpas Bomonti Residence. ELC Group Co. Istanbul, Turkey.
Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM. 2002. Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey reinforced
concrete buildings. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 11, 329351, DOI: 10.1002/tal.204.
Erdik M, Demirciolu M, eetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B. 2004. Assessment of Probabilistic
D

Earthquake Hazard in the Marmara Region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 24,
605-631.
TE

Erdik M, Demirciolu M, eetyan K, Yenidoan C. 2011. Seismic hazard assessment for Sinpas
Bomonti Residence. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ghodsi T, Ruiz JAF. 2010. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research/Seismic Safety Commission Tall
Building Design Case Study 2. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 19, 197256, DOI: 10.1002/tal.542.
P

Jones PS. 2011. Assessment of Performance Based Design Procedures for Tall Buildings. Ph.D.
CE

Dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

Klemencic R, Fry AJ, Hooper JD, and Morgen BG. 2007. Performance-Based Design of Ductile Concrete
Core Wall Buildings-Issues to Consider Before Detailed Analysis. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.
16, 599614, DOI: 10.1002/tal.437.
AC

Klemencic R, Fry JA, Hooper JD. 2006. Performance-based design of tall reinforced concrete ductile core
wall systems. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571579, DOI: 10.1002/tal.383.
LATBSDC. 2008. An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located
in the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council. Los Angeles,
CA.
Miranda E, Bertero VV. 1994. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design.
Earthquake Spectra 10(2): 357379.
Moehle J, Bozorgnia Y, Jayaram N, Jones P, Rahnama M, Shome N, Tuna Z, Wallace J, Yang T, Zareian
F. 2011. Case Studies of the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings Designed by Alternative
Means. PEER Report 2011/05. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Naish D, Wallace J, Fry JA, Klemencic R. 2009. Reinforced Concrete Link Beams: Alternative Details
for Improved Constructability. UCLA - SGEL Report 2009/06. University of California, Los
Angeles.
Nassar AA, Krawinkler H. 1991. Seismic demands for SDOF and MFOD systems. Report No. 95, The
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, California.
zuygur AR. 2015. Performance-based seismic design of an irregular tall building in Istanbul. Struct.
Design Tall Spec. Build. 24, 703723, DOI: 10.1002/tal.1207.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John
Wiley & Sons: A Wiley Interscience Publications: Canada.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Powell GH. 2007. Detailed Example of a Tall Shear Wall Building. Computers and Structures, Inc.:
Berkeley, CA.
RWDI. 2013. Reports of Wind Tunnel Testing of Sinpa Bomonti Tower. RWDI, U.K.
SDCTBI. 2008. Seismic Design Code of Tall Buildings in Istanbul. Draft Version. Department of
Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
SEAONC. 2007. Requirements and Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Review of New Tall Buildings

PT
using Non-Prescriptive Seismic-Design Procedures. Structural Engineers Association of Northern
California. San Francisco, CA.
TBI. 2010. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings. PEER Report 2010/05.
The TBI Guidelines Working Group, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University

RI
of California, Berkeley, California.
TEC. 2007. Specifications for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas (Turkish Earthquake Code).
Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, Ankara.

SC
Thuat DV. 2014. Strength reduction factor demands for building structures under different seismic levels.
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 23, 4253. DOI: 10.1002/tal.1018.
Tuna Z. 2012. Seismic Performance, Modeling and Failure Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Shear
Wall Buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.

NU
Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. 1999. Seismic response modification factors. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 125(4): 438444.
Willford MR, Smith RJ. 2008. Performance Based Seismic and Wind Engineering for 60 Story Twin
Towers in Manila. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China.
MA
AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHY

Ali Ruzi zuygur obtained his Ph.D. in structural engineering from Istanbul Technical University in 2011. He works
D

for YPU Yap Proje Uygulama, a multi-disciplinary firm in Turkey, as structural engineering department manager.
He has been involved in or managed structural design of numerous tall buildings and specialty structures in Turkey.
P TE
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Dimensions of structural elements.

Type Label or description Dimension (m)
P1, P2, P3, P12, P13, P17, P18, P19 0.8 x 3
P4 0.9 x 4.2
P5 0.8 x 10.7
P6 0.8 x 4.9

PT
P7 0.8 x 7.5
P8 0.8 x 9.85
P9 0.8 x 15.5

RI
Shear wall P10 0.8 x 2.4
P11 0.8
P14, P20 0.8 x 4.97

SC
P15, P21 0.8 x 3.35
P16, P22 0.8 x 4.55
P23 0.8 x 6
P24, P26, P27, P29 0.8 x 3.75

NU
P25, P28 0.6 x 3.75
Column C1 1.5
B1, B5 0.6 x 0.6
B2 0.5 x 0.5
MA
B3 (link beam) 0.8 x 1.3
Beam
B4 0.8 x 0.6
B6 0.6 x 0.75
B7 1 x 0.75
Hatched 0.3
D

Slab
Nonhatched 0.17
Foundation Mat 3
P TE

Table 2. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration (Sa) based on PSHAR by Erdik et al.
(2011).
CE

Sa (g)
Earthquake level Probability of exceedance PGA (g)
SS S1
D1 (SLE) 50% in 50 0.17 0.325 0.134
D2 (DBE) 10% in 50 0.37 0.890 0.375
AC

D3 (MCE) 2% in 50 0.54 1.290 0.635

Table 3. Effective stiffness values of structural members.

Structural member Flexural stiffness Shear stiffness Axial stiffness
Beams Ec (0.25 Ig) Gc Ag Ec Ag
Columns Ec (0.70 Ig) Gc Ag Ec Ag
Walls Ec (0.50 Ig) Gc Ag Ec Ag
Coupling beams Ec (0.20 Ig) Gc Ag Ec Ag
Slabs Ec (0.25 Ig) Gc Ag Ec (0.25 Ag)

Table 4. Comparison of periods of the different modeling approaches.

Modeling detail T1 (sec) T2 (sec) T3 (sec)
With vertical modulus of subgrade reaction 5.60 5.04 4.07
With foundation soil 6.38 5.77 5.06
With fixed base 5.20 4.68 3.73