THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)

Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.383

PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL REINFORCED

CONCRETE DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS

RON KLEMENCIC*, J. ANDREW FRY AND JOHN D. HOOPER

Magnusson Klemencic Associates Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA

SUMMARY
The tenets of performance-based design have been around for decades, yet are just recently being applied to the
design of high-rise superstructures. Successful projects using a ductile core wall structural system, following a
performance-based design methodology, have been implemented by Magnusson Klemencic Associates and can
be seen in completed structures around the world. However, provisions often arbitrarily placed in the current pre-
scriptive Building Code (regarding height limits and building response, for example) make it difficult for struc-
tural engineers to apply rational engineering methodologies in design of performance-based structures. Instead,
engineers must incorporate less-than-ideal design practices, such as requiring redundant dual frame systems on
buildings more than 240 feet high or allowing construction compromises in the impractical regulations govern-
ing diagonal steel reinforcing of coupling beams. Additionally, the lack of peer review process standards often
pit two well-intended opinions against each other, with the building design usually changed per the reviewer’s
wishes and for the sake of being expeditious. To improve the design and construction process for performance-
based tall buildings, among other things, appropriate interpretations of the Building Code should be permitted,
and even required, and the scope and authority of peer reviews should be standardized. Copyright © 2006 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1995, Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA) initiated the structural engineering
for the first of 12 tall buildings utilizing a reinforced concrete ductile core wall system (DCWS)
to resist lateral loads. The design of each system followed a performance-based design (PBD)
approach considering various levels of wind and seismic demands. These buildings include those
shown in Table 1.
In addition to these completed projects, MKA is currently designing several other tall buildings
using a similar approach in Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles.
While PBD principles have been accepted for many years, only recently have these methodologies
been applied to the design of tall buildings. During design of these 12 projects, numerous technical
challenges required thoughtful design decisions. With the limited amount of published research
available to guide the designs, MKA, along with numerous consultants serving as peer reviewers,
performed countless studies to arrive at appropriate decisions.
A discussion of some of the more challenging issues is presented in this paper. While each of these
technical challenges pertains to all of the projects, the One Rincon Hill project in San Francisco is
highlighted in order to provide more specific commentary and details (see Figure 1). The primary
issues to be discussed include:

* Correspondence to: Ron Klemencic, Magnusson Klemencic Associates Inc., 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA
98101-2699, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

572 R. KLEMENCIC, J. A. FRY AND J. D. HOOPER

Table 1. Ductile core wall system projects designed by MKA

Number of
Project name stories Height
Millennium Tower; Seattle, Washington 21 241 feet
Terry Avenue Apartments; Seattle, Washington 26 245 feet
Asian Star Building; Manila, Philippines 23 292 feet
Key Center; Bellevue, Washington 22 305 feet
1700 Seventh Avenue; Seattle, Washington 23 320 feet
Elliott Grand Hyatt Hotel; Seattle, Washington 30 330 feet
Seventh at Westlake; Seattle, Washington 31 358 feet
300 Spear Street; San Francisco, California 43 400 feet
IDX Tower; Seattle, Washington 35 450 feet
Washington Mutual Tower; Seattle, Washington 42 544 feet
Pacific Plaza Towers; Fort Bonafacio, Philippines 46 617 feet
One Rincon Hill; San Francisco, California 57 625 feet

Figure 1. Rendering of One Rincon Hill in San Francisco, California

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL RC DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS 573

• Height limits
• Selection of the response modification factor, R
• Selection of ground motions
• Shear demands
• Higher mode dynamic effects
• Foundations
• Detailing
• Peer review process
2. HEIGHT LIMITS
One of the first and most contentious issues has been surpassing the specific height limits detailed in
Table 16-N of the Uniform Building Code for buildings in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. This table limits
the height of shear walls in building frame systems to 240 feet, and limits shear walls as part of bearing
wall systems to 160 feet. The lateral systems for buildings reaching above these heights are limited
to be moment frame systems or dual frame systems.
In each of the buildings listed in Table 1, some form of DCWS was developed. As an example, the
primary lateral-force-resisting system for the One Rincon Hill project is depicted in Figures 2 and 3.
While this system includes concrete walls, these walls are arranged in the form of a perforated struc-
tural tube. Coupling beams above the core wall penetrations provide the first line of energy dissipa-
tion in the longitudinal direction of the core. The coupling beams (activated by shear lag), together
with supplemental buckling restrained braces (BRBs), provide the first line of energy dissipation in
the transverse direction of the building.
A qualitative comparison between this system and a planar wall structure dominated by shear behav-
ior suggests the possibility of a more ductile response. However, current prescriptive building code
provisions do not differentiate between planar shear walls and coupled walls.
In researching the origin of the 160- and 240-foot height limits, one learns the first mention of this
limit is made in the early 1950s in an ASCE committee paper that suggests moment-resisting frames

Figure 2. Plan view of the lateral-force-resisting system in One Rincon Hill

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
574 R. KLEMENCIC, J. A. FRY AND J. D. HOOPER

Figure 3. Isometric view of the lateral-force-resisting system in One Rincon Hill

be included in all buildings taller than 13 stories. No quantitative basis is provided for this recom-
mendation. Later, this 13-story limitation was more specifically stipulated as 150 feet. As the 150-foot
limitation was written into code language, a typographical error resulted in the building code provi-
sion being published as 160 feet. The typo was never corrected.
During the 1980s, noting significant advancements in the understanding of shear wall behavior based
on numerous research programs, the 160-foot limit was increased to 240 feet for building frame
systems. This 50% height limit increase was based solely on a greater comfort level with individual
wall performance and not on a comprehensive assessment of building systems.
Since it appears the basis for the height limits is more folklore than science, it is reasonable to
suggest these restrictions are not absolute. Instead, a variety of building geometries, including core
wall and coupled wall systems, if properly designed and constructed, can meet or exceed the per-
formance objectives inherent in current building code provisions. Performance-based design provides
a rational methodology to pursue such designs.

3. SELECTION OF THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR, R

In order to determine a basic strength requirement for the building design, a response modification
factor, R, must be selected such that a design-level base shear can be established. Selecting an R factor
consistent with a bearing wall system (R = 4·5) or building frame system (R = 5·5) may, at first, seem
somewhat logical. As shown in Figure 2, the One Rincon Hill building does include shear walls as
part of the overall core assembly.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL RC DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS 575

The design of tall buildings is generally controlled by drift limitations and not the strength of
the lateral elements. Therefore, it is contradictory that a relatively stiff system such as a wall
assemblage is assigned a higher basic strength requirement (R = 4·5 or 5·5) than a much more
flexible moment frame system (R = 8) as the resulting design forces are used to assess building
deformations.
In addition, it is inconsistent that all walls or wall systems be assigned the same value of R. It is
easily understood that a coupled wall dominated by flexural behavior will have superior ductility when
compared to a planar wall dominated by shear deformations. However, current building code provi-
sions do not reflect this fundamental difference in building response. It should be noted that the
National Building Code of Canada does include provisions which recognize these different behaviors.
Finally, if a capacity design approach is implemented for a structure such as One Rincon Hill, where
the link beams, BRBs, and base of the core wall are selected as the primary areas of energy dissipa-
tion, assigning a high strength requirement to these components will significantly increase undesir-
able shear demands on core walls, diaphragms, and foundations. Based on this fact alone, consideration
of a higher value for R is warranted.
Unfortunately, influenced by the bounds of the current Building Code, most building officials and
peer reviewers have insisted on the selection of R = 5·5 or, in the case of San Francisco, R = 4·5. As
was observed directly in the design of One Rincon Hill, shear demands on the core walls, diaphragms,
and foundations were increased to nearly intolerable levels.
A reassessment of R values which are more reflective of actual building behavior is warranted, such
that desirable behaviors (flexural yielding) are promoted, and undesirable demands (shear) are mini-
mized. For very tall buildings, or for buildings in aggressive wind climates such as the Philippines,
perhaps it is more appropriate to allow wind demands to determine the basic strength requirements,
with the seismic design primarily focused on ductility and robustness.

4. SELECTION OF GROUND MOTIONS

Selection of appropriate seismic ground motions and response spectra with which to evaluate the build-
ing design is critical. Generally, three levels of demand have been assessed:

• Serviceability earthquake (SE)—50% probability of exceedance in 30 years (43-year return

period)
• Design basis earthquake (DBE)—10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (472-year return
period)
• Maximum considered earthquake (MCE)—2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year
return period), with a deterministic limit in appropriate locations

Common practice in design is to begin with an assessment of the building when subjected to the DBE,
reduced by the selected R factor, as shown in Figure 4 for the One Rincon Hill project. For most
tall buildings, the fundamental building period will range between 4 and 8 seconds. Performing a three-
dimensional elastic analysis of the primary lateral-load-resisting system subjected to this level of
demand determines the basic strength requirement for the building.
Affecting the design of tall buildings are the minimum base shear equations. Equation 30-6, required
in all seismic regions, represents the ‘3%’ base shear value that has been in the code for decades. In
regions of high seismicity, a lower-bound limitation is placed on the basic strength requirement, as
represented by Equation 30-7 of the Uniform Building Code (seen in Figure 4).

Equation 30-6 V = 0 ⋅ 11Ca IW

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
576 R. KLEMENCIC, J. A. FRY AND J. D. HOOPER

Figure 4. Comparison of design spectra for One Rincon Hill

0 ⋅ 8 ZN v I 
Equation 30-7 V = W
 R 

As in the case of San Francisco, the lower bound limitation on base shear is significantly greater
than the site-specific-design DBE spectrum, reduced by R, would otherwise suggest. The One Rincon
Hill project adhered to the lower bound strength limitation of Equation 30-7.
An assessment of the One Rincon Hill project at the SE indicates the critical coupling beams meet
the ‘no-yield’ criteria as suggested in recently published design procedures by the Los Angeles Tall
Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) and the Department of Building Inspection in San
Francisco (see Figure 5). However, a close inspection of Figure 4 indicates that without the lower
bound limitations of UBC Equation 30-7 the SE would control the strength design of the coupling
beams.
An assessment of collapse prevention performance was investigated for each of these projects as
well. Selecting appropriate ground motion records for the nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA)
is more difficult than might initially appear. A large database of strong ground motion records which
will excite the building structure in the period range of interest is not available. Furthermore, the
fundamental period of vibration for tall buildings is generally very long (4 to 8 seconds). Scaling an
MCE spectrum, which is applicable in this period range, without overpredicting short-period demands
is a challenge. The duration of selected ground motion records is also important as several cycles of

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL RC DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS 577

Figure 5. Coupling beam serviceability forces versus provided capacity for One Rincon Hill

motion are generally required before amplified building response is observed. Lastly, choosing records
that also excite the higher modes of vibration of the tower is important; however, this is difficult to
accomplish without overestimating ground motions in the lower period range.
Summarizing MKA’s experience:

(1) Given a 43-year return interval for the SE, the ‘no-yield’ acceptance criteria may be too strict, and
some modest amount of yielding may be acceptable. An appropriate assessment of building drift
is a more important parameter.
(2) The application, or lack thereof, of Equations 30-6 and 30-7 will likely control the basic strength
requirements for the DBE.
(3) A careful selection of appropriate ground motion records for the NLTHA, which properly test the
design, is critical.

5. SHEAR DEMANDS
As previously noted, shear demands are driven by the selection of the basic strength requirement for
the flexural elements. Great care should be exercised in selecting the basic strength requirement,
thereby balancing stiffness and strength with the implications of possible undesirable increased shear
demands.
Great debate among consultants and building officials has occurred regarding the assessment of
shear demands. While all agree shear ‘failure’ is undesirable, there is a clear lack of consensus on how
to properly assess demands, what constitutes a ‘failure’, and how to properly assess shear capacities.
Based on MKA’s experience, it would seem reasonable to assess shear demands consistent with
something larger than the average demands predicted by a NLTHA. Some have suggested shear

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
578 R. KLEMENCIC, J. A. FRY AND J. D. HOOPER

demands be assessed as one standard deviation greater than the average demands predicted by a suite
of seven NLTHAs. Others have suggested that shear must be assessed at the peak response predicted
by a suite of seven NLTHAs. While it is possible to satisfy either of these two criteria with properly
selected ground motions, shear demands equal to one standard deviation above the average predicted
from a suite of seven NLTHAs appears adequate.

6. HIGHER MODE DYNAMIC EFFECTS

Most of the structures cited at the beginning of this paper are dominated by first mode behavior, where
higher mode dynamic effects played little role in the outcome of the design. In the case of One Rincon
Hill, however, higher mode dynamic effects played a much more significant role. The combination of
absolute building height (625 feet), slenderness, and site-specific ground motions produced significant
higher mode effects. The result of these higher mode effects was a significant reduction in the effec-
tive moment arm of the lateral force distribution, creating a significant shear demand at the base of
the building as well as high flexural demands near the building’s mid-height. A detailed study of this
effect indicated the shear and flexural demands were nearly independent of the basic flexural strength
assigned to the base of the core walls. Careful assessment of the elastic DBE analysis can give clues
of the potential importance of higher mode dynamic effects. NLTHAs, with properly selected ground
motions, will confirm the building’s behavior.

7. FOUNDATIONS
Very little guidance is provided in the Building Code or published literature regarding the appropri-
ate design of foundations for seismic demands. Common practice is to design building foundations
for the basic strength requirements of the DBE, with no consideration of the possible over-strength of
the superstructure.
In the case of the buildings listed at the beginning of this paper, including One Rincon Hill, the
foundations were designed considering demands imposed by the full over-strength capacity of the
superstructure. In most cases, this resulted in foundations nearly two times thicker than those tradi-
tionally designed.
Furthermore, in the case of One Rincon Hill, where a deep mat foundation (12 feet thick) is
employed as the tower’s foundation, shear reinforcing was provided where shear stresses exceeded
1 fc′ in accordance with recent research by Michael Collins and American Concrete Institute (ACI)
discussions regarding shear critical behavior of thick, one-way systems.

8. DETAILING
Detailing of reinforcing steel is critical to promote the behavior predicted by analysis. Two areas of
particular note are highlighted below.

8.1 Coupling beams

The confinement of diagonal reinforcing in coupling beams specified by current ACI provisions is
nearly impossible to construct in the field. Compromises in field installation are common, suggesting
the resulting behavior may not be as expected. As an alternative approach, the entire coupling beam
section may be confined per ACI 21.4.4, relieving some of the constructability issues. A code change
proposal allowing such detailing has recently been presented to ACI and is currently making its way
through the committee approval process.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN OF TALL RC DUCTILE CORE WALL SYSTEMS 579

8.2 Confinement of vertical wall reinforcing

A comparison of strain demands predicted by NLTHAs with laboratory results indicates that predicted
tensile strains agree well with test results. Compressive strains, however, may be underpredicted by
as much as 100%. Great care must be exercised in specifying confinement of vertical wall reinforc-
ing based on these results.

9. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Because these unique building designs fall outside of the prescriptive language of the Building Code,
detailed and rigorous peer reviews have been the norm. In general, the process has been positive and
has produced improved building designs. However, there have been many inconsistencies between
reviews despite similarities in systems and design methodology. These inconsistencies are based pri-
marily on the personal biases of the individual reviewer and not any ‘industry standard’. Further, there
has not been an effective means to resolve differing opinions when disagreement has arisen. Rather,
the norm has unfortunately fallen toward accepting the whims of the reviewer in favor of an expedi-
ent review process. In the future, the engineering community should work diligently toward stan-
dardizing the scope and authority of peer reviews.

10. CONCLUSION
Despite numerous technical challenges, tall buildings with unique structural systems can be designed
to meet or exceed the performance objectives of the current Building Code. Given the importance of
these structures, great care and due conservatism are warranted. The Building Code was not written
with tall buildings as its basis. Therefore, appropriate interpretations are important and should not only
be permitted, but required. Building officials should allow engineers to use rational engineering
methodologies and proper engineering mechanics to demonstrate that a proposed design meets or
exceeds Building Code performance expectations, and not tie the engineers’ hands by limiting designs
to the prescriptive requirements of the Code. As a prominent engineer recently said, ‘Codes were
written by mere mortals’; therefore, they are not all-knowing.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 15, 571–579 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/tal