See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227780827

Practical modelling of high‐rise dual systems with reinforced concrete

slab‐column frames

Article in The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings · January 2009
DOI: 10.1002/tal.509

CITATIONS READS
24 4,810

3 authors, including:

Myoungsu Shin
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology
92 PUBLICATIONS 1,836 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sulfur concrete View project

Sulfur concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Myoungsu Shin on 10 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.509

PRACTICAL MODELLING OF HIGH-RISE DUAL SYSTEMS

WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

MYOUNGSU SHIN1, THOMAS H.-K. KANG2* AND JACOB S. GROSSMAN1

1
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C., New York, NewYork, USA
2
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

SUMMARY
This paper discusses practical modelling issues pertinent to the design of an irregularly shaped reinforced concrete
(RC) high-rise building currently under development in New York City. The structure analysed consists of a
60-storey residential tower and a 25-storey hotel building structurally connected to each other. For the seismic
force resistance, a dual system combining ordinary RC shear walls and intermediate slab–column moment frames
was used at the upper portion, while a building frame system of ordinary RC shear walls was used at the lower
portion of the structure. A variety of models were used to simulate the behaviour of various elements of the
structure, with special attention given to overall systemic effects of different member stiffnesses considered to
account for distinct stress levels under service and ultimate loads. The models used for slab–column frames and
shear walls were verified by comparing with other available models or laboratory tests. The in-plane flexibility
of floor diaphragms at the interface between the two substructures with different geometries was simulated to
identify the most critical wind conditions for each structural member. Finally, building dynamic analyses were
performed to demonstrate the modelling issues to be considered for the lateral force design of irregular high-rise
buildings. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper presents practical modelling issues related to the design of an asymmetric reinforced con-
crete (RC) high-rise building subjected to lateral forces due to wind or seismic actions. Although
extensive research has been carried out to develop robust modelling techniques for the inelastic
response of RC structural walls or moment-resisting frames (ASCE 41, 2006), there is still a dire need
for applications of relatively simple elastic modelling for the practical design of tall buildings (Wallace,
2007), particularly in regions of low to moderate seismic risk. Practical elastic models will typically
reduce computational complexity and design effort.
High-rise buildings in regions of low to moderate seismic risk can be effectively designed utilizing
a dual system combining RC shear walls and slab–column moment frames, particularly at the upper
portion. Based on their extensive practical experience, the authors believe that for such situations, this
type of dual system is more efficient in resisting seismic forces than building frame systems or
moment-resisting frame systems. In such a dual system, structural walls execute tremendous stiffness
at the lower levels of the building, while moment frames typically restrain considerable deformations
and provide significant energy dissipation under inelastic deformations at the upper levels (Paulay and
Priestley, 1992). Although the use of flat-plate systems to support gravity loads has been popular in

* Correspondence to: Thomas H.-K. Kang, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma,
202 W. Boyd St. Rm. 334, Norman, OK 73019, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

high-rise buildings for many decades due to their structural and architectural merits, the difficulty of
predicting frame–wall interactions, as well as the lack of knowledge of the behaviour of slab–column
frames against lateral forces, has often discouraged practising engineers from using slab–column
frames as part of the seismic force-resisting system (Shin et al., 2008).
To be qualified as a dual system at a storey level according to ASCE 7 (2002) (Section 9.5.2.2.1),
the constituent moment frames should be capable of resisting at least 25% of the design seismic forces
(e.g. the total seismic storey shear), horizontally distributed based on the stiffness contributions of all
shear walls and frames that are part of the seismic force-resisting system. As it is common for shear
walls to be much stiffer than moment frames at the lowest storeys, they tend to collect more than 75%
of the design seismic forces. In such cases, by the ASCE 7 rule, the shear walls should be solely
responsible for resisting 100% of the seismic forces at each of those lowest storeys as part of a build-
ing frame system. When a vertical variation of seismic force-resisting systems discuss, as was the case
in this study, the most stringent seismic design coefficients should be used (ASCE 7-02, Section
9.5.2.2.2).
In this paper, relatively simple models utilizing elastic finite elements are proposed for three-dimen-
sional RC tall buildings with slab–column frames and shear walls. This paper focuses on the model-
ling of tall buildings subjected to lateral forces in New York City, where wind effects typically govern
the design over seismic effects. Practical modelling approaches for slab–column frames, shear walls
and a dual system combining these two systems, as well as slab-to-wall and wall-to-wall interactions
are discussed, along with their effective stiffness values assigned for different design or analysis
purposes. Design considerations to improve the lateral force resistance of such dual systems and to
reduce frame–wall counter-interactions are also discussed. In addition, effects of diaphragm flexibility
between the two substructures with different geometries are investigated subjected to a variety of wind
forces. Finally, dynamic responses of the overall structure are used to discuss lateral-force vertical
distributions for the case study building under different damage conditions (serviceability versus
ultimate state).

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY BUILDING

This section describes the structural systems used in the case study building. The structure consists of
a 60-storey residential tower linked to a 25-storey hotel building. These two substructures are inter-
faced by RC slabs at each floor level. Figure 1 shows a picture of the wind tunnel model of the entire
structure, taken from the south-west of the building. The structure extends approximately 350 ft in the
east–west (E–W) direction and 125 ft in the north–south (N–S) direction at typical lower floor levels.
A podium structure was designed for the lowest five storeys as shown in Figure 1. The sub-grade soil
at the developed site is composed of crystalline rocks with high bearing capacities. The most critical
design consideration in establishing the foundation system was the existence of a high groundwater
profile. A pressure slab monolithically cast with footings was utilized in conjunction with rock anchors
and caissons to resist buoyant hydrostatic forces due to groundwater.
Figure 2 illustrates schematic wall and column layouts and slab edges at typical lower floors. RC
flat-plate slabs were proportioned to transfer floor gravity loads to vertical members, maximizing
available storey heights and allowing flexible column layouts, so often desired in typical residential
buildings in New York City. As mentioned previously, the seismic force-resisting system of the overall
structure utilizes a dual system functioning at the upper part of the structure and a building frame
system at the lower part (ASCE 7-02, Section 9.5.2.2.1). With respect to wind force resistance,
however, the whole structure behaves as the main wind-force-resisting system (MWFRS; See ASCE
7-02, Section 6.2) to achieve essentially elastic behaviour. This type of configuration applies in both
principal directions of the structure.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

Figure 1. Wind tunnel simulation (by RWDI) and ETABS model (structural walls are colored red) (left:
25-storey hotel; right: 60-storey residential tower)

SW4 SW3 SW2 SW1

124'-9"

* Rigid diaphragm constraints:

rth Diaphragm-1: 60-story residential tower (right)
No
Diaphragm-2: 25-story hotel tower (left)
No assignment to the intermediate area (hatched)
** Flat plate modeling for dotted area (see Figure 3)
348'-2"

Figure 2. Schematic wall and column layouts and slab edges at lower typical floors

The dual system consists of ordinary RC shear walls and intermediate slab–column moment frames,
both of which contribute to resist lateral forces, while the building frame system relies only on ordinary
RC shear walls. For seismic design, slab–column frames that are part of the building frame system
were modelled with hinge connections, allowing no moment transfer between slabs and columns, so
that all of the seismic forces are resisted by the shear walls. However, for wind design, all structural
members were designed to participate in resisting wind forces while remaining in the elastic deforma-
tion range under ultimate-level design wind forces. Thus, the computer model was developed to
simulate moment transfer at slab–column connections. Although it is a cumbersome process to con-
struct two separate models for seismic and wind analyses and identify critical design forces and
moments acting on each member, this should be done as specified in the codes.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

Four shear wall groups (each with multiple discontinuous segments) indicated as ‘SW1’, ‘SW2’,
‘SW3’ and ‘SW4’ in Figure 2, play major roles in resisting lateral forces, especially at the lower
portion of the structure. The developed structure tends to be more vulnerable to wind forces in the
N–S direction, due to a relatively large building aspect ratio (height-to-depth = about 9) for the resi-
dential tower, which exposes a relatively larger surface to wind pressure and provides a smaller build-
ing depth for overturning moments than in the E–W direction. Thus, in the N–S direction, wind effects
are more critical for stiffness and strength requirements than seismic effects, while seismic and wind
effects almost equally influence the design of the lateral force-resisting system in the E–W direction.
Due to relatively flexible connectivity between the two substructures with different heights and con-
figurations (see Figure 2), torsional irregularities and force concentrations may be produced while
resisting lateral forces.

3. THREE-DIMENSIONAL ELASTIC MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

In this section, elastic modelling and analysis approaches are detailed for high-rise dual systems that use
a combination of shear walls and slab–column moment frames for lateral force resistance. The design of
the case study building is mainly discussed based on the Building Code of the City of New York 2008
(New York City Department of Buildings, 2008) in this paper, which essentially refers to IBC (2003),
ASCE 7-02 (for loads) and ACI 318 (2002) (for concrete structures), translating both strength-based and
deformation-based design concepts into member proportions and structural details.

3.1 Lateral force and drift considerations

This subsection summarizes various types of lateral forces and lateral drift criteria considered for the
building design. Different levels of lateral forces were considered to design for serviceability and
ultimate limit states. These were: (a) ultimate-level design wind force (1·6 W) per ASCE 7-02, Section
2.3; (b) service-level design wind force (0·7 W) per ASCE 7-02, Section CB.1.2; and (c) design seismic
force (E) determined based on earthquakes with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years per ASCE
7-02, Section 9.4. Here, W stands for the wind force determined based on a 50-year return period wind
speed, and 0·7 W is equivalent to the wind force based on a 10-year return period wind. The service-
level seismic force (0·7 E) was not considered in the analysis and design of superstructures, but, if
necessary, could be used for allowable stress design per ASCE 7-02, Section 2.4. Member proportions
and structural details are typically governed by wind forces rather than seismic forces in slender high-
rise buildings in New York City.
In this project, for limiting elastic drifts against service-level wind forces, drifts less than 1/600 of
the overall building height and 1/450 of the inter-storey height were pursued to minimize discomfort
from wind vibrations and satisfy specified lateral stiffness, though notably, current building codes do
not require a certain level of lateral drift limits for ‘structural’ members for any case. The only exist-
ing specifications are found in the Commentary of ASCE 7, which recommends 1/600 to 1/400 of the
building or storey height as a drift limit range for minimizing damage to non-structural elements such
as claddings and partitions under the load combination of D + 0·5 L + 0·7 W (ASCE 7-02, Section
CB.1.2). Here, D is the dead load and L is the live load.
On the other hand, seismic total (elastic plus inelastic) drift limits specified in Section 9.5.2.8 of
ASCE 7-02 should be met to ensure the strength and stability of the structure under ultimate design
seismic forces (E); however, these criteria typically are not concerned with buildings in regions of
low to moderate seismicity.
The following subsections describe detailed modelling methods used for each element or joint
between elements in the structural system of the case study building and provide verifications for the

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

models used. The modelling and analysis of this study were done by using ETABS building analysis
and design software (CSI, 2005).

3.2 Equivalent slab–beam model for slab–column frames

The slab–column moment frames were modelled based on the equivalent slab–beam concept proposed
by Grossman (1997). This model simulates lateral stiffness and force transfer between slabs and
columns in the elastic range of lateral deformations reasonably well. An equivalent slab–beam is a
flexural member having a rectangular section with its width and depth dimensions equal to ‘effective
slab width’ and total slab thickness. The effective slab width was determined by considering the
slab–column connection geometry, as well as the expected drift ratio. The selected model was com-
pared with other effective slab width models for typical geometric configurations of the case study
building (Table 1; Figure 3). As shown in Figure 4, the Grossman model generally predicts smaller
effective slab widths than the other models for service-level forces, whereas most of the models result
in similar estimates for ultimate-level forces. In light of this comparison, the selected slab–beam model
is considered to be conservative and reasonable.
In the late 1970s, ACI Committee 318 made concentrated efforts to establish the Code’s directions
for incorporating flat plates as part of the lateral force-resisting system (Vanderbilt, 1981). Grossman
(1987), a then-current member of both ACI Committee 318 and the Reinforced Concrete Research
Council, instigated the committee to propose experimental research that would help formulate the
participation of slab–column frames in lateral force resistance, especially for moderate wind or seismic
hazard regions or for lateral drifts of about 0·2 to 0·25% under service loads. This experimental inves-
tigation was conducted by Hwang and Moehle (1990). Based on the test results, Grossman (1997)
proposed an effective slab width equation shown in Equation (1), which was slightly modified from
the one he had proposed 10 years earlier (Grossman, 1987). In the modified equation, clear span lengths

Table 1. Effective slab width factors based on the models used in this study and/or referenced in ACI 318
(2008) or ASCE 41-06

Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3 Col. 4

l1 (in.) 238 286 252 168
l2 (in.) 286 208 232 218
l1/l2 0·832 1·376 1·088 0·769
c1 (in.) 22 50 36 30
c2 (in.) 34 20 24 24
c1/l1 0·093 0·175 0·143 0·179
c2/l2 0·119 0·096 0·104 0·110
be2 (Allen and Darvall, 1977) 0·46 0·76 0·61 0·47
be2 (Grossman, 1997) 0·24 0·44 0·38 0·24
be2 (Hwang and Moehle, 2000) 0·43 0·94 0·67 0·53
be2 (Dovich and Wight, 2005)* 0·38 0·50 0·50 0·38
bre2 (Allen and Darvall, 1977) 0·17† 0·25† 0·20† 0·16†
bre2 (Grossman, 1997) 0·17 0·31 0·27 0·17
bre2 (Hwang and Moehle, 2000) 0·16 0·69 0·35 0·38
bre2 (Dovich and Wight, 2005)* 0·16 0·22 0·22 0·16
be, effective slab width for service state; bre, reduced effective slab width for ultimate state.
* The model that has been updated by Wight and MacGregor (2009) was used.
†
The stiffness reduction factor of 1/3, which was proposed by Vanderbilt and Corley (1983) and experimentally
verified by Kang and Wallace (2005), was adopted.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

Col. 1

11 ft. 10 in. 11 ft. 11 in.

at Col. 1
16 ft. 8 in.

Col. 2
Rigid
Effective slab width
slab-column
11 ft. 2 in.
joint
at Col. 2
6 ft. 1 in.
24 ft. 4 in. Equivalent
slab-beam
with averaged
effective
slab width

Col. 3 at Col. 3
12 ft. 3 in.
7 ft.

11 ft. 3 in.
at Col. 4
Col. 4

10 ft. 9 in. 7 ft. 5 in.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Schematics for (a) various bay widths and clear span lengths for a portion of slab–column frames (see
Figure 2 for location); (b) effective slab width for each column; and (c) equivalent slab–beam modelling
for the given frame (see Table 1 and Figure 4 for details)

(l1n) are used in lieu of centre-to-centre span lengths (l1), with the assumption that slab–column joints
are rigid.

(c2 − c1 )   d 
be = 0⋅3l1n + c1 x +   K FP (1)
 2   0⋅9h 

Here, c1 and c2 are the column dimensions parallel and perpendicular to the direction of lateral
loading respectively, and x is the l2/l1 ratio limited to unity (1·0). Here, l1 is taken as the average of
the lengths of the two spans in front and back of the column, and l2 is the average of the lengths of
the two transverse spans at the sides of the column, where both l1 and l2 are measured centre-to-centre
of supports parallel and perpendicular to lateral loading, respectively. Also, d is the distance from the
extreme compression fibre to the centroid of tension reinforcement, h is the slab thickness and KFP is
a modification factor accounting for reduction in joint confinement at exterior connections, equal to
0·8 and 0·6 for edge and corner connections, respectively. For exterior or corner connections with the
slab edge parallel to the direction of lateral loading, the effective slab width calculated by Equation
(1) is adjusted by multiplying by (l3 + l2/2)/l2, where l3 is the distance measured from the column
centreline to the edge of the slab. The width of an equivalent slab–beam supported by two adjacent
columns is then taken equal to the average of the two values determined by Equation (1) at the sup-

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

1
Model by Allen and Darvall (1977)

Effective slab width factor [be / l2]

0.9 Model by Grossman (1997)
Model by Hwang and Moehle (2000)
0.8 Model by Dovich and Wight (2005)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 at Col. 2
at Col. 3
0.3
0.2 at Col. 1 at Col. 4
0.1
(a) Effective slab width
0
0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
Aspect ratio of c1 to l1
Reduced effective slab width factor [bre / l2]

1
Model by Allen and Darvall (1977)
0.9 Model by Grossman (1997)
Model by Hwang and Moehle (2000)
0.8 Model by Dovich and Wight (2005)

0.7 at Col. 2

0.6
0.5
at Col. 3 at Col. 4
0.4
0.3
at Col. 1
0.2
0.1
(b) Reduced effective slab width
0
0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
Aspect ratio of c1 to l1

Figure 4. Comparisons of effective slab widths between several available models (see Figure 3 for Col. No.)

ports (see Figure 3). More detailed model descriptions are provided in the paper by Grossman (1997),
where different stiffness degradation levels of flat plates at various drifts were also proposed based
on the tests by Hwang and Moehle (1990).
Equation (1) is intended for slab–column frames subjected to service wind or seismic forces
(reduced by the response reduction factor R) that are expected to cause drift levels of about 0·25%.
Therefore, using this model for serviceability state analysis is considered to be appropriate. For
ultimate state analysis, the flexural stiffness of equivalent slab–beams was considered to be reduced
by 30% on average due to more slab cracking (Grossman, 1997). Also, the effective slab width
estimated using Equation (1) was modified when slab openings existed at proximity of
supports.

3.3 Slab–wall interactions

Although some research (Grossman, 1997; Kang et al., 2009; Hwang and Moehle, 2000; Kang and
Wallace, 2005; Dovich and Wight, 2005) has been conducted on the modelling and analysis of

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

slab–column frames subjected to lateral forces, such frames combined with RC shear walls have
scarcely been discussed. From a practical point of view, modelling the connection between a slab and
a wall is still in question. Different behaviour is expected depending on whether the slab spans either
parallel or perpendicular to the wall. In this study, the effective width of a slab framing perpendicular
to the length of a wall was estimated in a conservative way by replacing the wall with an imaginary
column having a width similar to that of the column at the other side of the span. Also, the effective
width of a slab framing parallel to the length of a wall was conservatively estimated by assuming that
the wall length-to-thickness ratio was equal to about 2·5, a ratio often used to differentiate between a
column and a wall pier (Section 1908 of IBC, 2003; ACI 318H, 2008). Such conservative modelling
for slab–wall connections was also justified by previous research, revealing that the stiffness of slabs
connecting to stiff in-plane walls tends to be quite low due to the reduction in end fixity of the slabs
(Schwaigofer and Collins, 1977; Qadeer and Smith, 1969).

3.4 Frame modelling and gravity load effects

The slab–column frames were represented by frame (line) elements jointed at intersection points
between the centrelines of the equivalent slab–beams and the columns. Following the new Section 8.8
provisions of ACI 318-08, the gross section moment-of-inertia (Ig) for the columns was used for ser-
viceability design, whereas 70% of that value (0·7 Ig) was adopted as the cracked column stiffness for
ultimate strength design. For columns under axial loads less than 0·3 Ag f c′ (e.g., columns of new low-
rise buildings), 50% of the gross section property (0·5 Ig) may be considered for ultimate strength
design (see ASCE 41-06, although this document is not intended for design of new buildings), where
Ag is the column cross-sectional area and f c′ is the design concrete strength.
The frame element uses a three-dimensional two-node formulation with six independent degrees of
freedom (d.o.f.s) (three translations and three rotations) at each end of the element. The frame element
is capable of replicating the effects of axial and biaxial shear deformations as well as biaxial bending
and torsion (CSI, 2005). With regard to transmitting gravity loads applied on floors to vertical
members, ‘membrane’-type plate elements with no out-of-plane stiffness were used for the floor slabs;
thus, all nodes of this element must be supported by other types of elements. Using the membrane
elements assigned with trivial thickness (i.e., without adding membrane stiffness), the floor gravity
loads were distributed to vertical members based on the tributary area concept, which is a special
function in ETABS (CSI, 2005).
The slab portion existing within the column section, belonging to the common volume of the column
and the slab, was assumed to be rigid, considering that the effective slab width formulas used in this
study (Grossman, 1997) were derived using clear span lengths between column faces. Thus, in ETABS,
the ‘rigid zone factor’ for that part of the equivalent slab–beam was set to one (1·0). This assumption
was justified in that the slab thickness was relatively small compared with the column dimensions, as
opposed to beam–column connections that typically exhibit considerable joint shear deformations even
within the elastic range (Shin and LaFave, 2004).

3.5 Shear wall modelling

The shear walls were modelled using ‘shell’-type plate elements available in ETABS. By using this
plate element, the behaviour of a shear wall was represented by deformations at the midsurface of the
wall. The shell element uses a triangular (three-node) or quadrilateral (four-node) formulation (see
Figure 5) that combines separate membrane and plate-bending behaviours (Ibrahimbegovic and
Wilson, 1990). Each node of the element has six deformation components, as shown in Figure 5. The
three components of membrane action include two in-plane translations (u and v) and a ‘drilling’

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

Figure 5. Triangular shell element with 6 d.o.f.s at each node: (a) 3 d.o.f.s related to membrane action;
(b) 3 d.o.f.s related to plate-bending action (adapted from Cook et al., 1989)

Table 2. Stiffness reduction factors for flexure used in analysis

Members Service state Ultimate state

Beams 0·5 EcIg 0·35 EcIg
Columns 1·0 EcIg 0·70 EcIg
Uncracked 1·0 EcIg 0·70 EcIg
Walls Cracked 0·5 EcIg 0·35 EcIg
Flat plates (equivalent slab–beams) 1·0 EcIe 0·70 EcIe
Ec, modulus of elasticity for concrete; Ig, moment of inertia for the gross-sectional area of the member; Ie, moment
of inertia for effective slab width (see Equation (1)).

rotation about an axis normal to the plane of the element (qz), while the three components of plate-
bending action include two plate-bending rotations (qx and qy) and an out-of-plane translation (w).
The shell-type plate element is perfectly compatible with the aforementioned frame element when the
plate and line elements share identical nodal points.
To account for varying crack formation at different lateral load stages and various stress levels along
the building height, the reduction factors summarized in Table 2 were applied for flexural stiffness.
Two different stages of stiffness were assumed for two design purposes: serviceability and ultimate
states. This is in accordance with the stiffness reduction factors recommended by ACI 318-08 except
for flat plates (Sections 8.8 and 10.10); however, some other references (e.g., ASCE 41-06) may be
adopted. For the lowest 8 storeys or so of the 60-storey residential tower (about 1/8 to 1/6 of the total
height), cracked wall stiffnesses of 0·5 EcIg and 0·35 EcIg were used for service and ultimate state
analyses respectively, while uncracked wall stiffnesses of 1·0 EcIg and 0·7 EcIg were used at upper
storeys. The height of about 1/8 to 1/6 of the total height was a preliminary value based on the authors’
past experience and analysis, but was verified during the design process by checking stresses in the
shear walls modelled with gross-sectional properties (1·0 EIg).
The use of the cracked stiffness values specified for the lowest storeys was justified by comparing
the elastic analysis results with experimental data and nonlinear modelling results. Based on the several

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

tests of slender walls, including RW2 and TW2 specimens tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995),
different degrees of cracking were validated in the two response stages. As shown in Figure 6, the
values of 0·5 EcIg and 0·35 EcIg well represent the secant stiffnesses between 0·25 Mn and 0·6 Mn (for
serviceability level), and between 0·6 Mn and 0·9 Mn (for ultimate level), respectively. Here, Mn is the
nominal moment strength of the shear wall given with the axial force (see Figure 6). The moment
ranges for each level were estimated based on the fact that ASCE 7-02 specifies service lateral forces
as approximately 45 to 70% of ultimate design lateral forces. The corresponding drift level for 0·5
EcIg was moderately less than drift limits (0·2 to 0·25%) recommended for serviceability of non-struc-
tural components (ASCE 7-02, CB.1.2).
Using PERFORM-3D nonlinear analysis and performance assessment software (CSI, 2006), a
comparison was also made with the analysis results from nonlinear fibre wall modelling (Figure 6),
which the authors believe effectively simulates nonlinear flexural–axial load behaviour based on their
preliminary studies. The corresponding comparison between the linear and nonlinear models validates
the use of the elastic wall element for stiffness modelling at each limit state level.

50
0.5Ec Ig 0.35Ec Ig
40 (a) RW2
30 Load @ Mn (εc = 0.003)
Lateral force [kips]

= 29.4 kips
20
10 Axial Load
= 0.07Ag f'c
0
-10
Load @ Mn (εc = 0.003) = 29.4 kips
-20
Experimental test data
(Thomsen and Wallace, 1995)
-30 Nonlinear fiber wall model
of PERFORM-3D
-40 Elastic shell-type plate model
0.35Ec Ig 0.5Ec Ig of ETABS
-50
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Lateral drift ratio [%]

120
0.5Ec Ig 0.35Ec Ig
100 (b) TW2
80
60
Lateral force [kips]

40 Load @ Mn (εc = 0.003)

20 Axial Load = 40.2 kips
= 0.075Ag f'c
0
-20
-40 Load @ Mn (εc = 0.003) = 77 kips

-60 Experimental test data

(Thomsen and Wallace, 1995)
-80 Nonlinear fiber wall model
of PERFORM-3D
-100 0.35Ec Ig
Elastic shell-type plate model
0.5Ec Ig of ETABS
-120
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Lateral drift ratio [%]

Figure 6. Comparisons between wall stiffness models and test data

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

The stiffness of shear walls was adjusted by changing ‘stiffness modifiers’ in ETABS. There are
eight stiffness modifiers for the shell-type element: three for membrane action (Nx, Ny and Nxy) asso-
ciated with in-plane forces (Figure 7(a)), and five for plate-bending action (Mx, My, Mxy, Qx and Qy)
associated with transverse loads (Figure 7(b)). It is assumed that the out-of-plane (plate-bending)
stiffness of shear walls has little influence on the lateral stiffness of the overall structure, regardless
of whether the walls are parallel or perpendicular to the direction of loading. Also, for slender walls
used in tall buildings, in-plane shear deformations do not contribute much to the lateral deflections of
the walls. Thus, the section properties related to Nxy forces in the shear walls were not modified during
the analysis. For simulating cantilever-bending deformations of the slender walls, the stiffness com-
ponent related to the membrane force (Nx or Ny) parallel to the height of the structure was reduced,
considering the degree of cracking damage conceived at serviceability and ultimate states.

3.6 Link beam modelling

Force demands in the structural walls are potentially affected by the stiffness of link beams designed
to achieve coupled action of the discontinuous wall segments (see Figure 2). The link beams used in
this project were shallow and wide (see Figure 8) because of the limited storey heights ranging
approximately from 9 to 10 ft at the typical floors; they were much wider than the wall thicknesses
with a beam width-to-depth ratio equal to about 2·4, and had a span-to-depth ratio of approximately
3·3. Therefore, the link beams were modelled using frame elements rather than plate elements, and
their flexural stiffness was modified using the beam reduction factors in Table 2. It is noted that the
performance of this type of shallow and wide link beam has not been researched, even though it has
been popularly used in RC residential buildings for many decades. Previous research (Wallace, 2007)
identified that link beams could be damaged more severely than those typically expected by current
design practice when subjected to design-level earthquakes; thus, using the cracked stiffness appears
to be reasonable for both service and ultimate states (see Table 2).

3.7 Diaphragm modelling

It is a common practice that concrete floors in building structures, which typically have very high
in-plane stiffness, are modelled with rigid diaphragm constraints (hereafter ‘rigid diaphragms’) for

Ny dx
Nxy dx

Nx dy Nxy dy

(a) membrane action (b) plate-bending action

Figure 7. Internal forces in shell-type plate element associated with: (a) membrane action; (b) plate-bending
action (adapted from Cook et al., 1989)

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

Column
Wall
(frame element)
(shell-type plate element)
Link beam
(frame element)

Figure 8. Shallow wide link beams (membrane elements for floors and frame elements for equivalent slab–
beams are not shown for clarity)

lateral load analysis. In this type of model, all constrained nodal points (joints) are slaved to one
another so that they undertake no in-plane deformations in the rigid plane (note that a rigid diaphragm
does not affect the out-of-plane behaviour of the slab.) The relative displacements at any two joints
(subscripts i and j) constrained by a rigid diaphragm can be expressed as follows:

u j = ui − θ zi ∆y (2)

v j = vi + θ zi ∆ x (3)

θ zj = θ zi (4)

Here, ∆x = xj − xi, ∆y = yj − yi and xj and yj are in-plane coordinates of the j-joint. Also, uj and vj are
in-plane translations of the j-joint along the X and Y directions, respectively, and qzj is the rotation of
the j-joint about the axis normal to the plane (see Figure 9).
However, previous experimental and analytical research reported that the diaphragm flexibility of
RC slabs might significantly affect lateral force distributions in structures with shear walls (Panahshahi
et al., 1991; Pantazopoulou and Imran, 1992; Barron and Hueste, 2004). The previous research iden-
tified that the effects of diaphragm flexibility were most pronounced in shorter buildings with relatively
high planar aspect ratios. To investigate diaphragm action in this lateral analysis, three different cases
of diaphragm modelling were considered: (a) one rigid diaphragm for the whole floor level; (b) two
separate rigid diaphragms for the hotel and residential tower slabs, which were connected using shell-
type plate elements; and (c) no rigid diaphragm (i.e., an extreme case). In short, the second case (see
Figure 2) was chosen for the analysis of the case study building; more information for diaphragm
effects is summarized later in this paper. The interfacial area existing between the two rigid diaphragms
was represented by shell-type plate elements capable of simulating both membrane and plate-bending
behaviours of the concrete floors.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

Figure 9. Rigid diaphragm constraints (adapted from CSI, 2005)

4. DISCUSSION OF ELASTIC MODELLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS

In the previous section, modelling approaches used in the practical design of the case study building
were discussed in detail. Relatively simple elastic models with various stiffnesses to discern different
degrees of damage at varying drift levels were used to obtain design forces and moments for each
member, as well as to check service and ultimate level storey drifts. This section further validates the
considered modelling methods in several aspects, and presents some of the representative analyses.

4.1 Model validation and detailing

In order to validate the use of cracked wall stiffness of 0·5 EcIg at lower storeys for serviceability state
analysis, the extent of flexural cracking in the walls was investigated from preliminary analysis that
used the building models with no stiffness reduction. This was done by checking stresses in the walls
with the tensile strength of concrete (e.g., 7·5√ fc′ ) under the load combination of D + 0·5 L + 0·7 W,
as recommended by ASCE 7-02 (Section CB.1.2). Based on the results, it was generally concluded
that the service state analysis could reasonably be carried out using the cracked stiffness
(0·5 EcIg) for the shear walls at the lowest 1/8 to 1/6 of the total building height (versus 1·0 EcIg). It
should be noted, however, that gravity loads (e.g., Slab thickness) greatly affect the extent of cracking
in shear walls. Appropriate modelling of the effective wall stiffness for various levels of lateral forces
or drifts is very important for elastic lateral analysis used to estimate service-level drifts (Gavin et al.,
1992). Similar results were found for ultimate state analysis.
As discussed previously, the seismic force-resisting system of the case study building is composed
of a vertical combination of dual and building frame systems. The extent of the building frame system
was determined based on the ‘25%’ rule of ASCE 7-02, by examining storey shears distributed
between shear walls and frames when subjected to design seismic forces, with allowance for moment

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

transfer at slab–column connections. For those storeys where the seismic force resistance taken by the
structural walls was greater than 75% of the total seismic shear forces, the walls were designed for
100% of the total storey shear forces. Such storeys typically existed at the lower part of the building
(refer to Figure 10 showing shear distributions against a selected case of wind forces). Therefore,
modelling hinged connections between slabs and columns part of the building frame system was
reasonable for seismic lateral force analysis; the d.o.f.s corresponding to moment transfer were
released at the ends of equivalent slab–beams.
With respect to the modelling of floor diaphragms, a great deal of effort was used to identify the
effects of the diaphragm flexibility that may occur in the irregularly shaped tall building consisting of
two substructures. The three diaphragm modelling cases described in the preceding section were
compared in terms of differences in their dynamic responses. It was concluded that there were, in
general, no major differences between mode shapes and frequencies of the three systems; for example,
differences in the first three modal periods of the two- and no-diaphragm cases were approximately
3·5% on average. This appeared to be attributed to the fact that core-wall systems in conjunction with
well-distributed moment frames were used in the two substructures, rather than perimeter lateral force-
resisting systems (such as end shear walls). This also indicated that the core-wall systems were very
effective in decreasing diaphragm flexibility, which could be severe for high-rise structures having
horizontal and vertical irregularities. In general, the results obtained have justified the use of the two
diaphragm models for the wind analysis. The following subsection presents some key results derived
from the multi-diaphragm wind study.

4.2 Multi-diaphragm wind study

The multi-diaphragm wind study was conducted along with wind tunnel tests by Rowan Williams
Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI). Two separate rigid diaphragms were assigned to the hotel and
residential tower slabs in the model structurally linked at the same floor level (see Figure 2). The
interfacial area existing between the two rigid diaphragms was represented by shell-type plate ele-
ments capable of simulating both membrane and plate-bending behaviours of the concrete floors.
This was primarily to investigate the most critical wind effects on various parts of the structure,
which might potentially result from relative deformations between the hotel and the residential tower
due to dynamic responses of the structure and local wind effects. The member sizes of the structures
(most importantly, wall thickness along its height) were preliminarily determined to limit storey drifts
against assumed service-level wind forces; this provided building dynamic properties necessary for
the RWDI wind analyses. Two different sets of member stiffnesses (see Table 2) were used
for the wind study. Critical accelerations and maximum drifts at the uppermost occupied floors
were estimated using the service state properties with the critical damping ratio of 2%, while
wind forces for the structural design were determined with the ultimate state properties and 3%
critical damping ratio.
Figure 11 illustrates raw base shears and base torsional moments applied to the 60-storey residen-
tial tower as an example, which were estimated based on the 50 year return period wind speed (3 s
gust) of 98 mph, assuming this wind speed applies equally to all directions. Fifty-six combinations of
service wind forces that consider the effects of directionality in the local wind climate were provided
by the wind study consultant (RWDI). Each wind force combination contained two horizontal forces
along its principal axes (Fx and Fy) and a torsional moment (Mz) for each of the two rigid diaphragms
(hotel and residential tower) with respect to the vertical axis at the reference point given by RWDI
(i.e., a total of six components for the whole floor).
The case study building satisfied the acceleration criteria range of 15 to 18 milli-g and the torsional
velocity criteria of 3 milli-rads/s, which are commonly used for a residential tower under 10-year

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

BH

story49

story39

story29

story19

story9

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

SW1 SW2 SW3 SW4 columns

(a)

BH

story49

story39

story29

story19

story9

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

SW1 SW2 SW3 SW4 columns

(b)
Figure 10. (a) Shear force distributions against wind in N–S direction for ultimate state; (b) Shear force
distributions against wind in E–W direction for ultimate state

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

6000
Maximum
5000 Mean
4000 Minimum

Base shear force [kips]

3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000 (a) Fx
-6000
10 60 120 180 240 300 360
Wind direction [degrees]

6000
Maximum
5000 Mean
4000 Minimum
Base shear force [kips]

3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000 (b) Fy
-6000
10 60 120 180 240 300 360
Wind direction [degrees]

100000
Maximum
Mean
Base torsional moment [ft-kips]

75000
Minimum

50000

25000

-25000

-50000

-75000
(c) Mz
-100000

10 60 120 180 240 300 360

Wind direction [degrees]

Figure 11. An illustrative example of 50 year return period wind-induced resultants acting on 60-storey
residential tower at the base level

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

return period wind. The strength requirements of the members were controlled in general by wind
forces in the N–S direction rather than wind forces in the E–W direction or seismic forces. Force
demands and relative deformations at the interface between the two substructures against wind forces
were investigated for special load combinations provided by RWDI for these purposes. By implement-
ing such a design process, tensile and shear stresses at the interface region were successfully estimated
for the strength design.
Figure 10 illustrates shear force distribution to the frames and shear walls when subjected to one
of the wind force cases provided by RWDI. The total shear force resisted by all frames at a storey
level is indicated as ‘columns’ in Figure 10. It is shown that the slab–column frames contributed most
significantly to lateral wind force resistance at the upper portion of the structure, while the shear walls
were dominant at the lower portion. This result is consistent with the previous studies by Paulay and
Priestley (1992). In this particular case, however, there were not many storeys where the frames and
shear walls counteracted each other (see ‘negative’ percentages at several storeys in Figure 10). In
other words, little reversed story shears and overturning moments were observed at the tops of the
walls. The reduced counter-interaction between the walls and the frames under lateral deflections was
achieved by modifying the upper wall design. The lengths and thicknesses of the shear walls were
decreased at the upper floor levels, resulting in reduced bending stiffness of the upper walls. These
results prove that the design of main wind-force-resisting system can be improved using the modified
frame–wall system.

4.3 Building dynamic responses

This subsection investigates dynamic responses of the cast study building, and discusses potential
considerations for the lateral force design of irregular tall buildings.
Differences in dynamic mode shapes and periods between the two models for wind design, corre-
sponding to service and ultimate states, are evaluated in the following paragraphs. Masses were cal-
culated from the self weights of members and applied dead loads in ETABS internally, and then the
total mass assigned to a nodal point was determined based on a tributary area basis. Nodal masses
existing between storey levels were lumped to the nearest storey level.
Figure 12 describes the first three undamped free-vibration mode shapes and periods under lateral
forces for (a) service and (b) ultimate states. The mode shapes are shown in terms of diaphragm dis-
placements at their centre of rigidity along the principal axes of the structure. (note that the in-plane
behaviour of a floor slab constrained by a rigid diaphragm can be completely defined by three displace-
ments with respect to a reference point, which are two in-plane translations and a rotation normal to
the plane.) In addition, Figure 13 graphically illustrates the first three modal motions of the ultimate
state model, projected at the top of the hotel. In Figure 13, ‘D1-EW’ stands for the ‘E–W’ directional
translation of the rigid diaphragm named ‘D1’ and so forth. The mode shapes shown were normalized
so that {ϕ}nT[m]{ϕ}n = 1 for each mode, where {ϕ}n is the nth mode shape and [m] is the global mass
matrix of the model in kip-inch units.
The three modal periods increased on the order of 1 s as the structure became more flexible when
affected by more cracking. For both service and ultimate states, the third mode was dominated by
twisting motion, and thus the plotted translations were minimal, except for the N–S translations of
D2 that were attributed to the centre of twist leaning towards the residential tower side. For each of
the first two modes, two translational components were both exhibited due to the asymmetry of the
structure. This torsional movement was especially significant in the ultimate state analysis. This
phenomenon can also be found in Table 3, which summarizes modal participating masses normalized
by the total mass. In the table, UX and UY stand for the E–W and N–S translations, respectively,

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

1st mode period: 6.1 sec. 2nd mode period: 5.8 sec. 3rd mode period: 4.1 sec.

700 700 700

600 600 600

500 500 500

Height [ft.]

Height [ft.]

Height [ft.]
400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1
Modal displacement Modal displacement Modal displacement
Diaphragm 1-EW direction
Diaphragm 2-EW direction
(a) Serviceability states
Diaphragm 1-NS direction Diaphragm 1: 60-story residential tower
Diaphragm 2-NS direction Diaphragm 2: 25-story hotel tower

1st mode period: 7.0 sec. 2nd mode period: 6.8 sec. 3rd mode period: 4.9 sec.

700 700 700

600 600 600

500 500 500

Height [ft.]

Height [ft.]

Height [ft.]

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1
Modal displacement Modal displacement Modal displacement

(b) Ultimate states

Figure 12. Mode shapes and periods for (a) service and (b) ultimate states

and RZ stands for the rotation about an axis normal to the building plan. For the service state against
wind forces, the first mode vibrated most into the N–S direction, while the second mode was domi-
nated by the E–W translations. However, the first and second modes of the ultimate state model
mingled the N–S and E–W translations by almost equal degrees. Considering that wind and seismic
forces for design were essentially based on the modal analysis, these results demonstrate the
importance of accurate assessment of structural damage conditions and corresponding stiffness
properties.
From these results, two suggestions may be advanced. First, different vertical distributions of
simplified static lateral forces may need to be proposed for serviceability and ultimate states.
For the ultimate state analysis of the case study building, it appears that the second-mode behaviour
contributes as much as the first mode for each of the two principal (X and Y) directions. Second,

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

(1st mode) (2nd mode) (3rd mode)

Figure 13. Free vibration modes for ultimate state, projected at the top of the hotel (displacements are
exaggerated for presentation)

Table 3. Modal participating mass ratios (calculated by ETABS)

Service state (%) Ultimate state (%)

Mode UX UY RZ UX UY RZ
1 8·0 41·6 11·3 29·0 23·7 5·4
2 46·1 6·2 3·4 25·2 23·9 9·9
3 0·6 5·1 25·7 0·7 5·7 25·5
UX, modal participating mass ratio for horizontal translation in the E–W
direction; UY, modal participating mass ratio for horizontal translation in
the N–S direction; RZ, modal participating mass ratio for torsion about the
vertical axis perpendicular to the floor plan.

for an irregular tall building, simplified wind or equivalent static seismic force may need to be deter-
mined, combining a sufficient number of dynamic modes to take into account all important irregular
motions of high possibility in each of two translational and torsional motions. However, the defined
process of converting dynamic system behaviour to the simplified lateral forces is beyond the scope
of this paper.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Due to its reasonable cost and reliability, practical elastic modelling is preferred over detailed non-
linear modelling for the design and analysis of three-dimensional irregular RC tall buildings located
in regions of low to moderate seismicity. Substantial wind pressures are involved at the site of the
case study building, but are expected to deform the structure within its elastic range. This paper
focused on discussing practical modelling approaches for service and ultimate states of RC slab–
column frames, shear walls, slab–wall connections and link beams that are part of dual systems (upper
storeys) or building frame systems (lower storeys). The findings and conclusions are summarized as
follows:

(1) Member proportions and details of the structural system were determined considering both service
and ultimate wind/seismic forces based on the authors’ past experience, building codes and cali-
bration with previous studies.
(2) Different effective stiffnesses were used for each member, depending on the degree of anticipated
cracking damage under various lateral loading conditions. The models used to define these stiff-
ness values were evaluated by comparing with other linear or nonlinear models, previous ana-
lytical research and experimental data, as well as by calibrating member stresses in the model

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

with uncracked stiffness. Through this process, it was found that the use of the cracked shear wall
stiffness for the lowest 1/8 to 1/6 of the total building height was reasonable for the case study
building.
(3) The analysis showed that the dual system was efficient in resisting seismic forces at the upper
storeys, whereas the building frame system of shear walls was dominant at the lower storeys.
Modelling of the building frame system for the lower storeys was verified by examining storey
shears distributed between shear walls and frames when subjected to design seismic forces, with
and without allowance of moment transfer at slab–column connections.
(4) In the model, slab–wall interactions were treated in conservative ways, as the flexibility of slabs
connecting in-plane or out-of-plane walls was observed to be significant from previous research.
Similar approaches were taken for shallow wide beams coupling discontinuous walls. Further
investigation on the stiffness of slab–wall connections and shallow wide link-beams would be
helpful to increase the accuracy of practical elastic modelling.
(5) The degree of diaphragm flexibility did not significantly impact the dynamic behaviour of the
overall structures, which may confirm that the use of core-wall systems in conjunction with well-
distributed moment frames is an effective means to restrain diaphragm flexibility that may exist
in irregularly shaped high-rise buildings. Through this investigation, the use of multi-diaphragms
for the wind analysis was justified.
(6) Comprehensive multi-diaphragm wind studies were performed to identify stresses at the interfacial
area between the two substructures with different heights and geometries under a variety of design
wind force combinations. These studies considered different sets of member stiffnesses and
damping ratios to reflect anticipated structural conditions under targeted design objectives. By
adjusting the upper shear wall design, resistance to storey shear due to lateral forces was well
distributed with little counter-interaction between the walls and the frames.
(7) Building dynamic responses demonstrated that the overall system behaviour (e.g., torsional) of
irregular high-rise structures might be greatly affected by different structural damage levels and
associated member stiffnesses (e.g., at service versus ultimate state level). Based on these results,
it is concluded that different vertical distributions of simplified lateral forces may need to be
considered for serviceability and ultimate states.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The case study building presented in this paper was part of an actual design project that was undertaken
by Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C., New York. All the designers and engineers
involved in this project are appreciated. Special thanks are due to Benjamin Pimentel, an Associate
of the firm, who has been in charge of managing the structural design project successfully. Also, sup-
ports from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, are acknowledged. The experimental data of RC
shear walls were generously provided by Prof. John W. Wallace at the University of California, Los
Angeles, who is also credited for helpful suggestions on nonlinear wall modelling. The original
experimental data used to develop the proposed equivalent slab–beam model were provided by Prof.
Jack P. Moehle at the University of California, Berkeley, who is gratefully acknowledged for his
contributions towards conducting the quality testing program. The views expressed are those of
authors, and do not necessarily represent those of sponsors or data providers.
REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318. 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary
(318R-02). American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI Committee 318. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary
(318R-08). American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DUAL SYSTEMS OF RC WALLS AND SLAB-COLUMN FRAMES

ACI Committee 318H. 2008. Committee meeting discussion. ACI Fall Convention, St. Louis, MO.
Allen FH, Darvall P. 1977. Lateral load equivalent frame. ACI Journal, Proceedings 74(7): 294–299.
ASCE 41. 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings; ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Reston, VA.
ASCE 7. 2002. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; ASCE/SEI 7-02. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Barron JM, Hueste MBD. 2004. Diaphragm effects in rectangular reinforced concrete buildings. ACI Structural
Journal 101(5): 868–875.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2005. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley,
CA.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2006. PERFORM-3D Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D
Structures, Ver. 4 User Guide. Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME. 1989. Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis. John Wiley &
Sons: New York.
Dovich LM, Wight JK. Effective slab width model for seismic analysis of flat slab frames. ACI Structural Journal
102(6): 868–875.
Gavin H, Yuan S, Grossman J, Pekelis E, Jacob K. 1992. Low-level dynamic characteristics of four tall flat-plate
buildings in New York City. Technical Report NCEER-92-0034, State University of New York, Buffalo,
NY.
Grossman JS. 1987. Reinforced concrete design. Building Structural Design Handbook, White RN, Salmon CG
(eds). John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Grossman JS. 1997. Verification of proposed design methodologies for effective width of slabs in slab–column
frames. ACI Structural Journal 94(2): 181–196.
Hwang SJ, Moehle JP. 1990. An experimental study of flat-plate structures under vertical and lateral loads. Report
No. UCB/SEMM-90/11, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, July 1990,
pp. 271.
Hwang SJ, Moehle JP. 2000. Models for laterally loaded slab–column frames. ACI Structural Journal 97(2):
345–353.
IBC. 2003. International Building Code 2003 (IBC 2003). International Code Council: Falls Church, VA.
Ibrahimbegovic A, Wilson EL. 1990. A unified formulation for triangular and quadrilateral flat shell elements
with six nodal degrees of freedom. Communications in Applied Numeral Methods 7: 1–9.
Kang TH-K, Wallace JW, Elwood KJ. 2009. Nonlinear modeling of flat plate systems. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 135(2): 147–158.
Kang TH-K, Wallace JW. 2005. Dynamic responses of flat plate systems with shear reinforcement. ACI Structural
Journal 102(2): 763–773.
New York City Department of Buildings. 2008. Building Code of the City of New York 2008. International Code
Council: Fall Church, VA.
Panahshahi N, Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Lu L-W, Huang T, Yu K. 1991. Seismic response of a 1:6
reinforced concrete scale-model structure with flexible floor diaphragms. ACI Structural Journal 88(3): 315–
324.
Pantazopoulou S, Imran I. 1992. Slab–wall connections under lateral loads. ACI Structural Journal 89(5): 515–
527.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley &
Sons: New York.
Qadeer A, Smith BS. 1969. The bending stiffness of slabs connecting shear walls. ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
66(12): 1021–1022.
Schwaigofer J, Collins MP. 1977. Experimental study of the behavior of reinforced concrete slabs. ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings 74(3): 123–127.
Shin M, LaFave JM. 2004. Modeling of cyclic joint shear contribution in RC beam–column connections to overall
frame behavior. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 18(5): 403–412.
Shin M, Pimentel B, Grossman J. 2008. Practical finite element analysis—issues for an irregular reinforced
concrete high-rise building. Concrete International 30(10): 71–76.
Thomsen IV JH, Wallace JW. 1995. Displacement-based design of RC structural walls: experimental studies of
walls with rectangular and T-shaped cross sections. Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University: Potsdam, NY, 353 pp.
Vanderbilt MD, Corley WG. 1983. Frame analysis of concrete buildings. ACI Concrete International 5(12):
33–43.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 M. SHIN, T. H.-K. KANG AND J. S. GROSSMAN

Vanderbilt MD. 1981. Equivalent frame analysis of unbraced reinforced concrete buildings for static lateral loads.
Structural Research Report No. 36, Civil Engineering Department, Colorado State University: Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Wallace JW. 2007. Modelling issues for tall reinforced concrete core wall buildings. The Structural Design of
Tall and Special Buildings 16(5): 615–632.
Wight JK, MacGregor JG. 2009. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics & Design, Fifth Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1112 pp.

APPENDIX (CONVERSION):
Conversion Factors
1 in. = 25·4 mm
1 psi = 6895 N/m2
( psi ) = 0 ⋅ 0833 ( MPa )
1 lb = 4·448 N
1 kip-in. = 0·113 kN-m

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal

View publication stats