8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering

5 -7 December 2007, Singapore

Seismic design of high-rise structures in Dubai, UAE

D.R. Wood
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner (SEA) Ltd, Singapore.

D. Whittaker
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: Dubai is enjoying an unprecedented high-rise building construction boom.

The Dubai area is not highly seismic, but a large earthquake in southern Iran could cause
strong shaking and have serious effects on structures in Dubai. Tall structures tend to be
more vulnerable to large distant earthquake sources and therefore pose a potential high
seismic risk. A similar situation exists in Singapore, due to its proximity to the active
seismic area of Sumatra, and many high-rise buildings may not have been designed for
seismic effects. Like Singapore, Dubai does not have its own seismic design code.
Buildings are designed to British Standards, plus the seismic loading and detailing
requirements of the US Uniform Building Code (UBC), generally for Zone 2A (low to
moderate seismic zone comparable to Auckland, New Zealand). The mixed use of British
and US design standards provides a challenge to designers to understand which parts of
the codes should be applied concurrently. Recent experience by the authors designing
several tall buildings in Dubai has shown that wind loading tends to dominate over
seismic, and wind vibration control tends to govern the stiffness of lateral load systems.
However seismic overstrength can produce critical loading on some building elements
and piled foundations. Architectural planning requirements often lead to vertical load
transfer structures within these buildings. UBC deals with seismic design of such
elements which require a margin of protection against inelastic behaviour, by means of a
simple overstrength coefficient applied to earthquake design actions. Design to UBC
seismic requirements is commonly fully automated, using design modules in software
packages. By contrast, the more rigorous capacity design approach common in New
Zealand makes the direct use of design software more difficult.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Design Illustration

This paper outlines the aspects of seismic design incorporated in a recent 50 storey building designed
by the authors for Dubai. The design requirements of international codes commonly used in this
region are discussed. Design practice in Dubai appears to incorporate most but not all of the US
Uniform Building Code (UBC 97) requirements.
There are implications for possible seismic design of structures in other low to moderate earthquake
zones at long range from potentially very high magnitude earthquakes, especially for tall structures.

Paper Number 053

2 DUBAI PRACTICE

2.1 Local practice

UBC Zone 2A is generally applied in Dubai, as required by the regulatory authority, Dubai
Municipality (DM). Discussion with local engineers highlighted the opinion that the seismic zoning
for Dubai ought to be 1, rather than 2A. Use of Zone 1 would reduce base shear to 53% of the Zone
2A requirement. We note that the development of a seismic code specific to Dubai is currently stalled.
In the meantime, the requirements of Zone 2A seem to be implemented in the main, but with some key
omissions.
2.2 Detailing of gravity framing

The choice of seismic zone has implications for design detailing of gravity frames for example, which
have typically been detailed in accordance with British practice.
UBC and ACI 318 require detailing similar to moment resisting seismic frames for buildings in UBC
Zone 2 and above. The level of detailing is dependent on the size of bending moments induced in the
gravity members when subjected to the building displacements under seismic action, and can exceed
the requirements for the lateral force resisting frames in some instances when applied to Zone 2
structures.
We suggest that this need never exceed the detailing associated with Intermediate MRFs when
incorporated in a building in seismic zone 2, but ought to exceed British code standard detailing in the
beam column joints and end regions of frame members.
2.3 Amplification of seismic forces at discontinuities

UBC requires that a stipulated amplification factor (dependent on the building type chosen but
generally set at 2.8) be applied to the seismic forces to account for structural overstrength in certain
circumstances and locations. This is to be applied generally to elements supporting discontinuous
parts of the lateral load resisting system. These may include design of diaphragms for offsets in shear
walls and design of transfer beams for transfer of column axial loads.
The amplification factor is to ensure structural robustness and avoidance of catastrophic collapse
rather than being directly related to the capacity design considerations of strain hardening and yield
overstrength of reinforcement.
It appears that Dubai practice is generally not to include this factor in designs. We did incorporate
amplification for key elements such as transfer beams and transfer diaphragms.
2.4 Detailing of reinforcing steel

It has been suggested that reinforcing steel ought to be specified and detailed in accordance with
ASTM standards for consistency with UBC. However, the common practice in Dubai is to design for
UBC seismic forces and to detail in accordance with UBC/ACI 318 for loads and bar layout in lateral
load resisting elements and in accordance with British standards in all other respects of detailing.
We consider this appropriate given the low ductility demands typical of the tall structures being built
in the region. Our reinforcement details applied to the example building were largely to BS
8666:2005 with modification of the standard hook tail lengths.

2
3 OUTLINE OF A RECENT BUILDING DESIGN

3.1 General building description

The building consists of three basement carparking levels under a seven storey podium structure with
43 storeys of office and hotel tower above. Services transfer occurs at mid-height of the tower.
The gravity load system is a combination of reinforced concrete core walls and perimeter reinforced
concrete frames, generally with precast hollowcore floors.
The podium structure at the front of the site accommodates entrance lobbies and ballroom / function
spaces, requiring large spans to create column-free areas. These spaces and the open lobby entrance
area are achieved by heavy steel trusses spanning up to 37 m.
At the rear of the site, a multi-level carpark supports a landscaped deck structure which spans 50m
from the tower edge. The deck and
carpark are seismically separated from
the tower by a movement joint
achieved by corbel supports for the
deck trusses at the tower edge.
3.2 Piled foundations

Piles are of the bored concrete type

and are 1200 mm and 1500 mm
diameter, extending to depths of
approximately 45 m below the lowest
basement floor.
3.3 Precast floor detailing

Hollowcore slabs are supported on

corbels at the perimeter beam and core
wall, with a structural topping for
composite and diaphragm action. Two
of the four voids in each unit are
concrete filled at the ends, allowing
additional dowel reinforcement to
improve the vertical shear transfer and
providing positive structural
connection of the precast units to the
main structure, in line with New
Zealand recommendations. Where
corbels cannot be formed due to height
constraints, such as at some doorway
openings in the core walls, steel ledge
angles are installed to provide the
floor unit seating.
Figure 1 – Example structure

3
 Figure 2 – Hollowcore end support detail

3.4 Columns

The tower perimeter columns have been sized for minimum dimensions within strength and elastic
shortening constraints. They carry substantial axial loads and are constructed of high grade concrete
(C75 or f’c = 60 MPa) with up to 4% steel reinforcement.
The tower perimeter changes from a curved shape in the upper floors at two opposite corners to the
fully rectangular shape in the lower floors via transfer beams at the tower mid-height, together with
some column overlaps.
3.5 Core walls

The core walls transfer from a curved layout to a rectangular arrangement at the tower mid-height by
way of a vertical overlap and wall thickenings.
3.6 Seismic and wind framing

Seismic and wind loads on the building are resisted by a combination of the core walls and the
perimeter framing. The seismic design philosophy is described in more detail later in this paper.
Diaphragm action between the lateral load resisting elements is provided by structural topping
concrete at each level. Specific transfer diaphragms at ground level, top of podium and tower mid-
height are of thicker in-situ concrete.

4
3.7 Mid-height transfer floor

Deep transfer beams are required at building mid-height to support setback columns at two opposite
corners, due to a change in floor plate shape. The transfer is achieved by 4.2 m deep x 1.5 m thick
reinforced concrete beams spanning between the core and the perimeter columns.
3.8 Upper level transfer structure

The three reduced floor plate levels at the top of the tower require a further inward transfer of the
building perimeter. Radial post-tensioned beams at the level 47 floor achieve this transfer.
3.9 Design basis and codes of practice

The codes of practice used for the structural and seismic design are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 – Codes of practice

Subject Reference

Loading Dubai Municipality Regulations on Building Conditions &

Specifications
Uniform Building Code (UBC) – 1997
ASCE 7 – 98 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures
BS 6399 – Design Loads

Seismic loading Uniform Building Code (UBC) – 1997

Wind loading Dubai Municipality Regulations on Building Conditions &

Specifications
Site and building specific wind tunnel study (for design)
ASCE 7 – 95 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (for concept design and benchmarking)
BS 6399 – Design Loads (for benchmarking)

Reinforced Uniform Building Code (UBC) – 1997

concrete
ACI 318-2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete

Steelwork Uniform Building Code (UBC) – 1997 (Seismic Design)

BS5950-2000, Part 1 (Non-seismic Design)

It is normal in Dubai to design tall buildings for UBC 97 Seismic Loads, incorporating the detailing
provisions of that code for the lateral load resisting elements depending on the level of ductility
implied by the design.
ACI 318 was chosen for all reinforced concrete design on the example project, so that loading and
detailing were completely consistent with the UBC seismic loading.

5
4 SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR TALL BUILDINGS

4.1 Structural classification

Although Dubai does not currently have a seismic code of its own, buildings in Dubai are typically
designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC 97), using Seismic Zone 2A (low to
moderate in terms of US seismic zones) in accordance with DM regulations.
A dynamic lateral force procedure is required by UBC for buildings of the type considered here.
A building response factor, R=4.5, was conservatively adopted for this building, since the building
type strictly falls between the bearing wall and building frame categories. The R factor is defined by
UBC as representing the “inherent overstrength and global ductility capacity” of the building lateral
force-resisting system. The selection of R factor is not critical for long period structures in terms of
the design seismic loading applied, because the response spectrum is scaled up to meet the minimum
base shear level required by UBC 97.

WIND SEISMIC

250 m ROOF Parts load to UBC

Fp = 0.35W p (R p = 4.0)
SLS accelns 235 m TOC
10 yr Melbourne criterion
a < 20milli-g
210 m Transfer beams
SLS drifts (50 year wind) TRANSFER Em = Ω 0 E = 2.8 E
Drift < h/500
(BS 8110:Pt 2)

Tower 1.6W Check shear margin

Wind study at critical sections
MRS scaled up to min V b

125 m Deep transfer beams

TRANSFER Em = Ω 0 E = 2.8 E

50 m Shear transfer from core

PODIUM Nom elastic diaphragm
shear

Shear transfer to
0 m GL basement walls

-12 m FDN Equiv static E

Figure 3 – Governing lateral design criteria

6
For the example building, the calculated dynamic base shear was approximately 0.9% g. The modal
response spectrum was scaled up to the minimum base shear level of 1.7% g.
While wind loads were found to govern the design of the tower portion of the building, seismic load
combinations governed much of the pile and pile cap design under the core walls. Seismic loading
generally governed the podium bracing elements by a small margin.
4.2 Foundations

UBC requires that the piled foundations be designed to resist the Equivalent Static seismic forces
defined in the code. The axial load effects in the piles due to overturning from the Equivalent Static
forces were found to be very close to the effects obtained by applying the “overstrength” factor to the
Modal Response Spectrum forces used in the design of the superstructure. It does not necessarily
follow that this would be the case for all building sizes, and we regard the use of the “overstrength”
forces as a necessary check on the UBC required actions to ensure some margin of strength over the
superstructure.
The transfer of base shear between building and ground was conservatively considered to be via
flexure of the piles. Piles were designed to resist the amplified modal response spectrum shear,
providing at least a 2.8 factor of safety against shear failure.
The top section of the piles was detailed in accordance with the confinement requirements of ACI 318.
Although UBC does not require the full potential plastic hinge zone confinement for piles of structures
in Zone 2, we adopted it as good practice.
The pile-soil interaction capacity was designed to allowable working load with normal factors of
safety as defined by the codes, confirmed by in-situ load testing. The alternate basic load
combinations of UBC 97 Clause 1612.3.2 were used, allowing for a 30% increase in allowable stresses
for W or E combinations and a simultaneous reduction factor of 1/1.4 on the seismic effects.
4.3 Core walls

As a bearing wall/building frame structure, the core walls were designed to carry all of the building
lateral design loading, in strict accordance with the definitions in UBC 97. However, it is common to
apportion the lateral load effects between walls and frames according to the stiffness-based allocation
of the building model and design directly for these.
There is no requirement in UBC for a margin against shear failure of walls when compared with
flexural failure. However, for this design it was confirmed that a strength margin did exist at the
tower/podium interface to allow the limited ductile response required of the core walls.
4.4 Frames

The perimeter frames play an important part in the torsional rigidity of the building and carry around
15% of the lateral load in the tower according to the results of three dimensional computer modelling.
They were designed as Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames (IMRF) in accordance with the
specific loading and detailing requirements of UBC 97.
For Zone 2 structures, the additional requirements for Intermediate Moment Resisting frames are
limited to:
• Increased seismic shear contribution at member ends by a factor of two, in combination with
gravity effects.
• Increased confinement at the member ends.
4.5 Transfer elements

It is appropriate to provide a margin of overstrength to elements within the structural framing system
in which yielding should not be concentrated. The amplification factor, Ω0 = 2.8, has been applied to
seismic loads acting on transfer structures (including transfer beams at the mid-height and upper levels

7
of the tower).
Similarly, transfer diaphragms required at locations of shear reversal or specific transfer in the core
walls were designed for UBC loads factored up by the ratio of nominally elastic (R=1.25) to ductile
(R=4.5) shears at the key locations (ie. essentially elastic loads) to suppress potential brittle failure
mechanisms in these important transfer elements. Because the default minimum shears are greater
than the R=4.5 shears by a factor of about 1.9, the effective load factor (margin) for diaphragm shears
is approximately 1.9 (= 4.5/1.25/1.9). The major transfers of shear occur at:
• Mid-height, where the core wall layout changes from three piers above to four piers below.
• Top of podium, where the additional podium walls attract shear from the tower core.
• Ground level, where basement perimeter walls provide the stiffer structural system and the
reaction for the flexural cantilever of the core wall.

5 CAPACITY DESIGN

5.1 Comparison with NZ code approach

The New Zealand Reinforced Concrete design standard, NZS 3101, requires that limited ductile wall
structures be designed to withstand the shear derived from flexural overstrength of the walls, at the
critical region. Detailing principles such as confinement of boundary zone regions and limitations on
lapping of longitudinal bars at critical regions are also applied. Coupling beams in limited ductile wall
systems are designed to ensure that flexural overstrength can be attained.
UBC does not make provision for consideration of flexural overstrength in wall systems. We consider
that it is appropriate to review the margin of shear strength available at the critical regions of walls,
given the effectively limited ductile demand on the structures considered.

6 WIND EFFECTS

6.1 Wind studies required

The tall structures considered are typically classed as wind sensitive and fall outside the bounds of the
normal loading codes. A wind study was commissioned for the example building, incorporating
derivation of windspeeds, combination of dynamic effects from wind tunnel testing, review of comfort
level criteria and the effects of local wind environments.
The resultant wind loading was found to be lower than those calculated from ASCE 98 and BS 6399.
6.2 Design criteria

• Wind induced drift at the unfactored characteristic 50 year wind load < h/500 limit defined
by BS 8110:Part 2.
• 5 and 10 year wind induced accelerations at the upper floors are less than currently accepted
limits. Generally Melbourne’s (1988) 20 milli-g peak acceleration at 10 year wind was the
governing criterion.

7 AUTOMATED DESIGN

7.1 Software used

The ETABS design module was used to design typical elements such as shear walls, beams and
columns to ACI 318. Atypical elements such as many of the podium beams and transfer elements and
members adjacent to discontinuities were designed and detailed manually.

8
It was noted that axial shortening can be overestimated by ETABS because the load is applied
instantaneously rather than incrementally, leading to unconservatively low axial loads in perimeter
columns for example. In addition, the transfer walls and primary beams linked to the core tended to
“hang up” parts of the structure off the core in the ETABS model. This was rectified by designing for
column loads from the larger of ETABS output or the results of traditional tributary load take-off.
7.2 User beware

In-house studies have indicated that there are several limitations to the automated design module in
ETABS, requiring manual review and / or amendment.
• For beams, patterned live loading and layering of beam reinforcement are not considered.
• Moment redistribution needs to be applied manually.
• For columns, confinement is not considered fully.
• Care (and manual review) is required in the definition of shear wall boundary elements.
• Coupling beams and deep transfer beams are treated as ordinary beams, which is often
inappropriate.
We would emphasize the need to conduct manual review (at least) of critical elements (eg. any
transfer elements) and yielding regions of members.

8 SINGAPORE SEISMIC HAZARD

8.1 Current estimates of peak ground acceleration

Megawati et al and Balendra et al refer to seismic design forces potentially well in excess of minimum
code lateral forces currently applied to buildings in Singapore.
Significant commercial buildings in Singapore are currently designed to resist lateral loading of the
greater of the British code wind loadings (based on wind speed of between 30 and 35 m/s) and 1.5% of
self weight.
Wind loading is expected to govern the tower portion of very tall structures, however for intermediate
height buildings of around 20 storeys, there is a strong suggestion that seismic forces may well govern
the lateral design. With amplification of response spectra for the deep and flexible soils in parts of
Singapore, it is apparent that building base shear could approach 6-7% g. Such levels of load may be
possible from a Sumatran subduction earthquake of Mw = 8.0. Megawati et al refer to the very large
events of 1833 and 1861 (estimated Mw = 9.0 and 8.5 respectively) together with 7.7 and 7.9
magnitude earthquakes in 1935 and 2000, as evidence that such earthquakes are a very real risk in the
region. Effects in Kuala Lumpur may be significantly worse due to the shorter range of 500 km.
8.2 Comparison with UBC

For the sample building on its type SB (rock) soil site, UBC sets a minimum base shear of 1.7% g, to
which the modal response spectrum is scaled. A displacement ductility of about 2.4 is implied.
According to the attenuation relationships derived by Megawati et al for Sumatran subduction
earthquakes, a similar 50 storey building on a soft soil site in Singapore would most likely be
adequately proportioned to resist seismic forces without ductility demand under the Mw = 8.0
earthquake. At Mw = 9.0, displacement ductility of around 2 might be required.
A 25 storey building on a soft soil site in the Singapore CBD, however, might need to be detailed to a
ductility of 2-2.5 at current strength levels, to resist a Mw = 8.0 earthquake at 700 km range and 15 km
focal depth. A Mw = 9.0 earthquake in a similar location might require that the building be designed
for lateral forces of 2.5-3 times existing practice, even if the building was detailed for a high level of
ductility.

9
 Figure 4 – Comparison of response spectra

!
"# $ % #
&" # ' ( )**
+, !

8.3 Performance of tall buildings

It is of concern that reinforced concrete buildings designed to low levels of lateral load, and detailed in
accordance with British code practice, may not possess sufficient ductility to survive a very large
Sumatran earthquake. Global displacement ductility demands of up to 4 (at rock sites) and potentially
much higher (allowing for site amplification) could be made on many structures which have been
designed and detailed generally in accordance with the (non-seismic) British standard.
Enquiries were received regarding assessment of the seismic safety of several tall buildings, after a
strongly felt tremor arising from a 6.4 magnitude Sumatran earthquake in March this year. There is
growing awareness of the potential effects of large earthquakes in the region.
8.4 Suggested supplementation of British codes

To guard against the effects of a very large Sumatran earthquake, UBC building types and seismic
loading regimes could be applied on top of the regular British loading code approach. For many very
tall shear wall buildings, it may only be found necessary to detail potential yielding regions for a
moderate level of inelastic response and to design for a margin of safety against shear failures.
For medium to tall buildings, especially where considerable frame action is implied, the detailing of
element end zones might be more critical but could still potentially follow the simplified methods
outlined by UBC for structures in Zone 2, but with primary lateral load resisting elements designed for
greater strength than has been the case and with greater attention to the type and layout of structural

10
system chosen.
Gravity frames should also be detailed to survive higher drifts than typically considered.
Manual review of critical regions such as transfer beams, foundations and potential hinge zones would
be implied by a revised approach.
With improved detailing of potentially critical regions of structures, together with some nominal
increases in lateral loading, new buildings in Singapore can be much better equipped to survive very
large distant earthquakes. More detailed study of the seismic hazard in Singapore together with a
relatively small amount of change to the loading and design codes (especially where applied to soft
soil areas) would appear to be warranted.

9 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute. ACI 318-05. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.
Balendra, T. Lam, N.T.K. Wilson, J.L. & Kong, K.H. 2001. Analysis of long-distance earthquake tremors and
base shear demand for buildings in Singapore. Engineering Structures Vol 24, No 1, Jan 2002.
British Standards Institution. BS 8110:Part 1:1997. Structural use of concrete, Part 1. Code of practice for
design and construction.
International Conference of Building Officials, California, USA. Uniform Building Code (UBC 97)
Paulay T. and Priestley M.J.N. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures.
Megawati, K. Pan, T-C & Koketsu, K. 2004. Response spectral attenuation relationships for Sumatran-
subduction earthquakes and the seismic hazard implications for Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 11-25.
Standards New Zealand. NZS 3101:Part 1:1995. Concrete Structures Standard – The Design of Concrete
Structures.

11