Structural System For Tall Buildings

. ,.
..:#: ,
..;F , ' .
. .
Structural syst.erns
for ~al l ~ui l di ngs
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Spons or i ng Socl el l cr
Internntlonul Asrocintion for Bri dge and Swc t u r a l Engineering (IABSE)
Ameri can Society of Civil Engi neen (ASCE)
Ameri can Inrtitute of Architects (AIA)
Ameri can Planning Asrocintion (APA)
I ner nal i onal Union of Architects (UIA)
American Soci et y o f Inl eri ar Designers (ASID) .z~......I:.,, ; ...,, .~;
Jnpon St r uct unl Consul t ono Arrociotlon (ISCA) ..:; :.~
Urban Lnnd Institute (ULI)
International Fedemlion of lnlerior Dcsi gnen ( I R)
The following identifier those firms m d or gmi wt i onr who provide fart heCounci l ' s financivl s u p p o h
Pa t r o n s
A1 Rnyes Group. Kuwait
Consolidnted Cont maor r Internulional Co.. At hens
Dnr Al-Hnndnsah '.Shnir & Panncrr." Amman
DLF Univcrsnl Limited. Ncw Dclhi
Zuhai r Fnyez & Arrociales. Jeddvh
Juros. Bn i m & Bolles. New York
Kuwait Foundmion for t he Advonccmcnt of Sciences. Kuwait
Shi mi zu Cor pondon. Tokyo
TheTur ner Corpomtion. New Yar k
Sponsors
Europrofilc Tecom. Luxembourg
Gcorge A. Fuller Co.. New York
T.R. Hnmr ah & Yeung Sdn. Bhd.. Scl angor
HL-Techni k A.G.. Muni ch
Hong Kong Lnnd Group Lld.. Hong Kong
Kone Elevators. Helsinki
John A. Mnni n & Aaroc.. Inc.. Lor Angel cr
Ahmad Mohnrrom. Cai ro
Wal t er P. Moore & Associates. Inc.. Hourt on
Nippon Slcel. Tokyo
Ot i s El ewl or Co.. Forminglan
Ov e Amp Pmner r hi p. London
PDM Strocnl Inc.. Slockton
Leslie E. Robcmon Associatea. New Yor k
Snmrung Engineering Br Conrtruction Co. Lrd..Seoul
Snud Consult, Riyadh
Schi ndl cr Elevntor Corp.. Morrislown
Si ecor Corporntion. Hi ckory
Tukenako Corporation, Tokyo
Tishmon Conslruction Corporarion of Ncw York, New York
Ti i hman Speyer Properties. Ncw York
Wci r kopi & Pickwonh. New York
Wi ng Ta i Conrt mct i on &Engi neeri ng. Hong Kong
Wong & Ouynng (HK) Lld.. Hong Kong
Donor 5
American Bridge Co.. Pittsburgh O' Brien-Kreilrbcrg & AS TOC~ ~ ~ ~ CI . In=..
American Iron and Sl cel Institute. Pennrl ukcn
\Vushington, D.C. RTKL Associates. Inc.. Bnltimore
W.R. Grncc & Comp;my. Cambri dge Skidmore. Ou, i ngr & hlerrill. Chi cogo
Hnscko Corporai on. Tokyo Steen Con~ul t unt r Pty. Ltd., Si ngspore
Th c Herrick Corp.. Pleasnnton Syi ko & Hcnnery. lnc.. New Yor k
Hollundsche Belon Mnnlschappij BV, nornton-TomorcuilEngineer5. Ncw York
Rijswijk Werner Vosr & Ponncrr. Braunrchwci g
Hong Kong Housing Aut l ~ori l y. Hong Kong Wong Hobach Luu Consulting Engineers. La5
lffland Ki vvnvgh Waterbury. P.C.. New Yor k Angcles
Ca n l r i b u l o n
Office of Irwi n G. Cwl or . P.C., New York
Li m Consul U~t t s. Inc.. Cambri dge
H.K. Cheng & Pnr t nen Ltd. Hung Kong
Meinhnrdt Auslrnlin Pty. Ltd.. Mel bourne
Douglas Specinlist Conunct on Ltd.. Al dri dgc
Mclnhnrdl (HK) Ltd.. Hong Kong
Hn n Conrul wnt Grnup. Snntn Moni ca
Mucr er Rutledge Consul t i ng Engi ncen.
The G c o r g ~ Hymnn ConsWcl i on Co.. New Yor k
Bal hrsdn
Oboynshi Corpomtion. Tokyo
Ingenicurburo Mul l cr Mnrl GmbH. Mnrl
OTEP In~crnntional. SA. Mndri d
Institute Sul wn lrknndnr. Johor
Charl es Ponkow Builders. Inc.. Al wdenn
INTEMAC. Madrid
Proj cst S A Emprecndi ment os e Servi cos
J HS Co n s we n o e Plnncjnmento Ltd.. Sno Tecnlcos. Ri n d c Jnnci m
Pnulo PSM Inlernnllonnl. Chi cago
Johnson Fain and Per r i m Asroc.. Los Angel er Ski l l i ng War d Megnurson Bn r b h i r c Inc..
Th e Kling-Lindquist P m c n h i p . Inc. Senltlc
Philadclphio
Tool ey & Company. La s Angcl es
LeMessurier Conrultnntr Inc.. Cnmbri dge
Nobih Your r ef and Arrocinlcr. Los Angel cs
Cont r i but i ng Pnr t l cl ponl r
Advnnccd Slructuml Concrplr. Danvcr
Advicrburnu Voor Bouwwchnick BV. Amhcm
Amcrirnn l wt i ~ut e of Slecl Con.uu~Lion. Chicago
Anglo Amcricnn Pmpcny Scrviccr (Ply1 Lld.. lohnn-
"&burg
Archi t uaml Scrviccr Dcpl.. Hong Kong
Alelici D'Architcctum, dc Genvnl, Genvnl
~usl nl i nn lnstitulc olSlccl Conrwcdon, hlllronr Poinl
B.C.V. Pmnctti S.r.1.. Miiono
. ~ ~ ~ -
w.S. Bcllowr conrtriction Corp.. Hourton
Aificd Bcncrch & Co.. Chicngo
Balro dc lrnovclr Err Sno Poulo. S.A.. Sno Poulo
Bomhont & Wa d Pty. Lld.. Spring Hill
~ ~ u ~ d ~ ~ n y c r Wind Tunnci Labornlory (U. Wcrr-
cm Ontnriol. London
Bovir ~ i m i l i . London
Bnndow & Johulon ArrociaLcr. Lor Angclcr
Bmokc Hillier Porker. Hong Kong
Buildings & Dan. S.A. Bwsrclr
CBM Engincm Inc.. Houston
Ccrmo* Pcerkn Pacnen. Inc.. FonCoilinr
CblA A r h i t u ~ & Enginecn. Sari luon
Conrfnction Conwlung Lbonl or ) . Dallor
Cmnr Fuhicu Door Cu.. Lnkc Bluff
Cmnc & Arloriolcr Ply. Lld. Sydnr)
Da(11 Lugdon & Evcnll. London
DeSimonc. Ch~pl i n & Dohr)n Inc. Kc. York
D O ~ A rlrlnc ~ ~ g l n r r n ~ ~ . ~ n r . scatllc
Fujilnva l ohns~n on1 As ~oci l r r . Cnlcagn
Cunrndgc l i nl t ns k Dn r ) Ply Ltd. Sldnc)
Holn.5 Lundhcrg U'nrhlcr Inlcmolion~l. Nc* YvrA
1io)ok;i~x Ar$ocialcr. Lo, Anerlcr
I l r ~l l l ~) Buildtng$ lnlrrn:l8vnll In:. F ~ i d r i
l l ~ l t m~ ~ h . Oh m & Klsrlboum. lnc . S 81, Fi anr 8~~o
lnlrrnaliond lmn k Slrrl Imlilutc. Brulrcl$
Irwin Iohnrlon nnd Ponncn. Sydncy
Infoc~er. S.A.. Rio delnoeim
I.A. loner Conruuction Co., Charlotic
Kcsting Mnnn Iemigan RoacL. Lor Angclcr
KPFF Conrulting Engineen. Scuulc
Lcnd Lwre Dcrign Gmup Lld.. Sydncy
~ n n i n & Bmvo, inc.. Honolulu
Monin.Middirhrook & Louic. Snn Fmncirco
Enriquc Mmincr-Romcm. S.A.. Mexico
Mitchell McForlane Brrnlnoli & Paonen Inll. LId..
Honk Kong
Miuubirhi Erwlc Co..Ltd.. Tokyo
Moh nnd Arroci au. inc..Tnipci
Morrc Diesel Inlcmorionrl. Ncw York
Mvlriplci ConrWclions (NSWI Pfy. Lid.. Sydncy
Nihoasckkci. U.S.A., Ltd., Lor Angclcr
NiWIcn Sckkci. Ltd.. Tokyo
Norman Dirncy & Young. Brirhonc
Pacific Adnr Dcvclopmenl Corp.. Lor Angclcr
PcddlcThorp Aururlin Ply. Lld.. Brirhnnc
PorkTowrr Gmup. New Yo*
Ccror Pclii & Asrociolu. Ncw York
Pcrkinr & Will. Chicngo
Rnhulnn Zain Arrociacr. Kuolo LumDur
RFB Consulting Arrhilcnr, lohunnuhurp
Rnrrnunrrrr Gmr ~ mm Cons Engrr.. PC. llru York
Emr n Rod, & Sons lnd. lnc.. New Yoik
- ~,
Rovon Woll8~mr Dl r t r l & lruin 1C. Gurlph
Scpl l ot Sai o rcmnding (Sdnl Bhd, K~ol o Lumpur
scrrrn S m: mr Gimi5 dc Encr nhon~ S A. Rlo dc
lnncim
Scvcmd Asrociacr Conr. Engn.. New York
SOBRENCO. S.A.. Rio dr Inncim
south Africnn lnrtiatc of Srccl Conslrucdon. Johm-
ncrbvrg
stccl Rcinlorrcmcnt lnrlilulc of Aurlrnlio. Sydncy
STS Conrultnnu Lrd.. Nonhbmok
Studio Find. Nova E Coslcilnni. Milnno
Tnyior Thornson Whining Ply Lld. St. Lconordr
B.A. Vrvnroulu & Asrociacr. Athenr
VlPAC Encinrcn & Sricndru Lid. hlclhovmc
Worgon Cbpmon Pmnrrr. S)uncy
Wndl~nl.cr A?ro:irlrl. Nrw Yorl
wond~.,d.cl,dc Con~.lurn,. ~ r r . Yol k
Other Books in the Tall Buildings and Urban Environment Series
Casf-in-Place Concrete in Tall Building Design and Constructio~t
Cladding
Building Design for Handicapped and Aged Persons
Semi-Rigid Connecrions in Steel Frames
Fire Sofery in TON Buildings
Cold-Formed Steel in Toll Buildings
Systems and Concepts
Structural Systems for
Tall Buildings
Committee 3
CONTRIBUTORS
I . D. Berzrretf~
Joseph Bicnls
Brian Coviil
P.H. Dayo~~~nr ~s a
Eiji Frrk!ria~ro
him B, Ki1,rzister
Rpscard M. I;o~~,aicz)k
Owerr bJanin
Il'iliion! Afuibortnie
Sciichi Ml,ra?lrofsll
% Okoshi
AR,r~ad Rolrirnian
Tltonras Scararrgeiio
Roben Si,m
Richard Ton!asefri
A. )'atnohi
Editorial Group
Ryszard M. Kowal czyk, Chairman
Rober t Sinn, Vice-chairman
Ma x B. Kilmister, Editor
McGtaw-Hill, Inc.
New York San Francisco Washington. D.C. Auckland Bogoti
Caracas Lisbon London Madrid MexicoClty Milan
Montreal New Delhi San Juan Singapore
sydney Tokyo Toronto
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
This Monognph uar prepxed hj Commillcc 3 (Slmctuml Syrtcm5)of ihc Council onToll Buitdlngr
and Urban Hnbitnt nr p ~ n of the Tali Building, and Urban Environment Series. Thc edtlonll gmup
$bas R)szxd hf. Kowatcz)k, chairman; Rohen Sinn, ricc-chnirmln; and hlox B. Kiimister, editor.
Special ncknowledgmentir due more individuals whore nkuw~i pl s formedthe mjorconvibution UI the
chapters in hi s volume. These individuals and the chnpters or sections lo which they conhibuled ore:
Chapter 1: Editorial Group
Chapter 2: Editorinl Group
Section 3.1: Editorial Group
Scction 3.2: Brian Cnvill
Section 4.1: Eiji Fukuzawn
Section 4.1: Seiichi Murnmulsu
Section 4.1: Ahmod Rohiminn
Section 4.2: Owen Mnnin
Sccdon 4.3: T. Okorhi
Project Dercriptionr were conuibuted by:
The Office of Irwin Cantor
CBM Engineers, Inc.
Ellisor and Tanner. Inc.
Kajima Design, Inc.
KingiGuinn Associates
LcMessuricr Consulrunls. lnc.
Leriie E. Roberlson Arnocintes
Nihon Sekkei. Inc.
Ovc Amp & Pamcn
Section 4.3: Thomu Scmngello
Section 4.3: Richard Tomasetti
Section 4.3: A. Yamoki
Section 5.1: William Melbourne
Secdon 5.2: 1. D. Bennettr
Secdon 5.2: P. H. Doynwnnrn
Chapter 6: Joseph Bums
Paulus. Sokolowski, and Snnor. Inc.
Pcrkins and Will
Roben Rorenwarser Asrocioter
Sevemd Associnter
Shimizu Corporation
Skidmore. Owings and Merrill
Skiliing Ward Magnurron Barkshire. Inc
Thomton-Tomaretti Engineers
Walter P. Moore and Asrocioter
COMMllTEE MEMBERS
Hcrben F. Adigun. Mir M. Ali. Luis Guillermo Aycardi. Prnbodh V. Bnnavnlkur. Bob A. Bcckner.
Charles L. Bcckncr. George E. Brandow. John F. Bmtchie, Robcn J. Bmngmber. Yu D. By-
chenkov. Peter W. Chen. Ching-Chum Chcm. Pave1 Cirek. Andrew Dnvidr. John DeBremoekcr,
Dirk Dickc. Robcn 0. Disque. Richard Dziewolnki. Ehun Fang. Alexander W. Founleh. James G.
Forbes. Roben I. Hanren. Roben D. Hnnsen. Toshihnm Hisatoku. Arne Johnson. Michael Kavyr-
chine. Mnn B. Kiimirler (editor). GcnF. Konig. Ryszwd M. KowaIczyk (chairman). Juraj Korak.
Monsieur G. Lacombe. Siegfried Liphardl. Miguel A. Mneiar-Rendon. Owen Mnrrin. Jaime Mn-
son. N. G. Mutkov. Gerardo G. Mayor. Leonard R Middleton. Jaime Munoz-Duquc. Jacques
Nasser. Anthony F. Nnrretta. Fujio Nirhikown. Alexis Ortapenko. Z. Powlowski. M. V. Parokhin.
Peter Y. S. Pun. Wcmer Quoscbnnh. Govidan Rahulan. Anthony Fracis Roper. Sntwant S. Rihai.
Leslie E. Robenson. Wolfgang Schurilcr. Duiliu Sfintesco. Robert Sinn (vice-chairman). Ramiro
A. Sofronie. A. G. Sokolov. Euuro Suzuki. Bungaie S. Tnranalh. A. R. Tonkley. Kenneth W. Wan.
Morden S. Yollcr. Nobih F. G. Yourrcf. Stefan Zucrek.
GROUP LEADERS
The committee on Structural Systems is part of GroupSC of the Council, "Systems and Concepts."
The leaders are:
lamer G. Forbes. Chairman
Joseph P. Coluco, Vice-Chairman
Henry J. Cownn. Editor
Foreword
Thi s volume is one of a series of Monographs prepared under the aegis of the Council
on Tal l Buildings and Urban Habitat, a series that is aimed at documenting the state of
the art of the planning, design, conslruction, and operation of tall buildings as well as
their interaction with the urban environmenL
The present series i s built upon an original set of five Monographs published by the
American Society of Civil Engineers, as follows:
Volume PC: Plnrming nrzd En~rironn~enral Crirerio for Toll Beildings
Volume SC: Tall Building Sysrems ond Cortceprs
Volunze CL: Tall Building Criteria nnd Loading
Volume SB: Srrucrurol Design of Toll Sreel Btrildings
Voltrme CB: Srmcrural Design of Tall Concrele and Mosorrry Buildings
Following the publication of a number of updates to these volumes, it was decided
by the Steering Group of the Council lo develop a new series. It would be based on the
original effort but would focus more strongly on the individual topical committees
rather than the groups. Thi s would do t wo things. It would free the Council committees
from restraints as t o length. Also it would permit material on a given topic to reach the
public more quickly.
The result was the Toll Buildings and Urban Enr,iron~nenf series, being published by
McGraw-Hill. Inc.. New York. The present Monograph joins si xot her s, the first of
which was reieased in 1992:
Cost-in-Place Concrere in Toll Building Design ond Consrrucrion
Clodding
Building Design for Handicapped ond Aged Persons
Fire Safely in Tall Buildings
Senxi-Rigid Connecrions in Steel Frornes
Cold-Formed Sfeel in Tall Buildings
This parlicular Monograph was prepnrcd by the Council' s Committee 3. Strucmral
Systems. It s earlier treatment was n part of Vol ume SC. I t dealt with the many issues
relating t o tall building structural systems when it was published in 1980. The com-
mittee decided that a volume featuring cane studies of many of the most important
buildings of the lust t wo decades would provide professionals with some interesting
comparisons of how and why structural systems were chosen. The result of the com-
mittee' s cfforls i s this Monograph. It provides case studies of tall buildings from Japan.
the United States. Malaysia. Australia. New Zealand. Hong Kong. Spain, and Singa-
pore. This unique international survey examines the myriad of archirecturni. engineer-
ing, and construcdon issues that must be taken into account in designing tall buildtag
structural systems.
Preface
Although tall buildings are generally considered to be a product of the modem indusui-
alized world. inherent human desire to build skyward is nearly as old as human civi-
lizntion. The ancient ovramids of Giza in Eevot, the Mavan temdes in Tikal. Guata-
mala, and the Kuwb in lndia arcjust a-fiw erampl& eternaily benring witness to
this instincL Skyscrapers in thc modcrn sense began to appear over a century ago; how-
ever, it was nnly after World War I1 that rapid urbani'ration and population growth cre-
ated the need for the conswction of tall buildings.
The dominant impact of Llll buildings on urban landscapes has tended to invite con-
trnvenv. o~ticularl; in cities with older historic structuris. The skvscraoer silhouette
...
has transformed andshaped the skylines of many cities, thercby creGing ;he most cbrr-
acteristic and symbolic lrstaments to thc cities' wealth and their inhabitants' collecti!,e
The ordinary observer recognizes the tall building primarily with respect to its exte-
rior architectural enclosure. This is nnly natural, as when we consider the great pyra-
mids of Eevot our overridine imaee is bf their characteristic sharre. It is o d v re&ntlv ~~~ -~
-, . - -
that we have begun to realize the creativity and colossal effnn expended by these an-
cient people to erect these swcmres in the desert at that time. So it is with the modem
skvscrao;r. The overall soatial form as well as the intricate deWiline of the claddine svs-
-, ~. - - -
tems are crucial in defining the architectural expression and in placing the tower within
the overall urban environment. The aim of this Monograph, however, is to have a look
under the outer covering of the building to reveal the stiuctural skeleton as well as to
provide historical knowledge documenting the design and construction techniques used
to realize these monuments in today's world.
This Monoeraoh is therefore dedicated to the structural systems for tall buildings:
their evo~utinn~anh historical development as well as the variety of solutions engendered
to allow the tower to be realized safely andcfliciently. As in the pas!, new nchievoments
.in material science. comouter-aided desien. and construction technology have opened
. . - -.
paths toward more sophisticated and elcgant swcturnl syslems for wll buildings. The
rwct uml system organization chosen for a pdc ul a r project determines the fundamen-
[at oropcnies of the aver;lll buiidinc. the behavior under imposed loads, its safety, and
oftin mav have a drnmatic imoact on the architectural design. The intent of this volume
, -
is lo demonstrate the chmcteristic features of many outstanding syslem form5 while
documenting the faclors leading lo their selection for projects aclually realized.
The swctural systems for high-rise buildings are constantly evolving and at no time
can be described as a completed whole. Every month new buildings are being designed
and created, new projects conceived, and new schemes applied. Nevcnheless, we hope
it is worthwhile to present the current state of the M while being aware that progress in
svstems develooment is oneoine.
-
The planning for thts Monograph began soon after the decision u,nc made by the
Council to expand the chapters of the original Monograph into separate volumes. The
concept of a volume based-on a survey of some of the most innovative examples of tall
building swctural systems conuibuted by leading engineers and design firms of the
xiv Preface
profession was conceived during the committee workship in Hong Kong in 1990. It was
only after estnblishina the editorial lendershir, for the work that the volume began to
takc form, will1 tlte scope and content of the book finallred. At this time a buildinf data
form wns prepared for collecting thc most essential inform3tion concerning the struc-
tural design of the buildings included herdin. The surveys were initiated and the re.
s ~o n s e s c om~i l e d bv Max filmister. This material reoresen& the core of the comoleled
dook and the.vast mijority of the work. Bob Sinn then'assembled all of the "looseknds"
of the compilation in the summer of 1993 in order to finish the completed volume in
time for publication.
The ~ o n o g r a ~ h as a uhol e is a product of extensive lenmtr,ork. Sincere thanks go to
all oft hc conuibutors who offered their valuablc time to share thew cxperirncc with the
readers. It Is around this information that the cnurc uork is construc[ed. We hope that
the information included may be presented lo a broad professional audience. This ex-
change of information is one of the tenets of the Council and is in fact a condition for
progress in the design of tall buildings.
Supporting information for Chapter 5 from Drs. B. 1. Vickery. 1. D. Holmes. and
J. C. K. Cheung is gratefully acknowledged, as is the Australian Research Grants Com-
mission for its suppon of the fundamental research.
As mentioned, we are aware that everyday Progress is made in the field of structurnl
engineering for high-rise buildings. Thc comn~itlce is already thinking about expmdlng
and updating this \,olume. \\'c urge all readers lo enrich and complement thia rrrrrk by
writing the Council or ioining the commitke.
~ i n ~ ~ l l ~ . wc would like lochpress our appruui;!lion to Dr. Lynn Beedle, ulto encour-
aged us to prepare this work and \rho ad\,ised and aupponed tltc efiori. \\'e dudicall: this
book to him.
Robert Sirm
Vice-Cltoimmn
Contents
1. I nt r oduct i on
1.1. Condensed Rererenccs/Bibliography
2. Cl assi fi cat i on of Tall Bui l di ng St r uct ur al S y s t e ms
2.1. Condenrcd RererenceJBibliogmphy
3. Tall Building Fl oor S y s t e ms
3.1. Composite Sleel Floor Systems
3.2. Presmssed and Porttcnrioned Concrete Floor Systems
Project Dereriptionr
Melbourne Ccnuvl
Lulh Hcndqumers Building
Riverside Centcr
Bourke Plncc
Cenuvl P l m One
3.3. Condensed RefercncerlBibliogmphy
4.. Lat eral Load Resi st i ng S y s t e ms
4.1. Bnced Frnme and MomentRc;isting Frnme Sysrems
Project Derertptions
Mar B. Kilmisrer
Editor
S~nwn Bank
ACTTower
Kobc Portopin Hole1
Nanhi South Tower Hotel
World Tmde Center
KobeCommercc. Indusuy and
Mvrriott Mqui r Hotel
Taj Mnhnl Hotel
Tokyo Marine Building
Knmognwn Grand Tower
Shear Wall Syrlemr
Project Dc.cipUonr
Mcmpolitnn Tower
Embassy Suites Hotel
Singapore Treasury Building
77 Wcrt Wuckcr Drive
Casielden Ploce
Twin 21
Majestic Building
Telecorn Corporate Building
Trade Centcr
Contents Contents
4.3. Core nnd Outrigger Systems
Project Daeriptions
Cityspire
Chifley Tower
One Liberly Place
17 Smle Sueel
Figuema at Wilrhlm
Four Allen Center
Tmmp Tower
Woterfmnt Place
Two Pmdentinl Plnw
1999 Bmadwvy
CilibnnkPloro
4.4. Tubulorsyslemr
Pr oj s l Descriptions: Frnmed Tuber
Amoco Building
181 West Madiron Sueet
AT&T Corpamte Cenler
Georgia Pacific
450 Lexington Avenue
Mcllon Bank
Sumitorno Life Insumnce Building
Dewcy SquoreTou'er
Monon international
Nations Bank Coipante Center
Bvnk One Center
Cenml Ploro
Hopewcll Ccnuc
Project Descriptions: T-cd Tuber
Fml Inlemationol Building
Onteric Center
John Hancock Ccnter
780 Third Avenue
Holel de las h e r
PI'ojffL Dereriptions: Bundled Tuber
Sears Tower
Rinlto Building
N6E Building
Cnmegie Hall Tower
Allied BonkPloro
45. Hybrid Systems
PmjeclDiscriptions
Ovcrreos Union Bonk Cenler
Citicorp Ccnrer
CcnTmrusl Center
Columbia Seafirst Center
First Bnnk Place
Two Union Squorc
Fi st Intersmte World Center
Hong Kong Bank Headqumers
4.6. Condensed ReierencesiBibliogmphy
5. Special Topics
5.1. Designing lo Reduce Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions
5 2 Fire Prolection of Swct unl Elements
5.3. Condensed RcfemnccdBibliognphy
6. Systems for the Future
6.1. A~hiEhilecedTendencies
6.2. Slructural Tendencies
6.3. Other Tendencies
Project Descriptions
Miglin-Beiller Tower
Deurbom Ccnter
Bnnkof thc SouthwertTowcr
Shimiru Super High Rise
6.4. Condensed RclerenceslBibliogmphy
Current Ouestions, Problems, and Research Needs
Nomenclature
Glorrury
Symbols
Abbreviudonr
Units
Contributors
Building lndex
Name lndex
Subject lndex
Structural Systems
for Tall Buildings
Introduction
Smctural syst em for tall buildings have undergone a dramatic evolution throughout
the orevious decade and into the 1990s. Developments in structural system form and
orgnnirntion hme historically been realized as a rcsponse to as well as an impclus
toward emerging architectural uends in high-rise building design. At thc time of pub-
lication of the initial Council Monograph Tnll Building Systems and Concepts in 1980.
international style and modernist high-rise designs, chanclerized by prismalic, repcti-
live verticnl geometries and flat-topped roofs, were predominant (Council on Tnll
Buildings. Group SC 1980). The devclopmcnt of Lhc prototype tubular systems for lnll
buildings was indeed predicated upon an ovcrall building form of constnnt or
smoothly varying profile. A representative office building project from the period is
shown in Rg. 1.1. The rigid discipline of the cxterior rower form has since becn
rcplaccd in many cases by the highly articulated vcnical modulations of rhc building
envclopc characleristic of eclrclic postmodern. deconslructivist, and nrohistorical
high-risrexpressions (Rg. 1.2). This general disconlinuily and erosion of thc cxterior
facade has led to a new generation of tall building struclural systems that respond lo
the more flexible and idiosyncratic requirements of an increasingly varied architec-
tural aesthetic. Innovntive swct ur al systems involving megaframes, interior super-
diagonally braced h me s , hybrid steel and high-strength concrete core and outrigger
systems, artificially damped structures, and spine structures nre among the composi-
tions which represent a step in the development of structural systems for high-rise
buildings. This Monograph seeks to further the plncement of some of the most excit-
ing and unique forms for today's tall building structures into the overall tall building
system hierarchy.
One of the fundamental goals of the Council has been to continualiy develop a tall
buildings dambase. The members of Committee SC-3, Structural Systems, decided
that rather than being a collection of papers or a general survey of tall building struc-
tural systems, the Monogmph would be organized with respect to such a database-type
format of structural and oroiect information on actual buildine oroiecu. The commit-
. . -. .
tee thererore requested detailed informarion from engineers in Lhe profession, regard-
ing the structural design of some: of the most innovative high-rise projecrq throughout
the world. An enthusiastic resoonse from the s l ~~ct ur nl eneineerine communirvoro-
. .
vided very spucific engineering informntion such as wind nnd seismic Iondingz.
dynamic propenics. materials, and systems for a wide range of intcrnalional high-rise
oroiecls, both comoleted and in o&oosal staee. which i r e comoiled in this single
&k. These compr;hensive data &e [he p r i m5 focus of this ~ o n n ~ r n p h and should
1
2 Introduction [Chap. 1
I Chap. 11
3
I
be of interest and value to practicing engineers and architects as well as other tall
building enthusiasts.
This Monograph is organized into six chapters. A general introduction to the clas-
sification of tall building structural systems is found in Chapter 2. The section begins
to define the parameters and characteristics for which tall building systems are evalu-
ated. Tall building floor systems arc discussed in Chapter 3, which includes recent
Fic. 1.1 Ouolicr Onb Tuwcr. Chicuco. Illinois. Comnleted 1984. I Cc~~, nr s~~: Skirln,oru Owi n ~ r &
.. . . . . - "
f i erri l l . ) Rg. 1.3 NBC TOCC~, Chicago. Illinois, Cumplclcd 1991. (Cauncry: Skidruorr O t ~ i n ~ s S blerriil.1
4
Introduction [Chap. 1 . , .
: , , .,
1 ' ;.!
developments in posttensioned concrete floor systems for high-rise construction in
Australia. Structunl systems for tall buildings have historically been grouped with
respect to their ability to resist lateral loads effectively. Therefore Chapter 4. "Lateral
Load Resisting Systems." forms the core of the work, with system descriptions for
nver 50 oroiects. The oroiects are arraneed within five basic subclassifications for lat-
- - r~ - . -
era1 load resistance with generally increasing efficiency and application for taller . ,..
buildines: braced frame and moment resisting frame systems, shear wall systems, core $$:$$8% 1. k
and ouGigger systems, tubular systems, anhhybrid systems. Each subsection is pre-
'.
ceded by a general introduction outlining the system forms. limimtions, advantages,
and applications. Chapter 5 discusses special topics in high-rise building structural
systems. It presents infor!nation concerning the developing topics of wind-induced
motions and fire protection of structural members in tall buildings. The concluding
Chapter 6, in dealing with systems for the future, presents examples of projccts on the
drawing board and proposals which represent innovative state-of-the-art structural
designs for tall buildings.
Classification of
Tall Building
Structural Systems
1.1 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
Council on Tall Buildings. Group SC 1980. Toll Btrilding Syrlerm ond Conceplr.
The Council definition of a tall building defines the unique nature of the high-rise proj-
ect: "A building whose height creates different conditions in the desieo, construction.
and use than those that exisi in common buildines of a cenain reeionand oeriod." For
u b
the practicing structural engineer, the cataloging of suuctuial systems for tall buildings
has historically recognized the primary importance of the system to resist lateral loads.
The ~roeressi on ofiateral load resisiineichemes from eiemental beam and column
.
assemblages toward the notion of an equivalent vertical cantilever is fundamental to
any suuctunl systems methodology.
In 1965 Fazlur Khan (1966) recognized that this hierarchy of system forms could
be roughly categorized with respect lo relative effectiveness in resisting lateral loads
(Fig. 2.1). At one end of the spectrum are the moment resisting frames, which are effi-
cient for buildings in the range of 20 to 30 stories; at the other end is the generation 01
tubular systems with high cantilever efficiency. With the endpoints defined, other sys-
tems were placed with the idea that the application of any panicular form is economi-
cal only over a limited range of building heights. The system charts were updated
periodically as new systems were developed and improvemcnts in materials and
analysis techniques evolved.
Alternatively, the classification process could be based on cenain engineering and
systems criteria which define both the physical as well as the design aspects of the
building:
Material
Steel
Concrcte
Composite
Gravity load resisting systems
Floor framing (beams, slabs)
Columns
Chap. 21
Classification of Structural Systems
[Chap. 2
7
6 I
Trusses
Foundations
. Lateral load resisting systems
Walls
Frames
Trusses
Diaphragms
. Type and magnitude of lateral loads
Wind
Seismic
Strcngth and serviceability rcquirements
Drift
Acceleration
Ductility
In 1984 the Council attempted to develop a rigorous methodology for the cata-
loging of tall buildings with respect to their structural systems (Falconer nnd Beedle.
1984). The classification scheme involves four distinct levels of framing-oriented
division: primary Framing system, bracing subsystem. floor framing, and configuration
TYPE I I TYPE 11 I I TYPE Ill 1 )
TYPE IV
I
Fig. 2.1 Cornpuriron of rlruelurol syetcmr. (CTDUH, CrortpSC. 1980.1
and load transfer. These levels are further broken down into subgroups and discrete
systems (Fig. 2.2). This format allows for the consistent and specific identification
and documentation of tall buildings and their systems. the overriding goal being to
achieve a comprehensive worldwide survey of the performonce of buildings in the
hieh-rise environment ~~~ =~~ ~~. - - ~
While any cataloging scheme must address the preeminent focus on lateral load
resislance, the load-carrying function of the tall building subsystems is rarely indepen-
dent. The most efficient high-rise systems fully engage vertical gravity load resisting
elements in the lateral load subsystem in order lo reduce the overall structural pre-
mium for resisting lateral loads. Some degree of independence is generally recognized
between thefloor fmnzing sjsrr,t!s and the loferal load rerisring qsrenzs, although the
integration of these subassemblies into the overall structural organization is crucial.
LEVEL A
Framing
systems
LEVEL B
I I
framing
subsystems
I (XX) /
Building
configuration
and load
transfer
(XX YY 2)
Elevation
Fig. 2.2 Clvrrilicoliun of rlrurlurul syrlernr. (Folnl,ler rrnd Beedlr. 1984.1
8 Classification of Structural Systems
[Chap. 2
This Monograph therefore divides the discuss~on of tall bu~ldtng smct ural Systems 1
into the subsystems mentioned. I
2.1 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BBLIOGRAPHY
3
Falconer and Beedlc 1984. Clarrlficnr!on of Toll Bulldlng S),srem.
Tall Building
Khnn 1966, oprlmtzo~lon O ~ B U L I ~ ~ ~ S:rucrurer
Floor Systems
3.1 COMPOSITE STEEL FLOOR SYSTEMS
Composite floor systems typically involve simply supported structural steel beams.
joists, girders, or trusses linked via shear connectors with a concrete floor slab to form
&I effective T-beam flexural member resisting primarily gravity loads. The versatility
of the system results from the inherent strength of the concrete floor component in
compression and the tensile seeneth and spannabiliw of the steel member. ~omoos i t e
flw; syst em are advantageous because ofreduced material costs, reduced labor i ue to
prefabrication, faster couslruction times, simple and repetitive connection details.
reduced stiuctural depths and consequent efficient use of interstitial ceiline soace. and
- .
reduced building mass in zones of henvy scismic activity. The composite floor system
slab element can be formed by a flat-soffit reinforced concrete slab, precast concrete
planks or floor panels with or without a cast-in-place t o ~ ~ i n e slab. o r a metal steel
.. - .
deck, either composite or noncomposite (Fig. 3.i). When a composite floor framing
membcr is combined with a composite metal deck and a concrete floor slab, an
ex~cmel y eff~cient system is formed. The composite action of the beam or truss elc-
men1 is due to shear studs welded directly through the metal deck, whereas the compos-
ite action of the metal deck results fmm side embossments incorporated into the steel
sheet profile. The slab and beam arrangement typical in composite floor systems pr*
duces a rigid horizontal diaphragm, providing stability to the overall building system
while distributing wind and seismic s he m to the lateral load resisting system elements.
1 Composite Beams and Girders
Steel and concrete com~osi t e beams mav be formed either bv com~l et el v encasine a
. .
~~
steel member in concrete, with the composite action depending on the natural bond
caused by the chemical adhesion and mechanical friction between steel and concrete.
or by connecting the concrete floor to the top flanee of the steel frnmine member
throueh shear c&nectors (Fie. 3.1). The concrete-encased comoosite st eel i enm was
- . - .
~~ - ~~~ ~
common prior lo the dcvclopment of sprayed-on ccmentitious and board or ball type
fireproofing materials, which economically replaced the henvy formed concrete insu-
lation on the steel beam. Todny the m o s ~ c o ~ m o n nrrangemmt found in composite
9
10 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3
floor systems is a rolled or built-up steel beam connected to a formed steel deck and
concrete slab. The metal deck tvnicallv roans unshored between steel members while - - ~ ~~ -. . .
also providing a uorking platlonn for steel erection. The met31 deck slab may be ori-
enled parallel or perpendicular lo the compo>ite beam span and may ilself be either
comoosite or noncomnosilr (form deck). Fi ~ur c 3 ? shows a typical office building
. - . .
floor that is framed in composite steel beams.
COMPOSITE BEAM
wm FlAT
MFFlrRElNFORCW
CONCRETESLAB
COMPOSE BEAM
wrm METAL DECK
AN0 CONCRETE SLAB
(RIBS PEAPENDICUl dR~
Fig. 3.1 Comporite benm sjstems.
COMPOSEBEAM
W m MEFALOECK
AN0 CONCRETESLAB
(RIBS PABALLEL)
Sect. 3.11 Cornposits Steel Floor Systems 11
In composite beam design. h e stress distribution at working loads across the com-
nosite section is shown schematicallv in Fie. 3.3. As the tor, flanee of h e steel section is
. -
normally quite near h e neutral axis and consequently lightly stressed, a number of built-
up or hybrid composite beam schemes have been formulated in an attempt to use the
structural steel material more efficiently (Fig. 3.4). Hybrid beams fabricated from
ASTM A36 grade top flange steel and 345-MPn (50-hi)-yield bonom flange steel have
been used. Also, built-up composire beam schemes or tnpered flange beams are possible.
In all of these cases. however. the increased fabrication costs must be evaluated which
lend lo offset the rclalivt: malerial efficiency. In addition. a rcl3tively wide and thick-
gauge top flange must be provided for proprr and rffr.cli$,e shex slud isslallalion.
A n"smat& comnosik steel beam h& two fundamental disadvantapes over other -
types of composite floor framing types. ( I ) The mcmbcr !nus1 bc designed for the
maximum bending momenl near midspan and thus is oRcn undcrs!rrs,ud near h e sup-
Fig. 32 Three First Nntionol Plnm, Chicago, Illiooir, lyplcnl noor.
WORKING ULTIMATE
LOADS LOAD
Fig. 3.3
Composite beam stress dirlribution.
I :>,i;~
12 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 j ,. , . ~ : : ,
pons, and (2) building-serviccs ductwork and piptng must pass beneath the beam, or
the beam must be provided with web penc~rattons (normally reinforced with plates or
ancles leadinc to hirher fabricatton costs) to allow access for this csui ~ment For this
- u - . .
reason, a number of composite girder forms allowing the free passage af mechanical,
ducts and related services through the depth of the girder have been developed. They'
include tapered and dapped girders, castellated beams, and stub girder systems (Fig.
3.5). As the tapered girders are completely fabricated from plate elemenls or cut from
rolled shapes, these composite members are frequently hybrid, with the top flange
designed in lower-strength steel. Applications of tapered composite girders to office
building construction are limited since the main mechanical duct loop normally runs
through the center of the lease span rather than at each end. The castellated composite
beam is formed from a single rolled wide-flange steel beam cut and then reassembled
by welding with the resulting increased depth and hexagonal openings. These mem-
bers are available in standard shapes by serial size and are quite common in the United
Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Use in the United Stales is limited due to the
increased fabrication cost and the fact that the standard castellated openings are not
large enough to accommodate the large mechanical ductwork common in modern
high-rise, large floor plate building construction common in the United States. The
stub girder system involves the use of short sections of beam welded to the top flange
of a continuous, heavier bottom girder member. Continuous transverse secondary
beams and ducts pass through the openings formed by the beam stubs. This system has
been used in many building projects, but generally requires a shored design with con-
sequent construction cost premiums.
HYBRID
C0MPOSITEBEb.M
BUILT-UP
COMPOSm BEAM
ROLLED
TAPERED FLANOE BUILT-UP HYBRID
COMPOSITEBEAM COMPOSm BEAM
Fig. 3.4 Buill-up and hybrid composite bcnms.
Sect. 3.11 Composite Steel Floor Systems 13
Succc$si~ll cnmpnwte hc:m ile.;ign T'LII.IIL.\ the c~nsi der i ~t i o~t ni \.ilriol~< <cr\ i c~. -
ability ~*.os; >o;b ;IS I~rnn-tsr~tt (clsupl denc:ti~rns ;lnJ nuor vihr;dinns. 0 1 p3rticul;tr
cunccrn is lltc i w. c oi pcrc~ptihility of n:cupaot-indursd tl~tnr r ~ h r ~ l ~ o n s . The rsln-
lively l!i;lt II~.rur;ll ~l i l l nc r ~ oi a1o.l nltnporilc noor fr;lming a)slr.m> rerulls i l l rela-
t i t ch lot. !ihralion :~!#,t>litndrc irnm 1r.losilory hcel-dlop d~~i l : l t ~ons and thcr:lore is
effective in reducing perccptihility. Recent studies have shown that short 17.6 m (25
fi ) and lcss] and rery lollg clcar-sp;ln 113.7 nl (45 St) and longer] cunlposile floor
framine svstcnls ncriornl suite well and :!re rarely found to transmit annoying vibra-
- . . .
tions to the occup8tnts. Particular care is requircd for span conditions in thc (9.1- to
10.7-m) 130- to 35-ftl rangc. Anticip.atcd danlping provided by partitions which extend
to the sl:lb cthovc. serviucs. ceiling constructiot~,and the structure itself are used in
conjunctiott with htate-of-thc-;lrt prediction tllodels to evalue~e thc potential for pcr-
ceptible noor i~ibrations.
2 Composi t e J oi s t s and Tr usses
Preeneinccred nronrictnrv oncn-web lloor ioists. ioisl rirders. and fabricated noor
= . . . . -
trusses are viable composite memhcrs when combined with a concrete noor slab. The
advant a~es of an opetl-wcb nour framing 5ystcm include increnscd spannabilily and
stiffnus;due to 1he.decocr s~ructural den& =ncl case in nccomrnodatine electrical con- ~ ~ -
duit. plumbing pipes. and heating and air-condilioninp ductwork. Open web systems
do, however. carry :I picmiuln for itreprunling thc many. rcla~ively ihin, components of
............................................................
TAPERED
.-, ; . .-.,
1 b c:' ;;;~
C5ZJ -J?C: .... .. - L..
....... ....?........ . .-... .................... .*.,
TAPERED
6 C",I~~~~TE
-..,. ? .. .. ......................... ..........................
DAPPED
....
a??+- V--=d '. "
>. . . . . . <: ;-, 1
CASTELLATED
Lf4-Z
........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... .,,.,, ., ." ,
I I I <.
't.
-.*
SYSTEM
Fig. 3.5 Nonprismulie enn~purilc girdur.5.
the member. Open-web steel joists have been used in composite action with flat-soffit
concrete slabs and metal deck slabs supporting concrete fill with and without sheer
conhectors. The desien for these svstems i s orimarilv based on manufacturers' test
d313 , I s ~~p' n- ~veb steel jotbtb and joist girders nornlally are \paced relatively clusaly.
rile full polenrial lor composite elilc~cncy is not rcalircd as conlpared to o1hr.r cunlpor-
ite floo; systems. Composite design does provide quantifiableadvantages over "on-
comoositc desien for oocn-web floor ioisls such as increased stiffness and ducdlitv.
b
- - ~ ~~
Ruill-up labricatcd compo\ilu nonr trusses cumbinc m~ t u r ~ a l ciilcicncy io rcln-
lively long-span 3pplicntions svtlh rn;lxinlom f l ea~h~l i t y fnr iscorporaung huildinz-ser-
\,ic<r dusluork and oioina into tilu cellinr! caritv. The urufill: of the truss lorm alluhi,
. . - -
for large mechanical air ducts as well as other piping and electrical lines to pass
through t he openings formcd by the lriangularization of the web mcmbcrs. The
increased depth of the comuosite truss svslcm over a standard rolled-shaoe comnosite
beam system with building-scrvices dictwork and piping passing bclbw the'beam
results in maximum material eificicncy and high flexural stilfness. Generally, com-
posite floor trusses are considcrcd economically viable lor floor spans in excess of
about 9 m (30 it). A iurtltcr requirement Tor noor truss systems is that the Framing Iny-
out be uniform. resuldng in relatively few truss types, which can be readily built in the
fabrication shop using a jig. Otherwise the high lcvcl of fabrication inherent in the
floor truss assemblage Lends to ofissct the relative material eliicicncy. For this reason,
composite floor truss systems are particularly nttractive in high-rise uiiice building
applications where large open lcnsc spans are required and noor configurations arc
generally repetitive over the ltcight of the building. Figure 3.6 shows an example of a
project utilizing composite noor trusses as part of an o\,erall mixed steel and concrete
building irante.
Anv trianaulated oocn-web form can be used lo define the reometrv of t he fabri-
- -
cated noor truss: however. the Warren ws s , with or without web verticals, is the one
utilized most often (Fig. 3.7). Thc Warren truss without vcrdcals provides n maximum
open-web area to acco&modate ducta,ork and piping. Vertical wdb membcrs added to
the Warren truss or a Pratt truss geometry may be utilized when the unbraccd length
of the compression chord is critical. Often a Vierendeel panel in thc low-shenr zone
near the center of the span is incornorated into the truss confiruration to accommodate
the main air-handling mechanical buct loop in office building applications. The spac-
ing of the web members should bc chosen such that the free passage of ductwork and
piping i s not inhibited while maintaining a reasonable como~cs s i on top-chord
. - .
unbraced lensth. On the other hand. the nnlle of the web diaeonalr should be made
=~~ ~~ L~~~ ~
~ ~
relatively sha~l ow to reduce the number of members and associated joint \\-elding. This
must be balanced by the fact that shallower web members result in loneer unbraced
-
lengths and higher member axial forces, often requiring connection gusset plates.
thereby increasing iabrication costs and decreasing the clear area for ductwork and
piping. A panel spacing of roughly two to three limes the truss depth is a good rule of
thumb for orienting web diagonals. The floor truss configuration should be detailed
such that any significant point loads are applied at truss panel points. A vertical web
member may be introduced into the truss girder geometry Lo transfer these imposed
shear loads into the truss svstcm.
A variety o i chord and web member cross sections may be utilized in building,up
the floor truss geometry (sec Fig. 3.8). Chord mcmbers may be wide-flangc T or sin-
-
gle-angle sections to allow easy, direct connection of web mcmbers without gusset
plates. Rectangular tubes or double-angle s e ~t i o n s are less commonly used chord
members as they require gusset-plated connections. Web members are most often Ts
or single- or double-ancle sections welded directly Lo the chord T or angle stem. ~ ~
althouih tube sections lhive been used. The composiie floor truss system is &mpleted
through the direct connection of the top chord flange to the concrete floor sl-b by
Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 15
shear connectors. The most common floor system in building construction is a com-
oosite metal deck and concrete slab chosen based on fire seoaration and acoustical
requiremenu spanning between composite floor trusses. The floor trusses are normally
spaced such that the metal deck slab sonns as the concrete form between the trusses
without requiring any additional shoring.
3.2 PRESTRESSED AND POSTTENSIONED
CONCRETE FLOOR SYSTEMS
Prestressed floors are commooolnce in buildines throuehout the world. narticularlv in
u . .
low-rise SlNCtUreS such as parking garages and shopping centers. Precast pretensioned
floor units have remained popular since the 1960s. and cast-in-place posttensioned
concrete floors have eainedwfde acccotance since the mid 1970s
-
Poslrensioncd floors have been widely uscd for high-rise office buildings in Aus-
tralia since the cnrly 1980s. and there are examples i n the United States, the most
notable bcing 31 1 South Wa c k r Drive, Chicago, which was the tallest concrete build-
ing in the world when completed.
EXTEA1OR STEEL C O U P O S ~
GR4VITI COLUMNS
AIIb SPANDRELS
TYPICALCOMPOSrrEFLOOR TRUSS
Fig. 3.6 One North Fmnkiin, Chiengo. lllinoir.
7 General Considerations
High-rise oftice buildings usually have long-span floors to achieve the desirable col-
umn-free space, and the spans are usually noncontinuous between the core and the
facade. To achieve long spans and still maintain acceptable deflections requires a deep
floor system in steel or reinforced concrete. However, by adopting prestressed post-
mumm
WARRENTRUSS
Fig. 3.7 Camporilc noor trusr geometries.
CHOilOB hubl ~l ngl em Ree?. TUk R L U b
WEB MEMBERS IL.% IL %.
ri,n IZX
,,-Tub.
Fig.3.8 Composite trurr romponcnleections.
I '
Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 17
I
tensioned concrete beams it is possible to achicve a shallow floor structure and still
m~intain accepwble deflections witl~our the need for expensive prrcamhering.
Hirlt-risc residential bui l di n~s usunllv do nor require lona spans because column-
free s b c e is not a selling point;the tenant or buyer ices the spice already subdivided
by walls, which effectively hide t he columns. Hence continuous spans can be
achieved. Unlike office buildings, residential buildings do not as a rule have sus-
pended ceilings-the ceiling may be just a sprayed h~gh-build coating on the slab sof-
fit or a plasterboard ceilina on battens fixed to tbe slab soffit. Flat-plate floors are
1 therefore required and deflection control is an imponant design consideration. Where
I
the columns form a reasonably regular grid, prestressing can be very effective in mini-
mizing the slab thickness while at the same time controlling deflections.
~l f hough it is customary to use posttensioning for prestressed concrete high-rise
buildings, precast pretensioned concrete can be used and has been employed in some
buildines described in this Monomph (Luth Building: Mnrriott Hotel, New York; Tai
Mahal hotell. The maior disadvaitaee of nrecast oretensioned concrete floor beams or
- .
slabs is the cranage required to lift the heavy uniu along with the field-welded connec-
tions required for stability and diaphragm action. Precast prelensioned floor members
. -
are usually tied together by and made composite with a thin cast-in-place topping slab.
Floor posttensioned systems use either 12.7- or 15.2-mm (0.5- or 0.6-in.) high-
streneth steel strand formed into tendons. The tendons can be either "unbonded,"
"
where individual strands are greased and sheathed in plastic, or "bonded," where
groups of four or five strands are placed inside flat metal ducts that are filled with
Eement eroul after strcssina. On a worldwide basis, bonded systems are preferred in
high-rise buildings becausithey have demonstrated better long-term du&bility than
unbonded systems. Although unbonded systems used today have improved corrosion
resistance compared to earlier systems, there is still a large number of older buildings
that exhibit corrosion problems in their unbonded tendons. Another reason that
bonded posttensioned systems nre preferred is that cutting tendons for renovations or
demolition is both simpler and safer when the tendons are bonded to the concrete.
Nevenheless, care musibe exercised as it is by no means unknown for tendons speci-
fied to be grouted to have had this vital operation omitted. In this aspect. good quality
control is essential. Figure 3.9 illustrates a typical posttensioned floor using unbonded
tendons, whereas Figs. 3.10 and 3.11 illustrate the construction of a typical postten-
sioned floor using bonded tendons.
The most common posttensioned systems are:
Posttensioned flat slabs and flat plates (Fig. 3.12)
Posttensioned beams supporting posttensioned slabs (Fig. 3.13)
Posttensioncd benms supporting reinforced concrete slabs (Fig. 3.14)
Currently with computer programs readily available to carry out cracked section
analysis of prestressed concrete, it is normal to design for partial prestress where the
concrete is assumed to be cracked at full desien workine food and untensioned steel
- -
comprises a significant portion of the total reinforcement. The partial prestress ratio
(PPR) gives the degree of prestress
PPR = .--!&-
+ A,&,
whereA f is the cross section area of orestressed steel multiolied bv its vield shenath
r- "2
. . -
and A J is the cross section are3 of normal rcinforccd sleel multiplied by its yisld
, 8 )
stress A useful starling point in d:tarm!ning the amount uf prcstrcss rzqi~ircd is lo pro-
ride culficicnt prestress lo lh313ncc oboul 15% of the self-weight of the nnor blrUclllrLI.
i
i 18 Tall Building Floor Systems
[Chap. 3
I
Sect. 3.21
Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems
l9 I
; ,:
:
, i
Untensioncd steel is then added to satisfy the ultimate limit state. (This will often result
in a PPR of about 0.6.) Deflections and shear capacity must also be checked:
The span-to-depth ratio of a single-span noncontinuous floor beam will be about
25; for a continuous beam it will be about 28 and for a flat-plate beam about 45 for an
I /
internal span and 40 for an end span.
!
I
Fig. 3.9 Typical porllcnrioncd noor wing unbondcd lendonr.
Fig. 3.10 Typiroi porllcnrioncd noor using bondcd lunduns.
In high-rise buildings it is preferable to avoid running floor beams into heavily
reinforced perimeter columns for two reasons:
1. There are difficulties in accommodating tendon anchorages, which compete far
space with the column reinforcement.
2. Frame action developed between the beams and columns causes the design bending
moment between floors to vary as the f r am~s resist lateral load, thereby diminishing
the number of identical floors that can be designed, delailed. and conswcted.
Instead of being directly supponed by columns, the floor beams should be supported
by the spandrel beams.
Prestressing anchorages can be on the outside of the building (requiring external
access). at a step in the soffit of the beams [see Riverside Centre and Bourke Place
(Figs. 3.15. 3.30, and 3.33)], or in a pocket at the lop of the floor. Top-of-floor pock-
ets have the disadvantage that they usually cause local vnrialions in the flatness o i the
floor and rough patches, which may need to be ground flush.
Bccause posttensioning causes axial shortening of the prestressed member, it is
necessary to consider the effects of axial reslraint, that is, the effects of stiff columns
SRESSI NG
~ i g . 3.11 Construction requcnce I
GROUTING
br bondcd purttrnrionud conercle.
and walls. Such restraint has two potential effects: it can overstress the co!umns or
walls in bending and shear, and it can reduce the amount of prestress in the floor.
Fortunately the stiff core of a high-rise building is usually fairly central so that the
axial shortening of the floor can be generally in a direction toward the core. This
means that the perimeter columns move inward, but because they move by the same
amount from story to story, no significant permanent bending stresser occur except in ...,
the first story abuus a nonprestressed,floor, which is often the ground floor. As this*:'
,lev is usually higher than a typical ,tory. the flexibility of rhc columns is greater and
1111: induced bdndinp mo~nents [nay be easily accommodated. Horvevsr. the loss of prc-
stress i n thc floor may necessitate some additional t ~nt e~~si oned reinforcement.
2 Economics of Posttensioning
Posttensioned concrete floors will usually result in economics in the total construction
cost because of the following:
. Less concrete used because of shallower floor Structure (Fig. 3.16)
. Less load on columns and footings
. Shallower structural depth, resulting in rcduced story height (Fig. 3.17)
no drop panels
11 Multispan, flat plate,
l r o ~ panels II
.:~.
..3)>
~:?*
.
'2 , Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posnensioned Concrete Floor Systems
21
The last item can be very significant as any height reduction translates directly into
savings in all vertical structural, architectural, and building-services elements.
The construction will proceed wilh the same speed as a normal reinforced concrete
floor, with four-day floor-to-floor construction cycles being achieved regularly on
high-rise office buildings with posttensioned floors (Fig. 3.18). Three-day cycles can
easily,..be achieved using an additional set of forms and higher strength concretes to
shorteb posttensioning time.
A major cost variable in posuensioned floors is the leneth of the tendons. Short
~
tendons ;re relativsly expen\c\,e compared lo long tendons. &re 3.1'1 shows tltc cost
trend for tendons ranging front 10 to 60 m (33 to 200 it). Tlte relntively high cost of
short tendons rssults from fixcd-cost components such as setup costs, asohorapcj, and
lcndon stressing being prorated over lesser amo~nt s of itrand. Tlte influence of strmd
"retli~tg losses" is also greater with ruv shun strands, thus incrc3sing the area of ten-
don required. Nevertheless, even though most tendons in a high-rise building floor
will be only around 10 to 15 m (33 to 50 it), the system is economical because of sav-
ings in floor depth, and it is desirable because of control of deflections and the lack of
need for precambering. For grouted tendons. the optimum economical size has been
,, .~
round to be the four- or five-strand tendon in a flat duct because the anchorages are
compact and readily accommodated within normal building members and because
stressing is carried out with a lightjack easily handled by one person.
Comparing the cost of bonded and unbonded tendons will generally show the
unbonded system as being slightly cheaper. This is because unbonded posttensioning
usually requires less strand due to lower friction and greater available drape. Unbonded
strand also does not need grouting with its costs of time and labor. As a floor using
unbonded strand will require more reinforcement than a bonded system due to lower
ultimate flexural strength and code requiremcnls, the combined cost of the strand and
untensioned reinforcement will be almost the same as that for bonded systems.
The cost of a posttensioned system is funher affected by the building floor geome-
try and irregularities. For example:
The higher the perimeter-to-area ratio, the higher the normal reinforcement content
since reinforcement in the perimeter can be a significant percentage of the lolal.
. Angled perimeters increase reinlorcement and make anchorage pockets larger and
more difficult lo form.
Inlernal stressing from the floor surface increases costs due to the provision of the
wedge-shaped stressing pockes and increased amounts of reinforcement.
Slab steps and penetrations will increase posttensioning costs if they decrease the
length of tendons.
1 , Ssct. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems
23
Fig. 3.15 Bourkc Ploce. Melbourne, Aurlmlin: 53 levels.
Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Sect 3.21
3 Cutting Prestressed Tendons I
One of the main drawbacks of posttensioned systems is the difficulty of dealing with
stressed strands and tendons during structure modifications or demolition. Although
modifications are more difficult, some procedures have been developed to make this
.
,..
.,.:
process easier.
,~-r...;.,., : .:,?$ .
Small penetrations required to meet changes lo plumbing or similar requirernenls
!y::'J.-c: --2. -~ . .
are the most common of a11 modiiications that are made to the floor system. The size ' 1 !
of lhcse penetrations is typically from 50 to 250 mm (2 lo 10 in.) in~dinmeter. As a
posrlenrioned floor relies on the posttcnsioncd tendons for IS strcnglh, it is prufrrablc
to avoid cuttine, the tendons whcn drilling through the floor for the new penetrat~on. 1
Finding the tendons in a floor to permil the localbn of penetrations without damaging
any tendons is a very simple procedure that is carried out with the aid of an electronic
tendon locater. Tendons are accurately located using this system withon1 any need to
remove floor coverings or ceilings.
Concrete Reinf + P.T.
Bl3.C. R P.T.
Fig. 3.16 hlnteriul hnndling-reinforced concrete versus portlcnrioncd ryrlem.
Fig. 3.17 Exnmplc orstepped beurn sullil; Bourkc Plucc, hlclbourne. Aurlrnlln.
Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 25
Floor being poured7
Full access for Finishing Trades
+
1
Fig. 3.18 Typlcnl noor propping.
Average tendon length, rn
Fig. 3.19 Portlenrianing corb.
In a typical posttensioned floor it is possible.to locate penetrations of up to 1000 by
3000 mm (3 by 9 ft) belween posttensioned tendons and to require no other modifica-
tion to the floor. Penetrations that require cutting of the posttensioned tendons will
need lo be checked and designed as would any large penetration in any floor system.
The procedure commonly adopted in a floor using bonded tendons is as follows:
1. Design the modified floor smct ur e in the vicinity of the penetration, assuming
that any cut posttensioned tendons are dead-ended at the penetration.
2. Install any strengthening required.
3. Locate tendons and inspect grouting.
4. If there is no doubt as to the quality of the grouting, proceed lo step 5. Other-
wise strip off ducting, clean out grout, nnd epoxy grout the strands over a length
of 500 mm (20 in.) immediately adjacent to the penetration.
5. Install props.
6. Core drill the corners of the penetration to eliminate the nced for overcutling.
and then cut the perimeter using a diamond saw.
7. Cut up the slab and remove.
8. Paint an epoxy-protective coating over the ends o i the strands to pre\,enl corro-
sion.
9. Remove props.
If a large penetration through a floor cannot be located within the slab area but
must intersect a primary support beam, then substantial strengthening of adjacent
beams will usually be necessary.
Whcn culling openings into floors built using unbondcd postlensioned tendons the
procedures used for bonded posttensioned tendons cannot bc applied. The preferred
procedure that has been developed to permit controlled cuttinf of unbondcd strands is
i
to use a special detensioning jack. The jack grips the strand and the strand is then cut.
with the force in the strands being released slowly. New anchorages are then installed
at each side of the new opening and the strands restressed.
Extensive experience has been gained in demolition procedures for posllensioncd
floors, and some general comments can be made. In bonded systems the procedures
for demolition are the same as for reinforced concrete. The individual strands will not
! dislodge at stressing anchorages. In unbonded systems the strand capacity is lost over
its entire length when cut; therefore the floor will require backpropping during demo-
lition. The individual cut strands will dislodge at stressing anchorages, but will move
generally less than 450 mm (18 in.). However, precautions should al!i~ays be taken in
case the strands move more than this.
Project Descriptions 27
,,. .
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
I
Melbourne Central
Melbourne, Australia
.:,
..
., .
.<.
Architect
..I,
Structural engineer
Year of compleIion
He~ght from street to roof
Number of stories
Number of levels below ground
Bullding use
Frame maanal
Typical floor live load
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lateral deflcction
Design fundamental per ~od
Design accelcrat~on
Dcs~gn damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Foundation conditions
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Slab
Columns
Size at ground floor
Spacing
Concrete strength
Core
Shear walls
Thickness at ground flool
Kisho Kurokswa with Bat es Smar t &
McCutcheon
Connell Wagner
1991
21 1 m (692 ft)
54
3
Office
Concrete core, steel floor beams
3-kPa ( 60- ps0 beams, 4-kPa (80-psf)
slabs
50 m/s (112 mph) ullimate. 100-yr return
100 mm (4 in.), 50-yr rctum
4.2 scc
2.9 mg rms. 5-yr return
1% serviceability, 5% ultimate
Not applicable
Concrete core, concrete perimeter tube
in lube
Mudstone, 2000-kPa (20-tonlfl') capacity
Pads to columns, raft to core
3.85 m (12 ft 7 in.)
11.5 m (37 ft 9 in.)
530 mm (21 in.)
3 m( l 0 it)
120 mm (4.75 in.) on metal deck
65 MPa (10,000 psi) maximum
600 and 200 mm (24 and 8 in.)
Melbourne Central comprises a 57-level office tower of 60,000 m' (646,000 fl') (net
rentable) and a large retail development of a funher 60.000 m' (Fig. 3.20). The overall
dimensions of !he tower are 43.72 by 43.72 m (143 by 143 ft). The tower is 21 1 m
(692 ft) above street level and 225 m (738 ft) above the core raR. The facade is a glass
and aluminum curtain wall.
28 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 .. ,, Project Descriptions 29
" . I
The lower floors consist of steel bums spanning from the core to the facade wi
composite concrete slab. supported on stoctural steel decking, spanning brtwecn
steel beams (Fig. 3.21). The steel beams are generally at 3-m 1 10-it) centers. and
typical beam is a 530UBB2 (21UB55). Tlie structural steel decking is I mm (0.04
thick, unpropped.
The column spacing at the facade is 6 m (20 ft). A perimeter beam is required to
carry the intermediate floor beams. This is a 900-mrn-deep by 300-mm-wide (36- by
12-in.), prccasl concrete beam. Although this is precast concrete, it is erected in the
same way as a sleel beam and as part of the steel frame. The use of precast concrete
simplifies the fire rating of the slructure at the perimeter where access is difficult. It
. also provides the 900-mm (36-in.)-deep fire barrier between floors required by the
building regulations. The fixings for the curtain wall are cast into lhis beam, resulting
in reliable and accurate positioning.
The floor-to-floor height is 3875 mm (12 ft 8.5 in.) for the typical floors. The
floor-to-ceiling height is 2900 rnm (9 ft 6 in.), which allows for a future access floor
of 200 mm (8 in.) in height, to be installed by a tenant, providing a minimum 7700-
mm 18-it 10-in.) occuoied soace.
~ i v wind resistance stricture for this buildine consists of the core cantileverine ~- " .
from lhe lootin: in combinslion wi l l 1 3 nominal conlribulion from the filcndc rtruclurr.
oi ihd column 2nd nrecnst bcnm. This ru,ulls in the fac3de structure cnrqing approxi-
mately 10% of the wind load on the building, and, more importantly, it convibutes
-
gig. 3.11 LOW-rirc floor LE-L14 hl~lbourne Ccnlml.
significantly to the sway serviceability perromance. The remainder of the wind load
is carried by the core element.
The central-services core to the building is reinforced concrete from the footings to
the roof. All the internal walls are 200 mm (8 in.) thick. This thickness remains
unchanged over the full height of the building. The 200-mm (8-in.) internal wall thick-
ness is h e optimum to achieve load-carrying capacity, minimal slenderness effects, and
conslructability. The external walls vary from 600 and 550 mm (24 and 22 in.) thick at
the bottom of the buildine to 250 mm ( 10 in.) thick at the buildine too. Concrete
strengths in the core walls &y from 70 td 30 h&a (10.000 to 4300 psijat 9'0 days.
The columns are a composite of reinforced concrete with a 310UC137 steel column.
These steel columns are erected as part of the steel frame. Subseuuentlv thev arc
encased within the reinforccd concrete column and oermit erection n i the sirel frame - ~ ~ - -~ ~ - ~ - - ~ ~
I 0 floors J x a d ofconcrc.le cnc3semcn1 ( RE 3 22). This conccpl, in comb!nolion wilh
~ h c rtci'l noor b u ~ n ~ s and rlructural aleel d:cking. pcrmils bun-fit in^ from 111c~ d v a ~ l -
tares of steel construction while at the same time minimizine the ouantitv of the rela-
- - .
lively cxpun<ive material t l ~at is sleel. This is iund3menlal lo 3 coniporile steel i nd
concrele buildine of this lype. where lhu advnnljges uf rctnforc~.d concrels 2nd sl ed
are both incornorated into ihe strucmre.
The footings to the tower are foundcd in moderately weathered mudstone having a
bearing capacity of 2000 Wa (20 tonlit'). The depth of the excavation and the base-
ment i; such thnl the footines at the west end of the tower arc foundcd near the too of
-
this material. The footing lo the core is a 3.2-m (10-it 6-in.)-thick reinforced concrete
raft. This extends approximately 2 m (6 ft 6 in.) past the outside face of the core wall.
MELEOURNE CENTRAL
TLOm TO FLOOR Ol l l ENYOl 6
--
il
r ~ ~ ~ n i nrrmfirm
f
P ~ E F ~ O ~ I C A T E O CSE LIR am
R) l , i l Ol l
O U ~ L D E ~ MI." ELECT m wut~eci
T l t i ~ CAGE m nllil STEEL CDLUNII
ARD LIFI ltim PJIIIIDII-!YITH
STEEL CO.UI4N
PRCFLOR~UTED C~GE-' -t~n,io L ~ G A ~ U ~ ~ E L r l ~ o
FLMR STEEL BEAN
Rg. 3.22 noor-lo-floor dimcnri~nr and typical torer column reinrorccmcnt details; hlclbournc
Ccntmi.
32 Tall Building Floor Systems
[Chap. 3
Luth Headquarters Building
Kuala Lurnpur, Malaysia
Architect
Smct unl engineer
Ycw of completion
Height from slrcet to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lateral deflection
Design fundamental period
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of swcl ure
Footing type
Tvnical floor
. .
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Concrete slrenrlh
Hijjas Kasturi Associates
Ranhill BersekuN
1984
152 m (498 ft)
38
0
Offices, parking garage
Concrete
2.5 kPa (50 psfl
30 m/s (67 mph)
Not available
Not eswblished
Not established
Not established
Not applicable
Tube in tube
Stiff silly clay
1500-mm (5-ft)-diameter bored piles.
20 m (60 ft) deep
3.66 m (12 ft)
Varies from 19.2 to 8.7 m (64 to 28.5 ft)
Typically 640 mm (25 in.)
9degrees radially
Precast prelensioned concrete
100 mm (4-in.) precast planks, 50-mm
(2-in.) topping
5 by i.2 m (16.4 by 4 ft)
38 m (125 ft) around circumference
32 MPa (5000 psi)
-
Core
Reinforced slip-funned concrete
Thickness at ground floor
400 and 200 mm (16 and 8 in.)
Concrete strength
32 MPa (5000 psi)
The Luth Headquarters Building is a 38-level office building in Kuala Lumpur (Fig.
3.23). Of the 38 levels. 37 are at or above ground and comprise 7 levels of parking
garage, 2 mechanical-plant levels, and 28 levels of office space.
All floors are circular and contain a circular central core. However, in elevation the
building is most unusual in that the facade is not vertical but formed from several
solids of revolution. The facade of the lowest 22 levels is described by one circular
Fig. 3.23 Lulh Hcodqunrl~rr Building, Kunin Lurnpur, Mnioysin.
36 Tall Building Floor Systems
[Chap. 3
V
Fig. 3.25 Tgpieul midrire noor plan; Luth Hcndquorters Building.
slrands
L 3 5 J
Fig. 3.27 Core to noor henm joinl; Luth Hcndqunrlerr Building.
\4$12 500 4
Fig. 3.26 Typicill noor section; Lulh Hcildquorlcrs Building.
Tall Building Floor Systems
Fig. 318 Scclion of Lutb Hcndquorters Building.
. .
:.,,..
7:
. .
,..
Riverside Center
.,, . .
3'1
. , .
Brisbane, Australia
Architect
Struclunl engineer
Year of completion
Height from street to roof
Number of stories
Number of fevels below ground
Building use
Frame mnterial
Basic wind velocity
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type ofslructure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spncing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Concrete slrength
Harry Seidler & Associnter
Rankine & Hill
1986
150 m (492 ft)
39
2
Office
Concrete
4 kPa (80 psO
50 d s (112 mph)
63 mm (2.5 in.), 50-yr return
3.8 rec
Not applicable
Tube in tube
Rock, 5-MPa (56-todft') capacity
Pads to columns, mat to core
3.475 m (1 l f t 5 in.)
12 m (39 ft 4 in.)
600 mm (24 in.)
3.35 m (1 l ft)
Posttensioned concrete
125 mm (5 in.) reinforced concrete
1100 by 700 mm (43 by 27 in.)
6.7 m (22 A)
50 to 32 MPa (7200 to 4500 psi)
Core Concrete shear walls
Thickness at ground floor 350 and 200 mm (14 and 8 in.)
Concrete strength
40 to 25 MPa (5700 lo 3500 psi)
This 39-story. 42-level building is a totally reinforced concrete slructure designed as a
"tube in tube" (Fig. 3.29). However, because the triangular shape leads to unusually
long exterior core wnlls. the core has a greater than normal stiffness, and the exterior
spandrel beams and columns play only n minor role in the resistance to wind load
(Fig. 3.30). The floors nre suppotled by simply supported partially prestressed beams
spanning 12 m (40 ft) from core to perimeter. Slabs nre not prestressed.
Apart from the office building. the development includes a two-level basement
garage, which covers the site and extends into the Brisbane River. The lowest floor is
below normal high-tide levels, and the whole basement is designed to continue to
function normally during a flood of a height resulting in a head of 6 m (20 11) of water
at the lowest floor. The garage is topped by a ground-level plaza, low-rise commercial
and retail buildings, and a restaurant which cantilevers 14 m (46 ft) o\,er the river.
Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3
125 SLAB
8601 4W SPANDREL BEAM
7
XII SLAB
POCKETSIN
CORE WALL
PRESTRESSING T ENDONS~
DUCTS
I 4"- I
I
,LO,,
Fig. 3.29 Riverride Center, Brirbnnc, Auslrnlin.
I
Fig. 330 Floor plnn; Riverride Cenler.
The ground conditions comprise hard phyllite. a metamorphosed mudstone, which
allowed the use of design bearing pressures of 5000 kPa (50 tunlft'). Footings for the
tower are reinforced concrete pads to columns and a raft slab to the core. The sur-
rounding basement columns are supported on either pads or piers, depending on the
rock level, which sloped away into the river.
Floor slabs are designed for a general live load o f 4 Wa (80 psf) with a 5-kPa (100-
ps 0 zone around the perimeter of thc core. The use of 4 kPa (80 psi) rather than the
statutory 3 %Pa (60 psf) provides for the more ready accommodation of safes, isolated
compacting units, and other heavy loads over a small area. The 125-mm (5-in.)-thick
slabs span 3.3 m (10.8 ft) and are reinforced with fabric.
Floor beams are 600 mm (24 in.) deep nnd 350 mm (14 in.) wide at the soffit.
(Sides are tapered to ease form removal.) At each end the beams terminate in a 300-
mm (12-in.)-thick slab, leaving about a 1200-mm (4-ft)-wide zone in which to locate
maior air distribution ducts. The prestressing tendons, of which there are two per
.
bsnm, usually four-strand. arc contained in uirculnr ducts, but anchored i n ilxb t)pc
nnchongus. The s l h nochornpc> are the mo t econo,nicel and lend tbsmsulrss tu ibt
uss of rm:lll. linht incks. Tlte circular ducts rdrult in o a r r a ~ e r bdi ~ns cu~nparcd nlth
the width required ior two flat slab ducts side by side.
The partially prcstresscd design provides for a load-balanced condition for about
80% of the weight of the bare concrete. This resulted in a flat floor. Ultimate load
canacitv was orovided bv additional unlensioned steel. Untensioned steel stresses ~ ~
. ~, .
ucrc limilcd to 130 hlP:, (?1.100 psi). Bcams were designed for lhe same l i \ c lu:lds 3s
the slabs. chccpt th;tt rcduclions in 3ccurJancr. a!111 lllc luxling code a.r.rc urr.J.
,\I tach end ofth.: btnm. t ~ h ~ r l : i t b~comcs a \\id< 300-mm (I?-i,l ).deep slnb, cnnsid-
urjble anal)sis eifon *;is undsnaksn to ensure s3ttsf3ctu~ stress IL.VCIS. Ilcrc rdirliorie-
lment is predomtnantly untcnsioncd slecl. wilh onl) otle of the tendons uontin.!iltg trl Ihc
suooonine s~andr el beam: the other tendon terminates in a stressing anchorage at the end
.. - .
uf the 6UO-mm (2-i-in.).dcep rection of the bdnnl. This a r n ~ l g e mt ~ ~ oi tendons pr0vtdi.J
for strtssing off ihd floor bclow-there nerd no externdl scnffulding r?quiremcnts.
Strcssinn was carried out in two stares: 50-c 3 da\ s niter puurinc ths slnb and
100% after? days. These requirements dictated the concrete strength &her than the
minimum design strength specified. [The concrete yielded a strength of about 35 MPa
(5000 psi) at 28 days. with 25 MPa (3500 psi) having been specified.] A prop load
analysis was curried out, tnking into account the load-relieving effect of the prestress.
in order to arrive at lhc time when props could be removcd.
Plant-room beams support a much heavier load than office floor beams, but the
same floor formwork could be utilized bv increasinn the slab thickness and o\'erall
-
beam depth and by sloping the floor surface upward from the midspan of the beams.
(The slab had to be thicker for ocoustic reasons anyway, and a fall for drainage was
always required, so the structural requirements matched the other requirements.)
The service care has concrete walls. eenerallv 200 mm (8 in.) thick. exceot far the ...- ~-~ ~ - ~-~~ . . . .
perimeter walls. alli;h wry from 350 to 300 tu 250 tnm ( l a in. lo I2 td I0 in.). Some
tension in the lowcr rtonc5 occurs under dcsien wind Inads, but in ccncrnl loids ars
comprcssion. Concrete was pumped for the full 150-m (492-11) height, with strengths
varying from 40 to 25 MPa (5700 to 3500 psi).
An architectural limit was ulaced on the column sizes, resulting in thc use of 50-
.
MPa (7100-psi) concrete and 4% reinforccmcnt at the lower levels. Some carly prob-
lems were encountered with misplaced bars, which made the placing of spandrel beam
reinforcement very difficult, particularly as the column bars we e 36 mm (1.4 in.) i n
dinmcter and in bundles of up to four bars, but once a stccl template was employed to
locate the bars. the problems disappeared. Where bundled bars were used, all column
bars were specified io have splicing sleeves.
I Bourke Place
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lateral deflcction
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Foundation condttions
Fo~t i ng type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slabs
Columns
Spacing
Concrete strength
Core
Thlchness at ground floor
Concrete svength
Godfrey & Spowers
Connell Wagner
1991
223 m (732 ft)
54
3
Office
Concrete
4 kPa (SO psf)
39 m/s (87 mph), 50-yr return
200 mm (8 in.). 50-yr return
4.8 sec
Not applicable
Reinforced concrete core and perimeter
frame tube-in-tube
Highly weathcrcd siltstone
Pads to columns, raft to core
3.7 m (12 it 2 in.)
10.8 m (35 f t 5 in.)
400 mm (16 in.)
4.6 m (15 ft)
Posuensioned concrete
125-mm (5-in.) reinforced concrete
1 I00 mm (43 in.) square
8.1 m (26 ft 6 in.)
60 MPn (8500 psi) maximum
Slip-formed shear walls
400 and 200 mm (16 and a n . )
60 MPa (8500 psi) maximum
The Bourke Place project includes a lower structure with 54 floors above Bourke
Street in the city of Melbourne (Fig. 3.31). On top of the concrete tower is a steel-
framed, aluminum-clad cone roof reaching another four stories and a communications
tower rising to approximately 255 m (837 ft) above the street. Alongside the tower
there are an 8-storv narkine raraee (four of which are below eround) and olazas with
, . - - b , .. . .
rood and retail areas. The total leasable floor space in the office tower i s approxi-
mately 60,500 m' (651.200 ft').
The tower structure consists of a slip-formed reinforced concrete core, postten-
sioned concrete band beams, and a reinforced concrete perimeter frame (Figs. 3.32
44 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Project Descriptions 45
and 3.33). The core structure is approximately 20 m (66 ft) square at the base. Most
internal walls are 200 mm (8 in.) thick. with some 150 mm (6 in.). and remain con-
stant for the full height of the structure. The external wails vary from primarily 400
mm (16 in.) thick at the base. using 60-MPa (8500-psi) concrete. to 200 mm (8 in.) lor
the top 15 slories, requiring only 25-MPa (3500-psi) concrete [40 MPa (5500 psi) was
used for pumpability.]
The use of high-strength 60-MPa (8500-psi) concrete allowed the wail thicknesses
to be minimized. It wns estimated that the loss of floor space for thicker walls, if40-
Fig. 3.31
Bourke Piore, hlelbourne, Autrniin. (Plioro by Srjl~irc Plio!ogropi!ic.r.)
Fig. 3.32 Typical tower floor plon; Bourke Place.
? O R ivn,oxn ,m
"liiiill ilC DiiYI*i
Fig. 333 Typicill noor profile, ~ o u r k e ~i uc c .
MPa (5500-psi) concrete was used, represented an effective extra ovcmll capitalized
cost to the client of approximately $;100,000 (Australian) per floor.
Two substantial core shape changes occur up in the tower as elevator shafts that
service the lower levels become redundant. The location of these shaoe changes and
-
the changes in wall thickness were positioned sufficiently high up in the tower to
ensure that the cote aould be off the construction crilical path in order to avoid any
time delays. The design of the slip form incorporated the facility to reduce the wall
thickness and to "drop off' these portions. Cost comparisons during the design dcvel-
opment phase indicated that slip forming was the most cost-efiicient method of con-
struction, and the Bourke Place core was the largest single slip-formed core ever con-
structcd in Austmlia. The core conrtruction set an Australian record in Novemhcr ~ ~ ~
1989 lor pumping concrelc to 2 10131 risc of236 m (77.1 it).
A t the tilne of dcs~gn, building rcgulations lor fire prolcc~inn required 1h3t spandrel
benms he a1 least 900 lllln (36 in ) d~wp. 11 ulas recoQnized that. In cunjunction with
the columns, lllese beams svould therslore m?ke some contnbu~ion lo the oucrall resis-
t2nce lo brnd In3d5 on lhc slnlcturc. Tnr h e ~ms ucr? designed for l l ~c dead and livc
load requircmcnts: then their capacity to resist additional wind load was assessed. This
amounkd to approximately 7.5% oft he total wind load on the structure, meaning that
the core need only be designed for 92.5% rather than the full wind load. The "core and
partial-frame" approach represented significanl cost savings to the client.
A 125-mm (5-in.) normally reinforced concrete slab spans between 10.8-m (35.4-
it)-long band beams at typically 4.6-rn (15-it) centers. The band beams radiate out
from the core and are typically 400 mm (16 in.) deep, but are notchcd at each end to
275 mm (1 1 in.). The notches wcrc introduced to accommodate primary mechanical
ducts, and they enable the total floor-lo-floor height to be minimized. This represents
savings to the client as the overall height of the building can be reduced without
aflectine, the number of Floors.
The band beams are posttensioned from underneath, utilizing the vertical face of
the notches. This separates the posttensioning contractors from the "work hce."
allo!vine stressine to be carried but indeoendent of scaffold erection on the newlv
- -
poured floor. nnd it r l i mi ~~a~es ihc n<<d Tor reccsssd pockets in the flour surlace.
T11c b~i l dcr used three seu oll;!ble fonns which "lclpfrog~ud" up tllc structure and
dit,idcd the floor into four pours of appruxirnatcly 350 rn' (3800 it'), with 111sinten-
riun or pouring one qul i dr ~n~ wcry dzy. To sssist in mli~ntninlng his &day cycle, col-
umn xnd bean^ reinforccn~~.nt cages \tJcre stmdardiz2d u,here possiblc and prefabrib
c;11cd.
Tllc floor! ~ V C T ~ c11~~kcd 10 CnsUrL:111.11~lnder llle l l l ~sl f a v ~ r ~ b l ~ c~r~umsliinces 110
hack propping trould be necessary. Typically, Floor cyclcs of apprurimatuly -I lo 5
working dnys were acllieved
Central Plaza One
Brisbane, Australia
Architect
Suuctural engineer
Year of completion
Height from sveet to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Concrete streneth
Dr. Kisho Knrokawa. Peddle Thorp
Partnerships
Maunscll Pty. Ltd.
1988
174 m (571 ft)
44
4
Office
Concrete
3 P a (60 psO
49 d s (1 I 0 mph). 50-yr return
350 mm (13.75 in.), 25-yr return
4.4 and 3.8 sec
16 mg peak. 5-yr return
Not applicable
Central core with perimeter framed tube
Marine clay over rock. 5-MPa (5-tonlfi')
capacity
Spread footings, anchored perimeter wall
3.66 m (12 ft)
10-m (33-ft)-span posttensioned. 275 mm
(10.8 in.) thick
1200 by 1000 mm (47 by 39 in.)
7 m (23 fl)
50 MPa (7100 psi)
-
Thickness at ground floor 600 and 250 mm (24 and 10 in.)
Concrete strength
50 to 32 MPa (7100 to 4600 psi)
Central Plaza One is currently Brisbane's tallest building with a total of 48 levels and
has a total height of approximately 174 m (571 ft) above sveet level (Flg. 3.34).
The building features a four-story avium with an internal running stream and land-
scaping at the ground-floor level. and a four-level basement garage. A distinctive roof
line with a lifting, slewing telescopic building maintenance unit forming the top 2.5 m
(8 ft) of the roof structure makes the building unique among modem high-rise build-
ings in Australia. The tower houses three plant rooms at levels 4.26. and 41.
A six-story office block adjacent to the main tower has banking facilities at the
ground-floor level and shares the common basement structure with the tower. ThlS
"hank annex" incorporntes an additional plant room nt level 5.
Tall Building Floor Systems
The tower structure comprises a reinforced concrete core and frame with postten-
sioned floors and is founded on rock approximately 13 m (43 it) below street level.
Design requirements were as follows:
Column-free office space requiring floors to span 10 m (33 ft) from perimeter
beams to central core
Floors to be designed to allow for maximum flexibility in locating penetrations for
services
s Floor edgr beams to be designed and detatled to allow for variations at corners to
range from 6-m (20-1' 1) cantilevers to fully truncated corners
A minimum number uf minimum-size columns up through t l ~c atrium and above
togerhcr with the assurance that accclerat~ons due to wind-rxcitcd oscillations be
within acceptable human response lirnitotions
Fig. 3.34 Central Pinzn One, Brisbnne, Aurtmlin.
. An accurate assessment of deformations due to creep, shrinkage, and load effects to
allow for joint design at critical locations in the curtain-wall system
m A bosement structure to accommodate 270 cars
- A roof shucture to support a lifting, slewing. and telescoping building maintennnce unit
j$!. Preliminary analysis of the building using a simplified annlyticnl model indicated
that the tower would be wind-sensitive and accelerations could be excessive. The sim-
plified model comprised the central core as a cantilever linked to the outer frames,
with axially stiff linkages representing the floors. the entire assemblage being consid-
ered as a plane frame. Having gained considerable insight into the behavior of the
structure from the preliminary analysis, the tube-in-tube structural system was chosen
for resistance to lateral wind loads.
During the preliminary design stage a l:400 aeroelastic model was being devel-
oped and tested in a wind tunnel to d e t e d n e and minimize wind pressures by varying
the dvnamic earnmeters. Considerable analytical work was carried out to tune the
I ' *truckre aera~lasticallv. The stiffness and mass of various structural components were
I
~- ~ -~
adjusted nnd readj~rstcd in this process to minimize !he aeroelastic forces.
Once the slructurai form was finalized. a rigorous three-dimensional tobc-in-tubc
1 . ~n~l vcl q was carried out. This was necessarv toensure that disolacements and acceler-
I
,- .- -~
ations under \vind 1o;ading were brl ou acceptable Ie\,cls. In lhc analysis for core-frame
interaction. the structure \\,as propped at the ground floor :,nd ;!I each of the basemrnt
I levclc qo hat lateral loads could be transferrid out to the site oerimeler walls throueh .. .-
diaphragm action of the floor slabs. Propping of the structure'at the ground floor ai d
basements avoided the problem of having Lo deal with large momens at the core fool-
i
I
ing and also served to convol deflectioniand accelerations of the building under wind
j
load. Of particular importance was the cross-wind response of the building, which
produced a resulting ntoment 1.6 times the along-wind response.
The cenval core occupies a space approximately 16 m (52.5 ft) square in the center
of the building and is, in reality, two cores with an elevator foyer space between. The
two cores are linked together via floor slabs and beams, and in addition, by large
diaphragms in the atrium and plant rooms. The atrium diaphragms were found to be
particularly effective in reducing deflections by giving the building an exceptionally
high point of rotation approximately 45 m (148 ft) above street level.
The central core is a multiccll reinforced concrete structure with wall thicknesses
varying from 200 to 600 mm (8 to 24 in.). Reinforcement ratios vary from about 1%
in the lower parts of the building to 0.5% at the top. The core was designed globally
for biaxial bending and axial load using the program FAILSAFE. In this program a
particular section of the core is defined as an assembly of square elements within a
system of coordinates, and the quantity and location of steel is also defined within the
coordinate system. The program outputs a failure surface for axial load versus
moment.
A detailed dcsiyn of the core at licodcrs. coupling bu.lrns. xnd dii~phr~gnlb \+.IS Car-
ried our using decp-hmm liicury, hear-fricuon theory, and cun\,r.ntion~l rdinC0rci.d
concrete theory, as appropriate for the element under consideration.
Basement floors u.ere designed as conventional reinforced concrete flat slabs.
except that two special effects required particular attention in the design and detailing
of reinforcements, namely. (1) transfer of wind loads out of the core to the basement
walls. and ( 2) differential settlement betwccn the core, maiar columns, and basement
columnr. Pcrticulx :!ttention rrar paid to detailing the r~inforcunlentr at thc core-Sl:lh
joints, both on lhc dm\r!ng board :!nd on rltc during cnnstruction.
The ground-floor slab was designed in reinforced concrete, incorpomting an exten-
sive beam system. At this level the wind-propping loads were considerably higher
than in the basement slabs, and in addition the slab was designed to support a 10-Wa
(200-psO conswct i on live load to allow for scaffolding up to support level 4 plant-
room slab over the atn'ltrn
~ ~
The ground-floor slab is a multilevel slab with sloping and stepped purtions, and in
the nonheast comer it contained large openings. Special bands of heavy reinforcing
steel were required around the perimeler to vansfer wind loads into perimeter walls. A
diagonal band of heavy steel from the core to the northwest corner of the site was
required lo ensure a load path to compensate for the large penetrations of t he nonheast
corner.
Tower floors were designed as posuensioned flat plates spanning approximately 10
m (33 ft) from the spandrel beams to the cenval core. Typical floor slabs are 275 mm
(I I in.) thick and are stressed with tendons in bands of six, each tendon comprising
five 12.7-mm (0.5-in.)-diameter supergrade strands in 90-mm (3.5-in.)-wide ducts.
The banded tendon arrangement provides maximum flexibility of floor layout for the
positioning of penebations for services and internal stairs in the tenancy design stage.
The flat-plate soffit was important in allowing the builder to speed up the form-
work placing and in achieving the specified cycle times. Posttensioning also meant
minlmum passive reinforcement, another feature to assist thc builder.
Finite-elemcnt analysis of the floor slab indicated the existence of high shear
slresses near the comers of the core. This was dealt with by installing some shcar stccl
locally in the slab near each corner of the core. Spandrel beams n8erc generally rein-
forced concrete, except for the longer cantilever bcams at the comers of the building,
which were posttensioned to minimize deflections.
Kilmirrer 1983. Design and ConnnlcIia,r offl ~e Lull? Heodqaunrrs Buiidirtg, K~ o i o Lu,npur
Monin 1989, lVirzdDesign ofFourBuiidirtgr up to 306 ,n TO!!.
L'in*fistrin Irnliimn *el Cementa 1987. T/U Lurb Bsiidittg ir2 K ~ , ~ I O L~~~~~ ( ~ f ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~
Lateral Load
Resisting Systems
*
-,
.<.
-' 4.1 BRACED FRAME AND MOMENT RESISTING
FRAME SYSTEMS
Two fundamental loteral force resisting systcms are the braced frame (also kno\\'n as
shear truss or vcrtical truss) and the momcnl rcsisting frame (moment frame or rigid
frame). Thesc systems evolved during the beginning of high-rise construction in the
twentieth century. Braced framcs and momcnl resisting frames are normally orga-
nized as planar assemblies in orthogonal directions to create ~ l a n a r framcs or a tube
frame system. Thc two systems may be used together as an overall interactive SySlem.
thereby their individual applications to taller buildings. Both systems arc
commonly used today as effective means of resisting lateral forces in high-rise con-
struction i or buildings of up to 40 or 50 stories.
I 1 Braced Frames
, . .
1 !.,
Braced framcs arc cantilevered vertical trusses resisting lateral loads primarily through
I ' ?
the mi al stiffness of the frame members. Axial shortening and elongallon of the column
I
memben under lateral loading accounts for 80 to 90% of the overall system deforma-
tion lor slender truss systcms. The effecriveness of the system, as characterized by a
1
h i ~ h ratio 01 stiffness to material quantity, is recognized lor multistory buildings in the
low- to midhcight range.
Braced frame geometries are grouped, based on their ductility characlcristics. as
either concentric braced frames (CBF) or eccentric braced frames (EBF). In CBFs the
axcs of all mcmbcrs intersect at a point such that the member forces are axial. CBFs
have a great amount ofstiffncss but low ductility. Thus in areas of low seismic acr~vil)~.
wllcre high ductility is not essential, CBFs arc the lirst choice or engineers for lalcral
load resistance. EBFs. on the other band. utilize axis offsets to introduce flexure ,and
shcar into the frame, which lowers the stiffness-to-weight ratio but increases ducttl~ty.
The CBF can take the lorm of an X. Pmtt, diagonal, K. or V, as sho$\,n in Fig. 4. I .
The X bracings exhibit hizhcr lateral stiffness-to-\lzeigl~t r ~l i os in comparison to K OrV
bracings. Ho\ree\'er, the X bracings crcnte a short circuil in the column gravity load
52 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
lransfer path as they absorb a ponion of the column load in proportion to their stiffness.
This creates additional forccs in both diagonal and horizontal members of X-bracing
svstems which need to be considered in svstem derivn -.. =...
To accommodate door and other openings, EBFs are commonly used, as shown in
Fig. 4.2. The shear and flexural action caused by the axis offset in Ule link beam improves
ductility. Higher ductility through inelastic shear or bending action of the link beam
make it a desirable lateral system in areas of high seismic activity. Ductility is measured
by a well-behaved hysteresis loop and achieved through proper connection and member
design such that all modes of instabilities and brittle failures are eliminated.
Braced frames are most often made from structural steel because of ease of con-
struction. Depending on the diagonal force, length, required stiffness, and clearances.
the diagonal member in structural steel can be made of double angles, channels, tees.
tubes, or wide-flange shapes. Besides performance. the shape of the diagonal is often
based on connection considerations. Examples of typical braced frame connections are
depicted in Fig. 4.3.
Vertical trusses are often located in the elevator and service core areas of high-rise
buildings, where frame diagonals may be enclosed within permanent walls. Braced
frames can be joined to form closed section cells, which logetherare effective in resist-
ing torsional forces. These cells may be bundled to take advantage of additional stiff-
ness and provide a systematic means of dropping off the cclls at the upper levels of a
X-BRACING
......
/.. ,..
::. ..
.......
j.. ...
4 ::. ...
PRATT
BRACING
DIAGONAL
BRACING
K BRACING
KNEE
V BRACING BRACING
Fig. 4.1 Concentric br;lrcd rromc rorms.
Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 53
3;. l our r where laleral forces are reduced. The strength and stillness of the lruss syslcm is
thus sensitive lo the lootprtnt of ihe core area and the arrangement 01 the clcvators.
When ihe slenderness ratio of a core truss (the ratio of truss height lo le2rt u,idth) In-
. creases. the o,,emll overturning cffecl manifests il5:If in ~ncrcascd axi d dclorn~ntion
and uolifr forces of chord columns. While truss chord members may rr3dily be drsigned
forces, net foundation uplift forces are generally &desirable. A design
be lo spread Lhe chords as far apart as possible while diverting gravity
load to these chords to Drevent or reduce the net tensile force.
As slenderness increases. the a i a l drformalions of lllc chord columns o f a truss sys-
tem become more critical in controlling the sway of the slructurc. Increasing the r l ~l f -
nrss and strsnath of lhe chord members in proponion lo the work done by those mem-
bers will prov%e an effective way to minimiz; sway. The bracing system between the
.~ .
chords can be designed to transfer the gravity loads of any intermediate chord columns
,
to the boundary chord columns. As a result the intermediate chord columns could be
eliminated or minimized in size and the efficiency of the boundary chords maximized.
To further reduce the steel tonnage and cost of the structure, composite steel and con-
crete chord columns may be utilized. Using concrete in chord columns will most likely
provide a lower unit price for strength and axial stiffness.
.,
I
2 Moment Resisting Frames
Thc moment resisting frame consists 01 horizontal and vertical members rigidly con-
nected together in a planar grid form which resists lateral loads primarily through the
flexural stiffness of the members. Typical deformations of tha moment resisting frame
system under lateral load are indicated in Fig. 4.4. A point of contraflcxure is normally
located near the midheight of the columns and midspan of the besms. The lateral defor-
mation of the frame is due partly to the frame racking, which might be called shear
sway, and partly to column shortening. The shear-sway camponen1 constitutes approx-
imately 80 to 90% of the overall lateral deformation of the frame. The remaining por-
tion of deformation is due to column shortening (cantilever component or so-called
chord drift).
>lomen1 rcs~.ting lramrs h ~ v e advantages in high-ri5e conslruclion due lo their fl ex-
ibility in nrchitsclural planning. A moment reslbling frarnr. may he placed i n or around
tltc core, on the exterior. or throughout the interior of the building with nlinimll con-
5traint on the olannine module. ~ h ; frame mav be architecturallv exposed to express the ~~~ ~~
u . .
gridlike nature of l hs structure. The sp3cing of lhs column: in n moment resisting frame
c ~ n match !hat required fur grnvity lraming. In lac1 ths stecl ue ~ght prenlium for iatual
- ~
frame resistance decreases with increasing gravity londs on the frame
54 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap.
(a)
Fig. 4.3 Typicul corlncrlion debiir. l o) CUF. (b) EUF.
sect. 4.11
Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
. ..
(b)
~ i ~ , 4 3 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ t i o n dttniis. ( n) CBF. [b) EBF. (Codi nued)
...
rig, 4.4 ~~~~~t rwirting
derurmntion under Inter loud. (01 Frame deformntion.
behavior.
volves a transfer of shear forces from the top to the bottom of the building. Figure 4.7
shows the truss and frame deflections if each resisted the full wind shear. The distrihu-
tion of wind shear between lruss and frame can also be noted. Frame-truss interacting
systems have a wide range of application to buildings of up to 40 stories in heieht.
In general, core trusses are combined with moment frames located on the building
perimeter,where the column spacing and the member proportions of the frame may be
appropriately manipulated. Optimum efficiency is obtained when gravity-designed
columns are used as buss chords without increasing them for wind forces. These are
then combined with gravity-designed exterior columns and spandrel beams with rigid
SEMIRIGID
BOLTED CONNECTION
RIGID FIELD
WELDED CONNECTION
RIGID CONNECTION
SHOP WELDEDIFIELD BOLTED
WITH COVER PLATES
RIGID CONNECTION
SHOP WELDEDIFIELD BOLTED
WITH END PLATES
I J sect. 4.7,
Braced Frame an. Moment Resisting Frame *terns
59
3~
connections. If the lateral stiffness of the system is adequate, this then would ~r oduc e
,
an oplimal design. If additional stiffness is required. the decision of whether to Increase
... the core or the frame members depends on the relative efficiency of the two compo-
nents. The frame beam spans, story heighls, and core uuss depth are key parametcrs.
Tension or uplift conditions may limit the possibility of increasing chord columns.
P
v:
DEFLECTION
>
FRAME S H E M
SHEAR
~ i g . 4.7 ~mmc-truss inlemeting rsrlcm. Fig. 4.6 Mamcnt resisting frame connection types.
Sanwa Bank
Tokyo, Japan
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acccleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of swct urc
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Size at ~ o u n d floor
Spacing
Material
Core
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
Nikken Sekltei Ltd.
1973
99.7 m (327 ft)
25
4
Office
Stmcmral sleel
3 Wa (60 p ; ~
Not available
Not available
3 sec in both directions
20 mg: 40 mp for seismic loading
2% of critical
C = 0.10
Combination of rigid frames and eccentric
K bracing
Alluvium and diluvial gravel
Raft on reinforced concrete driven piles
3.84 m (12 f t 6 in.)
24 m (78 ft 9 in.)
850 mm (33.5 in.)
3.15 m (10 ft 4 in.)
Steel, grade 400 MPa (58 ksi) 2d floor and
above; concrete-encased steel below 2d
floor
120-mm (4.75-in.) reinforced concrete
-100- by 400-mm (16- by 16-in.) H sections
3.15 m (10 ft 4 in.)
Steel. grade SM 490.483 MPa (70 ksi)
Shear walls below ?d floor, 800 mm (31.5
in.) thick combined rigid and braced steel
frames, grade Shl490, above 2d floor
Sect. 4.11
Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 61
, .
.I..
,ir. together u,ill~ the rigid frames. The di3gOIIal members of eccentric K-bmccd framcs do no!
L.? ' intercect at the cenkr of the beam. Thus yielding 1 the center of the beams will occur be-
.......-- ~
fore braces buckle, ensuring ductility and allor;ing for adjustment of the f m e ductility
(Figs. 4.9 to 4.11). This hor, been confnned, both experimentally and theoretically.
~.
Ductility and strength are ensured by using acomposite beam for the 24-m (78.9-in.)
office floor spans. This also minimizes vibration disturbance due to people walking, as
was confirmed through a composite beam mock-up test
Precast concrete panels faced with granite are used as cladding material, providing a
solid appearance to the building (Fig. 4.12). The panel fixings were designed so that
during an earthquake, the panels can follow the building deformations without damage
or risk of dislodgement. This was checked using a two-story two-span full-scale model.
111designing the Saniva Bank bullding for carlitquakc and \bind loads (Fig. 4 8 ) , it was de-
cided to place ccce~llric K-br3c:d frnmea al npproprio~c lucntions such !hat [hey uill act
I
Sect. 4.11
"7
~k:!
Fig. 4.8 Snnwil Bank. Tokyo, Jnpun.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
4
u , m 1
t* %%%%%%%%%%' b bb
Fig. 4.10 Fmme~arL; Snnwn Bank.
Sect. 4.11
65
i
i
Fig. 4.11 Specimen ol ecc~nl ri c I( Imme; Snnno Bnnk
I
Lateral Load Resisting Systems
PLAN
I\ vibration
COLUMN PANEL FASTENING
( a)
Fig. 4.12 Dclniir otprerut concrele pnnel; Snnwn Bank.
, , , , r 4,., - I
',/ I.. " .I
,, ...,-.. -2 -..,.-..- E . - - 2 .-.,< T. .. ...!?.L::i;
, " ; ; , , Ci . . ..:* :" *.>' ,'I.. <;I
, ,. ,;; :' ,:i ,.$"
I 6 0 0 0 A
SECTION
(4
Fig. 4.12 Dctililr of prcrort rnncrclc pnnel: Scnwn Bunk. (Conrir#ucdl
67
ACT Tower
Hamarnatsu City, Japan
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material.
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Dcsign damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Nihon Sekkci Inc. and Mitsubishi Estate
Co. Ltd.
Nihon Sekkei Inc.
1994
21 1.9 m (695 ft)
47
-
Hotel, offices, retail space
Steel
5 kPa (100 psfJ
30 mlsec (67 mph)
Hl2OO. 100-yr return period wind
4.52.4.73 sec
52 mg peak. 100-yr return period
1% serviceability. 2% ultimate
C = 0.06
Braced frames
Clay, sand, and gravel
Piles 1.5 to 2.4 m (5 lo 8 ft) in diameter. 25
to 30 m (82 to 98 it) long
4 m (13 ft) office: 3.15 m (10 f t 4 in.) hotel
17.5 m (57 f t 5 in.) max. office: 10 m (33
ft 10 in.) hotel
850 mm (33.5 in.) office: 700 mm (27.5
in.) hotel
3.2. 6.4 m (10 f t 6 in.. ?I ft) office: 3.2,
4.27 m (10 h 6 in.. 14 ft) hotel
Slab
135- to 180-mm (5.25- to 7-in.) concrcte
Columns
Sire at ground floor
750 by 600 mm (30 by 24 in.)
Spacing
3.2 and 6.4 m (10 ft 6 in. and ?I ft)
Corc X- and K-braced framer
Braced frames were used lo increase the stiffness of the ACT Tower (Fig. 4.13) and to
achieve an optimum structural system (Figs. 4.14 to 4.16). Three u.ind-tunnel tesls were
performed:
I. A wind pressure test to evaluate facade pressures
2. A wind force test to measure the horizontal force, overturning moment, and tor.
sional moment
Sect. 4.11
3. A dynamic test to check the dynamic analysis results
I
The dynamic annllsis war performed using the mean and the standard dc\'iarion as
well as the power spectruln of the ovrnurning moment and the torsional moment coci-
I
cienls obi i ned i nt he wind force test 1
i The building response specva are obtained by combining the wind spectra (for the x,
y, and 8 directions) and the magnification factors versus frequency curve. As the build-
ing cross section is ellipsoidal, special consideration was given to getting the maximum
response values used in the design in the x, g, and E directions. The dynamic stability
and the possibility of galloping were also checked.
Strong winds can occur several times a year, causing uncomfortable building mq-
tion. In order to avoid this problem, a damping systcm has been installed to reduce the -
.
acceleration in t hey direction.
The building site is located in a very active seismic area. The largest eanhquakes in
this zone to dare were of magnitude 8. A special seismic analysis was performed using
the data of the three largest earthquakes that have originated in this area in order to
model the earlhquake waves and the maximum possible accelerations for the ACT
Towcr site. These 3 earthquake waves were 416 gallsec (550 mmlsec) (Ansei Tohka
1
earthquake); 150 gallsec (320 mmlsec) (Nohbi earthquake): and 332 gallsec (850
mmlscc) (Tohnankai earthquake).
i
Fig. 4.13 ACT Towcr. Humnmolsu City, Jnpnn.
70 Lateral Load Resisting Syst ems [Chap. 4
Mi c a 1 Structural Plan (Hotel)
>pica1 Structuroi Plnn (OCrice)
Fig. 4.14 'Typical slruelurul plunr; A C T Toner.
72 Lateral Load Resisting Systems
I! Ti%-
Fig.1.16 Y5A frame elemlion; ACT Tower.
Tllr typical floor pi2n of the Kobe Ponopix Holcl (Fig. 4.17) is .an oval, rncnsuring 7j.5
m (24.4 Ir) in the earl-weal dirccrion and 13.5 rn (4.4 f r ) in the north-soutl~ dirucrion IFlp.
4.18). Above the fifrh floor of the high-rise p m. strength and ductility are provided hy
[Chap. 4
I
Nikkeu Sekkei Ltd. with Portopia ~ o t ~ l
Design Of i ce
Nikken Sekkei Ltd. with Portopia
Design Office
Year of completion 1981
Height from street to roof 112 m (367 ft)
Number of stories 31
Number of levels below ground 2
Hotel
Fnme material Structural steel
1.8 kPa (36 psf)
Basic wind velocity Not available
Maximum lateral deflection 350 mm (13.75 in.)
3.5 sec transverse; 3.6 sec longitudinal
Design acceieration 20 mg; 35 mg for seismic loading
2%
Earthquake loading C = 0.08
Type of structure Moment frame and braced frame
i
Foundation conditions .
Fill over alluvial and diluvial strata
Raft on prestressed concrete driven piles
3.02 m (9 ft l l in.)
7.5 and 6.75 m (24 ft 7 in. and 22 ft 2 in.)
800 mm (31.5 in.)
7.5 m (24 ft 7 in.)
Steel, grade 400 and 490 MPn (58 and 70
ksi) 5th floor and above; concrete-encased
steel below 5th floor
Columns
Size at ground floor I100 by 1100 mm (43 by 43 in.)
Spacing
7.5 m (24 fi 7 in.)
Material
Steel encased in 24-MPa (3400-psi) con-
crete
Core
600-mm (24-in.) concrete shear walls be-
low 5th floor, smctural steel rigid frames
5th floor and above
using a reinforced concrete rigid frame. The fifth and lower floors, which have a larger
story height. have a composite structure of shear walls and rigid frames made of steel
encased in reinforced concrete (Fig. 4.19).
The site is part of about 500 ha (1200 acres) of artificially reclaimed ground. which
has been filled over a oeriod of 10 years, starting in 1965. Before building construction
commenced, the site Was preloaded. theoretically completing set t l emen~of the former
12-m (40-it)-thick sea-bottom clay layer. Because the building weigh1 is about 100.000
I k
tonnes (1 10.000 tons), a basement withgood foundation load balance was possible, with
the weight of h e excavated soil being designed to exceed the weight of the building.
Piles of about40-m (130-11) length were used. The building is supponed by using the
diluvial layer as the bearing stratum. In pile design, pile groups were used wherever pos-
sible to cope with unmeasured ncgative friction. Structural safety was confirmed by per-
forming a seismic response analysis of the building-pilc-bearing stratum composite
form against horizontnl seismic loads.
The floor plan has an unusual form, so various wind tunnel tests were performed to
investigate such factors as the wind force coelficicnt. the wind pressure coefficient, nm-
bienl wind velocity, and the dynamic stability against wind. In everything from the
structure itself to cladding matcrinls, external doors and windoms, and ground-lcvel
wind velocity, wind tunnel test rcsulls were used to ensure adequate safety and service-
ability.
Fig. 4.18 Typicul slructurul noor plnn; Kobe Purlopin Hotel
Fig. 4.17 Kobc Porlnpiu Holcl. Robe, Japan.
\ /
I 9 VrnrnesorR; Kobe Portoplu Hofcl,
Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 77
-?,..
.*+.
8:;: Nankai South Tower Hotel
ah
@ Osaka, Japan
* ,.
..,,
j Architect
&(
18, ,: Swctural engineer
I $&
41 :Year of completion
@
.,g~,
~* . ~.
. ~.
Number of stories
:*.:
I,S,
'A, :
:I: Building use
&~
.?,. Frame material
73,'
.,: .: .
Basic wind velocity
Mnximum lateral deflection
Design acceleration
Design damping
. .
.,
.,,. Eanhquake loading
:,
,. . .
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
...
2:.
<-
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Size at ground level
Spacing
Material
Core
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
1990
147 m (482 ft)
36
3
Hotel
Structural steel upper floors; concrete-en-
cased structural sleel plus concrete shear
walls lower floors
1.8 kPa (36 psO
35 d s e c (78 mph)
Not available
3.24 sec transverse; 3.03 scc longitudinal
Level 1 EQ. 13 to 25 mg; level 2 EQ. 21 to
40 mg
2%
C = 0.120
Level 5 and above, rigid frames; level 4
and below, combined frames and shear
walls
Grnvel
Cast-in-place 2-m (6.5-fr)-diameter bored
piles 10 m (33 ft) deep
3.2 m (10 ft 6 in.)
Primnry. 10.5 m (34 h 5 in.); secondary,
5.4 m (17 ft 8 in.)
850 mm (33.5 in.)
2.625 m (8 ft 7 in.)
Steel, grade 400 and 490 MPn (58 and
70 ksi)
140-mm (5.5-in.) concrete on metal deck
1300 by 1300 mm (51 by 51 in.)
10.5 m (34 ft 5 in.)
Steel, grade 49 MPa (7000 psi)
Shear wall. 34-MPa (3400-psi) concrete.
350 mm (14 in.) thick
This hotel was constructcd over a railway station, which had been designed and con-
structed by another firm up to the fourth floor 10 years earlier (Fig. 4.20). An expansion
of about the same extent was planned even in the original design, but there existed lim-
itations with regard to theallowable stress of the already constructed parts, including the
piles. While over the course of I 0 years structural codes had been modified, mal;ing it
more difficult to expand buildings constructed before the code changes, the design tech-
I
niques for high-rise buildings had not fundamentally changed, so the strength oft hc al-
ready constructed parts was for the most pan adequate. However, there was n planning
regulation change in that guest rooms must now have balconies, and it was necessary to
comply with the desires of a desiener. which chaneed the plans considerablv.
?hi increased weight due to balconies was handled by changing the spciific gravity
of the concrete irom an original 1.8 lo 1.65. In the original design, slanted columns had
ranged from the sixth to the twentieth floors, which was due to changes in thc spans of
t h e k o ~ e r and lower floors. and the desiener wanted to reduce thisnnee to dctwecn
. . -
llourr 9 md I?. Tu Improxc the ~.nruing reduction in h~l i dl ng rigidlly, the s n c 01 tile
c x~c nl d columns ~ 3 s incrcarcd. Thir supprcsrcd ihc overall hcnding deformation, and
at the same lime the inner coiumns were effectively used as shear columns. External
columns are larce boxed members. so in the lencth direction the oerimeter irame is used
- -
to rcsirt 111 01 ihe horironnl loading (Figs. 4 21 and I.??).
To facilit3te conrtruclion, bnlconics were dcsigncd in ihc L shops uilh 3 length of
10.5 m 134 it 5 in.). Pn:.lr~.swd cuncr2ls. oniv 90 mm 0 . 5 in1 thick. u a i used lo inioi-
mize the weight.
A composite floor, fire rated for 2 hours, was used in the typical guest room. The
deck has to be of the linked beam type (which covers at least two beam spans). In unit
bath areas, which had to be partially dropped, ordinary slabs using a flat deck were em-
ployed.
Fig. 4.21 Typlcnl noor plan; Nankui South Toscr Hotel.
Fig. 4.20 N~ n k o i South Tu n ~ r Hutcl, Omku, Jnpon.
Fig. 4.22 Fmmcrork; Nnnkni South Tower Holrl.
80
:g+
.$
+J:
.$I Ssct 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 81
i7.5. 1
~..=
9 World Trade Center
w *. :
*..
I
Osaka, Japan
ji
*", Architect
' S.
~ j <
*.
. -.: i Structural engineer
..:.
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design Fundamental period
Design velocity
Design damping
Eanhquake loading
Type of shucture
Foundntion conditions
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Matenal
Slab
Columns
Size at pound floor
Spacing
Material
Core
Material
Ni i enSekkei Ltd. with Mancini Duffy
Associates
Nikken Sekkei Ltd. with Mancini Duffy
Associates
1994
252 m (827 ft)
55
3
Office
I
Structural steel
3 kPa (60 psf)
40 d s e c (90 mph)
1300 mm (51 in.). 200-yr return period
wind
Level 1 EQ. 250 mm/sec (10 inJsec);
level 2 EQ. 500 mmtsec (20 in./sec)
2%
C = 0.05 longitudinal; C = 0.075 trans-
verse
Rigid frames with core braced trans-
versely
20-m (65-ft 7-in.) fill over alluvial clay
and sand strata
Cast-in-place steel-lined bored piles
belled at their bust
4.0 m (13 ft 1.5 in.)
16 rn (52 ft 6 in.)
900 mm (35 ft 5 in.)
3.2 and 9.6 m (10 R 6 in. and 31 ft 6 in.)
Steel, grade 400 and 490 MPa (58 and
70 h i )
175-mm (7-in.) concrete on metal deck
650 by 850 mm (25.5 by 33.5 in.)
3.2 and 9.6 m (10 ft 6 in. and 31 ft 6 in.)
Steel, grade SM 53B
Steel fmmes, braced in transverse direction
Stee!, grade 490 MPa (70 ksi)
Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
This 252-m (827-it)-high building stands on reclaimed land in the Osaka Nanko (soulh
port) area (Fig. 4.231. As a consequence, the design of the foundation structure and the
resistance to wind were painstakingly invesligated.
A lypical high-rise floor is 36 by 70 m (1 18 by 230 it), and the building has an ex-
tremely slender form where the ratio of shorl side lo heieht is 1:7 (Fies. 4.24 and 4.25).
- .
Beiuw lhc sevenlh flonr, colu~nns ard trnesiendd lo tltc perimeter, iormiltg a supenruss
fr3nlc in order lu slrenglllen lile rusistnnce to !r'~nd and uanhquakcr. and !$idcly distrib-
ute nxiill forces of the high-rise building o\ cr t ht ground. Titis forms n ' h~ r r " for [he
tower, which i s integrated with the undeirground slructure.
Wind is a more dominant laleral load for this building than earthquakes. The wind
load for the design, including vibration assessment, was determined from the rcsull.; of
wind tunnel testing. The testing investigated instabilities as well as accelerations likely
to affect the comfort of occupants, unstable vibration due to wind, and habitability dur-
ing swaying of the building duc lo wind forces.
As the site is anilicially reclaimed land, and settlement due to canh filling is not
complete. the cast-in-place steel-pipe concrele piles used are coated with asphall to re-
duce friction with the surrounding ground. The bearing stratum is a diluvial sand)
gravel layer around 60 rn (197 it) below ground level.
Fig. 4.24 Typical noor plnn; World Trndc Ccnlcr, Oruku.
Fig. 4.13 World Trode Ccnlcr, Omkn, h p u n .
I . . . . I . . - I . . ! . - ! . . - !
0 0 9 B m
0
Fig. 4.25 Frun~c,vorli: World Trndc Ccnlcr, Osuha.
Kobe Commerce, Industry and Trade Center
Kobe, Japan
Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
S~uct ur al engineer Nikken Se ke i Ltd.
Height from svect to roof 110.06 m (363 it)
Building use Office
Frame material Steel
Typical floor live load 3 P a (60 psfJ
Basic wind vclocity Unknown
Maximum lateral deflection HI400
Design fundamental period 3.42 scc each direction
Design accclcration 20 mg elastic: 40 mg elastoplastic
Design damping 2%
Type of structure Perimeter framed tube \\,it11 diagonally
braced core
Foundation conditions Alternating gravel and diluvial clay strata
Footing type Raft
Typical noor
Story height 3.84 m (12 ft 7 in.)
Beam span 9.45 m (31 ft)
Beam depth 600 mm (24 in.)
Beam spacing 3 m (9 ft 10 in.) .
Material Steel. grade 400 MPa (58 ksi) above 1st
floor, concrete-encased structural steel 1 st
floor and below
Slab 160-mm (6.25-in.) concrctc on metal deck
Columns
Sire at ground floor 700 by 700 mm (27.5 by 27.5 in.)
Spacing ' 3 m (9 ft 10 in.)
Material Steel, grade 490 MPn (70 ksi)
Core Strucmral steel with prestressing-bar di-
agonal bracing
This building is structurally characterized by its "tube-in-lube structure." which consists
of perimeter wall frames with 3-m (10-it) spans and internal braced frames using pre-
stressing steel bars for diagonal bracing (Figs. 4.26 to 4.28). For the purpose of effi-
ciently increasing the earthquake resisting capacity of a building, it is preferable to de-
sign its slructure in a bending failure mode so as to disperse the yielding of frames
[Chap. 4
during an earthqualie. To achieve this objective, the tube-in-tube structure was adopted
$!
for this building. 1 !
Fig. 4.26 Kobc Cemnlcrre, Industry nnd Trndc center, J, , ~~, , .
For the braced frames using prestressing steel bars, F13T steel bars serve as diago-
nal braces (Fig. 4.29). These braces have a wide elastic range and thus can resist the
maximum seismic forces within the elastic region. This enables the overall struchlre to
act in a bending failure mode, thereby securing stable recovery characteristics. In this
way the structure is designed to be effective from an aseismic viewpoint.
87
3
Ir
g:
: ! <:
si
,.,,
:?
*x:
isj.
?. .
P e r i m e t e r f r a m e B r a c e d f r a m e
Fig. 4.27 Fmmcnorli: Kobe Commerce, lnduslry and Trndc Cenlcr.
P e r i m e t e r B r a c e d
Ln
4 . f r a m e \ / f r a m e
1 3 6 . 9 0 0 ]
Fig. 4.18 Typiutl rtructurnl noor plan: Kobe Commerce, industry nnd Trndc Center.
Sect 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 89
Fig. 4.29 Specimen of brnced frnme wi ng prcstruing bars; Kobe Commerce, Industry and
Trade Center.
90 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resist~ng Frame Systems 91
I E I
Marriott Marquis Hotel
New York, N.Y.. USA
Architect John Portman Associates
S t ~ c t u n l engineer Weidlinger Associates
Building use Hotel
Typical floor live load 2 kPa (40 psO
Basic wind velocity 36 mlsec (80 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection 300 mm (12 in.), 100-yr return
Design fundamental period 5 sec
Design acceleration 20 mg peak. 10-yr return
Design damping I% serviceability; 2% ultimate
Earthquake loading Not applicable
Type of SlNcture Braced and rigid frsmes
Foundation conditions Rock, 4-lvlPa (40-tonlft') capecity
Footing type Spread footings
Typical floor
Story height 3.05 m ( I 0 h)
Beam depth 460 mm ( I 8 in.)
Beam spacing 3.05 m ( I 0 ft)
Material Steel, grade 250 MPa (36 ksi)
Slab Precast concrete. 300 mm (12 in.) thick
Columns 610- by 610-mm (24- by 24-in.) built-up I
shape from 90- to 203-mm (3.5- to 8-in.)
plates, grade 30- to 35-MPa (4200 to 5000
psi) steel
Core Reinforced concrete beam and column
frame with 13 columns in a circle
Facing Times Square on a block front between 45th and 46th Streets. the new 167.000-
m' (1.8 million ft') hotel rises 50 stories above the street (Fig. 4.30). The two sheer fin
walls along the two side streets contrast sharply with the stepped and skylit facade fac-
ing Broadway. It is surmounted by a projecting, rotating cocktail lounge seven storics
above the ground, actually the lobby level of the hotel. Above are five-story packages
of hotel rooms that are stepped back and forth between the tin rraalls like a giant's lad-
der. The first six floors of the building contain public facilities, including a 1500-seat
theater, a ballroom, exhibition and meeting rooms, and revail space.
Fig. 4.30 hlnrriott hlnrqnir Hetcl, New York, undcr construction. (Pl!aro b), Jennreier Leby.)
92 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 .
A circular concrete core, wilh 12 Tivoli lighted elevators and four enclosed eleva-
tors, rises from the street level through the public levels, breaking free at the lobby level,
into a spectacular 35-story atrium (Fig. 4.31). I1 terminates at a multilevel rotating
rooftop restaurant Skylights on the east facade, between the five-story packages of ho-
tel rooms, bring daylight into the atrium, shining down onto the hotel lobby. The 3 5
guest room floors,. wilh 1876 rooms, are disposed in rectangular bands around the
atrium. From the guest floor corridors, with their projecting planters presenting an im-
age of the hanging gardens of Babylon, one can look down at the parklike lobby sur-
rounded by colorful restaurants.
As a structure, the building is equally unique, consisting of a steel-framed structure
surrounding the slip-formed concrete core. Between the two I I-m (36-it)-deep fins, a
34-m (1 12-it) clear span is framed using girders below the lobby and five-story Vieren-
Pig.4.31 Elcvntar core rises 180 m (600 10 through ntriurn to r~volving rc;tnuronls: hlnrrintt
hlurquis Hotel.
deel frames for the packages of hotel rooms. These hotel room oackares were oririnallv
. - .
conceivrd to,be supponed by slerl trusses. The Vierendeel irames nor only climinatcd
rhc trusses, but being tied into the s~de-wi ng venical fr3mcr. pro\.ide st i i fnes in the
north-south direction. Stmctumlly. the building is a U with coiumns 8.5 m (28 it) on
center along the thrcu sides, with the closure pro\*idcd by the 31-01 ( 1 12-fi)-\pan V~r r en-
.deel frames. The two sides of the buildingmd the back are rigid iramcs above the lobby
and arc vuased hctween lobbv and round floor. To urovidc the reuuircd 131~ra1 stiffness
in the iront, the vierendeel;, combined with a &divided vertical frame on the two
sides, form superframes. In order to avoid the added columns at the ground level, the
columns placed 6 m (20 fl) from the nonh or south side are. in fact. nosts with vertical
.
slip joint5 at midhe~gltt betuecn floors.
At the hack of the building, along column line I?, a single irantc. cross hrsced bc-
low the lobhv. oro\,ides the stiffness in the north-south dirxrion. Sincc the eroun of
- ~ - ~ r -~
three superfr&nLs in the front (at column lines 3. 4, and 5 ) have substantially different
stiffness, a process of fine-tuning wns undertaken to match deflections betwccn the
packet of superframes and the single frame as closely as possible. The purpose of this
exercise was to avoid torsion in the building. In this connection it should be noted that
even if the two were perfectly matched, a 5% eccentricity is required by the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) between the centroids of mass and rigidity. This has the effect of
requiring a 10% increase in shear carried by the diaphragm above that, resulting from
lateral wind iorces.
Below the lobbv. the floor construction is conventional metal deck and concrete fill.
. . ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
For the guest room floors, this construction was originally specified. However, since a
ceiling is required and since spans for the metal deck are limited, necessitating more
beams, an alternative, using long-span precaslconcrete plank without topping, wus cho-
sen, based on economic considerations. Not only did this result in a reduction in the
number of steel beams, but it also eliminated a hung ceiling since the underside of the
plank is a finished surface. The more than 93.000 mz ( I million it2) of plank used makes
this a most dramatic application of plank floors in a high-rise building. As a result oft he
innovative use of both the Vierendeel msses and the concrete floor plank (which are
only mar~i nal l v heavier than the orieinal metal deck and concrete solution). the steel
. - . - .. ~
structure with less thon 117 kglm' (?4 psO is extremely efficient and economical.
The planks. a p m from providing normal \enicaI load-carrying capacity. arc re-
quired tu provide the d ~a p h r a ~r n rrsisuncc, transicrring all lateral force5 to the vcnical
\rind irorncs. Becnuse of the height of the building and the unujual configomtiun, this
implied special rcquircmel~ts for the plank Bas~cally. the plank l~tusl do rhe fi~llowrng:
I. Support dead and live loads
2. Transfer wind iorces to bracing members
3. Transfer column-stability forces to bracing mcmbcrs
4. Transfer forces between bmcing members
Since the planks are an inherent part of the stability of the structure, pl ank were
placed, grouted, and welded in sequence with the erection of the stccl irame. A rapid-
setting, nonshrink grout with high early strength was specified for the grouting of t he
joints between ulanks. These ioinls. which have shear kevs with castellations. have been . ~ -~~
i hui rn hg cp&itncnt tu proCldu adequate shenr strcng;h for diaphragm action with n
grnut strength of 17 >!Pa (2500 psi). Fur this project. a design strength of 35 hlPn (5000
psi1 w:!s spec~liud to prnvidc higher carly strcngth and 2 magi n ofs;tf<ty lor the ultremc
ueather condition5 to bc encountered during the construction cycle. Sinc? nu topping is
uacd, dixphragm action rdllrs solely un the ~nrcgrit) of t h~. j o~nt 2nd thc anchor.
[Chap. 4
Taj Mahal Hotel
Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design wind load deflection
Design acceleration
Design damping
Eanhquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Truss span
Truss depth
Truss spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Core
Francis Xavier Dumont
Paulus Sokolowski and Sanor, Inc.
1990
128 m (420 ft)
42
0
Hotcl
Steel with precast concreie perimeter
beams
Rooms 2 P a (40 psO; corridors 4 Wa (80
P ~ O
40 d s e c (90 mph)
254 mm (10 in.)
3.0 sec
1.8 mg rms, l-yr return period
1% scrviceabiiity
C = 0.037; K = I .O (did not govern design)
Staggered steel trusses and braced steel
core transverse, rigid perimeter frame lon-
gitudinal direction
27 m (90 ft) of loose sand and thin organic
strata over dense sand
355-mm (14-in.)-diameter steel-shell driven
cast-in-place concrete piles. 1500-ki-4 (165-
ton) capacity
2.69 m (8 ft 10 in.)
20.7 m (68 ft)
2.69 m (6 ft 10 in.)
.
9.14 m (30 ft)
Structural steel
100-mm (4-in.) precast slabs with 100-
mm (4-in.) cast-in-place topping: 3 5 . ~ ~ ~
(5000 psi) concrete
Built-up steel. 2230 kglm (1500 Iblft)
9.1 by 20.7 m (30 by 68 ft)
Structural steel, grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Braced steel frames, gnde 350 MPa (50
h i )
r
Se c t 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 95
When the developer wanted a 1200-room high-rise luxury hotel right on the exposed
oceanfront, a prime concern of t he designers was occupant comfort. Building sway and
acceleration had to be minimized.
Preliminary analyses and cost studies were made of four basic structural systems:
Steel staggered truss with concrete floors
Concrete frames with shear core and other shcar walls
Concrete-fnmcd lube with concrete shear core
Steel-framed tube with shear core
All svstems excenl the staeeered truss reouired relativelv laree shear wallr to con-
-- . .
~ ~
trol ssra).. and the hci v~l y l o~de d wills rcquircd l;lrgc and cxpcnsivc fueling s)ste,ns. In
iddillon lhe slccl-ir:mi.d lube h:!d p r u b l ~ m~ of uplift. Rcl;,tive car15 w r e .
Steel staggered truss 1.00
Concrete frames and shear rvnlls 1.25
Concrete-framed tube 1.10
Steel-framed tube 1.40
The stagg~.rr.d truss f r ~mi ng syrlcm rvas dcvr.1npr.d Ry a US. Steel-spunsured rc-
s23rch learn nor l i ng 21 hl.1.T. i f , the inid-1960s. Its hilsic ~ I C ~ I C I I I is thc \ I U T ) - ~ U L . ~ I ~ U I I
which spans the full width of the buildine at alternate floors on each coiumnlinc. ilcncc
the floor spans from the top chord of one truss to thc bottom chord of adjacent trusses
so that each truss is iondcd on both the lop and the bottom chords and is laterally fully
restrained.
Because all eravitv load is suooorted at the oerimeter of the buildine. the tvholc of
& . . .
th? huild~ng a d i ~ l ~ t c3n hi. ~ I I O ~ I ~ I L L . ~ 10 rdsist ovcrturnlng eff~. cl s.
Lxcral iorc~.s are transmitted from floor to flour d0u.n the building via the llonr dl-
aohraems and I NSS web members. The oerimeter columns c a m onlv-axial load in the
. - . .
transverse direction and can therefore have their strong axis oriented longitudinally to
form part of a longitudinal rigid frame.
The layout of the Taj Mahal Hotel (Fig. 4.32) with a central double-loaded corriddr
suited the staggered truss arrangement as it allowed the provision of a Viercndeel panel
midspan, where the shear is least, for the corridor.
With the structural svstem selected. a wind tunnel studv rvas canied out to determine
atruculnl forces, d)n:trnic bch:,\,ior, c1;ldding pressures, 2nd cnr,irnnnicst31 eifccts s1
ground level. Frdm this. the design l;ltcr:,l looding, building driit, 2nd acceleration ncrr.
established.
Because this is a tall buildine for a staeeered truss svstem. the shears in the floors
uu
were an important design consideration. The 200-mm (8-in.)-thick slnbs comprise pre-
cast pretensioned concrete pl ank tapered on their top surface from 127 mm (5 in.) thick
midspan to 76 mm (3 in.) thick each end, where they are supponed on top of the 254-mm
(IO-in.) -!vide flange steel truss chord, and a cast-in-place topping. The shear connection
between floors and trusses is achieved by stud shear connectors (Figs. 4.33 and 4.34).
Because of functional and architeclural requirements, the staggered truss systcm
could not be used at all locations. As a consequence, two other systems were used, a
core frame and an end frame. The core framc consists of a truss system with n truss at
every floor. but with n vertical stiffness to match the staggered trusses. The truss at
every level !\,as required to carry shears from lateral loading without reliance on the
floor diaphragm which, at this location, is heavily penetrated by service openings.
The three-bay end frame comprises a diagonally braced center bay and outer bays of
rigid framing connected to large perimeter columns. This frame is 13.7 m (45 ft) wide
compared to the 20.7-m (68-ft) width of the typical frames (Fig. 4.35).
Wind shears are transferred to the foundations by embedding the bottom chords of
the lowest trusses in large concrete-gnde beams. On the lines where the lowest truss
Elg. 432 Toj hfnhnl Hotel,AtlnnUe City, New Jcmey.
97
:gi
..i'
.@:,
was one story above the footings, a diagonal brace was provided at the columns to trans-
(g:
fer the load to a steel beam embedded in the footing, similar to the adjacent truss hot-
._.
tom chord. A pile cap at a typical staggered truss bay is 7.6 m (25 ft) square and 2.9
4 . , (8 fi) deep, supported on 36 piles. . , , ,
, ..:.-
Both structural steel and concretespandrel beams wereconsidered. with the lnnerh.ino 1
selectcd as they best sui l d architectud and fire-nting rquiremenk. lllc
I
mrn (48- by 12-in.) beam rigidly connwtedtothc largrrxtcriorcolumns nnd the small
I .*;.
....
height created a f nme easily capable of resistine. the lon~itudinal wind forces r~; : .
. --.
fab&alor cut the 44- and 57~mm~diameter(+l4 &d 818) reinforcing b m and uclded them
I ;
lo sael Trectians hol d for bolting nt each end before delivering thcm lo the Prucalcr ~ h .
~~. .... ,,,~
, . finished beams included a shear key and reinforcement for connection to thislabs.
. , : , .
.;$; !
.,..
~ -.,,. , .
-21
...
,.-
<.,%I
->.,
,..**
Fig. 433 Typical noor plnn; Tnj Mnhnl Hotcl.
Typical building exterior column
0
I "+ A490X bolls
1 " Section
Fig. 4 3 1 Spandrel beam delnil; Tuj Mnhnl Hulel.
INTERIOR
STAGGERED-
TRUSS BENT
\Piles (typical)
CORE FRAME END FRAME
Fig. 4.35 Fromewurk and typical buy reelion; Taj hlnhul Hotel.
It
Tokyo Marine Building
Osaka, Japan
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Matenal
Kajima Design
Kajima Design
1990
118 m (387 ft)
27
3
Office, retail space, parking
Steel
0.79 kPa (16.4 psf)
35 d s e c (78 mph) a1 10-m height
Seismic conlrol
3.31 sec longitudinal; 3.95 sec transverse
4 mg peak, 5-yr return
2%
Base shear coefficient 0.08
hloment resisting frnmc
Fine sand
Cast-in-olace concrete oile: 22-m (72-ft)
length, 5.4-m (7.9-ft) djameter, wiih 4-4
(13-ft) bell
3.9 m (12 ft 9 in.)
21 m (69 ft)
900 mm (36 in:)
6.75 m (22 ft)
Steel, grade SM 490, 483-MPa (70 ksi)
tensile strength and below
155-mm (6.1-in.) lightweight concrete
slab on cormgated deck
500 by 500 mm (20 by 20 in.)
10.8, 21 m (35, 69 ft)
Steel. grade SM 490
Tlic Tokyo hlcrine building i s n 27-story officl: building locatcd in the Osaka burinsrr
park district bring develuprd just cast of Osaka Castlc. Japan (Fig. 4.36). The burld~ng
urovide~ about 69.000 m' (743.000 11'1 of arca for offices. ret ~i l . and n~rkina. Cun-
. .
, -
struciion was completed in 1990. i\rchitccturaily the buildins a.as conceived to fir into
tht c~~vi roo~nent of thc Osaka business p3rk and ro runect the imagl: ofthc cl~ent. Tokyo
Marine. As the base of operations in western Japan for Tokyo ~ & n e , the building tvis
Fig. 4.36 Tuk).u Rlurlnc building. Oaaku, Japun.
I
designed to have high-tech capabilities, to reflect ils prestige appropriately by its exter-
nal appearance. and also to be attractive to tenants as office space.
The building has a rectangular plan to fit into the site surrounded by two high-rise
buildings on the longer sides. The exterior facade, exposing columns and beams outside
the building, brings to mind the simple lines of traditional Japanese wood-frame details
and gives a clear identity as well (Fig. 4.37). The lateral force resisting system of the
Fig. 4.37 Pilotis columns: Tokyo hlurtnc building.
building consists of the framed columns interconnected with long-span beams [10.8,21-
m ( 704) spans]. This allows for an open public urea at the plaza level of the building
and column-free space across the width of the building with a 2.7-m (9-ft) ceiling height
on the office floors.
The building is framed in slrucluml steel (Fig. 4.38). Each frame column consists of
four vertical membcn joined by short 12.7-m (9-ft)-span] beams to create a three-di-
rnen~ional swcture. The combination of the short beams in between the framed column ~~ - ~- ~~~
cicnlcntr and the long-span bcamr cre:ttes unusual static charoclerisrics: migrntiun of
column loads. the shorn-span beams being loaded more lightly in bending than the long-
swan beams. and an unusunl failure-hinge mechanism for extreme xi smi c events.
m 3 mpiium-rise buildine. short-sean beams yield at their SuppoN under relatively ~~~~ -~ -. . .
low loading levels due 10 a conccntmtion of bending stiffness. Houevcr, in this case the
effect of axial deformation; of the frame columns was the dominant mode of behavior.
An incremcntallv increasine static analysis on an elastic-plastic model C'pushover"
analysis) was c a ke d out to obr3in the sceleton cun, cs for story shear. From this analy-
sis thc formntion of plastic hinges at the supportsof the long-span beams. with the shorn-
span bur ns remaining claslic even at high eanhquake le!,cls, was notablc.
' FRAMED
COLUMN
103
The structure was planned with an unusually long main span of 21 m (70 ft) across
the full building width. In such cases the vertical component of an earthquake can have
a significant effect on the beam slresses. This was investigated by modeling a typical
bay as a two-dimensional frame. Dynamic analysis was carried out using the time his-
tory of four earthquake records, inputting their lateral and vertical components simulta-
neously. As a preliminary step, the modes of vibration of the structure were obtained,
from which it was found that the fifth mode was the first mode in the vertical direction
nnd involved axial tension nnd compression in the columns, with all the beams vihrat-
ing together. Only at higher modes did the beam vibration become more complex.
The analysis was carried out at two levels of earthquake input. The following were
the results.
I. At 250- mdsec (10-in./sec) peak input level. the long-span beams developed
large bending moments, in particular high up in the building. It was verified that
even including these stresses. the beams remained within the short-term allotv-
able stresses according to the Japanese design criteria.
2. At 400- mdsec (80-in./sec) peakinput level, due to the effect of the vertical com-
ponent of the earthquake. elastic hinees at the ends of lone-snan beams develooed
- u . , ~ ~ -
early on, but the structun remained elaslic in its overall heh3vior and did not de-
grade its ovsr-ll dynamic stiffness charactarislics. Thc reason for this 1s that scr-
tically the period of vibration is much shorter than horizontallv. such that thc
stmciurc isnblc to recover its clastic characteristics. From this risult it was con-
cluded that using horizontal earthquake time history records only for the main re-
I sponse analysis was appropriate
I
Although the bullding is not of irregular shape, wind tunnel testtng was carned out
to investteate the effect of the cxeosed column frames on the surface rourhness dnd ef-
- - ~ ~
I
fcctive l r ont ~l ; ma o i the building 11 was also dcsir3ble to prcdiot the vibration bt har -
iur of llte build~tig under wind loading, since its period is rei;!tlvclg long. Using ihc prcs-
surd cnefficienls from the uind lunncl test. the base shear from u.ind is ahout giro that
of seismic ct,ents. In terms of acctl.aation. it uns pr~.dicted (ha1 although the upper lev-
zls u,ould e~pcri cncc a peak ncceicration of around 4 mK. his ,\auld nut cause any dis-
comfort.
It was considered that since the exposed frame was outside the main building glar-
tng Itne, it would not be subject to the same intensity of fire as a normal frame, and
therefore could be fire-vrotected to an anoroor~atelv lesser deeree. An annlvsis was oer-
i annedont hcf r ame\ <, ~r n rubjectedio n.&rtCsdisc/lsrging fro; insidu 1hc i oi l di ng. !~hc
rcsults shou,vd that the beams uould hc heated 10 273'C and the columns to ?81' C
the outside of their aluminum claddine. Since the critical lemverature for steel in a firs
-
nlay bc lakc,! ar 350C ;,\,crape (with 3 n~nximuln uf 45O'C). the conulusiolt unr dnwn
tIt:!t no fire protection was needed at ail for the cxlcrn.ll froinc. llpon craminxinn b) the
Building Csnlcr Flre Safety and Protection Commitlcc. 10 rnm (0.4 in ) o f fire-res~sl;tnt
cladding material was finoily agreed upon, which represented a substantial reduction in
fireproofing material.
Fig. 4.38 Framing pcrspcclivc; Tn k ~ o hlurinc building.
Kamogawa Grand Tower
Kamogawa, Japan
Architect
Smcnt nl engineer
Ye x of completion
Height fmm slreet to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frnme material
Basic wind velocity
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of smcture
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Material
Slab
Columns
Material
Kajima Design
Kajima Design
1992
105 m (344 A)
33
1
Hotel and condominium
Concrete
1.77 !@a (36.9 psO
35 mlsec (78 mph) at 10-m (3341) height
2%
Shear coeficient0.085
Moment resisting frame with honeycomb
damper wall
Fine smdy layer over clay layer over shale
rock layer
Cast-in-place concrete pile; 19-m (62-ft)
length. 1.7-m (5.6-A) diameter, with 2.8-
m (9.2ft) bell
2.85 m (9 ft 4 in.)
4.5 md 9 m (15 and 30 ft)
700 mm (27.5 in.)
Reinforced concrete, normal weight
160-mm (6.3-in.) concrete
900 by 900 mm (35.5 by 35.5 in.)
Concrete. 23 to 41 MPa (3400 to 6000 psi)
The Kamogawa Grand Tower is composed of ductile moment resisting frames
(Fig. 4.39). The high-rise reinforced concrete (HiRC) conslruction method developed
by Kajima Corporation was used. It consists of pure reinforced concrete columns, gird-
ers, and floor slabs tvhich are cast on site (Fig. 4.40). The typical floor plan is a stair-
shaved vlan alone the catcrior zones. which consists of rceular souare units 4.5 rn ( 1 5 ~- - ~ ~
11) i n a kide (~i ~. -4. 41). The standard p a n is chis? 5 m (l<fl) c r c ~pt ;11 [he central cnr-
ridor, sherc !he spitn is 9.0 rn (30 it) hy skipping columns susraincd by rhc cross gird-
en. Ths cnure struclurl: is desisncd In be au~roairnalelv ssmmctric ilonl! 45 nnd 135O
. -
orientations from the orthogon~l so that carthqu&e resistance is balance: in all lateral
directions.
:@f
I j&
iga.
107
On typical floors, steel plates with honeycomh-shaped openings are installed in the
central corridor connecting to the cross girders (Fig. 4.42). Post columns extending from
the midspan of upper- and lower-story girders are spliced at midstory using these
damper plates, connected by high-strength bolts through gusset plates. Thus the story
shear drift is concentrated in the damper plates. Sixteen units of damper plates and post
WALL WITH hONEY- COMPRESSIVE DESIGN
COMB DAMPER STRENGTH OF COhCRETE
columns are installed in each typical story. The seismic response of the building is re.
duced by the hysteresis damping effect due to the yielding of the steel plates.
The seismic design criteria for two levels of design earthquake were established as
follows:
1. Severe earrhquake: The stresses in all slructural members must be less than the
allowable values and the story drift must be less than 11200.
2. Worsr earrhquake: Even if the structural members exceed allowable limits, ex-
cessive large plastic deformation should not he caused and the story drift must be
less than 11100.
Referring Lo the preliminary earthquake response resulls in considcrntion of the hvs-
lrresis steel dlmper, the slory shear coufficienls 3rc dcltrm~ncd The design a ind sbc;!rs
arc nbnul56Sn of the seismic valucs. In order to secure tbc 111tirn;llu strung11 olthu struc-
tural lrame, it U 3 S cst;~bli~hed that t h~. mr y shunr cap;,city rrould hc 1.5 times !hat of
. .
the design earthquake shear forces. The uldmate hcnding and shear strength of the
columns was designed to he at least 1.25 times greater than that of the girder, so that
yielding to bending in the girders precedes yield in the columns: hut at the tops of the
columns, in the lop story and at the bottom of lhc first story, thc bending yield in the
columns is considered.
From the earthquake responses of the structure to both severe and worst-case events
it was assured that the final desien of the moment resistine frame structure was com-
-
plclsly s3t1sf~ctog. rvilh respuct tu the design criteria. hlnrco\cr, "ring the huncycor~lb
sICL.I plates 35 hysleresi dampcrr. not only a well-bilanced structurs hut also s2vints i n
the volume of reinforced concrete may hc realized.
I
Fig. 4.40 Framing rlcvulilln In tllc). dlrcctinn: Knrnugurn Grund Tu$vrr.
Fig. 4.41 Tgplcnl nuar plun; Knrnogonn Grnnd Tosrcr.
j
Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems
I ;
1 0 0 1 . I " I ' I ' I 1 0 0
600
SHAPE OF HONEYCOMB DAMPER PLATE
0
0
BEAM
w
HONEYCOMB
N
L 6 0 0 - l
MAIN
REBAR 10-032
HOOP D13-a100
Fig. 1.42 Shilpe and tnrtntlolion olhoneycornb dornpcr ptolc; Knrnogn~m Grnnd Toscr.
4.2 SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS
I &
Shear walls have been the most common structural systems used in the past for smbi i i r
$%
'
i na building structures aeainst horizontal forces caused bv wind or earthsuakes. With the
. - - -
i!.
advcnt oircinforced concrete, shear wall systems have become widely uscd to stabilize ef-
ficiently even the tallest building slructures. In the last 10 yc-rs, concrete tcchnology has
.,:
I "; nd\,anccd lo a point where concrete streneths of over 130 hlPa (19.000 psi) arc achievable
in the field. T k s has led to the design of the proposed 610-m (2000:itj Miglin-Beitler
Tower in Chicago (which would become the world's tallest building), relying heavily on
a shear wall svslem of verv-hieh-slreneth concrete to resist horizontal forces.
A common shear wd l ; ys t ~m used-for tall office buildings groups shear walls around
service cores, elevator shafts, and stairwclls to form a stiff box-type structure, such as for
the Melbourne Cenlrnl building in Auslralia (Chapter 3.2). In this example the need to
enclose and lire-protect 21 passengerelevators, service elevators. two stainvells. lobbies,
and service risers created the framework for a ni ff concrete box-type shear wall system.
In contrast with oftice buildings, high-rise residential buildings have less demand for
elevators, lobbies, and services, and hence do not usually have large stiff concrete shear
wall boxes to resist horizontal forces. A more common system will incorporate a small
box structure around a smaller number of elevators and stairwells, and include discrete
shear walls between apartments.
In both shear wnll systems noted, the walls are designed lo canulever from the founda-
tion level. To deslen shear walls -need around service cores. the bcndine. shcar, and
- - -
!<,arping stroses duc to !\ ind or cmhqoake lo3ds arc combined eith slr:sses due to pmvll)
loldc. Indi\,idunl wdl, within thc box system can then hc designed as unit-length u,alls span-
nine either noor to flour or bctu,ccn return walls. Reinforcrmcnt is proponioncd as iollon,:
. .
1. Minimum shrinkage restraint reinforcement where the wall stresses are low,
which can be for a subsmntinl ponion of the shear wall.
. .
..
2. Tensile reinforcement for areas where tension stresses occur in walls when wind
~ ~ l i f 1 slresses exceed eravitv stresses.
- .
3. Compressive reiniorccmcnt with conlinumunt ties u hcre high cumpressi\,e forces
rcquir: that ualls b~. des~pned as c ol ~mns . Individual shcnr walls, say at the edge
of a tall huildinp. are dcsiknrd either 3s blade walls or as col uo~ns rer~sling shcar
, . ~ . . -
.,.
and bending as required. -
i ; b
> ,'
. i. Mul t i ~l e shear walls throuehout a tall buildine mnv be couoled to vrovide additional
- - .
iramu action and hcncc increasr ovcr2ll building stilfncsr. Coupling can bc realized hy
rulalivel) shallow hrader or link b u ms within the ceiling cavil) at each Irvcl or by
I .. means of one- or two-story-high shear coupling walls. By adding a coupling shear wall
at a single level, reverse curvature is induced in the core above the coupling shear wall,
I
significnntly reducing lateral drift by increasing thc overall building stiffness. As the in-
crease in mass is minimal, there will be an increase in the building's natural frequency.
1 This can be a desirable effect. in oarticular with resoect to achievine an accentablc
. .
uind-induced ncr~lcmtion response tu cnsurc occupxn~ comforr. Ccntrnl cure hnxus can
31ro hc coupled \In slifi beams nr lri.,sus, ol discrule lc\uls, Id urlcm>l shear u;ills or
columns to achieve a similar and more pronounced effect than that noted. Thus the con-
crete shear wall becomes the central component in a core and oulrigger system.
Many tall buildings undergo torsional loading due to nonalignment oft he building shear
cenar wilh the location of the horizontal load application. Such a situation occurs in the
CitySpire Building (Chapter 4.3) due to the asymmetry of Ule location of the shear wall
boxes. Torsional loading can also be induced in a building such as Bourke Place (Chapter
3.2) due to theneriodic sheddine of windvoltices altemalelv fmmeachside of h e shucntre,
-
moving the insvmtmcous center of pressure oul nf line ai d) thc building's shearcenat.
Boxed shear all systems pro! ide an efficient means of resisting such lnrsinn. Torsion
is resisted bv both wa&ine &d uniform shear. Particular care must be tnken during com-
. - -
purer modeling of boxed shear udl s lo reflect penetrations forelevator and stair doon. Cal-
culation of incltiv based on a reduced uall thichess, depending on the number of shear
wdl nenemtions. is common. Boxed shcar wall systems &e very well suited to regular plan
- .
oMice buildings. as demonsmled in many of ale project examples in this section. Con-
slruclion advanwges ofr<infomed concrele shear uall systems include the following:
1. Central-services core shear walls can be efficiently constructed using slip-form
orjump-form techniques. In the case of 120 Collins Skeet, a 4%-day cycle was
achieved, ensuring that core wall construction was well off the critical path.
2. High-strength concrete hns enabled wall thicknesses to be minimized, hence
maximizing rentable floor space.
3. Technology exists to pump and place high-strength concrete at high elevntions.
4. Fire rating for service and passenger elevator shafts is achieved by simply plac-
ing concrete of a determined thickness.
5. The need for com~l ex boltcd or site-welded steel connections is avoided.
6. Wcll-detailed reinforced concrete will develop about twice as much damping as ,
structural steel. This is an advantage where acceleration serviceability is a criti-
cal limit state, or for ultimate limit state dcsign in earthquake-prone areas.
Although thcse advantages make concrete shear wall systems a compclitive construc-
tion method, the following must also be considered:
1. Shear walls formed around elevator and service risers require a concenvation of
openings at ground level where stresses are critical.
2. Torsional and flexural rigidity is affected significantly by the number and size of
oocnines around the she& wails throuehout the heieht of the buildine.
. -
3. In 1 and 2 it is difficult to gauge the effect of openLgs precisely wilhout undertnk-
ing time-consuming finite-element analysis.
4. Shear wall vertical movements will continue throughout the life of the building.
n ~ e ~ r impact on the integrity of i hr sIructure nlust b;rvalu31rd at the design slag;.
5. Consuruclion lime is gsnerally slou,er I I I ~ for n sleel-framed building.
6. The additional ueirhl of the \ er~i cal concrete elemcnts as compared to steel will in-
-
duce a cost penalty for the foundations.
7. An incrense in mass will cause a decrease in nntural frequency and hence will mast
likely produce an adverse effect of the acceleration response depending on the he-
quency range of the building. But shear wall systems are usually stiff and cause a
compensating increase in nntuml frequency.
8. There are problems nssocialed with moving formwork systems, including the following:
a. A sienificant time lae will occur between footinc construction and wall construction
u -
beenuse ofthe fabrication and ureclion on rile ofthe moving formwork system.
O. Time will be lost at levels !s,hcru aalls are lerminatcd or decrrased in thickness.
c. Reeular survcv checks must he undertxken to ensure that the vertical and twist ~ ~
xlignmcnrs of the s hr x walls are uithin tolerance.
d. In pneral it is difficult ru achieve a good finish from slip-form formwork sys-
tems, and hence rendering or sollle other Ispc of finishing may be necessary.
E. When walls IW 100 thin [such 3s 150 iIlnt(6 in.)] it is not unusual for friction be-
trrccn ~ h c forms and cuncrcle lo lift lflr concrcle in slip-form conatmction. Icad-
ing to cracks or gsping holes in the wall.
Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems 111
"i;
$&
.g Project Descriptions
1:
,g;.:
'#:
, ' p
Metropolitan Tower
: #; New York, N.Y., USA
.s,
@. Architect
g!
'rn. .*;
' : c
~.* .&.
,I:: Structural engineer
,p
:l Year of completion
i
..
Height from streel lo roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lalcral deflection
Design fundamenlal period
Design accclererion
Dcsign damping
Earthquake loading
Type ofslmclure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beams
Beam depth
Slab
Material
Columns
Material
Core
Material
Schuman. Lichtenstein. Claman and Efron
with design input from MackboweIDenmanl
Werdiger
Robert Rosenwasser Associatcs P.C.
1985
21810 (716 it)
68
2
Office lo 18th floor; residential above
Concrete
2.5 P a (50 psi) office; 2 Wa (40 psi) residential
47 d s e c (105 mph), 100-yr return
HI500
5 and 4 sec horizontal; 2 see torsion
I5 mg peak
12% servic~ability; 2%% ullimatc
Not applicable
Coupled shcar walls plus perimeter frames
Rock. 4-MPa (40-tonlit') capacity
Spread footings
3.45 m (I l ft 4 in.) office: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in.)
residential
Span and spacing vary
508 mm (20 in.) at perimeter
216-mm (8.5-in.) flat slab
Concrete, 42 to 28 MPa (6000 lo 4000 psi)
Size and spacing vary
Coupled shear walls: thickness varies
Concrete, 58 lo 39 MPa (8300 to 5600 psi)
A rectangular towcr \vould not work because of restrictions on the north-south-oriented
site. This problem was solved with a triangular tower whose longest face is oriented
northeast, with setbacks designed to conform to zoning regulations. The L-shaped com-
mercial base is 18 stories, whereas the upper trianeular condominium towcr is 46 sto-
. .
rits p l ~ s l au sluiies iur IllL. 1nec11:~nical and stn~cu!rai Iransiiion. 'l'hr. Iksding edge of lhu
Inangular lower being north on 57th S1rcr.l 1s continued for lhc enure 21X.m 1716-11)
Ihti~bI of the bull din^. inlcgrating thu 1r.o b~s i c iorms. In !his way lhl: unique lrilneu-
- - -
lar Yower mximizes one of its greatest assets-the views (Fig. 4.43).
FIR. 4.43 hlclrupulilun Tu~e r , NPW York. (Coi,ncr). o~RobenRarmm~nsrcrA.~rucl
112
The uooer condominium tower contains 246 luxurv apartments tolaline 39.300 mz
~ ..
(423.000 ft'). The lower commcrci~l base has 21. 000~"(2?5. 000 ft') of;ental office
space and 460 m' (5000 it2) for relail rental. The lotal project amuunls lo 60.600 m'
(653.000 11') and required approximately 23.000 m' (30,000 yd') of concrete and 3300
tonnus (366-3 tons) of reinforcing steel. To keep an efficient column grid on tlte commcr-
cia1 floors, a double-height reinforced concrete mechanical floor was crcned at the nine-
teenth floor to allow thetransfer of loads from the triangular plan oft he building's upper
tower to its L-shaped base (Fig. 4.440). In effect this was a new foundation for the trian-
gular tower, accomplished by using an exlmordlnaiy volume of concrete, an unusually
dense mass of reinforcing stvel. and bcams up to 4 m (13 it) deeq. Thesc transfer girdcrs
ucre c a t in two stages. the bottom 600 to 900 mm (2 to 3 it) belng cast first to s e nc as
suooort for the remainder of the concrete in the second placemenL
. .
The depth of t he meandering shear wall (the main btmctura~ support of t he triangu-
lar footprint) is about 21 m (70 ft) (Fig. 4.446). 0: the three available faces. the west
face was a lot-line face. and therefore obloce to accommodate the elevator shafts for the
high-rise structure. It was recognized, and later verified in a wind tunnel tcst, that the
structure would support larger wind forces acting perpendicular to the hypotenuse of the
trianele.
-
Vnncx rhedding, u,hich ~lsually pruduces larger forces ironsverse tn ths wind dirdc-
lion, did not matcriallzc for this structure bscausc of its triangul:lr foulpnnt. Shear walls
then migrate from the west lot line, meandering alongside the apartment lobby and cor-
ridors, to the hypotenuse side of t hc triangle, where additional columns were engaged
via Vierendeel action of the spandrel beams. Other frame elements. 508-mm (20-in.)-
deeo soandrel beams alone the oerioherv and 216-mm (8.5-in.) slabs at the interior of
. . . . .
the structure, were needed to help counter large torsional loads since it was impossible
to minimize torsional forces for all possible wind directions. This slender lower was
somewhat stiffened bv a wider bascbelow the eiehteenth floor. However, part of the
shear tva11 and nlany of the columns bad to bc transferred utilir~ng dsep concrets gird-
ers nt this levcl. These deep girders w r r . utilized. via outrigger action, lo ungxgc nddl-
tional supports to help di ves hold-down loads for the shear wall and to equalize the
strain in the supports.
The flat slab floors are supported by a hybrid building frame of columns and shear
walls. in purt because of the developer's desire to leave the perimeter as column-free as
possible.'~n the triangular tower. \\;ind on the long side of ;he triangle governs the dc-
sign, so the shear walls were placed at right angles to that face of the building, mean-
derine alone partition lines in a horseshoe shape to the opposite side of t he tower and
hacki o theidne side of the trianele.
b
Scveml factors contributed to the decision to use concrete rather than steel. Thesc in-
cluded the easier modeling oishapes. the ability to make last-minute changes, and the
knowledre that a lareer miss reduces vibration and the perception of motion. The choice
- . .
ofconcrute raflucls ths needs ofthe u\tremi.ly ?all slel~dsr struclurc S\ r ay oft he huilding
uas an impnnanl uunccm. In high-nsc hu~l d~ngs i t may range from 11500 tn 1/600 of the
buildine hcieht in a lUU-\u~r wind (tl13t is. thc slronwst uind lhilt inns bi. :~aticipatcJ lo
occur in a 160-"car oeridd). When comoarine bui l di ks of structural steel and reinforced
d A . u
concrele having similar stiffnesses and movcmenlr. the perceived motion in the concrete
building will be less bccausc the larger mass of the concrclc structure slows do\isn its
swayini motions, that is, the period isincreased and the accclcration reduced.
In the Metropolitan Tower the typical slab floor thickness of 216 mni (8.5 in.) of
stone concretc is important in achieving the mass of t he building. Nevertheless, the
huildine was designed with provisions lo support the \vcieht of a pcndulum-type dnmper
- - . . - . .
should it be needed. Using thrcc nccclcrometers, field measurements wcrc tekcn when
the structure reached its fifty-fourth floor and, latcron, at its sirty-sixth floor (at the last
possible date, allowing time for a "galno go" decision with regard to the installation of
a damper), indicating that adamper was not needed. Theexlra cost to the owner resulted
from orovidine a double desien lavout, with and wilhout lhe damper. No materials, ex- ~ - - .
cept those nrcded to support the damper's weight on the footings 2nd columnr. were oc-
tually expended in the svucturz. This suucture can accommodate a future damper, if
found necessarv durine its service liir, with some nunor modifications and rerouting of
-
some mechanical pipes.
Slab formwork was cycled by the "preshoring" method commonly used in New York
(Grossman, 1990). The first 18 stories, larger in floor area, were completed at the rate
of about 4 to 5 days per story. In the triangular tower, two floors per week was typical
progress, with columns and shear walls cast on Mondays and Thursdays and floors on
Tuesdays and Fridays. Near the top of the tower, work speeded up to 2 days per story.
The concrete framewas topped out on October 2. 1985
(4
Fig. 4.44 hlctrnpulllnn Tuscr. to1 L-sllupcd borc. ( b) hleundrringshcor ,,,,11.
114
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Shearwail Systems
Embassy Suites Hotel
New York, N.Y., USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design accclerstion
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story hrigllt
Columns
Fox and Fowie Architecls
DeSimone, Chaplin and Dobryn
1990
146.3 m (480 it)
46
I
Hotel
Concrete above 8th floor: concrcte-en-
cased steel below
2 kPa (40 psQ
36 mlscc (80 mph)
Hl.150, HI700
5.4.7.4 sec
21 mg peak
2% serviceability
Z = 0.375; C = 0.030 and 0.025; K = 1.0
Shear walls above 8th floor; encased-steel
trsnsfer trusscs to steel supercoiumns be-
IO\ V
Rock. 4-MPa (40-tonlft') capacity
Concrete piers
2.65 m (8 fi 8.5 in.)
200-mm (6-in.) flat plate, spanning 7.32
by 7.32 m (24 by 24 R)
4 supercolumns built up from five 200-
rnm Win.) plates on 14.63- by 39.63-m
(48- by 130-ft) grid
Core
Shear walls. 300 to 450 mm (12 to I8 in.)
thick at ground floor
Material 56-hlPn (8000-psi) concrete
1568 Brondway is the site oft he Embassy Suites Hotel in the Times Square district of
New York Cily (Fig. 1.45). I t is built over the historic Palace Theatre, a landmark dating
back to 1919. Bccausc of the theater's landmark status, New York City would not permit
any disturbance to tbc theater by the new hotel. It was therefore necessary to suppon this
46-story. 146-m (480-TI)-tall building by building e "bridge" over the theeter [Fig. 1.46).
The transfer was accomplished with a hybrid composite steel and concrete structure
consisting oftn,o 40-m (1.X-f11-lung compnsile trusses and steel cross trusses. Four su-
perculun~ns. two on either side ofthe theater, come down to ground to suppon the struc-
ture. Thcsc columns n'erc built up out to thick grsde 350-hIPa (50-ksi) steel plates and
n'eigh up tu 6000 kg/m (4000 lhlfl). The truss menlhers were dcsi ~ned to bc light enough
to pern~it erection on an estremcly diflicuit site. To give them the necessary stiffness, the
entire wsses were encased in concrete. The ballrooms, kivhen, and mechanical spaces
are located between the 14.9-111 (49-ft)-high trusses. The system is efficient and eco-
nomical and solved the problems associated with constructing over a landmark.
The hotel superstructure is a reinforced concrete flat-plate system with a 8.5- by 8.5-
m (28- by 28-it) column grid and was built on a Zday cycle. Wind is resisted by shear
walls ns well as moment f nme acdon of slab strips and columns. The total weight of the
reinforcing steel used for the concrcte tower was only 36.7 kglm- (7.5 pSO.
Fig. 4.45 Emburry Suilcs Hotcl. Nss York.
Fig. 4.46 "Bridgc" rupportlng hotel over thcotcr. Embnsry Suits Hotel.
119
Singapore Treasury Building
Singapore
Architect
Swctural engineer
Year of completion
Height From sueet to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Eanhquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beams
Beam depth
Columns
Core
Material
Hugh Stubbins and Associates
LeMessurier Consultants with Ove Amp
and Partners
1986
234 m (768 fl)
52
5
office
Concrete core, steel floor beams
2.5 Wa (50 psf) 30th floor and above: 3.0
kPa (60 psf) below 30th Floor
38 mlsec (85 mph)
5.6 sec
Not estimated
~ p p r o x 2% serviceability
Not applicable
steel floor beams cantilevered off cylin-
drical concrete core wall
Clay over rock
6 8.m (26-ft 3-in.)-diamctcr caissons. 35
(I 1 5 ft) long, under a 2.9-m (9-ft 6-in.)-
thick mat
4.25 m (13 ft 11 in.)
Cantilever 11.58 m (38 fr), spacing 4.9 m
(16.42 ft) at core
1470 mm (58 in.). facade ws s 1260 mm
(50 in.) deep, continuous
80 mm (3.25 in.) on 77-mm (3-in.) steel
deck
only erection columns embedded in core
wall
Reinforced concrete cylinder. 22.95-m
( 754) I.D., 1.65 to I m (65 to 39 in.) thick
Concrete cube. 40 to 30 MPa (4500
3400 psi)
This cylindrical 48.4-m ( I 59-Ft)-diameter mixed construction office lower, loca!ed in the
center of Singapore, has an area of more than 132,000 m' (1.42 million h') (FIE. 4:-17).
Although the Singapore wind climate is relatively benign, avoidance of resonsnt vlbra-
tion caused by wind-induced vortex shedding conlrolled the required latcral stlffness Of
the tower. This required setting the first vibralion mode period at no more than 5.6 set.
The architect and owner wanted to have little or no visible StNCtUre obstructing the
360" panoramic swcep u l the \vinduu,s at each floor. The simple jet elegnnl structural
solution was lo cantiicvsr evcry floor from an inner cylindrical wall enclosing tile clc-
1,3101 and service core. This required radial beams ubich cantliever I 1 6 m (38 h) from
the 24.95-m (81.8-ft)-outside-diameter reinforced concrele core wall. Each cantilever
girder is welded to a steel erection column embedded in the core wall (Fig. 4.48). The
cantilevers on successive floors are connected at their outer ends by 25- by 100-mm (1-
by 4-in.) steel ties, hidden in the curtain wall, which reduce relative vertical deflections
Fig. 4.47 Singuporc Treasury Dullding. Singnpurc. ICounerj olT11ileSr.libi,n r\.~saciorion.)
I
of adiacent floors. A stiff continuous nerimeter rine truss at each floor minimizes rela- 1
-
live deflcc[ions of adjacent cantilevers on the same floor pruduced hy any unrvrn live
loading. This w s s plus the rrnical tier also provide some redundancy in the unlikely
1
3 event of a cantileve; failing.
$;,:
All gravity load and all the wind loads are resisted by the concrele core wall. For
. strength alone, the core wall would have been a constant thickness almost to ground
@j . > f S , ' '
.level, bur in order to meet the building period limitation, it was necessaq to thicken the
: T
wall from its typical 1.0-m (3.3-fl) dimension lo 1.2 m (4 ft) and then 1.65 m (5.4 ft) he-
@
.,..
...
low the sixteenth floor. A concrete core wall was selected in lieu of an all-steel diago-
$:
:q
b
Fg. 4.48 Typicnl noor plan; Singopore Tmsury Dullding.
nally braced "wall" for reasons of economy. The core is spanned by two plate girders.
~ h h c o r e wall has four doorway openings on each floor. The headers over these open-
ings consist of rigid steel Vierendeel girders, which allow duct work to pass lhrough
(Fig. 1.19).
Structural steel floor framing was used to facilitate a modular electrified underfloor
steel deck, including trench headers, and to make the long cantilevers quite stiff. Typi-
cal live-load deflection at the end of the cantilever was less than 25 mm ( I in.). Girders
were cambered to countcnct dead-load deflection. Web openings were provided in the
cantilevers for ducts and nines. To vcrifv the dcsirn and fabrication oualitv and reassure
. . - . ,
theowner that deflections would not be excessive, a full-size prolotype cantilever girder
welded to a two-story steel column was tested at the steel fabricator's laboratory in
laoan. Thc test was ouite successful and verified the accuracv of the structural analvsis
within a few percent This ,&as lhc first significallt slcel-iromed building lo bs built In
Sing;.purr.. m the ICSI u.ns also hulpful in pruviding arsurnncc to the huilding ullisials
of the competence of t he design and steel construction team.
Because of the somewhat unusual s t ~ c l u r a l framinr svslem. the concrete core wall
& .
WAS designed conscn,alivcly lo rusisl porciblc, slthuugh very unlikely, p;.tlurn lise l o x -
incr i n srhicb scrersl cons~. cut i re floors had live lnods i n ccrlain quxlraols and no l i \ c
load in others. The result of such loadinr oatterns was to induce throueh-thickness bend-
-. -
ing stresses in the wall due to these asymmetrical forces. The core wall was anslyzcd
using detailed finite-element analyses. and reinforcing stcel was provided to resist !he
in-plane and through-thickness forces and bending moments due to gravity loads with
and without wind loads.
M
Fig. 4.49 Framing perspective; Singopare Trensury Bullding.
123
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Architect ' Richard BofiillDeSteiano and Goettsch
Structural engineer Cohen-Barreto-Marchcrtas, Inc.
Height from street to roof 203.6 m (668 ft)
Building use Office
Frame material Concrete core, steel perimeter
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa'(5O ps0
Basic wind velocity Chicago building code
Maximum lateral deflection Less than HI500
Design fundamental period 6.67.5.88 sec horizontal; 6.67 sec torsion
Design acceleration 29 mg pesk
Design damping 2% serviceability
Earthqunkc loading Not applicable
Type of strucmrc Cnncrete shear core, perimctcr stcel
frames
Foundation conditions Hardpan, 1700-kPa (40.000-ps0 capacity
Footing type 21-m (70-it)-deep caissons. 900- to 3000-
mm (3- to 10-11) shaft diameter bcllcd to
1370 to 7000 mm (1.5 to 23 it)
Typical floor
Beam span 13.72 m (45 11)
Beam spacing 3.43 m (I l ft 3 in.)
Material Steel
Slab
110-mm (5.5-in.) concrete on metal deck
Columns
Sire at ground floor W350 X 1086 ( Wi 4 X 730) plated
Column spacing
3 m (10 ft) min. 13.7 m (45 it) max
h4atcrial
Steel. F, = 350 MPo (50 ksi)
Core Central concrew shear core
Wall thickness at ground floor
559 and 355 mm (22 and 14 in.)
Matcrial
This 50-story 96.600-m' (1,040,000-TI') office torver is located at the southwest corner
of Wacker Drive and Clark Street (Fig. 4.50). It is a classically styled addition to the
Chici~no skyline on North \\'ackcr Drive. which is graced by several outstnnding archi-
tectural and structural originals.
I
Fig.450 77 West Wnckcr Drivc. Chicago, lllinuir.
The building. which is rectangular in shape. 50.29 by 42.67 m (165 by 140 ft) with
4.57-m (15-R) reentrant angles at the four corners, is the first high-rise tower designed
by the Spanish architect, Ricardo Bofill. It was designed in collabontion with the
Chicago architectural firm of DeStefano and Partners.
The framing system is a central concrete core surrounded by a structural steel h m e
with a composite floor deck (Fig. 4.51). The core, which is extremely slender [ I 555 by
27.45 m (51 by 90 ft) with a height-to-width ratio greater than 13:1] incorporates all the
mechanical, electrical, and verticnl transportation amenities. The column-free floor
spans allow for a very flexible 13.72-m (45-ft)-wide tenant soace.
Another outstanding feature in the building is its magnificent entrance lobby, which
extends from the ground to the fiflh floor, with a completely unobstructed space of
50.29 by 13.72 m (165 by 45 it). 13.72 m (45 it) high.
Fig. 4.51 hlidrise noor framing plnn, l l d to 36th floors; 77 Wesl Wneker Drive.
Shearwall Systems
Sect. 4.21 127
Casselden Place
Architect
Australian Conswction Services with
Hassell Architects
SI NCI UI ~~ engineer
Connell Wagner
160 m (525 ft)
3
Building use Office
Frome material
Concrete core, steel frame
4 kPa (80 psfl
Basic wind velocity
41 mlsec (92 mph). 50-yr return
Design iundemenlal period 3.45.5.00 scc
Design acceleration
Design damping
1% serviceability; 5% ultimate
Earthquake loading
Not applicable
Type of structure
Core for all lateral load
Siltstone. 2-MPa (20-ton/ft2) capacity
Footing type Pad footings
Typical noor
Story height
3.75 m (12 f t 4 in.)
Bcam span
I 2 m (39 R 4 in.)
Beam depth
610 mm (24 in.)
Beam spacing
3 m (9.83 it1
Slab
130 mm (5 in.) on metal deck
Columns
Size at ground noor
950-mm (37-in.)-diameter composite con-
crete-filled steel tubes
Material
Concrete, 70 MPa (10.000 psi)
Core
Concrete shear walls. 500 and 200 mm (22
and 8 in.) thick at ground floor
Material
Concrete, 70 MPa (10,000 psi)
This building is interesting for several reasons:
1. Construction over Melbourne underground rail loop
2. Use of high-sbenglh concrete
3. Use of composite concrctc-filled steel-tube columns
~h~ conswctian of Casselden place (Fig. 4.52) orrcr the Melbourne underground
rail loop necessitated two unusual design features. (])The removal of rock for the three-
Fig. 4-52 Cmscldcn Place, hlelbourne, rlunrn)jn.
If
Sect 4.21 Shear Wail Systems
story basement rclnxed the overburden pressure on the tunnels. (2) To prevent heaving
of the tunnels, 26 30-tonne (33-Ion) vertical anchors were inslalled to Lie the tunnels
down. In the areas where only l i ~ h t loads were reimposed, there anchors are permanent. 1
but where heavy loads are imposed by the new struch~re, temporary anchor; only were
used. In addition, piling was used in some areas to provide load transfer to below the
\
level of the tunnels in the event of ground movement
The mosl inluresting pan of the c~nstruction is the columns construction. Thts method
is the firs1 of i n type in Austrnlia. with only a small number of buildtngs knnwn lo b:
constructed using similar methods anywhere in the world. The tube columns are erected -
in two-slory lifrc, wilh (he bare steel able ro suppon up to six stories of construction. Con-
crete is p~mped into the b;lse oft he lube, and up as man) as six slories at a lime. No 1%
bmtinn of the concrele is required. Conncll \'fagner ha.. dcveluped design methods for
1
this tjpc of column. including lltc use of thin-walled lubes. No codified mclhod for rhe
design of thin-walled concrete-filled lubes is av~ilable anywhere in the world.
!i
This form of construction orovides a column for a steel-fmmine svstem at a cost \f ~~- - .
equal to that of a reinforced concrete column. The cost of the columns has been a major
stumbling block in the economies of steel-framed buildings, with the penalty for using
all-steel columns on a building such as this as high as 3% of the total building value-
millions of dollars on projccls of this size. This solution benefils from the economy of
concrete. with the simple concrele placement method giving the system constructabilily
lhal ir couivalent lo that of a full sicel column.
-
~ ~.
'llie cure and columns on llic project use concrete ol up lo 70 hlPa (10.000 psi). T ~ L
culuinns arc considcr:d to bc an ideal u.3). raluring br~h-slrcnglh roncrele of good cur-
ing ability, which is being placed inside btube. ~ h c tube confines the concrete, enhanc-
ing the ductilily of the high-strength materials.
I
Twin 21
Osaka, Japan
Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
Smctural engineer Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
Height from street to roof 157 m (515 ft)'
Building use Office, shops, showrooms
Frame material Steel core and perimeter on upper floors:
concrete core and concrete-encased steel
perimeter on lower floors
Basic wind velocity 35 rnlsec (78 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection 400 mm (16 in.)
Design fundamental period 3.9, 4.0 scc
Design velocity 250 mmlsec (10 in./sec) for medium
earthquakes: 500 mmlsec (20 in./sec) for
maximum-level earthquakes
Design damping 270
Type of structure Primarily perimaer rigid moment frames
Foundation conditions Clay
Footing type 18-m (59-(1)-long. 1.5- to 2-m (5- lo 6.5-
ft) shaft-diameter belled concrete piles
Typical floor
Story height 3.75 m ( I ? f t 4 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2 m ( I 0 ft 6 in.)
Material Steel, grade SS 400 and SM 490
Slab 165-mm (6.5-in.) concrete on metal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor 1400 mm (55 in.)
Spacing 6.4 and 12.8 m (21 and 42 it)
hlatcrial RcinSorced concrete and structural steel
Core Reinforced concrete lower levels: steel
upper levels
Thickness at ground floor 700 to 900 mm (27 lo 35 in.)
Twin 21 comprises t\vo identical 38-story office towers with sbaps and showroom.; on
the lowcr floors (Fig. 4.53). The perimeter frames above the sixth floor have columns
spaced at 3.2-m (10-ft 6-in.) inten,nls, connected by the floor slabr to the slucl-fmnlcd
core. This suucture is eflicient in resisting horizontnl 2nd torsional deformations due to
earthquakes and wind.
Below the sixlh floor the building smcture consiss of steel frames encased in rein-
forced concrete, and rigidity is provided by reinforced concrete shear walls around the
core. The majority of the horizontal force is borne by these shear walls (Fig. 4.54).
Had the tower building columns been continued down through the low-rise section
at 3.2-m (10-ft 6-in.) centers, space utilization would have been adversely affected.
Hence the 3.2-m (10-ft 6-in.) spans are increased to 12.4-m (40-8 8-in.) soans bv one-
. . , -
story-high concrelc-encased ste.el transfer beams at the fifth-ljoor level, thereby pro\,id-
ing for shops and showrooms in the lou,rr floors of the building.
The uind load response due to the tuin towers bcinr in close proxim~tv *,as checked
using wind tunnel testing and the results were reflectea in the design.
The atrium of the low-rise pnrt is surrounded by the low-rise parts of the two towers
and the gallery building (four stories wilh an L-shaped floor plan). It is composed of a
large space [about 47 by 47 m (156 by 156 ft)] nod is covered by alarge steel-pipe space
buss roof suucture.
There are large forces on the roof due to the uplift of the wind blowing between the
twin towers and the down wash off the buildings.These factors were evaluated by wind
tunnel testing.
The atrium roof trusses are supported on slide bearings, which can absorb horizon-
tal deformations of the high-rise part during an earthquake. Stoppers are provided to
prevent uplift under upward wind loading.
Elg.453 Twin 21. Osoko. Jopon.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect 4.21
Shear Wall Systems 133
1
:q
5' Majestic Building
,@i,
.@/:
Wellington, New Zealand
E.
, Architect Manning and Associates
Structural engineer
Wass Buller and Associates
. .
.:,:Year of completion 1991
Number of stories . 29
I, . . .
Office
Building use
Frame material Concrete
Typical floor live load 3.5 kPa (70 ps0
Basic wind velocity
50 d s e c (112 mph)
Design fundamental period 2.9 sec
Design acceleration 10 mg peak, I-yr return period .
Design damping
1% serviceability (wind). 5% EQ
Earthquake loading C, = 0.0132
Type of structure
Core and perimeter frame
Weathered rock over rock
Footing type
Pads and 1.8-m (6-ft)-diameter bored piles
Typical floor
Beam span 12 m (39 f t 4 in.)
Beam depth 750 mm (29.5 in.)
Beam spacing 10 m (32 ft 10 in.)
Slab
365 mm (14 in.) Dycore
Fig. 4.54 Typimlstrurhrnl floor plan; sin 21.
Columns
1400-mm (55-in.)-diameter
Spacing
10 m (32 ft 10 in.)
Material Concrete. 50 MPa (7100 psi)
Core
Thickness at ground level 400 and 600 mm (16 and 24 in.)
Material
Concrete, 50 MPa (7100 psi) max
The Majestic Building (Fig. 4.55) comprises 32 levels tolnling 42,000 m' (452.000 it').
including four levels of parking garage, extensive retail, arcade, and public plaza areas.
a fitness center with a 33- by 4.5-m (1 10- by 15-ft) swimming pool, a crkche, an art
gallery. and approximately 24.000 m' (258.000 it2) of office space.
Wind engineering played a major part in determining the building shape, podium
features, and strucmre of the building. Three separate wind tunnel studies were under-
taken to investigate environmental wind effects, cladding pressures, as well as over-
turning moments and acceleration levels. Following completion, further studies of the
structure were cnrried out usinf: a mechanical vibrator and also recording wind dis- -
placumenls using scnsili\,c occelcromclers.
The building is located in the most active ci smi c zone of Sew Zeal;~nd, with knoun
fault lines running lhrouyh the ccnlral business dislricl of \Veilinglon. The first floor of
the tower is I2 m (40 fl) above street letel and the column spacing around the perime-
ter i s !O m (33 fl). These fentures were critical to crtnlc a spncmus lobby and enlrancc
to the building; however, such features in seismic zones require special design to pre-
vent the occurrence of a "soft story." For these reasons a "ductile hybrid structure" was
chosen as the lnleral load resisting system. The concrete core walls and the perimeter
frame work together and were designed using capacity design methods lo be fully duc-
tile. Foundations and lower levels were designed to resist the overslreneth capacity ~ ~ ~ - . -
- . . .
forces from the superstructure.
The unique floor system comprises prelensioned hollow core planks 1200 mm (4 fl)
wide and 300 mm (12 in.) deee, seaced at 2400-mm (8-ft) centers. A thin metal may was
. .
plscud hctaccn lllc hollow core planks, and 65 mm (2.5-in.) of in-situ cuncrele ~ 3 s
placed over the whole floor.Tlrc floor is only 115 mm 1.1.5 in.) dccp in parts, uhich nl-
lous f or ~f f i c1~111 duct I ~) OUI S. I t neighs only 3.6 kPa (75 psQ and can suppurl in excess
of 3.5 P a (73 psf) overi2.5-m (41-fl) spans (Fig. 4.56).
[Chap. 4
Sect. 4.21
Shear Wall Systems
137 I
Telecom Corporate Building
Architect
S l ~ c t ~ r a l engineer
" Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type ofstructurc
Foundalion conditions
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slabs
Columns
Size to ground floor
Spacing
Material
Core
Thickness at ground floor
Material
Perrott Lyon Mathieson
I
Connell Wagner
1992
192 m (630 ft)
, ~,..
47
. ...
....* ~. .
3
Offices
Concrete
4 kPa (80 psO
41 mtsec (92 mph). 50-yr return
123 mm (5 in.) at 25 mm (1 in.), 1
return
4.5 sec
4.4 mg rms, 5-yr return
1% scrviceability; 5% ultimatc !,J@
Not applicable ,$#
Concrete core and perimeter lrame t ube~a
tube
@!'
,:%I*:
..:,.,
Pads to columns. raft to core
:.s::.
!stt
3.85 m (12 ft 8 in.)
12 m (39 ft 4 in.)
440 mm (16 in.)
5 m (16 f t 5 in.)
Partially preslressed concrete
1000 by 1200 mm (39 by 47 in.)
8.1 or 9 m (26 ft 7 in. or 29 ft 6 in.)
Concrete. 60 MPa (8500 psi)
Shear walls
500 and 200 mm (20 and 8 in.)
Concrete. 60 MPa(8500 psi) mas
This all-concrete building achieved impressive conslruction times (Fig. 4.57). The en-
tire 50-level concrete core was complclcd in 14 months, using a jump-form system.
Typical cycle times for the core averaged 4 % days per floor.
'w:
[Chap. 4 I D Se. . 4.21
. *
The tower floor band beams. typically 400 mm (16 in.) deep. are notched to 275 mm
(11 in.) thick at the core to allow the major mechanical ring duct to encroach into the
structural depth, thereby reducing the floor-to-floor height.
The band beams were designed as ~Kt i al l y prestressed and are offset from the
- .
columns. A typical beam has three tendons. Two tendons, each with four 15.2-mm (0.6-
in.)-diameter strands, were stressed from the external end of the beam. A single tendon
Shearwall Systems
with three 15.2-mm (0.6-in.) strands was tensioned from the opposite end. The bands
were top-sucssed. Grinding in b ~ c k of the surface ofthe anchorage pockcs was no1 nrc-
essary because access flooring is being provided throuphout the tower
One hundred percent of the prestrr5s force was appiisd to cach tendon u hen the con-
crcte had reached a strength of 22 hlPa (3 100 psi). Using a high early-strength concrete
mix, this uas achieved on lhc second d3y after the pour. This, togeli~er with d ~ e use of
two sets of table forms, alloued floor-to-noor cycles of three d3ys lo be achieved.
The tendons arrive on site prefabricated with suands already threaded into the ducts.
The connection to the corc is ;imply and posili!,cly affected b; Ihe use of 600-mm (24-
in.)-long 20-mm (0.75-in.) bars which wrap around the vertical rcinforcrme~~t in the
core wall. The prrimeter spandrel beams are 775 mm (30.5 in.) deep by 350 mm (14 in.)
wide, spanningup to 9 m 730 ft). Reinforcement cages for these biams were fabricated
on construction decks on the podium roof and craned directly into position. Loose bars
were added at column locations to provide continuity.
The main enlrance to the building is a dramatic three-story-high entry auium. The
nerimcter of this alrium is elass on exoosed architectural steelwork fabricated from 250-
by 250-mm (10- by IO-in.)-square hollow sections. This steciuork IS hunp from 3 2200-
mm by 950.mm (86- by 37-in.) posrtensi~ncd cnntiicvcr ring beam at lcvel 3, giving the
imnression of a glass cube susnendrd in midair. The rinc beam is clad !r ith 200-mm 18-
-
in.)-thick polished precast panels used as formwork.
The e n y space is further enhanced by the termination of one of the tower columns
above the lobby level. The column load is 24,000 kN (2640 Ions). This is achieved us-
ing slage-stressed 3950- by 1000-mm (155- by 39-in.) posttensioned beams, each span-
ning 18 m (59 ft) in a cruciform la you^ The beams hove eight and six tendons, respec-
tivelv. with 19 12.5-mm (0.5-in.)-diameter strands in each tendon. The beams are
stressed in three stages as load from the tower is progressively applied, achieving es-
sentially flat beams throughout the construction phase.
F~E. 4.57 Talccam Carpornte Building, Melbourne, Aurlmlio. (Pboro by S~ UI T E PI I OI O~TO~I ~I CI )
I
140 Lateral Load Resisting Systems IChap.4
4.3 CORE AND OUTRIGGER SYSTEMS
Whilc outriggers have only brcn incorporated into high-risc buildings nithin the last 25
veors. the ouvi g~er as a structural rlcmenl has a much longer Itistn~y. The great sailing
;hias of the oastand nresent have used outriggers to help resist the wind forces in their .~
r- ~~ . --
sails, making the adoption'of tall and slendcr mas& porsible. In high-rise buildings lllc
corc can be related to the marl of the ship, with rhe oulripger acting like the spreadrrj
and the cxterior columns like the stavs or shrouds. The typical oreanization of a core and ~ . . -
oulriggcr system is picturcd in Frg. 4.58. Just as in sailing ihipb. there outriggers serve
10 reduce the oven urn in^ moment in the core that would otherwise acl as a pure can-
tilever. and to transfer th; reduced moment to columns outside the core bv way of a len- ...- - . ~~ - ~ . .
siun-comprcssion couple, uhich takes ad\,antage of thc incrcascd momenl arm betu.cen
these columns. In addition lo reducing the size of lhe marl. [lie presence of uutri:pers
n l ~ n serves to reduce the critical conn~ction where the mast is sreoned to th? keel beam -~ ~- ~~~ . .
In high-rise buildings this same bench1 is re3liz~d by a reduc~ion of !be hare core ot er-
turning moments and the associaled reduction in potential core uplill forces. Tlic same
overtuLing moment which is taken through a couple between the windward stay and the
mast to the pretensioned ties in sailing ships, is transferred to gravity-loaded precom-
pressed columns in the high-rise building.
The structural elegance and efficiency of outriggers are well rooted in history. The
outriggers have also becoine key elements in the efficient and economic design of high-
rise buildings.
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 141
1 Why Outriggers?
Modem high-rise buildings frequently incorporate central elevator cores along with
generous column-free floor space between the core and the cxterior support columns.
While this results in greater functional eficiencv. it also effectivelv disconnects the two ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ -~ ~~- ~ ~
. .
major SWcNral elements available to resist the critical overturning forces present in a
.?';"Hieh-rise building. This uncoupling of the interior core and the perimeler frame reduces
- - . -
the overall rerislance of llte StNClUre lo the ovenurning forces lo the sum of llte inde-
pcndcnt resisrances of the individual rlrmcnrs. The incorporation of outriggers in this
Same svstem couales these two comonnents and enhances the system's abilihl lo resist
overturning forces dmmatically.
For buildings of up to 35 lo 40 stories, reinforced concrete shear wall or steel-
braced cores have been effectivelv utilized as the sole lateral load resisting svstem. - .
These iystems are very effective in resisting the forces and associated deformations
due lo shear racking since their resistance vnries approximately linearly with Lhe build-
- ~.
ine heieht. However. the resistance that core svstems alone arovide to the overlurnine
u - -
component of drift decreases approximately with the cube of the height. so that such
core syslems become progressively more inefficient as the height of the building in-
creases. In addition toatiifness limitations. a core svstem alonican also eenerate ex- -
cessi\u uplift forces in the core structure along with prohibitively high ovenurning
forces in the building's foundation system. With !he sysrem's inability lo take adv;~n-
ngr. oftlie overall building depth, designing for lhe resulting uplifl forces can be prob-
lematic.
In reinforced concrete cores, excessive or impractical wall elements where large net
tension forces exist can negate the inherent efficiency of concrete in compression resis-
tance. In steel cores. large and costly field-bolted or -welded tension splices greatly re-
duce steel efficiency and the ease of fabrication and erection.
In the foundation system, these uplift forces can lead to the need for the following:
The addition of expensive and labor-intensive rock anchors lo an otherwise "simple"
foundation alternative such as spread footings.
Greatly enlarged mat dimensions and depths solely lo resist overturning forces.
Time-consuming and costly rock sockets for caisson systems along with the need lo
develop reinforcement throughout the complete caisson depth.
Expensive and intensive field-work connections at the interface between core and
foundation. These connections can become particularly troublesome when one con-
siders the difference in construction tolerances between foundation and core StNClUre.
n i e climinarion from consideration of foundation systems which might have bcen
considerably less expensive. such as piles, solely for their innbilily lo rcsist signifi-
cant uplift.
2 Outrigger Benefits
For many bnildines. the answer to the problems and restrictions of core-onlv or tnbulvr
-
struclures is the incorporation of one or rnorc lcvcla of oulriggers. Typical oulrigger or-
ganization consisls of linking the core of a high-rise building to h e exterior columns on
one or morc huildins faces with lruss or wall elements (Fig. 4.59). The outrierer sys-
-- .
tems may be iormcdin any combination of steel, concrere;or composite conswction.
When properly and efficiently utilized, outriggers can provide the following structural
and functional benefits to a building's overall design:
. Core overturning moments and their associated induced deformation can be reduced ~
tltrouglt ths "rc\r.r,c" momdnt applied to the cur< at each outrigger intersection (Fig.
1.60). This applies to titc core at r3ch outrigger intersection. This momtnt is created
by the forcc couple in the exterior columns to which the outriggers connect. It can po-
tentially increase the effective depth of the structural system from the core only to al-
most the complete building.
Significant reduction and possibly the complete elimination of uplift and net tension
forces throughout the columns and the foundalion system.
. The exterior column spacing is not driven by structural considerations and can easily
mesh with aesthetic and functional considerations.
. Exterior framing can consist of "simple" beam and column framing without the need
for rigid-framc-type conncctions, resulting in economies.
For rectangular buildings, outriggers can engage the middle columns on the long
faces of the building under the application of wind loads in the more critical direc-
Sect. 4 31 Core and Outrigger Systems 143
lion. In cure-;!lone and tuhuiar systcms. IIIL' SC columns which ;my siglliiicnltl gr;!v-
$,
it! load nrs either not incorporntcd or ~nderutiiized: In aomc c3ser. oulrigsur s)stems
9.
IF .,. can elficicntl\ lncomorate almost e\ crv :rs\,ily column tnto !he laieral load rrsisrinc
. - .
system, leading to significant economies.
3 Outrigger Drawbacks
The most significant drawback wilh the use of outrigger systems is their potcntiai inter-
ference with occupiable and rentable space. This obstacle can be minimized or in some
cases eliminated by incorporation of any of the following approaches:
Locating outriggers in mechanical and inlerslitinl levels
Locating outriggers in the naluml sloping lines of the building profile
Incorporating multilevel single diagonal outriggcrs to minimizc the member's inter-
ference on any single ievcl
Skewing and offsetting outriggers in order to mesh with the functional layout of the
floor space
. Uond Uuilding, Sgdnry, Austrnlin. Toncr bracing, ccsl-~wst lints, looking north.
Fig. 4.60 1650 hlnrkcl Slrccl, I'hiludelphlu.
Aitolllcr potential drawback is the impact tile nutrigger isstallation cnn have un the
crcctiun pruccss. As a typical building rrcction prouceda. the repelitlve nature of thc
structurai framinr and th~reduetion in member sizes generally result in a learning curve
which can speedbe process along. The incorporatioiof an outrigger at intermediate or
uppcr levels can, if not approached propqrly, have a negative impact on the erection
process. Several steps can be taken to mtnimtze this possibility.
. Provide clear and concise erection guidelines in the contract documents so that the
erector can anticipate the constraints and limitations that the installation will impose.
. If possible, avoid outrigger locations or design constmints that will require "backlnck-
ing" in the consvuction process to install or connect the outrigger. The incorporation of
intermediate outriccers in concrete construction orlarcc variations in dead-load column
-- -
suesses bctuccn the core and the exterior can in some cases result in the nccd to "back-
unck." Such a need can be minimized if issues such >%creep and differential shoncn-
ing are carefully studied during the design process to minimize their impact.
Avoid adding additional outrigger levels for borderline force or deflection control.
Outriggers provide diminishing returns for each additional level added. Incorporate
outriggers in less optimal numbers or locations when doing so will haven significant
positive impact on the overall construction cosls.
Core and Outrigger Systems
g,
Cityspire
Ne w York, N.Y., USA
- ,, , ;
t
ATehitect Mumhv Jahn
. .
Svuclural engineer Robert Rosenwasscr Associates
Height fromstreet to roof 248 m (814 ft)
Building use Office and residential
Typical floor live load 2.5 and 2 Wa (50 and 40 psO
Basic wind velocity 47 mlsec (105 mph), 100-yr return
Mnximum lateral deflection HI500
Design fundamental period 5.5,5.4 sec horizont;U; 2 sec torsion
Design acceleration 15 mg peak. 10-yr return
Design damping 12% serviceability; 22% ultimate
Type of swct ure Shear walls with outriggers at transfer lev-
els and interior diagonals in olfice levels
Foundation conditions Rock. 4-MPa (40-ton/ft2) capacity
Typical floor
. .
Story height 3.5 m (1 l ft 6 in.) office; 2.85. 2.95. 3.05
m (9 ft 4 in., 9 ft 8 in.. 10 ft) residential
Beam span, spacing Vary
Beam depth 508 mm (20 in.) at perimeter
Slab Flat slab
Thickness 216 mm (8.5 in.) office; 241,267,305 mm
(9.5, 10.5, 12 in.) residential
Columns Size and spacing vary
Material 56 MPa (8000 psi)
Core Concrete walls of varying thickness
CitySpire. 156 West 561h Street, displaced Metropolitan Tower as the tallest concrete
structure in New York Ci t ySoncrct c placement reached to 244 m (800 it) and alu-
minum-dome fins extended the height to 248 m (814 ft) above grade. When completed
in 1987, it was the second fallestconcrete structure in the world (Fig. 4.61). With a 1O:l
ratio, it is the tallest, most slender structure (concrete or steel) in the world today.
CitySpire has about 77.100 m2 (830.000 it') of floor space and required 33,000 m3
(43,000 yd3) of concrete and 4300 tonnes (4700 tons) of rcinforcing bars for its 77 con-
struction levels (including mechanical and below-grade levels).
Floors
6 M 9
(a)
Floors
47-61
(4
Fig. 4.62 Floor plans; CitySpim.
Se c t 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 149
[Chap. 4
Floors
2645
(c)
;g:
&?:
&jj
,:..
. . , -:;
,@
.*, ,
Si,
fl:
?g;
5
!a+ .-
'8.
: r
1!
,~,: a .
..
,I..
;a:
,.a.
:*,:
4f
J" > I f
"L1. .-
%,I
>L?
fr&
i"i, x*':
,
'**
.:ST
3,
?db3
:t$q
;L.L
,rb:
-@,
-~.
gY
:r
7L.
Office
(4
Fig. 4.62 Floor plnm; CilySpire (Conrinurdl
Chifley Tower
Sydney, Australia
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Number of levels below grol
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing typc
Typical noor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Columns
Material
Kohn. Pedersen. Fox with Travis Partners
Hack and Kurtz Australia with Thornton-
Tomasetti
1992
215 m (705 ft)
50
~ n d 4
Office with 2 retail levels
Steel
3 kPa (60 psO
50 mlsec (112 mph) ultimate, 1000-yr
return
Hl400.50-yr return
5.0 sec
20 mg peak. 5-yr return, with operating
tuned mass damper
7 lo 2.5% s~rviceability; 6% ultimate
Not applicable
Steel perimeter frames, braced steel core
with outriggers at levels 5, 29-30.42-43
Sandstone, 5-MPa (50-tonlft') capacity
Spread footings plus rock anchors ilp to I8
m (60 it) long
4.075 m (13 ft 4 in.)
10 to I5 m (33 to 49 ft)
530 mm (21 in.)
2.5 to 3 m (8 ft 2 in. to 9 ft I 0 in.)
Steel, grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Braced steel frame
Steel, grade 250 and 350 MPa (36 and 50
ksi)
Rnccd steel frame. grade 350 MPa (50ksi)
Chiflcy To\+,er has been designed to house financial service organizations. Wiring needs
were met by raised "computer" flooring, by generous riser closets, and by the open na-
lure of a steel-framed core. (Less accessible concrete cores are most commonly used in
Austmlia.) Steel rraming was also used to speed erection and occupancy (Fig. 4.63).
Its 90,000-m' (969.000-ft') tower rises from a 32.000-m' (345.000-11') full-site
"podium." The building has a highly articulnted facade \+pith nonparallel sides, setbacks
at different levels on different elevations, and a mix of flat, gently curved, and circular
core and Outrigger Systems
151
Sect. 4.31
faces. This desicn serves to define and enclose Chiflev Souare. reflect the street erid.
u .
maximize the views ofharbor, park and ocean 1; the'north and east, break up the
bulk oft he tower, and enliven the Sydney skyline.
The numerous setbacks, the variety of facade geometries, and the desire for open
views made a framed-tube shuctural solution impractical. A braced core would avoid
involvement with the facade, but the tapered nature of the tower floor plans redulted in .' ,!$!.?$:'
an inverted T-shape core plan (stepping back to an L at level 31) whose limited width
would require unreasonably large columns to contra1 deflection (Fig. 4.64). To control
deflections more efficiently, outriggers (or heavy trusses) link the core to perimeter
columns at levels 5.29-30, and 42 (top) in the east-west direction and at levels 5 and 42
in the north-south direction. The middle east-west outriggers also serve as transfer
trusses for a setback.
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger SYStemS 153
The irregular building shape, irregular core geometry, and involvement of outriggers
reouired analvzine and desienine the wind system structure by means of a complete
. u - -
three-dimensional computer model since no planes of symmetry exist and three-dimen-
sional interaction was critical.
A oackaee of analvsis-and-desicn p r o g ms was developed for this projecL An in-
. - - . -
teractive deflection control routine determined "optimal" member areas to meet drift
criteria by usinc virtual work establishing relative efficiencies of members, resizing the
most effiiient members to meet deflection limits, and reanalyzing. A "final" analysis ...--~ ~~-
with optimal areas used precise loadings. Another analysis in;estigated dead loads ap-
olied to the incomolete structure under consmction.
'
A load combin;tion program look the member-force results of lllcse runs and appllcd
forccs following an "overluming wind envelope" using directionalily from wind tunnel
Icsts, sclected maximum and minimum wind forces for each member. and used combi-
nations of the load cases lo dclermine maximum design forces for cnch mcmber. Wind
allouablc suers incrrascs (force reductions) were included.
A member selection program used the "optimal" arcas. Ihe design forces, and a table
of acceplahlc member sizes lo select a uial member size, with an arcathilt was near "up-
limal," in order to check the load capacity in accordancc with the Auslralian stecl code
AS 1250-198I.The loop was thcn repratcd with a larger trial size if necessary. Memhrr
selection marks were piotted on diagrams of the core bracing for ease of use. Member
forces were also plotted in various ways to aid in the design of connections.
It is inlerestine to note that ofice dead load plus reduced live load is about 20 lo 25%
higher in ~us t m<n than in U.S. practice, so u ~ ~ p o l a l i n g U.S. lonnage figures lo Ass-
tralinn projects could be m~sleading unless faclorcd up. Australian practicc also affecled
the conslruction delails. Available hot-rolled member sizes me more limiled lhan i n the
United Stntes. For floor bcams this mcant using a hunvicr size than onc might athcrwisc
choose. As a result floors have a higher-than-minimum load capacily. For girders, built-
un sections were common. Also, since t l ~e available plate is 100 mm (4 in.) thick or less.
&e largest column sections use flanges and web of doubled and tripled plates.
Chifley Tower includes a tuned mass damper (TMD) in the original consmction lo
keep building movement below objectionable levels. Its help is not considered in the
wind response for strength. The TMD mass is 400 tonnes (440 tons) of steel plate. sus-
pended from eight 11-m (36-ft)-long cables anchored at level 46. Its period is adjusted
by a tuning frame, which slides along the cables to vary their active length. Damping is
provided by eight hydraulic cylinders which push fluid through a control valve and a
heat exchanger in a closed circuit Movement is permitted in any lateral direction
(NSEW), but torsion is restricted by an antiyaw yoke. The TMD is anticipated to in-
crease damping from 1 to 2.5% and to decrease 5-yr acceleration from 0.03 to 0.02 g.
One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Architect
Structural engtnccr
Year of completion
Height from street lo roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lateral deflcclion
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake l r ~d i n g
Type orstructure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story heiglll
Bcam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
hlnterial
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Core
fvlateriol
I
Murphy Jahn
Thornton-Tomasctti Engineers
1988
288 m (945 it)
6 1
I
Office
Structural stcci-braced core with super-
diagonal oulri:gcrs
2.5 kPa (50 psi)
3 1 mlscc (70 mph)
HI450
5.5 sec
15 111gpcak, 10-yr return
I to 2%
Nol applicable
Braccd slccl core linked by steel girders to
cxlerior columns
Rock. 4-hlPa (40-tonlf~') capacity
Caissons
3.81 m (12 rt 6 in.)
13.4 m (44 rt)
530 mm (21 in.)
3.05 m ( I 0 rt)
Steel, grade 350 MPa (50 kst)
63-mm ( 3 - i n . ) concrete over 76-mm (3-
in.) metal deck
W350 by 384 (W350 by 257) built up to
2788 kglm (1870 lb/ft)
6.1. 13.4.21.3 m( 20. 44. 70f t )
Linked braced frame with nutriggcrs
Steel, grade 250-hlPa (36-ksi) hracing.
grade 300-MPa (43-ksi) and 350-h,lPa
(50-ksi) beams and columns
One Liberty Place at 288 m (945 11) is located on a prime block ofdowntorvn Philadel-
phia (Fig. 4.65). The orlice floors range from 2230 m' (24.000 ft') in the lo\ver portions
to 120 ni' (1300 it') at tllc pcak. The 61-story tower contains o\,er 120,000 m' (1.3 mil-
lion ft') of floor area.
I
Fig. 4.65 One Libcrty Piocq Philndclpinin, Pcnnrjlronio.
Structural steel framing was chosen for its flexibility and high strength-in particu-
lar, its ability to transmit large tensile and compressive forces efficiently while keeping
the size of the members to a minimum. Built-up wide-flange sections were used for ail
outrigger diagonals and core and outrigger columns due to the large forces and required
thickness oft he plates. Their use also facilitnted fabrication and erection.
~ ~
The typical floor framing consisU of composile W2I ASThl A-572 gmde 50 stecl
beams spanning 13.4 m (44 it) from the building core to the cxterior face. As a result,
thc cntire lease space within thc tower is column-free (Fig. 1.66). The structural slab is
compuscd of a 76-mm (3-in.) composile decking with 64-mm (2.5-in.) stone concrete
topping. Floor beams were cambered lo compensate for dead-load deflection under wet
concrete placement.
The selected lateral load resisting system is a superdiagonal outrigger scheme com-
posed of a 21.3- by 21.3-111 (70- by 7041) braced core coupled with six four-stom diaea-
. --
nal oulriggers at each face of the core located at three points over the hcight of the build-
ing. The system works in a similar manner lo the mast of a sailboat, with the bncud core
acting as the most and the outrigger superdi~gonnls and vcnicolr forming the spre.lder
-
Fig. 4.66 Typical noor plan; Onc Liberty Plorc
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger systems 157
I
and shroud system. After various studies utilizing in-house optimization computer pro-
grams, three sets of eight outriggers were found to be the most efficient solution.
Although simplified models showed that they would be the most effective if spaced
at equal intervals, optimization programs showed that these outriggers could further re-
duce wind-induced drift without addins additional steel by simply modifying their spac-
ink o>erthel~cight of the building. ~ l t k a l e l ~ the design warc~mpleted with thr outside
ends of tllc supcrdiagonnls placed at floors 20, 37, and 51. The outrigger supcrdiagonsls
I
are connected'at theexteri& of the building to vertical outrigger columns.
I
To reduce uplift forces on comer core Folumns and the ;itrigger columns it was de-
sirable to concentrate most of the building's dead load on these columns. This was ac-
complished by introducing exterior transfer Wsses at floors 6,21, and 37, which span
between the outrigger columns within the exterior face and thus funnel dead load, into
the outrigger columns to compensate for uplift duet o wind pressure. Uplift in the exte-
, ,,
nor outrigger columns was totally eliminated with this approach. The uplift on the cor-
ner core columns was reduced to 5800 kN (1,300,000 lb).
In developing the superdiagonal outrigger system, an intensive effort between the
building's architects, interior planners, and developer was undertaken to determine that
$
the presence of diagonal outriggers penetrating down through certain lease space at
eight locations on 12 floors would not interfere with theefficient layout of the space. In-
terior planners made various layouts for full-floor and partial-floor tenants and con-
cluded that the presence of the inclined superdiagonal columns would not hinder the real
estate leaseability of these spaces.
Wind forces were generated using prevailing codes and also utilizing a force-balance
wind tunnel lest undertaken by CermakPeterka of Fort Collins, Colorado. It was deter-
mined that average wind pressures on the building varied between 0.25 kPa (5 psO at
the bottom lo 2.9 kPa (58 psf) at the top. Both planar nnd three-dimensional static and
dynamic analyses were performed for combinations of gravity and lateral loads. The pe-
riod of the building was determined to be 5.5 sec.
The lateral load resisting system was initially designed using a purely ailowable
strcss criterion. During the optimization effort, members were increased in size, which
contributed to increasing the building's internal stiffness. As stiffness was increased,
the acceptable limits of building drifl (Hi450) and acceleration (15 mg) were met. In ad-
dition, because of the vertical compatibility between ouuigger columns al d core
columns created by the outriggers, analyses were required to determine the gravtty load
'i
magnitude in the lateral load resisting system. This nnalysis was performed in steps lo
properly model the actual building erection and loading sequences.
Utilization of the optimization program vimmed on estimated 9.8 kgim"2 psf) from
the wind-resisting system, a savings of some 15% by weight. More imporlnnt were the
savings gained by eliminating cntire components such as two interior bracing lines
j
above the twentieth floor, which greatly simplified design and consuuclion.
158 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 159
17 State Street
New York, N. Y., USA
Architect Emery Roth and Sons
Structural engineer Desimone. Chaplin and Dobryn
Height from street to roof 167.3 m (542 ft 2 in.)
Number of levels below ground I
Building use Office
Typical floor live load 2.5 Wa (50 psO
Bnsic wind velocity 17 mlsec (105 mph). 100-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection Hl500. 100-yr return
Design fundamenlal period 4.7. 5.0 sec
Design acceleration 20 mg peak
Design damping I% serviceability
Typc of structure Bundled braced core tubes with perimeter
monicnt irame and an outrigger hat truss
Foundation conditions Rock.
Footing typc Concrete piers and steel piles
Typical floor
Story height 3.66 m (12 it)
Beam span 5.5 to 12.2 m (18 to 40 ft)
Beam depth 305 to 530mm (12 to 21 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in.) max
Slab 63-mm (2.5-in.) normal-weight concrete
on 76-mm (3-in.) metal deck
Columns Built-up W350 (W14) core, W610 (W24)
perimeter
Spacing 8.53 m (28 ft) core. 5.69 m (18 fi 8 in.)
perimeter
Core Braced tubes, grade 250-MPa (36-hi) con-
crete encased through lowest two levels
17 State Street is a 44-story office tower located ncross from Battery Park at the tip of
Manhattan (Fig. 4.67). To maximize the unobstructed views of the Statue of Liberty and
the New York harbor, the architects chose a quarter-circle floor plan of 1160 m' (12,500
ft') (Fig. 4.68). Although the perimeter of the plan is symmetric, the core of the tower is
offset to optimize the arrangement of rental floor space. The first level is 10 m (33 ft)
above grade, and typical floors are 3.66 m ( I 2 ft) high.
Wind tunnel testing predicted that the wind coming off the harbor would produce
loads 40% higher than those required by the New York City building code.
The structural system consists of bundled braced core tubes coupled to perimeter
moment frames by means of an outrigger hat truss. The three core tubes are braced with
X, diagonal, and inverted V members, as dictilted by core functional requirements. Core
columns consist of W350 (WI1) series rolled shapes in the upper ponion of the build-
ing and built-up membcrs below. Pcrimeler moment f m e s have W6lO (W24) series
coiumns. rolled and built uo. soaced at 5.7 m (18 h 8 in.). The nerimeter hame; do not
a . .
~~~
form a tube, as architectural notches at the comers of the quarter-circle prevent effec-
tive economicd transfer of vertical shear forces around the corners. The hat truss is a
three-dimensional outrigger two stories high, with diagonals sloping downward from
the core to the perimeter.
At the first level. which rises I 0 m 133 ft) above the sidewalk the ~eri mel er columns
and spandrel beam; are encased in cincreie to provide additiooal siffness for the tall
story. Below the ground-floor level, the cores are also encased to add stiffness. Footings
consist of concrete oiers lo 6-MPa 160-ton/h2) bedrock and end-bearinr steel oiles.
Eight columns are Gchorcd for uplif;with postiensioned threadbur rock Gchors.'
Fig. 4.68 Typical floor plnn: 17 SLnleStrcer
162 Lateral Load Resisting Systems IChap. 4 Sect. 4.31
Core and Outrigger Systems 163
Figueroa at Wilshire
Los Angeles, California, USA
Architect Albert C. Martin
Structural engineer CBM Engineers. Inc.
Height from street to roof 218.5 m (717 ft)
Building use Office
Frame material All stccl
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psO
Basic wind velocity 3 1 mlscc (70 mph)
Maximum lateral dcflcction 380 mm (15 in.), 100-yr rclurn
Design fundamental period 6.5 scc
Design acceleration 17 mg pcnk, 10-yr return
Design damping I% scn2iceability; 7% ultimate
Earthquake loading Magnitude 8.3 from San Andrcas fault
Type of structure Braced corc "spine" with outrigger ductile
frame
Found~t i on conditions Shnle, 750-kPa (15,000-psn capacity
Typical floor
Story height 3.96 m (13 ft)
Beam span 18.3 to 10.7 m (60 to 35 ft)
Beam depth 914 t o406 mm (36 to 16 in.)
Beam spacing 3.05 m (10 it)
Slab 133-mm (5.25-in.) lightweight concrete
on SO-mm (?-in.) melal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor 1067 by 1067 mm (42 by 1 2 in.), cruci-
form shape nl 18.3-m (60-ft) centers
Material Stcei. grade A572.350 MPe (50 ksi)
Core Braced steel, grade A572
This 218.5-mm (717-ft)-tall 53-story office torvcr is located in downtown Los Angcles
(Fig. 4.69). Tltc floor plan of the tower is 45.7 m ( I 50 It) square, exhibiting notches and
multiple step backs as it rises above the plaza ( Fi g 4.701. The square ton8er plan offers
internal spacc appropriate to banking and law firms. The granite-clad building has a
three-story-tail stepped grccn-colored glass crown, wi~ich is lit from within at night and
makes a distinct mark on the Los Angeles skyline. Turo six-story ntriums, botit rectan-
gular in plan, which rise like glass and steel staircases, arc attached to two of the build-
ing's corners at 45' angles. Tile plaza of the tower at the corner of Figucron at Wilshire
is articulated by fountains and a 12-m (40-it)-high sculplure.
Fig. 4.69 Figucroo nl Wilrhirc, Lor Angels, Cnltiarnio. (Co~rrresy ojCBnf Engiriccrr. Inlc 1
As onnosed to conventional nerimeter ductile tubular frames. the conceot of n saine
. .
~~~~, ~~~- ~- ~~r~ ~~ ~~ - r ~ ~ ~ -
structure is used for [his tower. The spine, the unintempled ponion of this lower, con-
sists of a 17.4- by 20.4-mm (57- by 67-h) concentrically braced core linked to perimr-
ler columns by aductile frame of outrigger beams. The 'pine in this case has three com-
ponents (Fig. 4.71):
1. A rectangular concentrically braced core anchored at its extremities by steel
columns of a maximum size of 1067 mm (42 in.) square at their base. The inte-
rior core bracing and beams are proportioned in such a way that, in case of an in-
advertent failure of the diagonals, the vertical load-carrying ability of the floor is
not affected.
2. Outrigger beams linking the internnlly braced core to the perimeter columns.
These beams not only carry the floor loads, but along with the perimeter columns
perform the function of ductile moment resisting frames for the entire structure.
The beams are laterally braced to prevent lateral torsional buckling and are con-
$ SYMM.
i
Sect. 4.31 Core and Out?ggwr Systems 165
nected to floor dianhraems bv shem studs lo ms mi t horizontal shew forces to
. - .
Ihc frame. Nolchcs at the midspan of those beams, which provide for the passage
of mcchanlcal ducts, are sllffened lo prevent the formation of a three-hinge mech-
anism when the ends of beams yield-during a major seismic evenl.
3. The 914- by 762-mm (36- by 30411.) steel perimeter columns which. because of
their importance in the overall stability of the frame, nre checked for the loads
created by the plastification of all outrigger beams.
Because of the closeness of lateral periods of vibrations with torsional vibration pe-
riods. the smci ure was checked for the nhennmenon of modal counline.
- ~~ - - ~ . -
The spine struclure nor only provided column-frcc uninlcmptcd lease spaces, bul
also %as struciurally very efficient. Designed lo remain essenlially elaslic for the max-
imum credible ea&ou&e. the structure uses I10 kelm' 122.5 ~ s n ~ o f structural steel. as ~~~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
. . - . . .
opposed to aconventional ductile frame, which would have required 132 kglm2(27 psO.
OUTRIGGER
Fig. 1.70 Comporlle flwr plan; Figucroa ol Wilrhire.
Fig. 4.71 Spine slruehre; Figuemn st Wllrhire.
Four Allen Center
Houston, Texas, USA
Architect Lloyd Jones Brewer Associates
St ~ct ur al engineer Ellisor and Tanner, Inc.
Height from street to roof 210.5 m (690 ft 8 in.)
Building use Office
Fmme material Steel
Typical flqor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psf)
Maximum lateral deflection H/400,50-yr return
Type of SINclurl Braced steel core with outriggers to steel
perimeter lramed tube
Foundation condilions Deep still clay
.Footing type Continuous mat
Typical floor
Story height 3.96 m (13 11)
Beam spacing 4.57 m (15 ft)
Beam depth 610 and 915 mm (24 and 36 in.)
Material Steel, grade 250 MPa (36 h i )
Slab 82-mm (3.25-in.) light!vcight concrete on
76-mm (3-in.) steel deck
Columns
Size at ground level 915 by 280 mm (36 by l l in.)
Spacing 4.57 m (15 ft)
Core Braced steel frame, grade 250 hlPa (36 ksi)
The Four Allen Center building rises 50 stories above grade and extends two stories be-
low (Fig. 4.72). The elongated plan, combined with the slenderness of the tower, yields
an illusion of exceptional height when viewed from street level. The 133.800 m' (1.44
million it') ollice building is connected to parking and retail facilities by an air-condi-
tioned pedestrian tunnel and an overhead pedestrian bridge. Figure 4.73 shows the typ-
ical floor freming plan, and Fig. 4.74 illusvales the building section of a typical floor.
The geometry of the slender airloil shape is susceptible lo dynamic oscillation in hur-
ricane-speed winds, thereby establishing a complex and challenging series of structural
frame and foundation problems. Wind tunnel tests of an aeroelastic model of the build-
ing were recommended and coordinated by the structural engineers. The testing resulted
Fig. 4.72 Four Allen Ccnler, Hourtun, Tcxnr
167
in developing a laternl wind-resisting system to control predicted dynamic oscillation of
the building.
A four-celled tube structure was develooed which includes a nerimeter fmmed tube
and three vertical trusses ms ve r s e to the eievator core. linked t i t he perimeter tube by
tree-beam elements. The unique wind-bracing system was subjected to a full-scale test
during hurricane Alicia in August 1983, and it performed exceptionally well.
A refinement of the traditional solider pile was developed to retain the 11.3-111 (37-
ft-deep foundation excavation. The improved shape reduced the number of piles and
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems
tiebacks nomaily required, thus enhancing economy and shortening the schedule for
the basement and foundation construction.
The structural develooment svslem anaivsis. and desisn were facilitated by devel-
. . -
oping a compmhcnsive series of computer analjses and design progmms. The auto-
mated analysis and des i ~n processing ofall elements in the wind-rrsistun~ system of the
buiidine sbucture resulted-in sienifiiant savincs in material costs. and enabled the en- - - -
u
gineen to complele the design and drawings in a short4-month schedule.
Advanced methods were also employed to assure quality control during construe-
. . . ~
lion. in pmicular. Ihe project set new slandards of assurance regarding the Gghtness of
high-suength bolls. Uilnsonic cxtmsomelers were usrd lo measure bolt lightness ac-
cu~ately for the first time on a commercial projecL
The 45.7- by 91.4- by 2.6-m (150- by 300- by 8.5-ft) mat foundation containing
11,127 m3 (13.308 yd" of concrete was poured in just over 19 hours. This was made
nossible bv usine a svstem of belt convevors su~olemenlcd by concrete pumps.
. - . . .
Thc structural stcel was crccled by fabriculing the exterio;lrcc cuiumns. <he vertical
core trusses, and the uce beams in modules to reduce [he number of pieces lo handle and
fieid connections to comdete. The ail-steel smcture was erected at a rate of one corn-
plele noor every 2% day;. n t e project was completc 6 months ahead ofihe planned fast-
track design and construction completion date, with the first lcnanl mo\'ed in jusl 15
months afler construction of the foundation began.
The project received the following awards:
Q! ! J
I ! I ! ! .
ED-
I.. I%_
" "'3"B-
Fig. 4.73 Typical noor framing plnn; Four Allen Center.
. "One of the Ten Outstnnding Engineering Achievements in the United States of
America," National Society of Professional Engineers, 1983
'
"Grand Award Winner for High Professional Execution of Engineering Design,"
American Consulling Engineers' Council. 1984
"Eminent Conceptor Award for the Most Outslanding Engineering Project" Consult-
ing Engineers' Council of Texas. 1984
Fp. 4.74 Enlnrgcd building reelion-lypicnl noor; Four Allen Center.
Trump Tower
New York, New Vork, USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Height irom sLreel to rooi
Number of stories
Number of le\'els below ground
Building use
Framc material
Typical noor live load
Basic wind \,elocity
Design fundamenVal period
Design accelcretion
Dcsien damping
Eanltqunkc loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Slab
Columns
Spacing
hlatcrial
Core
[Chap. 4
I
Sect 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems
Swnnke Hayden Connell
Oftice of Irwin G. Cantor
1982
101 m (664 It)
58
3
Retail, offices, residential
Concrclc
5 kPa (100 pr o rerail: 2.5 kPa ( 50 psi) of-
liccs; 2 kPa (4D 11~1) rcsidcnti:~l
Unavailable: iorcc = 1.0. 1.25. 1.5 kPa
(20. 25. 30 psi)
Hl600. 100-yr return
5.2 sec
16.5 mS peak. 10-yr rcturll
i.5%
Not applicable
Concrctcshcarcoie linkcd by cuncrelcout-
rigger walls lo conarcle pcriltielcr rralncs
hlonhattan mica schist
Sprcnd footings
4.8.3.66.2.9m(lh,12.9.5111
400-mm (16-in.) waffle slab: 190-nlnl
(7.5-in.) flat slab
813 by 513 rnm(32 by 37in.)
12.2 to 7.3 m (40 lo 24 it)
Shear walls, -157 mm ( I 8 in.) thick at
ground floor in 49-MPa (7000-psi) concrctc
Trump Tower is n multiuse building occupying a prime site on 5th Avenuc in New York
City. Th i o u ~ h the purchase of the air rights for adjacent sites and irom bonuses awarded
for the provision of public atncnities, a plot ratio (building floor arcJ lo site area) of 21
was achieved, making this a very slender building.
A perimeter tube lateral load resisting sysleln was unacceptable due to the impact o i
closely spaced columns on the views from the condominiums and on t l ~c shop fronts at
street level. Also, structural steel was rejecled due lo the lead lime required Tor supply
to the site. The adopted all-concrete solution u!ilized concrcte shear !\,ails for l;~leral
load resistance and deep concrete lransier girderr to chon%c the structural column grid
(Fig. 4.75).
Column and rnll lond and lnlcrnl dirplnccmcnt; Trump To~ucr, New Ynrk.
Through the 38 condominium levcls, loads are carried by 52 concrete columns and
concrete udi s around the service corc. At moflcvei, twin oulrigger beams 6 m (20 11)high
and 450 mm (18 in.) thick link the corc with perimeter columns on two opposite sides to
reduce latekdisolaczment. Extended core walls do this iob in the other direelion ~ - - ~ -
Below the twentieth floor a system of lransler girders 7.3 m (24 it) high and 450 to
600 mm ( I 8 to 24 in.) thick allows for the 52 columns to reduce to only 8 columns
through the 13 office levels. The transfer girders nlso act as outrigger beams to further
control lateral displacement. The girders are pierced by many openings for doors, pipes,
and ducls.
Another transfer system comprising an inclined-column A frame was introduced be-
tween the eleventh and seventh noon lo allow mother two columns to be removed in
order to open up the atrium, which rises seven levels through the retail floors at the base
of the buildine.
-
The 1087-m' (I 1.700-it2) rcsidcntial floors wcrr poured on a ?-day c)cle. n ~ c 56-
and 49-hlPa (8000- and 7000-psi) concrete for the columns contained a superplasticizer
to increase workabilitv for vlacine around dense reinforcement. Tieht manGement of
. . - - -
concrete delieerics uas requ~rcd to ensirre that high-strength concrete %,as avsilablc at
the right time for placement in s l ~b s over and around columns.
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems
173
Waterfront Place
Brfsbane, Australia
? ; . 5'
@ @; Architect
... ,
Cnmeron Chisholm and Nicol (Qld.) Pty.
Ltd.
Stmctuml engineer Bornhorst and Wnnl Pty. Ltd.
Number of stones 40
Building use Office
Typical noor live load 3 Wa (60 psfJ
185 mm (7.25 in.), 50-yr return
Design fundamental period 5 see
Design acceleration
2.3 mg (standard deviation), 5-yr return
Design damping I % serviceability; 5% ultimate
Typc of structure Shear core with outriggers to perimeter
columns
17 m (56 ft) of soft clay over rock
Footing type 25-m (82-it)-long 1.5-m (5-it)-diameter
bored piles socketed and belled in rock
Typical noor
story height 3.6 i (12 it)
Beam depth 420 mm (16.5 in.)
Beam spacing 6.8 m (22 ft 4 in.)
Material Posttensioned concrete
Slab 130-mm (5-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 1350 mm (53 in.) in diameter
Spacing 6.8 m (22 ft 4 in.)
Material
Concrete. MI to 35 MPa (8600 to 5000 psi)
Thickness at ground floor 600 mm (24 in.) max
Material
Concrete. 45 to 35 MPa (6-100 to 5000 psi)
Waterfront Place is a 42-level reinforced concrete framed office tower, located at tile
rivcr edke of Brisbane's central business district on a 15,000-m' (160,000-flZ) site (Fig.
4.76). A steel-level plaza provides access to the river edge for the public, whereas bc-
low and abow river level there is parking for 500 cars. River cdge boardwalks connect
174 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Se c t 4.31
Core and Outrigger Systems 175
Fig. 4.76 Wnlcrlront Place, Brirbone, Auztrolln.
ncifhboring developmenis with thl: p1311. ilnd mooring is pro!,ldedon the a;1ierfroot for
plc~surr.craft, tour boats, and ferries.
The 42-level tower provides 36 office floors, three plant-room floors, a ground-floor
foyer, and two basements. The configuration of a typical floor provides 12 m (40 ft) of
column-free space between core and glass line, with four cantilevered bay windows on
both the east and west facades, effeclively contributing 10 "corner" windows on each
floor (Fig. 4.77).
High-rise buildings taller than approximately 35 stories may not be structurally cco-
nomical if the core alone is used to resist wind loads. This is particularly thc case for a
building rectangular in plan loaded about its weak axis. Such was the case with Water-
front Place, which has 40 levels above plaza level.
Wind tunnel model testing was undertaken, and the results indicated that it would be
impractical to use the core to fully withstand wind forces. Wall thicknesses and rein-
forcement quantities would be excessive, as would be the sway of the building in the
east-west direction.
Instead the design concept was changed to that of a core-perimeter interaction struc-
tural system where the core "tube" is connected to the exterior columns at specific locn-
tions, in this case at the plant room at levels 26 and 27 (Fig. 4.78). At these levels, four
stilC"wind beams" cantilevering from the core are connected to perimeter transfer beams
between three columns on each lace oft he building. This induces participation oft he ax-
ial capacity of the exterior columns in resisting wind-induced loading (Fig. 4.79).
The core is used to resist all horizontal shear, but vertical shear resistance is trans-
ferred from the core to the exterior columns, thereby utilizing the total overturning ca-
pacity of the SINClUre.
I
3 .
Y__I
Fig. 4.77 Typieul rnidrire noor plon; WnlcrCront Plorc.
I
CORE WALLS
WIND BEAMS
COLUMN LOAD
SPECIAL JOINT
TOWER AND PLAZA . - _ _ * . - - A .
EAST WEST SECTION
Fig. 4.78 Tower nnd plnm wt-wstserlian: Waterfront Place.
Research indicated that the most effective location for the wind beams was at the top
levels of the tower. However, this was impractical due lo the stepped profile of the top-
most three plant levels (levels 37, 38, and 39) and the marketing potential of tenancy
levels 29 to 36. As a consequence the wind beams were placed at levels 26 and 27. two
' . .
floors containine mechanical rooms and of i ce space.
This l oca~i on~hri ~ht cned the possibility of diifcrentiai axial shoncning between the
reinforced concrele core and the colu~nns. A ,lee1 joint was developed to link thc out-
rieeer beams with the fransfer beams at the columns lo allow controlled slippage as Lhe
-- .. -
dilfcreniial movement occurred.
Thc use of the cantiicvcring wind beam syslem introduced some architeclural and
siructural cncinecrine dcsirn challenecs. In order to rcrist the 820-tonne (180.000-lbl
- -
l o ~ d appiied;o thc end ofcach wind hiam. the h e ms had lo be t uo stories high and 900
mm (36 in.) thick and prefenbly without any penetrationr. To have no pcncvations
would have meant the ldss of of f i e soace: th&efore laree ooenines were made in these
- . -
beams. This precluded the use of conventional beam design theory for these beams.
Consequently the beams were desipned using "strut and tie" theory. Concrete of 55-
MPn ff800-osil streneth and ties cinsistine i f 45 36-mm f 1.4-in.1-diamcler bars were
required to ;ra;mit &! working load of 86tonnes (1 80,000 lb) per beam.
The noor slabs at levels 26 and 28. which are locally 420 mm (16.5 in.) thick. par-
ticipate in the wind-beam action by working as flanges for the wind beams. The force
paths in the wind beams and the floor slabs arc shown in Figs. 4.79.4.80, and 4.81.
Differential venical shrinkaee betureen core and ~eri met cr columns at level 26 sub-
sequent to construction of the entire building was caiculated. Consvuclion history, ma-
terial propenies, and in-service loads were used in this calculation.
+L-LrL
FIG. 4.79 Level 26 noor plun-r,,reer trnnrmlttcd througtl nnorLanungc"; Wnlcrrronl Plncc.
Fig. 4.80 Str~Ulie tmrr-rt~rce up; \Vulcrrronl Ploec.
Fig. 4.81 SlruUtic truss-rorec dcmn: Il'ulurlronl t'larc.
The wind beams are extremely stiff. Design load deflection was calculated to be only
2 mm (0.08 in.). Unless some means of allowing movement between wind beam and
columns was found, the wind beams would have attempted to support the 15 stories
above level 26 and several stories below. This it could not do, and s wct unl failure
would have resulted. A sliding friction joint between wind beams and the column trans-
fer beams was developed. This is shown in Fig. 4.82. The joint is in effect a multiple
clutch with the slip load determined by the clamping force provided by the through bolts.
Tests were canied out at the Queensland University of Technology to determine the
co-efficient of friction between the brake-pad material and the stainless-steel plates.
Size, clamping force. and loading rate effects were investigated. Typical load-slip
graphs are shown in Fig. 4.83. Eoch joint is fitted with four strain gauges to monitor
stresses in the plates and hence the load being transferred through thePclutch." This al-
lows the clamping force to be adjusted to slip at the required design load. When the
clamping force is finally adjusted, it will not require any fudher adjustment in its life.
A typicnl plot ofstress versus time for one of the joints is shown in Fig. 4.84.
Section 9
Elevation on slip joint
Plan detail of slip ioint
rig. 4.82 Slip joint; \\'alcrfmnt Plituc.
!
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems I81
I
75% of maximum
Slip (mm)
Slip (rnrn)
Fig. 1.83 Friction ! er e Wolerfrunt Place.
T I ME ( WEEKS1
Fig. 4.81 Typicnl rlruin-gouge rcudingr on vind-beam juinl: \!'nlerfrunl Pincc.
[Chap.
Two Prudential Plaza
Architect Loebe Schlossman and Hackl
Structural engineer CBM Engineers. Inc.
278 m (912 ft)
Number of stories
64
5
Building use
Office
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design ncceleration
Design damping
Eanhquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Concrete to level 59, steel above
4 kPa (80 psf)
31 d s c c (70 mph)
488 and 419 mm (19.2 and 16.5 in.). 50-yl
return
7.2.5.8. 4.4 sec
19 mg peak. IO-yr return
2% serviceability
Not applicable
Shear core with outrigger beams and
perimeter frame
14-m (45-ft) fill over 11-m (35-ft) hard-
pan over rock
15-m (50-ft) hardpan caissons and 24-m
(80-fl) rock caissons
Story height
3.96 m (13 ft)
Beam span
12.2 m (40 ft)
Beam depth
610 mm (24 in.)
Beam spacing
6.1 m (20 ft)
Slab
One-way 150-mm (6-in.) slabs, typically
28-MPa (4000-psi) concrete
Columns
Size at ground noor
. ~
Material
Core
890 by 1140 mm (35 by 45 in.) at 6.1-m
(20-ft) centers
Concrete, 84 MPa (12.000 psi)
. ~
Shear walls 840,610. 460 mm (33. 24. 18
in.) thick at ground floor
Material
Concrete, 84 MPa 112.nnn ,,;r
. ,---
r-.,
Two Prudential Plaza, a 64-story office building, is located in downtown Chicago, Illi-
n01"Fig. 4.85). At the time of completion it was the second tallest concrete building in
the world. The building has a gross area of about 130.000 m' (1.4 million ft'). It has five
levels of basement, which are primarily used as a parking garage for 325 cars. The low-
Fig. 4.85 Tno Prudcnlinl Plaza. Clxicngu. Illinois. ICoirnen ojCBAl E, r ~ t n ~ . ~ r r i,,c )
cst bxcment is locatrd nt elev3lion -6.477 m (-21 fi 3 in.) CCD (Chicago Cily dntom).
The lobb) ofthe building is locatrd at elevation T 10.668 m ( 735 ft 0 in.) CCD. Lev-
els 4.5.38, nnd 39 are used for mecltmical equipment, and level59 for siorace of ui n-
dow-washing equipment Level 58 is the last office floor. Levels above 59 are mcchnn-
ical floors.
The building is rectannular at lhe lower levels. 37.4 bv 40.4 m (122 ft 6 in. bv 132 ft
- - .
8 in.), but becomes square at the fifty-ninth floor due lo a series of rcrb3ck on the nonh
:and south faces. Above lhr. fifty-ninth floor. lhr building sti\nq tapering to form a "cone
held." which is torrrred bv a 25-m (82-11) architectural soirc. The 10" rlcvniion of the
spire is 304.8 m ( i i 00 f t j c c ~ ( ~ i g . 1.86).
The lateral stiffness in each direction is mainly provided by the four shear walls lo-
cated in lhe core of the buildine. Their deoth is 13.8 m (45 f t 4 in.). The flanees are 838
rnm (33 in.) thick a d the wzb; are 610 ai d 380 mm ( i 4 and 15 /n.) thick Tor the inte-
nor and extcrinr ualls. rcspeclively. The south shear wall drops off nt level 27 where&$
the nonlt w11l drorrs off at leiel 40. Tile middle ualls conlinue 111 !he wav lo floor 59.
The flanges of wails arc connected together in the north-south direction by k86-mm (27-
in.)-deep link beams.
The columns at the east and west faces are soaced at 6.1-m (20-ft) centers. whereas
. . . ~
on the north and south laces they arc spaced at 9.15 m (30 11). The typical extrnor col-
umn sire vJries from 8'10 by 1140 mnl (35 hy 35 in.) at the lo\ver floors to 600 h\ 600
mm (24 bv 24 in.) e the ton floor;. A maximum concrete streneth of 84 MPe 11$.000
- . -
psi) u'as used for columns and shear walls at the lower floors. The concrete strength was
reduced to 42 MPa (6000 psi) at the upper floors.
The floor beams have a clear snan 3 aooroximarelv I 2 m (40 ft) from the oerimetcr
. . . .
columns to the shear r\,311 cure. Typical floor bcam size is 965 mm (38 in.) by 610 lrlm
(24 in.) deep. Floor framing consists of a 150-mm (6-in)-thick norrn>l-weight concrelc
sllb u,ith o clear span of 5 13 in (16 f l I0 in.) be1ncr.n rhc noor beams. spaced st 6 I m
(20 ft) centcr5. In addillon tu carrying the gmvity load. rbe floor beams carry some 01
the wind shear frum the shear ivalls to the outside columns. At the fortieth and 111c filly-
nineth floors the core is tied to the outside columns at two locations with the helo of oi l -
,
rigger ivnlls to control the wnd drift and reduce Ihe overturning monlent in thu core
shear walls The beams are 5.03 m (16 f16 in.) deep (in other words. a full nory high)
butwcci~ floors 39 and 10 ind 1.68 m (5 115 in.) deep ar floor 59.
. .
The foundation system consists of straight shaft caissons up to 3 m (10 ft) in diame-
ter. These caissons rest on the bedrock, which is about 30 m (100 fr) below the existing
ground level. The allowable bearing capacity of this rock is 19 MPa (200 tonlft'). To
fully utilize this capacity, 56-MPa (8000-psi) concrete was used in caissons. In the park-
i nggange adjacent to the main tower, belled caissons were used. These caissons extend
to hardpan about 21 m (70 ft) below existing grade. The allowable bearing capacity for
this hardpan is about 3.4 MPa (36 todft').
+1!22'-6''+
-.
: %
C X
m:
at
LON
\
Fig. 4.86 Typlcnl floor plnru: Two Prudenlinl Plnm.
7999 Broadway
Denver, Colorado, USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lateral dctlcction
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typicnl floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Core
Material
C.W. Fentrcss and Associates P.C.
Sevemd Associates
1985
198 m (650 it)
43
3
Office
Concrete corc, srcel frame
2.5 Wa (50 psi)
36 mlsec (80 mph)
HI400
USA zone 1
Concrete corc with outriggers to perimeter
stccl fmme
Caissons
3.81 m ( I 2 ft 6 in.)
9. 14m (30 it)
406 mm (16 in.)
3.43 m (I l ft 3 in.)
83-mm (3.25-in.) lightweight concrete on
50-mm (2411.) metal deck
W350 by 1088 kglm (W14 by 730)
4.57 m (15 ft)
Shear walls 610 mm (24 in.) thick at
ground floor
Concrete, 42 to 28 MPa (6000 to 4000 psi)
1999 Broadway is an unusual 43-story office building built on a triangular site. The
presence of an historic church on pan of the site resulted in the plan of the office build-
ing having the shape of an arrowhead which wraps around the church, creating from it
a piece of sculpture on the plaza (Fig. 4.87).
The facade comprises alternating bands of limestone and green reflective glass and
a concave cunain wall having seven angled facets around and above the church. The
building has been raised 15 m (50 ft) above ground on 22 limestone-clad columns to cre-
ate views oft he church from within.
The slroclurc cunsists of^ rr.inforccd concrde curvicc core. stccl perimeter columns.
and stcci flnor b s ms and g~rdcrs co~nposile with tile rlah. At Ic\r.lr 3 10 5 and 29 lo 31.
two-story-high outrigger trusses between core and perimeter columns reduce thc lateral
deflection. Girders are connected to plates field-welded to cast-in plates in the slip-
Se c t 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems .-.
formed core. The perimeter frames act with the core to resist lateral loads and effects
due to the eccentric form of the building.
Footings comprise cast-in-place caissons founded in claystone and sandstone some
I5 m (50 ft) below grade. A single caisson supports each column, and caissons at a min-
imum spacing of three caisson diametem are distributed around the core. The design end
bearing pressure was 3350 kPa (70,000 psO, and skin friction in the rock was 335 Wa
(7000 psf).
Fig. 4.87 Typicnl noor plnn; 1999 Broadway, Denver, Colorado.
Citibank Plaza
Hong Kong
Architect Rocco Design Partners
Structural engineer Ove Amp and Partners
Height from street to roof 220 m (722 it)
Building use Office
Frame material Reinforced and posttensioned concrete
Basic wind velocity 64 mlsec (144 mph). 50-yr return, 3-scc
gust
Maximum laleral deflection 370 mm (14.5 in.). for50-yrrcturn period
wind
Eanhquake loading Not applicable
Type of structure Concrete core with outriggers
Foundation conditions Dccomposed granite over granite bedrock
Footing type Hand-dug caissons to rock
Typical floor
Story heighr 3.9 m (12.8 it)
Beam depth 500-mm (20-in.)-deep ribbed slab
Beam spacing Reinforced concrete ribbed slab
Columns
Size at ground floor 3000 by 1900 mm (120 by 75 in.) mnr
Spacing 9.4 rn (3 1 ft)
Material Concrete with 40-MPa (5800-psi) cube
strength
Core Shear walls 1.0 and I.?, m (3.3 and 4 it)
thick at base
Material Concrete with 1 0 MPa (5800-psi) cube
strength
The four-level basement of Citibank Pl ma (Fig. 4.88) was formed using top-down con-
struction techniques. Stability \vas achieved with the internal cores acting in combina-
tion with the perimeter columns, using outriggers at two levels (Fig. 4.89). Part of t he
building is seated above a major entryway to a neighboring development. To achieve
this, the perimeter columns rake outrvnrd along one face of the building over a one-story
height (Fig. 4.90). The resulting lateral forces were resistcd by a prestressed beam sys-
tem tied back to the internal cores. prestressing being applied in stages as construction
progressed.
hg. 4.88 Cllibank Plnzo. Hung Kong. (Cac,ncrr of ol e A n q orxdporinrrr]
190 Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.31
191
7B.&
Fig. 4.89 Fioorplnn; Citibnnk Plnrs.
Pig. 4.90 Section through mking columns; Cilibnnk Plorn.
4.4 TUBULAR SYSTEMS
7 Historical Perspective
The development of the initial generation of tubular systems for tall buildings can be
t r nr ~d to the concurrent evolution of reinforced concrete construction followine World ...... .- ~~~~ ~ -
War 11. Prior to the early 1960s. reinforced concrete was utilized primarily for low-rise
construction of only a few stories i n height. Ti ~esr bui l di n~s were chancterized by pla-
nar Viercndeel beak and column arraneemcnts with wid;soacines between membcrs.
. -
The basic ~ncfficieacy of the frame wcleln for rsioforc:d concrete buildings or more
t1r~11 ahnut I5 slnrlcs rusulttd in m:,ober proportinns or prohthi t~te .ire and rlruclur;~l
material cost or~miums. and thus such svitcms were economicallv inviable. Concrete
shear ual l systems arr;lnged i \ ~ t b i ~ t 111shuilding int~.riur c o ~ l d be utilirud. b.11lhcy uerr.
oftc~t of insul'licicnt sire for aliifne,~ and rcsil;,ncs ;lgain%t orcrturnlng. Thi, Icd tu lhr.
dcvclonment of st ruct ur~l svstems with a hi rhcrdcrrcc orcfficicncv toward lateral load
- -
rci\t.lncs lor 1311~.rh~i l di ngs. The nntlon n i i fully t hr ~u~di mcn~i onaI i rucl ur; ~l sj rl um
uti l i z~nc th~. cnlir~. build:nc inertin lo rcri rl l s l ~. r ~i loads b:wn l o cmcrec ;I[ lhls time.
Thc main orooonent of thi;desien trcnd was Fszlur Khan. who svstem~i cal l v oursucd ~ ~
, , - , .
a logical evolution of tali building structural systems. The pervssivc international-style
approach 10 archilecture a1 the lime included lergcr open spaces with longer spans, a
well-oraanized core. and a clcarlv ocrceotiblc interior-exterior column grid. Wi l hi n this
, . .
;~rui~iteclur:tl 2nd ecnnnmic clinl:!lc. Ihc fr-1111cd Iuhi. h).\tcin i n rd IIIOICL.~ c~lncrct: i : t l l
hi. \c:n ;lr bull) ;I n;~ttlr-l 2nJ 3,) innur:.l!\u ~: ~~I O~I I I SI I I in tidl b.tilcling <yhtL.nl,
2 The Framed Tube
The orcnniration of t he framed tubc svstcm is acncrallv one ofciosclv soaccd exterior
- - < .
columns and deep spandrel bcama rigidly connected together. with the enlire assem-
blaee continuous aionr each facade and around the building corners. The system is a
l oekal cxansion of the moment resirline frame. whcrebv the beam and coiumn st i r - -
ussses are 111cr r 3~d dram;!ric:ill! hg ruducirlg ltle clear sp;tn dirnensionr and incrr3stng
thl: rnclnbcr dc ~~l t s . Thd monoiilllic oaturr. uf rcinfurccd corlcrcte runrlructinn is ide311y
suited for sucha svstem. in\,olvinr fully continuous interconnections of the frame mem-
- .
bers. Depending on the heighl and dimensions of the building, exterior column spacings
should be on the order of 1.5 to 4.5 m (4.9 l o 14.8 ft) on center maximum. Spandrel
beam de~t hs for normal office or residentinl occupancy applications are t v~i cal l v 600 to
1200 m k 124 to 47 in.). The resuitine arranremcnt ao~r ~xi mat es a tub; cantilcvcrcd
svsiem costs. Exterior columns mav eliminate the need for intermediate vcrtical mullion
elcntunls of ti>c uur1;lin \$:dl 133~11311) ur 1.)1311g. A iIrUClUr.lli51 ?Xpr~:isinn fur tile e \ l ~ -
ridr envelope msy hc l ul l ? rc; ~l i z~. J b! <\pnslng IIIC ~.xldrinr tuhul;,r mernb~.~;, IIIUS
dclinong >he xil1,>r.~!-r31 Jen~.str:,li~~~>. TI,< ~Li l l dn! ~ ! L i l l l i).st?rn 15 1hc.ninfilled i,etre~.n
the coi &~ and spandrel beams. with II resultino reduction i n claddine cost. An eariv ex-
ampie of such a iubuiar bui l di n i n rcinforccd~oncrete is shown i n Fig. 4.91.
*
The behavior ofrrarnrd tubes under Interel load is indicated i n Fig. 4.92, which shows
the distribution of axial forces i n the exterior columns. The more the distribution is sim-
ilar to that of a fully rigid box cantilevered at the base, the more efficient the system wi l l
be. For the case of a solid-\$,all tube. [he distribution of axial forces would be expected to
bc uniform over the windn.nrd and Iccivard \tSslls and linear over the sidcrvnlls. As the
tubular walls are punched, creating the beam-column frame, shear frame deformations
Sect 4.41 Tubular Systems 193
Fig. 4.91 Brunrwiek Building, Cl~icugo. lllinoir.
~ d ~ r r a ~ ~ o a o nes~sr ~ng hysrems [Chap. 4
ore introduced duc l o sltear;lnd flcxurc i n the tubular mumbcrs as uul l as routtons 01 thc
ntcmber loin&. Thi s rcdtlccs the ei l ecti \e stlffnrss Of lbe systeln as a cantilever. The ex-
tent to whi ch h e actual axi al load distribution i n the tube columns dcoartr; from the idesl
~. -
~. ~
is rcnndd the ",hear lag effect." I n behavioral terms. the forces i n the colurnns toaard lltu
lniddls ui t he flange frnmus lq behind those nearer the conter and are tltua less than ful l y
ulllized. Li mi ti ng the shear lag ellect is essential fnr oplimal de\.elopmen~ of the :ubulnr
system. A rc3son;1blr. objcctit,e is l o strivc toward a1 least 7% effi ri cncy sucll [hat the
cantilever component i n llte oteral l rystcln deflection ondsr ui nd load dnminatus.
Thc 1r;tmed tubu i n structural slsel rsquirus wcldinp oftl te heam-column join1 tu du-
!clop ri gi di ty and continuily. Tl l c ~onn3t i onof fahri c~tcd 1rr.u elemenlr, rrltcre al l weld-
i ng is p:rformcd i n llte shop i n a hori zonwl position, has made the alrsl-frame tuhe s ~ $ .
tem more practical and efficienl, as shown i n Fie. 4.93. The trees are then erected-bv
~,
bolting the ipandrcl bcotn* togelher ak Inidspan near thc pnint of i nnrxi on.
The col umn spacing i n steel-fmntrd tubular buildings lnust be ~.ral ual cd to b~l;tnce
llte nerds for higher cantilever dfiicicauy throuph cl orcr anactnkr rvitll increased F~hr i -
cation costs. The use ordeeper, built-up sectioni versus roiled Gmbcr s is also a matter
of cost-effectiveness. A survey of steel quantities for completed tubular buildings is
sl ~own in Fig. 4.94. The buildings range from 40 to 110 stories. and column spacings
generally range from 3 to 4.5 m (10 to 15 ft) on center, wi th spacings as close as I m
(3.28 ft) i n the case of the 110-slory Wor l d Tradc Center twi n towers. New Yor k (fig.
4.95). These towers are examples whereby the structuralist notion of a punched wall
tube wi th extremely close exterior columns is architeclurally exploited to express visu-
al l y the inherent veni cal i ty of the high-rise building.
Elevation
Cantilever
componenl
I Shear frame
component
I
Sway
Dlslribullon w l h w
shear lag
Actual axial stress
shear lag
Wind lorce t
Fg. 4.92 Frulncd tulle i ~cl v~ri or.
Sect 4.41 Tubul ar Systems 195
Fig. 4.93 Typical tree crcction uniL
HEIGHT (in)
Vlg. 4.94 Conl i l cv~r systems, stccl qunntity versus hciglxt
3 The Trussed Tube
,\, ihc tubular concept; were being dcreloprd in ihr 19605, il became Jppdrent that
thcrr was a cenain building height nnge for which the framed tube could be elficlenll)
adaoled. For rrry 1311buildings. lhe dense grid of beam and column members has a d t -
=id;d impact oni he facade aGhitecture. The need lo control shear lag and improve the
I 9 \Ysrld Trndc Center, New Ynk. lCo,mrry rfLrrlii. Robcrrrnr, n ~ i ~ l . i r mr 1
Tubular Systems
systemefficiency can only be realized by relatively small perforations in the tubular
walls. The problem becomes particularly acute at the base of the building, where archi-
1 @$ teclural plannine lypically demands open access to the bulldine interio; from ihe sur- .
I . ,
rounding infrastruaurd will1 as lilrlc encumhr;mre 2s possible {om the sxlerior fr;~me-
k.;
n,orI;. A number ofulcgant solutians inrolving Ole transfer and rcmovnl oftlle e~turi, , r
columns at the base of the building have been i omul at ed (Figs. 4.91.4.95, and 4.96).
'".~~t~pcharnc~eristically include an associated material premium.
The trussed tube system represents a classic solution for a tube uniquely suited to thc
qualities and chmcl er of structural steel. The ideal tubularsyslem is one which intercon-
~. , .
[Chap. 4
The bundled tubc concept allows for wider column spacings in the lubulu walls lhan
wo~~i d br oossible with unlv lhc eatrrior framed lube form. 11 is his sp3cine uhicll
rnnkes it possible to place inierior frame lines withoul setiousiy c ~m~r o~i s i ng~i nl e r i or
space planning. In principle, any closed-form shapemay be used to create the bundled
form (see Fig. 4.102). The ability to modulate the cells vertically can create a powerful .,2
vocabulary for a variety of dynnmic shapes. The bundled lube principle therefore offers , *.?;s.::!:s
great latitude in the architecturnl plnnning of a very la11 building.
t t t t t t t
Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
114
PLANS
TYPE
SIZE
HI W
0c0101
ENDCHANNEL
TRUSSEDTUQE
MOMENT RESISTING
FRAME OR
FRAMED TUBE
Fig. 4.99 Pnrtiul Lubulnr ryslcrn.
-COLUMN AXIAL
DUE TO WIND
::: s
0 0 ..
LOADS
CASE (A1
EXT. TUBE EXT. TUBE EXT. TUBE BUNOLEO TUBE
69m x 69m 46m r 48m 23m x 23m 69m x 69m
6.65 9.60 19.00 6.65
0.61 0.75 0.66 0.78
Fig. 4.98 Trurrcd tubc, grurity loud rrdlrlribstion. Fig. 4.100 Sludy of tul~ulor cllicicnry.
r
COMPRESSIVE
STRESS
MASTER GRID
STRESS OF COLUMNS
AT BASE
(a1 FRAIAING PLAN Ibl SHEAR LAG BEHAVIOR
1:ig. 4.101 Uundlrd tube bchuriur: Sears Tower, Clnicugn, lilineir.
,03 1
PROJECT DESCR~PT~ONS, FRAMED TUBES
Amoco Building
Chicago, Nlinois, USA
Architect Edward Durrell Stone with The Perkins
l
and Will Partnership
Swctural engineer The Perkins and Will Partnership
I
Yenr of completion 1973
342 m (1123 A) Height from street to roof
Number of stories 82.
Building use Office
Frnme material Structural steel
Typical floor live load 4 Wa (80 psO
Basic wind velocity 1.4 X Chicago code
Design wind load deflection HI400
Type of svucture Perimeter fnmcd tube
Foundation conditions Silty clay, sand, and gravel over massive
dolomitic limestone
Footing type Concrete caissons. 1.5 to 3.8 m (5 fl to 10
ft 3 in.) in diameter. approximarely 24 m
(79 ft) long
Typical floor
Truss span 13.7 m (45 fr)
Truss depth 965 mm (38 in.)
Truss spacing 3.05 m (10 ft)
Material Swctural steel
slab; 35 MPa (5000 psi) on 38-mm (1.5-
in.) steel deck
Columns Folded plate, size not available
Spacing 3.05 m (10 ft) center lo center
Material Stcel, grade 250 MPa (36 ksi)
Core Structural steel frames carrying gravity
loads only
Fig. 4.102 hlndular tuher.
/ ,!j
The innovative structural concept applied to this 342-m (1 123-ft)-high building resulted
,
from the desire to achieve an efficient, simple to erect structure utilizing a perimeter
i tube whose behavior would closelv anoroximate that o i a oure cantilever (Fie. 4.103). I
. . . . -
The lubc compriaca uolulnns uf V-rhaped kcel plaw 3nd du:p ubxnnul.shapud bcnl-
plat: spandrel bcams shop-fabncalcd Inlo 3-stor) Irccs. Tb:r< arc 64 sucll columns ;,t 3-
I
m (10-11) centers around the perimeter, plus solid steel plate walls to the reentrant cor-
ners. The free inner edges of the columns are stiffened by heavy angle sections. Connec-
tions between spandrel beams comprise simple high-strength bolted joinL5, whereas col-
umn splices are welded at lower stories and bolted or welded at upper stories.
The floors are generally supported by 13.7-111 (45-11)-span trusses at 3-m ( 10-ft) cen-
ters. Trusses at successive floors attach to alternate sides of a column to effectively cre-
' .
Fig. 4.103 Amoco Uutldtng, Chtcugo, lllinuis. (Pl>nin h? Jrrr BairB.)
f&'
Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems 205
i i . ::
:: ate a concentric load in the vlane of the wall. At the buildine corners the shorter-soan
diagonal girder and attached'beams are wide-flange sections. ?he 4000 essentially iden-
tical lrusses and the comer beams were mass-produced in an assembly line.
Economv was achieved bv creatine a ~er i mel cr frame irom thin steel olate .;oread
- . . -.
!,.,.i,over as much of the facade as was architecturally acceptable and by maximizing the
;?:?'number of geometrically identical elements. The arraneement also negated the need for
sublramine for the exterior curtain wall.
-
-
The space within the V-shaped columns was used Tor air s h a h and hot and chilled
water pipes for the perimeter zone. The interior zones were s ue ~l i e d from vertical shafts
in the bore
The building contains45.900 lonnes (50.506 tons) ofsteel, ofwhich 37% is in beams
and trusses and 63% in columns and reentrant corner wnlls.The r\reieht ofsteel amounts
Sect. 4 41
181 West Madison Street
Archilcct
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Height from streel to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame malcrial
Bnsic wind selocily
Design fundemenla1 pcriod
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of slructure
Foundation condiiions
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Benm span
Benm spacing
Benm depth
Slab
Columns
Spacing
blalcrial
Core
Thickness a1 ground floor
The I 81 West Madison Sbcet lowe
Wells Streets in [he Chicago Loog
backs and a distinctive cro\r8n that
1920s. This is also n tower for the
with n center square concrelc core
Cesar Pelli and Associates with Shaw and
Associates
Cohen-Barreto-Mareherlas Inc.
1990
207 m (680 ft)
50
1
o mc e
Concrete corc, steel perimeter frame
2.5 kPa (50 psf)
-13 mlsec (97 mph). IOO-yr rclum period
400 mm (16 in.). IOO-yr return period
8.3. 6.7 see horizontal: 6.3 sec lorsion
18.4 mg peak
I .5% senaiceability
Not applicable
Concrete core lube with stccl perimeter
tuhc
Hardpan. 1.7-MPa ( 2 0 . ~ ~ 0 capacity
Caissons. 24 m (80 ft) long. 1370 mm (4 fl
6 in.) in diameter, belled to 3-m (IO-ft) di-
ameter
3.96 m (13 ft)
10.36 m (34 ft)
3.05 m (10 fr)
530 mm (21 in.)
140-mm (5.5-in.) composite metal deck
W350 by 745 kglm (14 in. by 500 Iblft)
6.1 m (20 ft)
Steel, grade A572. 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Central concrete corc. 62 lo 28 MPa (9000
to 4000 psi)
400. 500, 660 mm (16, 20. 26 in.)
r is a 50-story office building located at Madison and
1 (Fig. 4.104). It is a point lower, with multiple set-
recalls the sculpturally expressive skyscrapers of the
1990s. It is clearly organized as a square floor plen
and column-free office space (Fig. 4.105).
Fig. 4.104 181 \Veal hlidiron Slrccl, Chicngn, illlnoi~
181 West Madison is the tallest combination core building in Chicago. The central
concrete core is surrounded bv a sWctuml steel frame and a com~osi t e floor svstem.
The squa~c core is 50 stories tA11. for a totnl height of 207 m (680 fi).
rile core and columns a the base of ihc building are rupponed by cnissons and gradc
heams. Of the cnissons in the uroiecC 25% existed. Transfer-crade beams between new
and existing cnissons were uskd i o take the tower's wind an; gravity loads. The foun-
dation wall on the east side of 181 West Madison required underpinning as it is a com- ;.?&$
mon wall with its neighbor, 10 South LaSalle StreeL
Interior spans of 13.1 m (13 ft) ailowa column-free interior space for maximum user
flexibility. The many setbacks at the top of the building require all the perimeter
columns to be fransferred several times. In addition, the columns on either side of the
, sect. 4.41
I I I I I I
Tubular Systems
-
-
@?
loading dock at ground level are also transferred to increase clearance for trucks. E
stcel is less than 59 kg/m2 (12 psO.
lobby. Clad in warm white, grey, and green marble, the lobby's
-
-
-
I-+ -
I I I I I I
I
Fig. 4.105 8th to 14118 noor rramine pian; 181 \Vest hlndirun S t r c c ~
AT&T Corporate Center
Architect Skidmore Owings and Mcr r i l l
Structural engineer Skidmore Owings and Mer r i l l
Hei ght from street to roof 270 m (886 R)
Number of stories 6 1
Number of levels belo\%, ground 2
Bui l di ng use Of l i cc
Frame material Conlpositr slccl-concrete perimeter liarlie.
steel interior columns. stccl floor beams
Typi cal fl oor l i ve load 4 kPa (80 psr) lct,cls 3 to 30: 2.5 kPa (.iO
psi ) I c\ , c~s 31 to 59
Basic wi nd \,elocity 35 mlsec (78 rnplt). IOU-yr return
Maxi munt lateral deflection HI700
Design fundantcntal period 6.5 sec
Design acceleration 20 rng. I O-yr return
Dcsign damping I to l.5<> aurrice;lhility
Earthquake looding Not applicable
Type of structure Exterior concrcte-fromcd tubc wi th ilite-
ri or frfieity-luad culunins. t mr r s . :lnd
bei ~o~s
Foundation conditions 18 m (60 i t ) of clay over liardpan
Footing type Belled caissons on 1iardp;ln
Typical floor
Story lheigltt 4.0111 (13 ft 2 in.)
Truss span 14.6 m (48 i t )
Truss depth 914 rnm (36 in.)
Truss spacing 4. 6m( l 5 I t )
Il l ateri al Steel. grade 230 and 350 h,IP;1(36 and 50
ksi)
Slah 63-nun (1.5-in.) light\\,cight cuncrctc on
76-mm (3-in.) o~etal deck
Columns
Size at ground l l oor I422 by 813 oim (56 by 32 in.)
Spacing 4.6 ~n ( 1 I 5 111
ivlnterial Nornt;il-\\,cigltt concrstc, 56 tu 35 MP;t
(5000 to SUOUpsi)
Cure Steel he;~ms and columns for gravity load
only
Tlte ATSl T Cnrporatc Center (Fig. 4.106) consists of a 61-story ufl i cu to\i,cr \\,it11
rentable areas of fl uor plates ranging front 3250 m2 (35.000 1'1') on the lowest floors to
Sect. 4.41
Tubular Systems
. .
Fig. 4.1116 ATST Corpunltc Ccntcr, C~ I EI ~ ~ C~ . Illtnots. (Pimr<l I , ?. Hrdri ri ~-l (l ci rbi ~.~
I
Fig. 4.108 Gctwgio P I I E ~ ~ C. At l l ml ~, Gcorgiu.
I# Sect. 4.41
Tubular Systems
~
TYPICAL HIGH-.RISE M O R
TYPICAL LOW.RISE. F L WR
Fig. 4.lllY Typirni flours; Gcorgio Pocific.
222'-0"
Fig. 4. i l l l Pruming piun; Gcargiu Pacific.
Fig. 4.111 Snalooth locnde; Georgia Pneilic
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, N. Y., USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year 01 completion
Heighl from street to roof
Number 01 stories
Number 01 lc\pels below ground
Building use
Framc malerial
Basic wind velocity
hlaximum lateral dencclion
Design lundnmental period
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Typc of structure
Footing type
Typical noor
SIOV height
Bcnm span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Malerial
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Core
[Chap. 4
Skidmore Owings and Mcrrill
Olfice of Irwin G. Cantor
1992
168 m (550 h)
40
0
Olfice
Steel
2.5 kPa (50 psfl
36 mhec (80 mpit)
HljOO, 50-yr rcturn
5.5 sec
Less than 20 mS peak
1 Su
No1 opplicablc
Perimeter tube with broced core
Rock. 4- to 6-hlPn (40- to 60-lon/lt')
capacity
Piers socketed into rock
3.81 m(12116i n. )
13.4 m (44 fi)
460 mm (18 in.)
3.05 m (10 11)
Stccl. grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
64-mm (2.5-in.) concrete over 76-mm (3-
in.) metal deck
6.1 m (20 11)
Steel. grade 350 hlPa (50 ksi)
Braced steel. grade 350 hlPa (50 ksi)
Placing n high-rise tower abo\'e a landmark post olfice structure which sits dirrclly
above a mnjor urban rail line is a highly formidable task, which requires an unusual and
innovalive engineering concept. The 450 Lexington Avenue building (Fig. 4.112) is
such o project and posed many challenges to lhe designers and conlractors.
Thc existing landmark post ollice sits directly over the railroad tracks leading into
New York City's Grand CcnIr.nl Station. The congested system of tracks made it im-
possible to bring t l ~e 54 totr'er columns down to the loundation. In addition, the track
layouts ~otelly precluded the placcnlenl of a conventional a,ind resisting system due lo
Tubular Systems
terference wilh train clearances. The key to the structural solution was the use of a
egacolumn syslem. The megacolumn system lonns the "legs of a table," which carries
e tower's gravity and wind loads within the existing building's shell (Fig. 4.113).
Tlte megacol u~i l ~~s are placed 24.4 m (80 11) apart in the north-south direction and
1.8 m (170 11) apart in the east-west direction. Two are 6.1 by 7.6 m (20 by 25 ft) in
p an. and two are 6.1 by 2.6 m (20 by 8.5 11). The plan sizes were governed by the avail-
Fig. 1.1 13 450 Lcringlon ,\venue. New York.
I
able space bcrween tracks. The megacolumns arc solid reinforced concrete as they rise
from tltc foundation through tlie train area. At the first floor. theu are comnosed of a I
steel-fr3mud iruhs stru:tdre t01:111) enc3scd in cu,!crets. ~ . i t t ) Jioicrtrinn\ :i. ~UIL.U.
R' i ~n r tu the third-flour - u~cc. t h~. me e : t ~ ~ I ~ ~ n t ~ s conne:t to rnas\trc 76-11] 25.11,- 1
- -
tall trusses. The trusses estcnd i n both the nonh-south and east-rvcsl directions and con-
nect all four megacolumns. Tlie resulting megaframe systcm was referred to as the
"table ton."
I t wa; the table top which picked up all the tower's columns and transferred their
load to the mcgacolumns and to 13 strategically located con\'entional steel columns.
The 12 intermediate columns reduce the truss spans bet\\,een llte megacolumns and aid
i n thc sunnon of zrauitv loads. Ultimatclv i t was this frame which transferred all the
, , L .
ni nd I t v~Jr illid gr3$it! Iu~JI to llle f o~nd~l i uns.
I l r e t l u\ ~hi l i t y nl \IL.L.I mxdc i t the choice m3teri~1 for 111~' luaer illttl lhc hdlk uf the
merasustem. However. the concrete encasement added the needed mass and stiffness.
tween the adiucent train tracks iormcd concrcle wall columns. Composed of 55-MPa
(6000-psi) concrete. these walls supported the intcrmcdiate columns of thc mega truss
system above. Utilizing concrctc meant that the construction could proceed while the
existing building above !\,as still i n plnce.
Tlie towcr.5 structural svstcm is cornnosed of a oerimetcr tube of columns naced at
6.1-m (20-it) ccntcrs. The colunins arc W36s and W30s for maximum efficiency. The
four corners of the pcrimotcr tube arc reiniorccd wilh a vertical Vierendeel truss. \tshich
stirfens the tube sienificuntlv. Inside the corc t\\,o vertical trusses are locrttcd. \\,hich rise
Tltc to\ve;'s lrasc suacc beeins at the sixth floor. ~ e l o $ i the sixth floor. a11the tow-
-
cr's columns slope through tlic fiftli-floor mechanical area to positions upon the top
chord ofthe megutrussea. Figure 4.1 I 4 illustrates thc thirteenth through thirty-fin1 odd
floor framing plan.
Rccagnition that the existing past office facility is a national landmark mcont that the
facade had to be maintained i n its current form, whereas the central area of the existing
structure was demolislied l o make way for the new mcenstructurc. Consequently Lhe fa-
cade and one adjacent bay of the structure were left inplace, thereby providinf the sla-
bility to the facade while demolition and construction proceeded. The remaining bay of
the existing structure \\,as known as the "douohnut" area. which \\.as uperaded struc-
- . -
turalty ;lnd ulum;ltcl! \<as ~nct~rpur;!tsd ialln lhc fin;ll ,Iruclure.
Tllc pl i ! s~c~I ctl ni pl e~i tg : ~nd ltttric;tlc compnsIt~. bcliaviur UI t l l ~ n l c g ~ ~ ) s t c ~ ~ i IU-
qtlirud ihc use .>i a n u ~~t l ~c r oi three-dimtnsiond cump.ller models for 3n3lysi. L;ilr.r:ll
a.nd vertical movement bad to be determined accuratciv due to tlic imnact u&n the [and-
ihe 90-year-old bunts and limcstonc perimeter.
I
226 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Tubular Systems 227
As tall buildings become more slender, the dynamic behavior of thc building bccomes
more critical. The results of the wind tunnel tests showed that the Mellon Bank lower
(Fig. 4.1 15) had a vortex shedding problem with the cross-wind structural response be-
ing 50% larger than the response due to the code wind forces.
A comoarison of various ootions for sliffeninr and damninr the svucmrc rvas stud-
.
perimeter column system coupled with s composite steel pnd concrete supertruss wrrs
,
utilized. Figure 4.1 I6 shows the resultin% floor plan.
The concrete encasemenl of the steel structure provided the needed damping, stiff-
{
ness, and additional strength. The cost analysis performed by the construction manager
proved that the composite system resulted in a more economicnl structure lhan an all-
- . "
led and t l ~e custs ofuach method were estimolcd. I t ass C O I I C I U ~ L . ~ 11101111s L ~ S S of:! corn-
1 .%',
stccl building. Thc inter3ction of stcul nnd concrclc and their bchwior under the dcslgil
posits struclural systsm would bc most eco~tomicnl. Conwqucntly a concrr.lc.uncared
?:'
loads were studied utilizing a detailed finite.elemunt nnalysis.
The building's lateral system is formed by the comoosite nerimeter columns soaccd
7.95 m ( 9 11B h.) on ccnlfr, forming a pcri&eler l ubC[ ~i g. i . 117). Typical composite
column xhemes ulili7.c the slecl columns sol:ly fnr erection purposes, uith the bulk of
thc v~.rticaI load carried by the concrete. In this slruclure, restrictions in the overall si re
of the columns required the use of a truly shared composite system, with the concrete
encasement and the steel columns each c a wi n g significant portions of the vertical load.
,
F i g . . hl~llnn Dunk. Philodrlphin, Penns?.lvaniu. .:::. ... , Fig.4.116 Framing plan for noors 14 l o 23; hlcilon Dank.
. *,
. - , .,>A.
,.,
. ....
.,i?.. .,.
Comolicatine the nroiect was that none of the 52 columns in the tower continued di-
- . .
rectly to the ground. Instead, all of the perimeter columns are either sloped or picked up
bv msses. The sloped column system enabled the transfer of columns into new posi-
tions, allowing for the enlargement of the lower floor plates while still maintaining col-
,:.u.mn-free 2. . . lease space.
*.. ,
. - I
Depending on the architectural constraints, groups of columns slope at different
floors. The sloped columns always form a symmevical system, whereby sloped
columns on opposite sides of the floor balance out the overturning forces resulting from
the slope. In numerous cases, columns are terminated upon pick-up tmsses, which are
also sloped to link up with their repositioned supporting columns.
A unique sloped column system occurs between the tenth and thirteenth floors,
where the four inside comer columns are supported by an A-frame. Each A-frame gen-
erates significant lateral forces, which are all balanced out by again balancing one cor-
ner against the opposite corner. The floor diaphragm, being the link between all
columns, plays a kcy role in transferring these balancing forces across the floor. The
mosi critical diaphragms arc the fifth- and sixth-floor diaphragms where, in addition to
supporting most of the sloped columns, the lateral wind forces are transferred from the
nerimctcr to the core vertical ws s .
r
With some slopcd columns generating 7000 liN (450.000 lb) in lateral force, the de-
signer chosc lo place a 13.4-111 (a-ft )-deep steel horizontal truss within the floor di-
an-hraam. ~hese' t russes helo transfer the bi nd forces to the core while passing the
~~r~~~~ -
sloped column forccs around the core to the opposite sloped column.
At the core a vertical supertruss extends from the foundation up to the sixth floor.
The supertruss is constructch of steel wide-flange shapes, with the four comer columns
encased in 3000- by 3000- by 600-mm (10- by IO- by 7-ft)-thick L-shaped concrete
shear walls, thereby forming a composite steel nnd concrete supenruss. The supenruss
is divided into two parts, a large 13.7-111 (45-ft)-high truss between.levcls 6 and 3, and
a single X truss on each face of the core, extending from the third level down to the
foundation.
The transfer of latcral loads out of the oerimeter and into the core at the sixth floor
forntr an optimum conibin3tinn 01 the core and perimdtcr 1stur:il system,. Triinjfcmng
the wind lateral force\ to the core ;it ilie r i ~ i h flour results in zero uplilt forccs upon the
foundations.
I-+&&+..
Fi g. 4.117 Eurl and west lncrr of pcrirnelcr tui, c: i\lcllnn Dunk.
230 Lateral Load Resisting Systems {Chap. 4
Sumitorno Life Insurance Building
Okayama. Japan
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Height from strcet to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Maximum lateral dcnection
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Size at 2d floor
Spacing
Moterial
Core
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
Nikken Sekkci Ltd.
1977
75.3 m (247 ft)
21
2
Office
Structural steel from 4th noor up: con-
crete-encased structural steel and shear
walls below i t h noor
3 kPa (60 psO
Not available
2.08 sec transverse: 2.01 sec longitudinal
Level 1 EQ, 20 mg; level 2 EQ, 25 mg
2%
C = 0.14
Structural steel perimeter tube from 4th
floor up: arched conciete-enca5ed steel
fnrncs and shear u-alls from ground to
first noor
Gravel
Raft
3.5 m (1 I ft 6 in.)
9.9 m (32 ft 6 in.)
700 mm (27.5 in.)
2.5 m (8 f t 2 in.)
150-mm (6-in.) concrete on metal deck
400 by 300 mm (16 by 12 in.)
2.5 m (8 ft 2 in.)
Steel frame
The main structural system of this building is a nearly square tube structure, which em-
ploys a peripheral frame in an integrated fashion (Fig. 4.1 IS). In appearance, tile tube
structure has no directionality. The peripheral hearing walls of the l'irst and second
floors support the upper structure a ~i d have a large arcli-shaped opening. The axial
forces of the external columns of the upper tube structure are transferred by the nrcli-
!
. Sad. 4.41
Tubular Systems
Fig. 4.118 Sumito~no Life Imurnncr Building, Okoynmo, Japan,
shaped bearing walls of the first and second floors to the L-shaped wall columns at the
four comers and thence to the foundations via bearing walls below grade.
The arch-shaped bearing walls of the first and second floors are of reinforced con-
crete construction with internal steel msses (Fig. 4.119). The embedded steel structure
is designed to remain elastic for long-term vertical loads and for short-term horizontal
loads. The bearing walls were modeled as flat plates and analyzed by finite-element
analysis. (The steel msses were taken into consideration.) Analysis of the earthquake
response was performed using a rnultimass model, which combined the upper tube
struchlre with the arch-shaped bearing walls of the fust and second floors. For acceler-
ations of 3500 mmlsec2 (1 1.5 ftlsec2) during a large ennhquake. the arch-shaped bear-
ing walls remain within the allowable elastic stress range. The primary natural period in
the vertical direction (considering vertical rigidity of the arch-shaped bearing walls) is
0.179 sec, so there was almost no response from the arch-shaped bearing walls due to
venical earthquake motions.
The typical floors (Fig. 4.120) are supported by 700-mm (27.5-in.)-deep trusses at
2.5-m (8-ft 2-in.) centers spanning 9.9 m (32 R 6 in.). The spnces between the truss web
members allow for the passage of ducts and pipes. The truss top chord is connected via
stud shear connectors to the concrete slab. The increase in stiffness results in a fre-
quency of vibration of h e floor in excess of 9 Hz.
Tubular Systems
Fig. 4.119 Fmmcnork; Sumitomo Life Inruruncc Building.
. . . . . . . ..
Fig. 4.1ZU Txpicul structurui flour pi ns; Sunnitunls Lilc lniurdnru Uuilding.
Sect. 4.41
Tubular Systems
Dewey Square Tower
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Architect
Pietro Belluschi Inc. and lung Branncn
Associates Inc.
Structural engineer Weidlinger Associates
182 m (597 ft)
Building use Office
2.5 Wn (50 psf)
Basic wind velocity
42 mlsec (95 mph)
450 mm ( I 8 in.). 100-yr return
Design fundamental period 5.5.4.3 sec
Design acceleration
Design damping
I % serviceability: 2% ultimate
Type of structure Perimeter tube
Stiff silty clay over compact glacial till
Footing type
Mat. 1800 lo 2600 mm (6 to 8 ft 6 in.)
thick
Typicnl floor
Story height
3.81 m (12 ft 6 in.)
Beam depth
400 mm (16 in.)
Beam spacing 2.3 m (7 ft 6 in.)
Material Steel
an metal deck
Columns
W350 by 1088 kglm (W14 by 730 Iblft)
Spacing 4.57 rn (15 ft)
Material
Core Braced steel frame, grade 350 MPa (50
ksi)
After having examined many alternative systems, project designers at Weidlinger As-
sociates concluded that a steel structure with a rigid frame around the perimeter was
most economical for this 46-story building and would resolve the requirements for in-
tegrating the structure with the curtain wall (Fig. 4.121). Ressstance to wind and seis-
mic forces is provided by the framed tubc forming the tower's penmeter. To economize
on field work, particularly field welding, spandrel units consist of trees with columns
and welded eirder stubs. Field connections of the girders at the centerlinc between
cnlumnr are golted shear connections. ~
Spandrel girders on lyptcal floors arc gcncrally 1143 mm (-15 in.) deep. \.:lr).ing irom
a minimum or900 mm (39 in.) at the lop oi i he building lo 1245 mnl (49 in.) a! lllc bol-
tom. Columns are built-up members 760 mm (30 in.) deep along the building face. ex-
cept where rollcd sections are used above the thirty-third floor. Perimeter columns arc
Fig. 4.121 De wy Squure Tower, Boston, hlnrsnchusctb. (Phoin lir Sa w Rorrrirbn1.l
Tubular Syst sms
arranged to provide open comers, that is, the ladder section always ends with a beam
stub at the comer. This scheme avoided the complication of three-dimensional corner
columns with welded stubs eoina in two directions as well as the hiaxial bending prob-
lem of a comer column. since ail of the structure's lateral stiifness is proridednr~ound
the penmcter. nil interior bean-lo-beam connccliuns arc oi l he simple sllcar type.
A varietv of steels is used throuehout the struclure. Exterior columns and inlerior
-
~: &fl oor framing are of A-36 steel, girders and interior columns are A-572 grade 50, and
built-up interior columns are g n d e 42. High-strength steels were chosen where the de-
sien w& eovemed bv streneth considerations. Where the desien is primarily aovemcd
- - - - . . .
b) dcfor~nalion criteria. as for drturiur columns, lower-strength l e e i s ware oscd.
The lower has o slructural dcpth ui 36.57 m (120 it) ul t h a height-lo-depth ratio of
almost5:I. This. couoled with its unusual shaoe. sueeested the useof a windtunnel test
. . . . --
!o verify both the magnitude and the local variations of wind forces. The wind tunnel
test results very closely matched the overall forces required under the Massachusetts
code. Local hoi soots here found to exist oarticularlv a t the intersection between the
tower and the atrium.
The analysis of the suucture for lateral forces yielded information useful for future
oroiects. It is well known that the effect oishear deformation becomes mnenified with an
. a -
increase in the depth-to-span ratio of the beam. Since in a frame such as this, the depth-
to-span ratio is on the order of 15. shear delormations contribute a large part of the total
lateral deformation of the swct ure. Soecificallv. in this case it was found that the lateral
deflection due to drift of the buildingLan be aGibuted in roughly equal parts to:
Overall deformations of the frame (shear deflections)
Column shortening (bending defleclion)
Shear deformation of beams and columns
Since the girder webs are relatively thin compared to the column webs, the major por-
tion of the shear deformation is attributable to the beam web.
Wherever possible in the eslablishcd program, the steel fabricator elected to substi-
tute fillct weldine for this connection between the spandrel eirder flanees and the
- -
penmuter columns. This was cltoscn wc r the specified full-pcnclmlion weld.
\VBcnevcr the ercction equipment uouid nllo!, . the iabricnlor uscd 1-0-stor). tiers for
!hi. e~t er i or columns. There cunsisted of the lull 7.62-m (25.11) columo. ~ i l h t uo sp;in-
drel girder stubs oo each side. The spandrel girders were then bolted togcthcr nl ml dsp~n
This method kept field \$,elding to 2 m~ni mum as well ns expediting the erc:tlon
In erectine the steel tower, three self-climbine tower cranes were used in lieu OF the
- -
more conventional two. This ensured maximum erection speed and facilitated the ercc-
tion of the precnst concrete panels, also pan of the steel contractor's work. Dewey
Square Tower is granite-clad on the lower two floors, with precast rain-screen panels
reachine from the third floor to the s l o ~ e d class crown of the fanv-sixth starv. Contin-
- . -
uous bands of tinted reflective glass alternate with bands of exposed granite aggregate
set in white cement. Sl ~c t u r a l connections for the panels were dcvclopcd wilh input
from both the panel fabricator and the steel contractor. The typical panel is attached by
two load-bearkg connections and two lateral connections shop-welded to the perimeter
columns. Floor construction consists of a 50-mm (2-in.) composite deck with an 83-mm
(3.25-in.) lightweight concrete topping.
The torvcr starts on a concrete mat two stories below erade and rises 180 m (590 it).
.
f l ~ s I t - ru 2-m (6- to 8-frl-(hick concrete m:ti reris on hardpan, nhi:h protrdcr ; ~ n eco-
nnnli;;ii i b ~ n r l ~ t i u n Tilt are;, uf lhr. building surro~nding thc i.>\\cr 113s cnlumns rdsting
on spread footings and incorporates an undcrdrain system below the subbasement slab.
Morton International
Chicago. Illinois, USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design wind load deflection
Design acccleration
Design damping
Eanhquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
[Chap. 4
Perkins and Will
Perkins and Will
1990
170 m (560 ft) lo top of clocktower
36 plus clocktower
1
Office, parking, and retail
S l ~ ~ t ~ r a l steel
2.5 Wa (50 psfl
34 mlsec (75 mph)
4 sec
Estimated 15 mg peak, 10-yr return
I lo serviceability
Not applicable
Perimeter framed tube with transfer truss
at low level
Stiff clay
Belled caissons bearing on hardpan
3.81 m (12 ft 6 in.)
12.6 m (41 f t 6 in.)
533 mm (21 in.)
3.05 m (10 ft)
steel deck
Built-up 1640 kglm (1100 Iblft) max
4.57 m (15 ft) exterior; 9.1 by 12.6 m (30
ft by 41 f t 6 in.) interior
Core
Steel frames supporting gravity loads only
The Morton International building comprises a 13-story base containing commercial
floors and parking for 450 cars, topped by a 23-story ofi ce tower (Fig. 4.122). The site
fronts the Chicago River and contains existing railroad tracks, which had to remain fully
operational during consmction. Almost a quarter of the site was unable to accommodate
any footings and the remainder rcquircd large spans across the tmcks. Several interesting
transfer systems were designed lo overcome the site restraints.
The 36-story structure has typical floor spans of 12.6 m (41 ft 6 in.). but spans vary-
ing from 19.8 lo 21.3 m (65 to 70 it) were required to span the railroad tracks. This was
achieved with n series of 6-story-deep Vierendeel frames consisting of two 3.05-m (10-
ft)-deep plate girders, one at level 2 and one at level 8, connected by fully welded ver-
tical and horizontal members. For a building of this height, a braced core would have
been the obvious means of resisting wind loads. However, in lhis case the railroad tracks
Pig. 4.122 Morton lntcrnnlionol. Chicago, lliinoir. (Plzoro I,? Hrdrich-Blerring)
made this impossible and instead, a perimeter framed tube with columns at 4.57 m (15
ft) was adopted. The columns and spnndrel beams were shop-fabricated into 2-story-
high "ladders" with site-bolted web plate connections at midspan of the beams. This de-
sign saved 1360 tonnes (1500 tons) of steel compared to an original design with perime-
ter columns at 9-m (30-fl) centen.
The 13-storv structure presented major challenges, which were overcome by three
separate transfer structures and unusual construction rrquirrmcnts. Street-level concrete
transfer beams 2.3 m (7 ft 6 in.) deep nt 9-m (30-it) centers span the mcks lo allow a
regular and efficient column setout above.
The recond transfer svstem occurs above the roof to the southern end of the build- ~~~~~~-~
ing, where no footings were able to be provided in the t nck zone. Trusses with major
members built uo from six 100- by 600-mm (4- by 24-in.) plates suspend one side of the
- -. . -. . . -.
n l e third transfer system occurs between levels 2 and 4 and serves to redirect two
rows of upper columns into one row located to avoid the tracks. The entire vrnical struc-
ture above these transfer frames uas erected to the roof lcvel, and the roof top trusses
were erected cantilevering bcyond the floors belon. This section of thc bullding was
erected 90 rnm (3.5 in.) out of plumb to dlow for the sway induced when the can-
tilewred section was erected and partially loaded.
With the roof top trusscs erected, perimeter columns wrre suspended ham the free
ends of the trusses.and the floors were erected in a conventional manner from the bol-
tom up. To equalize dcfl:ctions and minimize difrcrentinl movement, a load-distribut-
ing longiludinal truss mas installed at level 8 between the suspcndcd columns.'lhis truss
served 3 dual purpose in that it was also designed lo redistribute the column load to ad-
jacrnt columns should aroof-top truss fail. The roof-top trusrrs were providcd u,ith suf-
ficicnt capacity to allow them to cnrry t h ~s additional load.
This challeneine proicct received an nwnrd for Most Innovative Design of 1990 from
- -. -
the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois
Tubular Systems
Cesnr Pelli Associates
Walter P. Moore and Associates,
1992
. ' Height from street to roof 256 m (840 ft)
Inc
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design fundnmental period
Design acceleration
Design damping
Eanhqualie loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
62
2
Oftice, corporate headquarters, retail
Concrete
2.5 kPa (50 psf) + 1.0-kPa (20-pst) parti-
tions
35 mlsec (80 mph) at 10-m (3341) heighl
HnOO, 50-yr wind
5.3 sec
12 mg peak, 10-yr wind
1.5% serviceability; 2.5% ultimate
C = 0.53, Z = 0.15. Ru, = 7.0 intermedi-
ate moment resisling frame (IMRF)
Perimeter tube
Clay of variable thickness, 4.6 to 7.6 m
(15 lo 25 it) over weathered bedrock
2.4-m (8-ft)-thick core mat on weathered
rock: 9- to 30-m (30- to 100-it)-deep cais-
sons (150 ksO. 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 it) in
diameter
3.86 m ( I 2 ft 8 in.)
14.63 m (48 ft)
457 mm (18 in.) posttensioned
3.05 m ( I 0 it)
117-mm (4.625411.) lightweight concrete
one-way. 35 MPa (5000 psi)
1370 mm (54 in.) in diameter
6.1 m (20 ft)
55 MPa (8000-psi) concrete
The Nations Bank Corporate Center is a 60-story. 256-m (840-fl) tall building in the
central business district of Charlotte. North Carolina (Fig. 4.123). The building is the
tallest in the southeastern United States and will dominate Charlotte's skyline into the
2151 century. From a heavy stone base, the building rises with curved sides and pro-
gressive setbacks culminating in a crown of silver rods symbolizing Charlotte's nick-
name, "The Queen City." The exterior surface materials arc rcddish and beige granite
and mirrored reflective glass; the granite piers narrowing at each setback. The building
will serve as the corporate headquarters for Nations Bank.
A number of different feasible structural schemes were analyzed before Nations
Bank and the developer together selected an economical concrete frame. A reinforced
. -
concrd~c frame U3 S ssl ~ct cd bec3use it met both thc intricate geumetric rcquiremsnt, 01
thr. arcl~~tucr ;~nd the d-munds of the detcloper for economy Sh3llow posttensioricd
concrete floors were used to span the 14.6-m (48-ft) lease depths and to achieve the de-
sired 3.9-m (12.5-ft) floor-lo-floor heights.
Fig. 4.123 Nutions Bunk Corporule Ccntcr, Ci~orlstle. North Cilrollnu.
The smctural system selection followed an intensive four-phase scheme develop-
ment process. This process has been used successfully in swctural system selection for
many other high-rise projects. The purpose of the structural scheme selection process is
not only limited to finding the most economical structural system. but to finding the sys-
tem that best resoonds to the overall buildine eoals. Nonswctural oorameters such as
u -
impact on l c~si ng, column sizes and locations, shcar wall drop-offs, construction dura-
tion, floor-to-floor heights, fire nling and intcgrntion wilh mechanical systems arc also
considered. The entire-team oaiicio&d in theselection orocess
Thr. srleclcd all.concrcte scheme consists of a reit~forcud concrele perimclrr lube
struculre wi t l ~cal um~i s spaced on6.1 rn (20 ft)centers.Thc perimeter lrwnr utilizes nor-
mal weleht concrele with slrenclhs rancinc from 41.300 lo 55,000 Wa (6000 lo 8000
psi). ~h;external tube was selected because it was the most efficient late& load resist-
ing system. The tube also proved to be an economical method of dealing with the many
setbacks and column transfers imposed by the building architecture. The floor system
consists of a 117-mm 14.5-in.)-thicklichtweieht concrete slab soannine to 457-mm (18-
in.)-deep post-lension;d beams. The pasttenzoned beams are spaced on 3 m (10 ft) =en-
ters and span as much as 14.6 m (48 it). The 14.6-111 span provides column-free lease
soacc from the core to lheperimeter.The shallow structural devth allowed the low floor-
to-floor height resulting in additional savings in skin cost. ~i ~h t we i g h t floor concrete
was selected to minimize the building weight and to achieve Charlotte's unusual re-
ouirements for 3-hr fire separation. A normal weirht concrete slab would have needed
-
lo be I50 mm (6 in.) tltick in order lo proiidc tlie Err. separation, substantially incrcas-
ing not only the b~i l dl ng wcighl but also ths floor-lo-floor hcight.
All lateral loads are resisted hv the external frame. The floor framinn and core -
columns 3re sized for gravity loads. Lateral load niumcnls imposed by compatibility uf
deformation uilh the cxtcrior frame were found lo bc ~nsignificanl. The corc columns
were shaped to be wall-like Column sires ranecd from 0.6 by 5.5 m (2 by 18 it) at the
lower le&l to 600 by 900 mm (24 R by 35 in.i at the top of the building;~he walllike
colunm shapes integrated very well with the building core.
Bank One Center
Dallas, Texas, USA
Architect
Stmctural engineer
Year of completion
Height from skeet to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design damping
Eanhquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical noor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Columns
Spocing
Material
[Chap. 4
John Burgee Architects with Philip Johnson
The DatumIMoore Pafinership
1987
240 m (787 ft)
60
4
Office, parking
Concrete-composite perimeter frame,
steel core
2.5 kPa (50 psO + 1.0-kPa (20-psO pnrti-
tions
31 mlsec (70 mph) at 10-m (33-11) height
Hl500, second order. 50-yr wind
6.8, 6.5. 3.5 sec
None
Perimeter tube
6.1-m (20-ft) shnie and weathered limc-
stone over unweathered limestone
design allowable
3.84 m (12 ft 7 in.)
14.69 m (48 R 2 in.)
457-mm (18-in.)
2.74 m (9 ft)
Steel. A572 grade 50.50-mm (?-in.) com-
posite metal deck + 89-mm (3.5-in.)
1i:httveight concrete
610-mm (2-it)-square 100-mm (4-in.).
thick box column
7.6 m I25 ft)
Steel. A572 grade 50
Bank Onc Ccnlcr is a postmodern to!\'er compictc rvith a monumental arched entry and
curved roo[ line (Fig. 4.12-1). The 60-story oflice tower also Ins an atrium banking hail
in its 6-story podium, semicircular arched roofs at the t\\,ent)'-sixth floor and quarter-
circle i,aulted skylights at the fiftieth, where the shope changes from rectangular to cru-
ciform. On top is a cross vaulted arch clad in copper and pmnite.
The engineering for the 148,000 m' (1.6 million ft') project is as complex as the ar-
chitecture. Extensive value engineering studies were done during design development to
. '
analyze six floor framing systems and four wind framing systems. Design information for
each was provided to the general conuactor, who in turn smdied scheduling and prices.
All four wind schemes were variations of the perimeter tube. For the early compar-
:alive design studies, Dallas building code wind forces were used. The selected scheme
1 :!. Fig.J.124 Dunk Onc Ccnlcr, Dallus, Tcsar
has punched concrete walls at the building corners with infills of composite columns
and steel spandrels; floors have a composite steel heam framing system.
The building's nrchitecture requires a number of geometric changes as the stmctural
frame rises above the below-grade levels. The cruciform shape above level 50 created
two major structural problems. First, the perimeter tube had to be broken, leaving only
two-dimensional rigid frames on each building facade. To control frame distortions un-
der wind loading, two-story X-braced frames were added in the core. This required
strenathened diaphragm floors to allow the transfer of wind shear forces from the
- . -
irames to the pcrimetsr lube system btlou. Second, comer columns at the rccnuant cor-
ncrs of the cruciform hod lo be transferred lo provide culumn-free lease space bclow
Icvel 50. Story-deep Vicrendccl trusses spanning 13.7 m (45 it) move these gravity col-
umn loads 10 tltc perinieter wind frame and to the cure. Because of the relationship be-
t!\e:n corc and perimeter columns. lhr trusses ltad lo be supponed nt the corc by two-
slury Vicrcndecl lrusscs spanning 8.5 m (28 it) to the building corc columns.
Sect. 4.41
Central Plaza
Hong Kong
Architect
Smctural engineer
Year of completion
Height from sweet to
Number of stories
8 roof
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Benm span
Beam depth
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Core
Material
Tubular Systems
Nu Chun Man and Associales
Ove Amp and Partners
1992
314 m (1030 ft)
78
3
Oifice
Reinforced concrete
3 P a (63 psfJ
64 mlsec (144 mph). 50-yr rcturn, 3-sec
gust
400 mm (15.8 in.), 50-yr return period
wind
Less than 10 mg. 10-yr rcturn period (ty-
phoon wind)
Not applicable
Perimeter tube and corc
Fill over clay over granite bedrock; gran-
ite bedrock. 25 to 40 m (80 to 130 it) be-
low ground
Machine- and hand-dug caissons to rock
3.6 m (11.8 ft)
12 m (39 ft)
1 6 a m (6.3-in.) reinforced concrete
2-m (6.5-A) diameter
8.6 m (28 ft)
Concrete, cube strength 60 Nlmm' (8500
P")
Shear walls 1.3 m (4 f t 3 in.) thick at base
Concrete, cube strength 60 to 40 Nlmm'
(8500 to 5800 psi)
When completed in 1992, Central Plaza was the tallest reinforced concrete building in
the \vorld (Fig. 4.125). The site is typical of a recently reclaimed area with sound
bedrock lying between 25 and 40 m (80 and 130 ft) below ground level. This is overlain
by decomposed rock and marine deposits, with the lop 10 to 15 m (33 to 19 ft) being of
fill material. A permitted bearing pressure of 5.0 MPa (56 ton/ft2) is allowed on sound
rock. The maximum water table rises to about 2 m (6.5 fl) below ground level.
Fig. 4.125 Ccnlrol Plnzu. Hung Kong. (Cotarrery of Ow Anlp und Pnrrncrs.)
Sect. 4.41
Tubular Systems
Wind loading is the major design criterion in Hong Kong, which is situated in an -&
fluenccd by typhoons. TheHong Kong code of practice for wind effects is bared on amend:,
,.
hourly wind speed nf 44.3 d s e c (99 mph). 3-sec gusls of 70.5 m/Sec (158 mph), and give$r,
rise to al at ed design pressure of 4.1 kPa (82 psO at 200 m (656 h),above pound level. :!$!id,
11was clear from the outset that a multilevel basement of mnxlmum noor area
be required. The design of a diaphragm wall. extending around the whole slte perimeter,
i:f<z?md consmcted down to and grouted to rock, was completed in the firs1 week aher the site
waz acquired. This enabled construction to commence 3 months later (Fig. 4.1260 to c).
17STRUCTURE
Fig. 4.126n
Ccnlrnl Plnm. Eicvnlion of building.
..,' , ,.
...
~ % .
'.
-.::
,~.,..
~..
An initial planning assessmcnl had indicated that up to four levels ofbasement could
be required and the design produced catered for this. By the lime construction com-
menced, it had been decided that only three levels would be necessary, and the con-
struction drawings were amended accordingly.
The diaphragm wall design allowed for the basement to be constructed by the lop-
down method. This provided three fundamcnlai advantages:
TRANSFER PLATE
A- A B-B KEY PLAN
Fig. 4.126b Centrnl Piuro. Slruclurui rterl rehcmc.
Elg. 4. 126~ Ccntrnl Plnm. Derign wind prrsrurc concrcte scheme
1 254 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
I
(1 11 ft 10 in.). The core hns an arrangement similar to that of the steel scheme and, just
I above the lower base, it carries a ~~r oxi ma t e l v 10% of the total wind shear.
. .
Thc tnwcr b.asr slrtlcturc edge transfcr beam is 5.5 m ( I 8 it) deep by 2.8 m ( 9 i t ? in.)
u,ids around the pc"nletcr. This allnws 3llernatc 2olumnr to be dropped from the fac;!dc.
thereby upunirlg up ihc public srca at ground lcvel. The incrmsed column rpacinc, to-
gether with the elimination ofspandrei beams in thc tower base, results in tl;e external
frame no longer being able to carry the wind loads acting on the building. Over the
height of the lower base. the core transfers all of the wind shears to the foundations. A
I-m (39-in.)-thick slab at the underside of the transfer beam transfers the total wind
shcar from the cxternal fmme at the inner core below.
The uind s hcx is taken out from lhc core ot the louert bosctncnt leucl, whcre it is
transftrrcd lo thc punmetcr diaphragm u,nlls. In ordcr to rcducr large s h c a rc\.ersals in
the core !rails in lhc bnsumcnt and nl the top of the tower basc lu,cl. thc floor slobs 2nd
beams arc separated horizontally from the core wnlls at the ground floor, basement lev-
els 1 and 2. and the fifth and sixth floors. To comolete the dramatic imoact ofthir build-
. ~ ~ - ~
ing, the tower top incorporntcs a mast, which will be constructed of Sl ~ct ur al steel tubes
with diameters of up to 2 m (6 ft 6 in.).
The performance of tnll building structures in the strong typhoon wind climate is of
particular importance. Not only must the structure be able ;isis1 the loads in general.
and the cladding system and ic; fixings resist higher local loads, but the building must
also perform dynamically in an acceptable manner such that predicted movements lie
within acceptable standards of occupant comfort criteria. To ensure that all aspects of
the building's performance in strong winds will be acceptable, a detailed wind tunnel
study was carried out by Professor Alan Davenpon in the Boundary-Layer WindTun-
ncl at the University of Western Ontario.
When complelcd, this project became the tallest reinforced concrete building struc-
ture in the world. For such a tall building it is not appropriate to adopt the strength of
tbl
J 4
Fig. 4.127 Central Pinm. (n) Typlcol of i cc noor plum. ( b) Foundnllom. (Continued)
materials commonly used for normal buildings in Hong Kong. In ordcr to reduce the
size of the vertical structure it was decided to use high-strength concrete 128-day cube
strength of 60 MPa (8500 psi)]. This is the first private-sector development in Hong
Kong for which approval has been granted by the Hong Kong building authority forthe
use of such a material. Considerable research took olace into materials and mix design. -
and man) t r i i s were ~3rrir. d OJI, includtng mock-ups of the large-diamcler columns to
check on icmperaturc uffccls. As n result ofthis, cooling was introduced into the major
pours.
The use of hirher strcnrths was considered. but it was decided against it since it was
- - -
coni dt rcd by the dt\,r.lopment team thlt the material chosen could bc produced with-
out difficult) front matcri=ls readily wailsblc in llong Kong.
Hopewell Centre
Hong Kong
Architect
Structural engineer
Yevr of completion
Height from street to I O O ~
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Design acceleration
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Bcam span
Bcam dcpth
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Gordon Wu and Associates
Ovc Amp and Partners
1980
216 m (708 ft)
64
1
Offices above parking and commercial
podium
Rcinrorced concrete
3 kPa (63 psfl
150 mm (5.9 in.). 50-yrrctum period wind
16 mg peak. 2-yr return period
Not applicable
Pcrimctcr tube and inlcrnul core
Srrund granitc very close to cround level
Pad footings an rock
3.35 m ( l l . 0f t )
12.3 m (40 It)
686-mm (27-in.) reinrorccd concrete
1 A5 by 1.22 m (4.75 by 40 fi)
3 m( 1 0 f t )
Concrete, cube strength 40 Nlmm' (5800
psi)
.
Shear walls. 762 mm (30 in.) thick at basc;
circular in plan
Material Concrete, cube strcngth 40 Nlmm' (5800
psi)
The I-lopervell Centre is situated on a steeply sloping site, one entrance being at ground
floor and asecond main entrance to the rear of the building at the seventeenth floor (Fig.
1.128). The tower itself is rounded on pad footings at levels varying between the un-
derside or the basement and the third noor. Stability is principally providcd by thc
perimeter tube structure rormcd by 48 columns at a spacing o r 3 m (10 ft), linked by
1670-mm (66-in.)-deep spandrel beams at each floor levcl. Some assistance is also pro-
vided by the internal corc. Shears nre transferred to the foundations at the third-noor
level through a 157-mm (19-in.)-thick noor slab (Fig. 4.129). The entire verdcal struc-
ture was constructed using slip-formin techniques. The main office floors use a radial
h u m and slab system and were formed using fiberglass molds (Fig. 4.130). Uring these
techniques, construction progressed at a rate of 4 days a floor.
Sect. 4.41
Tubular Systems
> .
Fig. 4.128 Hoperell Ccntrc, Hong Kong. (Colmcry o/Ol,e Antp nnd Porrnrrrl
(.
i
.~,:.
!.+ 24.
xi
Sect. 4.41
Tubular Systems
224m rndiul
r
1
i
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS. TRUSSED TUBES
First International Building
Dallas, Texas, USA
Architect
Slructural engineer
Year of completion
Numbcr of stories
Building use
Frame material
Typical floor load
Basic wind velocity
Ma i mum lateral deflection
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical noor
Story heigbt
Beam span
Bcnm depth
Beam spocing
Slab
Columns
Size 31ground noor
Spacing
hlatcrial
Hcllmurh Obata and Kassabaum. Inc.
Ellisor and Tanner. Inc.
1974
217m (714 ft)
56
2
offi ce
Struclural steel
2.5 kPa (50 psn
31 mlscc (70 mph)
Hl500.50-yr rcturn period
Not applicable
Trussed tube
Limestone. 4.3-hlPa (-IO-ton/ft2) capacity
Spread footings
3.81 m (12 ft 6 in.)
12.27 m (40 f t 3 in.)
460.530 mm (18, 21 in.)
3.81. 10.97 m ( I ? It 6 in.. 36 ft)
83-mm (3.25-in.) lightweight concrerc on
76-mm (3411.) metal deck
533 by 584 mm (21 by 23 in.)
-7.62 rn (25 it)
Steel. gmdc 350 hlPa (50 hi)
The 56-story First Internnlionnl Building with a Ihcighl of 2 17 m (71-1 i t ) lhas 176.500 m'
(1.9 million TI') of space (Fig. 4.131). There are an adjacent 13-story scli-perk gerngr
and a 10-station drive-up banking facility. Tendcm clcv;~tors llandle the venical move-
ment of building occupants during peak traffic pcriods. Each of the 2-1 passenger cleva-
tor shafts has two elcvalar cabs, mountcd one on top of the other and moving on a sin-
gle set of cables.
Thc exicriar dimensions of the onice tou.er arc 55 by 55 m ( 1 8 1 by 181 it). The sx-
terior column spacing is 7.62 rn (25 ft). Thcrc is n column-free span irom the core to the
exterior columns of 1227 nt (10 ii 3 in.).
The design incorporalcs the trussed lube struclural syslcni in the exterior frame, uti-
lizing large X braces, each covering 28 floors. two lo a side. Because nftlte usc of large
X-bracing clcmcnts on the four exterior \valls to resist lateral wind forces plus some
Fig. 4.131 Firs1 lnternolionni Uuilding. Dullas, Tcxor,
eravitv loads. wind fmmes or ms s es in the interior core are eliminated. The two X
- .
breccs on each side consist of diagonal steel wide-flange mcrnhrrs whose ouuide di-
mensions arc approximalcly 610 by GI0 mm (24 by 24 in.). The gusset plates art ap-
proximately 3 m (10 ft) wide and 3 6 m (12 it) tall (Fig 3.132).
Comer box columns 610 mm (24 in.] sauare are used in the basement and are fabri-
. .
cated from 152-mm (6-in)-thick stucl plates. These Inkc the henvieit loods accumulat-
ing from the diagonal bracing of two ridrwnlis. Tlts comer gusset asscmblics ar t L-
shaped in section and were welded by the electroslag process.
Another structural design concept is the stub-girder system. This minimizes struc-
tural costs lhroueh a reduction in the amount of steel reauired far floor framing and a
-
~~~
~=~~
lessening of the building's floor-to,floor hcight. The built-up girder system consins of
stubs that arc fabricated onto ruucturnl beams (Fig. 4.133). nts \ride-flange beam acts
as a bouorn chord whcrcas lhc rhorl slubs act ;is ue b mumbcrr.'Ths 159-tnm (6.3.in.)
liehtweiaht concrete slab functions in com~osi t e action with h e steel or the too chord.
The overall effect is that the slab and beam'function as flanees. whereas the stubs func- - ~ . ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~
lion as wch struts in a Vicrcnducl truss. Ills stub girders p~.rmit unubrrrucrud runs of mc-
chanical ducts without web openings in llic beams. n ~ e y also suppun the scmicontinu-'
~ - . .
our floor beams.
An electrified floor svslem was used for the first time with the stub-eirder conceot.
L ~~- - .
Alro, a longer girder is uacd than in prcwous applications of t he s)slr.m. In addition to
I! detailed cumputer anslysis of the stub.girder design for this project. actual load tests
were made to funher verify the desien concept
The buildine was tonoid out i n 6 6 weef;; from rroundbreakine and in 10 months
- . . - - ~
from the erection ofthe first piece ofsuuctural steel. Tlti; projcct recui\ed ~l i c first Con-
suiting Eng~nccrr Council of Texas "Emincnt Conccplor Award for the hl on Outsv,md-
ing Engineering Project" in 1974.
i
E
_I
o 7 spaces at
7 25'4" = 175'4'' -3
Wlnd oracing in exter or frames
t,p ca ai 10-r s oes
.I
0
3'4''
k - 7 spaces at 2 5 ' 4 = 175' 4"-4 Ic
9
Tvoicai low rise floor lrarnino oian
'n
Mechanical duct
7
6114"
W14 girder (ASTM A572 GR.50)
Seclion-builluo oirder
Fig. 4.133 Tspirnl fmming pian and built-up girders; First lnlcrnntionnl Building.
Se c t 4.41 Tubular Systems 265
Ont er i e Cent er
.!,?i!:
A'&hitect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Height from weel to roof
Number of slories
Number oflevcls below ground
Building use
Frnme material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Emhquake loading
Typc of structure
Fooling type
Typical floor
Story height
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Core
Skidmore Owings and Merrill
Skidmorc Owings and Menill
1985
174 m (570 it)
57
I
Commercial, parking, offices, apartments
Reinforced concrete
2.5 kPa (50 psO
34 mlscc (75 mph)
Hl500, 100-yr return period
Not available
Not available
I to 1.5% serviceability
Not applicable
Perimeter diagonally braced frames, flat-
plate floors
27 m (90 it) of clay over hardpan
1.5-m (5-ft)-diameter caissons, belled to
3.6 m (12 ft)
Apartments 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in.)
178-mm (7-in.) flat plate, spanning 6.1 by
6.7 m (20 by 22 ft)
483 by 533 mm (19 by 21 in.)
1.68 m (5 ft 6 in.) at perimeter
49-MPa (7000-psi) reinforced concrete
Not applicable
Onterie Center is n mixed-use 58-slory building near the Lake Michigan shoreline in
downtown Chicago (Fig. 4.134). The building has a total area of 85.000 m' (920.000
it'), which is divided into five distinct areas by function. On the ground floor is lhc main
public lobby and 1860 m' (20.000 ft') of commercial space. The single-level basement
and the four floors above the lobby are a parking garage. Floors 6 to 10, at the tapering
base, provide ofiice space grouped around two interior atriums. The sky lobby at level
2 includcr a health club, swimming pool, hospitality room, and mechanical equipment
space. The remaining floors 12 to 58 consist of593 one-, two., and thrcc-bedroom aparl-
ments (Fig. 4.135).
Because mixed-usc buildings need flexibility of core layout and column spacing, it
was desiiable lo utilize only the exterior frame for thc resisiancc of lateral loads. In ihe
Fig. 4.134 Onterie C~ntcr, Chicago, lilinuis.
t,
y
, Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems 267
3
' Onterie Center tower all of the lateral forces are resisted by closely spaced reinforced
i-
concrete exterior columns and spandrel beams. Additional lateral stiffness and struc-
), tural efficiency were achieved by infilling window spaces with concrete in a diagonal
j pattern. These panels act not only as diagonal braces but a shear panels as well.
The diagonal effect of the shear panels tends to even out the gravity load on the
;' columns and also to reduce shear lag in the tube frame under wind loading. The entire
; lateral load is thus resisted by two diagonally braced channels, located one at each end
of the tower structure. Interior columns carry gravity loads only. The absence of a lat-
eral load resisting core wall system allows a maximum of flexibility in planning interior
space and eliminates the problem ofdiifercndal axial shortening.
Threc-dimensional computer modcling was used to analyze both gravity and wind
load cases.
Pcrimctcr columns arc 480 by 510 mm (19 by 20 in.) at 1.68-m (5-ft 6-in.) centers.
The510-mm (20-in.)-thick infill panels contain diagonal reinforcing bars as well as hor-
izontal and vcrtical bars. The concrete strength for the exarior frames and interior
columns varies from 52 to 28 MPa (7500 to 4000 psi). The floors me flat slabs with
thicknesses of 178 mm (7 in.) for apanmcnts and 216 mm (8.5 in.) for commercial
floors, using 35-MPa (5000-psi) concrete. Interior columns are spaced at 6.71-111 (22-it)
centers. The external structural mcmhcrs are insulated lo minimize differential-temper-
alurc indurud dcfonnations bctu,cen purimctrr and inlcrnsl culumns.
The d~3gon;ll shear panels used in the Otllcnc Center pruducc 2 high I c \ d ofst rac-
tural efficiincv and create a distinctive architectural appearance. A similar systcm has
been used on 780 Third Avenue. New York (see Fig. i . i 37) .
Fig. 4.135 Typieol pion, 13th to 57111noor: Ontcrie Center.
floor (the first of the residential floors) and the larcest office floor at the bottom. The tn-
.
p:r ir.:,, c\tendcd upr ;,rd until J I I ofthr. dc\clupcr's requircrn:ntr u.L.rc mL.1. The ~spcrcd
fnrni . ~l l oa?d it c or i l i ~~uo~s SI NC~UTL. In bc U I U ~ nn lhe iilc:~dc I11 create 3 tapcrcd I U ~ C .
'Tllr. ,lnr~.turnl r!ilcrn consi ~l s u i cnlumnb and spandrel bu:,ms ;tad diacal~nl cross
bracing, all acting together to form an exterior tube. The requirements of th; diagonals
imposed a very rigid geometric discipline on the building. The diagonals from each face
had to intersect at a common point on the comers so that wind shear, carried as axial
loads in the web side diagonals, could be trnnsfcrred directly to the flange side diago-
nnls. The diagonal X bracing is continuous from face to face and is connected to the
columns, allowing load lo be transferred from bmcing to columns and vice versa. The
beams are provided at the levels where diagonals intersect corner columns so that the
diagonals could redistribute the gravity load among the columns. The gravity load in the
diogonals causes them to always be in compression under wind loud, leading to much
simplified connections. The redirtribution of gravity load also allowed all columns on
each face to be made equal in size.
A typical tier of the tube consists of a primary systcm comprising columns, diago-
nals, and spandrel beam ties at levels whcrc the diagonals intersect columns at a noor
level, and a secondary syslem compri si n~ the spandrel beams at other levels. The nri-
~. . - ~ -
. ~~
m:ir!' ctruclurc \ \ a1 r ~. qu~r cd 10 dc\ , ~. l np conunuity 3nd to tmos,nit ari:,l l o~ds . Thc 131-
t r h l load is rcsislcJ ROC> hy c:~ntil~.iur aslion ano ?OF b) f r ~r nc xl i on. ' fl~is is duc 10
111sdiayol~'lls c~calit)E :In almu\t onifur~n colutnn lo;d dirtribu~iun :lurus5 tllc flancc
-
face: thcre is \,cry little shcar lag. Thc struclural cfficicncy is demonstrated by a steel
weight of only 1-15 kglm' (29.7 ps0.
The floors are a composite systcm of stcel bcams and a 127-mm (5-in.) semilight-
weight slab. On aportmcnt levels the bcams arc arranged in such a way that lhey align
with partitions and thcsoiiil oftlieslab is plastered and used as the finished ceiling. The
geometric discipline of the extcrior diagonal module is maintained by three typical of-
fice story heights equaling four typical apartment story heights.
To achieve simple joints, the columns, diagonals, and ties are all fabricated I sec-
lions. The thickest plate is 152 mm (6 in.) and the largest column is 915 by 915 mm (36
by 36 in.). Interior columns were designed for gnvity load only, using rolled and built-
up sections. A36 steel was used for nearly all members.
Joints consist of double gusset plates to which diagonal members are connected by
grade A490 bolts. Spandrel ties are field-welded to columns above and below, similar
to typical column splices with bolted webs and partial-penetration flange rvclds. All
gusset plate assemblies were shop-welded with comer gusset plate assemblies requiring
stress relief.
The simple derailing resulted in an crection rate of thrce floors per ureck.
Sect. 4.41
780 Third Avenue
New York, N.Y.. USA
Architect
Swctural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building use
Fromc material
Wind lood
Maximum lnleml deflection
Design accelenlion
Dceign damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Foodng type
Typical floor
Story height
Spandrel benms
Slab
Material
Columns
Core
Tubular Systems
Roben Rosenwnsser Associates
1983
174 m (570 ft)
50
L
office
Concrete
2.5 kPa (50 psfl
New York City code. 1 to 1.5 kPa (70 LO
30 psO
180 mm (7 in.) at design load
4.8 sec E-W: 2 sec N-S
12 mg peak. IO-yr return period
I 4a serviceability; 2% ultimate
Not applicable
Diagonally braced cxterior tube
~ o c k . 4 - ~ ~ a (40-ton/ft2) capacity
Spread iootings
3.5 m (I1 ft 6 in.)
380 mm (15 in.) deep
380-mm (15-in.)-deep one-way joist and
two-way waffle slab
Concrete. 31 and 28 MPa (4500 and 4000
psi)
1220 by 610 mm (48 by 24 in.) at ground
noor
Concrete, 41. 34. 28 MPa (6000. 5000,
4000 psi)
Concrete walls and columns: concrete
strength ns columns
The trend toward very high-rise construction in concrete has received a big boost due to
the adaptation of the first diagonally braced tube system to concrete swclures. The fifst
of its kind is the 50-story office building located at 780 Third Avenue, fiew York ( F I ~
4,137). which was completed in March, 1983. Its very slender aspect ratto of over 8:l IS
what suited it to this design approach.
The building contains ~ l 0 s e to 46,500 m2 (500,000 it') of office space. Its struclural
system is a hybrid, utilizing thrce varied systems-a truss, a tube, and, to a minor ex-
tent, frame and sheor wall interaction of its remaining structural componenls. All SYS-
[ems interact to provide gravity and latenl load-carrying capacity at an efficiency not
previously available. This hybrid system appears to rcmove any practical heigllt limit
from design in reinforced concrete (Fig. 4.138).
The "concrete tube" consists of closely spaced perimeter columns which are con-
nected at each floor level by spandrel beams. In addition, thc tube is braccd by a diago-
nal pattern of rectangular panels, in place of window openings, betwecn adjacent
columns and girders.
--
Fig. 4.137 780 Tllird Avcnuc, Kwr Tsrli. (Coi8rtc.r~ r?rRnbm Rorm, >mrrer~s. ~. roc)
The building is 38 by 21 m (125 by 70 ft) in plan, with an overall height of 174 m
(570 ft), consist~ng ofa4.4-m (14.5-ft)-high first story and48 3.5-m (11.5-ft)-high stan-
dard stories. Perimeter columns are 1.2 m (4 ft) wide, with window openings 1.6 m (5.3
ft) wide. The column h i c h e s s reduces From 610 to 457 to 406 to 356 mm (24 to 18 l o
i d t i 14 in.) a floors 2.20. and 32.
The spandrel beams, which arc the solid edges of the floor construction and are flush
bottom with the one-way and two-way joists. are 380 mm (15 in.) deep by 1 m (39 in.)
wide, except for those at the second floor. which are 762 mm (30 in.) deep by 610 mm
174 in I wide
.- . ----, -~
'The concrete bracing panels arc of the same thicl;ness nr the ndjncent columns 2nd
are placsd integr~lly ui t h thc~ti. The purpose of adding bracing to the lube is lo reduce
illear log cffccts. and hence improvc the pcrfurmnncc of the struclurc for bnth gravity
and wind loading. Thc wide iscer of t hc huilding ha w double diagonol bmcinp. whcr e~s
thu nmoa iaccs hnvc only singlc di qonal bncinz in a rlgz;iy p;lltcrn.
'lhc concrsts rtrcngth of the columns and p:tncls varies 310110 IIIC huilding hcight.
Thc maximum slrenath of 41 hlPa (6000 mi ) is rcduccd lo 35 hlPa (5000 psi) in the - ~ ~ -
middle third and to 1 8 MPa (4000 psi) in'& top third of the swct urc. ~ h e concrete
strength of the floor members matched 31 MPa (4500 psi) with 41-MPa (6000-psi)
columns and 28 MPa (4000 psi) with the lesser-strength columns.
Another structural element in the building is thc set of elevator core walls. Because
oi t hci r small size and central location they are considered to be of secondary impar-
lance in their influence on the braced tube's behavior.
The wind pressure applied to the building is in accordance with the New York City
building code, increasing with lmight in steps up to a maximum of 1.44 Wa (30 psO at
thc 91.4-111 (300-ft) levcl and above. The results o f a wind tunnel aeroelastic test veri-
fied that thc code's wind-pressure requirements for the design of the structure frame
Fig. 4.138 Typicul l rnmi n~ pin": 780 Third Arcnur.
[Chap. 4
were not exceeded. The cladding design requirements were, however, upgraded on the
basis of the wind tunnel test results. The projected 10-yew return maximum accclera-
lions of 12 mg registered well within the occepled industry limits for office structurcs.
Results from Be analyses performed for 780 Third Avenue that are of particular in-
terest are those that indicate increased cracking and reduction in the effects of shear lag
by the bracing on the column forces of an unbrnced tube structure.
Results of sensitivity studies and the influence of the panels on lateral sdffness are
illusmated by the deflection curves in Fig. 4.139. Evidently cmcking in floor members
is very detrimental to the stiffness of unbraced tube structures (curvcs I and 11). but of
only secondary importance in braced tubes (curves 111and IV). The stiffening effect of
the brncing is demonsvnted both in the reduced sway and in the modified-mode shape
of the deflection curve (curve I versus curve Ill). The unbmced lube deflccts in a wall-
frame configuration, with concnvity downwind in the lower pan, concavity upwind in
the upper part, and a point of contraflexure at about two-thirds of the height. The braced
tube deflects in a more strongly flexural shape with a much higher point of contraflex-
ure. The component of Lhe mbe's deflection due to racking shear of the columns and
HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION (fl)
IV BRACED TUBE-UNCRACKED RFAMS
- -- -- -
111 - - - - - BRACED TUBE--CRACKED BEAMS
I I TUBE ONLY-UNCRACKED BEAMS (1.1
Fig. 4.139 Dclleclionr olrlructurc.
spandrels was, lherefore, reduced significantly by the bracing. This is further supported
bv the small increasein the overall deflection when the spandrel stiffncsses are asi gned
t i e large (50%) reduction to account for cracking.
.
The deflection curve for the braced suucture with cracked bcams shows an increase
in drift of 4% at the top, and a minimum increase of approximately 7% at about mid-
height. The maximum drift per story, however, which occurs in the middle region of the
building, was hardly affected.
The small influence on the overall lateral stiffness of the braced structure of a 50%
va~iation in the moment of inenia of ihc spandrel beams indicates that their flexural
stiffness, and therefore their depth, in the braced tube strucmre are of secondary impor-
tance. Their primary rolc is to nct as ties or struts in developing the axial forces in the
intermediate columns.
Figure 4.140 indicates ihc placement of the panel reinforcing. The column and span-
drel bcam reinforcing was extended through the panel, which was also reinforced with
lieht orthoronal reinforcements to minimize ihc size of accidental cracks. Collector re-
L
inforcing. suppicmunliog litc rpandrcl rcinforccmcnts, war added to i i ~c lop and buttom
of the panel tu ;lugmcnt the lcnrile ruquiir.munts at the intcr,uctions Splicer an the m~ i n
rw~odrel rcinforu:mcsts aerc slaggurtd tu providc for lcnsilc forccr in the .p:!n~lrcl
- -
beams.
The construction of the concrete structure, from first footing to roof level, took 13
months to complctc. Thc building required 16.000 m' (21.000 yd') of concrete and 21 SO
tonncs (2400 tons) of reinforcing bars. A 3-day construction cycle was easily main-
taincd for the typical floors (a Zday cycle would have been possiblc with ovcrtimc).
Direction ol
force in
diagonals
Spandrel
reinfc.
Collector
reinfc.
Column
reinfc.
Diagonal
reinfc.
Collector
reinfc.
Spandrel
reinfc.
Fig. 4.140 Urucing punel rcinfureirlg luseul.
Hotel de las Artes
Barcelona. Spain
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of complclion
Height from street lo roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind vclocily
Maximum lateral dcflcction
Design fundemcntal period
Design acceleration
Design dantping
Earthquake l o~di ng
Type of structure
Foundation condilions
Footing type
Typical noor
Story height
Bcam span
Bcom depth
Beam spocing
hlateri;~l
Slab
Colun~ns
Sizc st ground floor
Spacing
hlolcriol
Corc
Skidmore Owingr and Merrill
1992
137 m (450 fi)
43
1
Hotel
Structural steel
2.87 kPa (60 psD
40 m/sec (90 mph) at 30 m (98 St)
H/50O, 50-yr return period
5.2 scc
Not applicnblc
I % sensiccobility
No1 applicable
Diagonally braced lube in tllc form of
mefa portal frames
Dense sand
Aufcred straighl sltnft piles construc~ed
undcr bcntonitc slurry
3.00 m (9 it I 0 in.)
Office 9.2 m (30 St)
Orlice 157 mm ( I 8 in.)
Office 4.6 m (15 ft)
Sleel. A572, grade 50
75-mm composite metal deck + 60-mm
12.4-in.) concrete + 55-mm (2.1 in.) scc-
and-pour concrctc
W350 by500 1bIf1 inlerior: \\TA4 21 ehl ekr
9.2. 13.8 m (30. 45 St)
A572 grddc 50
Braced lo p a n belr.cen mega brncing
pencl points; rlcel-braced rrilrnes in or-
thogonal directions
The Motel dc las ilrtcs tower is the ,must prominent par1 of n multiusc cornplcx in
Barcelona. Spain. consislinf o i 5-slur luxury huteliapartment units. commercial oiiics
space. retail. porkin.. and beallll club f:~cililics (Figs. 4.141 and 4.142). Thc project is
Tubular Systems
277
Sect 4.41
luc3tcd along Barcelona harbor, overlooking the hlcditcrranetln Sea, and uas colnpielcd
in time for the 1992 So~ltmer Olgmpic G me r The Hole1 dr 13s Ancr i.; o:tn of:$" n,.p,.
- - -. . -. - . . - . - .
all plan to provide new infrastructure and private development of individual building
parcels in the Olympic Village area. The lower is envisioned as one of the focal points
in the reawakening of Barcelona as a major European capital.
Fig. 4.142 Frurnvsurli: Holcl dc lur Art-.
Continuing a long tradition at Skidmore Owings and Memll. thc uchiteclural form.
crnression. and aniculalion of the tower a 2 all bascd on thc beauty and esrccnce of the
expused, pninled stmclurol stecl fume. The archi~ecturnlly exposed X-braced framer lo-
cated on the building periphery nrr organized on a Cslory [I?-m (39-R)] module. These
frames form a fully three-dimenrianol iystern resisling nll wind and seismic 1atcr.xl
forces nr well as abortion of t he tower siavitv load. o st he Full building inertia is uti- . ~ . - ~ ~ - - .
lized, n very eifici'ent lalcnl load resisting system is obmincd, with very lillle stecl
ueight abort that requircd lo resist the toucr gravity load.
From thr: archileclural point of view. a clear articulationof the cxtcrior slmclurc was
desired. which is charactcnzed by the crisr, aro~ort i ons of steel I beam, columns, and
hi l f-an members. as well as the honest exbressfon of thc connectins ioints. both bolted .,. ~-~ . -.
2nd ucldr.d.The cxtenor cunnin wail is set back 1.5 m (5 It) from the pcrimrler. thereby
nrovidins n cl eu architsctural expression of the exposed X-braced slcrl frame. An open.
; e b l i k e ; ~ c ~ r e allowing the play of daylight through the frame, much desired by the
architcctural design team; was-bainncedbythe need for robusmess and slructurnl in-
tegrity, particularly at the memberjoinls. Exterior frame members were chosen on the
basis of erectabilily, connection detailing, nccessibility for slcel painting and future
maintenance, and visual considerations related to the architectural aesthetic.
The issues of corrosion and fire protection were addressed in engineering the exte-
rior exposed steel fmme. Corrosion protection for the exposed steel members is pro-
vidcd by a durable fluorocarbon paint system designed for long life under the coastal
marine environment, consisting of a shop-applied primer, undercoat, and finish coat.
with a sccond finish cont applied in the field after erection of the stecl frame. The non-
fireproofed exterior structure was anolyzed using the latest slate-of-the-art fire engi-
neering mcthods developed in Europe and the United States. Analytical methods to de-
termine the steel lempcrnturcs as well as the charncler and nature of n number of
hypothetical design fire events were stndied. High-tempernNre structural analysis of the
entire huildine frame comaleted the fire eneineerins desipn. ~ - - -
A simple, straightforu,nrd architcctural cornpoiition expressing thc inhercnt function
of the Slruclural frame, thl: Hole1 de Ins Ancs loner represents n prominent !\or), com-
hinine architccmre and , uuct ur~l rngincuring, marking a major intcm3Uonnl cclubra-
tion in Barcelona during the summerbf 1992.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, BUNDLED TUBES
Sears Tower
Architect Skidmorc Owings and Merrill
Structural engineer Skidmorc Owings and Mcrrill
Year of complelion 1974
Height from street lo roof 443 m (1451 it)
Number of stories l I0
Building use Omce
Frame material Structural steel
Typical floor live load 2.5 Wa (50 ps 0
Basic wind velocity 34 mlscc (75 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection H1550. 100-yr relurn period
Design fundamcnlal period 7.8 scc
Design accclcration 20 mg peak. 10-yr relurn pcriod
Design damping 1.25% scrviceabilily
Earthquokc loading Not applicsble
Type of structure Bundled framed lubes
Foundation conditions 18-m (20-it)-deep steel-lined concrcie
caissons
Footing type Roft
Typical floor
Story height 3.92 m (12 fl 10.5 in.)
Truss span 22.9 m (75 fi)
Truss dcplh 1016 m n ~ (10 in.)
Truss spacing 4.6 m (15 ft)
Slab
76-mm (3-in.) metal deck
Columns
990 by 610 mm (39 by 24 in.) built up
Spacing 4.6 m (15 it)
Core Not applicable
The Sears Torvcr is the world's lellcsl office building with a height of 443 m (1454 it)
above ground (Fig. 4.143). It conloins 362,000 m' (3.9 million it') of oflice space in 109
slorics.
The setbacks in tile facade result from reducing floor areas required by tenancy con-
siderations. Sears. Roebuck and Company required large floors for their opcrotions,
whereas smaller floors were best for rcnlal purposes. The adopted bundled tube concepl
282 ' Latsral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
provided nn organization of modular areas which could hc terminated at various levels
to create floors of different shapes and sizes (Fig. 4.144). Each tube is 22.9 m (75 ft)
square, and nine such tuhes make up n typical lower floor for an overall floor dimension
of 68.6 m (225 ft). This square plan shape extends to the fiftieth floor, where the first
tube terminnlions occur. Other terminations occur a1 floors 66 and 90, creating floor ar-
eas of 3800 to 1100 m'(41.000 to 12.000 ft21.
The structurr: acts as; venicni canlilc\,er Lxcd at the hase lo resist wind loads. Nind
square rubes of varying heights ;Ire bundled together lo crcale ihr larger ovcnll tube.
Ench tubr comprises columns at 4.58-m (15-11) centers connected by stiif bcnms. Two
adjacent tuhes share one sel of columns and henms. All column-to-he& connections are
fullv welded. At three levels. the lubes incornorate trusses. orovided to m&e the axial
. .
~- ~~~~~~~~ ~~~-
column loads more uniform where tuhe.drop-offs occur. Thesc trusser occur hclow
floors 66 and 90 and between floors 29 and 31.
The two inarior frames connect opposing facade frames at two intermediate points,
therehv reducing the shear Ian effect in the flanee frames. This reduces the oremium for
hci gbt ~onsi dcr; ~bl y as shoun by the relnli\ely-lou unit stmctur;il rtccl qu;oli~g of 161
Lglrn' (33 pro. The uind-induced sway is nbout 7.6 mm (0.3 in.) per atory, and tltc fun-
damental period is 7.8 sec.
The 22.9-m (75-ftl-square floor arcos of each tube are framed hv one-wav trusses
spanning 22.9 m (75 ft) i t 4.58-m (15-ft) ccntcrs. Each truss conneci dircctly'to a col-
umn with a high-strength friction-grip bolted shear connection. The span direction or
these 1NSScs was alternated every six stories to equalize gravity loading on the columns.
The tmsscs are I020 mm (40 in.) deep and utilize all of the available depth in the space
between the ceiling and the floor slab above. The spaces between the diagonal truss wch
members allow the passage of up to 530-mm (21-in.)-diameter air-conditioning ducts.
Benms and columns are built-up I sections of 1070- and 990-mm ( 4 2 and 39-in.)
depth, respectively. Column flanges vnry from 609 by 102 mm (24 by 4 in.) at the hot-
tom to 305 hv 19 mm (12 hv 2.75 in.) at the too. and henm flanres from 406 bv 70 mm
(16 by 2.75 k.) to 254 by Li5 mm (10 by 1 in.j. A total of 69.000 tdnnes (76.ion tons)
of structural steel was used in the project, consisting of grades A588, A572, and A36.
The steel-tube structure was shop-fabricated into units of two-story-high columns
and half-span heams each side. tvoicallv weiehine 14 lonnes 115 tons). The shoo fahri-
.. . -
cation climinatrd95560f field uelding. ~ut omat r dr l r cl r os l a~ weldini was usedior thc
hull aulds of hcnms to columns. The continuity plates ocrors columns at the joints ~ c r c
fillet-welded by the innershield process.
Because site storaee sonce wns unavailable. the frame units were delivered exnctlv
when needed and lift&! oif the truck into place. Except for column splices, all field con'-
neclions were grnde A490 high-slrength friction-grip bolts in shear connections. Exte-
rior columns were insulated to limit the average temperature differential between these
columns nnd interior columns.
Sect . 4.41 Tubular Systems
283
. .
r b "7
N
N 3' cellular deck
I1
21/2" It. wt. cond
D
'ul
r-
z
Typical lraming plan (levels 1 lo 50)
(a)
Modular lloor conliguralion
(bl
Etg. 4.144 ScorJ Tower.
Shear lag behavior
F~ R. 4.144 Srnrs l'cmrr. ~ C~ ~ n r i r , , , ~ d ]
Sect. 4.41
Rialto Building
Mdbourne, Australia
>,.'.,
Architect
.....
.. . ,
. .
Structural engineer
Ycar of compiction
Hcight from sUcel to roof
Number of storles
Number of levels below 101
Building use
Frame nlatcrial
~ y ~ i c a l floor live load
Basic wind velocity
Design fundamental pcriod
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of strucmrc
Fooling type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Bcam spdcjng
Slab
.
:-,,
g;
?t :
Columns
,?I;
,.*a
2.
..?. Spacing
r t
: , z
s!. htaterial
.<
,.,: L.
"~:
Core
.-
Tubular Systems
~ e m r d de PrcuPenott Lyon Mathieson
Pty. Ltd.
Meinhardt Australia Ply. Ltd.
1985
243 m (797 fi)
63
2
Office
Concrete
4 W a (80 psfl
39 mlsec (87 mph). 50-yr return
6.1 scc
3% serviceability: 510 ultimate
Not applicable
concrete core with concrete perimeter
frames
~ a s a l t over sands and clays over mud-
stone
Caissons 1500 or 1800 mm (5 or 6 ft) in
diameter. 18 m (59 ft) long, socketed inlo
rock
3.9 m (12 f 9 . 5 in.)
10.5 m (34 ft 6 in.)
500 mm (20 in.)
5 m (16 ft 5 in.)
120.mm (4.75-in.) lightweight concrete
1.2 m (4 ft) octagonal
5 m (16 f t 5 in.)
Shcar walls. 750 mm (30 in.) maximum
thick at ground floor
hlatcrial
A number of structural systems for the Rialto Building (Fig. 4.145) were initially in-
vestigatcd and a reinforced concrete swct ural system was finally adopted, with speed
of construction being a prime consideration in the dcvclopment of formu,ark and rein-
forcement dctails
, > :
.2,:
I ;..
Fig. 1.115 Riulto Building, hlrlbuurnc, Austmliu,
The external frame or coluntns and beams, urhile being designed for the direct dead
and l i ve loads aoolicable. acts as an external tube i n resirtine lateral load. Althoueh the
. . -
plan shap: i r uns)t~t~aetricaI 3ad tltc colutons arc 5 m (16.4 i t ) apart. ;lnaly$is 01 lhu i n ~ d
tmnsfer ardund the uurners indicated re>runxblc thrce-din1:nsiunal action. l hl : corner
beams connecting the end columns are most oecessary for Lhis action. The tube effect
also provides forsome latcrnl distribution of load from thc more heavily loadcd columns
(Fig. 4.146).
Thc service cores, being the major elements i n the structure, were the subject of a
number of detailed considerationr. No sizable penerrations or rebates were permitted i n
the main walls. Sizine ofthe walls was not oolv for Iondine considerations. but !v\'as the
suhjcct ofrhrinkngc 2nd 2rr.r.p ust i ~nat i un~ 2nd r~.fi ocmcnt for buildlng pcrfornlsncr.. Fi -
n d checking af t hc intcrnctillc corcl rind r.\tr.rn;jl frames u.2~ cxr i ed out using n tl>r~.i..
dimcnrionxl l i ni t u- ~I ~. , l ~snt on:~l)sis.
Design ui nJ 102ds i n th? b.ulding wcrc calculated ~ ~ i n g mctcorological d313 3s13il-
z~hlc. Thc hui l ~l i ng i r of S L C ~ 3 beigttt, ri l e. 2nd s l e e d ~ r ~ ~ ~ a s that ths diifr.rcnt : ~ppr u~ch
tclocitiu* 2nd wind dcrcctiurl, nurr qignilicant ~n the dci i g~t . \ \ ' i d tunncl tsats dutr.r-
mlncd design prcssurds 10, hoth the iruilding ;and the facade. Frntn thc north, elst. and
rvrrt. terrain category 4 (1.36 applicable. ~ l t i l c [ram th~. south, with Port Phi l l i p R3g be-
in^ 3 km (?, mi ) distnnt. tcrrain~cnteeorv I was considered above level 30 . ~ - .
Tl i c i;,icr>l projcctirm of thc h ~ ~ l d i n g , being s.ynmctric31. inducer 3 $rind fnrcc un
thc st r ~cl t ! r ~ t h ~ t n.ll >l uj !s cnnfc,rrn a1111 lhs c ~nl er uf Jt i f i n~sr . Ti16 pr ,r1111dlr.r
bcnms and cores have bccn modi l i ed to align thc ta,o centroids as closely as possible at
all lcvels: homevcr, a section of tllc bui l di ng between levels 24 and 40 is subject to a
twisting force. Thc calculnted drift at the top of the tower undcr maximum design wind
forces and incorporatina this twisting i s 230 mm (9 in.).
A major consideration addressed and rcrolved early i n the design phase was the as-
pect of shrinksge and creep of lhc concrete structure. Most buildings of [his size r\,orld-
u,ide are steel framed and not subicct to these tvocs of mo\~emeots.
, ,
.An nsaussmeol i,i 111~1C I ~ :xnd shritlkagl: UI VL.~ICII ulemcnls i n llic prujecl $$as c:lr-
r i ~ d out i ~ r ~ h i n g use uf rurcar:lt dht3 i l v ~ i l b l ~ tcurnlhe United Sri l l e~. USL~~LLI ?~~: C \;$I-
ucs derived for material properties and predictions wi l h regard to weather and building
orouram. a comouter oroeram was deselooed taking into account member size. concrete
. . = . =
str~.ttgth, r:inforcr.m~.nt ratio, age ;I 1o:iding. I~umi dtty, l ol di ttg condit~uns. and cre:p and
sIirink3g~. d~vel opm~.nt. I t N ~ S anticip:~tr.d th;it thc total nonelartic .~hon~.ni sg oi t he 65-
storv to& would be on order of 1% to 200 mm (6 to 8 in.). Provided allowances are
~i tsde i n tlte atlachntest of non-l n~d-bu3ri nb ciements such its l ~ f t r ~ i l s atid the faode, the
magnitude uf l hi r nnnvlastic dsform;~tiott is ttot i i gn~i l ci nt . HU\I~\L.I, cl i ff~r~.nccs i n tltc
msni l ude uf ihnnkage ;md crsup inirltirt :1 1x11concrete structure 15 3 ntajur .ulljcct nf
concern, and this is p&ticularly rclc~,ant i n the case of the Rialto towers.
Lone-term differential shortenine bcr~veen the central core and nerimelcr columns at
- -
the top of a typical tower building can be readily catered for as the distances between
thcsc elements are usually large. Thc combined shrinkage and creep l o be expected af-
ter construclion of the upper levels of the Ri al to lO\\.er5 indicntcd differential rnlucs of
10mm (% in.) i n thecase of towerB and 11 mm (% in.) i n thecascofto\verA.Thc mi n- . .. . . . .
i m ~ n l sp:~ns i n ~ n l ~ ~ ~ d l r c 9.7 01( 32 11) 2nd 7.0 i n (23 i t), r-sp:cli\ely. I-lot\c\r.r. o* tun -
d r i \ 2nd B furm an i ntugr~tr.d itruclurc. 3 differr.nti:~l \i ~l ul : un the urdcr of 38 inn1 (1.5
in.) could he -.\PL.CIC~ bct~ee11 >di;lc~.nl c ~ l u t ~ l n r ill I~.!el -41 ( I oNL. ~ B rnnfj ~ UL . 10 ef -
fects of the addiiional I 7 levels of k wer A. The distance between these columns is only
.I 111 (13 ft). ;~nd clcnrlg ru;h inotcntcnt, u:tn~tut hu tolr.r3tsd i n a ~ o n s t c ~ ~ c t i ~ n ui t t l i r !la-
lore. Jointing of l l t c t u ~ c r s e l r not 3ccepli~hlc. 2nd tlte ~rovi si ort nfi!.'h:lt"xt this l e \ ~ 1
was unsuitnblc to Lhe architecture, as !,,ell as inducing a long-term out-of-plumb ofthe
top of tower A.
Fig. 4.146 Fluor pions; Riallo Uuilding
The solulion arriied at uas to "play a cunfidcnce lnck" on lo!rer 5, nlabng lhe
structure '.bcliwc" it is 17 slorics Inllur. Prcrtrcrsing cohles are provided from lcvel I
to level 38 and stage stressed as tower A conslrucdonproceeds. Thereby nll columns be-
low level 38 are subject to the same loadings at the same time, and therefore elastic and
nonelnstic shortening values are relatively consistent for the lifetime of Ule building
(Fig. 4.147).
Fig. 4.147 SLnged slresring; Rlnlla Building.
N6E Building
Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, Japan
Architect Nihnn Sekkei Inc.
Strucmnl engineer Nihon Sekkci Inc.
Height from street to roof 189.6 m (622 it)
Number or stories 46
Building use Offices and retail
Frame material Stccl
Typical floor live load 5 kPa (100 psn
Basic wind velocily 35 mlsec (78 mph)
hlavimum lateral deflection HtZOO. IOO-yr rctum
Design fundamental period 4.56.4.75 scc
Design acceleration 35 mg pcak. 100-yr rcturn
Design damping 1% rcrviceability; ?% uldrnate
Eanhrluakc lr~ading c = 0.0533
Type or structure Dundlcd tube
Foundation conditions Clay and rand o\,eigravrl
Typical floor
Story height 3.95 n~ 113 ft)
Beam span 19.6. 16.4 m (6-1 f t 1 in.. 53 it 10 in.)
Beam depth 800. 600 mm 131.5.23.5 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2. 3.6 m (10 fi 6 in.. I I it I0 in.)
Slab 135-mm (5.15-in.) reinforced concrcte
Columns
Size at ground level 600 by 600 mm (24 by 24 in.)
Spacing 3.z.3.6 m ( I 0 Cl 6 in.. I I It 10 in.)
Core Fremcd tube
The plan dimensions of the N6E Building ore 92 by 39.2 m (302 by 128 it), which is
quite large (Fig. 4.148). The core location caused eccentricities that could not be rc-
duced using shcar \raalls or bracing systems, so the bundled tube r).stcm was adopted to
ochicve a symmetric structure and lo avoid torsional problems (Fig. 4.1491. This mas
done at the expense of reduced span lengths and incicased numbers ofcolumns.
The building response was estimated using ail available data as well as the along-
wind and cross-wind power spectra end cospectra, which vary with the building heighL
Ail cslculetions were donc forl: J. and lorsional directions.
Tubular Systems
Fig. 4.148 NGE Building, Tekyo, Jupnn.
Fig. 4.149 Typical structural plnn; N6E Building.
I
Carnegie Hall Tower
New York, N.Y., USA
:..
. .
. 2, : L
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Height of street to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span and spacing
Beam depth
Slab
Columns
Material
Core
Ce s u Pelli and Associates (desim)
Brennan. Beer, Goman Associates
Robert Rosenwnsser Associntes
1989
230.7 m (757 ft)
62
I
Office
Concrete
2.5 kPa (50 psf)
47 mlsec (105 mph). 100-yr rcmm period
Approx Hl500. 100-yr return
4.8 sec E-W; 3 scc N-S: 2 sec torsion
20 mg peak. IO-yr remm period
1% serviceability: 2x7'0 ultimate
Not applicable
Side-by-side concrete tubes
Rock. 4-MPa (40-tonlft') capacity
Spread roolings
3.66111 (12 ft)
Vnrying
457 mm (18 in.) interior; 762-mm (30-in.)
spandrels
One- and two-way, 230 mm (9 in.) thick
I
Size and spacing vary
Concrete. 58 MPn (8400 psi)
i
!
Sh e u walls ( put of tubes); thickness
varies; concrete as for columns
At 230.7 m (757 11) in h?iphr. Camepie IJall Tosser ia the iccond 1:~llest concrcle rlruc-
lure in Nr u York Cily and thssighth tollssl in the wnrld ludly (Fig. 1.150). With a 15.2-
nl (50-TI)-ulde ~nnnll Tdce and 1 2?.9-m (75-r1)-wide south race. which olfsc.1~ lu a 15. 2-
m (50-it) face above the forty-second floor, this 62-story SlNClUrc is the most slender
habitable building of this height ever constructed (Fig. 4.151). The structure occupies the
narrow site bctween the five-story Russian Ten Room and the 100-yeor-old Cornegie
Music Hull. The structure's nrchitect. Cesar Pelli Associates, dictated the structural
scheme by "sculpting" the structure to complement the existing music hall. The double
(side-by-side) tube structural system that resulted rvss actually defined by filling in all
the available spaces bctmeen the desired windows with concrete. This resulted in nonuni-
formity in column size and spacing.
[Chap. 4
Fig. 4.i5U Curneglc Holi Tower, KEIV Yolk.
The nonuniformity in the size of the columns at a level was also extended venicolly
as offseu and larecr or smaller window sizes dictated relocation or alteredcolumn sizes. -~ -~~~~ -
-~
Often Viercndcel nction u,as nerdcd to terrninntc venical eletncnls at vl ri ous locations
without the benefit of trnnlfer girders. This occurred on the nonh and south walls and
above the fortv-second fl oor f i r the south hal f of the west wall, whi ch spans over the
enlareed haze: Vicrendcel action was also reauired direcllv above lhe ihroueh-block
- ~ -
~~ ~
pl r j ags at the ground floor and at sevcral othcr localions.
A center u r b (perforated by lobby egress requirements), common to ihc1u.o side-by-
side tubes. w m needed to heln Ule north- and soulh-wall columns to efficienllv connect
the C ~ S I nDngc. wall to l c w&t flange wall wi th mi ni mum shmr lag. A ~l er cndeel col -
umn (skipping alternate floors to minimize the lobby obstructions) u,as introduced to r c-
ducc the clear span uf ihc center wcb. This Vicrcnducl column i s the only intcrior cul -
umn i n the stru;ture. whi ch othewi sc s u o o o ~ dl rrnvi tv loads bv thhexteri or tube
. . - -
uolutttns and t h ~ . ~. I eval nr cor ~ wi!lls. The large c l x r spms of 9.1 m (31 i t) and more bc-
1,vccn the elevator core and tlic ucr t wall wcrc spanned wl l h 230-mm (9-i n.) slabs nnd
shnlluu beams ,157 mm (18 in.) deep. This f r anl i n~ for gravity loads proved to be [nore
economical than one-way ioisu; or waf f l e slab coi sl ructi on bccausi i t orovided more
mdss to rcsist upl i ft forct~s?rol n wtnd loads and to reduce bullding acccl~rations. I t also
pro\i dcd c x t n height to accommodate mcchanic:,l systems so that wi th 3 lutal slog.
height 013.66 m ( I ? it). 3 ceiltng height of 2.7 m (9 i t ) uas maintained.
TIIS douhlc tuhc design relics hcavily on 760-mm (30-in)-deep spandrel beams to
tnpage 211 tltc vcntcnl suppuns to rcsist thc rxind act i o~i and to equalize the SI~L.SSCS due
to gravity l o ~ d s i n al l suppons rugardlcss ofthci r smr. The tube's venical rttcmhers var-
i t d bstr\,cen l R O and 2590 mm (19 and 102 in.) i n length (parallel l o tltc cxtcrior) and
included a solid concrete wal l behind the service core &a to the cast. The structural de-
sign cnnsidcrcd hoth the relasation duc to long-tcrm crccp and 5hrinkagc ofthe concrew
mumbur, dnd the instnntaneous demands of t he wind iurcer.
Ennugh gmvi ty loads %v~. r r . :lassmbled to clitninatc the possibility of tension duc to
wi nd in the vertical supporn and to i ct the gravitational loads anchor the structure. A
few rock anchors at the west end of t hc center web were added to enhance the vbi l i tv of
< -~
the web l o cngspc llie flanges cv6.n under larger lateral loods than dicvatcd by the Nerr
York Ci ty cndc or the wind tunnul ru,ults.
' l l l c prelintinary design considered both steel and concrete. Conuol ofthe ourceotion
. .
of motion wi t houi auxi l ~m means such as damoers was found to be nttainableonlv wi th ~ ~ -- - - ~~
, --..
tit: concrete allerrtalivc because of i hs larger damping 2nd weight of a concrete stmc-
lure. Hu~cvL. ~. 1S a pr t ~i l ul i un. because of its extreme slendcmcss. the stlucturc was ds-
signed to accommodate a pendulum-type damper. Fi el d meaurements, after the struc-
ture was topped out, indicated that dcsign predictions were accurate and n damper was
not needed. The anticipated accelerations, projected from these load mcnsurcments.
should not exceed 20 mg for the 10-year return pcriod.
Concrete was pumped i n to the f ul l height of the structure. Concrete strength i n the
columns di d not exceed 58 MPa (8400 psi) because the use of silica fume i n New York
Ci ty was sti l l questionable at the time the structure was designed. For this and other
slender structures, stiffness, weight. and damping are the important parameters diclat-
i ng the slructurc's behavior. The design for acceptable perception of motion oRen ovcr-
rides othcr more mundane design requirements such 3s strength and stability.This aruc-
lure together wi th its earlier slender siblings (Metropolitan Tower. Cityspire, and the
Concordia Hotel) ore prototypes of the future mcgastructures of the neat generation of
I d 1 SLIUCLUres.
Sect. 4.41
Allied Bank Plaza
Houston, Texas, USA
Architect
. Y.*::.:,h
Stru=tuml engineer
Year of completion
Hei ght from sueet to roof
Number of stories
Bui l di ng use
Frame material
Typi cal fl oor l i ve load
Basic wind velocity
Maxi mum lateral deflection
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type o i structure
Footing type
Typi cal noor
Story height
Beam span
Bcam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Tubular Systems 297
Skidmore Owings and Mcr r i l l
Skidmore Owings and Meml l
1983
296 m (972 i t)
71
4
OlEce
Stmctural steel
2.5 Wa (50 psO
Unavailable [force = 196 kNl m (13,400
Ibl ft) for 100-yr rcl urnl
H/500. 100-yr return
Not available
Not available
I % serviccnbility
Not applicable
Pcrimeter framed tube; diagonally braced
core wi th outrigger trusses
Stiff clay
Mat 2.9 m (9 f t 6 in.) thick
4.0 m (13 i t 1 in.)
15.2 m (50 ft)
530 mm (21 in.)
4.6 m (15 i t)
Steel, grade 250 MPn (36 ksi)
83-mm (3.25-in.) concrete on 76-mm (3-
in.) metal deck
Built-up. 1016- by 610-mm (40- by 2 6
in.) pcrimctcr: 610- by 610-mm (24- by
24-in.) interior
4.6-m (15-ft) perimeter: 9.15- by 6.1-m
(30- by 20-it) intcrior
Steel, grade 250 and 350 MPa (36 nnd 50
ksi)
'i.
1 : core Braced steel frame, gradc350 MPa (50 h i )
~-
:~.
. %.
3.22 h
Al l i ed Bank Plazn was designed to relate strongly to the buildinps around it. Situated on
:I<
?: !
a site whi ch is essentially the center ol downtown Houston, the bui l di ng has a major tm-
,:2.
pact on the western iacadc ofthe city; which i s the most dominant view of its skylinc.
:$
.*.,
In form and mnterials, a design was sought which would be distinctive but would Scr\pC
4:
;?2
~:&:
&?.
* P ~
to complement and tie together its surroundings. A form that tnovcd and flowed was felt
to be nppropriatc, one that wns sort and sheer rather tltan 1t;lrd and opaque like the gran-
ite and steel rectnnnulnr buildines around it (Fie. 4.1521.
- - -
The resulting semicurved lower was uchievcd by juxtaposing two quarter-cylindcr
shafis (Fig. 4.153). The 71-story tower is sheathed in dttrk green rcflccdve glass, cho-
sen for its sheer quality and rcsponsivencss to light. Tite combination or pl ans and
curves in the building's design will allow a cconrtant intcrplay of sunlight un its surface.
Fig. 4.151 hliird Unnli I'inzn. Hoartun, Tcsits. tPbrlio I? HedN'rS-Blcrriag.1
Givine the buildine a human scale was another imoonant asoect or the desianer's in-
" b
tcnlions. Unlike many recent buildings, which are sheathed i n reflective glass and appear
only as a huge mass. the swct ure of the Allied Bank Plaza is subtly cxprcssed with veni-
cal&d horizonml mullions. A formal ooml on theeastsideoflhe b$ldi"eorovides asense
-.
of cnlr).. Slncc h5rc or the public u n e r r the tun~~el-cotittccted dounloun buildings st the
underground lcrel. Allied Bank PICA ol r ~r s t l i ~ olily entnnce directly from the SU~L. I and
combines the tunnel with M open-air plaza, including landscaping and a fountain.
A bundled tube frame is the ~r i mar v lnrcral svstem for the 71-storv 296-111 1972-ftl-
1211 186.OUU.m' I? mtliton 11') .iilisd 63nk lorie;. The shape is forme> by luo'quanr;-
circlcs placcd ~nus)mmctricall! bout thc m~ddl c tuhulir line. Tiis colun~n sp~ci ng5 brc
1.57 m ( l j it) \kith the usuil tres-l)pe construction. Thc systcm ilso uses irvo v~mi cl l
trusses in the core, which are connccied to the exterior tube by outrigger and belt wsses.
Sienificant imorovemenl in tubular behavior is obtained bccause or the oarticioation of
-
the INSSeS. This sysrcm, thcrcrorc, embodies elements from the framed tube, bundlcd
tube, and truss rystcme with bcit and ouvigger trusses. The truss system provides another
transverse frame linkage in the curvilinear part to improw its shear lngchnrnctciisticn.
The structurai system for the Allied Bank Plaza towcr was sclcctcd after study of
both steel and composite systems. Tite system permitted a substontially reduced con-
swct i on time. The tower's form and slcndcrness arc a radical departure from past rcc-
tnngularbuildings of this height. yet the inherent rigidity or the bundled tube system dc-
veiooed for the tower limited stccl wc i ~h t to 128 ke/m2 126.2 nsn.
cant reductions in design wind pressure belorr' that experienced by square or rectangu-
lar rorms. The tower is founded on a 2.9-m 19-ft 6-in.)-thick mat roundation aooroxi-
malely 20 m (65 ft) below grade, which pc;mits utilization of four lowcr lcdels for
necessary retail, mechanical, and parking lunctions.
4 ~ 5 HYBRID SYSTEMS
Tall buildings hdve been lraditionllly designed lo nl ok use of 3 rlnglc type uf Inlcr~l
In3d resisting system-inttially s ~mpl c moment resisting frames 2nd then shcar wall
s\,rtcms and frimed rubes. Until ~hr . advent of economical, c3sy-lo-use. high-capacit)
cbmouter hardware and software. structural svstems had to be amenable to hand calcu-
I;ttioc or cumpuler an; ~l ys~s usit~g limitcd-c:tpacity nlach~nts. Notvnda).~ computcr ca-
pacil) l s nu1 ;an issue, and decisions on slructural syilcms art made on 1h~' basi s of1h:ir
r.ficcts on the xppcdrance and funclioning of the building and on its cnnaln~ctahil~ty.
This is not to si eeest that on,*l/~i,in~ is nc&otable-lhe e&ineer musl still be aware of
& & . " -
111,: pi1p~II5 ofcrc3ting ;~brupt discnntimriticr in building sliffncrs. the Ions-tcrm cffecls
nf dilf:rcntial ixi31 siloncninp. and other side effccl, of using mired systems and mul-
tiple materials.
An excellent examnle of a hvbrid svslcm is the O~~er s eas Union Bank Center in Sin-
gdporc. Here :. b r x t d stcvl fr:,n:c rvas used b:causc ofi l s lightnos. lnng sp:inniog ihd.
)I!, small metnbcr aizss, absence of crccp shancning. and. combined with ioncrcle
a h e ~ r tralla. for iL\ r cr \ cost.r.fficicnt contribution to l>ltral st i ffn~ss.
Another tvoe of hibrid svslem eaininr! oooulsritv is the concrete-filled steel lube
, . " - . .
column, u.berc lhe r.rcct3bility of n str.ci framr: is 111iinlaincd. but the cos l . ~f f ccl i ~~c 3, -
i;! In-d uapacily ufhiglt-rlrcnpth concrete is u ~ e d The stecl tube pruvidcs cunfincmcnt
lo the concrelc much more eificiently than normal reinforcement does, and it is on the
extreme outside. where il is most effective. Of course fire orolcction must bc consid-
ered. If the slecl tube is considered ns sacrificinl in a fire, then inlernal reinforcement
sufficient for the reduced loading normnlly prescribed for the fire limit state must be
provided. If external fire protection is provided, lhcn internal reinforcemcnt may not be
needed. If concrete can be oumocd into the column from ihc base of each Dour. then a
. . .
number ofstorics can be concreted at one time and vibration of the concrele is not nec-
essary. Examples of such a system are Cnsscidcn Place. Melbourne, and Two Union
Square. Seattle.
The rrends of modem architecture sometimes force the structural engineer away
from convention in a search for a struclure that will nccommodale ocsthctic and func-
tional demands while meeting struclurnl requiremen*. The result may be a structure
which on one face of the building is of a different type than the other faces, as in Geor-
eia Pacific. Atlanta. or a S I NC~ U~ ; with a number of quite different clemenls formine i s
Lateral load resisling frame, an exccllenl example being First Bank Place. ~ i n n e a ~ o l i s .
Here the engineer has provided a braced steci core connected via outilggcr beams to
large high-strength concrete perimeter columns, incorporating cast-in fieelwork lo aid
erection and connection. Although this systcm provides in-plane stiffness. its lack of
torsional stiffness required that additional measures be lakcn. which rcsultcd in one buv
oi tr.ruu.ll cxterior hr:lcinp 2nd ;i iturnher ui l:vcl. of pcriln~.lr.r \'lerc,dr.cl 'b..o-
J.iges."-pr.rl~aps unc of lhr h~.rt caamplcs of the an uf$~ructural cngin~' rring.
Wilh t l r adtctll of high-r~renglh cottcrcle [uuncrclc ;1buv~' 50 >!PA or (70UU psi,] 113,
come ihe era of the "sipcrcolumn." where the stiflncss and damping cnpabjlities of
larre concrete elements are combined with the liehiness and conslructabilitv of stecl
li:unus. I-l~gI~-r~rungtlt uortcmte. \$hen 11 irlclrrdu, silicz fumc ;mi 3 high-rarrge ivu:<r r d-
du:x ~sopr.rpl;~*lic~rer). exhihits signifir;tntlg lnsrer c r q and shrinh~ge ;!nd l a i hcr~. -
iurc ~nurs readily accu,nntndnl~.d in 3 1h)bri~l frsme. 'Thc rel:itivc clic:!pncss of hi $-
strength concrete together with the facl that large members do not require large cranes
(or any cranngc at all ifpumped) mcans that thc columns can be economically designed
lor stifiness rather than for strength.
Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 301
The Intcrtirst Plaza in Dallas (not described in this Monograph) uses supercoiumns
in conjuncrion with an almost conventionai steel frame, and the Columbia Seafirsl Ccn-
ler in Scatllc incorporates very large supercolumns connected by slecl diagonal mem-
bers. ~? a braced steel core. Another example, although never built, is the Bank oTt11c
Sou*\t.est tower in Houston. Hcrc eight giant concrete columns form the chords of four
vcrtiFi\ steel megawsses.
The orcvious cxamnles sueaest that hvbrid slructures are likelv to bc the rule rather
. .
I I I ; ~ the exccplion for'luture r e g 1x11buildings, a hsther lo crest; scccplahle dynaloic
~ l ~ i ~ r ~ c I ~ ~ r i s t i c s or 10 ilccun~~nodatc thc cu,npie\ .Il:tp~.s dtm3ndvd by modern ;!rchilcc-
ture. Hybrid structures are not somcthlng be tackled by the novice cnginccr armed
with a oarveriul microcornouter and a structural nnalvsis software oackaee. as a sound
' u
knowicdgc and undcrstanding of material behavior (such as ductility, damping, creep.
and shrinkage), which is not included in analysis and design packages and mostly no1
codified. is essential and construclabilitv must bc a oarallel consideradon. However.
\vithour hybrid structural systems many of our modern tall buildings may new1 have
heen bull1 in their presenl form.
Overseas Union Bank Center
Singapore
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Number of stories
Building usc
Frame material
Basic \\find velocity
Design fundamentnl period
Design damping
Earthquakc loading
Type ofstructure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Benm depth
Beam spacing
h'lalerial
Slnh
Columns
Sire at ground floor
Spacing
htoterinl
Core
Thickness at ground floot
htalerinl
Kenzo Tange and Unec/SAA Poflncrship
Meinhardt Asia Pty. Ltd.
1986
280 m (919 it)
63
4
Commercial. rctuil, office
Stccl with concrae walls to sL-~irs and core
2.5 kPa (50 pso
37.7 mlsec (84 mph). 1000-yr return
448 mm (17.5 in.)
7.3 scc
1% ser\'iceability; 3% ultimate
Not applicable
Hybrid system of steel frames rvith con-
crctc ~ i ~ s l l ~ to incrcasc rigidity
Silty sand. sandstone. siltstone, claystonc
7 caissons 5 lo 6 m (17 to 20 it) in disme-
ler. 100 m (328 i t ) deep. belled to 9-m (30-
f i ) diameter
4 m (13 it 1.5 in.)
20.3 m (66 ft 7 in.)
950 mm (37.5 in.)
4.32 m ( I 4 it 2 in.)
Steel, grade 50 and 43
150-mm (6-in.) concrcte on metal deck
800 by 600 mm (31.5 by 31.5 in.)
Varies
Steel, gndc 55 and 50
Hybrid stecl frame with concretc wall
zoncs
600 mm (24 in.)
Slccl. gnde 55 and 50; concrete. 45 MPa
(6400 p i )
The Oversear Union Bank Ccnler (Fig. 4.154) is a prestige state-of-the-art dei,elopmcnt
designed to house the bonk's lleed oflicc and provide renval office, commciciul, and
parking space in Raffles Plnce. Singapore. The high-rise section is conceived as two vi-
sually scumate triangle towers (although structumlly integral) facinp. each other on the
~.
hvooienure. A service core and a wi ani ~e column in one comer oroAde suooort for the
, . - . .
higher tuwcr. The loner tower is supponcd on n smaller triangular colutnn and no L-
shaped column. The slructurc has hei~ht-to.width ratios of 10:l on the south cluvxion
and 8:l on the north elevntion. he hirh-rise structure ~rovi des column-free soace
throuehout its full heieht above nround 6 i r . 4.155).
. -
The high-nsr slruclurc is framed using high-jicld structural steel. The princip,l
rolumnr we fabricated box columns framing the cieratur ,hafts and flanged T si12pea IU
conform to the wall lines and minimize encroachment into the elevator shaft arca:
Simply supponed stt.el ws r r s 950 mm (37.5 in.) dccp spaced at4.32-01 (14-it) ceo-
ters in an cast-west direc1i.w support the large column-free areas. These trusser xrc dc-
signed to act compositely with the concrete floor system.
The floor system consists of areinforced concrete slab composite with a 63-mm (2.5-
in.)-deep ribbed steel deck. The concrete slab is a total of 150 mm (6 in.) thick in order
to maintain a sufficient concrete thickness, after reticulation of services. for the rcquircd
fire separation between levcls. Fire protection of the s s el frame is provided by lipht-
weirht mineral fiber (Firs. 4.156 and 4.157).
The high-rise structu& is supported on h total of seven caissons ranging in depth
from 96 to I10 m (315 to 360 ft) and in diameter from 5 to 6 m (16.4 to 19.7 ft). Thc
caissons are belled at their bxse and carny Lheir load in end bearine on solid rack
Development of the most efficient siucmrai system is the essintial prerequisite to
optimization of the design. The choice of ryslcm drsmatically affects the quality of the
material required in the design.
The family ofstructural systems based on the tubular concept has provided the types
most widely used to date for high-rise and ultra-high-rise structures. However, it has be-
come necessary to seek new structural systems lo respond to changes which have taken
place over the last decade, including the very strong influence on high-rise buildings of
evolving architectural forms with many large open arens which extend through m;ltiple
floor heiehts.
'The d'ecision to use structural strcl in lieu oiru~niorccd cuncrelc for thc?SO-m (91%
(1)-hlph OUB tou'cr e a s dicta1c.d by ruuctural consideralions rxhcr t h ~ n ecnnunlics
(Fig. 4.158). The following are the principal f3ctors that dcturmincd the ndoptiun o i
structural steel in lieu of concrete.
I. Th e asymmetrical geometry of the.structure resulted in higher stresses in the
columns supporting the higher triangle thnn in those supporting the lowcr trion-
gle. This caused unequal column shortening from creep and a consequent lateral
movcmem of the slruclure.
2. Differential movement (creep) occurred between the reinforced concrete supcr-
columns in the primary megasystem and the swctural steel secondary system
within the portal frames of the megastrcturc.
3. The dimensions of the vertical structur~al members had become gross. resulting in
loss of floor space and presenting substanrial planning difficulties, both archircc-
turally and in the distribution of building services.
4. Tile sujl conditions were poor. jnd :! sp:cihl and cos~l'y fnusdatinn wr.3~ nccus5:lry.
Structural hIcrl kccpr \he weight down cu~npsrcd lu v cuncrct: stmcturc, rsdu:.
Ink buth the difficulty and the cost of footingr.
5. 'The use uf high-yield steel restllted in light:r, snlaller, and leas cnstly structural
nlembcri nhich svuuld sa~i sf> the system stiifncas crilsria.
Sect 4.51
Hybrid Systems
LEVEL FLOOR
RI SE
L O W Rl SE FLOO"
E L E V A T I O N
~ 1 6 . 4.155 ~ ~ ~ r n i n g pl ~nr nod elcmlion; Ovcrscns Union Bunk Ccnlcr.
I
[Chap. 4
SERVICES ACCESS
1
/
LIGHTWEIGHT FIREPROOFING
Fig. J.156 Flctor plan: Olcrrcns Union Dunk Ccnlcr.
Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems
307
The composition of the structure is one where lhe stcel frame provides the skelcton
oft he structural system, with the bracing and reinforced concrete walled zones acting to
increase the rigidity of the building (Fig. 4.159).
The individual elemena (steel frnme and concrele walls) nre both capnblc of func-
tioning independently in the trnnsfer of vertical loads from the top lo the foundations.
However, as elements used in conjunction. h e concrete provides restrain1 to the slecl.
allowing the steel frame to be fully stressed as an isolaed component.
Control of dilferential creep between concrete and smctural steel was investigated
extensively, taking into considcrntion axial shonening of the 5 t ~ ~ l u r a l slcel columns.
the construction program, and the bracing of the steel smcrure during erection. The
likely stresses in the concrete elements and thc steelwork were considered in both the
short term and the long term. The analysis indicated that the oplimum was for the con-
crete clemcnls lo follow behind the steelwork by approximately four lo five lcvels. The
maximum allowable differential was the concrctc elemcnls lagging 24 levels behind the
steelwork. The final optimized solution for the OUB structure is a mixed-frame hybrid
structure, providing an effective SlNClUrc utilizing the hest properties of slccl and con-
crete to achieve the minimum cost.
Fig. 4.157 Piun of reinrorccd concrcle wollr: Orerreus Union Bunk Centur.
Hhbri d .,truclurs i n nunhg nf cottaidsra~iun as 3 cnttsciot>r design ilppr03cl1. 7.111: US?
01 reittfurccd coucrstc ul smcne l o contrul thc dcfl ccl i on and dynamics of l ol l steel 51mc-
turcs provides an effeclive altcrnadvc smcl ur al svstcrn that bill ai l ow the dcsiener to
" -
malrerull use of the higher allowable stresses o f 'high-yield steels when other bracing
systems are inefficient or unacceptable architecturally.
TYPICAL
FRAME
PLANT F
TRUSS
BRACED
:LOOR
fig. 4.158 Slrutturirl r l c c l ryslunl; O~ u r l r i ~ r Usian Bunk Ccster.
Sect 4.51 Hybri d Systems
TYPICAL
-R.C. SHEAR
WALL
Fig. 4.l5Y I'rinlurysl,cur $~ul l syslcrn; 01.errcus Uniun nonh Cunlrr.
Citicorp Center
New York, N.Y., USA
Architect
Slructuml engineer
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 I
Sect. 4.51
Hybrid Systems
daring appearance, with all four of its corners jutling 0~123 m (76 it) unsupportc~ Crom
only four exterior columns, one centered on each side, which free-stand for a he~ght of
34.7 m (1 14 it) at the base (Fig. 4.160). The central core also suppons the tower. This
Hugh Stubbins and Associates with
unique structure was not designed this way arbitrarily just lo achieve a dramatic effect.
Emery Roth nnd Sons
Thc site. a city block in Manhattan, was purchased fully except for St. Peter's Lutheran
LeMessurier Consultants with offi ce of
Church on one comer of the block. The church agreed to sell its air rights, but would
James Rudeman
Building use Office, retail
Fmmc material Steel
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psf ~
Basic wind velocity 41 d s e c (92 mph). 100-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection HI600 at I-Wo ( 2 0 . ~ ~ 0 seniceability load
Design fundamental period 6.9. 7.2 scc
Design acceleration
Less than 20 mg peak. 10-yr return
Design damping
Measured 1.1 and 0.9% serviceability in-
creased by TMD to 4% each direction
Type of structure
Braced perimeter tube with braced core
below 9th floor; TMD at top
Foundation conditions Manhnnnn schist
Footing type Steel bore plates on grout on rock
Typical floor
Beam span 10.3, 12.8 m (33.9.42.1 ft)
Beam spacing 3.81 lo 3.91 m (12.5 to 12.84 ft)
Material
Slabs
76-mm (3411.) steel deck
Columns
Pairs of 965 by 762 mm (38 by 30 in.) max
by 3421 kg/m (2294 Iblft) at 5.74-111
(18.83-ft) centers at center of each side of
building
Material
Steel, grade 350 MPn (50 ksi)
Core
Moment frame above 10th floor, braced
frame below
Materiol
This 60-story tower contains an area of 102,200 m' (1.1 million it') of the project total
of 167.200 m' (1.8 million ft'). The 47.8-m (157-ft) square lower has a dramatic and
allow no columns of the office tower to pass through its facilities, and it required that a
new church building be designed and constructed in that comer with its own distinct
identity. This last requirement led the architect to place the first office floor more than
46 m (150 fl) above the streeL
The most direct and economical way lo achieve the 23-m (76-it) comer cantilevers
on each face of the typical tower floor was to provide a steel-hmed braced tube with a
system of columns and dingonnls in compression, channeling the building's gravity
loads into a 1.5-m (5-ft)-wide "mast" column in the center of each tower face [Fie.
. u
4.161). The main dingonnls repeal in eight-story modules. The compression diagonals
are restrained by horizontal tcnsion ties at four-story intervals. This system brings one-
~ ~ ~ ~ ; ,
, , .
Fig. 4.161 Eic~.utiun; Cilicorp Ccntcr.
Sect 4.51 Hybrid Systems 313
half of the tower gravity load down to the four base "legs," one centered on eoch side.
The svslem. because it rcoeals an each face of t hc tower. is also very cflicienl in resist- ~ ..- -
,~ .
iug wind lorcus, hoth shcar and ovcrlurning, slnce il forms a cumpieke brncsd lubc. A
ncal rtructural touch rvar the omission of the corncr columns at Ihc floor just bduw lllc
main ai a~onal inlcrsection ui t h thr corner cvrry cichl storics. This was to avoid accu- . -
mulating gravity load in the corncr columns and gives unobstructed corncr views as a
bonus.
An 8.8-m (29-it)-deep perimeter truss on top of each of the legs carries the gravity
lnadr oft he lowest seven floors to the center lees. The wind shear is transferred through -
the tenth-floor diaphragm at the top chord level of this truss over lo the diagonally
bnced elevator core, which carries it down to the foundation. Wind overturning forces
continue from the superstructure mast columns through the legs to the foundation.
The tvoical office floors arc framed with convendonal steel beams, with a light- .. -
, ,
weight concrete slab on clcctrificd undcrfloor slcei deck (Fig. 4 162). Thc core has mo-
rns~~~-cunncctcd lr3mus in nrdcr lo provide a syrtsm to delivcr floor-by-noor wind
lorccs lo the hr ~ccd tube pancl poine occurri n~ cvcry lounh story. and lo allow $honer
. . - .
unbraced lengths oft hc main compression members.
The wind tunnel study for the tower, conducted by the University of Western On-
tario. Canada, indicated rhat persons on upper floors ofthe tower t ~~oul d experience un-
comfortably high lateral sway accelcrations in wind storms. In order to reduce nccclcr-
ations to acceptable levels there were only t\vo possible approaches: add a great den1 of
mass and latcral stiffness withour increasing the natural vibralion period, or add to thc
building's natural damping. The first approoch would lrave cost about 55 million.
whcrsas the second approach \vould lhavc required increasing the building's damping
from about 1 to 4% and designing and constructing the \r,orld's firs! tuned mass da~npcr
(TbID) of anywhere near lhis size. Tllc second approach was adopled at a final cost of
less than one-third of the first approach. The inilial step was to convince thc arcl~itect
and owner; then the slruc1ur;ll cngincer hod to find a \\,a). to actually do it. Fortunately.
LeMcssurier Associalcs ur r c able lo cnlisl the technical assislance of Prof. Alan Dav-
enport of the University of Westcrn Ontario. Prof. David \Vnrnmley of M.I.T., and tllc
firm of MTS Systems Corporation of Minncilpnlis. The lauer firm provided the detnilcd
mechnnicsl. clectricnl. and cuntrol system design and also constructed the TMD systcm.
with the assistance of HRH Conslruclion or New York. the general contractor. The
TblD is located an a dcdicalcd floor at 242 m (793 it) above grade, near the top of the
towcr. for maximum cff~crivcncss. The Citicarp tower was dcsigned from the beginning
to have the ThlD system. The system used includes a moving 373-tonne (4 In-ion) con-
crete-mass block tl~at slider binxially in the norlh-south and cast-wcst directions nn
pressurized oil hearings on polished stecl plates. Tlic m a r is conneclcd to the building
structure ria long t c c l boom struts, prcssurircd oitmgcn springs, and hydraulic scrvrl
aclualors. The lateral atiffncss of the spring elements makes thc systcln inlo 21 clasrical
passive spring-mass rystcsi. \\'hich basically is tuned to the same frcqucncy as thc tower
and acts as a vibration absorbcr l o effectively incre:~sc the building's energy absorption.
or damping. The TAlD reduced accelcrations lrom wind-induced motion by 40 to 505b.
11 is designed solely to increase occupant comfort. The building is dcsigncd for
and strength as if the ThlD were not there. The TMD syslcm has pcrformcd very well
since its installation and has weathered many wind storms and cvcn a hurricane.
315
CenTrust Tower
Miami, Florida, USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of completion
Heighr from rtreel to roo1
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acccleralion
Design damping
Earthquakc loading
Type of stmclurc
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Slab
Columns
Size at ground floot
Material
Core
Material
I. M. Pci and Partners
CBM Engineers. Inc.
1985
178 m (585 it)
48
None
Office
Concrete
2.5 kPa (50 psf)
54 mlsec (120 mph)
508 mm (20 in.)
3.50,4.50 rec
Not calculated
2% serviceability: 5% ultimatc
Not applicable
perimercr partial tube with interior shear
walls
2.1- to 2.4-m (7- to 8-ft)-thick mat on pre-
cast piles
3.81 m (12.5 ft)
14.6 m (48 ft) max
508 mm (20 in.) with 813-mm (32-in.)
haunching
Concrete joists at 1.8-m (6-ft) centers and
114-mm (4.5-in.) slab
1600- to 1220-mm (63- to 48-in.) diame-
ter at 3.57-m (15-ft) centers
Shear wall, 610 mm (24 in.) thick maa
Ovedooking Biscayne Bay. the 48-story CenTmsl Tower adds a unique shape to the
skyline of downtown Miami (Fig. 4.163). Thc building consists of a 37-story-tall office
tower set on lop of a block square 11-story ~ar l t i ng garoge. A quarter-circle in plan, the
office tower's arc steps back three times as it rises up.The 90 comer of the quarter-cir-
cle is chamfered to create an additional 25.9-111 (85-it)-wide face of the building. The
garage also serves Miami's convention center and has a people mover station on its
fourth floor. On top of the garage, the building carries a large landscaped area, includ-
ing a refleclion pool
The building is conslructcd in reinforced concrete. Floor framing consists of 520-
mm (20.5-in.)-deep pan j0iSls. spanning up lo 10.7 m (35 11) and supporied on 11.6-m
(48-it)-long haunchcd girders. Ocplh oft hc haunched girdcrs varies from 520 mm (20.5
in.) in the middle to 813 mm (32 in.] at tllc ends.
Thc three 4.6-m (15-11) Slcp backs at the circular face of the building are locolcd at
floors 20.31. and 46, as shown in Fig. 4.161. Con\,entional girders are used to transfer
the columns at floor46, but at floors 20 and 31 an unusual one-floor-dccp brackcl is em-
ployed to transfer each column. A normal marc of transfer girders would have rcsulled
317
in a loss of lease space at both of thcse floors. The location of transfer columns and
brackets at the twentieth floor is indicaled in Fig. 4.165, and a typical one-stded brackel
from the perimeter column is shown in Fig. 4.166.The gravity column loads at the twen-
tieth floor range between 13.300 and 17.800 irN (1550 and 2000 tons).
UidSr column load the bracket requires lateral bracing, which is provided in the form
of wall sltear panels between floors 19 and 20. Where a wall shear panel aligns with the
bracket, compression and tension chord forccs are directly anchored in tllese wall pnn-
els. Such tension chords at floors 19 and 30 are prestressed with an effective force of
Tower axis is 45 degrees o f f garage axis. Because the
columns of the curved wall describe an arc in the
garage, their spacing is wider than those on the straight
walls to accommodate the parking bays.
Fig. 4.164 Pcrin!clcr column 1n)uuL; CcnTrurt Tsacr.
318 Lateral Load Resisting Systems IChap. 4
11.136 IiN (1250 tons). For the other brackets. these chord forces are transferred to the
wall panels via floor plates acting as in-plane diaphragms.
The floor slab over pan joislj is increased from 114-mm (4.5-in.) normal thickness
to 190 mm (7.5 in.) at floors 19. 20.30. and 31 to provide required strength and stiff-
ness for the in-plane diaphragm forces.
A partial framed tube at the perimeter of the tower and minimal shear walls in the
core are provided for the lateral load resistance, causing least interruption in the flow of
traffic in the garage and a minimum loss of parking spaces. Shear walls are transferred
shear panel between
liwrs 19-20 and 30-31
Unusual eccentric transfer brackets at the 19t h and
30t h floors transfer wind and gravity loads directly to
the perimeter columns. Plan of 19t h floor is shown here;
30t h floor is similar.
Fig.4.165 Trunrrcr flour phn; CenTrurl To\rer.
t,
[ Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 319
1.
tu culun~ns 11 the lcnth fluor 01 the fsr;ige lo iacilit3tc tr.lilic flos\,. 'The p~r~i;~l lr:!mud
~uhc ir c~r r l ed through thc gi i r~gc i ~nd designcd lo resist the cntire 131~131 loads in t h~.
carnac ;IS rrcll. The nnrual fran>:d t ~ h c consirts of 1%" ~ I ~ ~ n n ~ I - s B ~ p ~ d r r i t l n~. ~ (~lith
b -
rnlt~mn.; st 4 6-n~ 115'-ft) centers linked bv frames alone lhe circular arc and the cham- .. ~~~ .~ ~ , -
fered face. with the columns spaced at 8.6 m (28 f t 3 in.).
Columns in thc garage are 1067 by 1880 mm (42 by 74 in.) rectangular and 1372 to
1067 mm (54 to 42 in.) in diamctcr round. Columns in the totver vary from 1067-mm
(42-in.) diamctcr at lower floors to 761-mm (30-in.) diameter at the top. Spandrel bcams
nv. 016 rnm 176 i n 1 decn in the tower. but varv in dcoth at the carace floors from 1372 -. , ...... ,-- ...., ---r .~~ ~~~- ~~ , - -
mm (54 in.) at the three stmight sides to 813 k m (3- in.) along the circular arc due to
headroom requirements. Concrete strength in columns and spandrel bcams rnngcs from
49 lo 28 MPa (7000 lo 4000 pi ) , but is keptat 28 MPa(4000 psi) for the remaining floor
framing.
The lower is supponcd on a 2.1- to 2.44-111 (7- to 8-ft)-thick mat foundation bearing on
350-mm (14-in.) squore precast piles. Gangc columns are founded on spread footings.
I Elevation
u
the floors act as diaphragms
restrained between vertical shear
elements.
-
Ftg.4.166 Column trnnrrcr dclnil; CcnTrurt Toncr
Columbia Seafirst Center
Seattle, Washington, USA
Architect
Structural engineer
Year ofcomplction
Number of stories
Building use
Framc material
Basic wind velocity
Dcsign acceleration
Dcsign damping
Earthquake loading
Type of slruclurs
Typical floor
Story height
Slab
Columns
Chester Lindsey and Associates
Skilling \Yard Magnusson Barkshire. Inc.
1985
288 m (947 it)
76
6
Retail, commercial, parking, offices
Structursl steel with composite stecl-con-
C ~ C I C columns
2.5 kPa (50 psO
34 mlscc (75 mph)
483 rnm (19 in.). 100-yr rclurn
5.3 sec
20 m g peak. 10-yr rcturn
2.510 including dampers lor 10-yr rcturn;
2.0% ignoring dampcrs for 100-yr rcturn
Z = 0.75. C = 0.03, K = 0.80
Braced steel corc incorpornting viscoclas-
tic dumners: trianculnr corc is linked bv
-
diagonal steel members at its corners to 3
lerge steel and high-strength concrete
3.5 m (I l ft 6 in.)
50-mm Pi n. ) concrete on 50-mm (2-in.)
steel deck
3 major columns. 2.44 by 3.66 m (8 by 12
it) at ground floor
Concrete, 66 MPa (9500 psi)
Braced-stcel rigid fmme with arches up to
I I stories tall transferring load to compos-
ite columns
This innovative skyscraper has just 73.24 kplm' (14.97 psO of structural stccl and three
com~osi t e columns o l ultra-high-streneth concrete. It uses both materials in their most
efficir.nl manner. TILL. btulding is cumplelelg 1r:lm:d i n strurlur~l rlucl. \\'lnd and ~.nrtIl-
qllak~. loi!d* arc r~..i(t:d h! it ~ t r t ~ c t u r ~ l ~ I C C I innnlcnt r~.slsting hnc~. d i r ~mc , a l uc l ~ I.,
triangular in shape and locatcd in the interior core.
Exterior windows are unobstructed. Compositestructural steel and concrete columns
are located at the vcrticcs of the triangular core to carry a large portion of the vertical
loads. reduce wind swny, and resist seismic forces. At thc base of the structure, tllcse
composite concrete columns are 2.44 by 3.66 m (8 by 12 it) in dimension. The concrete
strength is 66 MPa (9500 psi). The sway of the building is limited to Hl600. The floor
sect. 4.51
Hybrid Systems 321
framing for the pl an, arcade, and parking levels is a 114-mm (4.5-in.) concrcle slab
o\,er 76-mm (3-in.) metal deck. Abot,e the plaza letel, the floor framing is 50-mm (2-
in.) concrete slab over 50-~nrn (?-in.) dcck. All stecl floor bcnms arccomposite with the
concrete slabs.
Th'e'skyscraper conlains 135,415 m2 (1,457.561 ft2) of office space and six below-
p d e levels of parking for 536 cars with an area of 29,670 m' (319.368 fs). Public
~ i g . 4.167 Columbtn scufirrt Ccnler. seutfl~, ~ a ~ l ~ i ~ ~ t o n . (Courier). olSkilliag. IVord Afosnurron
Bnrlrbire. Incl
[Chap. 4
arcas consist of a lobby levcl containing an area of 1825 m' (19,641 it2); four
shopping levels with a total area of 13.948 m' (150.135 ft'). featuring retail and c o i -
mercial space; n multilevel shopping arcade which is open 24 hours a day; a multilevel
landscaped plaza surrounding the entire office tower; as well as an underground pedes.
trian tunnel connecting the building to another office building across the street.
Columbia Center's excavation was the deepest ever undcrtakcn in Seattle. It reached
37 m (121 ft) below Fifth Avenue and 21 m (70 ft) below Fourth Avenue. Complicating
the task was the requirement to protect an existing five-story office building at the
Fourth and Columbia comer of the building. The shoring wall was constructed by
drilling 12-11? (4-it) holcs at 4 m (13 ft) on ccnter to at leas14.3 m 114 ft) hplnw the hn?-
,~ .., -- --.-
tom oft he excavation. These holes were fillcd with lean concrete and n pair of 350-mm
(14-in.) wide-flange steel soldier pilcs. Tiebacks wcrc placed in the normal manner be-
tween the pair of vertical soldier piles. 150- and 200-mm (6- and 8-in.1 wood lanvinn
was used lo support the earth bcrween the pair of soldiers piles spaced 4 h (13 it) a pa n
The building structure design underwent thc scrutiny ofextcnsivc testing i nn wind tun-
nel at lhc University of Wcstern Ontario, Canada, for both static and aeroclostic load-
ing. The acroelastic tests mcasured the twist, sway, base shear, and acceleration of the
building. They showed that thc building performed very well in the wind. but revealed
that the accelerndon of t hc building in a major windstorm might bc felt by a portion of
the occupants. Viscoelvstic dampers to absorb wind energy were added to thc moment
resisting braced frame to eliminate this possibility of uncomfortable acccleration.
: .
:I
! Sect 4.51 Hybrid Systems 323
,
First Bank Place
Minneapolis. Minnesota, USA
$ Architect
: Smctunl engineer
: Year of completion
i Height from street to roof
,: Number of stories
,' Number of levels below ground
: Building use
: F m e material
Basic wind velocity
Design acccleration
Design damping
Ennhqualie loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Benm span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Slab
Columns
Material
Core
Pei Cobb Freed and Partners. lnc.
CBM Engineers. Inc.
1992
236.5 m (776 ft)
56
3
Office
Steel with concrete supercolumns
2.5 Wa (50 psQ
36 d s e c (80 mph)
533 mm (21 in.)
6.48, 5.26 sec
Not applicable
Spine structure, supercolumns, and braced
frames with Vierendeel "bandages"
Rock, 7.5- to 10-MPa (75- to 100-lon/ft2)
capacity
Unreinforccd rock footings
3.96 m (13 fl)
10.97 to 18.28 m (36 to 60 ft)
406 to 838 mm (16 to 33 in.)
3.05 m ( I 0 ft)
133-mm (5.25-in.) lightweight concrete
on 50-mm (2-in.) metnl deck
2160 mm (84 in.) square at 23.24-m (76-
R) centers
Concrete. 68 MPa (10,000 psi)
Braced spine. A572 steel [350 MPa (50
ksi)]; column size 1067 by 914 mm (42 by
36 in.) to 914 by 610 mm (36 by 24 in.)
A 236-m (776-it)-tall 56-story chiseled rosrcr i, the t;illcst of il~rci. distinct-looking hul
intcgral buildings which form First Bonk P1:lcc (Fig. J I 68) . The laver is crowned wt h
a 13.7-1" (45-ft)-lti~h ctrculnr grid of stscl uhich c~nt i l uwra 6 m (?U fl) out rrom a \.<I-
tical plane nnd cokcal s coolkg towers and antennas. At the second floor (the Min-
neapolis shyway level) the tower connects to buildings on adjacent blocks via two
bridges. One of Ulese bridges is a classic tied arch, which is braced from buckling by an
inverted pony ws s . Adjacent and connected to the tower is the 68-m (224-it)-tall 14-
story atrium building so called because of the six-story 27-m (89-8)-diameter atrium at
Fig. 1.168 Firrl Bunk I'luee. >linnropuiin, hlinnanln.
Z!?
i.
$7
a::,
...
i . ' sect. 4.51
!:.
Hybrid Systems
its base. One-fourth of the pcrimetcr of this atrium is a glass wall supported by Vieren-
dcel pipe trusses. Some 12 m (40 R) above the atrium floor is centered an 18.6-m (61-it)-
diameter ring beam which supports the columns of the l c n e space Floors above the
atrium. Filling up the remainder of the L-shaped site is an 18-story 84-m (776-ft)-la11
"park; building, which overlooks Hennepin County Government Center Park. Under-
neith"i~lke perk building, atrium. and tower is a three-level 450-car basement parking
garage. The First Bank Place complcx has 130.000 m' (1.4 million f$) of floor space
. (Fig. 1.1691.
:
Thc backbone oft hc First Bank Place tower is n cruciform-shapcd spine anchored by
?
steel and concrete composite supercolumns, which are linked to one another with a vcr-
' 1 tical shear membrane formed by steel bracing in the core of the building and o!tr!gger
bcams beyond the core moment-connected into the supercolumns. Charactcr~stlc of
: spine structures. Ihcse supercolumns extend unintcrmpled the full height of the build-
,
ing. They vary in cross-sectional area along their length from 7 m' (75 ft') at thc base lo
4.6 m' (50 11') at the top.
Torsional s~ability lor the tower is provided at the perimeter ofthe building by a dun1
system 01 unsymmetrical diagonal bracing and Viercndeel bandages. The single dingo-
nal pcrimetcr braces extend from the third floor to the forty-fifth floor in six-stoq-high
(c) 27th lo 45th (d) 45th lo 54th 56th
TIC. 4.169 Fluor [,Inn: First 1l;lnli I'lucc.
sections. Spandrel beams moment-connected through these diagonals, along with the
supercolumns, restrain the tendency of these unsymmetrical bmcings lo deflect hori-
zontally under gravity loads. The three-story-deep Vierendeel girder bandages, which
are provided at floors 1215.24-27. and 4215. restrain the wamine. which would oth-
. -. ~ ~ ~
c wk e occur in the open scc;ion composed of the cruciform spine and pcrimcter bmccs.
nt ui e bandagss t r i pl ~ lbc lower's tori~onal stiffnuss and incrense i b lateral stiffness by
36%. In addition, the bnndaees are used to Vansfer gravity loads to supercolumns and
comer columns. thus increasine the efiiciencv of thebuildine's ovemmi ne resistance.
- - -
Other Vicrrndeslr u e lared in llrc building to cllminalc transfer girders and increisc
the building's loreral stiffi~ess. A 12-story Vicrendccl spms along 3n crtcnor hc e of lhe
building between a supercolumn and n comer column. transferring a column which sup-
ports 28 floors of load. Above the fortv-fifth floor of the tower there is a nine-slorv-tall
circular Vlurendccl girder which frames inta supcrcolutnns. lhu curved ~i cr s ndccl noi
only incrcxus the 1;ltcral and lorsionitl stiffness uf ihe lap of the building, bul olso ;!I-
lotvs l l ~ ~ circular-shaped ponion or the buildlng to sir alup rlte squsrc s h p c below \ri\b-
out extending additional columns down through the leas; space.
The structural system was chosen over a ~ G me t e r bracid fmme or a moment fmme
to achicve a column-free exterior facade f& thc building. The presence of composite
concrete columns cnhanced the ovenurning resistance of the building and achieved
overall economy for the structure.
A572 grade 50 steel was used for columns and beams that were controllcd bv
5trcngrh crllerii. 2nd A36 3td:I s.;ts used for inlemller, c~lntrnllcd by .Itfincrs uritr.ri:t.
Thc sl~pr.rcolumi~s ultl17.r.d 69- and 55.XlPa (IU.UOO- :tnd hO(lU-PSI) iuncrclc 'The rlc:l
col ~l l l n h3s~. pl%les b u r on the lop of ihe concrctr. hassment girapc columns. !\l!~ch SUP.
port the posttensioned flat-plate garage floors. Special analGis was performed to as=&-
lain the effects of restraint on the posttensioned slabs due lo the presence of large con-
crete columns supporting the lower loads and perimeter basement walls. All building
columns sit on individual footings which bear on rock.
Three-story-tall Vierendeel bandages were provided along line CC' and also along
E'D' (Fig. 4.170). The strategically placed bandages not only provided essentially col-
umn-Free exterior spans along face CC, but also improved the torsional resistance of the
building dramatically, with optimum use of the S ~ N C ~ U ~ I I ~ steel. The perimeter circular
Vicrcndeel above the forty-fifth floor provided both lateral and torsional resistance to
the entire frame.
Tl ~u loa.cr b>sclnr.nt floors ar r c Jcs~&ncd as poitisnrioncd cuncrute flst-plate floorr.
The pu>ticnsimcd consl nc~i un \gas csrunti31 lu control cracking in nuur sli~bs because
of the cold, snowy winters af Minneapolis.
The building was analyzed in a three-dimensional finite-element computcr model lor
tlic following loading condirions:
1. Sequenlially applied dead load consistent with the consuuction sequence of ihc
building
2. Live load
3. Three-directional (.T, : , and 0) wind loads dynamically determined from wind tun-
nel study with appropriate combinations
4. Creep and shrinkage of concrete columns
5. Temperature gradients and differential temperature on concrete columns
During the design, the members were checked for 99 load combinations.
In Ille ;onrlrllcuon I C~ LCI I C? . t h ~ . ~ n t i l ~ ~ ~ i i t e concr?le colu!~ln 1\15 xlLd\v~d 10 (3g 12
lloorr hr.hinJ cr;clr.d rirl:tor~l rlcel i nd six flours bshinJ 111~. concrt t ~. d sl;!bs no nts13l
I BRACE I
CRUClFORMSPINE
BRACE
CIRCULAR VIERENDEEL
ABOVE 45TH FLOOR
12 STORIES
VIERENDEELFRAME
(4 (c)
Fis. 4.170 Fir9 Itunk Ptuce. ( a) Structural rystcm. ( bl Estcrnul hmcing. (c) \\'firping-rcstrui~~lrle
perimutcr bundi~gcr.
deck. Because of h e presence of unsymmelrical exterior bracing, localized bandages,
and the free-spanning Vierendeel above noor 45. the SlNclUre was analyzed to cstablish
its performance during the erection process. Both lateral and vertical displncements
along with strength were checked.
The strategically placed perimeter warping-restraining bandages improved the tor-
sional performance of the structure dramatically. This is evidenced by the comparison
of the torsional rotation (Fig. 4.171) and the lateral displacement (Fig. 4.172) of the
stracture due to wind in the x direction, with and without the bandages.
The presence of the three-story-deep perimeter bandages created a localized hori-
zontal shift in h e center of rigidity of the lateral resistance of the structure and thereby
produced internory in-plane diaphragm stresscs. The associated floor diaphragms were
nnolyzed lor in-plane shear and reinforced accordingly.
building wns dso analyzed for the reduction in column and diaphragm stiff-
nesses due to cncliing of the concrete and the uncenainty of the effective modulus of
elasticity.
6x displacement (inch)
wind in X-direclion
Fig. 4,172 Lnternl dtrplncemcnt; Firrl Bunk Plncc.
330 Lateral Load Resisting Syst ems [Chap. 4
Two Union Square
Seattle, Washington, USA
Architect NBBl
Structural engineer
Skilling Ward hl;~enusson Barkshire. Inc.
Year o r completion 1990
Height rrom street to roor 220 m (720 11)
Number orslories 56
Number of le\,cls bclor\, ground 4
Building use Office. rct;~il
Frante malcrial Steel a,itlt uumpositc cul un~ns
Typical floor livc load 2.5 kPa (50 ps n
Basic wind vclocity 34 mlscc ( 75 mph)
hlaximum laleral deilcction 312 mrn (12.3 in.). IOU-yr ruturn
Design fundamental pcriod 6 scc
Design ncccleralion ?U lnlg p~i l k. 10-yr return
Design damping ?.l"rllO-yr return including damping dc-
viccs: 2. 0~~1100- yr rcturn ignoring dnrnp-
ing dc\iccs
Earthquakc loading Z = 0.75. C = 0.03. K = 0.8
Two Union Square building proridrd the construction industry wilb many new con-
cepts, materials, and techniques (Fig. 4.173). By locoling the c;!rthqu:~ke and wind re-
sistinr elements in thc interior core walls. tllc architect lrad Trcedom that cuntributcd lu
-
its design. Two Union Souarc rcorcscnts n union oT busincss and communitv. I[ corn-
level plaza with large opcn spaces, relail shops, and restaurants.
The desirn team was raced with a number o r uniaue challenres bv this comnlca
lic s ~ a c e s ill the base of rhc tower. Particularly challenoinp was tlte constrnint-filled site.
which included existinr structures on two sides. an aciiviinterstale rrccwav adiacent. a . .
cily ;I,C?I oter I I ~ U b;~se .ind UIIJ~.~ the tusicr. :,nd r c q. ~i r un~~. n~r lor 2 conlp.c\ u ~ c r i c-
lure !tit11 c ~ c L . ~ . ~<: ~t dri !l l . 2nd 13rp~. h~111Jcrs 513ir .tupping thr.3u.h lhc pl:,,:~.
Among thc many technical nccomplisltments that incrcascd pcrTorm:!ncc. shortened
construction time. and reduced ~t ruct ural costs from $28 to SIE million arc the most ad-
vanced application of a composite system, the lirst to utilize stccl pipes filled with a
n,orld-record-brcaking lhigh-slrcngth 131-hlPe (19.000-psi) concrctc, the most efficient
~,iscoelastic dampers-to control building movcmcnt, and unequaled crtcrior column
eoecinrs or uo to I 4 m 146 Trl. niavidine s\\'eenino vic!vs or the citv and Puret Sound.
and sited in a seismicufi\~ act i w area (arismic zone 3), thc d e s i ~ n ~ r o r i d c d nc\v tech-
needed parking Tor downtown shoppers. a respite i nn busy do\\,ntori,n nrca, scenic viem-
Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Syst ems 331
points, an extension of an important urban park, and a nciv network of pathways for [he
adjoining neighborhoods. I& cxccplional design has won widespread architectural
praise and public popularity and received the Grand Award Tor Engineering Exccllcnce
from the American Consulting Engineers Council in 1990.
Fig. 4.173 Two Union Squnre. Sculllc, \\'arPingtun. lCor8nr.r~ ofSkillirrg Il'nrd Alo~nirrrrrn ~ ~ r l -
,hire, i,,~.)
First Interstate World Center
Los Angeles, California, USA
..
Architect
Structural engineer
Year of complclion
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Slab
Columns
Spacing
I. M. Pei and Parmcrs
CBM Engineers. Inc.
1990
310.3 m(1018 rt)
75
2
Office
Swclural steel
2.5 LPo (50 pr o
31 mlsec (70 mph)
7.46. 6.91 sec
23 rng pcok, IO-yr remrn
1.25% serviceability; 1.5% ultimatc
C = 0.03. K = 0.8
Perimeter ductile tube with chevron
braced core
Shale
Spread footings
4.04 m 03 it 3 in.)
16.76 m (55 it)
610 mm (24 in.)
4 m( 1 3 it)
133- or 159-mm (5.25- or 6.25-in.) light-
weight concrete on metal deck
1067- by 610-mm (42- by Wi n. ) WF sec-
tion. ga dc 350 MPa (50 h i )
6.1 lo 7.6 m (20 to 25 ft)
Bnced steel; column size at ground floor
1230 mm (48 in.) square. 6308 kglm
(4230 Iblft)
Called a signature building for the city of Lor Angeles, the granite clad, 75-story build-
ing with its scrrotcdfacadc(Fig.4.174)riscs 310.3 m(1018 it) above street level. It con-
tains about 130.000 m') (1.4 million 11') of office space. At present. it is thc tallest build-
ing in seismic zone 4 or its equivalent in the \vorld.
The base of the rower is embellished by Spanish steps \rpith water runnels, fountains
and landscaped areas. These steps arc seismically isolated from the tower structure and
bridge ihe elevational difference of approximately I5 m (50 fi) in the surrounding nrea
along the north to south axis oft he taa,cr.
333
The structural system lor the toueer is an a11 steel dual system comprising an intcrac-
five braced core and a perimeter ductile moment frame. Thc braced core. ancllorcd at its
corners by stccl box columns, is 23.5 m (73.8 11) square. Tllc box colurnns weighing U
m: ~r i m>~m nf 6308 kalm (-1320 lblftl at !he base carry a maximum design gravity laed a f
6- :.:- , 100,QQP.kN ( I 1.000ionsl. TWO-st& chevron bracis free span each of four sides of the
corc.ln' order to achieve an efficient lateral load resisting structural ireme. flours frcc
~n: m un to 16.76 m (55 i t ). looding the interior corc and the perimeter framc columns.
. . . ~ ~ ~ . .
resisting fremc.
The slructure is dcsigncd to remain csscntially elastic lor an snticipnled masimsm
crcdiblc cunhquakc of magnitude 8.3 on thc Richter scalc at the nearby Sari Andrcas
CORE BRhCI:IG ISOMETRIC
f a ~ l t .?.p;!rt from ;inal!.ling the struct.lre for a con!'?ntion31 5 pur;unt d~t npcd r eh~nn>e
spcctnml fur the n~sxinttlrn crcdihlc earthquake, 111sf ~~l l owi ng spscial analysis otld dr..
sign features usere introduced.
1. Since two-story chevron bracing was used for the lirst time i n the seismic region,
redundancy i n the gravity structural load path was examined for an accidenrsl
buckling of n diaeonal.
.
?. The atructtlral rncmbtrh, buth hr.s!nr and col umrl ~. nur c ttc>t only designed for the
grnund ,110ticu1 i!lun: t h~. ttgn ortltugunal principal 3,es u f t l v strucutrs, but ; ~l r u
ncre chccked l ur the dtrcctinnal m:trima due to umnidiruution31 s~. i sm~c motion
3. Ti me history analysis was conducted pri mari l y to detcmi ne maximum interslory
drift and the absolute maxima for the horizontal acceleration at floors. The max-
imum intcrstory drift was used i n the design of t he curtain wall, whereas the ac-
celeration data wns used for the dcsign of floor-mounted equipment such as clc-
vator machincs and \\,aler Lanks. Timc history anal\ssis wns nlso conducted for
vsruc31 3cccI ~. r ~t i ~n. B?sidcs cr~.:lting o\~.r~urrl i n"UII?ct~~ :!I 111st ~ i l n ~ r ~ . ~ fl,,,,~..
an :~ntplifiuatinn o l ~ ~ . r t ~ u l l nccclcr:,tiur~ uuuld lund tu ;L plunying hi l ur e i n t h~.
tr;lnsfer gird^.^;. ThC 2llalylib $135 ~<5el l l i 31 IU pcccl ~dc \uch 3 i l i l .~,~. mode.
4. I n order to establish a load deflection curve and global ductility limit.., a mono-
tonically increasing symmctric nonlinear lateral load analysis !\,as conducted.
5. 1 hc critcriun fur !61ttd t~tuti un s.25 set :!I :trunnd 23 r i i ~ fur pc:~k lhori,.0nt:11 :I;;cI.
eralloo during 3 otlce i n IU )cdrs N ind aturm. Tnc I:~tcr:ll n~o.lc< 01 s thr:ltiun u ere
~ d j ~ a t c d i n a ~ i ? , not unly to :tcltie\r. tI1c c~ccup.~l t uomlr,rt :I[ tllc t ~ l n ,lc;unlud
noor for the 10 year wind storm. but which r\;ould not incrcasc thc'latcrai rc-
sponse l o seismic motion.
Sixtccn critical ioints i n the braced frame were mcchanicallv stre.; rclie\,cd hv itl;inn ttw
~ - - .~ .
. -
Lcun~r d T110,npsun ! ihratiag method of rtrsrs cclief. Spe:iiil ncl di ng L~ICI t~.sti rl g
cudurs, ncr c ust;lbl~jhr.d for ;tll sruldcd connsctionr.
The structure is ioullded on shale rock u,itlt :ln ;1llnn3blu load btxri sg rapJclt! o l
7?0 ~ P J (7 5 tonslft?). Thc corr. u l the structure i s sopported on a 3. 1 m (1 1 5 i t ) th,ck
COIIUIL.IL. mat. and i! p~.riiiIcter rung fuoling is used fur th~. ~UC~I I U rr311te.
i
!
i
Hongkong Bank Headquarters
Hong Kong
Architect Foster Associates
Structural engineer Ove Amp and Panners
Height from street to roof I 80 m (590 ft)
Building use Office, banking
Frame material Svuclural steel frame; composite stcel
and concrete floors
Typical floor l i ve load 5 kPa (104 psfJ wi th some local increases
Basic wind velocity 64 mlsec (144 mph). 50-yr return. 3-scc
gust
Design acceleration 20 mg peak. IO-yr return period (typhoon
cucnO
Design damping I % serviceability
Earthquakc loading Not applicable
Typc of structure Steel mast joined by suspension trusses
acting i n pond frame action
Foundation conditions Loose fill over marine deposits and dc-
composed granite bedrock: granite
bedrock up to 40 m (131 ft) below ground
Footing type Machine- and hand-dug caissons to rock
Typical floor
Story height 3.9 m (12.8 ft)
Beam depth 900.406 mm (35.5. 16 in.) steel
Slab 100-mm (4 in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 1.2-m (4-ft)-diameter i n groups of four
Spacing 8 groups i n total on gri d of 38.4 by 16.2 m
(126 by 53 A)
Material Steel, grade 50
Core None
The 20-m (65-ft)-deep basement of the Hongkong Bank (Fig. 4.175) was constructed
using a perimeter diaphragm wal l and top-down construction techniques. The super-
structure is constructed using structural steel and composite steel floors. Stability is pro-
vided by masts, linked at five levels by trusses, the complete system acting as a fi\'e-
level unbraced sway frame. Each mast comprises four tubular steel columns linked by
horizontnl bos-section beams to create a Vierendeel system (Figs. 4.176 and 4.177).
Lateral Load Resisting Sysferns [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems
180m
Two
nor y deep
Vierendeel mast suspension
Hangers -dl!#EHla 1
BANK
3
Fig.4.176 Sccli<ln tllrougln building; Hungliung D18nli ilcixdguurtcrr
338 Lateral Load Resisting Syst ems
[Chap. 4
16.8m .4.6mL 10.8m
1 1
Fig. 4.177 Typlcnl noor plnn, Hongkong Dank Heodquorterr
i. Sect. 4.61 Condensed ReferencesIBibliography 339
1.
AlSC 1983. Modern Sfeel Corisrnlcrion
5 AlSC 1987. One Liberty Place-EBicirncy and Elegor!ce in file Cradle oJHirrary
2 Architeclun: 1988. Exploring Colnposhe Stnicrzdrer
Archilecture 1988. Tlso Union Squore
Architeaurc 1990. High Sfrerrgfh
Architccrure and Urbanism 1991. Two Union Squore
. ASCE 1986. Corrzplrrer 011s Tower Srecl
ASCE 1990,Alrrrie Steel
Aurtnlia Port Publ. 1988, Cltflej Sprrore on rhe Alo\,e Stnrclurer
Building 1990. Do,,ble Srrcnpth
Uuildisg Dctign 3nJ Cunrthction 1184. Outi,l8ng fkr,gr> anrl Cc,#.~ir..cr,'~.n
Civil Encinccr 1187. Co,flcre,e Slrc,,~plb Herord Jurapr 3 V r
.
Concrclc Toddy 1989. A h ~ ~ o ~ ~ s Sorr8erhing Ne$u in Concrcle
Conrtrnclion Specifier 1988. Innovative Comporire Conrrr~~rion
Canrlruction Steel 1990, The A h y Facer of fhe Bond B,,ilding
Drew 1990. Riulro Towers Prqiecz Seirniic Rcrpn,riu A,mlysir and E>,nlr,oriorl
Engineering Ncwr Rccord 1988. S.vdncy Slycrnpcr Serr Soil
Engineering News Record 1989. 19.000pri
Enginecring Ncwa Record 1990, btnoi,ori!,c Tecbm'qlte>
Engineering Ncwr Rccord 1991. Sydnry Toa,er Tertr A~lrfrolior~r
Gcorgc 1990. Ii'ullirrgron'r IYiiid~Slirrped the C~~pirol' , Tollert Bm,ilding
Gillcrpie 1990. Derign and Co,zsrncrion oJSrn.1 Fronted High-Rire Blriidirrgs
Grorrmnn 1985, 780 Third Atrenae, Tile Fin, High-Rirc Diagortolly Broccd Corrcrelc Sln,cf!8rc
Grorsmnn 1986. Beliovior. Analysir orrd Corzrrr#ccriar~ ", fa Braced-Tube Conrrele Slrrrclt,ru
Giosrmon 1989. Slender Smacnwes-Tlze Nc!v Edgc (10
Grorrman 1990. Sloider Carrcrere Sm,cfr,rrr-T18r New Edge
Howillcur 1992, Dedgn oJrbeNorionr Bonk Corporufe Crnfcr
Horc 1990. Srnrcrrrrol Design for rlre Riolro Towerr
lloh 1991. 1Vind Rerisranr Derign oJo Toll Bl,ildi#tg ivi~ir m Nl i p~~i dol Crorr Seclion
Journol of Wind Engineering and lndurtriol Aerodynamics 1990. Oprinii.~afion oJToll Bltilding*
Jor lVittd Loading
Kunemc 1985. Deep Coirron Fo~~ndofianrJor OUB Cerrlre. Singnpore
Kuneme 1990. The OUB Centre Tower Folfndoria,rr. Sirtgopore
Meinhvrdt 1981. S~8perrrrucrure Dc~ignJar llzc O\,rrreor U#iiorz Bonk B,,iiditcg. Si,,gll~lore
Mcinhurdt 1990. Tire 008 Cmrre-Qnolig Deil>,eqs
Melbourne 1985. Aerorlostic hlodel Tenr ovld Tl~eir Appiicorion jor rile OUB Ccrifre. Si8tgnporc
Plnllcn 1986. Porrrtiodurn Engineering
Plotten 1988. hf o~r ~r ~~r ! ~~t l Plocr: Sleel Solvcr Co#!!plr.c Geon!vfricr
Tnrnnth 1988. Sfrircf8~rnl Anolyrir orld Dcrigr! qfToll Baildir~gs
- .. *
7. - 5
Special Topics
5.1 DESIGNING TO REDUCE PERCEPTIBLE
WIND-INDUCED MOTIONS
'She 3 ~ r ~ ~ c ~ u r ! l >!stem\ Sor la11 h.~il,Ii~~;, 3rd murc d l c n cun~r~>l l cd I>> 11,c need 1 0 r:.lri<l
rcspon.>e in sr ind nction ;)I ~ c r ~ i r u ~ h i l ~ t y Ic>cI\ 111:,n the nsu.1 tn pr,nidr. r<\ial.lo:? :,I ..I-
l i nul c lirnil-~1311: condilionr. This <eclioo $rill d?.ll \ n?ci fi c~Il \ ulllt illc cr , l cc~; ~ r:1312d -~~~~~
.
to human occupancy comfort and tbc design procedures uscd to eslnblislt the rcsponsc
of a building to wind action and tlte sensitivity lo acrodynsmic shapc, damping, stirs-
ness. moss, and mode shapc. Some mcntion will bc mademf implicalions to ullimale
limit-stole design as snmcthing which tends to bc dealt rvilh niter the system has been
designed to cope with the serviceability requirements.
1 Response and Excitation Mechanisms
The rcspnnsc of tall buildings ln winrl :tclinn can be cnnvenirntlv seoaretcd inlo alona- .- ~~~~~ ~ ~~~
, . -
wind and cross-wind motion in relation to the two distincdy separale excitation mccha-
nisms. The total response is, otcourse. a response lo both lhcsc motions superimposcd
on each other, which results in a random. and somelimes r o u ~ h l v elliptic. motion of the - .
top of the building.
The along-wind responsc is made up oS a mean component and a fluctuating compo-
nenl. The addition of these two c o ~ n e n l ~ o r t p o " " n t lo the detcrminntion ofulliml?lf
limit-state loads, but it is o n l y component s+~l~ich ~ i v c s rise lo accclcra-
lions that affect occupancy comfort. For the cross-wind response, lhc meen componenl
iEiZiXJy very small, with the fluctuating componenl dominaling the response. The fluc-
tuating component of thc along-wind response is primarily driven by iluclualing prcs-
surcs on the upstream Pace. which are caused by the fluctuating wind speeds in the inci-
dent turbulent flow. Thesc pressure fluctuations are conrreried to along-wind response of
lhc building through a combination or quasi-steady response to low-rrcqucncy compo-
nents and narrow-band resonant responsc, primarily in the first mode. The cross-wind
fluctuating rcsponsc is primarily a narrow-band resonant response lo lllc fluctualin$ prcs-
sures on the streemwisc s ur f ~~c c s c:iused by the fluctuating vortices shed Into the a,akc. 11
is rcrerred to as \\sal;c crcilation where buildings si e conccrscd in order lo distinguisli il
from the narrou.-band vortex excitation of slender slructurcs such as cl~imneys. The
342 Special Topics IChap. 5
mechanisms really are thc same. hut the broad-band nature of the cross-wind oressure
fluctuations normilly associated with buildings is due to both the effects of fuibulence
nnd the intermittent reattachment of the separated shear layers onto the streamwise faccs
of the building. Typical along-wind and cross'wind response mccs and spectra are given
in Fir. 5.1. which illustnter the resmnsc characteristics described.
L:ttr.r in rhts ;r.ctiun ;~n;~l)ticill mcthuds will be gi\cn to pcrmlt prediction o i the
along-wind and cross-wind r~spnnscs. HouL.\.L.~. 10 permil soms further duscriptiun of
titc fluctu:~ting con~poncnts that are in~portnnt to ~un. ~ceabi l i [y and olumnte limit-atatc
considerations, it is helpful to refer to a diagrammatic reprcscntation of the along-wind
and cross-wind forcinr soectra. as is nrcsented in Fie. 5.2.
- . b
T2I1 huildtngs typically b3vc serr1ce3bility 2nd ullimate I1m1t.st3te operating value,
o1r;ducr.d r.~.louit) in ihc range o f ? to 10 Fnr ea3lnple. a 3UU-m (98.1-it)-high hullding
with a u,idth b of 50 m (164 II) 2nd fir.[-mode f r c~uencs !I ui0. 15 Hz tnicl~t have scr-
. .
vicenbility and ultimotc limit-slate design mean wind speeds a1 the top oi t he building
along-wind
Fig.5.1 Dirploccmcnt IrurcsulUwlop ulnnncruclnsticmodcl olorquorc toner: hm = 7.
Sect. 5.11 . Designing to Reducs Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions
343
height of 26 and 45 mlsec (85.3 and 147.6 fdsec), respectively, which gives, for Ser-
viceabilily.
and for the ultimate limit state,
With reference to Fig. 5.2 it can be seen that buildings operating in the low reduced-
velocity range arc not likely to have occupancy comfort problems. At higher operattng
-
Fig. 5.2 Along-wind and crurr-wind force rp~ctrn lor model squurc inner: I d = 7: I'h/nlr = 10.
346
Special Topics [Chap. 5
Plots of the acceleration criterion are given ns a function of frequency in Fig. 5.3 for
a period of 10 min of maximum wind in a return period of R years. The period of I 0 min
has been used both to fit in with the original curves of lrwin and of I S 0 6897, and be-
cause it is typical of n period of maximum response in areas dominated by thunderstorm
activity and where mean design wind speeds tend to be worked backward artificially
from peak wind-speed data. For regions where the maximum response may occur
through longer periods, such as I hour, the maximum hourly mean wind speed will he
less than the maximum 10-min mean wind speed, and the value of Ti n Eqs. 5.5 and 5.8
would increase to 3600 sec.
3 Determination of Response
At the design stage estimates of the response of a building are required to determine ser-
viceability nccelcration levels, equivalent static uitimale limil-slate base moments, and
momcnt and shear force distributions. These estimales may be obtained analytically,
from wind tunnel measurements, or from a combination ofl he two. The wind tunnel de-
rivation of lhesc design data will be givcn elsewhere in this Monograph series. For this
frequency n , Hz
Fig. 5.3 Horizonlol ucrulcrntion criiorin for occu~oncy comfort in buildings.
01 forO.06cncl.O O . ~ < R ~ I O
ix
-_..
.- -
C
. ..
0 -
..-.
.- . 1 . - .
return period
-
..
.
rn lo -
. -.
.
..
.
. -. 10 year
0, .
-
.
.
.
-
(U
- 5
0 D
m
..
..
I S0 6897 (1984) Curve 1, . 0.5 .
N
.- - standard deviation
r . horizontal acceleration
criteria lor 10 minutes
5 year
in 5 year return period
- for a building (1.e.
a,. exp (-3.65 - 0. 41 Ln n)
Sect 5.11 Designing to Reduce Perceptible Wind-induced Motions
347
1
section, a dcscriplion of ihc snalyticsi approaches will be givcn, aibcit heavily cmpiri-
cally supported in places.
approximately normally
distributed response). 0, 2
I
0.5
;llnnp-IIT,,d Rrponrc. 'I.he ~ ~ r t laclur a p p m~ c l ~ ~ ~ O I I L . : I L . ~ 0) D~ VS I I ~ OT I (19611 and
Vickcr). (1966. 1969) prosides tlle simpl~.sl mc:tns of esiintalin: tllc llunf-wind re-
soonrc o i : $ buildins sod the tqoivalcni riatic i o ~ d lo pruducd illc pe3k rslponrc. V?r-
I , , * , I
0.05 0. 1
1.0
sions of this approach have been developed in a number of the \vorld's wind-loading
codes. I n particular, the Australian code AS1 170.2-1989 has a version in which nll tile
parameters arc given in equation form.
As ihe gust factor approach is in such gcncral use, there is no need to develop it here.
nnrticuiarlv as it rcleies io the determination of ullimate limit-state design data. How-
~~ ~-
ever. so that comparisons may be m a d ~ bmwcen along-wind and cross-wind servicc-
ability acccleralions, it will bc of help lo develop the along-wind equations here. The
evaluation of i i ~e along-wind response is divided into background and resonant response
components. The background, or qunsi-stcady, response is at random and rclaiivciy low
frcqnencics. It is !he narrow-band rcsonanl response component. which generates the
majority of the ulo?g-wind acceleration at thc lop of s building. Using ihe gust factor
npproach, ihc peak acceleraiion at the top o f a building for rcsonnncc in a fundamental
beading modcmay be obtained from
wherc GtC, = gusl laclor for resonanl component; = g?(u,j@,,
-
M = mean base orsertu_ming momcnt: for a square building, it can be approxi-
mated by 0.6'11 p?z bh2
ill, = inenial base bending moment for unii displacement at top of building: for
constant density and linear mode shape. = '4 p bdlt' (2lIr1,)'
g = peak factor; for normally distributed process, =
rt. = first-bendine-mode natural frequency; can be approximated by 46lh,
"
where 11 is hCighl in meters
(u,/iil,, = longitudinal lurbulence intensity at height h
T = oeriod under consideration, scc; usually 600 scc for accelcrniion criteria
Ir = 'height of building
b = width of building
d = depth of building
I:, = hourly mean wind spced at height - It
S = size factor; = i1[(1 + 3.5rr,ltll'h)(l + -1,1~bl?,)1
E = longitudinal turbulence spcczum; = 0.47Nl(2iN')"'
N = reduced frequency; = I~L,/V,
L. = measure of turbulence length scnlc; = 1000 (hliO)"lr
p = air density
p, = building density
5 = critical damping ratio
Cmss-IVi,ld Response.
One of the simplcsi ways of evaluating the cross-wind re-
sponse, involving all ihe important parametcis in the process of resonant response lo
wake excitation, is to use a mode-generalized force spectrum approach proposed by
348 Special Topics [Chap. 5
Suunders and Melbourne (1975). Tltc mclhod makes usc nf mcasurcd cross-wind dir-
placement spectra to gi ven mode-gcnemlizcd forcc rpcctrum (for the firs1 mode) n l
where $( , I ) = spectrum of cross-wind displaccmcnt a1 lop o i building
I ! , , = first-mode frequency
nr = mod;il mass
H'(ri) = mechanical admiliancc: = 111I I - (rll,,,,)']'+4<'(riIr,,,)?]
i = critical damping ratio
For n lincar mode. and if crcit:~tion by low i rcquenci c is sntall and ihc structural
damping low so lhat tlteescitation bandwidth is large compared wilh the rcsonanl hand-
amidth. thc stondz~rd deviation o i displeccment at the top 01 thc building m;,y bc s p p r u -
irnated by
and the t and: ~r d dc\,iation oioccclcr:~lion is g i wn by
The lorce spectrum may be espiciscd in coclficicnt lorm by
ll,,S,.~ll)
' r . ~ = (k4pT;61,)2 15.13)
where b = building beieht
6 = buiiding width normal to wind direction
?, r = mcon wind speed al top 01 building
Then in terms 01 this forcc spectrum coefficient the standard devintion of acceleration
becomes
p7$7/z
Ti=- -
.I,,,
(5.14)
For an wer age building densily p, and a lincvr modc. &he modal mass is
and thc pcak acceleration at the top of t he building due to cross-wind rcsponsc is given by
-
Typical values of mode-ecncmlized cross-wind force socclmm cncffirirntr f mr n
~~~ - . . -
lundnmental mode 01 vibrntion that hns a linear modc are gjven in Fig. 5.4. Extension
of llicsc data tu nonlineer modc slinpcs may be made conservativclv bv mul t i ~i vi nr! bv
. . . . - .
a nlode-shape correciion factor Tor accelcmtion of (0.76 i 0.24k). as discussed in
Sect. 5.11 Designing t o Reduce Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions
349
Holmes (1987). where k is lhe mode-sltape posver crponent from Lllc rcprescntalion or
the lundamcnlal modc shape by $,!, = ( ~ l h ) ~ .
, .,
't:
* :
4 Parameter Sensitivity
Tlicre arc sevcrnl steps lo csn~ni ni ng paramcler sensitivity. First it is important to
demonst nt c that along-svind response is n relatively ntinor problem compared lo cross-
wind response. Second it has to be shown that mode shape is important and that it is here
that tlte slructural systcm can piny a significant part. Third !he real problem of cross-
wind rcsponsc lias to be demonstrated along with its attendant parameter sensitivity.
square seclion, -
chamlered or
rounded corners
rough circular section,
octagonal, hexagonal.
Il'orI.cdExo,nplc. The simplest way lo introduce a study or the relative significance
of the response t)'pe and the \'arious parameters is by means o f a worked example. For
this purpose considcr a lall building for a rclurn pcrind of I year lor rvhicl~
Ir = 300 m
b = r l = 5 0 m
-
l',, = 26 mlscc
p, = 200 kglm'
-
(r,/ l'),, = 0. I ?
i = 0.01 (at scrviccability lcr,els)
and frctlucnuy st the lirrt mndu.
46
rr,, = - = 0.15 Hz
I,
rcduccd velocity.
-
I'
1'" = 6 = 3.47
pcc~h factor ( I 0 oiin).
-
s = V'l In 60Uu,, = 3. 0
I . 1 1 i I Gust ~ J C ~ O I for resonant co~iiponcnt.
klean bnse-o\,crturning moment.
- I -
4 = 0.6 - plf,:bh'
2
= 1.095 X 10' ' N-m
Inertial basr-hending moment lor a linear mode for unit displacement at the top,
I
dl, = - p$rll!' (?nrr,,)'
3
= 13.32 X lo9 N-m
Peak nccclcrotion at the top of the building due to along-wind resonant response for
a linear rnodc.
Sect. 5.11 Designing to Reduce Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions 351
2. Cmsr-~vind l.e.rl?ol!se. From Fig. 5.4.
C,, = 0.00 15
Peak accelcrntion at the top of the building due to cross-wind resonant response for
a cantilever mode shape. u,ltcre I. = 1.5,
Y = --
(0.76 i 0.25I.)
4 pf'
= 0.14 mlsec'
= 14.3 mg
and for a linear mode. I. = 1.0,
It is noted h a t the acceleration criterion for occupancy comfort for the l-ycar rculrn
period and iirst-mode frequency of 0. 15 l - 1 ~ for I 0 min is ublained from
Forthis worked example tltc along-wind acceleration is \$-ell inside this criterion, but
the cross-wind accclcration, even with a lincnr mode, is abo\,c this criterion.
I. Along ivind i,erst,r cro.ss wind. In Fig. 5.2 it $$,as shown diagrammalically why the
cross-wind nccelcrations dominate the oroblem or occuoancv comfort, but thc ~ ~ ~ - - ~- . .
\\,orked example sho\vs tltot even for a reduced velocity of 3.17 the along-wind ac-
ccl endon is about 30% of the cross-wind acceleration (3.9 versus 11.8 ms).
2. ,+lode shnpe. Adjustments of the mode shape in order to get nearer a linear mode
shape, by using structural systems such as k bracing at Zome levels to gel facade
columns to contribute morc to resisting motion, can make n signilicant difference.
In the worked example, going from a cantilever mode shnpe. I. = 1.5, to a linear
mods shnpe, I. = 1.0, redrrccd the peak accelerntion by 10% (from 14.3 to 12.8 mg).
For a buildine on a reducina core or tube svstem. onlv with I. = 2.0, for example, ~ -
-
tlx p?n:!lty rslat!vc to ii I i n c ; ~ ~ ~ m d c \ I I : L~ LO i 3 ;trutu~J 5'i.
3. Duntpi,ty. Thr. urors-bind a:cclur~tion !s apprd\lm3tcl! I I I \ L . ~ \ L . I ! JC~L. II. IIIII c)n
the snu;lrc roul u l thc d ~ n t l l i n ~ . I t is 3ppruxiut31~. ~U;:IU,C th~. rl: is 2 d~n~pi u- . c ~ n l r i -
. - . .
bution from nerodvnamic damoinc. which is normallv ~os i l i ve and which then rc-
. - . .
Juzc, the r ~ r u r i ~ r ~ l d;lnlpinn Jcp~'aduo;c In this nurLr.d ? \ ~ mp l e . if tllu hui l d~ng
Ih;id ; < rutninrcr.d rullircw ,truut.~r;il *!rtim :lnd d:lml>inpii~ *~. ~ri ceahi l t l : I-.!.r.ls 111
= 0.015. the urtlrr-wind pcak : . C C C ~ C ~ ~ I L U I I f . 1 ~ 2 1111::.r fnllldc 1s~111l.l ~ L. L. UI I I - .
which would bri ng the acceleration l o wi l l ti n the occupancy comfort criterion of
11.8 mg.
4. Frcqeency, 6ttildirrx de!>sirv, beizhr and esidrb, and olrrrtfonr~ rlmne. The dcocn- . . . .
dr.ncc u l cm.s-wind .1ccclur3lic1n un p;lramstcrh a h ~ c b dl r . cl ircqucr~cy :~tl d modal
mxs is quit: cnmpl c~ and has bcen ~liacusred and er3luatr.d i n somu dutail h) \!el-
bn~r nc 2nd Ch~.ung (19881 Thc cun~pliu:lliun is mxinlv cnucd hv !he i3c1 thxt C..
is very sensitive to planlorm shape and reduced velociiy, as shown i n Fig. 5.4, anla
anything which impacts on frequency similarly allecls rcduccd velocity on C,, Ex-
amples orthc sensitivity 01 cross-wind acceleration l o building height, sspcct ratio,
and planform shapc wcrc given i n Melbourne and Cheung (1988) and arc rcpro-
duced here as Fig. 5.5. From this study the overall conclusions with respect to param-
eter sensitivity errccts on cross-wind nccclcrations wcre as lollows:
o. The accelcr;llion is not, ss onc might i nl ui l i vcl y think, dcpcndcn~ dircclly on
height or aspect ratio hld, but rather on buildinc platform size. lndirecllv hciaht
- . , -
is i mnl scd hecausc the wind rl>:?d is 3 (UIICI~OII 111 It~.i gbt. HCIIUC rcI;t!\~.Iy .IL.~-
dcr lhuildings wi l l h3vc Itifher 3cculerslirnr III~I SC,U>I hllilcl:ny\, h u ~ tllu i mpor-
tan1 p.ranlr.l:rr bcrc 51Lt2plilr"rm >i ru and 3 r c r ~ g ~ . d-n\it).-ill olller srurdr, ms*-
1 - square building, sharp corners
I
t -----
square building, chamfered
corners (-0.1 b)
a
-- rough circular, oclagonal
or tapered building
+=recommended
I
criterion
building height, m
Fig.55 hlasimum shndord dcriulion urcclcmllll_n far I0 lnin In 5-scar rtlurn period for nrrl uu
rsnogumtiunr; 5 = 11.111; ps = I60 kg/m'; V,, = 12 (hNOOl"J'; n = 4611,.
Sect 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 353
b. Accrlcration is proporlional to lltc square root 01 the lorcc spectrum coellicicnt
C,, and this is where paramclcr dependence bccomcs cnmplicaled. Wi th reler-
cnce to Fig. 5.1 it can bc noted l l l at CFS, l or a_fii.cn building gcamclry, is cx-
, ;pressed as a lunction nrreduccd velncily 1'" = V,lr,,b and that C, , increases wi l h
y >
V, up to a peak tltis range covers most applications. This implies an additional
direct dcoendcnce on wind soeed. which makes thc accclcralion dcpendcnl on -~~
.
somethink approaclling 10over this region. Also thc increased size dcscribcd by
building width 6 reduces V.. nnd llence C,:,, which also works to reduce acceler-
ation in nddilinn to the n;bssivcncss cl fi ct. Howcvcr, this size increase also
moves to reduce frequency and hence increases V", and also C, and accelcration.
c. hlodest rounding or chnmlcring orcurners (10% 01 widdt) docs no1 significantly rc-
ducc serviceability accclcralion lcvels, although a significant reduction i n ultimate
lirnil-state momcnls cun be achicvcd. More significant comer roundinc or chamlcr-
relative to that Tor a square, sharp-corncred building is rcasonsbly ochicvnble.
Ovcnl l the eliccts or irequcncy, building density. l t ci gl ~l and \vidth, and planlorm
shape are so inrerrclalcd that i t is nnly by the typc arcval uati on shown i n Fig. 5.5 that
an appreciation or lhese aspects can bc uhtaincd.
5 Concl usi ons
The excitation mechanisms \\,lliclt csusc the most pcrccplible motions i n tall buildings
havc bccn dcscribcd. nnd il has bcen shown tIt;i~ thc cross-wind rcsponsc i s (he domi-
n:mt cnusc of motion ocrccotion nroblclns
a pirameler scnsiliaity discussion, wi l h worked examples, has been presented to give a
desiener some indication 01 how l o avoid lhinh acccleration levels i n l ol l buildings, and
b " -
so avoid the need for auxiliary dnmping systems. In particular il was shown that very
tal l buildings arc not necessarily the most sensiliue i n terms of occupancy comfort, but
that souareTsham-cornered. hieh-aspccl-ratio tall buildincs are l i kel y to have accclera-
- .
ti on p;oblems an.d that thcsc can be avoidcd by using p l a k r m shapes wi th cul corners
approaching n circular shape. tapering wi th height. increased mass, and structural sys-
tems which straighten up the first-mode shapc.
5.2 FIRE PROTECTION OF STRUCTURAL
ELEMENTS
The sl rucl unl system adopted for a building. including lhc choice of construction ma-
terials, is ohcn strongly influenced by i hc fire resislencc requircmenls of building rc-
ulations and codes. Although building code requirements with respect to l i re vary be-
tween countries, i t is gcncrally accepted that buildings should bc designed for the l i mi t
svatc 01 fire to achieve tllc follor\,ing objectives:
1. Providc an nccepl.able level of safety l or ihc bui l di ng occupants and limfighters.
2. The adjvccnt propcrty is not dnmugcd.
The level of safety offered to the occupants of a building in the cvent of a fire is a
complex function of numerous factors, including:
I. The likely chnmctcristics of the fire
2. Thc likely behavior of t he occupants (whcthcr they are alert or asleep, their reac-
tions)
3. The likely pcrformnnce ofcompartmcntation with respect to rcsvicting the movc-
mcnt of smoke and flames
4. The likely pcrformonce of early \ \ wni ng systems (if any) in notifying the occu-
pants
5. The performance of t he sprinkler system ond smokc control systems (if any)
6. The response of thc firc brigade
All o i thcsc factors arc probabilistic by naturc and functions of time. Time is of the
utmost imporlancc in designing buildings for firc safcty-it being important thnt suc-
ccssful egress be achic\,cd bciorc conditions become untcneble in the fire compartment.
A systematic approach to dcsigning buildings for fire mfety needs lo take into account
all ofthcse factors from a probabilistic approach and lo recognize the importance oftime.
In contmst to such an approach, tllc regulatory rcquircmcnts with respect to fire
safcty that have evol\~ed in many countries gcncrnlly represent an ad hoc and unsys-
lcmatic approach to designing buildings for fire safcty. Buildings arc rcquircd to be dc-
signed such that the structural mcmbrrs possess a ccrlain fire rcsistancc as dctcrmincd
in accordance with the standard fire test-a test that generally bcnrs littlc relationship to
real fires and takes no account of t he time for fire dc\,elopmcnt :!nd sprcnd. But it is a
useful tcst in that it allows the fire rcsistancc of clcmcnts of construction to be nt c d on
n relative basis. Littlc account is taken of the types ofacti\, itics taking place within the
building, and generally little provision is made for the reduction of fire resistance re-
quircmcnts due to the presence of other components of the fire safety system such as
sprinklers, smokc detectors, and more cflicicnt egress provisions.
However, it is likely that in msny silustions the application of a systematic approach
to assessing the fire saiety of buildings will allow a substantial reduction in the level of
the fire resistance required for membcrs-without resulting in any decrease in fire
saiety. The purpose of this section is lo consider how the structural form of buildings
may be influenced by the need to design for fire safety. For a thorough consideration of
fire snictv in tall buildinrs. scc Fire Sofen, irr Trill Btrildin~s (CTBUH. 19921.
- , . ,. .
r11 the outist i t nr.r.d. to hc $l:,ted t l ~ t c o~i c r ? I ~- i r ; t ~l l ~d buildings src. rc13tiv~Iy 111121-
f ?ct ~. d by r:qt#irr.m~.nls for <trucl~.r;ll nl:nlbi.rr lo lr~\r. ;! l c\ sl of fire rurist3nce. This is
because the fire rcsistancc ofconcrcte members is usually relatively easily achieved by
selectinn an aooronriatc levcl of cover La the reinforcement and a minimum size of
. . .
mr.nlhr.r. I'or alcel rtruct.,r:,. oo the alhsr lh2nd, rcr~siremcnts for rttembcrs to h a w
hi:h?r lc\r.ls ol' fir: re\ist:ln;r. guncr;ill! I I ~ c ; ! ~ ~ l i i ~ t I I ~ C , ~ ~ S I * I I I ~ I , ~ be prutc;tc I o,ith fire-
protective coverings such as sprayed insulation materials or board protection. and this
can result in substnntiallv increased costs for thc stccl frame. It follows therefore that it
3s unl! in the c ; ~ uf .,~ecl-fr:.mr.d hui l Ji np ti1:11 thcrr. ;!r: rc;.l henelits tu be p i n e d by
rr.11.luing o r di i mi n~t i ng l l x nedd for firi. prol<clioo ur 1I1c rlruuu1r;rl fr:rnle. As Ibcngar
(1992) has smtcd.
It i i the requircnrcn~i Tor r~rucluiisl fire prolcction (and corrosion protection) that ha\,c
inhibited !he usc of crprcsscd or visible cxlcrnrl rteclu,ork with lvll buildings. Cladding and
curlrin \\,all ryslcmr llrvc evoivcd and h1iv.e been urcd la camoullvgc (he fire-protected
steel. As the need for taller buildings 1~1s grown, i t hidr became more important lo utilirc thc
Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 355
cilcrior ollhc hulldings ior lntcral lo3d reriatoncc. Utrlqus $1 slcnrr rurh nr ihc brncrd lube
of the John Hanmck Center. Chirqo. the framed tube oi the \\'orld Tnde Ccnlcr. New
York, nnd ihc bundled l ~ b r ryslrmuf the Sc ~r r Towur.Chic3go. hmceval\ud. Yc l ~n 111 df
there clrcr ihc cr l r r n~l membcrr hld lo he fircpmoied nud clld cvcn iho~gln romc stnlr-
turd reprrren!urion on iltc focsdcr hlr been ochicvcd.
In the following, det,elop,nsnts nri5ing from the nwd to design buildings for firc
wl et y cconumically and ihc cffcct ni t hi s on the chuice oistructurnl aystsm and iortn o i
member consuuclion are reviewed. These developments vnry from innovative ways for
desienine steel members to achieve the snecified levels of standard fire resistance as
- -
given in the building regulations, to designing mcmbcrs Tor "real" fire rcennrios, t o a n-
tional engineering approach to designing for fire safely which lakes into account all
components of the firc safety system
1 Design of Building Structures to Satisfy Building Code Requirements
Over the years various innovative approaches have been developed in an nttempt to re-
duce or eliminate the need for conventional fire-protective coatings for steel members,
while at the same time satisfying the (usually high) lcvcls of standard fire resistance re-
quired by the rclcvant building code.
ll'oter-Filled Alember~. Around 40 buildings (IISI. 1993) have been constructed with
tubular columns filled with walcr and with an appropriately designed circulation system
to ensure that local overheating of the column does not occur and thnt there is a suffi-
cient supply of water to absorb the energy nssociatcd with the required level of fire re-
sismncc. A detailed design method has been available for many years (Bond. 19751. The
64-storv U.S. Steel Cornomtion headauarters in Pittsbureh incornorales watcr-filled ex-
tcnorcolumos and is onc of thc tollcst buildings in rhc world uhcrc this ryitum lhns been
oscd fur providing the requircd fire rcslstancc for the columns. \\';it<r cooling is inosl
suitable for columns, although with the addition of water pumps to provide adequate cir-
culation. the melhod can be used for tubular beams. For tall buildinss the columns must
-
be divided into zones to limit the buildup of pressure within the column. In general, it
is true to say that the use of water filling to achieve the required standard of fire resis-
tance for members has potential when exposed tubular steelwork i s rcquircd from an ar-
chitectural viewpoinl
Columns of &fired Concrete ond Steel. The range of composite steel and concrete
columns shown in Fig. 5.6 has also been used widely to provide an allcrnative t o steel
columns coated with fire-nrotective coatines. Both the encased I sections and the con-
-
cri.1s.fillr.d tubular sr.ctiunr offer significant ad\ ant azus nit11 resptut to rapid cnnrtruc-
(ton. Tubulnr columns o f l l r g ~ cross s:ctiun h i \ < hr.~.n used ior t.1i1 buildings (hlcFJmn.
1990; \Vsr.tt 2nd Bcnnrus. 1987: Watson and 0' Brir. n. 1990) ( r t e Fig. 5 7) The locn.
lion of r~i nforcement in these members sometimes "resents difficulties. and the use ol
t~nrcinlorced uuncrcte is nftdn porsiblr., dcpcnding nn thr. ~ t o c L~ n ~ . s r uf tilt cnlu!nn. llir
l ewl of lu;tJ ;,pplicd lo t h ~ ' cnlumn. 2nd the ccccntnclly ol' load. Tlw Jesi gl of ntl\ud
concrete and steel members for firc resistance i s the subject of numerous publications
(O' Mengheretal.. 1993: British Steel. 1992; Kruppa et al.. 1990; ECCS. 1988: CTBUH.
1992).
Firc-Resistant Steels. Alternative "fire-resislant" stccls hove been developed
(Maruoka ct a]., 1992: Assefpour-Derfuly el al.. 1990; CTBUH. 1992) and promoted by
various steel companies, particularly rrom Japan. These slecls give somewhat superior
mechanical properties under elevsred ternpenlure conditions compared wi th convcn-
tional steels, although use of these steels wi l l not rcmorc the necessity Tor a firc-pro-
tective coating-a lesser thiclkness or fire protection wi l l need l o bc applied and ihc
steels are generally more cxpcnsivc than conventional steels.
2 Desi gn o f Building St r uct ur es f or "Real" Fi r e Scenar i os
"Reol" Fi res ~,crrrrs Slnndord Fires. The previous section has dealt wi th the design
of buildings where the members are required to have levels of fire rcsismncc as deter-
mined i n accordance wi th the standard fi re test (ISO, 1985). The time-temperature curve
associntcd wi th lhc stnnd;~rd l i re test varies markedly compared wi th those associntcd
with real fires (Fig. 5.8). Thi r ntatter -'ill not be considered i n detail hcrc exccpl to notc
that this has bccn demonstrated by firc tests that hare bccn conductcd i n various-size
compartments having dirierent surrace linings, various qunnlitics o i rucl (nonnelly rcp-
resented by timber and plastic cribs), and varying degrccs or \.cnlilation (Pcucrsson el
al.. 19761. Othcr fire tests have been conducted wi th real furniture i n small and, more
recently. i n large firc comporlmcnts (Thomas el nl.. 1992a). Based on compnrtmcnt tests
conducted i n room-size enclosures \vith thc firc load rcprcscnted by cribs. various cngi -
neering models haw bccn dcvclopcd to prcdicl the temperature (and timc-tempcralure)
reinforcement
(8) Square Sleel Tubs wilh (b) Circular Sl ssl Tube with
Concrete Filling Concrele Fillhg
(c) I-Section with Concrele (d) I-Section Encased in Concrsts
Bstween Fiangss
(Arbed Column)
Fig. 5.7 Furrst Ccntrc. Pcrllr, Aurlruli:~
condttions given n certain lr\,el of \'entilation and fire load (Pcttcrsson el al.. 1976).
Through .uch testing it has been recognized that under cenain conditions, it is pos~i bl e
lo reducc (or cvcn cli~ninnte) tile lcvrl of firc protsction rcquirud for slructural members.
Blriidinrs tviflt External Steelwork It has been shown C a w and O'Brien. 1981: ~~~
o~
Kr.~pp;l, 1981) thdt the locntion of sleelwork beyond or at the facode of the building. or
such that it is pml y bhiuldcd from flames which ma). come frnm thc uindows i l l tltc
event of a fire. will under certain ventilation conditions result in temperatures that are
not sufficientlv hieh to reouire fire ~rot ect i on of the steelwork. ~em~oerat ures cxncri-
. -
~.nucd 31 (or hcyond) the facade are generally considerably lower than those within the
fire cotnpanmrnt. This fact has bccn dcmonstr~tcd by muanr of fire tcsu in compnn-
menu where h e fire load has been generally represented by wood cribs and thc fire
compartments have various degrees of vcntilntion.
This aooroach has rcSulted in the use of unorotected external steelwork in numcrous
. .
bu!ldings such 3s Bush Lunc Houac. Lundun (lZig. 5.9) (Brorzstti r.1 nl.. 1983). uhurc
thc S I L . L . I ~ O ~ ~ forming the external lit tic^. is of relat!vcly s r n~l l cross sr.ctiun 2nd cuulud
by water.
The Hotel de Ins Anes tower in Bnrcclona. Spain (Fig. 5.101, is a very recent exam-
ple of the use of unprotected external st cel wok (lycngar, 1992). In this cnse the outer
columns and the lateral bracing system arc located outside the building facade. Calcu-
lations were perlormed using the mcthod given by Law and O'Bricn (1981). assuming
n git~cn lire load in a hotel compartment and a reprcscntalivc Icvcl of ventilation. The
calculated temperatures for the external steelwork wcre confirmed by mcnns of a lire
I
I 4 I I
0 20 40 60 80
Time (min)
Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements
Fig. 5.9 Exompic of use of rratcr-fillcd tuba; nusln 1.usc 14eu.c. Landan. U.li.
Special Topics
Fig. 5.10 Hnlul dc Ins Artcs. Uorcelunn.Sguin.
lesL 11is clear that In this case the regulatory authorities were prcparcd to acccpt t l ~i s ap.
proach in licu of all members having to achieve the higher level of l i r c rcsislancc re.
q u k d by [he regulations.
Similar calculalions havc bccn uscd in Japan (Sakumoto et al., 1992) l or high-rise
buildings to permit the use of unprolecled "fire-resistnnt" steel al lhc lacsde.
Pnrki11i,,6 Gnrnges. The firc load and vcntilalion conditions associated with parking
garages are well known. Opcn-deck parking garages ore generally dclined as buildings
that havc at least two onnosite sides onen lo nt least 50%. Firc lesls involvinc cars in
nrovidcd the structurul members are at least o l a ccrtein size-snd this size is n ~ c l wilh
prlctical scctions uscd in parking gers~ger-lhc temperatures achieved will not lead to
off-loading of lhc ~ l ~ c l u r o l members. Thus mullislory st~.ul parking gacrges wilhuut
firc protccliun cladding arc pcrmiltcd in muny countries or ihc world.
Tcsts have bccn conduclcd on closcd ourkin: rarancs nnd thnsc ryhich arc waniallv
- - -
open but do not comply \t*ith thc prcccding delinition ol' opcn dc~.k (Bennclts ct al..
1989). Thc lcsts sho~vcd t l ~at lhe fire tcmpcrelurcs in partially open parking geragcs can
bc equivalent to those lhst would be expcricnccd in a clrrscd gsiregc. which in turn arc
l ~ i e l ~ e r th;m those lhar a,ill he acliiet,ed in onen-deck romars. In Auslralia. Ibr r;lr:trcs
- -
ing g: ~r ug~w~i t l h usprolcctcd slruclurai slecl.
dfixircd-Occrrpnng. flrrildi~~gs. The n l a t l ~ ~ ol mircd-ncuupuncy hsildings i h no\$, con-
sidcrcd. hlullislory buildings oltcn incorporate stories \ahich under ihu huilding rcgol;~.
l i o n arc rer~uired to 11:lvc a more fire-resistanl l\,nc of utlnstructiun or il hichcr lcvui of
stories. For eramplc, in many countries where isolalcd open-deck parking psrnge!, are
nermittcd to hc constructed in unnrotected slecl. Ibis \vould not be ncrmittcd i f t he onen-
where numerous buildings havc now bccn permitted Lo hc constructed with unproteclrd
steel parking levels below srlorics ofoffi ccr and shops. Figures 5.11 and 5. I? shogr, osc
such crumple, where {our le\,els of open-deck parking garage constructed from nnn-
tireprooled stcclr\.ork sre locatcd below I?, stories of office accon~rnudation.
E.s.vcnlir?l nrrd A' or~csso~liol ~l l cmbers. Buildin. codes usunllv rcuuirc :ill members
been succrsful l y argued in o number of situations. For csample. the building shnwn in
Fig. 5.13 is a high-rise building incorporating large-dian~cler cuncrctc-lillcd l uhe .
conlpositc concrete floors. and a reinforced concrclc scrricc s113f1. Exlcrn:tl trusrcr
spanning hctwccn thc calumns \\,ere provided to ensure adcrluntc lalcral load rchist:lnc~
under design ultimnlc wind forccs and adrquate lelcral stiffness endcr scrvicc wind
loads. The architecl required the estcrnztl b r ; ~ c i n ~ lo hc of cr nosed stcclivork. yet u~rdcr
argued on thc basis that in thc cslrcmc cvcnt ol' fire. thc prc*cncc ol' thc br;wing \vus not
364 Special Topics
IChap. 5
Fig. 5.13 I'n,poarll llmcc building, Sydncg, Austruliix.
An illustration of the benefits that mav be achiewd by the approach described is if- . ... ~ ~ ~ ~
lu$trated try a relsarch program undcrt3ken to in\.esIip;llc nplior~s ar5o:i;lted N 11h111~' rc-
iurbi*t!!nc6tt uf n . I i - $l u~. building. Thc building. shown in Fig. 5.14. incorpural+ :r
braced str.ci cors and ciosuly r l ~ x c d cxterior s1:r.l column* uhich cnmbinl: tvith stecl
spandrel beams to form an cirekor tube structure. The K-braced core is connected to the
exleribr tube by means of transfer trusses at the lop and midheight of the building. Bell
rrusscs extending around the perimeter of the building are located at the top, midhcighl.
and bottom of thc building. All of these steel members are fire protected by means of
concrete encasement, which in the case of the exterior columns, is further encapsulaled
by 51ur.l pl xe. In addition. thr. corc is sep~r:tt~.d from tile re51 of thc ares ofr.;ich $lor?. b!
mjsunry <rallr. Thc floor b c ~ mr ; ~nd cumpusill: noor sl3bs ore protecttd \rich asbsst ~5.
hascd fire prateclion mntcri;il ;rs is the inside s u r i ~ c e of the fitcndc lbe3n1s.
The sprinkler system in the buildine does notcomnlv wilh currenl code renuiremcnts
- . .
for sprinkler hczd spacing or ua1r.r del i wry rdtcr. hlorcovcr. !to sprinklers arc lucnlcd
in thr ceiltng .,pact, as is required for cununt construction.
lllc pr0pohr.d rclurbishmcn~ of the huilding required lhc rsmoeal uf;irbestnr-bared
fire prolectiod material from the beams wh i c h s u n ~ o n the floor slabs and from the sof-
. .
fit u? lhc conl p~si l c nnor slabs. For the refurbished bullding tu mr.r.1 1h2 dcctncd-tu-
co!oplg requirtmc-nts of lhc regul:!lions, il rvould [squire respraying of (he bu:lms and
floor sl:tb suffit, alteration of the sprinkler syslcm lo cl ~ang~. it frum nn c ~ l r j l i c l ~ t h~,.-
ard system Lo an ordinary hazard ivslem. i nd the fi t t i neof snrinklcrs in the-ccilins
- .
spacer. In contr:tst. the bullding nwner prupuscd Ikll the refurhished bu~ldlng retain tlie
cr ~st i ng aprinklcr llcnds snd that thc slabs and floor I,i.-ms rcmnin unprutcctcd. Thc rs-
Ii3b1lit! of thr. sprinkler s)ste,n a a s further improved by 111sinclusion of 8dJiteun:.l
monitored vslvcs and a system lo cnablc weekly checking of the presence of water in
the sprinkler pipes at every noor.
. .
A! 111~. rc.quesl oltlau bulldlng uwncr, a series of fire t?sts and ii risk i l ssessn~en~ wcrt
undenakr.n. The risk assessmr.nt sr;!r conduct~.d by sgslemalic~lly modcling tlts events
thnl mi:ht fullun the nccJrrcn.'i. ur ;1 fire i n the bullding. 2nd by usinp 3 hlonte C;~rlu
simulntion lo cvaluntc the probobilitv of outcomes which would lead to dcaths arnane the
uc:up3nts of l hc hullding. 'Thr: r i ~ k s~.,r.ssmunl rr.-r carried itut fur lwo (con:-ptu;!lj \ i ~ -
ost~ons-tlli. bdllding dcaignud lu s311s1y 311 of the rnitlitnt~ll~ IL.qUIremctll5 0111~1: CJ T ~ UI I I
budding rr.gulalions: 3nd 1111. pr opus~d r ~. f ur h~~hr . d buildinp Ir du<crabcd. E;!clt uf the
modcls of the buildinc accur n~el ~account ed for the lavout of the buildinr and thc sub-
a)rlerns 3nd compnnsnts u i t l ~ c fire silfcly syst e~n. \litn! uf IIIL. d:13 011 fir^. E I U N I ~ 2nd
1ltvr.lnpmunt. 5rnuk~. mnv?ntcnl. ;!nd :~lnrrn cues rr.quirr.,l fur Ilk: risk 35vrwl:nt camu
frum 3n urtenairr. lest pr ogr ~nt (lhulnas ct 11.. 19923) iit which four fire le,l* sssru cun-
ducted in a test building specially constructed lo simulate part of the protolype building.
The results or t he risk assessment showed that the risk to life safety in both buildings
is low, but that the refurbished building is substantially safer than that salisfying the
minimum requircmcnts of the regulntions. On the basis of these findings the building
has been refurbished such that the existing sprinklers remain and no fire protection is
applied to the steel beams or floor slabs.
. .
Further testing and r~. rc=rclt is hcing unden;lkcn to provide thc b ~ r i s lor ;i more g a t -
eralirud nppr nxh to dulcrminitlg thc lcvsl oifirr. r3fcty offcrcd bv a huildinc b ~ w d ntl
a rational consideration of the factors described earlier. Clearlv ruch an anoroach has
. .
the potential to oficr subal~ntinl f l e \ ~bi l ~t y ni l h reipdct I" slmclural lorn,. ;l\ ~ h c influ-
:ncr ol;,ll campnncnts ui t he tire snfctg s!stem cart be t;lhcn into account.
Arrcfpour-Drrfuly 1990. Fire Rcsirrottl High Srrcngri, LLI I I , Alloy Slrcls
Beck 1991, Fire Sufeir S?rrerr?s Drrign Urittg Risk Arsrr.vrsenr AI o r i ~ l r - De ~ ~ c l o p ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ i ~ in AIII-
I ~ i i "
Benneru 1985. Open-Deck Carpork Fire Turrr
Benncus 1989. Firc 6, Carpork.,
Bond 1975. Fire artd Sic.el Co,~rm,crion: Il'nrcr Coolcd Holloa Colrrrrnis
British Stcrl 1992. Derigr~ Alo~l,rol for Conrrcre Fiilcd Coiirrruir
Sect. 5.31 Condensed Referencee/Bibliography
367
Brolctti 1983. Fire Prolerrio,~ rf Sl cci S!n,cnirer-ErornpIcr of Applicorionr
Chen 1973, Hurnon Purccptio,~ Tltrtrhoidr lo Horizonral hlorioll
CTBUH Group CL 1980. Toil Building Cn'rerio ond Looding
CTBUH Cornmillee 8A 1992. Fire Sofsi). in Tnii Bzriidirrgs
Ducnport 1967. Gtrir Looding Focrorr
ECCS 1988. Coicuiarion of rhe Fire Rcrirrosce of Curtrrolly Loodcd Corr!posire Srrei-Cancrere
Col~mirzr fiposcd ro rite S~orrdard Fire
Holrnei 1987. Mode Sltope Carrecrior~r for Dyeo,riic Rerpor!rc lo tl'in~d
llSl 1993. Fire Errgincerir~g Design forsteel Srrucnrrer: Store ofrhe Arr
Irwin 1986, Aloriorz in Toll Buildirlgr
IS0 1985. Firc-Rcrirloncc Test$-Eiemrnrr of Br#ilding Corolnrcliol?
lyengvr 1992. Holei de lor Ancr To$l.rr. Borceiona, Sl~airl
Kruppv 1981. Fire-Rrrizroece oJExien~oi Sreei Coit,asls
Krunnv 1990. Srriccrt~ral Fire Design
. .
Law 1981. Fire SaJcry of Errenrol Srerin'ork
Mnmoku 1992. De$,eion,nrnr orxd Terr Rertritr ofSAl51OB-NFR Fire Rcsirnl,>r Sleul for Procrer rG . ~~~~
Gorrllle For ~ o r r . 18,; Jopon Heodq?mnerr Baiidirig
McBcan 1990. Tize AIYER Cunrre. Adcioidc-A Core Snady
hlelbournc 1977. Probubilir). Dirrribtrrior~r Arrocio~cd wirh rhc I\'i,'i,ld Loodiug of Slrilclsres
hklboume I 980, hrorer nr,dReco,z~rne,~dorionr an Accrlerolio,l Crileria for Occ~lpuncy Carrforl in
Toll Slntcl,,r.ur
hlclboumc 1988. Designing forScn~icc~1hIe Acederorio,zr in Toll Buiidirtgr
hlelbournc 1991. Acccieroziortr and Carrfirl Crircriolor Dtriidi#igr
O'Mcaehcr 1993. Bc1,osiosr of Co,,zporilc Colurr!nr in Firc
Petlenson 1976. Fire E,lginrrring Design of Sl ed Slnncrllrer
Rccd 1971. I\'i!'i,ld htdr,ced Alolion mid Heaiatt Coaforl
Sakumolo 1992. ilppiicorion offire-Resirronr Stcrl to o High-Rirc Building
Saunderr 1975, Toil Rccro,8puiar Building Rmponre ro Crorr-ll'ind Gcilorion
Thornus 1989, Fire in Mircd Occztponc). B~ildirlgs
Thomas 1992n. Fire Tesrx of ritc 1.10 IViiiio,n Srreel Of l cc Buildblg
Thomnr 1992b. Tl ~e Efccr of Fi re on 140 IVilliom Srrcrr-A Risk Asrcrrrrlenr
Vickcry 1966. 011 rlie Arsesrmenr of Wind Efecrr on Elonic Slri,crllrer
Vickery 1969. Or, rhe Reliobiliq ofG,,rr LLIadi,zg Focrors
Watson 1990, Tt,br,lar Contporhe Ca l u m, ~ ~ ortd Tircir Deurloprnrnr in Atrsrroiio
Wyctt 1987. Sirilcrrrroi Fire Etrginccrittg in Building Design-A Core S r ~ d y
5-c
Systems for the Future
A look at the future not only concludes this study of slate-of-the-an sWctures but also
ooens the door for another monoeranh in this series. The subiect of unbuilt ~r oi cct s and
- . . .
futurs syslcms. a rich mix of \isiunary project* from around lhc norld, hl s fascinsung
poluntl=l for furthcr chplorallon and prcscntation in 2 rcpir;tle volume.
Thls fi1131chapt~.r sill semc as 3 brief summap o f u hcrl: !;!I1 build~ng ,)slcms sccm
to bc headed in the near. rather than distant. futurk. Several oroicct dcs&intions are ap-
. .
pendud 10 chis sccuon, which illuilr=tc aamc nf thcrc principd icndcoc~si. The projculs
dcmonslralc lhc rich divcrrity ol ayalcms now an\ail:,hlc lo d:signcrs. They irL. ;!I1 re-
cently designed unbuilt projects, utilizing systems discussed in earlier chapters,
Core and ostriggers)~srems: Miglin-Bcitler Tower. Chicago and Dearborn Ccntcr.
Chicago
Trussed rube q1srem: Shimizu Super High Rise, Tokyo
Hybrid qsrems: Bank of the Southwest Tower, Houston
The rcasuns ll1111 these building> rtnl;iin unhuilt range from chxnglng cconnmic con-
dition,. as in thc c;tss oft he Hank of ihc SoutBu,esi, lo pro~ccts ihdt au,ail h mc i n y in a
slow m;lrkcl. such as the Sllimizu Suncr Hiah Rise. I n addition lo lhcir unbuilt ht3tUs.
the" also share some features that i~lubuatc l&dencics in tall buildioc desien. These in-
,
~ ~~
- -
cludr ;~rchilectur;tl, slrucluml. as ucll 3s othur lcodcncies lhai point to ihc fulure.
Before discussing lhe fcatures nflhcsl: tutvsrs. 11 is uorlh munlioning une \isionnry
projccl, of ihe type that might appear in a future monograph, as suggested. It has some
feamres common la the other schemes presented in this chapter, extrapolated to a height
significantly taller. Willinm LeMessurier has proposed a half-mile-high tower [850 m
(2789 R)]. the Erewhon Center (Fig. 6.1) (Architectural Record, 1985). With a floor
plan approximately the size of the Sears Tower or the World Trade Center it has usable
floor arcas proven in existing tall buildings. The structunl systems for this tall building
have more in common with the unbuilt projects of this chapter than the current record
holders. The use of massive high-strength concrete columns on the exterior, cast com-
posite with the structural steel frame, utilize the cost-effective strength and stiffness of
concrete in compression. Bracing is employed both as a lateral resistance system and 3s
a rravitv load transfer system to allow all load-bcarjne columns to pnrticipalc in the lat-
eml rcs(s11ncL. f or npl i i um cfIiciency.Thc result Is a;ury rigid 1oir.r nil11 3 10-acc PC-
riod uf\ l hr. ~l i on, ulilizing convcn~ion;tl uonrtructlun i:chniq.te~.
k Sect. 6.21 Structural Tendencies
37 1
i
i
6.1 ARCHITECTURAL TENDENCIES
i
And so what nre some of the current tendenc~es in tall buildine dcsien that can be ex- ~ ~
pcctcd to continuc in the lite twcntirth ccntury and inlo thc ne u? nl &u is no sinflc ar-
chitectural trend, as in the 1960s and 1970s. char damirlarrs the design of 1311 bujldings.
There are, of course, buildings that utilize structure as part of the architectural expres-
sion. in the tmdition oioroiecls such as Chicaeo's John Hancock Tower. whereas other
. . -
building slructurcs, primmly f r o r rhc 1980s. defer to the architcctur.4 massing choscn
mare in con,idcrntion of urb3n design issucs. Grcatcr use of mixcd s)slr.ms, alung with
architectural wends toward utilizing the structural syslems as a form generator (along
with urban desien). are blurrinr these earlier distinctions and creatine mnnv outions for
- - - .
the 1990s and beyond.
The Bank of the Southwest Tower exhibits the potential for the massing and nrchi-
tectural expression to accent and reveal the structural rystcm. The massive composite
columns rcduce in size with height, and the architect lakes advantage of the column lo-
cations and dimensions to shane the tower in n more dvnamic and soarine, exuression ~ - .
thdn n aimplc prismatic form. The hliglin-Buitler Touer :!nd the De3rborn Ccntcr, uti-
lizing a core 2nd outriggcr system. xhi sve similar form;, but with difiercnt slenderness
proportions and tops.
Thc Shimizu Suoer Hieh Rise is a tmsscd tube with some other similarities with
Chicago's Hancock. They are both mixcd-use buildings, with offices below and residcn-
tin1 floors ahove.This requires smaller flour plates in upper floors.The Hancock achic\.es
this with a constantly slouine exterior truss~tube. whereas Sllimiru rotates the tube, re-
wltina in smaller flo~rol&;with each rotation. These two nroiects illustrate the oonor- ~
. , . .
~unlty prcsr.ntcd hy ;tn exterior truss guomctry 3, the print3ry 5ourrr: of ;trchitsctur;~l ca-
prcssion, uhilc 31 tltc s3me time adhering to an clficlcnt and rigid slructur;~l i!rtcm.
6.2 STRUCTURAL TENDENCIES
The systems for the tall buildings presented here all take full advantage of the mass.
widih. and uotential efficiencies of the towers. The similarities among these building .
system, illustntr., by rxxmplc, doi gn idcas that work i n nt;ln! dilfcrcnt cuild~tiuns. Thc
follu~ring lid sumrnnrtacs the\e common features:
Composite elements
Use of high-strength concrcte for supercolumns
Bracing or core walls for lnteral stiffness
Use of active and passive damping systems
Use of better analytical 1001s and testing facilities
' her s is a grsaler lsndency to mix systeslr 2nd mattrials t od~y. purti;ularly uanci2le
3nd steel Cnmpnsllc ncel 2nd cuncretc floor ryitem, =re utili2uJ i n sll of tlw projcclr
~h;!t lullon. in additinn to elficir.nt urr. uf mxcri31*, tht scltlshuril~p ":!turd .,I th2 r!i-
a m lends itself to the reouiremcnts for fast construction. The improvement of high-
extcnsibn, bending stiffness
372 Systems fort he Future [Chap. 6
The use of braced frames or shear walls, in lieu of moment resistant frames, is also
evident. Thcsc systems are inherently more stiff, and therefore more economical in
achieving drift and acceleration limits. Bracing and walls sre locally more limiting than
framed tubes, particularly when bracinapcnemtes the insrior volume. But bracinn and
. . -
core ivallc also upun up other opportunities for flexibility An e~ampl u of this is the e r .
tsrior wall oihraccd lor\r.rs. $rhcrc column* nn). be njuch sn~allr.r ban llte massive sec-
tions required for framed tubes
;\nuther 3d\,anccmunt in the pcrlormsncc nltnll buildings is thc usc ofdamping ,),-
Itmi. Activc dilmping r)alums u,er: lir.4 uscd in llte rulrolil of Boston's klancock build-
ing. 35 llcll :IS i l l orifinil design fc3lure in Sen York'r Cilicom Ccnlcr. Thc World
Trade Center was one oft he first to use pnssi\,e damping systems..~he use of these sys-
tems is becoming more common now, and indeed the Shimizu tower proposes an active
damping system (HMD). The improvement in analyticsl tools, namely, more powerful
computers at affordable prices, has made some of these aduancements possible. And
i mpr ~\ ~cment s in testing facilities, both shaking tables and wind tunnels, have also aided
the undcrslanding and usefulness of these systcms. Base isolation systems for earth-
quake motion, as well as tuned mass dalnpcrs for the control of wind nloucmcnts, arc
now common dcsign consideretions. Other systems, such as active control of building
structures with advanced microprocessors, are also being tested, and increasing use
could be anticipated in the future.
6.3 OTHER TENDENCIES
Finally therc is mo\,cmcnt toward greater inlegration in thc design and construction
process through information systems. Consideration of construction methods and syr-
terns, including prefabrication, modulnr construction. and robotics. is cllanging the tra-
ditional project delivery systems. Information systems for monitoring quality assurance
during construction as well ns monitoring the long-term performance of buildings are
also on the horizon, with the integration of mechanical. wnical lransportation and
maintenance systems.
Miglin-Beitler Tower
Chicago, :?. Illinois, USA
Architect
Svuctural engineer
Year of completion
Height from strcct to rool
Number of storics
Building use
Frame material
Typical floor liuc load
Basic wind velocity
Design acceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Footing type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Cesar Pclli Associates Inc. with HKS Inc.
Thornlon-Tomasetti Engineers
Future
610 m (2000 ft)
141
I
Orlice
Concrete core, major columns, outrigger
walls, steel floor beams, Vicrcndcel
trusses
2.5 kPa (50 psf)
33 mlsec (73 mph) at 10 m (33 ft); 1 6
mlscc (I03 mph) at 610 m (2000 ft), 50-yr
return
71 1 mm (28 in.) at l loth floor, 50-yr
return
9 scc
1.5 to 2% serviceability
ZC = 0.0012: horizontal force factor 1.33
Consrctc cur< linked hy concrete b-am5 to
cight major perimcler concrcte columns
30-m (100-ft) silty and sand clay over
dolomitic limestone bedrock
17.4-m (90-ft) deep. 2.1- to 3-m (6- 10 10-
h)-diametcr caissons sockeled into rock
3.96 m (13 ft)
10.67 m (35 ft)
460 mm (18 in.)
3.05 m (10 rt)
Steel
69-mm (3.5-in.) normal-weight concrctc
on 76-mm (3-in.) melal deck
I I by 2 m (36 by 6.5 ft)
18.6 m (61 it)
100-MPa (14.000-psi) concrete
374 Systems for the Future [Chap. 6
Core Concrca. 100 lo 70 MPa (14.000 to
10.000 psi)
Thickness at ground floor 914.460 mm (36. 18 in.)
The ~tructural system for the proposed 141-story 610-m (2000-Ft)-high Miglin-Beitler
office building has been designed by the structural engineering firm Thornton-
Tomasetti Engineers of New York City (Fig. 6.2). A simple and elegant integration of
building form and function has emerged from close cooperation of architectural, stmc-
mml, and development team mcmbers. The resulting cruciform tube scheme offers
structural effieiency, superior dynamic behavior, ease of construction, and minimal in-
trusion at leased office floors (Fie. 6.31.
. - .
hlnjor objucti\cs ofthc structural design were to ~chi evc speed and cconnmy uf con-
slruclion 2nd arold inlerior colutit~is in urdcr to intaximizc net rentable nrcl. This \ras
achieved through a structuml concept bared on a C~ci f or m (crosslike) tube which, in
ulun, is similnrin anocarance to a ticLtac-toe board. The simulidtv ofthis structurel erid
. . . .
allous 5 t r u c l ~r ~l tlcmcnts for the rlendcr t<lncr to costisuc onintermpled frdm lhc but-
ton1 ufti\d building 10 the inp.
'TBL. cn~clforrn tuhu structural syst:m consists oftlic iullo%ring S ~ A major compuncnt5:
I . A 19- by 19-m (62.5- by 62.5-11) concrete core with walls of varying thickness.
Theintcriorcross walls of the corc arc gencmlly not penetrated with openings. This con-
tributes significantly to the lateral stiffness.
2. Eight cascin-place concrctc fin columns located on the faces of the building, which
extend up to 6 m (20 it) beyond the42.6- by 42.6-m (110- by 140-it) lonar footprint.
3. Eielit link beams canncctinc the four corners of the core lo the eieht fin columns
u
31 e\c.ry llonr. 'These reinforced concrclc b:nm< arc hxunchud at both ends for incrcn,ed
st i f f r l : ~~ : ~nd rr..l.l;r.d in dcpth 31 mi dr p~n to allow fctr p35b3fc 01 mcchnnacill ~ L I C I S .
Linking the fin columns and cure cnoblur thc full uidtli uf thc h~l l di ne tu act i n r er w-
. -
ine lsteral forces. In addition to link benms at each floor. sets of two-stam-dcco outrie-
. . b
gcr walls 3rc lucntud at Ievcls Ib, 56. md 91. Thtac outrigger aal l r <nlvauce the i nvr-
actiorl betrracn ertcrlor fin culumns and the corc.
4. A conventional structural steel composite floor system with 460-mm (18-in.).
deep rolled steel beams suaced at approrimatelv 3 m I10 ft) on center. A slab of 76-mm
. . . .
( 3- ~n. ) - dr . s ~ l-mm (20-g;;uge) conugl ud mctni deck 2nd 89 mm (3.5 in ) ofslnne cun-
ir:le tupplne ipJtli betrvecn 111sbcarns. Tne ile:l floor syr1L.m ia rupporttd h> the m>t -
in-place concrete elements.
5. Exterior steel Vierendeel trusses consisting of the horizontal spandrels and two
vertical columns at each of the 18.6-m (61-it)-wide faces on the four sides of the build-
ing between the fin columns. To eliminate stresses produced by creep and shrinkage
hlrains in the concrete fin columns, theverticals in 1heVirrendeel arc provided with ver-
tical slip connections. This has the added benefit of channeling all of the gravity loads
on each of thc building faces out lo the fin columns to help eliminate uplift forces on the
foundations.
Exterior steel Vicrendecl trusses are used to pick up each of thc four cantilevered
corners of thc buildinn. Corner columns are eliminated. nr ovi di n~ for comer offices
\%itll ondisturh:d tisa, s. Coone:tlon* herncen the stc:l Visrendeel iru*.us 2nd 1111: r u n -
;r:w fin col ~, nn\ :!re typi:311! itmple shr.:~r c<lnncclionl ahich minimirc co\ts 2nd ex-
~~ ~
pedilc erection.
6. A 183-nt (600-it)-lall steel-framed lo\r'er st the top of the building. This braced
frame is to house observation levels, window washing, mechanical equipment rooms,
and an ossortmcnt of broadcasting equipment.
A cruciform tube structure provides a safe, elegant, efficient, and consmctible solu-
tion to h e challenge of designing the world's tallest building, the Miglin-Beitler Tower.
The proposed s wct unl solution combines the erection speed of concrete construction,
the flexibility for future change and the efficiency for horizontal spans of a steel floor
system, and the superior dynamic acceleration response of a composite latenl load re-
'
sisting slluctunl system.
Fig. 6 3 Ploor Iruming plnn; hliglin-Beitlcr Toner.
Dearborn Center
Ar$$ilect
Stnicturul engineer
Year of completion
Height from smeel to roof
Number of stories
Building use
Frame material
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lnternl deflection
Design fundamenlnl period
Design nccelenlion
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of smcture
Fooling type
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
Material
Slab
Columns
Spacing
Material
Core
Skidmore Owings and Memll
Proposal only
346 m (1 135 ft)
85
3
Office
Concrete core, steel perimeter frame, steel
outrigger trusses
2.5 kPa (50 psf)
34 d s e c (75 mph)
H/500, 100-yr return period
7.9 sec
22 mg, 10.~1 return period
1.75% serviceability
Not applicable
Concrete core, steel perimeter frames,
steel outrigger and bell trusses
24.4 m (80 ft) of clay over bedrock
Concrete caissons with steel liner
3.96 m (13 fl)
13.7 m (45 fl)
762 mm (30 in.)
3.05 m (10 ft)
Steel, gnde 250 MPa (36 ksi)
76-mm (3-in.) metal deck
914 by 610 mm (36 by 24 in.)
9.14 m (30 it)
Steel. grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Concrete shear walls. 760 mm (30 in.) thick
at ground floor: slrenglh 49 MPa (7000 psi)
The project will consist of an equivalent 85-story oflicc tower with a total overall gross
enclosed area of approximately 246,000 m' (2.6 million ftz) of which approximately
227,000 mz (2.4 million ft') is above gnde (Fig. 6.4).
The first five floors will cover an area approximately equivalent lo the site and will
contain approximately 9270 mz (98,000 ft') of retail syucc on the ground floor. con-
Fig. 6.4 Dcnrl~orn Ccnlcr, CBicugo, Illinsis. (Pliorn il). Hcdriclz-Blcrring.)
course level, and second floor (Fig. 6.5). The omce lower will be located at the west end
of the site. Figure 6.6 shows the outrigger tmss system used.
There will be three below-grade levels. The concourse level contains relail rcntnl
space plus mecbanicnl, clcctrical, and building services arcas. The second and third
lower lcvels will bc devoted primarily lo parking for 237 cars. but will also contain the
main incoming electric and telephone services, employee facilities, and tenant areas.
A multilevel relail galleria will extend from thc concourse lcvcl up through the sec-
ond floor and will interconnect with the Dearbom Street and State Street subway sla-
lions at the concourse level. The retail levels will be linked by cscalalors within a slcy-
lighted, stepped atrium space. Two additional pairs of escalators will connect the first.
second, and fourth floors at the clcvalor core. Offices spaces on the third, founh, and
fifih floors !+-ill open into the atrium.
Shear wall
iagonal lo bottom chord connections shall
lev loose for approximately 360 days
++
Fig. 6.6 Outrigger truss; Dcnrborn Ccnler.
Bank of the Southwest Tower
Houston, Texas, USA
Architect
..;-
Structurdl engineer
Year of completion
Hcighl from street lo roof
Number of slories
Number 01 levels below ground
Building use
Frame rnalerinl
Basic wind velocity
Design fundamcnral period
Design ncceleration
Design damping
Earthquake loading
Type of structure
Foundation condilions
Fooling type
Typical floor
Sl oq height
Beam span
Beam depth
Beam spacing
hlatcrial
Slab
Columns
MurphyIJahn with Lloyd Jones Brewer
Associates
LcMessurier Consultan& with Walter P.
Moore and Associates
Never built
372 m (1222 ft)
82
4
Office and retail.
Steel with concrete supercolumns
2.5 kPa (50 psO
47 mlscc (105 mph). 100-yr return
1167 mm (3.83 it). 100-yrrelurn
7. 6.75 scc horizontal: 7 scc torsion
22 mg pcak wilh T MD 40 mg without
1 to 1.2% scrviceebility: 3.5% with TMD:
1.5% ultimate
Not applicable
9-sloq-high A-frame trusses spanning
building between concrcle supercolumns
At lenst 76 m (250 ft) of very skirr clay
75-m (245-it)-wide octagonal mat. 4 to
1.8m (13 to 6 ft) thick. 17 m (56 11) below
g n d e
3.96 m (13 ft)
14.2, 13.4, 11.6 m (46.75.43.92, 37.92 ft)
530.460.410 mm (21, 18. 16 in.)
3.05 rn ( I 0 11)
Sael . grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
63-mm (2.5-in.) lightweight concretc on
50-mm (?-in.) metal deck
8 columns. 2.9 by 6 m (9.5 by 19.7 11).m-
pered to 1.37 by 1.6 m (1.5 by 5.27 it) al
roof: 70-MPa (10.000-psi) concrete at
base
Stccl. grsdc 250 nnd 350 MPn (36 and 50
ksi) supported on A-frame trusses
The tapered form of titis mixed-construction 372-m (1222-11)-high towcr. its pcakcd
sculptured crown, and the slender spire to top it of1 recall the dramatic upward-reaching
382 Systems fort he Future [Chap. 6
skyscrapers of rhc 1930s (Fig. 6.7). The architects were chosen as a rcsull of a design
competilion l ~r l d by the dcvclopcr. Unforlunately the Texas oil-based recession made it
necessary to cancel the project after completion of the design developmenL Thc towcr
contained an area of over 204.400 m' (2.2 million ft'). At ground level and below there
were retail soace and oarkine in addition lo a erand lobby mace. The towcr was set di- -.- . ~~~ - ~ - - . .
agonally an its downtown Houston site.
The tower was square wit11 sllnped corners to provide more officcs with comer win-
dows. and tapered from 55 to 46 m (180 to 150 ft) square at lhc cighliclh noor. It rcsled
on only cigh; large concrete columns, which diminished in cross &ion from the lop of
the hmmdatinn mat to floor 80 (Fin. 6.8). ~..- ...
. - .
The overall slruclural slenderness mlio oftllc tower was 8.0. based on 390 ml48.7 m
(1279 ftl160 ft), the ratio of t l ~c lo\ver ltcigllt above the lop of the mat to the horizontal
dimension center to center of the columns at that level.
The severe Houston wind climotc. the liieh slenderness ratio orlhc tou,cr. and its nar-
and stiffness, with the lenst cost premium over that rcquircd for gravity loads nnd min-
imal interference with architectural lavoul. Thc main structural frames were four stccl
s u p c r ~ r ~ s c ~ . ta.n in c3cil ilir~ction. ahicll a m ? (tic c n t ~ h~i l di ng luxd n ~ t to tbc con-
cr?I~. coIun~n\. The ,.lp:rlruuc\ h:,d Ji:lcon;!ls III :. cl,c\ron P: I I I ~TI I 21 ni l t ~- *~or y i,>tcr-
tnls, uith 11~r;ront;ll t l r. , nt 1 l 1 ~ lo.trtll ~ n d rliuth >tory ufe3ch. TIIL. di : ~non~l s ~ n l y ;I"-
pcnred outsidc the central service corc fur four stories out of each nine-story modu.lc
(Fig. 6.9).
The entire nonrspncc outside the corc was olher\r,ise column-free, with conventional
composite stcel beates spanning from the corc to a pcrin~ctcr stccl girder. The 24.4-m
(SO-ill-wide core was bridccd bv a eair of Vierendcel trusses. Thc cieht high-strennth
cause of vortex shedding, thc tower would have excessive wind forces nnd lateral ac-
celerations unless its vibration ncriod \r,as limited lo above 7 sec. a lour value for so kill
3 i1ru;tJrc Esun .d tltot pcrtod. ths tuner nccup:~nts aoul J L'\p?rlcnc: t n ~ l r s q~cnt dir.
conlfurl ir.m uin,l-iod~ur.d nl.,tlun .A sp~' c!al sh#d\ N: I ~ madr: to assera the :.ntount ul
ndditiunnl d;lmpinfi 1h3t illr. i . ~o ~~d : ~t ~o n - m~t - ~n i I i n~er : ~t l on SIOUIJ provld? (i,pproxi.
. .
matelv 0.3%). In order LO reduce accelcralions to acceotable levels. a tuned mass damner
$!,tern. of 3 lype vmil:lr lo t11a1 iltrt311<d in .Us$\ York'\ Citicnrp Center. wns to be In-
c:.tud III lllc craiun o f t l ~ c torvcr :I[ 352 6 111 ( I 157 it) ; ~bnse graund. The mass block s n s
lo have o weight of about 386 tonnes (425 tons) and was designed to increase the towcr
effective damping to at lenst 3.5%.
Fig. 1.7 U:lnk sr the Soutliwust Tosrcr. llourton. Tcus.
Composite col (typ) ' (Si de vierendeel truss Corner vierendeel truss 1
(4 per floor) (8 per floor)
Fig. 6.9 Elrvntion; Bnnk orthe Southwest Towcr.
386 Systems for the Future
Shimizu Super High Rise lSSHl
Tokyo, Japan
Architect
Structural engineer
Year or carnplclion
Numbcr of stories
Numbcr of levels bclow fruund
Building use
Frame ~natcrial
Typical floor lit'c load
Basic wind velocity
Maximum lateral dcflcction
Dcsifn accslrration
Design datnping
E;irthquake loslding
Typ? of rtructurc
Fuundation conditions
Footing type
Typical floor
Stury height
Bcnm span
Bcom depth
Beam spacing
hlatcrial
Slab
Columns
Size ot ground fl oot
Spacing
hlatcrinl
[Chap. 6
Sllimizu Corporation
Shimizu Corporation
Proposal
550 rn (1804 11)
121
6
Hotel, officcs, retail shops. balls. parking
Stccl reinforced cnncrctc
1.8. 3 kPu (36. 60 psf)
45.5 mlscc (I02 mph)
Hi300 (Ievcl I loading; Hi200 (Icvcl 2
loading)
6.0 scc
5 rng peak. I-yr return
0.6% ser\,iccability: 2% ultimolc
Sciscnic rcrpansc rztctor (1.05
Trussud tube nlegastructurc
160 m (525 rt) a f send
Combination ofcontinuous \r,:!lls and pre-
tensioned high-strength concrctr (PHC)
piles
3.25 m (10 ft 8 in.) hotel; 4.3 m (14 ft I
in.) office
27.4, 15.8 m (73 f t 6 in.. 51 it 10 in.)
1.2, 0.9 m (-17, 35 in.)
12.8.10.0 m (42 rt, 65 f t 7 in.)
Steel
U-type steel deck i lightweight concrete,
155 mm (6 in.) thick
4.0 by 2.4 m (13 by 8 ft)
26.0. 12.8 m (85. 41 Ti)
Stcel and concrete; HT60. F = 60 hlPa
(8500 psi)
Braced frame
Sleel, NT6O
I.? m (17 in.)
The SSH building is 550 rn (1801 it) tall with 121 stories above ground and six stories
underground (Fig. 6.10). This design project was intended to confirm the feasibility of
consmcting such a tall building in the earthquake- and typhoon-prone counvy of Japan
by the end of this century based on the technologies available today ot Shimizu.
The SSH building rvns designed as a complex consisting of hotels, offices, and
shops. The building areais 44.000 m' (474,000 f?) for a plot area of 90.000 m' (969.000
ft2). The total space of the SSH building is 754,000 m' (8.1 16,800 it2) and is divided into
three zones along the height. A zone was designed to be squeezed through the top and
Fig. 6.10 Sitlmizu Supcr High Rise ISSII), Tok~o, Jnpnn
rotated by 45' against the lower zone. The bottom zone, zone 1, consisls of 43 stories
with an average floor space of about 6200 m' (66,700 ft'). The middle zone. zone 2. con-
sists of 37 stories with an average floor space of 4800 rn' (51.700 it2). The top zone.
zone 3. consists of 36 stories with an nveroee floor space of 2000 m'(21.500 it2). Zones
2 2nd 3 ha w qky l obb~es at thetr lowesl levcls. n t e sky lobbies are tlte lohhirs for shut-
tle clesnmrr. They arc also dc\ignrd tin mucl the rcqlliremunt for cvacu~lion area, in thc
evcnt of fire.
The critical desien loads for the SSH buildine were the seismic and wind loads. The
-
rdsponsc apectra lor far-field eanhqitakes u.it11 largc magniludes sxpscltd in tlic Tokyu
area appenr lo hare clsar ps xk around 8 acc Considering !hew spcctrsl peaks. 3 mq a -
structke svstem with a truss-tube mechanism was employcd lo i cep the SSH buildinr
stiff enoudh to have a fundamental natural oeriod of aboui 6 sec. Thi; shor t ~er i od helor -~~~~
avoid a lock-in vibrall?n resulting from the \'onex shedding in serer* uindr.
The sltore of Tok) o Bay co~nprises sort suil srmlo. To ovcrcolne the roft soil condi-
tions, special attention hasbccn paid to the foundation ryslem. The proposed foundvtion
svstem consists of a circular cvlindrical wall of a diameter of 162 m 1531 it) with oiler
i nd diaphragm rvalls inside. T'he thickness of the cylindrical outer will is 4.'0 m (1'3 ft)
in the upper portion. It reaches e depth of74. 5 m (244 ft). This unique foundation sys-
tem a ~ ~ d i s this supcrtall building t o be built on such soft soil
Srnrctttrol Sjrron. A! tile sliu on the shore ol tht Tok)n Rny nrea. apeutral compo-
ocnls of ohnut8 scc m3) hc pronouni ~d ill ths rcsponsL. spcctrn f or i ~r - f i el d ?2nltq~:ihci
uilh large n~agnitudcs. Thcrciorc IIIC n;itural period o i 8 iec shduld bc a\oldsd for the
SSH lhuildir~g. Hosrever. B ~ I I I : ft~ndilmtntnl n:lturnl psrind is hct lo be lnngur than R wc.
;I lock-in tihriltion due lo strong wind may bccoms a big issuc.
Two strategies werc eslablished to overcome these problems. The first strategy was
to achieve a fundamental natural ~ e r i o d ofsienificantlv less than 8 sec. The tareet nat-
- -
ural period was set at 6 sec. The second strategy was to select the configurntion of the
building to minimize the wind loads, especially for the purpose of avoiding a lock-in
vibration.
For the first strategy. the structural system selected is a megastructure with a truss
tube with steel columns filled with hieh-sueneth concrete. This svsrem achieves enoueh
- - =
sliffn~.s, for tile SSH hullding to have n first n;itural period olappro.\i~nately 6 scc.
For the second str3tcgy. the optimum configurntion for the SSH building was suught
u a i n ~ wind lunnul c\ocri~nr.nts. Tllrce rvsolutioos r\.ers a p ~ l ~ u d lo the bulldinc. Th: first
. .
resoiution was to cui the corners off the building so that the floor plan wouid become
closer lo a round shape. The second was to reduce the plan wea in the upper zones. The
third was to rotate each building zone by 15" with respect to the zone below. This com-
bination effectively broadened the power spectra of wind loads so that lock-in vibration
should bc unlikely to occur (Fig. 6.1 1). A perspective of the strnclural frame is shown
in Fie. 6.12. ~ - -
Thc soil 21 tile hullding silt i, urpdci3lly suft. To 3rsurs muugh c3pxi t y undsr Illis
snil uundition. ;I spcci:ll ioendation syatum has hcen ~~mplo)cd.' I' lic unique asp<ct ~ . i t l l ~ .
foundation is a continuous circular cylindrical wall system which cresies animproved
bearing stress distribution and reduces construction cost compared to a conucntional
system. The continuous ouler \\,all reaches 74.5 m (221 ft) deep. The foundation has a
mat slab 5.0 m (16 i t 4 in.) thick bctwecn -23.5 and -28.5 m (-77 and -93.5 it). From
the mat slab to the end of the continuous rr.all, piles and diaphragm walls mere used to
strengthen the soil contained in the continuous wall. This foundation of a circular cylin-
drical shape is considered lo be rigid enough as a whole.
The lhickness of t l ~e continuous wall is 4.0 m (13 ft) down to -28.5 m (-93. 5 it).
Beyond that depth, the lhickness of the !rsall is kepl at 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in.) to tllc bottom.
De s i ~n Crirerio. The design criteria for the SSH building against enrthquake and wind
loads are as follows:
1. Under leilel I loods. The stresses of the slructural main frames should be smaller
than the allowable stress. In principle, no uplift is allowed Tor the foundation.
9
2. Under level 2 loads. The stresses of the smctural main frames should be below
the level thnt can be considered to be elastic as a wholc. In addition, no harmful
residual deformation due to the foundation movement should be allowed.
Level 1 loads are those that are likely to be experienced by the building during the
service pcriod. Level 2 loads are those that can be considered to be the maximum cred-
ible loads at the building site.
3rd Zone (hotel) typical-floor plan
2nd Zone (oMce) typical-floor plan
"
1st Zone (olflce) typical-lloor plan
Fig. 6.11 Tgplcul nsnr plunr; SSH buildint!.
Fig. 6.12 Eluvutlss: SSHI~uildlng.
Sect. 6.41 Condensed References/Bibliography 391
I n addition to these design criteria, the discomfort of the tiuilding's occupants due l o
the vibration was assessed for wi nd and earihauake loads ex~ecl ed l o occur once evew
war . F n ~ r 11)hrid mnss dampers , l i hl D~ ) $<ill be installed ;,I the lop of lo2 SSH bui l d-
ing. Tnc weight ofeoch H5i D i s abuut?00 1onne5 (??.I Ions). Tuo Hhl Ds nf 100 tonncs
( I I ? Inns) h: nu :~l r~.ady been inrl;lllcd ill ;I j 0- sl 00 bu~l dl ng in 0s3L=. Jap~n.
6.4 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BISLIOGRAPHY
AlSC 1991. Tljr ll'nrld's To11r~t Deilding-Tlre hliglbzdcirlrr Tower
Architculurdl Record 1985. Il'illio,n LcAlern,rirr'r Super-Tall Srrircrurcr
ASCE 1991. Bz,ildi,~g Abnr to Dr ll'orld's Tollert ot 1.999f1
Engineered Concrclc StrucLurer 1990. TI,< lVorldZ 7bllcrr Bui;di,rg-Cl,icogn's Afiglin-Dcirlcr
)irt~.cr
Mia" 1993. Soil-Sintottre lrrrrracriou Eljrc!.~ on rkc 121-Siog. SSH Blrilrlbig
\Vmabc 1993u. Sln,cn,ral Dcrigrt atldA8?ol?.~i:rir ofrlrr 121-Slory SSH Duildirrg
\Vvtebc 1993b. Onurgbzg Needsfor Dnr,,ping ,lnga!orri,zg Sj.rlun,r Applicable lo Super Toll Btnildingr
Current Questions,
Problems, and
Research Needs
I . What are the structural systems and building data Tor other significant high-rise
buildings in Europe. South America, and Africa?
2. What is the appropriate way to classify tall building laternl load resisting sys-
tems? How are innovative and evolvine systems laced within the classification
- .
schun,s stlch lhnl cataloging and data cullcctiott oTstructur3l syslcnls can be con-
tinuously upd3tcd ;lnd oT urc to the pr~crl ci nr cnginctr!
3. How are structural schemes tailorcd to local geographic condilions to produce
economical desirns?
I. Should lhcrc be a proiu.wun;~l c ons e t ~s ~s rufardii~g the auccpt ; ~h~l ~t ) df lall huild-
ing structures wit11 rcspcct to wniccnbilit) iswe? such as later:ll drllt. nnru vi-
bration, occupant cornfori, and noor levelness?
5. What oossible structural forms for extra buildine suauorl such as auvcd towcrs
- . . . .
arc possible for ultra-1211 high-rise buildings'! Whnt arc tllc sociulugical, pl;ln-
ning. and inlnintcnmcc implicatinnr lor soch buildings'! Whal h)slellls are unvi-
sioned for the nert gcncmtion of tall buildings over 600 m (2000 TI) i n hcigllt'!
6. What unique problems are enconnlered when exposing lall building slructural
Trnmes on the building perimeter? What are the solutions?
7. What are the structural systems Tor the future in arcas of high seismicity?
Nomenclature
GLOSSARY
A36. Structurul rleel wi th yield strength of 250 MPP (36.000 pri). per ASTM svmdrrd.
A572 grade 50. Strucarol steel with yield rtrength of 350 hlPo (50.000 psi). per ASTM stun-
dard.
Acceleration. Rate of chongc i n vclocity us u building su%~ys due to wind or crnhquakr foiccs.
Al l owabl e stress desi gn or wor ki ng stress design. hfcthod of proportioning stiuclurcs such
that the computed elastic rtrerr does no1 cncecd I spccificd l i mi ti ng strcrr.
Band beams. Widc, shullow bcrmr used to achirrc minimum rtructur8l floor dcpth. A typical
size would be 350 mm (13.8 in.) deep by 1500 mm (59 in.) wide.
Basic wi nd velocity. Wi nd rpced ui cd for design before adjusting for rhiclding. height, ctc.
(urually the vrl oci l y 10 m (32.8 11) above ground i n smooth. l crel terrain withoul significanl ah-
rtruclionr).
Bay wi ndow. Window projecting from the wall between columns or buuierrcr.
Beam link. Bcam scgmcnl bctwccn bmccs. or bclu'een a brace ond u column.
Bent. Plant frnmcworli of bcnm or truss members that support a floor or roof ilnd l l l e columns
that support there members.
Braced frame. Usually u fnme which derives is rtnbilily primarily from 1NSSrai an. hl oi t el-
crncnu hove pinned ends and do no^ dcvelop bcnding resistance. (Thcsc f nmei usually develop
minor bcnding farces.)
Bui l di ng standard. Documcnt defining minimum standards for design.
Bundl ed l ube. Slruclural s)slem in nhi cn rira;hlr.l i rl nwd luhcs "re >n;o?r.d or lrt.:~.tled l o-
~ e ~ l l u r rn t h ~ ~ sorilmnn u.all$ UI -IIIIII~LIO.IT ! ~ h ? i :re CUI I I O: ~C~ $!!to 18ngle \\:II1. IIICTC~! f ~r i 8ng
cnmnr~zbl l #!r tnf rtrc\\es 31 ihc inleridsc uf \a:h c onl i n~~u. tuhc,. I n :t h,nJI;.I I.,h:. ~ n d i \ ~ J ~ : r l - - . ~~
r~~ ~~ 2 -
tube elemenlr may be ierminutcd a1any nppropriste lcvcl
Castellated beam. Bcvm fubricoted by culling Lhrough the web af the hcsm with a profile burn-
i ng machine, reporating (he two halves, moving one half along the other until the "tceth" of the
cu.tellationr coincide. and lack weldinr the two hal$,cs toecthcr. Deeo "enelration Wcldinr is then - ~ - ~ ~ . .
urcd to wcld both sidcs of the \s,eb.
' -
Center l ength. Distance along one member bctx,ecn intersections of ccnlcrlinrs of perpendicu-
lar members.
Central business di stri ct. Key commcrciol iarso inridc most modem U.S. cilics.
Central-services core. Zone of a high-rise building. often located cenlriilly in plan. where elc-
mtars. svairs, toilets, and ien.iccs shofts arc l oc~l cd. Core may be cnclascd by co,lcrcle mr l l i or
eiecl framer wi t h lightwcighl cladding.
396 Nomencl at ure
Chevron. In!,cned V i n appearance.
Code.
Building code, o legal document providing design crilerin far buildings i n a paniculvr
jurisdiction.
coeffi ci ent of variation. Rolio of the rtvndard drvindon to the meno of n nndom variable.
Concentrically braced frame. Frome i n which rcsislvnce l o lilteral load or frame instability ia
provided by diagonal Kor other auxiliary system of bnci ng.
Core. Ponion o i n building l hvl includes elevaton, sloin, mrchvnical rhafl, and toilets, oflcn
centmlly located.
Creep. Slow limc-depcndcnl change i n dimcnrionr of concrete undcr il sustained loiid, primarily
i n thc dirccdon i n whicl> !he load iicL5: u dimcnsionlesr qurntity having uni u of strain.
Dampi ng. Dirsiporion of energy for dynamic lauding.
Dapped girders. Girders (or bcbms) hwi ng u notch ul one or both ends i n the underside to ac-
commodate u corbel support within the girder depth or to crcrle additional rpnce for air ducts m d
h e like.
Dead load. Ac~ui i l weight of rl rucl uml clumcna. (This is a gmri t y lodd.1
Differential. Difiercnce or change between two vulucs.
Doubler. Plate welded to or pi l r ~l l el to a web or nilngc to add strength.
Drift. Li l t r nl displaccmcnt due to laterill force.
Ducti l i ty. Ahi l i ty of il mnterb~l to ahsorb energy through defornlidtion without hi l urc.
Eccentrically braced frame. Fiiamc i n which the ccntcriinc\ of bracer air offset l rom !he paints
ofintrrscctinn of l hr crnturlinrs of bcami and columns.
Envi ronment al loads. Lozids on a i t r ucur r due to wind, mow, canhquakr, or tcnlpcraturc.
Facade. Puce, espcciillly thc piincipul elrvdtion. of u building.
Factor of safety. Rulio of ,Ire ul ~i mal r rrrrngxh (or yield point) a i 3 malcriol to ihc working
alrers i l i umed i n derign (stress foctor orrarcty): or ratio of t hc ultimntc loud, momcnl. or slrcvr of
a structur;,l mrmbcr to thc ss'orking loild. moment, or shcar, respectively, assumed i n design (load
fuccor of rarely).
Failure. Condition where o l i mi t itute is reached. This mzy or may not i n~oi r e collupsc ar other
cvtvrtraphic occurrences.
Fin. Plate projecting from u member.
Flange moment connection. hlonlent connection i n which the bcdm is connected to thc flange
of the column.
Fl oor area rat i o IFARI. Spccilicd ratio of permissible floor space l o lot arc*. i n which the in-
ducemenl l o reduce l ot coverage is sn impoiiant componml. Thc bidsic ratio is frequently inodilicd
by providing "bonus" or "prcn~ium" floor npiacc for rucl, aspects as ilrcadcs. \rlb;icks. und plrziiq.
Also called ldor mr;,~.
Framed tube. Pciimetcr ccluiwlent tube consisling of closcly rpacrd columns ilnd rpiindrclr.
Fundamental period. i ' r r m. l i >i i l ~u fi r\t 111c,.lu8ll %#hr:ll#.ln .i.l tl~l8l.l n;. . Tlw 1111,: lbli.18 iw 1111.
n ~ . ~ l d ~ s < l.) <.. ..! l i u i ~ l .i\ PCI I I I : ~~~ I I ~ III:~\IIIII.~II J C I ~ L ' C ~ ~ U ~ on oilr - 8 1 1 ~ 111 ihc \:111;.11 111 11* -
,,Id#" "cfl~:,,~~,, *##, ,112 .%,,,CC .,\I< ..,,.I Ih.8.L 1.8 11,: f i r . , ;,g:,,n
Hat truss. Sti ff structural irusswork exlending from cure to pcrirnelei a top o i building.
Hybri d bui l di ng frame. Fume conslruction uomposcd ofdificrent structural building matrriitlr.
such us concrete and itccl.
Li mi t states. Condition i n which i! structure or a part ll%creof celrcs l o f ul l i l l one o f i o funcriunr
or to satisfy the cc~ndilionr fur a.l ti cl ~ it 1v;s dcsigncd. Li mi t stales uiln br clasrilicd i n t an cate-
gaiics: i I ) ttliirr~rrir l i mi t sttt~es, ur,rrcsponding to the inad-c:lrrying c~pl ci l ) of l hc rtructurc (safely
Gl ossary 397
ir urunlly rcluted to there typcs of l i mi t slntc), and (2) rrn~iceobilir). l i mi t slotcr, related to the cri-
teria governing normal use of h e structure.
Li mi t-state derign. Design process thal involver identification of all potential modes ol fai l ure
(l i mi t rtnter) and mainlnining an nccepxable level of safety ogvinst their occurrence. Thc safely
...level is usually erlubiished on n probabilistic bnsir.
.* ,
i o a d end resistance factor design. Design method i n which, a1 n chosen l i mi t swte, loo* ef-
feels and resistances are sepnntcly multipiicd by factors i hal uccount for h c inherent uncenainlies
i n the determinudon of these quuntilier.
Load combi nati ons. Loads l i kel y to nct rimuiwneourly.
Load effects. Momcntr, shcuis, and vxiul forcer i n u membcr dce l o loads or other actions.
Load factors. Fuctors applied to o load to cxpresr probability of no1 being excccded; safety factors.
Longitudinal. Direction of the longer plan dimension.
Maxi mum l oad l ul t i mat e load). Plvsric l i mi t load 'or rl abi l i ty l i mi t load. ur defincd: also man-
i mum load-currying capocity of u rmct ure under test.
Mean recurrence i nt erval IMRII. Avcngr time betu,rcn occurrences of n random rvriablc thnt
exceed its MRI value. The probability ihat h e MRI value wi l l be exceeded i n any occurrence i s
l /MRI.
Meanderi ng shear wall. Shear wall following m i r r r gul x line i n plan. (No1 u rectilinear as-
semblage of wnlli.)
Medi um-ri se building. Multistory building ncithcr punicularly high nor low: usuillly i n the
mngc of 10 to ZO stories.
Modul art ubas. Condguoua framed tubular struaurnl aysremr which % togcthcr to form u com-
plete bundlcd tube structure.
Moment resi sti ng frame. lnlcgivted syslcm of r mct uml elemcnu porrrrri ng cantinuily and
hence capable of resisting bending forcer. (Thcse f nmcr uruuily develop minor u i o l forcer.)
Mul l i on. Horizontill or vcnicul membcr of n window-wall orcunnin-wall system hrl i s normally
attached l o h e floor slab or benmr nnd ruppons thc glusr and/or elements of a window widll.
. .
Neoprene. Synthetic rubber boring physical prapenier closely resembling those of nar unl rub-
bcr bur not requiring sulfur for vulcmizution. I t i s made by polymerizing chloroprcncs. and the Int-
ter i s produced f i om vcctylene and hydrogen chloride.
Node. Point a1 which subsidiary puns originate or cenler.
Nomi nal l oad effect. Calculated using a nominal load. The nominnl load frequently is defined
wi th rcierence to u probability level; for cxnmplc, 50-gmr mean rccunence i ntcwal wind speed
ured i n cnlculuting wi nd load.
Nomi nal resistance. Calculated using nominal material and crass-iectionul propcnies nnd u m-
tionnlly developed f omul n baed an on unal ydc~l andlor expcrimcntnl model of limit-swte behavior.
Outrigger. Sti fi rtructurul m r r work extending from core to perimeter or any point to distribute
column loads betwccn them.
Outstanding. Projecting fiom main plunc.
P-delta effect. Secondary effect of column arid loads and latcral deflection on momenu i n
members.
Probabi l i sti c design. Design mchod that explicitly utilizer probability theory i n thc safety
checking procrrr.
Probabi l i ty di stri buti on. Marhematical law UIm describes the prohubility that a random vrri -
able wi l l vssumeccmin valuer: either ilcumulotivedistribudon function (cdfl or aprobability dcn-
ri t y iuncdon ir used.
Probabi l i ty of failure. Probability hat thc l i mi t slate is exceeded or violated.
398 Nomenclature
Probability of survival. One minus the probability of failure.
Rack. To deform o rrclangle in shcvrby dispiilcingonc sidc latcmlly relalive to theopposite ride.
Rmistance. Maximum loud-c~nying capacity ns defined by a limit nille.
Resistance factor. Panial safety factor ro nccount far the probability ofunderrtrength of mule-
rials or arucruml mrmbcrs.
Seismic. Penvining to cunhquukes.
Shearstud. Short mild-steel rod with flattened head, wcldcd to a steel mcmbcr. to tmnsfcrsheor
force brtu,cen steel and runounding concrete.
Skewed. Not parallel or perpcndiculur.
Slab-typs high-rise building. Building in theshvpc ofo vcnicvl slnbsrvnding on the ground on
i u ahon dimcniion.
Spandrel. Bcnm spanning between columns on the erlerior of u building.
Spandrel beam. Floor-lcucl berm in thc face of a building, urunlly iupponing the edges of the
floor slabs.
Staggered truss system. Sl ncl ~i al r)rlecr, for .l b~ilding n ~ l h u!tbrir:d fr3mcr in "nu ulrcc.
lion and fr.ui8cr bnced ill the other direr!inu hy s\c ui stor).-duep in,...:, rucgcrco in lar3tinn 31
lltcrnjtc fnrnrr on C\L.TY ~ l h ~ . r nnor of 1 1 8 ~ b.!ilding.
Stocky. Hcuvy and thick, compored of clemcnls u'ith low width-lo-thickncrs ratios.
Stressed skin. Masriul used for strength and stiifnerr in its own dune, as in u membnnc
Stub girder. Vicrendcel floor girder comprising the concrete floor as thc top chord, u wide-
flange beam or column section os lhe bottom chord, with the chords connected by the floor bevmr
end shon lengxhs of the floor beam (stubs1 fired in line with the bottom chord.
Table forms. Prefubricated beam and slab fonwork complete with venical props.
Tiebacks. Mechanical devices for rupponing sheeting, consisting of porttenrioncd rods ertmd-
ing to anchor points in the soil surrounding the cxcnvution or to rack.
Transverse. Direction of b e rhoncr plan dimenrion.
Trussed t ube system. Tubular system for tall buildings in which larernl iorces are resirled by
tmBs uclion.
Tubs. Struclure with continuous perimeter fmme designed to act in a manner similar lo lhut of o
hollow cylinder.
Tune. Adjurtcorefully.
Unclad. Not covered by facade.
Vierendeel action. Using n planar rccmngulnr giid of members working in flcrurc to act ui a
lrurs for longer spans far loads in lhnt plonc.
W14. Nominally 356-mm (I-l-in.)-deep steel scction n'irh wide nungc or wide I shapc.
Web moment connection. Moment connection in which beam is connected to web of column.
SYMBOLS
L = critical damping ralio
P = air density
p, = building density
uL
= standard deviation of ncceleration in horizontal plane
Abbreviations 399
b = width of building normal to wind direction
C, = force spectrum coemcient
d = depth of building
E = longitudinal turbulence spectrum; = 0.47Nl(2+fl)"6
6
= peak factor; for normally disvibuted process. =
G
= gust factor for resonant component. = g 2 ( r r ~ f i ~ e
h = height of building
H2(n) = mechnnical admittance; =
I
[ I - (nln,)']' + 4(2(nln,)'
Lh
= measure of turbulence length scale; = 1000 (hll0)'"
nt = modal mass
-
M = mean base overturning moment; for a square building, can be upproxi-
mated by 0.6 (112)~T' bh'
M,
= inertial bnse bending moment for unit displacement nt top of building; for
constant density and linear mode shape. = (l/3)pbdlt'(2irn0)'
n = frequency of oscilladon with an approximately nnrmnl disvibution
-
N =, reduced frequency: = nLhlV,
"0
= first-bending-mode natural frequency; can be approximated by 46/b,
where h is height in meters
R = return period, years
1
= size factor; =
(1 + 3.5n,hlVh)(l + 4n,bl&)
= specmmm of cross-wind displacement at t ap of building
= longitudinal turbulence intensity at height h
= period under consideration, seconds: usually 600 sec for acceleration cri-
teria
= hourly mean wind speed at height h
ABBREVIATIONS
ACI
AISC
ASCE
ASTM
CBF
CCD
CTBUH
EBF
ECCS
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society for Testing and Materials
Concentric braced frame
Chicago City datum
Eccentric braced frame
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
Nomencl at ur e
Abbreviations for Units
Bm British t hcmnl unil
-C degree Celsiur (ccntigmds)
cm' cubic centimeten
cm centimeter
"F degrec F~hrenhel r
h foal
S ~ " m
gal gallon
hp horrepowcr
hr hour
Imp British lmpsriol
8". inch
1 joule
K kelvin
kg liilogrvm
kgf kilogmm-force
kip 1000 pound force
km kilometer
kN kilonewlo"
a kilopascal
k kips per square inch
kW kilowan
Ib pound
Ibf pound force
I pound mars
MI meg&jojoule
MPn megnpurcvl
m mcler
mi mile
ml milliliter
mm millimelcr
MN meganewton
N ncwlon
OL ounce
Po pnscvl
psf pounds per square foot
psi pounds per squnrc inch
'R degree Rankine
rcc second
slug 14.594 kg
\V WBll
yd yard
AISC. 1983
MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION. Americidn lnrtilurc of Stccl Conslmclion. Chicago. Ill..
2d Q u o n ~ r
AISC. 1987
ONE LIBERTY PLACE-EFFICIENCY AND ELEGANCE IN THE CRADLE OF HISTORY.
blodent Slecl Co!8rrrucrion, no. 2. pp. 9-14.
AISC. 1991
THE WORLD'S TALLEST BUILDING-THE MIGLIN-BEITLER TOWER, blodern Steel
Cnnrrrncrion. Aururr.
. -
Archiiecarul Record. 1985
WILLIAM LEMESSURIER'S SUPER-TALL STRUCTURES. Arcl~irecrr,rrtl Rcrord. Junu-
urylFcbruary.
Archltec1ure. 1988
EXPLORING COMPOSITE STRUCTURES. Arcbiruclirre, March
Archilcclure. 1988
TWO UNION SQUARE, ilrcl~ilccivrc, hlsrch
Architeclurr, 1990
HlGH STRENGTH. Arcltirrcn,rc. October,
Architec~ure and Urbanirm. 1991
TWO UNION SOUARE. Arcbiiecn,re and Urbanirnr. Fcbruarv,
ASCE, 1986
COMPUTER CUTS TOWER STEEL. Ciuil Engbzreriag, March
ASCE. 1990
AUSSIE STEEL. Civil Enri,rcerinr. Dcccmber.
".
ASCE. 1991
BUILDING AIMS TO BE WORLD'S TALLEST AT 1.999 FT.. Ci!,il Er~ginrering, March.
Asrefpour-Dezfuly, M.. Huguor, 8. A.. and Browrigg. A.. 1990
FIRE RESISTANT HlGH STRENGTH LOW ALLOY STEELS, bloreriolr Sciertcr o,rd Teclt-
nol o~s , vol. 6. December.
".
AurlrnlioPorl Publ.. 1988
CHIFLEY SQUARE ON THE MOVE STRUCTURES. no. VBP 88 I0
Beck. V.. 1991
FIRE SAFETY SYSTEMS DESIGN USING RISK ASSESShlENT MODELS-DEVELOP-
MENTS lh' AUSTRALIA. Fire Sojrr). Scinice, Proceedings of ihc 3d lnternnlionul Sym-
posium. Elsevier.
Bennclu.1. D.. Almand. K. H..TBomas. 1. R.. Pioe. 0.1.. and Lewins. R. R.. 1989
FIRE IN CARPARKS. BHP Melbourne Rcscarch Labomtorier. Auslralia. Repun
MRLIPS691851005. Aueurr.
*
Bcnnelts, I. D.. Proe. D. I.. Lewlns. R. R.. andThomas, I. R.. 1985
OPEN-DECK CARPARK FIRETESTS. BHPMelbournc Rcscarrh Luboratarier. Australi:l. Re-
pon hIRUPS691851001.
Bond. G. V. L.. 1975
FIRE AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION: WATER COOLED HOLLO\V COLUMNS. Cortrrroilo.
British Steel. 1992
DESIGN MANUAL FOR CONCRETE FILLED COLUMNS-PART 1: STRUCTURAL DE-
SlGNlPART 1:FIRE-RESISTANT DESIGN.
Brorcui. I., Law. M.. Petlmron. 0.. nnd Willeveen. 1.. 1983
FIRE PROTECTION OF STEEL STRUCTURES-EXAMPLES OF APPLICATIONS. 1ABSE
Periodical 1.May.
Building. 1990
DOUBLE STRENGTH. B~ildirtg, July.
Building Derign nnd Conitruction. 1984
BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. Cnhncrr Publirhine. Junc.
-.
Chen. P. W.. and Robenran. ti. E.. 1973
HUMAN PERCEPTION THRESHOLDS TO HORIZONTAL MOTION. Journoi of ri8e Sintc-
nlrol Divirion. ASCE. vol. 98, pp. 1681-1695,
. .
Civil Enpincer. 1987
CONCRETE STRENGTH RECORD JUhiPS 36%. Ci ~, i i Etlgineer. Oclabcr.
Concrete Today. 1989
ALWAYS SOMETHING NEW IN CONCRETE. Concrcrc Todqv. Spring.
Conswclion Specifier. 1988
INNOVATIVE COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION. Canrrr,~crion Specifier. April.
Conrtruclion Strcl. 1990
THE MANY FACES OFTHE BOND BUILDING. Consrn!ciio,i Srcul, February.
CTBUH. Group CL. 1980
FIRE, cllilpter CL-4, Toll Bl#ildb,g Critcrio orld Loodirrg. 1.01. CL of hIo,!ogr,,pi~ (11: PIo,rt~inp
und Dcrigri ofToll Bi,ildi,~gs. ASCE. New Yark.
CTBUH. Group SC. 1980
TALL BUILDING SYSTEMS AND CONCEPTS. vol. SC of hto,~ogropic u,r Plon,,ing and De-
sign of Tali B,,ildings. ASCE. New York.
CTBUH, Committee 8.4. 1991
FIRE SAFETY IN TALL BUILDINGS. hlc0nw-Hill. New York.
Di rmpon, A. 0.. 1967
GUST LOADWG FACTORS. Jozrnial of l h ~ Srn,cr!nrai Divirion, ASCE, vol. 93. no. ST3.
Drew. R. I.. and SL Claire Johnson. C.. 1990
RIALTO TO\VERS PROJECT SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS AN0 EVALUATION. vols.
I . 1.3, ond4. Junc.
E r r s 19RR -. . . . . . . .
CALCULATION OF THE FIKE IlESISTAh'CE OF CESTRALLY LOADED COSii'OSI'lE
STEEL-CONCRETECOLtihlNSTOTHEST:\NUARD Il RE. Tcchsi c~l Nut c no. 55. Eu.
rdprln Commllnn ior Cunxr uai on~l Slccluoil. Bru5relr. B~lpjunl.
Engineered Concrete Structures. 1990
THE WORLD'S TALLEST BUILDING-CHICAGO'S MIGLIN-BEITLER TO\VER, rol. 3,
no. 3. December.
Engineering Ncwr Record. 1988
SYDNEY SKYSCRAPER SETS SAIL. Engineeri,8g Are~~.rReccrrd. August I I .
Engineering Ncu's Record. 1989
19.000 PSI. E,wincerit8c NcwsRecnrd. Frbmurv.
Engineering Ncws Record. 1990
INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES. Errg8nrering News Record. April
Enpinccring News Record. 1991
SYDNEY TOWER TESTS AUSTRALIANS. Errci nceri , ~~ Arc\w Record. Junc 17
. " ...
Falconer. D.. and Beedlr. L. S.. 1984
CLASSiRCATION OF TALL BUILDING SYSTEMS. Council Repon no. 142.3. Councii on
Tall Buildings nnd Urban Habitat. Brthlrhrm. Pa.
George. S. F.. 1990
WELLINGTON'S WINDS SHAPED THE CAPITAL'S TALLEST BUILDING. NCII' Zeuiond
Engincerlng. Sepkmbcr.
Gillerpic. B. I.. Nuirn. S.. and St. Claire Johnson. C.. 1990
:'"DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STEEL FRAMED HiGHRISE BUILDINGS. Prncced-
ingr of Seminnr on Steel Slructurer. Singopore.
Grossman. J. S.. 1985
780 THIRD AVENUE. THE FIRST HIGH-RISE DIAGONALLY BRACED CONCRETE
STRUCTURE. Concrete inlernarlonoi, Derign and Consmtcrlon, vol. 7. no. 2. February.
pp. 53-56.
Gmsrmnn. J. S.. 1989
SLENDER STRUCTURES-THE NEW EDGE (n). Proceedings of the lntemvlionnl Confer-
ence on Toll Buildings nnd Cily Development. Brisbanc. Aurtmlia. October, pp. 93-99,
Grossman. J. S.. 1990
SLENDER CONCRETE STRUCTURES-THE NEW EDGE. ACi Slntcr!tral Jounral, vol. 87,
no. I. Jonuury-February. pp. 39-52.
Grosrman. J. S.. Cruvellier. M. R.. and Stnffard-Smith. 8.. 1986
BEHAVIOR. ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTlON OF A BRACED-TUBE CONCRETE
STRUCTURE. Concrete it8rernoriono1, Derign or~d Construnion, vol. 8, no. 9. Scptcmber.
pp. 3212.
Holmcr. J. D.. 1987
h4ODESHAPECORRECTlONS FOR DYNAMIC RESPONSETO WIND. Etlgblccring Slntc-
rurer. vol. 9. pp. 210-212.
Horviiieur. J.F.. 1992
DESIGN OF THE NATIONS BANK CORPORATE CENTER, The Stn,crlrroi Design of Tali
Buildings. Vol. 1. pp. 75-1 19.
Hare. R. M.. 1990
STRUCNRAL DESIGN FOR THE RIALTO TOWERS. Melbourne.
IISI. 1993
FIRE ENGINEEIlING DESIGN FOR STEEL STI<L'CTURES: STATE OF THE ,\RT. Inli.rnd.
!$an21 Iron znd Steel Inhl$rulc. Rrursclr. Rcl ~i um. 1131.
Invin. A.. 1988
MOTION IN TALL BUILDINGS. Proceedings of the 3d lntemadonal Conference on Tall
Buildings, Second Century of h e Sliyscruper. Chicago. 111.. Council on Tall Buildings ilnd
Urhon Hubitol Bethlehem. Pn.
ISO. 1985
FIRE-RESISTANCETESTS-ELEMENTS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AS 1530. Pan
4. lntcrnadonnl Standards Organiration. Geneva.
Ituh. 51.. 1991
\\'IND RESISTANT DESIGN 01; ,\ TALL BLIILUlSG \\'ITH AN ELLII'SOIDAL CllOSS
SECTlOh'. Prorcedlngr of inc 2d Cnnfcrenru on l ~ l l Ballding$ ln Srl$!nlc K?glon ... Lus
,\nvclrr T ~ l l Rtuldinrr Slrurlur-l Dc wn Cn~ncl l iind Council un Tall UuilJinc< ;!nd L'r-
lyengnr. H.. 1992
HOTEL UE LAS ARTES TO\VER, BARCELONA. SPAIN. Stntcnrrol Engineering bi rrno-
rioaoi, vol. 2. no. 3. August.
J u u m~ l uf \Vtsd Esg~sc:nng and l$nla<tn.~l .Acru.l)~r:nric.. 19JU
OPl'lhllZhTlON 0FTAI.L IIUILDINGS FOR \Vlh'D LOADISG. El$csicr
Khnn. F. R.. 1966
OPTlhliZATlON OFBUILDING STRUCTURES, Proceedings of Structural Engineering Con-
fcrcnce held at University of Illinois. May.
Ki1mirter.M. 8.. 1983
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OFTHE LUTH HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. KUALA
LUMPUR. Proceedings of t he Biennial Confrrrnce of the Concrerc lniritutr of Aurtnliu.
June.
Kruppn. J.. 1981
FIRE-RESISTANCE OF EXTERNAL STEEL COLUMNS. Find Rcpon. Technicul Stccl Re-
search. Commirrion of the European Communilier.
Kruppo.J.. Schaumann. P..Schieich. J. 8:. and Twilt. L.. 1990
STRUCTURAL FIRE DESIGN. Pun 10, draft Euiocode 4. Commirrion of thc European Cam-
munitier. April.
Kurrrme.M.. Hose. R. M.. and Ndsis~. 5.. 1990
THE OUB CENTRETO\VER FOUNDATIONS. SINGAI'DRE. Proceedings of t hc Conference
on Deeo Foundalion Piuctice. Sinrunorc.
- .
K~rzeme, XI . , "8% Ku51b,31 C., 19&5
DEEP Cr\lSSOS FOUSD,\TiOSS FOR OCU CLVTRI:. SlSG.\POIlE. l'rll;ccJin-\ oillli. dl o
Sn.th E..l A v : ~ Cc . ~ ~ u c o n ~ c ~ I Cnni:cr.srr., Kudl. L..nrpur.
Law, hl.. and 0'Bricn.T.. 1981
FlRE SAFETY OF EXTERNAL STEEL\VORK. Co,,rrmdn.
L'lndlistrio ltnlihna dcl CemCnto. 1987
THE LUTH BUlLDlNO IN KUALA LUhlPUR 1hIALAYSIAI. L'lnriri.v!rin lrrrli2,m 0 ~ 4
Ce,rlhi!n. no. 613.luly-August, pp. 472185.
Marlin. 0.. und Puyton. J.. 1989
WIND DESIGN OF FOUR BUILDINGS UP TO 3UO nl TALL. Kc~iri/lrrrrrl C~ar r cr c Discr!,
lilimh.
Muruoliu, Y., Tsubaki. H.. and Hisa~aku. T.. 1992
DEVELOPMENT AND TEST RESULTS OF SM520B-NFR FlRE RESIST.4NT STEEL FOR
PROCTER G; GAMBLE FAR EAST. INC. JAPAN HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. Pro-
ceedings of the Pacific Stiuctur;xl Steel Confcrrncc. Tokyo.
McBern. P. C.. 1990
THE MYER CENTRE. ADELAIDE-A CASE STUDY. Proceedings of the Struclural Engi-
neering Conference. Adelaide. The Institution of Engineen. Austr;llia.
Meinhardt. W. L..und Narim. S.. 1990
THE OUB CENTRE-QUALITY DELIVERY. Prorccdings af Zero Delcets Construction
lael90 Ouoiilv Deliver\,. Sineuoorc. ~ .~ ~
. - .
Mcinl~ardt. W. L.. andNisbet. R. D.. 1984
SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR THE OVERSEAS UNiON BANK BUILDING. SINGA-
PORE. Proceedings af the lntemadonal Cunfcrrncr on Tali Buildines. Sinmoore.
- - .
Mclbourne. W. H.. 1977
PROBABlLiTY DISTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE \\'IN0 LOADING OF
STRUCTURES. Civil Ertginerrir~p Trtrarnninrzr The institution of Engineers. Austnlia.
uol. CE19, no. I . pp. 58-67.
Mclhnurnc. \V. H 19R0
5l~lbourn:. \\' II. ~ n d Cr,:l.rlg. J C. K , l5Sh
IIESIGKISC FOR SEIl\'ICE,\BLI! :\CCI!I.I:RI\TIOSS IS T.1I.I. IlCILu1sGS. I'~.~:!cJIII$.
.lf 1 1 r -111, I ~~~~. r n. l l ~~r #. i l CJIII:ICI):L. .#I> TLI BJ IJcnil. IIIIII! Kim: .lnJ SI~:.nph~l, ~pl ~.
14S-Ij5.
hlrlbouinc. \V. H.. and Niabet. R. D.. 1985
AEROPLASTIC MODEL TESTS AND THEIR AI'PLICATION FOR THE OUB CENTRE.
SINGAPORE. Piocecdingr ufthc lnlcrnntiunvl Confrrrncc an Testinz and lnstrun~enrillion
in Building nnd Conrtructioo. Singupore.
Melbourns. W. H.. nnd Palmer. T. R.. 1992
ACCELERATIONS AND COMFORT CRITERIA FOR BLIILDINOS UNDERGOIN0 COM-
PLEX MOTIONS, Journnl of lVind Engineering and lndustriol Arrodynamics, vol. 41, pp.
105-1 16.
Mitn. A,. and Fuchimoro. M.. 1993
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON THE 121-STORY SSH BUILDING. Pro-
ceedings of lhc Inlernntionnl Conference on Tail Buildings. Rio dc Jnneiro. Brazil. May
17-19.
O'Mcaghrr. A I.. Bmnelts. I. D.. Stmcnr. L. K.. 2nd llulchinron. G. L . 1993
BEHAVIOR OFCO'VIPOSITE COLU\INS IN FIRE. BHP Mclbuumc Research Lahorolunes.
Aunrdllo. Rcpon BllPNPPAiW93.001lSG3C.
Plntten. D. A.. 1986
POSTMODERN ENGINEERING. Civil Engineering. June
Plauen. D. A.. 1988
MOMENTUM PLACE: STEEL SOLVES COMPLEX GEOMETRIES, hiadern Sfeel Connruc-
lion. Fcb.. No. 2.
Pcuerrron. 0.. Mngnurron. S. E.. nnd Thor. 1.. 1976
FIRE ENGINEERING DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES. Publicndon no. 50. Swedish Inrti-
lute of Steel Consmction.
Reed. 1. W.. 1971
WIND INDUCED MOTION AND HUMAN COh<FORT. Research Repon 71-42. Marsochu-
scur Institute of Technology. Cnmbridgc. Morr.
Sukumoto. Y.. Keirn. K..Tnkngi, M.. Ksminngn. K.. and Goknn. S.. 1992
APPLICATION OFFIRE-RESISTANTSTEELTO A HIGH-RISE BUILDING. Proceedings of
the Pacific Smcl unl Steel Conference. Tokyo.
ceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wind Effecl
London. Cambridge University Prcrr. pp. 369-380.
Tnmnnth. B. S.. 1988
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESiON OFTALL BUILDINGS. McGmw-Hill. Ncw York.
Thomor. I. R.. Almnnd. K. H.. Bsnnetu. I. D., Proc. D. 1.. and Lewinr. R. R.. 1989
FIRE IN MIXED OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS. BHP Melbourne Rer ewh Labomlorier. Aur-
tralio. Rcpon MRUPS69/89/W4. August.
Thomnr. 1. R.. Benncle. I. D., Proe. D. I.. nnd Lcwinr. R R.. 1992n
FIRE TESTS OF THE 140 WILLIAM STREET OFFICE BUILDINGS. BHP Mclbourns Re-
search Lnborntorier. Aurmlin. Repon BHPWENG/W92!043/SO2C. Jonuury.
Thomnr. I. R.. Bennetu. I. D., Proe. 0.1.. and Lewinr, R. R.. 1992b
THE EFFECT OF FIRE ON 140 WILLIAM STREET-A RISK ASSESSMENT. BHP Mel-
bourne Research Laborntories. Aurtrnlin, Repon BHPRENGiN9?10MiSG2C. January.
Vickcry. 8.1.. 1966
ON THE ASSESSMENT OF WIND EFFECTS ON ELASTIC STRUCTURES. Civil Engineer-
ing 7ianrocrionr. The Inrdlution of Engineers. Auslmlio, pp. 183-192.
Vickery. B. 1.. 1969
ON THE RELiABILlTY OF GUST LOADING FACTORS. U.S. Depvnment of Commerce.
Nvtionnl Bureau of Standards Building Science rer. 30.
\Vnlobe. M.. and Mila, A,. 19938
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OFTHE 121-STORY SSH BUILDINO, Proceed-
iner of the lnlernotionnl Conference on Toll Buildings, Rio deluneiro. Brazil. May 17-19.
Wntnbc. M.. and Mitu. A.. 1993h
EMERGING NEEDS FOR DAMPING AUGMENTING SYSTEMS APPLICABLE TO SUPER
TALL BUILDINGS, Proceedings of the intemndonol Wokrhop on Structurvl Control.
Honolulu. Hownii. Augurt 5-7,
Wnuon. K B.. nnd O'Brien. L. 1.. 1990
TUBULAR COMPOSITE COLUMNS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA. Pro-
ceedings of lhc SVvcturnl Engineering Conference. Adclnide. The Institution ofEnginecrs.
Aucmtin. - -
Wystt. G. W., and Bcnnclu. L D.. 1987
STRUCTURAL FIRE ENGINEERING IN BUILDING DESIGN-A CASE STUDY. Pmceed-
ings of the First Notional Smcturnl Engineering Conference. The lnrtitution of Engineers,
Auslmlia.
Contributors
. ~,
1 ,
The following is n lisl of those who have contributed their time and effort to mnke this
volume possible. The names, affiliations, cities, and countries of each contributor are
given.
Inn D. Bennelts, BHP Melbourne Laboratories, hlelhournc. Ausrralia
Joseph Burns, LeMessuncr Consultants. Inc., Chicago. Ili!nois. USA
Brian Cnvill. VSL Prcstrcssin~ (Aust) Pt). Ltd.. Sydncy, Austmlia
Joseuh P. ~o l a c o . CBM ~nei i eer s . ~o u i t o n . ~e n n s . USA
- - - - =- ~ ~ ~ -
Henry J. ~ o wa n , ' ~ n i v e r s i i o f sydney, syd"ey. ~"st r al i n
P. H. Dnyawansa BHP Melbourne Laboratories. Melbourne, Australia
James G. Forbes, Irwin Johnston and Partners. Sydney. Ausmiia
Eiji Fukuzawa, Kajima Design. Tokyo, Japan
Max B. Kilmister, Connell Wagner Consulting Engineers. Brisbane. Australia
Ry s n r d M. Kownlczyk, Department of Civil Engineering. University of Beira Interior.
Covilha. Porngal (former: Bialyslok University of Technology, Biaiyslak, Poland)
Owen Martin, Connell Wagner Rnnkine and Hill. Sydney. Australin
William Melbourne, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Monash University.
Seiichi Murnmatsu, Kajima Design, Tokyo, Japan
T. Okoshi, Nihon Sekkei, Tokyo. Jnpnn
Ahmad Rahimian, The Office of hwi n G. Cantor, New York, New York, USA
Thomas Scarangello, Thomton-Tomasetti Engineers, New York, New York. USA
Robert Sinn, Skidmore Owings and Menill, Chicago. Illinois. USA
Richard Tomasetti, Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. New York. New York. USA
A. Ynmaki, Nihon Sekkei, Tokyo, Jnpnn
Buildina Index
Pictures of the buildings uppevr on the itnlicized pilges.
Atlantn. Georciu. United Stater: Chicuco. Illinois, United Stotcr (Conr):
-
Gcori a Pacific. 214.215.216.217-219.3W 10 South LoSdl e Sweet. 208 -~~ -. ~ . . . . . ~ ~
Allnnlic City. New l esey. Uniled Shtes: Three R n t National PI-. I I
Tnj Mnhnl Hotel. 17.94.95. g6,97.98 3 1 1 South Wncker Tower. 213
31 1 Wcrt Wuckcr Drive. 15.213
Two Prudential Plucc. 182.183. 184. 185
B8rcelonn. Spain: Water Tower Plocc. 113
Hatcl de 13s Aner. 276.277. 278. 279. 358.
360
Boston. Mnrachurenr. United States: Dullu$. Texas. United Swtrs:
Dewey SquvreTower. 35, 236, 237 Bank Onc Centcr. 24-1.1-15.246
lohn Huncock Building. 372 Fint lntcmational Building. 260.261.
Brirbane. Auruulia: 262-261
Ccnuvl One Pl m. 47.48.19.50 Intefint Plaza. 301
Charlotte. Nonh Cumlino. Uniled Slates: Hvmamulsu City, Japan:
Nations Bank Corporate Center, 241.242.243 ACT Towcr. 68.69.70-72
Chicogo, Illinois. United Smtes:
Amoco Buildine. 203,204,205
Hong Kong:
Bank of Chino Towcr. 199
John HuncockCenter. 268.Z69.270.355.370 337.338
NBCTowcr. 3 Bcnkofthe SoulhwestTower.369.371.381.
I81 \Vest hlvdison Streel. 206.207.208.209 382,383,384,385
OneNonh Franklin. 15 Four Allen Cunter. 166,167.168. 169
Onterir Ccnter, 265.266.267 Two Shell Pl au. 197
Quukcr Onls Tower. 2
Sears Tower. 202,280,181,182-284,355,
369 Kamogawa, lapan:
77 West Wacker Drive, 124,125, 126 Kvmogvwt GnndTowcr. 104,105. 106. 107
Kobe. Jupm:
Kobe Commerce, Industry 8. Tnde Center.
85.86.87-89
Kobe Ponopiu Hotel. 73. 71.75.76
Kunlu Lumpur. Malaysia:
Luth Building. 17.32.33.34-37
London. Englmd:
Bush h e House. 358.359
Lor Angeles. California United Stoles:
Figucroa nt Wilrhire. 162. !63. 16-4. 165
First Interrule World Center. 313,333,334
Mclhournc. Aurtmlin:
Bourkc Place. 19.23.24.U. 45.46. 109
Cassulden Place. 117.128. 129.300
Mclboume Ccnlnl. 27.28.29-31. 109
140 William Succt. 365
Rialto Building. 285.286. 287-289
624 Bouike Slrect. 362, 363
Telecom Coiporute Building. 137.138. 139
Miami, Florida. United Stotei:
CenTruslTomer.315.316.317-319
hlinneopolir.Minncsoto. United Stutes:
First Bank Place. 3W. 323.321.325-329
New York. New YoiL United Sutcs:
Camegie Hvll Tower. 293.2%. 295,296
CamegieMusic Hull. 293
Citicaip Center. 310.311.312-314.372
City Spire Building. 109. 145.146. 147-149,
296
Concordis Hotel. 296
Embassy Suites Hotel. 116.117, 118
450 Lexington Avenue. 220. 221-22.1
Gmnd Central Station. 220
Mvrriott hlvquis Ha~el. 17.90.91.92.93
Metiapolitan Towcr, I1 1.112. 113-1 15. 145.
296
PvliiceTheatie. 116, 118
Russian Tea Room. 793
780Third Avenue. 267.271.272.273-275
17 Stale SmcL 158, 139.160. 161
Trump Tower. 170-172
ng Index
New Yok. New York. United Stuter (Cotzr.1:
World Tnde Ceacr. 194.196.355.369.372
06aynma. lupun:
Sumitomo L~r e Inrumcc Building. 230, 231.
232-234
Osaka. Japan:
Lcvin21. 130.131. 132
Nunkoi Soulh Tower Hotel. 77. 78.79. 80
Tokyo Mnnne Building. 99.100, 101-103
World Trddc Center. 81.82.83.81
Perth. Auruulia:
Fonert Ccmc.357
Philadelphia. Pennrylvmio. United Slates:
hlcllon Bunk. 225.226.217-229
One Libeny Place. 140. 154.155. 5.56, 157
1650 Market Street. 143
- .
Ovenear Union Bunk Ccnier. 300,302,303.
3M-309
Rvrncs Place. 30.1
SingopareTm?ury Building. 119.120, 121-123
Sydney. Au~uuIrd:
Bond Building. 142
Chiflcy Tower. 150.151, 152. 153
proposed office building. 361
Tokyo. l apw:
N6E Building. 290,291. 292
Shimizu Super High Rise. 369,371,386,387,
388-390
\Vellington, New Zealand:
hlnjestic Building. 133. 134. 135. 136
(undetermined):
Ereahon Center (proposed). 369.370
Name lndex
American Concrete Inrtimle. 147
Americnn Conrulting Engineers' Council. 169.
Asrclpour-Derfuly ct ul. 119901, 355
ASTM. I I
Auslnlim code AS1 170.2 (19891.347
Aurlnlivn Consuuction Senicea. I27
Butc. Smun & McCuchean. 27
Bcllurchi. Pi ew. Inc.. 235
Bcnnetu et nl. (1985). 361
Bennets a ol. (1989). 361
Bofill. Ricnrdo. 124. 126
Bond (1975). 355
Bomhont and Ward Pry. Ltd.. 173
Boundary Lvyer Wind Tunnel. 254
Bnnncn. June. Associates inc.. 235
Consulting Engtnccja Cn~nci l oiTeh'rrur. 169.262
Council [on Tall Bu~ldinps]. 5. 6
Council on Tall B.lildingr (19ROJ. 363
Council onToll Building;. Gmup SC (19801. 1.6
Council on Toll Buildings (195'2). 354.355
DnemIhloore Panncnhip. The. 244
Dilvenpon (1967). 347
D~r, mpon. Alan. 254.314
de Prru. Grmrd. 285
DcSimone. Cbnplin. and Dobiyn. 116.158
DeStelono nnd Goctuch. 124
DeSafano and Ponncrs. 126
Dumont. Francis Xovier. 94
ECCS (1988). 355
Ellisor and Tanner Inc.. 166.260
Brennm. Becr. Goman Associates. 293 . .
British Steel (1992). 355
Brouctti et al. (1983). 358 Falconer and Beedle (19841.6.7
Buildinr Center Firc Snlew and Protection Fenucsr. C. W.. and Arrocivter P. C.. 186
-
Committee. 103 Flnck nnd Kum Auslnlio. 150
Burgee. John. ArchitecE with Philip Johnson. Faster Associnter. 335
244 Fox and Fowle Arshitecu. I1 6
Comeran Chisholm and Nicol (Qld.) Ply. Ltd..
m . .-
Cantor. Irwin G.. Office o t 170.220. 225
CBM Engineers. Inc.. 162, 163. 182. 183.315.
316.323.332
CrrmuMPetcrka. 157
Chen and Robcmon (1973). 341-346
City Center Theatre. 147
Cohcn-Burreto-Mmhcnrr. Inc.. 124.206
Connell \\'ngncr. 27.43. 127. 129. 137
Horrell Archiacrs. 127
Hedrich-Blcrsing. 21 1.239.298.378
Hellmuth Obatr md Korsabuum. inc.. 260
HI(S Inc.. 373
Holmes (1987). 349
HRH Construction. 314
Jucoby. Edward. 31 1
Kujimo Corpontion. 104
Kajimn Dcrign. 99. IM
Kasturi, liijjas. As~ociales. 32
Khan (1966). 5
Khan. Fuzlur. 192
Kohn. Pedenm. Fox. 150.225
Kruppv(1981),358
Kfuppa et nl. (1990). 355
Kurokau'a, Kiiho. 27.47
Law ilnd O'Bricn (1981). 358
Lchlersuricr. William. 369
LeMesrurier Canrultunu. 119.310
Levy. Jcnnifcr. 91
Lindsey. Cbcrter. and Arrociatcr. 320
Name lndex
National Society of Prohrrionnl Enginccrr. 169
Notions Bonk, 242
NBBJ. 330
Nihon Sekkei Inc.. 68.290
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.. M). 73.77.81.85. 130.?30
O'Msaghcr ct ol. (1993). 355
O'Neill. 135
Paulur Sokolowrki and Sonar. Inc.. 94
Pel. I. M.. ond P m e n . 315.332
Pel Cobb Freed and Pamen. lnc.. 323
Prlli. Ccror, and Associates, 206.209.241.293,
373
Perbnr and Will Pnmecrhip. The. 203.238
Perrort Lyan Malhirron Pty. Ltd.. 137.285
Petlcrsson et ol. (1976). 356
Ponman. John. ArrociaBs. 90
Panopin Hotel Dai gn Office. 73
Ranhill Bcrsckutu. 32
Reed 119711.341-346
Ll q J Joser Br:rr.r A~~uci st cr . 166. 381 Roarn$on. Lellle E.. ondArrucijlc$, 196. 199
I.r,ehc Schla<$n,xo 2nd I l ~c l l . I82 Ko:co Design P0nr . n. I h8
McBcan (1990). 355
Mackboii~eiDenrnaflVcdigcr, I I I
Man. Nu Chun. and Arsociater. 247
Mvncini Duffy Asrocintea. 81
M'lnning and Associates. 133
Mmin. Albcn C.. 162
M~ruoka el 21. (1992). 355
Massachusctu Institute ofTechnology. 95.
Maunsell Prv. Lld.. 47
Melbourne (1988). 345.316
Melbourne nnd Chcung (1988). 352
Melbourne ilnd Palmer (1992). 344
Milsubishi Estate. 68
Moore. Widllcr P.. and Arraciuter. lnc.. 241
MTS Syslemr Corporation. 311
Murphy J hn. 145. 151.381
Rorenthnl. Steve. 236
Roienwusser. RobeR Asrocintes P. C.. I 11.
112.145.116.271.272.293
Roth. Emery. nod Sons. 158,310
Rudeman. J mr r . Office of, 310
Sukumoto etnl. (1992). 361
Snunders and Melbourne (1975). 348
Schumun. Lichtenstrin. Clnrnnn and Efron, I I I
Sean. Rocbuck and Compnny. 280
Seidler. H w . and Asrociaer. 39
Sevrud Arrociler, 186
Shidwand Asrociuter, 206. 209
Shimiru Carpontian. 386.387
Skidmore. Owingr &Memill. 2.3. 197.210,214.
220.265.268,271.276.279-281.297.377
Skillins Ward Mngnurion Barkshirr, Inc., 320,
321,330,331
Smith. Jcsr. 204
Squire Pholognphicr. 44. 138
Name Index 415
Stone. Edward Durrell. 203 U.S. Slcsl. 95.355
Svuctunl Engineen Associalion of Illinois, 240 University of Western Ontario. 254,314,322.
Srubbinr. Hugh and Associates. 119. I20.310. 382
311 UneclSAA Pmnenhip. 302
Swnnkc Hnyden Conncll. 170
Vickery (1966. 1969). 347
Tmge. Kenzo. 302
Thomas ct ol. (1989). 361
Thornor ct nl. (1992n). 356.358.366 Wmr Buller and Arrociom. 133.135
Thornor a o1. (1992b). 363 Watson nnd O'Bn'en (19901.355
Thompson. Leonard. 334 Wcidlinger Asrocinter. 90.214.215.235
Thornton-Tomare6 Engineen. 150,154,373,374 Womlcy. David. 314
Tokyo Marine. 99 Wu. Gordon, and Asrocinter. 256
Travis Pmncn. 150
Wyctt and Bennctu (1987). 355
Subject Index
' 8
A-fmmc rmsrer. 381
accelrntian. 353
cn'lcrie 311-346.351.353
ncmlastic tesls. 322
oirn'ghh.311
ollsoncrele scheme. 243
along-wind force rpecug 343
along-wind response. 49.341.342.345.347.
350.351
mchonges. 19
arch. tied. 323
mbitecturnl exprcrrion. 279
architecruml tendencia. 371
nrmwhcod desicn. 186.187
bnlcony weight, 79
b u d beams, 138
hms ol umn join4 194
beam joint. 37
benmz.eomporile. 9
belled Enissons. 212.213
bolted joints. high-strength. 2M
hx-1vm SVUEIUR. 109
. .
boredrhenr wall rynemr. llO
braced core spine. 162
braced fnme. 4.51.52.68. 73. 87.89.90.372
connections. 52
braced oerimeter tube. 310 . ~
bncedrteel core. 154.3W. 320
wilh ouuiggcs. 150. 166
brnced steel frame. 3W
braced rleel SlrucNrC. 94
building code. 245. 353
building density. 352.353
building drib 157
building mponw. 346
build in^ awnv. 95
hundicd bm;d cart tuber. 158
bundled lmmed tuber. 280
h~ndlcd tube. 198. 2W. 290.299
behavior, 202
cnntilever efficiency. 198
canlilcverryswms. 195
cmt i l evcd bny windows. 175
cnnt i l e"cdC0~. 49
cmtilevcd noor. 126122
cmtilcvcred ring barn. 139
cnntilcvcred rhcnr wall. I09
cnntilcved tube. 192.194
cmtilevered venicnl rmrrcr. 51
cmtilevering wind benm system. 177
cast on rilecanmete. 104
chevmn bracing. 332,334
chevmn portem, 382
chord memben. 14
circulnr concrete core. 92
sirculnr face. 152.316
circular shaped buildings. 32.256259
cladding. 61. 147.209, 212,237,298,354
clasrilicntion of systems. 2.5-7
column nonunifomity. 296
column mr f e n , 243.317.319
c o h m:
composite concnc-filled steel-lube. 127
gravity-designed. 58
high-strength conmele. 320
pilotis. 101
ding. 191
combined fnme. 77
comporlte action. 9
composite benmr. I2
design. I I
418 Subject I ndex
composite column sections. 356
composite floor, 13.208
comporite me~ol deck. 212
computer molysir. 3W
computer flooring. 150
computer modeling. lhree-dimensionul. 267
concenuic hnccd frdmc;. 51
cancenuicnlly bnced core. 164
concme:
choiceof, 113
core. 373.377
with outriggers. 186. I88
care tube. 206
encaTcments. 227
stcel fnmes. 230
high-smngh. 44,285.330.371
high-suenglh columns. 320
perimeter fnmcs. 285
porttenrioned. 19
precast pretensioncd. 17
schcmc. 251
ahcvrcorc. 124. 170
slab. 10
rpvndrcl beams. 97
tube. 272.293
(See also reinforced concrete)
connections. 57.110.282
dewilr. 54.55
typcr. 58
conrtruction:
cycle. 275
time. 137.256.330
continuous walls. 386
core:
diagonally bnced. 85.297
fnmc. 95.98
K-bnccd. 365
md outrigger systems. 14G144.369
and perimeter fnmr. 133
umsverscly bnced. 81
trinngulw. 320
(Sce olro shcw care)
core-alone system, 143
carmrion pmtection. 279,351
costs. 330
coupled shear walls. I I I
c mh wollr. 223
creep. 147.287.304
crosr-wind force specuu. 313,348,349
crosi-wind responic. 49.311.342.345.347.
319.351
crou,n. 34. 162.206.241.381
crucifow-rhnped spine. 32.5
cruciform tube. 374.376
cunain wall. 27. 120.354
curvilinmr-rhapcd building. 330
cylindrical tower. 119
dnmped rtructurcs. 1. 115,3W
damper plater. 106
dnmperr. viscoclarlic. 330
damping. 1l5.227.296.314.322.341.351.382
capabilities. 3W
ryrtcm. 69.372
drpprd girdrrr. I 2
dead loud. 157
d e ~ o n ~ u u ~ l i v i ~ t style. I
dcflrctionr 274.275
design:
onowhead. 186. I 87
competition, 382
criteria. 389
laad deflection. 179
problcmr. 147
diagonal bncing:
core. 85.297
exterior tube. 271
fnmcr. I
tube. 276
displnccment tnccs, 342
double tube design. 296
ductile moment f mc . 333
dynumicstiffnesr, 103
eunhquohe. 131. 165.330.333.388
londr. 109
resistonce. 104
resisting cnpocity. 85
rerpanre. 107
wares. 69
eccentric braced fnmc. 51.53
ccccnuic K bnci ng swaure. 60.65
economy. 369.374
electrified floor system. 262
el ecwrl vg u,eldine. 282
ulc%lt$un. IUh. 249, 305. 312. 385. 390
cnc~wd-<!eel tnnrfcr trur,cs. 116
cnd framc. 95. 96. 98
excitation mechanirmr. 341
cxteriortube:
concrete-fnmed. 210
diagonally bnced. 271
facade:
onhitecture. 196
dingonulimdon. 198
geomelrier;. 152
snwtoolh. 219
fi n walk. 90
finite elcmen, nndyrir. 50
fire. 353.354
fire compmments. 356.358.361
fire pmtmtion. 4. 103.279.353-367
pmteclivc coatings. 355
fire mgulnlory requirements. 354
fire rcsirwnce. 354.355
fire safety design, 362
fire tests. 358.366
firepmafed rtructunl rtecl. 212
firer. time-tempcnture curve. 358
noor diaphngmr. 329
floor fnmi nr. 7. 1 l
plan. 168.208.299.376
floor plans (drawings), ?9.36.41,45.63.73.
75.79.83.88.107.121.132.148. 149.
Subject I ndex 419
quarter-circle. 158
floor plae. I ?
floar wction. 36
floor slab. 9.318
floorryrlems, 2. 304
composite, 9
p mmr e d and porttenrioned, 15-26
~ OOE :
circulx. 32
long-spm. 16
open-web. 13
plank 93
footing plan.35
formwockrynemr. 1 10
foundation. 82.304.319.388
rynem. 141
f me- t mr r intcncling syrtems. 57.59
f m c d tubesystem. 192
fnmcr:
conccnuic bnced. 51
fnmes (Con!.):
deformolion. 55
diagonally bmced. 1
ductile moment, 333
cccenuic bmccd. 51.53
elevntion. 71.72
perimeter diagonally bmced. 265
perimeter moment. 158. 160
perimeter rigid moment, 130
perimeter steel. 124. I 86
rigid. 60.61.74.77.81.90
rigid perimeter. 94
X-bnccd. 279
fnmcu,ork. M. 76.80.84.87.98. 233.278
rnmi ng plan. 123.218.224.227.264.273.283.
305.379
frequency. 352.353
rriction tests, I81
furniture. 356
luture systems. 369-372
gallcriu. 379
geotcchnicnl conrultanl. 34
gnrity-designed columns. 58
gnr i t y load. 5.56. 122, 200.270.312. 333
gust factor. 347
hnnging gwdenr. 92
high-ruenglh concrete. 1.44. 110. 127. 172.
Z55.3W. 330.371
high-suenglh bolted joints. 204
hollow corr plank;. 134
honeycomb dnmper plate. 108
honeycomb dnmper wall. 104.106.107
hurricane. 314
hybrid perimeter tube.214
hybrid steel. I
hybrid immure. 116.271.272.307.308
hybrid systems. 4.3W302.369
infarmodon systems. 372
inlemntionnl style. 1
jerk. 344
joist girdcrr. 13. 14
jump-form system. 137
420 Subject I ndex Subject I ndex
loleml deflection. 237
lotcrdl load momcnu, 243
lateral load resistunce. 5-7.355
resirdngsystem. 101.215
lateral loads, 4
lnteml stiffness. 314
lvteml n,ind-resisting system. 168
live-laad deflection. 122
long-span floan. 16
massing. 371
mart. 335
marlcolumn. 312
materinlr. 5
meandering shear wall. 113. 1 I 4
mcchvnical ducu. I 2
mega ponvl fnmcs. 276
mc ~x ol umn Eyslcm. 221.222
mcgustructurc. 223.296
megumrres. 301
mctul deck. 9. 10
mixed conswction. 119
mixed-use. 265.268
made-generalized forcc sprcwm. 348.349
mode shape. 349.351
modemist style. I
modes of vibration. 103
moment frame. 73
moment-resisting frame. 4,5.51.53.55-58.99.
I01
moving farmwork ryrlemr. l I 0
mulliure complex. 276
neohistoricvl style. I
occupancy comfon. 95.341.341-346.351.353.
391
open views. 152
open-wch noor. 13
optimiution. 56. 140. 157
ourriggcrs:
beams. 172.300
and belt wncs. 377
benefiu. 141-143
drawbuck. 143. 144
hutmsr. 158. 160
ourriggen (Canr.):
rupenlingonds. 156-157
systems. 1.4. 146144. 186.188. 369
mi res, 297.380
wollr. 374
ovenuming moment, 140. 142
pmet er wnsi t i vi t y. 349
parking ganger. fire conditions. 361
ponial fnmed lube. 319
peak occelcntion. 345,348,350,351
pedmrrian bridge, I 66
pcdesrrion tunnel. 166
perceived motion. 113
pcmrptible motions. 353
perimeter hdagcr . 327
pcrimetcr column loyout, 317
pcrimeler concrete columnr. 373
~cri meter diveonullv bmced frame. 265
perimeler moment frame. 158. I6U
pcrimear puni d lube. 315
pcrimcler rigid momenl framer. 130
perimeterring mrr. I 21
perimcterrleel fmmcr. 124. 186
perimesrrube. 170.223.225.235.241.244
wi l h bnmd core. 220
nnd core. 247
and inlemvl core. 256
piles. hi&-strenglh concrete. 386
pilotir column$. 101
planform rhapc. 352.353
pl al kf l wn. 93
p l m . 43. 102.173.299.321
pony wr r . 323
porunodem style. I
posttensioned beam. 22
porttensioned cancme. 326
n 0 0 ~ . 15
pornensioned flot deb. 20
pornensioned systems. common. 17
possenrioninp, rconomicr of. 2&25
Pnn uurr. I 4
precost concrete ponel. 66.67
precart pretenrioncd concrete. 17
prerhoring method. 115
preruerred floors. 15
presmessed tendons, cultinp, 2+26
pmject descriptions, 27-50.66108
302-338
fnmed lubes. 203-259
lrusscd Nber 266299
ni l mod back. 220.238
nilwoyrmtion. 78
nliingcalumnr. 191
reclnimcd nren. 82.247
reinforced concrete:
comtruction. 192
cam. I41
fmmc;. 57
rmct uml system. 285
reinforcement dewilr. 31
residentid buildings. 17. I W
rigid box. 192. 198.
rigid fnme. 60.61.74.77.81.90
rigid perimeter fmme, 94
ring bcom. 139
risk ;rrscssmenl. 363.366
suwloolh facade. 219
scismicmn. 69
seismic load. 333,388,389
reirmic zone. 134.330. 332
ienritivity studies. 274
servicwbility requiremenu. 6.341
setback. 215
shenr core:
with ouoi gg~r benmr. I 82
with our r i ~en. 173
(See o l ~ o core)
sheor f m e deformations. 192
shcnrlng. 196. 198
cfiecf I 94
shear ounels. 267
. .
s hr u wall rystemr.4. 109. 110,309
open tube. 147
shear wallr. 77. 110. 116.230.318.1
with ourriggcn, 145
shrinkage. 109. 147.287
skeleton. 307
sky lobbies. 388
slender aspect rdtio. 271
slender buildings. 352
slenderswcture. 113. 145.296
slendrmerr mdo. 53.382
slip-formed concrete core. 43.92
slipjoint. I 80
. 11 1-139. sloped colu4n ryrtem. 229
slopingsiIe. 256
spandrel beam dcmil. 97
spandrel uniu. 216
specin1 moment mi st i ng h e s , 57
spine suncurer. I. 1M. 165.323
' spire. 381
spr i den. 366
aquare be. 198
IWCNre. 230
staggered uuer ryrtem. 95
st*]:
cantilevered floor bcnmr. 119
dcck 3 M
fire-reriiwnf 355
framed mrr rmcture. 223
haming. 156
f mi ngr yr t em. 129
higb-yield rwctuml . 301.308
mast. 335
open webjoirn. 13.14
perimeter fmmcd tubc. 166
perimeter frdmes. 150, 377
perimelerrube. 206,210
rteclwoik, crtemal. 358
alep buck. 162
stepped beam soffit. 24
stiffness. 12.109,296.3W, 341
~tresling. 42
rvucrunl andyris, high-temperature. 279
r mc t u d plan. 70.292
r md v r a l ~ k e l f l ~ r f n mi n e . 122
structural stecl scheme. 250
s W F N ~ ~ tendencies. 371
rmI I t i e mr. 178
rtubgirdersyatem. 12. 262
stud rhcorconnecton. 95
subsystems. 7
rupeicolumns. 116.3W.323.325. 326.371
supi l rurr. 229
suspension mrres. 335
172 sway of building. 82. 113
tall building, definition. 5
Wllc5t building. 280.376
wndem elevntan. 260
tapered girders. 12
tcndons. 21. 139
thin-wnlled concrete-filled tubes. 129
three-dimeniionol ncxion. 287
three-dimrruionul computer model. 153
. .
422 Subject I ndex
-
time h k ~ r y unolysis, 334. .1 vnlue engineering. 245
. top-down canrtruction. 188.335 ; vmi ci l l conliirver. 192, 194,282
torsional louding. 109 ; vcnicsl trurrm. 52
loaionol mhlti?n. 328 : vibrations. 13
toni ond stability. 325 3 modcr of, 103
mr f cr f l bor pi nh 318- Vierendeel bandages. 313,325
m r h r rwmu&. 240, girder bundogrr. 326
mr v enel y bmced corc. 81 Vicrendeel benm. 192
me elemenu. 194 ., Vierendeel fnmer. 93.239
me-type construction. 299 Vierendeel mort. 337
w r . 203 .. . Vierendeel panel. 14.95
vinngulvrcom. 320 Vierendeel system. 335
vinnguiar rhupc. 39 Vierendeel truss. 223.2-16.262.374
triongulnr rile. 186 pipe trusrcs. 325
Irinngulnr lower, 11 1.30-1 vircoelvrtic dnmpen. 330
vinngulur lube. 198
voncx shedding. 113. 119.226.382
mr r ed abe. 196.260.371
' . systems. 197.369
~ l l c s , 215.30-1.313 wuming syrterns. 354
comporilefloor. 14. 15. 16 warping-restmining bandugcr. 328
pony. 323 Warren Irurr. 14
P m t ~ 14 wcb diagonals. I 4
lube: wclded girder srubr. 236
concrete. 293 welding. tillel. 237
concrete-filled rlcel. 300 wind. 6. 109
divgannnly brdced. 171.276 wind beam joinl. 181
double lube design. 296 wind heumr. 179
exterior. 210 wind bracing. 263
pnniul rmmed. 319 wind engineering. 330
perimeter fmmed. 47.85,203.238.268,297 wind forces, 313
perimeter pnniul. 315 wind induced motions. 4,311,382
side-by-ride. 293 windload.49.82.121.131.249.273.287.388.
ruucture. 168 389
surpenrion. 335 wind motion. 334
triangular. 198 wind ovenuming forces. 313
venicol. 52
wind reairloncc. 29
Vierendeel pipe, 3% eiemenu. 330
Warren. 14 syrlem. 157
water-filled. 355,359 wind response. 349
obr-in-tube. 27.32,39.-13.85. 137 wind rhenr. 254.313
tubulorconcepr. 304 wind-shedding farm 299
lubularefticiency. ?0i wind sway. 57
hlbulursyslemr. 1.4.5.143, 192-202 wind tunnel less. 49.68.75, 103. 113. 131,
tuned morr dompcr. 153.314
133.146. 157.160. 166. 175,?26,217.
tunnels. 129 . 254.273.274.287.314.322. 388
typhoon wind ciimae. 254 :
r
@bmced lube, 274
X-bmccd frumer. 279
X-bmcing. 51,260,270

Structural System For Tall Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural System For Tall Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural System For Tall Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What structural systems are discussed in the document?

What organizations support the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat?

. ,.

You might also like