CANTILEVER ARCHITECTURE

Architects are often fascinated by dramatic cantilevers. Indeed, cantilevers

are widely used in architecture for various reasons and in different scales.
This book is organized to present studies on the entire range of cantilevers
employed in architecture: cantilevered furniture, cantilevered building com-
ponents and significantly cantilevered major building parts, all primarily
subjected to gravity loads; and finally a building as a whole, including supertall
buildings of complex-shapes, as a vertical cantilever against lateral loads. Each
chapter presents a specific subject on either horizontal or vertical cantilevers
of different scales, functions and forms based on the following outline: brief
historical review, basic structural principles, and holistic analysis of real world
or theoretical examples. By presenting almost all different cantilever design
scenarios in architecture, this book is a unique and essential reference on
cantilever architecture.

Kyoung Sun Moon, PhD, AIA, is Associate Professor at Yale University School
of Architecture. Educated as both an architect and engineer, his primary
research area is integration between the art and science/technology of archi-
tecture, with a focus on tall and other structurally challenging buildings. Prior
to joining the Yale faculty, he taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign and worked at Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill in Chicago and the
Republic of Korea Navy. He received his PhD from Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
CANTILEVER
ARCHITECTURE
KYOUNG SUN MOON
First published 2019
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Kyoung Sun Moon to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-138-67418-9 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-67421-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-56144-8 (ebk)

Typeset in Univers
by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
CONTENTS

FOREWORD IX

INTRODUCTION 1

PART I: HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS 5

CHAPTER 1 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE 7

1.1 CANTILEVER CHAIRS 8
1.2 CANTILEVER TABLES 20

CHAPTER 2 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS 27

2.1 CANTILEVERED STAIRS 27
2.1.1 Early Cantilevered Stone Stairs 28
2.1.2 Cantilevered Stairs of Modern Materials 31

2.2 CANTILEVERED BALCONIES 39

VM House, Copenhagen, Denmark 46
The Ledge at Willis Tower, Chicago, USA 47

2.3 CANTILEVERED CANOPIES 49

Trumpf Campus Gate House, Ditzingen, Germany 52
One Central Park, Sydney, Australia 55
Voest Alpine Office Center, Linz, Austria 56

CHAPTER 3 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS 61

3.1 CANTILEVER PROPORTIONING 64
3.2 JETTYING 72
3.3 LARGE ONE-SIDED CANTILEVERS 79
ICA Boston, USA 87
Former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters,
Hudsonville, Michigan, USA 91
Milstein Hall at Cornell University, New York, USA 96
Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre, Vitoria, Spain 99
Wozoco Apartments, Amsterdam, Netherlands 102
Crane Houses in the Rheinauhafen, Cologne, Germany 105

v
CONTENTS

3.4 LARGE TWO-SIDED CANTILEVERS 107

Creative Valley, Utrecht, Netherlands 109
Busan Cinema Center, Busan, Korea 112
The Cultural Center, Castelo Branco, Portugal 114
The Sharp Center for Design, Ontario College of Art and Design,
Toronto, Canada 116

3.5 MERGED CANTILEVERS 119

CCTV Headquarters, Beijing, China 121
Nanjing Sifang Art Museum, Nanjing, China 124
Technological Park, Obidos, Portugal 127

3.6 STACKED MULTIPLE CANTILEVERS 130

Halifax Library, Halifax, Canada 131
Pierre Lassonde Pavilion at the National Museum of Fine Arts
of Quebec, Canada 131
Capital City Towers, Moscow, Russia 136
Statoil Oslo Office Building, Oslo, Norway 139

PART II: VERTICAL CANTILEVERS 143

CHAPTER 4 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS 145

4.1 INTERIOR STRUCTURES 149
4.1.1 Moment Resisting Frames 150
Tokyo Marine Building, Osaka, Japan 153
4.1.2 Braced Frames 154
4.1.3 Shear Walls 157
4.1.4 Shear Wall Frame Interaction System 158
Seagram Building, New York, USA 161
4.1.5 Staggered Truss System 162
4.2 EXTERIOR STRUCTURES 163
4.2.1 Framed Tubes 163
One and Two World Trade Center Towers, New York,
USA (Demolished) 168
Aon Center, Chicago, USA 170
DeWitt-Chestnut Apartments, Chicago, USA 172
4.2.2 Braced Tubes 173
John Hancock Center, Chicago, USA 175
780 Third Avenue, New York, USA 176
4.2.2.1 Braced Tubes of Varying Column Spacing 178
4.2.2.2 Braced Tubes of Various Bracing Configurations 179
4.2.3 Bundled Tubes 182
Willis Tower, Chicago, USA 182

vi
 CONTENTS

4.2.4 Diagrids 184

Hearst Headquarters, New York, USA 187
Lotte Super Tower Project, Seoul, Korea 189
Capital Gate Tower, Abu Dhabi, UAE 191
O–14 Building, Dubai, UAE 193
4.2.4.1 Uniform Angle Diagrids 194
4.2.4.2 Varying Angle Diagrids 197
4.2.5 Space Trusses 199
Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong 199

4.3 INTERIOR–EXTERIOR INTEGRATED STRUCTURES 201

4.3.1 Outrigger Structures 201
Taipei 101, Taiwan 203
Jin Mao Tower, Shanghai, China 205
4.3.2 Tube-in-Tube System 207

4.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SYSTEMS 208

CHAPTER 5 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS 213

5.1 PASSIVE DAMPING SYSTEMS 216
5.1.1 Energy-Dissipating-Material-Based Damping Systems 216
5.1.2 Auxiliary Mass Dampers 218

5.2 ACTIVE DAMPING SYSTEMS 226

CHAPTER 6 INTEGRATIVE DESIGN OF COMPLEX-SHAPED

TALL BUILDINGS 229
6.1 AERODYNAMIC FORMS 230
6.2 TWISTED TALL BUILDINGS 232
6.2.1 Twisted Braced Tubes and Diagrids 234
6.2.2 Twisted Outrigger Structures 236
6.3 TILTED TALL BUILDINGS 239
6.3.1 Tilted Braced Tubes 241
6.3.2 Tilted Diagrids 243
6.3.3 Tilted Outrigger Structures 244
6.3.4 Strength Consideration for Tilted Tall Buildings 247
6.4 TAPERED TALL BUILDINGS 247
6.5 FREEFORM TALL BUILDINGS 251
6.6 CONJOINED TALL BUILDINGS 253

INDEX 261

vii
FOREWORD

CANTILEVERS ABOUND in nature in many morphological and tectonic forms.

Trees and mountains are the best examples of vertical cantilevers in nature
that resist lateral wind forces. Historically, buildings and bridges have been
using cantilevers to create projections that are employed either for struc-
tural or aesthetic reasons, or for both. With rapid advances in material and
construction technologies during the past several decades, cantilevers are now
appearing in buildings all around the world, in limitless forms and combin-
ations. The design and engineering of cantilevers is also currently one of the
utmost exhilarating, cutting edge, and vigorous fields of research in industry
in various contexts.
Horizontal cantilevers in buildings are a very common sight. Interest-
ingly, tall buildings are truly colossal vertical cantilevers by themselves spiking
out of the ground towards the sky and are subjected to the fierce lateral
forces of high winds and earthquakes. Even in building foundations, engine-
ers use cantilevers to their advantage for different types of footings. Literature
on cantilevers flourishes in scattered forms; architects and engineers employ
them in solving many simple and complex problems in design offices and
studios. Yet surprisingly, there is no book that explicitly and entirely focuses
on the cantilever, which is becoming so popular in the modern world. Indeed,
a book on this subject has been long overdue. Cantilever Architecture by
Kyoung Sun Moon bridges that gap.
With architectural research currently dominated by the continuing
structural emphasis on verticality and the race for the tallest construction, it
seems timely now to focus on the unique and critical importance and value
of the under-researched but increasingly germane architectural properties,
possibilities, and challenges pertaining to cantilevers. The interesting features
about the cantilevers are that they are aesthetically pleasing – often with
sculptural qualities – endowed with quasi-dynamic forms that seem to fly in
the air in static motion; they can minimize obstructive support structures and
offer desirable versatility of application. They can be strategically employed
in long-span structures to reduce bending and deflection of main spans. And
their application is not limited to only buildings and bridges, but also to many
industrial, mining, telecommunication and aviation structures.
Why is this book important? In partial answer to this question, others
in the future will likely write books on this topic – but few will have the
qualifications of Kyoung Sun Moon. He is uniquely qualified to write this book

ix
FOREWORD

as he is an architect, a structural engineer and a dedicated researcher. He

has thoroughly dug into this subject and produced this generously illustrated
book offering some fresh perspectives. No wonder his motivation to write
this book stems from his keen observation of different types and applications
of cantilevers. Because of his combined architectural and engineering
background he has been able to successfully examine the technical aspects
of cantilever systems and express them in qualitative terms.
In Cantilever Architecture Kyoung Sun Moon has presented an
informative and refreshing account of fascinating exploration of cantilevers in
lucid and understandable language. The work will be of great value to those
in the architectural and engineering professions, as well as to students
aspiring to learn in depth the intricate details of cantilevers. It demands
careful study.

Mir M. Ali
Professor Emeritus of Architecture
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

x
INTRODUCTION
ARCHITECTS ARE OFTEN FASCINATED by the use of support-free structures to
solve certain design problems. They often want a significant portion of their
buildings to be supported without conventional columns or walls so the build-
ings have a feel of hovering. Two typical design approaches for the situation
are direct horizontal cantilevering and hanging from the top. The latter, using
tensile members, also usually requires a substantial cantilever structure at the
top to hang the desired portion of the building from there.
Cantilevers have been used in buildings throughout the history of archi-
tecture. However, the scale of cantilevers was limited by the properties of
traditional building materials. Supported by the development of stronger and
stiffer modern structural materials, such as steel and reinforced concrete in
the 19th century, and continued advancements of construction techniques,
dramatic cantilevers of unprecedented scales began to emerge. Today, many
buildings throughout the world find their design solutions using large canti-
levers.
Despite many architects’ enthusiasm and fascination, publications on
systematic studies of cantilever architecture are very limited. Designing
buildings with large cantilevers requires significant structural engineering
considerations, which are typically beyond architects’ capability. This book is
to help practicing architects and architecture students, especially at the early
stages of design, conceptually understand how cantilever architecture of many
different configurations works structurally and how it can be better integrated
synergistically with architectural and other design aspects.
Cantilevers are used in architecture for various reasons and in different
scales. A significant portion of primary building structures can be cantilevered
to produce more dramatic sculptural expressions, or, very practically, to max-
imize occupiable space using air rights beyond the property limit, or for many
other design-specific reasons. Smaller scale cantilevers are also used as
building components, such as cantilevered entrance canopies, balconies,
stairs, etc. In addition, furniture in buildings is often designed with cantilevers,
such as cantilevered chairs and tables. Chapter 1 through Chapter 3, which
compose Part I of this book, present various systems and their load carry-
ing mechanisms of cantilever structures of many different functions, scales

1
INTRODUCTION

and configurations, in relation to their architectural and other design-related

issues.
Furniture performs as an integral part of interior space. Many archi-
tects have been attracted by the idea of designing furniture customized for
their own designed buildings or for mass production. Chapter 1 presents how
cantilevered furniture performs, and what the performance differences are
between cantilevered and non-cantilevered furniture. Performances of canti-
levered chairs and tables of various configurations are comparatively studied
with real world examples designed by many architects and designers such
as Mart Stam, Mies van der Rohe, Marcel Breuer, Hans Luckhardt, Garrit
Rietveld, Eileen Grey, to name but a few.
As constructed objects, buildings are composed of various physical
components of different scales. Chapter 2 presents how cantilevered major
building components, such as stairs, balconies and canopies, are designed,
constructed and perform. Cantilever stairs of various examples are studied
from ancient stone cantilever stairs to those of modern building materials such
as reinforced concrete, steel and glass. Cantilevered balconies and canopies
of different configurations and materials are studied. Not only structural but
also architectural, environmental and other design related aspects are
discussed holistically with real world examples.
Chapter 3 presents the concept of cantilever employed for a significant
portion of a building. It begins with discussions on efficient proportioning of
symmetrical and asymmetrical cantilevers. After that, cantilevered buildings
are categorized for systematic studies based on their configurational charac-
teristics, such as large one-sided cantilevers, two-sided cantilevers, merged
cantilevers and stacked multiple cantilevers. For each category, its basic
structural concept and performance are introduced first and its applications
to built examples are studied. In many cases, alternative design scenarios are
comparatively studied to simulate typical real world design processes and,
consequently, help architects better understand how buildings with large
cantilevers of alternative configurations perform differently.
The term, cantilever, in architecture, is typically used for horizontal
structures supported at only one end to carry primarily gravity loads. However,
buildings are subjected to not only gravity but also lateral loads, such as wind
and seismic loads. Regarding lateral loads, any building is considered as a
vertical cantilever supported on the ground, and the issue of a building as
a vertical cantilever becomes more important as a building becomes taller.
While Part I of this book presents systematic studies on horizontal cantilevers
primarily subjected to gravity loads, Part II composed of Chapter 4 through
Chapter 6 is devoted to vertical cantilevers against lateral loads.
In order to produce more efficient vertical cantilevers, it is important
to maximize structural depths of buildings against lateral loads. Chapter 4
presents various lateral load resisting systems for vertical cantilevers divided
into three different conceptual categories – interior structures, exterior struc-

2
 INTRODUCTION

tures and interior-exterior-integrated structures. Performance characteristics

of different structural systems in each category are investigated in relation to
architectural and other design-related issues, theoretically and with real world
examples. Furthermore, comparative performances between the systems
within each category as well as between the categories are discussed.
As buildings become ever taller and more slender, lateral vibrations
due to wind loads may cause serious occupant discomfort and serviceability
issues. Structures with more damping dissipate the vibration energy more
quickly, and, consequently, reduce structural motions more rapidly. Chapter
5 presents various damping strategies for vertical cantilevers. A rigorous and
more reliable increase in damping could be achieved by installing auxiliary
damping devices integrated with the primary structural system. Both passive
and active systems are studied. An emphasis is placed on the passive system
which is further categorized into material and mass dampers.
Early design of tall buildings culminated with the dominance of the
International Style, which prevailed for decades and produced prismatic
Miesian style towers all over the world. Today’s pluralism in architectural design
has produced tall buildings of many different forms, including more irregular
and complex forms. Chapter 6 presents dynamic interactions between the
various complex building forms and structural design of tall buildings. Complex
building forms are categorized into twisted, tilted, tapered and free forms,
and structural performances of these complex-shaped vertical cantilevers
are studied in conjunction with architectural and other design-related issues.
In addition, various design approaches, performances and future potentials
of conjoined towers – another recently emerging tall building type – are dis-
cussed.
This book is organized to present studies on the whole range of canti-
levers employed in architecture. Each chapter presents a specific subject based
on the following outline: brief historical review; basic principles; holistic
analysis of real world examples. By presenting almost all different cantilever
design scenarios in architecture, this book is expected to be a unique and
essential reference on cantilever architecture.

3
 PART 1
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS
CHAPTER 1

CANTILEVERED
FURNITURE
FURNITURE PERFORMS AS A VERY IMPORTANT integral part of interior space.
Many architects have been fascinated by the idea of designing customized
furniture for their own designed buildings. Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the
greatest architects of all time, designed furniture as unified components of
his architecture. He customized this furniture for many of his designed build-
ings to integrate the design of the entire building as a whole. For many early
modernism architects, it was almost necessary to design furniture for their
own buildings because of the stylistic lag in traditional furniture design com-
pared to the buildings they designed with new materials, technology and
design ideas. Though the early modernists, such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,
Le Corbusier, Alva Alto and Marcel Breuer, to name a few, initially designed
furniture mostly for their own designed buildings, their furniture was typically
intended to be mass-produced by machines as well.
Cantilevered chairs, as a pioneer of employing the principle of signi-
ficantly proportioned cantilever in furniture, were brought to the world in this
context. The concept of cantilever has a long history in architecture with smaller
scales and proportions in the past with the use of traditional building materials
such as stone and wood. Cantilevers of significant proportions only became
possible with stronger and stiffer modern structural materials such as steel
and reinforced concrete. In furniture design, the inspiring initial use of tubular
steel by Marcel Breuer and the original cantilevered frame designed for a chair
by Mart Stam using gas pipes in the 1920s were put together to produce the
early versions of cantilever chairs and numerous variations soon after. Since
then, the cantilever chair using tubular steel and later on other materials, has
become a very important category of contemporary chairs.
This chapter presents how cantilevered furniture, such as cantilevered
chairs and tables work structurally and what the performance differences are
between cantilevered and non-cantilevered furniture. Further, cantilevered
furniture items of various configurations are comparatively studied with real

7
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

world examples designed by architects and designers, such as Mart Stam,

Mies van der Rohe, Marcel Breuer, Garrit Rietveld, Eileen Grey, to name but
a few.

1.1 CANTILEVER CHAIRS

Chairs, which intimately hold people who sit on them, are one of the most
popular designed furniture items by architects. The essential structural
configuration of most common chairs includes legs which support seats and
vertically cantilevered backrests. Figure 1-1 shows a typical simple chair com-
posed of the minimum necessary elements. The seat of the chair is supported
by the four vertical corner legs. In order to provide lateral stability, the legs
and the horizontal framing members of the seat should be rigidly connected.
The seat can perform as a diaphragm which stabilizes the horizontal frames
of the seat. The vertical backrest should be designed and constructed as a
vertical cantilever so it can resist horizontal force exerted by leaning actions
of the user. Numerous variations from this minimal configuration are possible
and available.
When Mart Stam conceived a cantilever chair in 1924, it was a radically
different and unprecedented chair configuration. The structure of the cantilever
chair is composed of continuous pipes as can be seen in the prototype shown
in Figure 1-2. In terms of the chair structure’s basic composition, the two rear
legs of the simple chair shown in Figure 1-1 are removed, while the front legs

Figure 1-1. Typical simple chair. Design by Shenxing Figure 1-2. Sketch of the original prototype of the
Liu for Greenington Fine Bamboo Furniture. cantilever chair structure by Mart Stam.

8
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

are horizontally extended to the base location of the removed rear legs. Simply
removing the rear legs without this extension would make the chair unstable.
The two side frames which define the profile of the cantilever chair are
connected at the top and bottom to complete the three-dimensional loop type
structure for stability. With regard to the materials for the chair structure, metal
pipes were used. The loop structure was produced by connecting 10 straight
gas pipe members with 10 plumbing elbows. Once the seat and backrest of
desired materials, such as leather or wicker, are placed between the two metal
pipe side frames, the cantilever chair is completed.
The production of actual cantilever chairs never followed the original
construction strategy with multiple pieces of metal pipes and elbows. Instead,
seamless polished tubular steel was employed for the frames of the cantilever
chairs. Nonetheless, since the introduction of the cantilever chair concept by
Mart Stam, this has opened an important new category of modern furniture
design. Many architects and designers attracted by the cantilever concept have
designed many different cantilevered chairs of various configurations and other
cantilevered furniture pieces.

Figure 1-3. Cantilever Chair by Mart Stam (left) and MR10 by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (right).
With permission of Casa Factory (L), 1stdibs (R).

Figure 1-3 shows the cantilever chair by Mart Stam and that by Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe. The overall configurations of Stam’s and Mies’ cantilever
chairs are similar, except that the front legs of Mies’ cantilever chair have a
semicircular form. The frames of the both chairs are made of continuous
polished tubular steel and consequently all connections can be considered as
rigid connections. In these designs, gravity loads applied to the seats are carried
by cantilever actions of the frames.

9
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 1-4. Bending moment diagrams of cantilever chairs by Mart Stam (left) and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
(right) subjected to gravity loads on the seats.

Figure 1-4 shows the bending moment diagrams of the two cantilever
chairs by Stam and Mies with only gravity loads applied to the seats. Mies’
cantilever chair, which has longer cantilever due to the semicircular front legs,
develops larger bending moments when the identical load is applied to the
seats. Figure 1-5 shows exaggerated deformed shapes of the two cantilever
chairs. Mies’ chair with longer cantilever and greater bending moments pro-
duces a larger deformation. As long as the chair is strong enough to carry the
applied loads, this larger deformation can perhaps be better for the purpose
of the chair in terms of providing comfortable sitting experience because, if
it is not excessive, a larger deformation can work as an added springy cushion.

Figure 1-5. Deformed shapes of cantilever chairs by Mart Stam (left) and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (right)
subjected to gravity loads on the seats.

10
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

Figure 1-6. Marcel Breuer’s B3 (Wassily), B64 (Cesca) and B35.

With permission of 1stdibs.

However, in building structures, which will be discussed extensively in the

remaining chapters of this book, larger deformations due to greater cantilever
lengths and bending moments are typically a serious structural design issue
for serviceability.
Marcel Breuer is one of the most influential designers in developing
furniture framed with polished tubular steel. He used this material first for
home furniture in his chair B3, Wassily, in 1925, right before the production
of the cantilever chair by Mart Stam. Marcel Breuer also designed his version
of cantilever chairs, such as B32 and B64, Cesca, in 1928. While Mart Stam
and Mies van der Rohe used flexible materials for the seats and backrests of
their polished tubular steel cantilever chairs, Marcel Breuer combined wood
and wicker as can be seen in Figure 1-6.
The configuration of Breuer’s tubular steel frame cantilever chair is
basically the same as that of Stam’s except for the different material choice
for the seats and backrests. In his cantilevered armchair, B64, the continuous
seat and backrest frame members are cantilevered from the base frame
members which rest on the floor, and the armrests are secondarily canti-
levered from the backrest frames. However, in his B35, Breuer further devel-
oped the concept of the cantilever chair to a more comfortable and luxurious
version. In B35, the continuous seat and backrest frame members and the
armrest frame members are, in a sense, independently cantilevered to the
opposite directions from the more horizontally elongated base frame
members. The elongated base frame members allow a deeper seat and taller
backrest. Furthermore, the seat and backrest are more reclined in B35 than
in B64, for superior comfort.
Marcel Breuer designed not only cantilever chairs but also a cantilever
sofa, F40, for multiple users as can be seen in Figure 1-7. Compared to
B64 or B32 (Breuer’s cantilever chair with no armrest), the height-to-width
aspect ratio of the main frame is much smaller in F40. Reduced height of the
front leg frame members and increased length of the base and seat frame

11
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 1-7. Marcel Breuer’s cantilevered sofa, F40. With permission of 1stdibs.

members provide much greater safety against overturning failure which could
be possible by leaning actions of the users towards the back of the sofa. The
reduced height means a shortened overturning moment arm, while the
increased length means an increased resisting moment arm. Padded cushions
are used for the seats and backrests in F40 to provide enhanced comfort.
Though not directly related to cantilever chair designs, Marcel Breuer
also powerfully used the concept of cantilever in his buildings. In the Whitney
Museum of American Art of 1966 in New York City, his striking design of
the three inverted steps produces a unique iconic cantilevered building. In the
tower portion of the Armstrong Rubber Co. Headquarters in West Haven, a
gigantic symmetrical cantilever is produced by hanging floors from the
cantilevered rooftop truss structures. This cantilever creates a grand opening
between the podium and tower portions of the building. Significant cantilevers
in buildings are discussed in much more detail in Chapter 3.
Another variation of tubular steel cantilever chairs was designed by
Giuseppe Terragni. In Terragni’s cantilever armchair, the continuous front
leg and seat frame is cantilevered from one end of the base frame and the
backrest frame is vertically cantilevered from another end of the base frame.
Since the backrest frame is vertically cantilevered directly from the base
frame, the overall configuration of Terragni’s cantilever chair looks similar to
the non-cantilevered traditional chair with front and back legs. However,
unlike the traditional chair, the gap between the horizontal seat cantilever
and the vertical backrest cantilever independent but originating from the
same base frame is unique. The seat and the backrest cantilevers are designed
to produce independently springy behavior. A similarly configured precedent
can be found in the Cobra Chair of 1902 designed by Carlo Bugatti, an Italian
furniture designer in the Art Nouveau era, though the Cobra Chair is not as
springy as Terragni’s due to its construction with relatively heavy wood.

12
Figure 1-8. The Whitney Museum of American Art by Marcel Breuer, New York City, 1966.

Figure 1-9. Armstrong Rubber Co. Headquarters by Marcel Breuer, West Haven, Connecticut, 1970.

13
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 1-10.
Sant’elia Armchair by Giuseppe Terragni.
With permission of Zanotta.

Cantilever chairs have been produced with not only tubular steel but
also laminated wood. Alvar Aalto, influenced by tubular steel cantilever chairs,
designed a laminated wood version cantilever chair. The basic prototype of
the tubular steel cantilever chair frame is a closed loop type structure as shown
in Figure 1-2. The seat and the backrest are installed to the frame to complete
the chair. In Aalto’s cantilever chair, two U-shaped laminated wood frames
are placed in parallel to provide the base, front legs and support for the seat.
The seat and backrest, constructed with molded plywood as a single L-shaped
curved piece, is attached to the two U-shaped frames to complete the chair.
While the top and bottom cross members connecting the two side frames
are necessary in the typical tubular steel cantilever chairs with seats and
backrests made of flexible materials for lateral stability, these are not

Figure 1-11. Cantilever chair by Alvar Aalto. With permission of jacksons.se.

14
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

Figure 1-12.
Reverse cantilever chair with removed front legs.
With permission of Titan Furniture.

necessary in Alto’s cantilever chair because the solid L-shaped curved plywood
rigidly connected with the two parallel U-shaped frames provides the required
lateral stability.
Figure 1-12 shows another type of cantilever chair. In this chair, the
front legs are removed and the rear legs are extended horizontally to the base
location of the removed front legs. Figure 1-13 shows the bending moment

Figure 1-13. Bending moment diagram and deformed shape of the reverse cantilever chair shown in
Figure 1-12.

15
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 1-14.
ST14 of 1931 by Hans and Wassili Luckhardt.
With permission of Wright.

and deformed shape of this chair at its simplified form subjected to the gravity
load on the seat. The bending moment diagram is basically the same as that
of Mart Stam’s cantilever chair. However, this reverse cantilever configuration
produces deformation downwards as well as towards the front. This is
probably not the best direction of displacement in general for people who use
chairs to seek comfortable relaxation.
Hans and Wassili Luckhardt’s cantilever chair, ST14, of 1931 is, in a
sense, radically different from the initial prototype by Mart Stam. In the
prototype by Stam, the first rounded 90 degree turn from the base frame
produces the front legs, and the second and third turns provide the supports
for the seat and backrest, respectively. In Luckhardt’s version, only one
rounded acute angle turn is made from the base frame to provide the support
for the molded plywood backrest at the end. A very thin molded plywood seat
is placed between the base and the backrest on the additional metal frame
members cantilevered from the main tubular steel frame. In terms of the
gravity loads applied to the seat, the performance of Luckhardt’s cantilever
chair is similar to that of Mart Stam’s cantilever chair.
Gerrit Rietveld’s Zigzag Chair of 1934 shown in Figure 1-15 is also a
strikingly different looking cantilever chair, the leg of which is diagonally
arranged. The zigzag form was not new in chair design. The Sitzgeiststuhl by
Heinz and Bodo Rasch shown also in Figure 1-15 already employed a zigzag
form in 1927. Figure 1-16 shows the bending moment diagram and deformed
shape of the Zigzag Chair regarding gravity load applied to the seat. The
diagonal arrangement produces moment reversal along the leg, and the
overall deformation of this chair, which is straight downward, is relatively small.

16
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

Figure 1-15. Zigzag Chair by Gerrit Rietveld (left) and Sitzgeiststuhl by Heinz and Bodo Rasch. With permission
of 1stdibs (L), Elsa Mickelsen @ miniaturechairs.com (R).

Less deformation is almost always desirable in buildings. For chairs, however,

appropriate level of deformation may increase the user’s experience of springy
comfort. Not only the amount of deformation but also the direction of
deformation is an important factor which influences the user’s comfort.
Stam’s and Mies’ cantilever chairs deform downwards as well as towards
the back. While this combination of deformations is typically most desirable
for chairs, Rietveld’s chair deforms almost only downwards when carrying
the gravity loads applied to the seat.

Figure 1-16. Bending moment diagram and deformed shape of the Zigzag Chair by Gerrit Rietveld.

17
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

The structural analysis of the Zigzag Chair was performed based on

moment connections between the straight members. In fact, one of the most
challenging aspects of making the Zigzag Chair is creating moment connec-
tions between the members because the chair is made of wood panels. Unlike
steel, it is very difficult to make moment connections between wood mem-
bers, especially when the designed form must be kept without adding
bracings. In Rietvelt’s Zigzag Chair, wood wedges and metal screws were
used to make moment connections between the base and the leg and the
leg and the seat. Dovetailed joints and metal screws were used between the
seat and the backrest. With these elaborate construction methods, the form
of the final product is deceivingly simple.
Cantilever chairs presented thus far are produced by assembling
multiple pieces made of one or more materials. In cantilever chairs using
continuous tubular steel frames, seats and backrests of different materials,
such as fabric, leather, or wicker, are installed to the frames to complete the
chairs. In Aalto’s cantilever chair, only wood is primarily used. But, the chair
is produced by assembling two identical U-shaped frame pieces and a curved
panel piece for the combined seat and backrest. In Rietveld’s Zigzag Chair,
the chair is also primarily made of only wood. The design looks as if the chair
were produced by folding a rectangular wood panel. However, in reality, the
chair is produced by four pieces of wood panels connected elaborately to
produce moment connections between them.
Verner Panton was fascinated by the idea of producing a cantilever
chair of a single piece made of a single material. In his S-chair of 1956, he
initially accomplished this goal by producing an S-shaped chair by curbing a
single piece of laminated wood panel. This is in a sense a single piece version
Zigzag Chair with curved joints. Soon after, he further developed this idea
using plastic. In 1960, he designed the first single piece plastic cantilever chair,
the Panton Chair. Though it looks very simple, it took several years to mass-
produce the first version of the Panton Chair because of the technical diffi-
culties of actually producing this chair of desired strength and flexibility with
a piece of plastic thin enough for stacking. After the first version in rigid
polyurethane foam, it had to go through several revisions in terms of design,
manufacturing process and material. Since 1999, the injection molded poly-
propylene version has been mass-produced.
In terms of configuration, the Panton Chair combines the characteristics
of Stam’s cantilever chair and Rietveld’s Zigzag Chair. Let’s imaginarily separ-
ate the single piece Panton Chair into its continuous loop type curvilinear edges
and curved planar infill. The form produced by the curvilinear edges of the
Panton Chair looks like a smoothly curved version frame of Mart Stam’s
cantilever chair. The backrest and the seat are created by infilling the space
surrounded by the corresponding curvilinear edges with curved plane. The
infilling strategy changes for the front leg and the base. Infilling space between
the front leg and base defining edges is done integrally, which creates a

18
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

Figure 1-17.
S Chair (left) and Panton
Chair (right) by Verner
Panton. With permission
of 1stdibs.

diagonally curved plane under the seat. This produces more comfortable leg-
room, a stable structure and an elegant form.
Chairs are often subjected to lateral loads, especially towards the back.
A user often leans against the back of the chair for enhanced comfort. Then,
this creates lateral loads and consequently additional bending moments. In
Stam’s and Mies’ cantilever chairs, these lateral load-induced bending
moments are added to the gravity load-induced bending moments. Therefore,
the structures of the chairs are more stressed and deformed. Figure 1-18
shows bending moment diagrams of the two cantilever chairs subjected to
the combined gravity and lateral loads. An important issue to be considered
in these cases is that as the lateral load becomes larger, the chairs become
vulnerable to overturning failure. Increasing the gravity loads, lowering the seat
(and consequently the height of the chair) and increasing horizontal extension
of the base frame all help reduce the overturning failure tendency.

Figure 1-18.
Bending moment diagrams
of cantilever chairs by Mart
Stam (left) and Mies van der
Rohe (right) subjected to
gravity loads on the seat
and lateral loads on the
backrest.

19
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 1-19.
Bending moment diagrams of the
Zigzag Chair by Gerrit Rietveld (left)
and the reverse cantilever chair
shown in Figure 1-12 (right) subjected
to gravity loads on the seat and
lateral loads on the backrest.

The same concept can be applied to buildings because any building

can be considered as a vertical cantilever against lateral loads, such as
wind or seismic loads. These loads exert overturning moments to the building.
The self-weight of the building produces the counteracting moment. If the
counteracting moment is smaller than the overturning moment, the building
is vulnerable to overturning failure. Shorter and wider buildings are less
vulnerable to overturning failure because shorter buildings are subjected to
less overturning moments and wider buildings produce greater resisting
moment. The issue of overturning moments and how to efficiently resist
them in buildings subjected to lateral loads will be discussed in more detail
in Part II.
When Rietveld’s Zigzag Chair and the reverse cantilever chair shown
in Figure 1-12 are subjected to lateral loads, the gravity-induced bending
moments of some framing members are reduced because the lateral load-
induced bending moments counteract them. Figure 1-19 shows bending
moment diagrams of these chairs subjected to gravity loads on the seats and
lateral loads on the backrests.

1.2 CANTILEVER TABLES

Cantilevers are often used to create more sculptural aesthetics or to better
produce desired performance. In Eileen Grey’s bedside table of 1927,
cantilever is employed to satisfy the intended functional performance with its
unique aesthetic expression. The circular table top and base frames are
connected by vertical legs placed at one end. The resulting C shaped cantilever
table functionally serves very well for the user on the bed. Structural behavior
of the C shaped cantilever table is similar to that of Mart Stam’s previously
presented cantilever chair in terms of carrying gravity loads. The opening at

20
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

Figure 1-20.
Eileen Grey Table.
With permission of 1stdibs.

the circular base frame is to provide room for a bed leg to pass through when
the table base is inserted under the bed.
The Arabesco Table of 1949 by Carlo Mollino for the living room of
Casa Orenga shown in Figure 1-21 has a unique form for a piece of furniture
belonging to the mid-20th century. It is composed of curved perforated ply-
wood frames and two layers of glass panes. Both the plywood frames and

Figure 1-21. Arabesco Table by Carlo Mollino. With permission of Zanotta.

21
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

glass panes have irregular free form, within which one can also find structurally
sound configuration and efficient proportioning. The curved plywood frame
in conjunction with the glass panes is configured in triangular forms, which
produce an excellent structural performance. The cantilevered length of the
table top glass pane is about 35 percent of the main back span. A cantilever
with this proportion performs better structurally in terms of strength and
produces less deformation than the case with no cantilever. Performances
of cantilevers of various different proportions are discussed in much more
detail in Chapter 3.
Bookshelves for dormitory rooms of the Tunisian University in Paris
shown in Figure 1-22 were designed in 1952 by Charlotte Perriand in collab-
oration with Jean Prouve and Sonia Delaunay. While the asymmetrical com-
position produces a very dynamic expression, the strategic massing about the
two main vertical supports on the floor gives a strong impression of structural
stability. Though, in fact, the bookshelf was additionally supported by wall
mountings, even just with the two vertical supports, it could be supported
safely. For the longest main horizontal member, one vertical support is
positioned around the center and the other support, towards only one end of
the member. Without the strategically placed four layers of shelves, the
structure would be very vulnerable to overturning failure even with slightly
larger loads applied to the longer cantilever side of the main horizontal
member because the end support away from the longer cantilever would be
lifted up. However, with the help of the weight provided by the stacked
shelves, the end support will not be lifted up and the stability of the entire
structure can be obtained. This type of asymmetric configuration and strategic
massing to prevent overturning failure can often be found in cantilevered
buildings as will be discussed in much more detail in Chapter 3.

Figure 1-22. Bibliotheque pour la maison de la Tunisie by Charlotte Perriand. With permission of Wright.

22
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

Figure 1-23. Cantilever Table by Rainer Spehl. With permission of Rainer Spehl.

The cantilevered table designed by Rainer Spehl shown in Figure

1-23 has a similar C shape configuration to Eileen Grey’s table. While the length
of the base of Eileen Grey’s table is similar to the cantilevered length of
the table top, the length of the base of Rainer Spehl’s table is much shorter
than the cantilevered length of the table top. Structurally, as the length of the
base becomes shorter, the table becomes more vulnerable to overturning
failure based on gravity loads applied to the table top. Overturning would occur
about the free end of the base. In terms of the applied loads, the overturning
moment is increased as the applied load placed on the portion of the table
top closer to the free end is increased. On the contrary, the counteracting
moment is increased as the applied load placed on the portion of the table
top closer to the vertical leg is increased. In addition, any self-weight within
the width of the base, including the base itself, the leg and the corresponding
portion of the table top, participates in producing the counteracting moment.
In the table designed by Spehl, the table top is made of relatively light wood
panel and the vertical leg and base are made of much heavier concrete in
order to increase the self-weight-induced resisting moment to help prevent
overturning failure. The structural issue caused by the very challenging geo-
metric configuration was resolved to a large degree by material choices in
this project. And these material choices in conjunction with the diving board-
like unusual form of the table produce very dynamic aesthetics.
Balancing the loads in asymmetrically configured cantilevers is im-
portant to prevent gravity induced overturning failure. In buildings, overturning

23
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

tendency of the asymmetrically configured cantilever structures can be

produced by not only gravity but also lateral loads. The impact of the combined
gravity and lateral loads could be significantly larger than the individual loads.
However, the overturning failure of buildings can be prevented by the
foundation system typically hidden under the ground. The geometric configur-
ation of the foundation system can be determined in such a way that the
overturning failure can be better prevented, or deep foundations with tensile
capacity typically by surface frictions can be employed. Some of the cantilever
buildings presented in Chapter 3 include these cases. In cantilevered tables
which are generally not anchored to the floor, however, the overturning
failure should be prevented by the table structure itself configured to balance
the loads.
The SMT coffee table designed by J. Wade Beam is another C-shaped
cantilevered table. In this table, a 1/2 in. thick tempered glass top of square
shape is diagonally cantilevered from the tilted 1 in. thick stainless steel base.
If the stainless steel base of the same size had been deigned vertically at the
end of the table to support the cantilever, its width would not have been large
enough to prevent gravity-induced overturning failure. The stainless steel base
is tilted towards the opposite direction of the glass top cantilever. Therefore,
the table is eventually configured with the tilted shorter cantilever of heavier
steel and the longer but lighter glass cantilever projected in the opposite
direction to the tilted base cantilever to balance the load. This careful
geometric configuration along with the materials choice produces a unique
dynamic expression and required structural stability at the same time.
In fact, the name of the table, SMT, reflects the difficulty of balancing
the loads when assembling this table according to Deborah Cvirko at Brueton
which produces the SMT table. The construction of this table was challenging
and it was difficult to achieve a perfect balance. The form of the stainless
steel base of the table had to be tilted to balance the loads of the completed

Figure 1-24. The SMT coffee table designed for Brueton by J. Wade Beam.

24
 CANTILEVERED FURNITURE

table. However, the tilted base itself tends to easily fall over until the glass
top is installed. Therefore, the engineers were saying the table was “So Much
Trouble” during the prototyping and the initials were used to name the SMT
table.
In the rectangular table shown in Figure 1-25, the table top is sym-
metrically cantilevered in both directions perpendicular to each other. In the
longitudinal direction, the length of the table is divided into three zones, the
central zone and the two end cantilever zones. With the length of the both
cantilevers of about 20 percent of the total length, the weight of the table
top and distributed loads on it can be carried more efficiently, compared with
the case with no cantilevers. Figure 1-26 shows comparative bending moment
diagrams of the table top with alternative support locations and connections.
The first one is the case when the table top is simply supported at both ends.
When the connections between the vertical supports and the table top are
rigid to provide lateral stability, the bending moments are reduced as can
be seen in the second diagram. When both vertical supports are pushed in
by about 20 percent of the total length, the bending moments are further
reduced as can be seen in the third diagram. Both symmetrically and asym-
metrically cantilevered buildings and optimal proportioning of cantilevers are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.
The two transverse direction beams which carry the table top loads
have two symmetrical cantilevers about the central vertical supports. This
configuration, which produces all negative bending moments throughout the
beams, is not the optimal cantilever condition in terms of structural perform-

Figure 1-25. Symmetrically cantilevered rectangular table. Photographer: Hugh Hartshorne, Designer: Stephen
Hammer of Urban Forest Furniture.

25
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 1-26. Comparative bending moment diagrams of the table top shown in Figure 1-25 with alternative
support locations and connections.

ance. However, this configuration makes the otherwise typical perimeter legs
moved far away from the edges of the table. In order to prevent the over-
turning failure of the table in the transverse direction due to any unbalanced
applied loads, the horizontal bases are extended in that direction from the
bottom of the central legs. In terms of overall geometry, due to the symmetrical
configuration, overturning tendency of the table shown in Figure 1-25 is
smaller than that of asymmetrically configured cantilevered tables.

26
CHAPTER 2

CANTILEVERED
BUILDING
COMPONENTS
AS A CONSTRUCTED OBJECT, a building is composed of many different physical
components. Some small components participate as parts of larger compon-
ents, which become even larger systems, and this process eventually results
in the completion of an entire building. This chapter presents structural prin-
ciples and related design issues of cantilevered building components, such
as cantilevered stairs, balconies and canopies, theoretically and with real world
examples.

2.1. CANTILEVERED STAIRS

Stairs are an essential building component which connects spaces of different
levels. This unique architectural function requires careful structural consid-
erations and at the same time provides a good opportunity to explore creative
design. Therefore, it is not uncommon that the state of building technology
and architectural design trend of a specific time period can be observed through
the design and construction of stairs. Structural and architectural design
integration for stairs often produces very innovative solutions.
Stairs of many different configurations are designed depending on the
project specific situations. Cantilevered stairs have been used in buildings since
ancient times. They are often designed to resolve certain design problems
which may be difficult to solve with non-cantilevered stairs and usually
perform as very dramatic architectural design elements. This section presents
cantilevered stairs of various configurations and materials.

27
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

2.1.1. Early Cantilevered Stone Stairs

Stone is one of the oldest building construction materials. While stones used
as building materials, such as granite, limestone and marble, have great
compressive strength, no stone has substantial tensile strength. Therefore,
stone is typically not a good material for cantilever structures which carry loads
primarily by bending action because bending is a combined action of
compression and tension. Nevertheless, cantilevered stone staircases can be
found from buildings of the Hellenic period of 500–300 BC. Cantilevered stairs
reappeared in the Islamic world in the medieval period and were reinvented
in Western Europe during the Renaissance. Many cantilevered stone stairs
were helical and the cantilevered stone block treads were supported within
the thickness of the internal walls.
A dramatic example of very old cantilevered stone stairs in the Hellenic
period can be found in the remains of the cantilevered staircase in the tower
of Agios Petros on the island of Andros as can be seen in Figure 2-1. The
cantilevered stairs at that time were built with local schist. About two millennia
later, cantilevered stone staircases were revived in Andrea Palladio’s buildings
in the 16th century, such as the Convento della Carita in Venice. Influenced
by Palladio, Inigo Jones designed the cantilevered stone Tulip Staircase,
which employed the rebate for the first time, in the Queen’s House of 1635
at Greenwich. During the 17th through 19th centuries, cantilevered stone
staircases were widely employed in the buildings of the UK.

Figure 2-1. Remains of the cantilevered stone staircase in the tower of Agios Petros on the island of Andros.
With permission of Michael Tutton.

28
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-2. Tulip Staircase in the Queen’s House at Greenwich.

Another excellent UK example with rebates can be found in Somerset

House in London designed by Sir William Chambers in 1795. In typical canti-
levered stone stairs with rebates, cantilevered stone block treads are embed-
ded into the supporting wall by about 10 cm. The stone block treads above
and below slightly overlap each other with rebates which are interlocking
connections between the treads. Based on the embedment at one end and
overlapping of the treads, the self-weight of the treads and applied loads on
them are not carried by true cantilever action but by compression and torsion.
The first tread on the floor is usually completely supported by the floor with
no torsion. Therefore, the second tread just above the first one on the floor
develops the largest torsion. And the last tread just below the landing carries
the smallest loads and develops the smallest torsion. When the stone treads
are constructed with rebates, additional torsional resistance is provided by
the rebates compared with the case with no rebates.
Cantilevered stone stairs constructed by experienced master masons
usually survive hundreds of years. However, some old worn-out cantilevered
stone stairs collapsed or were found to be broken due to poor management.
The cantilevered stone stairs usually fail around the support area, where the
torsional stress is larger as can be seen in Figure 2-5.

29
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-3. Stamp office staircase at Somerset House. With permission of Russell Taylor Architects.

Figure 2-4. Cantilevered stone staircase without and with rebates. With permission of Russell Taylor Architects.

30
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-5. Cracking of stone cantilevered stairs. With permission of Helen Rogers www.stonestairs.net.

2.1.2. Cantilevered Stairs of Modern Materials

Stone is not appropriate material to build true cantilevered stairs because of
its unreliable tensile capacity. Overlapping the treads was a good strategy to
construct the previously presented cantilevered stone stairs in the 17th
through 19th centuries. The limitation of the material was partially overcome
by overlapping the stone treads. However, the loads of and on the treads were
not carried by true cantilever action because of the overlapping, and their
expressions of cantilever were limited. Today, with more appropriate modern
structural materials, true cantilevered stairs can be constructed with no
overlapping between the treads.
Figure 2-6 shows an example of reinforced concrete cantilevered
stairs in the Hanasaki House in Yokohama designed by MoNo. The textural
characteristic of exposed concrete is similar to that of stone compared with
other building materials. Unlike traditional stone cantilevered stairs, the treads
of this staircase are constructed with no overlapping. They are independently
cantilevered from the reinforced concrete vertical supporting wall. Due to
the unique characteristics of cast-in-place reinforced concrete structures, the

31
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-6. Hanasaki House in Yokohama by MoNo. With permission of MoNo.

vertical supporting wall and independent treads are monolithically connected

in this staircase, and rigid connections, necessary for the cantilever action,
are produced between them with appropriate reinforcements. The bending
mechanism caused by vertical loads applied to the independent treads
produces internal tensile forces towards the top surfaces and compressive
forces towards the bottom surfaces of the treads. Since concrete does not
have substantial tensile capacity, steel reinforcing bars are placed towards
the top surfaces of the treads during the construction process before pouring
concrete to carry the tensile forces. The compressive forces towards the
bottom surfaces are resisted by concrete there. Railings are typically required
for stairs by building codes for safety. In the Hanasaki House, removable
railings were installed.
Steel is a good material for cantilever structures because it can excel-
lently carry both tensile and compressive forces. In the steel cantilever stairs
designed by Lawrence Architecture for a residence in West Seattle, steel
treads are cantilevered from reinforced concrete walls. In order to make rigid
connections between the reinforced concrete wall and the cantilevered steel
treads, steel plates are typically embedded into the reinforced concrete wall.
In general, shear studs are welded to the back side of the steel plates and
embedded into the concrete wall together with the plates. Once the formwork
of the reinforced concrete wall is removed, the embedded steel plates are
exposed. Then, the steel tread structures are welded to the steel plates. This is
a typical method to make moment connections between wall type reinforced
concrete structures and beam type steel structural members.
The Kaze No Oka Crematorium designed by Fumihiko Maki also
includes a similar cantilever staircase composed of reinforced concrete wall,

32
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-7. Steel cantilevered stairs. Photographer: Benjamin Benschneider, Lawrence Architecture.

steel tread structures cantilevered from the wall and wood finish for the treads.
In this staircase, the reinforced concrete wall supporting the cantilevered treads
is a sloped deep beam type structure, the two ends of which are supported
at different levels. In conjunction with the triangular void space under the
sloped beam type supporting wall, the hovering expression of the cantilevered
treads is much emphasized. The height of the sloped reinforced concrete wall
terminates in such a way that it can also perform as a handrail of the staircase.
The railing on the free end side of the cantilevered treads is composed of
very thin and light steel members to minimize the load on the cantilever and
emphasize its expression at the same time.
The cantilever staircase shown in Figure 2-8 is employed for a light
wood frame house. Compared to steel or reinforced concrete, wood is
generally less strong, more flexible and less stable material. In addition and
more importantly, making moment connections with wood is much more
difficult, compared with making them with steel or reinforced concrete.
Therefore, steel is often combined in wood structure buildings to resolve some
challenging structural issues. In the cantilevered stairs shown in Figure 2-8,
a steel stringer is embedded into the typical light wood frame stud wall, and
the steel tread and riser structure is cantilevered from the embedded steel

33
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-8. Cantilever stairs in a light wood frame house. Architect: Anthony J. Ries, Structural Engineer: Jim Houlette.

stringer using moment connection by welding between them. Alternatively,

independent tread structures without risers can be welded to the stringer to
produce more dramatic hovering expression of the cantilevered stairs. The
steel stringer embedded into the wall and steel tread structures can be fully
covered by wood finishes so the design of the stairs can be coherent with
other architectural design features of the light wood frame house when
desired.
In cantilevered tread structures, the maximum bending moment is
developed at the support and the minimum at the free end. Following this
structural logic, the treads of cantilevered stairs can be designed to have
greater structural depth towards the support unlike the prismatic form
treads presented so far. Figure 2-9 shows tapered tread structures with the
greatest structural depth at the support to take the maximum bending
moment there.
Glass is sometimes structurally used to produce dramatic cantilever
stairs. Though normal float glass cannot be used directly for stairs, by appro-
priate heat treatment, glass treads of very high strength can be produced.
The helical staircase at a private house in Scotland shown in Figure 2-10 uses
cantilevered treads made of laminated heat soaked toughened glass 40 mm
thick including structural sentry interlayer. Toughened glass (or tempered glass)
is generated by heating float glass to a temperature over 600°C and cooling
rapidly over a period of 2–10 seconds. By this process, the original float glass
already exactly cut to fit specific needs becomes stronger and can take
greater bending moment because the pre-compressed surface of the tough-
ened glass is able to take otherwise large tensile stresses developed by
bending. Heat soaking is a process to reduce the risk of abrupt failure of

34
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-9. Cantilever stairs with tapered tread structures coated with travertine marble type resin (left) and made with Corten
steel plates (right). With permission of Marretti USA.

toughened glass due to nickel sulfide inclusions. By heating the toughened

glass to 290 degrees for a given period of time and slowly cooling it before
use, it is likely to shatter if it contains nickel sulfide.
An 80 mm wide helical steel stringer is used to support the glass treads
which is cantilevered 1300 mm. The stringer is manufactured to have rect-
angular pockets into which the glass treads are inserted. The glass treads are
secured by a clamping system built in the pockets and high modulus silicon.
With this configuration, each tread of laminated heat soaked toughened glass
can take up to 1 metric ton point load at the free end of the cantilever according
to the manufacturer. The stairs are built around a cylindrical glass aquarium
with a gap of 40 mm between the tips of the cantilevered treads and the
exterior glass surface of the aquarium. This composition with the small gaps
close to the free ends further enhances the already dramatic expression of
the cantilevered glass stairs.
In the cantilevered stairs presented thus far, one end of the treads is
rigidly connected to the vertical support structures and the other ends are
free from any type of support. In addition to this common configuration, the
concept of cantilever can be used for stairs with different configurations. Figure
2-11 shows a floating staircase in the Coach House in Wimbledon. As can be
seen in the figure, the entire stairway including the intermediate landing is
cantilevered. This design strategy produces a cantilevered staircase of truss-
like triangular geometric configuration, which is structurally very efficient to
carry applied loads.
In the Itamaraty Palace in Brasilia, Oscar Niemeyer designed a similarly
cantilevered staircase in a more sculptural helical form as can be seen in Figure
2-12. The reinforced concrete stringer for the stairway without any intermediate

35
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-10. Glass cantilever stairs at a private house in Scotland. With permission of Julian Hunter Architects.

36
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-11. Floating staircase in Coach House. With permission of Hale Brown Architects, demax.co.uk.

landing is spirally cantilevered with one end supported by the ground level and
the other by the second level. The reinforced concrete treads are cantilevered
again symmetrically from the central helical stringer. The central stringer is
relatively wide, and the right angle cuts of the central stringer to hold treads
provide risers. However, the cantilevered portions of the treads beyond the
central stringer do not have risers. This configuration emphasizes the floating
image of the stairway. A runner is placed over the central portion of the treads
directly supported by the stringer, and the cantilevered portions of the
reinforced concrete treads are exposed without being covered by the runner.
Since this stairway does not have railings, the runner placed at a certain
distance from the tips of the cantilevered treads visually guides the users for
safety. Integrated with the continued spiral staircase from the ground to the
basement floor, the cantilevered spiral stairway shown in Figure 2-12 provides
a unique architectural experience to the users.
In the Saitama Prefectural University designed by Reiken Yamamoto
and Field Shop, a series of multiple story outdoor stairs are cantilevered beyond
the exterior walls. The uppermost floor stairs are supported by the truss
structure cantilevered from the building and integrated with the stairway’s
flights and landing. The sloped truss members along the upper and lower flights
work in tension and compression, respectively. The tension and compression
members meet with pin type connections under the landing. The stairs below
the uppermost one are hung from the truss structure by tension rods.

37
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-12. Helical staircase in the Itamaraty Palace in Brasilia. With permission of Adam Gebrian.

Figure 2-13. Staircase in National Archives of France. Photographer: Kamal KhalfiStudio, Studio Fuksas.

38
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

In the National Archives of France, the staircase shown in Figure 2-

13 is cantilevered in a different orientation. In this example, the intermediate
landings are cantilevered from the wall and the flights span between the
cantilevered landings. In this configuration, the entire flights may be designed
to be detached from the wall from which the landings are cantilevered to
emphasize the visual expression of floating.
Beginning from the ancient stone cantilever stairs, the history of
cantilever stairs is very long. The configuration of the old stone cantilever stairs
was much limited due to the property of stone which lacks tensile capacity.
Today, however, cantilever stairs of more innovative configurations are
designed and constructed with modern structural materials which have greater
bending resistance, such as reinforced concrete and steel. Recently, even
laminated heat-treated glass is not uncommonly used for stairs, including
cantilevered stairs, the design of which, especially with glass, is usually very
challenging.

2.2. CANTILEVERED BALCONIES

A balcony is typically a projected platform beyond the exterior wall of a building
usually protected by railing. Some balconies are completely enclosed by glass
window walls and roof. According to Viollet-le-Duc, the history of the external
cantilevered balcony dates back to the 11th century “hourd” – a temporary
wood structure for battles. Figure 2-14 shows a restored hourdage by Viollet-
le-Duc at the Cite de Carcassonne. The temporary hourd began to disappear
and was replaced by permanent stone battlements from the 14th century.
Another origin of exterior cantilevered balconies can be found in
mashrabiya which is deeply related to traditional Arabic culture and climatic
condition. The mashrabiya is typically a small cantilevered oriel window with
limited openings. Through the grill or louver-like openings, natural ventila-
tion is possible. However, direct visual connections between the interior and
exterior are prohibited so women in the house cannot have direct contact with
the outside world. The history of mashrabiya dates back to the 7th century.
With these historical backgrounds, cantilevered balconies began to
prevail as an important architectural element from the 17th century in Malta.
Maltese cantilevered open stone balconies were supported by brackets called
saljaturi which were typically very ornamental. The brackets are supported by
load bearing walls and are thickest where they begin from the load bearing
wall and become thinner as they reach the end. The length of the cantilever
supported by stone brackets is limited because stone has minimal tensile
capacity. From the mid-18th century, closed wooden balconies began to
gain popularity. Wooden balconies were typically painted with bright color oil
paints to protect the material from weather. Stone brackets were still used
as structural supports for the wooden balconies in many cases.

39
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-14. Restored hourd in Carcassonne.

Balconies of modern buildings are structured with modern building

materials such as reinforced concrete and steel. Balconies are also con-
structed with wood for light wood frame structures, which are prevalently
used for residential buildings in the US. Three typical strategies to support
cantilevered balconies are using brackets underneath the balconies, hanging
the balconies from above using sloped tensile members, and directly canti-
levering floor structures, such as wood floor joists, steel floor beams or
reinforced concrete slabs.

40
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-15. Stone corbels known as saljaturi in Maltese balconies.

Figure 2-16. Maltese closed wooden balconies.

41
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Using brackets and hangers requires additional structural members to

support balconies. The horizontal floor supporting members of the balconies
and the additional structural members such as hangers create triangular
geometric configurations along with the vertical supports which are typically
an integral part of the main building structure. By this triangulation, the load
carrying mechanism of balconies is primarily done by axial actions, which is
usually very efficient structurally. Certainly, bending moment is also developed
in the horizontal floor members of the balcony with applied vertical loads on
them. For the triangular configurations, no moment connections are neces-
sary, though moment connections are often necessary for the railing system
of the balcony for safety.
When using sloped hangers or brackets, the angles created between
the horizontal floor support members of the balcony and the hangers or
brackets play an important role structurally and aesthetically. As the angles
become larger, the axial forces developed in the sloped members become
smaller, and consequently, the member sizes can be smaller. On the contrary,
as the angles become smaller, the axial forces become larger, and the
member sizes should be larger. This structural logic should be carefully
integrated with architectural design.
While cantilevered balconies supported by hangers and brackets
require additional structural members to support them, directly cantilevering

Figure 2-17. Steel balcony supported by steel hangers. With permission of InnoTech Manufacturing, LLC.

42
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-18. Steel balcony supported by steel brackets.

interior floor structures to make balconies does not require additional hangers
or brackets, and produces simpler visual expressions. Steel, reinforced
concrete and wood are all feasible materials to design and construct directly
cantilevered balconies which carry applied loads primarily by bending actions.
In Bauhaus shown in Figure 2-19, reinforced concrete balconies are produced
by directly cantilevering interior floor slabs beyond the façade plane. The simple
railing is integral with the cantilevered floor to complete the balcony.
By cantilevering interior floor structures beyond their perimeter
supporting members with a certain structurally desirable proportion of the
interior back span to external cantilever, structural efficiency of the flooring
system may even be enhanced. (See Figure 3-7 in Chapter 3.) However,
projecting interior floor structures passing through the façade plane creates
systematic thermal bridges between the conditioned indoor and unconditioned
outdoor environments. The problem of thermal bridging is more critical in steel
and reinforced concrete structures than in wood. Among these three structural
materials, steel has the highest thermal conductivity, while wood has the
lowest. In order to resolve the issue of thermal bridges through cantilevered
balconies, structural thermal break systems have been developed by some
manufacturers and are readily available for easier construction. Insulation is
placed between the interior and exterior portion of the continuous cantilevered
structure. This location of insulation should be carefully determined so that it
is on the same plane with the typical exterior wall insulation.

43
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-19. Reinforced concrete balconies at Bauhaus. With permission of Yvonne Tenschert, 2009, Bauhaus Dessau
Foundation.

In the structural thermal break system employed for steel structures,

steel beams on each side of the insulation are connected with fasteners which
penetrate the insulation. In reinforced concrete structures, both tension and
compression reinforcements continuously pass through the insulation. Since
the steel beam connecting fasteners and reinforcing bars pass through the
insulation, a certain level of systematic thermal bridging action still exists in the
structural thermal break systems. However, the thermal conductivities through

Figure 2-20.
Steel structural thermal break
system. With permission of Fabreeka
International, Inc.

44
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-21.
Reinforced concrete structural thermal break
system. With permission of Ancon Building
Products.

the structural thermal break systems are much smaller than those through the
normal structures without the systems.
The Haus mit Veranden in Vienna designed by architects Rüdiger Lainer
is an apartment complex with 254 dwelling units. Every unit has outdoor
spaces, and many of them are large cantilevered balconies. These either
cantilevered or Juliet balconies naturally connect each unit with the outdoor
environment. The dramatic projection of large cantilevered balconies adds
sculptural quality to the complex composed of irregular form multistory
building masses which already have highly sculptural quality. Since the
balconies are structured by cantilevering interior floor structures, they can work

Figure 2-22. Haus mit Veranden. Photographer: Hubert Dimko, Architect: RLP Rüdiger Lainer + Partner.

45
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

as systematic thermal bridges. A thermal break system similar to what is

shown in Figure 2-21 was employed to resolve this issue and save energy
for environmental control.

VM House, Copenhagen, Denmark

The VM House in Copenhagen, Denmark, designed by JDS Architects is
composed of two residential buildings facing each other. The plans of the two
buildings were designed to have the forms of letters V and M to provide the
residents with better views. There are 230 apartment units ranging from single
houses to family houses. In order to provide unique living environments for
the residents there are 120 different floor plan types in the complex.
The V-House is characterized by sharp triangular shape cantilevered
balconies. The shape and arrangement of the pointed balconies were
determined to allow maximum daylight for each unit and at the same time
to provide space for communication between neighbors. In order to better
support the relatively long triangular balconies, a point close to the outer tip
of the triangle is connected to the primary structural member of the building
with a steel rod. Typically two tensile members are required for conventional
rectangular hung balconies. In the V-House, however, only one tensile rod is
fine. Due to the triangular shape of the balcony, a three-dimensional truss in
the form of a tetrahedron is produced with only one tensile rod. The carefully
configured triangular cantilevered balconies have added an unprecedented
unique expression to the building and integratively perform well.

Figure 2-23. VM House balconies. Julien de Smedt Architects

46
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

The Ledge at Willis Tower, Chicago, USA

The Ledge at Willis Tower (formerly known as Sears Tower) in Chicago is
composed of four identical closed balconies unique in many aspects. Located
on the 103rd floor of Willis Tower, 412 m from the ground, the Ledge’s canti-
levered portion is mostly constructed with glass panels to provide spectacular
views of Chicago. In general, balconies are cantilevered to provide a view
outward. In the Ledge, it was important to provide a view not only outward
but also downward through the transparent glass floor.
The Willis Tower of 1973 did not have the Ledge until 2009. As a later
addition to the building, the rectangular box form Ledge was structured with
steel frames and glass panels. It can be cantilevered and retracted using the
railing system supported by the floor framing of the tower. The retraction was
necessary in order not to obstruct the operation of the existing window
washing system when in use, and for the maintenance of the Ledge itself.
The half of the Ledge structure which always remains inside the building, is
composed of steel braced frames. The other half of the structure, which is
usually in its cantilevered position, is composed of mostly transparent glass
panels. The length of the cantilever is about 1.3 m, and the width and height
of the cantilevered balcony is about 3.2 m and 3.6 m, respectively.
In order to support the cantilevered portion when the Ledge is in its
usual cantilevered position, the steel members on the both edges of the ceiling
are cantilevered and the glass walls are hung from the cantilevered steel
members. The glass roof panel of the cantilevered portion is directly supported
by the cantilevered steel frame members, and the glass floor is supported by
the hung glass walls. Point-fixings are used for the connections between the
glass panels in order to maximize the view with minimal obstructions.
For safety purposes, the glass enclosure of the Ledge is made with
laminated glass composed of three layers of 12 mm tempered low iron, heat-

Figure 2-24. The Ledge at Willis Tower. With permission of John Kooymans.

47
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-25. Structural details of the Ledge at Willis Tower. With permission of John Kooymans.

soaked glass. In addition, 6 mm sacrificial lite is added on the laminated glass

floor to protect it. Safety films were applied to the wall glass panels to protect
them from scratching. Low iron glass is used to provide the view of superior
clarity from the Ledge. By reducing iron content, which produces green tint
in regular float glass, glass can be truly clear. Since green tint becomes more
visible as the thickness of glass is increased and color distortion occurs as
regular float glass is laminated, application of low iron glass for laminated glass
composed of thick layers can provide dramatic differences in terms of clarity.

48
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

2.3. CANTILEVERED CANOPIES

The history of door canopies and awnings goes back to ancient times. While
they are installed for their functional performances to protect the entrance
doors and windows from the heat of the sun and downpour of rain, their
aesthetic contribution to the buildings is also significant. Many contemporary
buildings have cantilevered entrance canopies. The structural concept of
cantilevered entrance canopies can be very similar to that of cantilevered
balconies. Entrance canopies can be very efficiently supported by hangers or
brackets by their axial actions or they can be directly cantilevered from the
interior floor structures or roof structures.
Figure 2-26 shows an entrance canopy supported by hangers. In
terms of carrying gravity loads, the hangers are subjected to tension. However,
if strong uplift force due to wind even larger than the gravity load is expected,
the hangers should be designed to carry compressive forces as well. The angle
between the canopy and the hangers has an impact on the structural
performance. The larger, the smaller axial forces in the hangers, and vice versa.
Though the load carrying mechanism of cantilevered balconies and
canopies can be very similar, unlike cantilevered balconies, cantilevered

Figure 2-26. Entrance canopy supported by hangers.

49
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-27. Entrance canopy of the City Point Building in London.

canopies do not need to provide occupiable platforms in general. Therefore,

the design of cantilevered canopies can be more diverse especially in terms
of form and material. Canopies are often designed with glass and can also
be designed with more flexible materials including fabrics.
Figure 2-27 shows the cantilevered entrance canopy of the City Point
Building in London. Following the arch form main entrance of the building,
the entrance canopy is composed of a series of tilted steel arches hung from
the main entrance arch. And the slanted vaulted form of the entrance canopy
created by the series of component arches is covered by glass panels point-
fixed to the steel arches.
Figure 2-28 shows the entrance canopy to the Yurakucho underground
station in Tokyo. The slanted curved cantilever made primarily of glass makes
this canopy sheltering the staircase to the station unique. The cantilevered
canopy is supported by three cantilevered beams composed of smaller
elements made of laminated glass. The beam elements are connected by
stainless steel pins of 40 mm diameter at about their mid-points and end-
points with overlapping as shown in the figure. Following the structural logic
of the cantilever, the depth of the cantilevered beam elements becomes larger
towards the support made of stainless steel round pipe running along the width

50
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-28. Entrance canopy to the Yurakucho underground station.

of the canopy. V-shaped stainless steel brackets integrated with the round
pipe make connections between the cantilevered glass beams and their pipe
support.
Unlike cantilevered balconies which typically require occupiable plat-
forms built with solid and strong structural materials, cantilevered canopies
can be designed with flexible materials, such as fabrics, of curved forms. The
cantilevered canopy at the East Texas Physicians Alliance made of steel frames
and fabric shades the drop-off area and protects the area from the weather.
The gently curved longest main cantilever members are supported from
the bottom by straight steel members and also hung from the top by steel
cables. The angled steel members at the bottom support the main cantilever

51
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-29. Cantilever canopy at the East Texas Physicians Alliance in Palestine, Texas. With permission of FabriTec Structures.

members at about their mid-spans and the cables are attached to the points
close to the tips of the main members. Due to the resulting triangular forms,
the cantilever is supported primarily by axial actions of the component
members which are pin-connected. Flexible fabrics are placed over the frames
to complete the cantilevered canopy.

Trumpf Campus Gate House, Ditzingen, Germany

The Trumpf Campus Gate House in Ditzingen, Germany, designed by Barkow
Leibinger Architects is a small gate house with a dramatic cantilevered canopy.
Trumpf is a large manufacturer of fabricating equipment and industrial lasers.
It was important for the architect to incorporate the technology of Trumpf in
the design and construction of the gate house – the first building of the campus
experienced by staff and visitors. Therefore, the design was performed with
the Trumpf’s laser-cut technology in mind, and the technology was actually
used for the construction and finally expressed as constructed form.
The building is composed of the 130 m2 enclosed space containing
reception, waiting and technical areas. Four columns support the roof of 32
m x 11 m. The roof is cantilevered to all four sides with the longest cantilever
of about 20 m in the longitudinal direction over the entrance door and across
the street lanes. The cantilevered roof structure in the longitudinal direction
is supported by 17 hollow steel box girders. Steel cross beams are placed
between the box girders in a zigzag pattern. The box girders are 50 cm deep

52
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-30. Entrance canopy of the Trumpf Campus Gate House. Architect: Barkow Leibinger & Photographers: David Franck (T),
Corinne Rose (B).

and their width varies from thickest around the columns on the longer
cantilever side to thinner around the free ends of the cantilevers. Density of
the cross beams of a zigzag pattern also varies following the structural logic.
Trumpf’s own laser-cut technology was used to produce the structural
members of varying sizes and shapes of the roof as shown in Figure 2-30.

53
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-31. Axial force diagram (top, tension in darker shade and compression in lighter shade), bending moment diagram
(middle) and deformed shape (bottom) of the simplified structural model of the Trumpf Campus Gate House subjected to uniformly
distributed loads on the roof.

The roof structure arrived on site in six pieces and these were bolted
together before they were lifted and connected to the four columns. To control
large deformation caused by the large cantilever, the roof structure was
cambered before installation. In the longitudinal direction, the roof is an asym-
metrical two-sided cantilever with an approximate proportion of 1:3:6. With
this proportion, the columns on the shorter cantilever side are subjected to
tensile forces as can be seen in the axial force diagram of Figure 2-31. This
condition makes the structure vulnerable to gravity-induced overturning failure.
Therefore, the foundation must be designed to resist the overturning tendency
of the entire structure. The thickness of the foundation of the gate house is
90 cm. Without the large cantilever, a foundation thickness of only 15 cm
would be required, according to the project engineer. Structural performances
of cantilevered buildings based on the cantilever to back span ratios are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.
The enclosure system of the gate house is composed of two layers
of low-e float glass with a gap of 30 cm between the layers. The gap is filled
with acrylic glass tubes, which produce blurry transparency. The double
layered enclosure system substantially contributes to energy reduction for air

54
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-32. Trumpf Campus Gate House plan. With permission of Barkow Leibinger.

conditioning of the building. The columns are set back from the enclosure
system which is non-load bearing. Customized rubber gaskets are located
between the glass enclosure and the roof structure to safely accommodate
the deformation-induced movements of the roof. This configuration and
material composition accentuates hovering expression of the large canti-
levered roof.

One Central Park, Sydney, Australia

One Central Park in Sydney designed by Ateliers Jean Nouvel is composed
of two residential towers of 34 and 16 stories. The two towers are connected
by the shared 5-story podium, which has amenity facilities and roof garden.
While the complex is configured to maximize natural light, it is still challenging
to introduce daylighting into the pocket space between the towers. In order
to resolve this issue, a set of heliostats is employed to reflect the sunlight
into the deep pocket space including the roof garden and even into the atrium
under the roof garden through the skylight.
For the installation of the heliostat, a large cantilever is projected
from the taller tower between levels 30 and 32 towards the shorter tower.
The heliostat is composed of two sets of mirrors, one on top of the shorter
building and the other under the cantilever of the taller tower. The sunlight
is reflected from the motorized mirrors on top of the lower tower to the mirrors
under the cantilever and finally to the roof garden area between the towers.

55
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 2-33. One Central Park. Design architect: Ateliers Jean Nouvel, Local collaborating architect: PTW Architects.

While cantilevered canopies typically function as sunlight protector, the

cantilever structure in One Central Park is primarily used to introduce sunlight
into the shaded space of the complex.
In order to support the approximately 40 m long cantilever for the instal-
lation of the heliostat system, four sets of two-story tall trusses are employed
between levels 30 and 32. The trusses are designed for both the cantilevered
portion and the back spans to provide strength and stiffness enough to sup-
port the cantilever. The cantilevered trusses function not only as the primary
structural support for the heliostat but also as space for the sky garden.
Compared to the cantilevered roof of the Gate House of the Trumpf Campus,
the cantilever of One Central Park is much longer and heavier. However, the
cantilevered trusses are shorter than the back span trusses in One Central
Park Tower. Further, applied gravity loads on the cantilevered trusses are
smaller than those on the back span trusses, above which there are multiple
floors. Therefore, the cantilever structure of One Central Park Tower is not
vulnerable to overturning failure due to gravity loads. However, since this is
a tall building, lateral load-induced overturning failure must be carefully studied.
Lateral load resisting systems for tall buildings are discussed in greater detail
in Part II.

Voest Alpine Office Center, Linz, Austria

The Voest Alpine Office Center in Linz, Austria, designed by Dietmar Feichtin-
ger Architectes is a 5-story office building of a gently curved form. The main

56
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

Figure 2-34. Voest Alpine Office Center. With permission of Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes, Photo: Josef Pausch.

Figure 2-35. Voest Alpine Office Center section. With permission of Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes.

57
entrance canopy at one end of the building is composed of a large sloped
cantilever. Unlike many other cantilevered canopies which function as only
canopies, the cantilevered canopy in the Voest Alpine Office Center integrates
interior programed space within it.
The structure of the building is composed of steel frames with
concrete floors. Transversally, the space is organized as three zones, the
central zone and two perimeter zones. The columns are located between
the zones, and, consequently, the perimeter zones are all cantilevered. The
proportion of the spans of one perimeter zone, central zone and the other
perimeter zone is 1:3:1, which is close to the optimal. This proportioning makes
the floor structure perform very efficiently. (See Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3.) The
two cantilevered perimeter zones are occupied by individual offices and the
central zone contains the vertical circulation cores, atrium and other shared
functions, such as meeting areas, copy rooms, etc.
towards the entrance, the regularly placed columns stop, and the large
cantilever begins from the third floor level and slopes up to terminate with
the sharp edge. In conjunction with the façades set back on the ground floor
facing the plaza, the hovering expression of the curvilinear mass with the
sloping pointed cantilever becomes more dramatic. Two cantilevered trusses

Figure 2-36. Construction of Voest Alpine Office Center. Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes, Photo: Josef Pausch.

58
 CANTILEVERED BUILDING COMPONENTS

along the column lines of the building support the large cantilever. The trusses
begin much earlier than the beginning of the cantilever to provide strength
and stiffness necessary to support the cantilever. The tapered form produced
by sloping up the cantilever corresponds to the structural logic of the
cantilever. The expression of tapering the cantilever also begins much earlier
than the actual beginning of the cantilever. Combined with the glass façade
design of the entrance lobby under the cantilever and set-back façades, the
length of the cantilever looks longer than actual. Trusses are placed not only
vertically to carry the gravity loads of the cantilever but also laterally to carry
the lateral loads applied to the cantilever as can be seen in the construction
photo of the building.

59
CHAPTER 3

CANTILEVERED
BUILDINGS
WHILE SMALLER SCALE CANTILEVERS have been used in buildings throughout
the history of architecture, large scale dramatic cantilevers are relatively new.
Traditional building materials, such as stone and wood, have critical limitations
to produce large cantilevers. Structural materials for large cantilevers must
be strong in tension and compression for safety because the load carrying
mechanism of cantilevered structures requires both tensile and compressive
strength. In addition, they should be stiff enough to prevent excessive
deformations for serviceability. While certain types of stone have significant
compressive strength, no stone has substantially reliable tensile strength.
Wood has both compressive and tensile capacity if used in a proper direction.
However, for very large cantilevers, the strength of wood may not be
sufficient. In addition, wood may not be stiff enough to control displacements
of very large cantilevers.
The emergence of large cantilevers was based on the use of iron and
steel initially in the mid-19th century and reinforced concrete soon after.
Large horizontal cantilevers were used first not for buildings but for bridges.
The Hassfurt Bridge of 1867 in Germany with a central span of 38 m is
generally recognized as the first modern cantilever bridge. Since then, many
cantilever bridges have been built in steel or reinforced concrete throughout
the world. One of the most well-known cantilever bridges is the Forth Bridge
of 1890 in Scotland. The longest span of the bridge is 520 m, which is
composed of two 207 m cantilevers and a 106 m central structure between
them supported by the two tips of the cantilevers. The cantilever bridge having
the longest single span at this time is the Quebec Bridge of 1919. The 549
m span is composed of two 177 m cantilevers and a 195 m central structure
between them. Both bridges use steel trusses for the cantilevers and the
central structures.
The lengths of the cantilevers in these long span cantilever bridges
are significant. When considered in terms of building heights, the length of

61
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-1. Forth Bridge and its construction.

the cantilever of the Forth Bridge is equivalent to the height of a building of

about 60 stories. However, in cantilever bridges, large cantilevers appear only
during the construction process. In fact, one of the most important motivations
for the development of cantilever bridges is that using cantilevers a long span
bridge can be constructed without falsework. Cantilevers are used in bridges
not as a final built form, but as a very efficient construction methodology. In
order to satisfy the most important functional requirement of bridges, the canti-
levers must be connected eventually. Therefore, once completed, large
cantilevers no longer exist in cantilever bridges.
When large cantilevers are designed for buildings, they almost always
remain as cantilevers. Large iron/steel cantilevers emerged in architecture in
the late 19th century not as horizontal cantilevers but as vertical cantilevers,
including the early tall buildings in Chicago and New York. Though not a typical
building, the Eiffel Tower of 1889 in Paris is one of the most renowned vertical
cantilevers even today. The tower is 300 m tall and constructed with wrought
iron. Against wind loads, the tower has a structurally logical form following

62
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-2. Reinforced concrete cantilever bridges under construction. With permission of The Soletanche Freyssinet Group.

the bending moment diagram of a vertical cantilever beam subjected to

lateral loads. Design and performance of vertical cantilevers will be discussed
in greater detail in Part II of this book. If used for horizontal cantilevers with
a 90-degree turn, the tower would be transformed to a large one-sided
cantilever and the tapered form would still be logical now to carry gravity
loads. However, for horizontal cantilevers in buildings, a non-tapered form
is preferred in general for better functional performance. Furthermore, a
horizontal cantilever of the size of the Eiffel Tower would require a gigantic

63
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-3. Eiffel Tower (left) and Eiffel Tower imaginarily used as a horizontal cantilever (right).

vertical structure and foundation to support it. Designing and building a large
horizontal cantilever including its vertical support and foundation system are
very challenging tasks.
This chapter presents the concept of horizontal cantilevers employed
for a significant portion of a building. It begins with discussions on efficient
proportioning of symmetrical and asymmetrical cantilevers. After that, canti-
levered buildings of various configurations are presented, such as one-sided
cantilevers, two-sided cantilevers, merged cantilevers and stacked multiple
cantilevers. For each category, structural concepts are introduced first and
their applications to real world examples are presented. In many cases, alter-
native design scenarios are comparatively studied to simulate typical design
processes and understand how buildings with large cantilevers of alternative
configurations perform.

3.1. CANTILEVER PROPORTIONING

Lightness is one of the most important themes of modern architecture and
architects have pursued various design ideas to achieve it. One of the most
effective strategies to obtain physical lightness is lightening building struc-
tures by employing appropriately proportioned cantilevers. When a beam type
structure with two simple supports, subjected to uniformly distributed loads,
is considered, the optimal locations of the supports to produce the lightest

64
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

structure are not at the two ends of the structure. This configuration makes
the entire structure bend downwards, and consequently positive bending
moments are developed throughout the structure with the maximum at the
mid-span (see the first bending moment diagram of Figure 3-4). When this
beam type structure is designed with a prismatic member, the maximum
bending moment governs the design. This common design approach results
in structural inefficiency because the beam is overdesigned except for the
maximum bending moment portion at the mid-span.
As the two simple supports at the ends begin to be pushed in by
the same distance, two symmetrical cantilevers are produced outside the
supports. As the free ends of the cantilevers and the central span bend
downwards, the two support regions bend comparatively upwards. Conse-
quently, negative bending moments are developed around the supports with
the negative maximum at the supports, and positive bending moments are
developed between the inflection points in the central span with the positive
maximum at the mid-span. The absolute values of these maximum negative
and positive bending moments are smaller than that of the maximum positive
bending moment of the original simply supported beam type structure with
two end supports. As the two supports are continuously pushed in, the maxi-
mum negative bending moment becomes larger and the maximum positive
bending moment becomes smaller (see the second through fourth bending
moment diagrams of Figure 3-4). When the length of the two end cantilev-
ers reaches about 21 percent of the entire length of the beam type structure,

Figure 3-4. Comparative bending moment diagrams and deformed shapes of a beam type structure subjected to uniformly
distributed loads and symmetrically supported by two simple supports of various locations.

65
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

the absolute values of the increasing maximum negative and decreasing

maximum positive bending moments become the same (see the fourth
bending moment diagram of Figure 3-4). This is the structurally optimal
condition, which makes it possible to build the beam type structure with the
lightest structural member.
As the two end supports are further pushed in after passing through
the optimal locations, the maximum negative bending moments at the
supports are continuously increased, and the maximum positive bending
moment at the mid-span is continuously decreased and reaches zero when
the length of the two end cantilevers is 25 percent of the entire length of the
structure (see the fifth bending moment diagram of Figure 3-4). Once the
support locations pass through the 25 percent points, the entire structure is
subjected to negative bending moments (see the sixth bending moment
diagram of Figure 3-4). When the two supports eventually merge at the mid-
span, the maximum negative bending moment is developed there. The
absolute value of this maximum negative bending moment is the same as
that of the maximum positive bending moment of the original simply
supported beam type structure with two end supports (see the last bending
moment diagram of Figure 3-4).
Figure 3-4 also shows comparative deformed shapes of the beam type
structures discussed thus far. As the end supports are continuously pushed
in to the optimal locations, the deformation of the structure, which represents
its serviceability, is gradually reduced (see the first through fourth deformed
shapes). After passing through the optimal locations, the deformation becomes
larger than the optimal condition. When the two supports are eventually
merged, the displacements of the free ends of the cantilevers become their
maximum (see the fifth through last deformed shapes). This maximum
displacement is still smaller than that of the first case with two end supports,
by about 40 percent.

Figure 3-5. New National Gallery in Berlin. With permission of Manuela Martin.

66
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-6. Cantilever barn in East Tennessee.

In conclusion, when appropriate, cantilevers can be employed to make

structures lighter. For example, in the New National Gallery in Berlin designed
by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe shown in Figure 3-5, each perimeter beam of
the roof structure is symmetrically supported by two exterior columns which
divide the beam into two cantilevered zones and the central span zone
between the columns. This configuration produces the desired architectural
form and, at the same time, a more efficient structural solution by reducing
the maximum bending moment compared with the case with two end
columns with no cantilevers. Another example is shown in Figure 3-6. The
cantilevered upper portion of the cantilever barns in East Tennessee is also
proportioned to reduce the maximum bending moment.
When only one support is pushed in and the other support remains
at the end, only one cantilever is created beyond the pushed-in support. This
asymmetrical support condition can also result in more efficient structural
performance with reduced bending moments compared with the original
simply supported beam type structure with two end supports. As the free
end of the cantilever and the back span between the supports bend down-
wards, the cantilever side support region bends comparatively upwards.
Consequently, negative bending moments are developed around the canti-
lever side support with the negative maximum at the support, and positive
bending moments are developed in the back span between the end support
and the inflection point with the positive maximum at the center of the positive

67
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-7. Comparative bending moment diagrams and deformed shapes of a beam type structure subjected to uniformly
distributed loads and asymmetrically supported by one end support and the other support of various locations.

moment region. The absolute values of these maximum negative and positive
bending moments are smaller than that of the maximum positive bending
moment of the original simply supported beam type structure. As the canti-
lever side support is continuously pushed in, the maximum negative bending
moment becomes larger and the maximum positive bending moment
becomes smaller (see the second through fourth bending moment diagrams
of Figure 3-7). When the length of the cantilever reaches about 29 percent
of the entire length of the beam type structure, the absolute values of the
increasing maximum negative and decreasing maximum positive bending
moments become the same (see the fourth bending moment diagram of
Figure 3-7). This is the structurally optimal condition, which makes it possible
to build the beam type structure with the lightest structural member, for this
asymmetrical configuration.
As the cantilever side support is further pushed in after passing
through the optimal location, the maximum negative bending moment at the
support is continuously increased and the maximum positive bending moment
in the back span is continuously decreased and reaches zero when the length
of the cantilever is 50 percent of the entire length of the structure (see the
fifth and sixth bending moment diagrams of Figure 3-7). The absolute value

68
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

of the maximum negative bending moment in this condition is the same as

that of the maximum positive bending moment of the original simply
supported beam type structure. Once the cantilever side support passes
through the 50 percent point, the entire structure is subjected to negative
bending moments, with the absolute maximum value larger than the max-
imum positive bending moment of the original simply supported beam type
structure. Therefore, as the length of the cantilever becomes larger than 50
percent of the entire length of the beam type structure, the system is less
efficient than the original case. When the two supports eventually meet at
the end of the structure, the merged support must be changed to a rigid
support for the resulting structure to be stable. In this case, a pure cantilever
with no back span is obtained and the absolute value of the maximum
negative bending moment at the support is four times larger than that of the
maximum positive bending moment in the original simply supported beam
type structure.
Figure 3-7 also shows comparative deformed shapes of the beam type
structures discussed thus far. As one end support is continuously pushed
in to the optimal location, the deformation of the structure, which repre-
sents its serviceability, is gradually reduced (see the first through fourth
deformed shapes of Figure 3-7). After passing through the optimal location,
the deformation becomes larger than the optimal condition. Once the pushed-
in cantilever side support reaches the 50 percent point of the beam type
structure, the entire structure bows upwards and is subjected to only negative
bending moments. The maximum displacement of the free end of the canti-
lever in this case is larger by about 20 percent than that of the mid-span of
the first case with two end supports. When the two supports are eventually
merged at the end of the structure as a rigid support, the maximum displace-
ment of the free end of the cantilever is larger by about 10 times than that
of the mid-span of the first case without cantilever.
When appropriate, asymmetrical cantilevers can be used to make struc-
tures lighter. Figure 3-8 shows a naturally created asymmetrical cantilever
structure, which is very similar to what have just been discussed. The Carne
House in the Rheinauhafen of Cologne designed by Hadi Teherani of BRT
Architecten, discussed in detail later in this chapter, is also a good example
of asymmetrically cantilevered buildings with efficient structural proportions.
In the symmetrically supported beam type structure with two sup-
ports and subjected to uniformly distributed loads shown in Figure 3-4, both
support reactions are acting upward and equal, regardless of the propor-
tions of the cantilevers. Therefore, the typical vertical support system
composed of columns and foundations is subjected to compression. In the
asymmetrically supported beam type structure shown in Figure 3-7, as
the right support is pushed in to create a cantilever, the left end support’s
upward reaction becomes reduced, while the cantilever side right sup-
port’s upward reaction becomes increased (see the first and second diagrams

69
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-8. Asymmetrical cantilever structure in nature. With permission of Imp Adventures – Damon Blackband.

of Figure 3-9). When the cantilever side support is positioned exactly at the
center of the beam type structure, the magnitude of the center support’s
upward reaction becomes the same as the sum of the downward uniformly
distributed applied loads, and the left end support does not carry any vertical
load (see the third diagram of Figure 3-9).

Figure 3-9. Relative support reactions of a beam type structure subjected to uniformly distributed loads and asymmetrically
supported by one end support and the other support of various locations.

70
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-10.
Support reaction changes for
equilibrium of a beam type structure
subjected to uniformly distributed loads
and asymmetrically supported by one
end support and the other support of
various locations.

71
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

As the cantilever side right support passes through the center of the
structure and gets closer to the left end support, a downward reactional force
begins to be developed in the left end support to prevent overturning failure
and the cantilever side support’s upward force becomes even greater than
the sum of the downward forces applied to the beam type structure. This
tendency becomes greater as the cantilever side support gets closer to the
left end support (see the fourth and fifth diagrams of Figure 3-9 and second
and third diagrams of Figure 3-10). Apparently, the expression of the canti-
lever becomes more dramatic as the back span length becomes shorter.
However, the cantilever, back span and vertical supports are subjected
to greater stresses, and consequently a more expensive solution is required
for the structure. Furthermore, the development of a downward reactional
force at the left end support means that the vertical support system is
subjected to tensile forces. Development of tensile forces in the foundation
system is not structurally desirable because soil does not have tensile
resistance. A deep foundation system which carries tensile forces by frictions
or an unusually large foundation system with an appropriate configuration to
resist this tensile force is required to resolve this structural issue. Examples
of this are the very large foundation systems of the Trumpf Campus Gate
House presented in Chapter 2 and the former Lamar Construction Company
Corporate Headquarters to be discussed in this chapter. Dramatically propor-
tioned long cantilevers with short back spans typically require very expensive
superstructures as well as substructures. Therefore, the proportions of
cantilevered structures should be carefully configured considering not only
expressed portions but also their foundation systems and related cost issues.

3.2. JETTYING
Jettying in wood structures has been a very practical and efficient method to
increase the occupiable area of buildings by cantilevering floors. A jetty is
produced by projecting upper floor beams or joists beyond the load-bearing
walls of the floor below. In three-story wood frame structures, jettying can
be used twice so the third floor is larger than the second floor and the second
floor is larger than the ground floor. Jettying can be used for not only one
side but also multiple sides of the building. When jettying is used for two
sides meeting at a right angle, a diagonal dragon beam may be used to project
the floor joists around the corner, beginning from the dragon beam.
In addition to increasing the occupiable floor area, jettying can produce
a more efficient structural solution. Compared with the case with simply
supported joists between the load-bearing walls, cantilevered joists having an
even longer total length can be subjected to smaller bending moments. Let’s
consider a symmetrically cantilevered joist beyond the load-bearing walls.
When the joist is subjected to only uniformly distributed gravity loads, the

72
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-11. Jettying in a wood structure.

maximum bending moment of the cantilevered joist can be smaller than that
of the simply supported non-cantilevered joist. When the cantilevered length
of the joist to the both sides is about 36 percent of the main span between
the supports, the proportion of which is close to optimal, the maximum bending
moment is only about 50 percent of the case with no cantilever.
When jettying is used to cantilever the second floor of a two-story
building, however, the proportion of the cantilevered length should be much
smaller in order to achieve the same structural efficiency because the joist is
not only subjected to distributed loads from the floor but also large point loads
at its two ends from the second floor exterior walls and roof. (No interior
loadbearing walls are considered here for clearer conceptual discussions.)
Therefore, if the 36 percent cantilevered length is still used and typical light

73
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-12.
Jettying at a building corner
with a diagonal beam.

wood frame walls, roof and floor loads are considered, the maximum bending
moment of the joist can be, in fact, increased to about 200 percent of the
case with no cantilevers as can be seen in Figure 3-14. The entire joist bows
upwards and all negative bending moments are developed along the joist in
this case because the two large point loads push down the ends of the
cantilevers. When no jettying is used, the second-floor exterior wall and roof
loads are directly carried by the vertical load bearing walls, and the second-
floor joists carry only floor loads.
In order to reduce the maximum bending moment of the second-floor
joists by about 50 percent in the symmetrically jettied two story building, the
length of the cantilevers should be limited to about 8–10 percent of the main
span length, when typical light wood frame loads are considered. With these
shorter cantilevers in combination with the large point loads at their tips and
uniformly distributed loads over the joist, the positive bending moment at the
mid-span and negative bending moment at the supports are balanced, and
structural efficiency is obtained again.

74
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-13. Comparative bending moment diagrams of simply supported and optimally cantilevered joists with the same primary
span length between the two vertical supports.

When the symmetrically cantilevered length of the second-floor joists

is about 21–23 percent of the main span length, the maximum bending
moment of the joists is about the same as that in the simply supported case
with no cantilevers. While the simply supported case develops all positive
bending moments throughout the joist, this case with 21–23 percent canti-
levers develops almost all negative bending moments because of the pushing
down effects caused by the large point loads at the tips of the cantilevers.
When the length of the cantilevers is greater than about 23 percent, a larger
maximum bending moment is developed than that in the case with no canti-
levers.
Jettying can be used to cantilever only one end of the joist. When
only uniformly distributed loads are applied to the joist, the structurally optimal

Figure 3-14. Comparative bending moment diagrams of symmetrically jettied two-story buildings with the same main span length
between the two vertical supports and different cantilevered lengths.

75
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-15. Comparative bending moment diagrams of simply supported and optimally one-sided cantilevered joists with the
same primary span length between the two vertical supports.

length of the cantilever is about 41 percent of the main span between the
load-bearing walls. Based on this proportion, the maximum bending moment
of the joist is reduced to about 70 percent of that in the case with no
cantilever. This reduction is caused by balancing the all positive bending
moments of the simply supported case into positive between the end support
and inflection point and negative around the cantilever side support as can
be seen in Figure 3-15.
When this one-sided cantilever is used for a two-story building to
increase the occupiable space of the second floor, the 41 percent cantilever
with typical light wood frame loads can result in a large increased maximum
bending moment of about 300 percent of the case with no cantilever. This is
because the joist is subject to not only distributed loads from the floor but
also a large point load applied at the tip of the cantilever from the second-
floor exterior wall and the roof. Due to the large point load, almost the entire
joist develops negative bending moments.
In order to reduce the maximum bending moment of the second-floor
joists of the two-story building with a one-sided cantilever, the proportion of
the cantilever should be reduced. With a cantilevered length of about 18 per-
cent of the main span, the system is structurally optimized. In this case, the
maximum bending moment is reduced to about 70 percent of the case with
no cantilever.
When the one-sided cantilever length of the second-floor joist is
about 25 percent of the main span length, the maximum bending moment
is about the same as that in the case with no cantilever. Therefore, the occupi-
able area of the second floor can be increased by 25 percent without
increasing the maximum bending moment of the joists. The same size joists
used for the case with no cantilever can still be used for the jettied building
with the second-floor area increased by 25 percent.
The Shambles in York, England is well known for jettied buildings.
Figure 3-17 shows three-story jettied buildings towards the street. As can be

76
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-16. Comparative bending moment diagrams of asymmetrically jettied two-story building with the same primary span
length between the two vertical supports and different cantilevered lengths

Figure 3-17.
The Shambles in York,
England.

77
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

seen in the figure, the third floor is larger than the second floor, and the second
floor is larger than the ground floor. By this technique, the width of the street
is maintained, while the floor area of the upper levels of the buildings along
the street is maximized.
In order to achieve the optimal structural efficiency in three-story
buildings with jettied second and third floors, the proportion of the cantilevered
lengths of the second and third floor should be carefully determined. When
symmetrical jettying is used as can be seen in Figure 3-18, the cantilevered
length of the second-floor joist should be limited to about 4 percent of the
first-floor span length because the point loads applied to the tips of the second-
floor cantilevered joists by the second and third floor exterior walls, third floor,
and roof are very large. The cantilevered length of the third-floor joist can be
increased to 8–10 percent of the second-floor span length because the point
loads applied to the tips of the third-floor joists by only the third-floor exterior
walls and roof are much smaller than those applied to the tips of the second
floor joists. By these proportions, the second and third floor joists are
structurally optimized to develop the minimized maximum bending moments.
In this example, the main span of the third floor between the vertical supports
is larger than that of the second floor. Therefore, the optimized maximum

Figure 3-18. Bending moment diagrams of optimally symmetrically and asymmetrically jetted three-story buildings

78
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

bending moment of the third-floor joists is larger than that of the second-floor
joists.
When one-sided jettying is used, the cantilevered length of the second-
floor joist should be limited to about 7 percent of the first-floor span length
because the point loads applied to the tips of the second-floor cantilevered
joists by the second and third floor exterior walls, third floor, and roof are very
large. The cantilevered length of the third-floor joists can be increased to about
18 percent of the second-floor span length because the point loads, applied
to the tips of the third-floor joists by only the third-floor exterior walls and
roof, are much smaller than those applied to the tips of the second floor joists.
Between the symmetrically and asymmetrically jettied buildings, the
symmetrical one creates additional floor area more efficiently. The same
amount of floor area can be added by symmetrical jettying with less amount
of joist material because smaller bending moments are developed in the sym-
metrical configuration.

3.3. LARGE ONE-SIDED CANTILEVERS

One of the most challenging configurations of cantilever is a large one-sided
cantilever, especially with a short back span. When this type of configuration
is employed as an option to solve certain design problems, its architectural

Figure 3-19. Axial forces of cantilevered trusses (tension in darker shade and compression in lighter shade in all axial force
diagrams in this chapter).

79
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

expression can be very dramatic, while its structural solution is demanding. The
structural performance of one-sided cantilevers is dependent on various factors,
such as the type and depth of the structural system, proportion between the
cantilevered and back spans, and configuration of the foundation system.
Trusses are one of the most predominantly used structural systems
for large cantilevers in buildings. By continuously connecting linear structural
members in triangular forms, trusses carry applied loads at the nodes very
efficiently by the component members’ axial actions. Therefore, while the
system is typically very light, it is very strong and stiff. Figure 3-19 shows
cantilevered trusses of two different configurations. In cantilevered trusses,
the top and bottom chord members develop tensile and compressive forces
respectively to resist the gravity-induced overall bending of the system. The
axial forces of the chord members become larger towards the support, where
the maximum bending moment of the cantilever is developed.
The web members between the top and bottom chord members are
typically composed of either vertical or slanted members to form triangular
shapes in the truss and primarily carry the overall shear force of the cantilever.
Depending on the configuration, the shear of the cantilever is carried by either
tension or compression of the web members. It is often preferred to configure

Figure 3-20. Comparative axial forces of cantilevered trusses of different depths.

80
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-21. External and internal force conditions of the trusses of different depths.

the web members in such a way that longer diagonal members develop tensile
forces and shorter vertical members develop compressive forces as shown
in the upper diagram of Figure 3-19. This is because long and slender com-
pressive members are vulnerable to buckling failure. Therefore, strategically
making longer members subjected to tensile forces can eliminate the possi-
bility of their premature buckling failure. The axial forces of the web members
also increase towards the support because the overall shear force of the
cantilever becomes larger towards the support. The slanted web members
also participate in carrying the overall bending of the cantilever in association
with the previously discussed top and bottom chord members which primarily
resist the overall bending of the system.
Figure 3-20 shows two cantilevered trusses of different depths sub-
jected to the same gravity loads on the nodes. As the depth of the truss
becomes larger, the top and bottom chord member forces are reduced.
When the depth of the truss becomes twice to carry the same gravity load,
the top and bottom chord member forces become about half. This is because
the top and bottom chord members in combination with the horizontal

81
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

components of the diagonal members in the web produce resisting moment

by their axial actions against the overall bending of the cantilever as can be
seen in Figure 3-21. The depth of the truss works as the resisting moment
arm. As the length of the resisting moment arm becomes twice, the top and
bottom chord member forces become half to carry the same overall bending
moment. Therefore, as the length of the cantilever becomes large, it is a good
strategy to develop a story height or even two or more story height truss
system to support the cantilever more efficiently with a maximized resisting
moment arm. When these deep trusses are employed on the façade planes
of cantilevered buildings, visual and environmental connections between the
interior and exterior can still be obtained through the triangular openings. When
they are used in the interior space, circulations can also be obtained again
through the triangular openings.
Considering the fact that the overall bending moment of the canti-
levered system is increased towards the support, a structurally corresponding
more logical form of the cantilevered trusses can be conceived. When external
gravity loads are applied to the nodes of the cantilevered truss, the cor-
responding overall bending moment of the system is shown in the upper
diagram of Figure 3-22. If the shape of a cantilevered truss follows the form
of this bending moment diagram, horizontal components of every top and
bottom chord member forces which carry the overall bending moment of the
system become identical. This is because in the reshaped truss the resist-
ing moment arm changes in proportion to the required magnitude of resisting
moment along the cantilever. Therefore, the horizontal members of the truss,
which develop only horizontal forces, can be designed with all identical
members. The horizontal components of the slanted member forces are also
all identical. The varying depths between the top and bottom chord members,
which represent the varying resisting moment arms, in combination with the
constant horizontal top and bottom chord member forces, reflect the required
varying moment resistance of the system at different locations. The vertical
components of the slanted member forces are what carry the shear forces
of the system. As the shear force increases towards the support, the slanted
member size should be increased accordingly towards the supports. The lower
diagram of Figure 3-22 shows axial forces of a so-called funicular-shaped canti-
levered truss following the structural logic described above. Once shaped in
this way, no internal forces are developed in the web members as can be
observed in the figure.
Deep trusses of triangular geometric configurations produce very
efficient structural solutions for large cantilevers. However, this strategy may
involve large diagonal members one or more stories tall. Inclusion of diagonal
members and consequent triangulation can produce superior structural solu-
tions in terms of both strength and stiffness. However, large diagonal members
in buildings are not always welcomed architecturally. If diagonal members must
be prevented, Vierendeel trusses can be considered as an alternative design

82
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-22. Overall bending moment and axial force diagrams of funicular-shaped cantilevered truss.

solution. Once all the diagonal members are eliminated from the conventional
parallel chord cantilever truss with vertical and diagonal web members and all
the connections are changed to moment connections, a Vierendeel cantilever
is produced.
With its orthogonal configuration, the cantilevered Vierendeel truss
carries the applied loads no longer by only axial actions. The overall bending
of the cantilever is still carried by axial actions, tension in the top chord
members and compression in the bottom chord members. The axial forces
become larger towards the support of the cantilever because overall bending
of the cantilevered structure increases towards the support. However, these
axial forces typically do not govern the structural design of the Vierendeel
system. With no diagonal members, shear forces of the system are carried
by bending of the top and bottom chord members as well as vertical mem-
bers. Since shear forces of the cantilever increase towards the support, the
bending moments of the top and bottom chord members as well as vertical
members to carry the shear forces also increase towards the support.
When axial and bending actions work together in Vierendeel truss
members, bending typically governs the structural performance and design
of the system. Bending action is a very inefficient load carrying mechanism.

83
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-23. Axial forces and bending moments of cantilevered Vierendeel truss members.

(It is not too difficult to recognize that axial action is a much more efficient
way of carrying forces than bending. For example, a bamboo chopstick can
be easily broken by bending even by the hands of a child, but it is almost
impossible to break it by pulling or pushing it from both ends axially even for
a strong adult person, which explains the relative efficiency of axially loaded
structural members.) Compared to the conventional triangulated truss system,
the Vierendeel system, the design of which is primarily governed by each
member’s bending action, requires much larger member sizes to provide
sufficient strength and stiffness. Figure 3-24 shows comparative deformed
shapes of the conventional triangulated cantilevered truss and Vierendeel
cantilever designed with the same amount of structural material and subjected
to the identical gravity loads at the nodes. Significantly larger deformations
are observed in the Vierendeel cantilever. Therefore, Vierendeel trusses
should be considered carefully perhaps only for cantilevers of relatively short
length when they are very much required.
Performance of a building with a large one-sided cantilever is also
greatly affected by the proportion between the back span and cantilever. When
there is only one back span, the optimal back span to cantilever length ratio
of the structure subjected to uniformly distributed loads is about 10:4 as was
discussed earlier. When there are multiple back spans of equal length, the
optimal proportion should primarily be considered only with the immediate
back span of the cantilever, not with the combined length of the back spans.

84
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-24. Comparative deformed shapes of cantilevered truss and Vierendeel cantilever.

The first bending moment diagram of Figure 3-25 shows the case of the
optimally proportioned one-sided cantilever with a single back span. As the
number of the back span supports is increased to divide the back span into
equal length multiple back spans, the bending moments of the back spans,
excluding the first back span immediately after the cantilever, are decreased.
However, the bending moments of the cantilever and the first back span do
not change much.
In Figure 3-25, as the number of back span supports is increased, the
proportion of the cantilever to the first back span length immediately after
the cantilever is increased. In the fourth moment diagram with four back spans,
the first back span length is smaller than the cantilever length. In this case,
the second support from the cantilever develops a downward reaction force.
Therefore, tensile force is expected in the column and the foundation system
which supports this portion of the structure. Development of tensile forces
in the foundation system is not desirable structurally because soil does not
provide tensile resistance. In the fifth diagram, even though the first back span
length immediately after the cantilever is still shorter than the cantilever length,
the downward reaction force of the second support from the cantilever is
eliminated by increasing the length of the second back span. Figure 3-26 shows
percentile support reaction forces of the structures shown in Figure 3-25.
The sixth diagram of Figure 3-25 shows the case with the optimally
reduced cantilever length based on the first back span length when there are

85
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-25. Bending moment diagrams of one-sided cantilevers with single and multiple back spans of various configurations.

multiple equal length back spans. Bending moments of every span are mini-
mized and downward reaction forces are no longer developed in any support.
If the four back spans are combined as a longer single back span as can be
seen in the last diagram, bending moment of the combined back span
between the supports becomes even larger than the first case with a longer
but optimized length cantilever. In structures with a large one-sided cantilever,
not only the absolute length of the cantilever but also the proportional
relationship between the back spans and the cantilever is a very important
factor for efficient structural performance.
The primary load to be considered in large one-sided cantilevers is
typically gravity as has been discussed thus far. When the cantilever is very
long and slender, however, lateral loads also significantly influence its
structural design and performance. While gravity loads always have the pre-
determined direction, lateral loads should be considered in any direction
because wind can blow in any direction. In steel structures, diagonal cross
bracings can be employed on the floors of the cantilever as an effective means

86
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-26. Percentile support reaction forces of the structures shown in Figure 3-25.

to carry lateral loads. In reinforced concrete structures, the floor structure

should be designed not only as the gravity load carrying system but also as
the lateral load resisting diaphragm.

ICA Boston, USA

The Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) building in Boston designed by Diller
Scopidio + Renfro is dramatically integrated with Boston Harbor with a very
large one-sided cantilever. The three floors from the ground have a smaller
footprint due to the limited size of the site by the waterfront, while the fourth-
floor gallery space of a much larger footprint is created by the long one-sided
cantilever of about 82 ft (25 m) hovering over the Boston HarborWalk next to
the water. The resulting profile of the building based on this configuration is
an inverted L with an impressive cantilever.

87
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-27. The Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Boston. Photo by Iwan Baan, Courtesy of DS+R.

Four trusses of the full depth of the fourth floor, which is about 23 ft
(7 m) , support the large cantilever. The trusses are continued from the entire
back span to the cantilever to provide sufficient strength and stiffness. Each
truss is composed of seven modules. With primarily two columns supporting
each trusses – one at the end of the truss and the other four modules apart
from the end column – the back span to cantilever length ratio is 4:3, which
is not structurally optimal. However, this proportion creates a very dramatic
cantilever, and, when identical loads are applied to the nodes of the truss, only
compressive forces are developed in the columns and consequently in the
foundation.
In fact, there are more columns between the two primary truss-
supporting columns to carry the loads from the three floors on the east side
of the building under the fourth floor gallery. However, sliding joins are used
between these columns and the trusses so that the gravity loads from the
trusses are not directly carried by these columns (see the first diagram of
Figure 3-28). If these interior columns are directly connected to the trusses,
some of the columns will be subject to tensile force development. On the
west side of the building, the performance theater is hung from the perimeter
truss by tubular steel hangers (see the second diagram of Figure 3-28). With
this hanging configuration, the end column is less vulnerable to tensile force
development even in cases with relatively large live loads only in the canti-
levered portion. Furthermore, based on this hanging design, column-free
lobby space on the ground floor is provided under the theater.

88
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-28. Comparative axial force diagrams of simplified ICA structure in Boston (top: east side frame, bottom: west side frame).

A proportion close to the optimal would be created by cantilevering

only two modules of the trusses instead of three. With the back span to canti-
lever length ratio of 5:2, the overall member forces of the trusses are minim-
ized, and consequently the trusses can be constructed with lighter members.
However, the architectural expression of the cantilever of this proportion
would be less dramatic. In addition, the HarborWalk outdoor space in front
of the building would be reduced, while the interior space would be increased.
On the contrary, if the length of the cantilever were increased to four
modules of the trusses, its hovering expression could be more signifi-
cant. However, with the back span to cantilever length ratio of 3:4, the overall
member forces of the trusses becomes much larger and the member sizes of
the trusses should also be larger. In addition, with this proportion, tensile forces
are developed in the end columns and consequently in the foundation system.
Furthermore, compressive forces in the cantilever side columns become
much larger compared with the 5:2 length ratio case. These tensile forces
and very large compressive forces would result in very costly super- and

89
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-29. Axial force diagrams of the ICA building structure in Boston with alternative back span to cantilever length ratios.

sub-structures. As the proportion of the cantilever becomes larger, its

deformation also becomes larger.
The actual foundation system for the ICA building is composed of steel
H piles of longer than 100 ft (30 m), concrete pile caps and grids of concrete
beams, which tie the pile caps. The piles carry not only compressive loads
by end bearing and friction but also tensile loads by friction. The tensile capacity
of the piles is limited to about 23 percent in this project. Based on the back
span to cantilever length ratio of 4:3, it is not likely that tensile forces are devel-
oped in the end columns in typical cases. However, in a plausible extreme
load case such as very large live loads only in the cantilevered portion, it is
still possible for the end columns to develop some tensile forces, the magni-
tude of which will be much smaller than that of compressive forces developed
in the other sets of columns at the beginning of the cantilever.
Two of the four mega-trusses are placed along the east and west side
perimeter of the gallery and the other two are placed around the central core
of the gallery. While the perimeter trusses are continued towards the free

90
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

end of the cantilever on the north side, the trusses around the central core
stop before they reach the north façade. In combination with mullion-less point
fixing glass façades, this truss configuration helps create an uninterrupted
spectacular water view to the north side of the building.
Depending on the façade design including material choices, the
expression of cantilevers is significantly influenced. In the ICA Building, the
same wood finish is continuously used from the walkway on the ground level
under the cantilever up to the back of the theater with a 90-degree turn and
returns onto the underside of the cantilever with another 90-degree turn. This
band of same wood finish is clearly expressed on the building façade as an
important design element. Most of the façade areas between the same wood
finish bands are clad with transparent glasses, while the cantilevered gallery
mass is clad with translucent material except for the north front façade facing
water. This design strategy makes the expression of the cantilever with the
back span to cantilever length ratio of 4:3 much more dramatic, as if the
proportion of the cantilever were much greater than actual.

Former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters, Hudsonville, Michigan, USA

The former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters in
Hudsonville, Michigan, designed by Integrated Architecture boasts one of the
most dramatic cantilever structures in the US. In fact, the building does not
necessarily require a large cantilever structure in terms of its site condition,
program, etc. However, as the headquarters of a construction company, the
building was designed to expressively present the company’s ability to per-
form steel erection and construction in a masterly way. The building is com-
posed of two floors. Unlike typical two-story buildings, however, the second
floor was not built on top of the first floor. Instead there is a very large gap
between the first and second floor. In order to support the second floor which
is hovering over the first floor, it is cantilevered to one side from the vertical
reinforced concrete structural core containing a staircase and elevator.
The second floor cantilever is structured with two 112 ft (34.1 m) long
steel trusses which are full story height of 16 ft (4.9 m) deep. At the junction,
between the steel cantilever trusses and the vertical reinforced concrete core,
where the bending moment of the cantilever is greatest, diagonal members
are added under the trusses like brackets to increase the structural depth there.
The diagonal members are geometrically integrated with the slope of the
staircase between the first and hovering second floor. Comparative axial force
diagrams of the cantilevered trusses with and without the additional diagonal
members are shown in Figure 3-31. Reduced member forces can be clearly
observed in the design with the increased structural depth.
With the very long cantilever and slender vertical core, the back span
to cantilever length ratio is about 1:5 in this building. This proportion makes
the building very vulnerable to overturning failure. To prevent the overturn-
ing, the core structure is supported by a 90 ft (27.4 m) long, 62 ft (18.9 m)

91
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-30. Former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters. With permission of Van Dellen Steel, Inc.

wide and 6 ft (1.8 m) deep reinforced concrete footing, which is extended in

the direction of the cantilever. The steel truss cantilever, reinforced concrete
vertical core and unusually long, wide and deep underground footing create
a C-shaped structure, which can effectively resist the overturning tendency
of the building. The anticipated displacement of the large cantilever is

92
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-31. Former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters trusses of alternative configurations.

Figure 3-32. C-shape structural configuration of former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters.

significant. To compensate for that, a camber of 4 in (10.1 cm) was used at

the free end of the cantilever, according to the project engineer.
The cantilevered portion of the building is composed of a rectangular
box form volume which accommodates office space. The two large trusses
which support the cantilever are located inside the cantilevered volume. The
floor beams, supported by these two cantilevered trusses, are placed across
the trusses and produce two symmetrical cantilevers. A plausible design

93
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-33. Alternative structural configurations of former Lamar Construction Company Corporate Headquarters.

94
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

alternative would be locating the two large trusses along the two longitudinal
perimeter surfaces of the cantilevered rectangular volume and placing the floor
beams between the trusses. In terms of structural performance, the actual
construction is more efficient because the maximum bending moment of the
floor beams with symmetrical cantilevers is smaller than that of the simply
end-supported floor beams of the same total length. However, this config-
uration requires the trusses to be placed within the interior space and divides
the space into three separate zones. Therefore, if the architecturally desired
spatial configuration and this structural arrangement can be well integrated,
this is a good design solution. In this building, the space between the trusses
is used for the stairwell and conference room. The two symmetrically can-
tilevered zones beyond the trusses are used for offices, and the exposed
trusses naturally define each space.
The scheme alternatively considered here can create a large column-
free space. Therefore, if the architecturally required spatial organization prefers
a large column-free space, this configuration can be a better design option,
though the structural efficiency lacks compared with the scheme actually used.
It should also be noted that the design alternative with perimeter cantilever
trusses requires a design modification at the junction between the core and
the cantilevered mass. A larger core is required to directly embed the canti-
levered trusses, which will change the composition of the building masses
and overall building aesthetics. Alternatively, double cantilevering can be used
to keep the existing core size and maintain the current composition of the
building masses.
The two different structural alternatives also affect the façade design.
The constructed scheme does not require substantial structural elements
on the building perimeter. Therefore, façade design can be performed with a
great degree of flexibility, and, if desired, the transparency of the façade and
visual connection between the interior and the exterior can be maximized.
The alternative scheme requires placing large trusses on the building peri-
meter. Therefore, the façade design is significantly influenced by the structural
elements. The heavy trusses may be visually exposed and, in turn, this may
obstruct the view from inside. Considered from a different viewpoint, this
situation could provide a good opportunity to express structures on the build-
ing façades as an important architectural design element when appropriate.

Milstein Hall at Cornell University, New York, USA

Milstein Hall designed by OMA is a new addition to the College of Art,
Architecture and Planning of Cornell University. The new building, inserted
into a very limited site between three existing buildings – Sibley Hall, Rand
Hall and Foundry – makes the much desired direct connection between
Rand Hall and Sibley Hall. The building’s second floor, which mainly contains
design studios, is lifted from the ground, hovers over the University Avenue
by a large cantilever, and creates an indirect relationship with the Foundry.

95
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-34. Milstein Hall at Cornell University. Image courtesy OMA; Photography by Iwan Baan.

Four eccentrically configured trusses are employed for the 50 ft (15.2 m)

long cantilevered portion over the University Avenue and Vierendeel trusses
are used for the two back spans of about 90 ft (27.4 m) total. Both the canti-
lever and back span trusses are full story height deep. Between Sibley Hall
and Rand Hall towards the back of the building, there is another narrower
cantilever of about 50 ft (15.2 m) on the opposite side of the large main canti-
lever. This narrow cantilever is also structured with eccentrically configured full
story height deep trusses.
Eccentrically configured trusses are not as strong and stiff as normal
trusses of concentric triangular configurations. With greater ductility, they could
perform better against seismic loads, but Cornell is not located in an active
seismic zone. In Milstein Hall, the large full story height deep trusses are inte-
grated with the studio space. The top and bottom chord members of the
trusses are placed within the second and roof floor structures, while the slanted
web members of the trusses are placed within the studio space. Eccentrically
configured trusses with slanted web members not meeting each other at
the chord members provide better circulations for the studio space, while they
still provide an efficient structure for the large cantilever. For the back spans
of the cantilever, the eccentrically configured trusses smoothly transform into
Vierendeel trusses, which, without slanted members, provide even better
circulations as well as functional and visual connections between the spaces.
Certainly, the structural performance of the eccentrically configured trusses
is superior to the Vierendeel trusses in terms of both strength and stiffness.

96
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-35. Cantilevered studio space of Milstein Hall at Cornell University. With permission of Philippe Ruault.

Figure 3-36 shows a simplified overall configuration of the structure

and its bending moment and shear force diagrams. Negative bending
moments in the cantilever are increased towards the support with the max-
imum at the support. Passing through the first supporting column, the
maximum bending moment of the cantilever is shared by the column and the
back span. Furthermore, inflection points exist in the back spans, and, conse-
quently, absolute values of bending moments are much smaller in the back
spans than those in the long cantilever. Shear forces are also large around
the support of the large cantilever.
Considering the behavior of the simplified overall structure and
functional issues including circulations, the actual structure was designed with
eccentrically configured trusses for the long cantilevers, and with Vierendeel
trusses for the back spans. Bending moments and shear forces are relatively
small in the back spans. The maximum bending moment and shear force of
the back spans are developed at the end of the span adjacent to the long
cantilever. Considering this, the vertical members of the Vierendeel trusses
there are slightly slanted instead of purely vertical.
For long cantilevers, it is better to employ normal concentric trusses.
Compared with eccentrically configured trusses, concentric trusses produce
stronger and stiffer structures. However, the eccentrically configured trusses
in Milstein Hall provide more flexible interior space for the studio as has been
discussed. If long cantilevers are designed with Vierendeel trusses instead
of triangulated trusses to provide even more flexible interior space, it will

97
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-36. Bending moment and shear force diagrams of simplified Milstein Hall structural model.

Figure 3-37. Axial force, bending moment and deformation diagrams of Milstein Hall structural model.

98
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

require much heavier structures to provide necessary strength and stiffness

because Vierendeel trusses carry loads primarily by bending actions which
are a very inefficient load-carrying mechanism.

Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre, Vitoria, Spain

The Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre in Vitoria, Spain, designed by estudio
ATARIA is primarily built with wood, which, as one of the most sustainable
building materials, fits well with the theme of the building. The building’s
21 m long cantilever, which hovers over the water, dramatically penetrates
nature. From this cantilevered space clad with transparent glass, visitors can
have a unique experience of nature.
Rectangular box form wood frames of multiple modules are x-braced
with steel cables to eventually create the long and slender cantilever truss
structure of the Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre. By introducing thin steel
cables for diagonal bracings, visual obstruction between the interior and
nature in the exterior is minimized. It is not impossible to use wood for the
bracing members. However, this would require much larger member sizes

Figure 3-38. Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre in Vitoria, Spain. With permission of estudio ATARIA.

99
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-39. Structural drawing of the cantilever at Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre. With permission of estudio ATARIA.

and the transparency between the interior and the exterior would be much
diminished.
Regarding gravity loads, the overall bending moment of the canti-
lever is carried by axial actions of the top and bottom chord members. The
depth of the truss is larger around the support, where the overall bending
moment of the cantilever is greatest, and smaller towards the free end of the
cantilever, where there is no bending moment. Diagonal steel cables are also
designed following the structural logic. In order to carry the gravity-induced
shear forces of the cantilever by tensile actions of the cables, double or triple
steel diagonal cables are placed in appropriate directions according to the
required structural capacity. Not only downward gravity loads but also uplift
forces by winds could also be developed. In order to carry the possible uplift
force-induced shear forces also by tensile actions, the other direction diagonal
steel cables are placed as well. These diagonal members are composed of
single or double cables. This implies that the anticipated uplift forces are smaller
than the gravity loads. These diagonal bracings in two directions eventually
make the cantilever x-braced.
Diagonal bracings only in one direction instead of two directions are
a possibility. In this case, however, cables cannot be used because not only
tensile but also compressive forces should be carried by the diagonal
members depending on either gravity or wind-induced uplift force governing
cases. Therefore, instead of thin steel cables, members with greater moment
of inertia, such as hollow tube or wide flange beam sections, should be
considered to prevent buckling failure. This will diminish the transparent
design effect of the cantilever.
There are two supports for the cantilevered truss structure. The truss
is cantilevered by only about 5 percent of the entire length beyond one sup-
port (left support in Figure 3-39) and about 63 percent beyond the other
support (right support in Figure 3-39). With this proportional configuration, the

100
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-40.
Knee bracings in the
Ataria Nature
Interpretation Centre.
With permission of
estudio ATARIA.

balancing effect of the very short left cantilever is minimal and the structure
behaves like a long one-sided cantilever with a back span shorter than the
length of the cantilever. In this case, under gravity loads, the right support is
subjected to very large compressive force, which is even larger than the sum
of the applied gravity loads, and the left support is subjected to tensile force
to prevent overturning failure. Therefore, the columns and foundation for the
left support should be designed to have resistance against tensile force.
Compared with the cantilevered structures presented thus far, the long
cantilever of the Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre is very slender in the
direction of not only gravity loads but also lateral loads. Winds can blow from
any side of the cantilever. Therefore, double diagonal bracings in two direc-
tions are placed under the floor to form x-braces. For the lateral stability of
the rectangular box form wood frames against wind loads from each side,
internal wood knee bracings are also used.

101
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Wozoco Apartments, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Wozoco Apartment Building in Amsterdam designed by MVRDV is
composed of 100 residential units. In order to meet the regulations about
daylighting, the primary mass of the building can accommodate only 87 units
facing south. In order to add the required 13 more units without violating
regulations, these units are cantilevered from the north face of the main mass
of the building and face east and west. This configuration resulted in an
unprecedented building form.
From the large rectangular box form main mass of the building which
contains 87 apartment units, five smaller masses are cantilevered only to one
side. Four of the small masses are two stories tall and one is a single story
tall. The length of three two-story tall cantilevers among the four is similar to
the length of the back span, which is the depth of the large main building
mass. With this proportion, if the cantilevers were not small portions of the
main mass, the vertical end supports of the back span would be subject to
tensile force development and the structure would be vulnerable to overturning
failure. However, the back span of the cantilever is, in a sense, embedded
into the much larger main mass of the Wozoco Apartment Building. These
three two-story tall cantilevers have two, four and six floors above them.
Compressive forces from these floors above the back span of the cantilever
can cancel potential tensile forces developed at the vertical end supports of
the back span. The remaining two- and one-story cantilevers are at the top

Figure 3-41. Wozoco Apartments in Amsterdam. Photography by Rob’t Hart, image courtesy of MVRDV.

102
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

of the building. However, the lengths of these cantilevers are much shorter
than the back span. This proportional configuration is not vulnerable to over-
turning failure.
The large cantilevers are structured with trusses. The trusses are
configured in such a way that the longer diagonal members are subjected
to tensile forces. The cantilevered trusses are anchored to the structurally
designed demising shear walls of the residential units of the main mass.
Between the units in the main building mass and the units in the cantilevered
masses, there are corridors, which function as main circulation routes for the
apartment building. This requires that rectangular rigid frames are inserted

Figure 3-42. Sections of Wozoco Apartments showing five cantilevers. With permission of MVRDV.

103
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-43. Comparative axial force diagrams of simplified Wozoco cantilevers with alternative back span structure
configurations.

between the cantilevered trusses and the structural shear walls to which the
cantilevers are anchored. Therefore, the loads on the cantilevered trusses
are transmitted through the rectangular Vierendeel truss to the structural
shear walls. Insertion of the Vierendeel truss between the triangular truss
and shear wall is not a structurally efficient load carrying mechanism. How-
ever, architectural design sometimes requires this type of solution. In the
Wozoco Apartment case, the inserted length of the Vierendeel trusses is very
short because that is the width of the corridor. Consequently, their structural
impact is relatively small.
This project introduced five cantilevers projected from the main mass
of the building to solve the site specific design problems. In more general
cases, this is a very expensive design solution. If possible, adding more floors,
for example, to increase the number of units, will be a much more economical
solution. In order to compensate for the relatively high cost of building
cantilevered units, design of the other units in the main mass had to be
somewhat sacrificed. The monotonously designed units in the main mass are
vitalized to a certain degree to have individual identities with cantilevered
balconies colored differently. The massing strategy of the 102 Dwellings in
Carabanchel by Dosmasuno Arquitectos is very similar to that of the Wozoco
Apartments.

Figure 3-44. Comparative deformed shapes of simplified Wozoco cantilever trusses with and without diagonal members in the
corridor.

104
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Crane Houses in the Rheinauhafen, Cologne, Germany

Crane Houses refers to three similar looking buildings in the Rheinauhafen of
Cologne, Germany, designed by Hadi Teherani Architects. Two of the three
buildings are office towers and one is a residential tower. The unique form
of the buildings was designed to resemble harbor cranes. Each tower is
composed of two upturned L-shape volumes connected by vertical cores
between them. One of the two vertical cores is located between the two
vertical segments of the upturned L. The other is located between the hori-
zontal segments of the upturned L at about a third along from the free ends.
The upturned L shape predominantly governs the visual expression
of the building even with the fully exposed core between the horizontal
segments of the upturned L because the core does not directly support the
horizontal segment from the bottom and is clad with transparent glass. Two
symmetrical deep cantilevers are projected from the exposed core in the
direction perpendicular to the upturned L plane to support the horizontal
segments of the upturned L. This support divides the horizontal segment of
the upturned L with the back span to cantilever length ratio of about 2:1. This
is close to the optimal proportioning of this type of cantilever configuration.
By using double cantilevering with the set-back vertical core, the
expression of the upturned L is very dramatic as if the full length of the
horizontal segment were cantilevered. With the appropriate proportioning,
the horizontal segment of the upturned L including the cantilever is very

Figure 3-45. Crane Houses in the Rheinauhafen of Cologne. With permission of Rasmus Norlander.

105
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-46. Section drawing of Crane Houses. With permission of Hadi Teherani Architects GmbH.

efficiently supported with minimized bending moments. Reinforced concrete

is used as the structural material of the Crane Houses. Post-tensioning is
employed for the cantilevered portions of the structure in order to better control
deformations.
In the Crane Houses, the lowest levels of the horizontal segments of
the upturned L are devoted as structural supports for the multiple floors above.
This is clearly expressed on the building façades as thick opaque L-shaped
bands. Therefore, the floors above could be architecturally designed without
being much influenced by the structural challenges of the building. Altern-
atively, the multiple story height of the horizontal segment of the upturned
L can be used as a structural depth to support the horizontal segment
including the cantilever. A plausible design scenario in this case would be using
large diagonal members running multiple stories to form trusses. Certainly
this alternative structural design approach would influence the architectural
design of the building to a greater degree.

106
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

3.4. LARGE TWO-SIDED CANTILEVERS

Compared with large one-sided cantilevers presented in the previous sec-
tion, large two-sided cantilevers have greater inherent structural potential as
more efficient load carrying mechanisms. Two-sided cantilevers can be
categorized into symmetrical and asymmetrical cantilevers. While symmetrical
configurations can produce superior structural performance, their architec-
tural expressions may not be as dynamic as asymmetrical configurations. On
the contrary, asymmetrical configurations are typically more challenging to
structure and less efficient because of their eccentricity, but their expressions
are usually more dramatic. Symmetrically configured two-sided cantilevers
naturally balance the applied gravity loads. However, in asymmetrically con-
figured two-sided cantilevers, it is important to balance the loads if possible
especially when the common back span length between the two cantilevers
is shorter than the combined length of the two cantilevers and the degree of
asymmetry is severe.
The first diagram of Figure 3-47 shows bending moments of sym-
metrically configured two-sided cantilevers when the central common back
span length is 60 percent and the cantilever length is 20 percent of the entire
length of the structure. Uniformly distributed loads are applied along the beam
type structure. This proportion is close to the optimal, and the structure carries
applied loads very efficiently. As the fixed length common back span is
shifted to one side, the structure is no longer symmetrical and greater bending
moments are developed around the support of the longer cantilever (see the
second diagram of Figure 3-47). The most extreme case is produced when
the common back span is completely shifted to one side, as shown in the
third diagram of Figure 3-47. As the degree of asymmetry becomes severe,
the maximum bending moment of the structure becomes much larger than
that of the first symmetrical case. Nonetheless, no downward reaction force
is developed in any of the supports, as long as the back span length is larger
than the combined length of the two cantilevers. Downward reaction forces
involve tensile force development in the foundation system, which typically
results in a more expensive structural solution.
The first diagram of Figure 3-48 shows bending moments of sym-
metrically configured two-sided cantilevers when the common back span
length is 20 percent and the cantilever length is 40 percent of the entire l
ength of the structure. This is not the optimal condition structurally. Only
negative bending moments are developed throughout the structure and the
maximum bending moment value is much larger than that of the near optimal
condition shown in the first diagram of Figure 3-47. Therefore, the structure
which develops greater bending moments should be designed with heavier
structural members. However, as long as the two-sided cantilevers are
symmetrically configured, no downward reaction is developed in any of the
supports.

107
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-47.
Bending moment diagrams of
symmetrically and
asymmetrically configured two-
sided cantilever structures with a
back span longer than the
combined length of the
cantilevers.

Figure 3-48. Bending moment

diagrams and relative support
reactions of symmetrically and
asymmetrically configured two-
sided cantilever structures with a
back span shorter than the
combined length of the
cantilevers.

108
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

As the common back span is shifted to one side, the structure is no

longer symmetrical and greater bending moments are developed around the
support of the longer cantilever. The extreme case is produced when the back
span is completely shifted to one side as shown in the third diagram of Figure
3-48. As the degree of asymmetry becomes severe, the maximum bending
moment at the support of the longer cantilever becomes much larger than
that of the first symmetrical case. The compressive upward reaction at the
support of the longer cantilever becomes also very large. In addition, down-
ward reaction force is developed at the support of the shorter cantilever, and
its magnitude becomes larger as the degree of asymmetry becomes larger.
This condition may require unusually large or deep foundations to prevent
overturning failure of the structure. Another strategy to resolve this issue of
large unbalanced load-induced overturning tendency is to apply greater loads
to the shorter cantilever to balance the entire structure so the downward
reaction force can be eliminated. This approach should be carefully investi-
gated in conjunction with architectural design. For example, if the beam type
structures represent simplified structural models of multistory buildings, the
shorter cantilever portion can be designed with more floors than the longer
cantilever portion. (See Figure 3-55, Busan Cinema Center.) Alternatively, the
shorter cantilever portion can be used for functions which inherently involve
heavier dead loads.

Creative Valley, Utrecht, Netherlands

The Creative Valley Building in Utrecht, Netherlands, designed by Gent & Monk
Architecten is composed of ten rectangular volumes projected from a central
spine structure of a narrow rectangular box form. Five volumes are projected
from each of the two broader faces of the central spine structure. Among the
five volumes on each side, three of them are cantilevered. The sizes of the
three cantilevered volumes on each side are different. However, the sizes of
each paired cantilever volumes on opposite sides are the same. Therefore,
the gravity loads are balanced about the central spine structure.
Two pairs of the cantilevers are two stories tall and the remaining pair
is a single story tall. The two-story tall cantilevers of the same size are placed
on opposite sides of the central spine structure with a story height difference.
However, the two-story tall cantilevered volumes are supported by single
story tall symmetrically cantilevered trusses on the same common level of the
two stories on opposite sides. Therefore, the cantilevered floors not directly
supported by the symmetrically cantilevered trusses are either hung from
the trusses or supported by the trusses from the bottom. By placing the canti-
levered trusses symmetrically on the same level for both sides, the cantilevered
volumes of the same size but different vertical locations can be efficiently
supported. If the cantilevered trusses were placed at different levels to support
the volumes on opposite sides, the central spine structure would be more
stressed and the displacements of the cantilevers would become large.

109
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-49. Creative Valley Building in Utrecht, Netherlands. Photography by Abe van Ancum, image courtesy of MONK
architecten.

Balancing the cantilevered masses on opposite sides of the central

spine structure plays an important structural role. When only one cantilevered
mass is considered on one side of the central spine without the counter-
balancing mass on the other side, the structure is subjected to undesirable
stresses and larger deformations. In this case, the vertical elements of the
central spine closer to the cantilever are subjected to much larger compressive
forces compared with the case with the balanced cantilever on the opposite
side of the central spine. In addition, tensile forces are developed in the vertical
elements of the central spine on the opposite side of the cantilever because
the back span length of the cantilever is much smaller than the cantilevered
length. Tensile forces in the vertical supports typically make the foundation
system more challenging and expensive. Without the counterbalancing mass
on the opposite side, the deformation of the cantilever, which directly influ-
ences serviceability of the building, becomes much larger.
Multiple cantilevered trusses are used to support each cantilevered
volume in the Creative Valley Building. Therefore, the trusses are exposed to
the interior space, and they may obstruct circulations and uses of the space.
These exposed trusses to the interior space can be eliminated by placing
only two cantilevered trusses on the perimeter of each cantilevered volume.
In this case, however, much longer span floor structure of greater depth
between the trusses is required. Design decisions should be made carefully
considering both architectural and structural aspects holistically.

110
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-50. Axial force diagram and deformed shape of Creative Valley Building.

Figure 3-51. Axial force diagram and deformed shape of alternatively structured Creative Valley Building.

Figure 3-52. Axial force diagram and deformed shape of Creative Valley Building with a cantilever only on one side.

111
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-53. Interior view of Creative Valley Building with exposed cantilever trusses. Photography by Henny van Belkom, image
courtesy of MONK architecten.

Busan Cinema Center, Busan, Korea

The Busan Cinema Center designed by Coop Himmelb(l)au is characterized
by its large freeform roof structures. The project is composed of two main
buildings and two unique roof (canopy) structures which cover outdoor spaces
only at the top like umbrellas. The small roof structure, which measures 66
m x 100 m to 120 m, spans between the two main buildings. The big roof of
60 m x 163 m is supported by a diagrid structure of one-sheeted hyperboloid
shape. In the transverse direction, this diagrid support is located around the
middle and balances relatively short cantilevered roofs on opposite sides. In
the longitudinal direction, the eccentric position of the diagrid support
produces asymmetrically configured two-sided cantilevers of very large sizes.
The longer cantilever of the big roof is an astonishing 85 m. This cantilever
holds a Guinness World Record as the longest cantilever roof in the world.
The shorter cantilever on the opposite side is about 50 m, which is still very
long. Steel trusses are used as the structural system for the cantilevered roof
structure. The depth of the trusses at the support of the longer cantilever is
about 14 m, which results in a length to depth ratio of about 6. The depth of
the trusses tapers towards the free end.
This roof structure in the Busan Cinema Center is not just a typical
roof. This roof and the hyperboloid shape diagrid support contain substantial
programmed space. The hollow hyperboloid shape structure, composed of

112
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-54. Busan Cinema Center. Photography by Duccio Malagamba, image courtesy of COOP HIMMELB(L)AU Wolf D. Prix &
Partner.

radially finned reinforced concrete base and steel diagrids above, functions
as an entrance for the complex and accommodates a café on the ground and
the vertical circulations. The shorter cantilever has three levels of enclosed
spaces containing restaurant, bar and lounge, which are accessible from the
hyperboloid entrance structure. And both the longer and shorter cantilevers
function as structural supports for the curvilinear bridges which connect the
hyperboloid entrance structure and the two main buildings. The bridges are
hung from the cantilevered roof structures by steel cables.
From a structural viewpoint, it is important for the shorter cantilever
to contain functional spaces of three levels, which provides larger loads to

113
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-55. Busan Cinema Center longitudinal section of the cantilevered roof structure. With permission of COOP
HIMMELB(L)AU Wolf D. Prix & Partner.

the shorter cantilever. The 85 m and 50 m cantilevers are projected from the
same diagrid support in opposite directions. The structural depth of the hyper-
boloid diagrid support varies with the smallest of only about 20 m. With this
comparatively very short common back span and asymmetrically configured
large two-sided cantilevers, the roof structure is vulnerable to overturning
failure with tensile force development in the diagrid support on the shorter
cantilever side. The added loads to the shorter cantilever balance the overall
loads of the asymmetrically configured two-sided cantilevers, and the over-
turning tendency is eliminated.

The Cultural Center, Castelo Branco, Portugal

The Cultural Center in Castelo Branco in Portugal designed by Josep Lluís
Mateo is a bridge-like structure with large two-sided cantilevers. The Cultural
Center hovering above the skate link on the ground level is supported by two
reinforced concrete structures which house vertical circulations. In order to
accommodate the exhibition space and auditorium, the hovering volume of
the Cultural Center is significantly cantilevered in opposite directions beyond
the width of the reinforced concrete core structures. The longer cantilever
houses the auditorium and the shorter one contains the exhibition space. These
gigantic two-sided cantilevers balance the large gravity loads applied to them

114
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-56. Cultural Center in Castelo Branco in Portugal. With permission of Mateo Arquitectura.

about the vertical core structure which eventually transfer the loads to the
foundation system. Without the counterbalancing cantilevers, only a one-sided
cantilever would make the structural design of the building more challenging.
The large cantilevers in the Cultural Center are tapered based on the
functional requirements – stepped seats for the auditorium and sloped ramps
for the exhibition space. These tapered forms also correspond to the struc-
tural logic of the cantilevered structure because overall bending moments
in cantilever structures become larger towards the support. By tapering the
cantilevered trusses, the member forces and consequently member sizes can
be more equalized. In the Cultural Center, however, the member sizes of the
cantilevered trusses do not quite follow this logic. In the longer cantilever
containing the auditorium, bottom chord members of greater depth are used
around the free end of the cantilever. This provides both an overall form definer

115
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-57. Interior view of the Cultural Center in Castelo Branco with cantilevered ramps. With permission of Mateo
Arquitectura.

for the building and framing members for the sloped seats of the auditorium.
Certainly, structural design does not always follow structural logic. Oftentimes
it follows functionally or aesthetically determined forms.
The cantilevered trusses are geometrically configured to develop
tensile forces in the relatively long diagonal members. In general, it is better
to design longer members to develop tensile forces instead of compressive
forces because longer members are vulnerable to buckling failure when
subjected to compressive forces. If the direction of the diagonal members
were reversed, they would develop compressive forces.
Inside the dramatically cantilevered Cultural Center, there is another
important cantilever. The ramp in the exhibition space is cantilevered from
the exterior truss wall. The reinforced concrete ramp is supported by
cantilevered steel members of a tapered form. Combined with the transparent
glass balustrade, the existence of the hovering cantilevered ramp is visually
diminished.

The Sharp Center for Design, Ontario College of Art and Design, Toronto, Canada
The Sharp Center for Design in Toronto was designed by Alsop Architects to
expand the Ontario College of Art and Design and house studios, classrooms
and faculty offices. This is a very uniquely configured two story building, which
hovers over and connects to the existing buildings below. The Sharp Center
is basically a rectangular box of about 31 m wide 84 m long and 9 m tall,
placed on top of six sets of two slanted columns of about 26 m tall and a
vertical core containing elevators and a staircase. The paired slanted steel
columns of a circular tube section are widely spaced on the ground but meet
together at the bottom plane of the lifted rectangular box form building
structure. These paired slanted columns forming triangular configurations
and reinforced concrete core carry not only gravity but also lateral loads. The

116
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-58. Sharp Center for Design in Toronto. Photographer: Richard Johnson, Architect: Will Alsop for Alsop Architects.

columns and the core are set about 7.5 m back from the edges of the building
and this produces two-sided cantilevers in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions.
In the transverse direction, the two-sided cantilevers in this direction
are structured with two-story tall trusses which are symmetrically supported
at two points defined by two sets of the two slanted columns meeting
together. Diagonal web members of these trusses beginning from the
two points defined by the two sets of the two paired columns are arranged
to carry the loads primarily by compressive actions. This is typically less
desirable structurally. However, this configuration allows eliminating additional
vertical web members in the trusses in this direction, which is advantageous
for the space use because theses trusses are placed in the interior space.
Since the trusses are two stories tall, the second-floor structure effectively
braces the long diagonal members primarily subjected to compressions.
Therefore, the vulnerability of the diagonal members to buckling failure is much
reduced.
While the symmetrical configuration of the two-sided cantilevers in the
transverse direction helps balancing the loads, the two-sided cantilevers in
the longitudinal direction do not much influence each end cantilevers because
there are very long multiple common back spans between them. The canti-
levers in the longitudinal direction are also structured with two-story deep
trusses on the façade planes in that direction. These longitudinal direction

117
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-59. Construction of Sharp Center for Design in Toronto. With permission of Terri Meyer Boake.

Figure 3-60.
Axial force diagram of simplified partial
structural model for the Sharp Center for
Design in Toronto.

118
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

trusses are supported by the free ends of the already cantilevered transverse
direction trusses. Only two trusses on the longitudinal façade planes, which
are spaced by about 31 m, support the cantilevers in that direction. Therefore,
the two façade planes about 31 m long in the transvers direction are structured
again with two-story tall trusses supported by the free ends of the cantilevered
trusses in the longitudinal direction. As is the case in the Sharp Center, four-
sided cantilevers are often made with this type of double cantilevering. An
alternative design would be placing trusses supported by columns in both the
transverse and longitudinal directions. This configuration would result in more
diagonal truss members within the interior space.
The cantilevered trusses on the façades in the longitudinal direction
and the long span trusses on the façades in the transverse direction are
configured in such a way that the long diagonal members are primarily
subjected to tensile forces. Though the large perimeter trusses are placed
just behind the all façade planes, the pixelated façade design for the Sharp
Center completely hides the trusses. The Statoil Oslo Office Building
presented later in this chapter also uses a similar pixelated façade design.
However, in the Statoil Oslo Building, trusses behind the façade are abstractly
expressed through the pixilation. How to define the design relationship
between the perimeter structures and building façades substantially influences
not only their functional performances but also their aesthetic expressions.

3.5. MERGED CANTILEVERS

Two one-sided cantilevers are sometimes connected, typically with about 90
degrees to produce a merged cantilever. Regarding gravity loads, when the
two one-sided cantilevers are identical, the structural performance of the
merged cantilever is also the same as that of the individual cantilevers in term
of strength and stiffness. However, when the two one-sided cantilevers are
different, the resulting structural performance based on their merge is
advantageous in general. When subjected to lateral loads, merged cantilevers
of two one-sided cantilevers, regardless of their individual configurations,
always perform better than the individual cantilevers before their merge
because the merged cantilevers brace each other.
Figure 3-61 shows two identical cantilevers of the back span to
cantilever length ratio of 7:3, and the merged cantilever of the two with an
angle of 90 degrees. When merged, the two cantilever beams are pin-
connected at their free ends in the study presented here. When subjected to
uniformly distributed loads, this proportion is close to the optimal condition
as has been discussed earlier, and develops minimized maximum positive and
negative bending moments. The figure shows bending moment diagrams of
the two cantilevers before and after merge. For clearer reading of the bending
moment diagrams, the 90-degree angle between the two cantilever beams

119
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-61. Bending moment diagrams of two identical cantilevers of a 7:3 back span to cantilever length ratio
before and after merge.

was flattened. As can be seen in the figure, the bending moment diagrams
of the identical individual cantilevers do not change regardless of their merge,
especially when the free ends of the cantilevers are pin-connected. Conse-
quently, regarding gravity loads, the strength and stiffness of the individual
cantilevers and the merged cantilever are identical.
Figure 3-62 shows bending moment diagrams of two different one-
sided cantilevers and the merged cantilever of the two. The back span to
cantilever length ratios of the two cantilevered structures are 7:3 and 5:5. The
total lengths of the two structures, which combine the back span and
cantilever, are the same. The 7:3 cantilever is close to the optimal configuration
and produces minimized peak positive and negative bending moments. The
5:5 cantilever is subjected to only negative bending moments throughout the
structure. The maximum bending moment value of the 5:5 cantilever is about
three times larger than that of the 7:3 cantilever. When the two structures
are designed with the same structural member and subjected to identical
uniformly distributed loads, the vertical displacement of the free end of the
longer cantilever is about 130 times larger than that of the shorter cantilever.
When these two cantilevers are merged together with an angle of
90 degrees, the maximum negative bending moment of the shorter cantilever

120
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-62. Bending moment diagrams of two cantilevers of 7:3 and 5:5 back to cantilever span length ratios
before and after merge.

becomes much greater because the tip of the longer cantilever pushes down
the tip of the shorter cantilever. It is as if a large downward point load is applied
to the tip of the shorter cantilever. On the contrary, the maximum negative
bending moment of the longer cantilever becomes much smaller because the
tip of the longer cantilever is supported by the tip of the shorter cantilever. It
is as if a large upward point load is applied to the tip of the longer cantilever.
As a result, the bending moments of the two beams become substantially
balanced by merging them. The displacement of the tip of the merged canti-
lever is reduced to only about 25 percent of that of the individual longer
cantilever before merge.

CCTV Headquarters, Beijing, China

CCTV Headquarters in Beijing designed by OMA has introduced a new design
concept of looped tall buildings. Two towers are connected at the lower and
higher levels, and a complete loop is created to better satisfy the functional
requirement of the building as the China Central Television Headquarters. At
the top of the CCTV Headquarters, multistory-tall cantilevers projected from
the gently tilted two towers meet. As in the cantilever bridges, cantilevers
are used as a very efficient method of construction without falsework in the

121
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-63. CCTV headquarters in Beijing, China. CCTV/OMA Partners-in-charge: Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren, designers,
David Gianotten, photographed by Iwan Baan.

CCTV Headquarters. However, while the cantilevers in the typical cantilever

bridges are joined and become a long span once the construction is completed,
the two cantilevers in the CCTV Headquarters meet at 90 degrees and still
result in an impressive merged cantilever.
The cantilever in the north–south direction slightly tapers towards the
free end, which corresponds to the structural logic of cantilevers. The other
cantilever, however, in the east–west direction tapers towards the support
where the horizontal cantilever and the vertical tower meet. Obviously, this
form reverses the structural logic. The density of the structural members is
adjusted to resolve this. The structural system for the cantilevers of the building
is the steel braced frame. The arrangement of the diagonal bracings becomes
denser towards the supports of the cantilevers. This design approach helps
efficiently increase strength and reduce deformation of the cantilevers. The
lengths of the two cantilevers are very similar. With multistory-height structural
depths of the cantilevers and employment of very efficient structural confi-
gurations, both cantilevers produce similar strength and stiffness. Therefore,
the structural effect of merging two cantilevers in terms of carrying gravity
loads is not significant in this building.
Figure 3-65 presents comparative performances of braced frame can-
tilever structures similar to what was employed for the CCTV Headquarters.
When the diagonal bracing density is doubled throughout the cantilever, the

122
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-64. CCTV headquarters in Beijing, China, under construction. CCTV/OMA Partners-in-charge: Rem Koolhaas and Ole
Scheeren, designers, David Gianotten.

Figure 3-65. Comparative axial force diagrams and deformed shapes of cantilevered braced frames of various configurations.

123
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

deformation is reduced substantially (see the second case of Figure 3-65). In

the original cantilever structure before increasing the density of the diagonal
bracings, the figure shows that the deformation profile is clearly the result of
the combined overall bending and shear actions. As the bracing density is
increased, the frame-induced shear action is significantly reduced, and the
overall bending action governs the deformation.
When the overall bracing members are doubled, evenly doubling
bracings over the entire length of the cantilever is not the most effective
strategy. As the bracing density is gradually increased from the free end to
the support, the efficiency of doubled bracings can be maximized. The fourth
configuration of Figure 3-65 shows an example arrangement. From the free
end to one third of the cantilever, the configuration is the same as the original.
From one third to two thirds of the cantilever, the bracings are doubled. From
two thirds to the support of the cantilever, the bracings are quadrupled. For
simple comparison, same size bracing members are used throughout the
cantilever. Consequently, the overall amount of materials used for the bracings
are the same for the second, third and fourth cantilevers. Among the three,
the denser bracing arrangement towards the support shown in the fourth
diagram produces the least amount of deformation. The deformation in this
case is reduced by about 10 percent compared with the second case.
When the configuration of the gradually changing density of the brac-
ings is reversed as shown in the third configuration of Figure 3-65, the
effectiveness of doubled bracings is much reduced. Compared with the fourth
case, the deformation of the third case is increased by about 20 percent.
Compared with the second case, the deformation of the third case with the
reversed bracing configuration produces larger deformation by about 10 per-
cent.
When exposed, each case discussed produces quite different archi-
tectural expressions. While synergistic integration is most desirable, structural
and architectural design solutions may not always go together. When they
conflict, solutions should be sought carefully. For example, if the third con-
figuration of Figure 3-65 is desired without sacrificing structural efficiency,
member sizes can be adjusted accordingly. Using larger diagonal members
towards the support and smaller members towards the denser free end can
make this form work without diminishing structural efficiency too much.
Closer collaboration between architects and engineers is essential for
successful execution of building projects of complicated nature.

Nanjing Sifang Art Museum, Nanjing, China

Nanjing Sifang Art Museum designed by Steven Holl Architects is a uniquely
configured three-story building. The ground and second floors are con-
ventionally configured in this building. However, the third floor of a much
differently shaped plan is significantly lifted and hovers over the second floor

124
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-66. Nanjing Sifang Art Museum. With permission of Steven Holl Architects.

below. The incomplete trapezoidal shaped third floor is supported by three

vertical structures. Two of these structures house vertical circulation stairs
and elevator each, and the third support is a planar shear wall. A fourth support
would have made the structural configuration of the building less challenging,
but, at the same time, not as dramatic as it is. The third floor of an incomplete
trapezoidal shape supported by only three vertical structures produces multiple
cantilevers including a large merged cantilever.
From the elevator tower structure and the shear wall, cantilevers are
projected and they meet with an angle of about 100 degrees. This config-
uration results in a large merged cantilever which defines the impressively
hovering corner of the third floor. The orientation of the shear wall is taken
in such a way that it can better perform not only as one of the two supports
of the span between the staircase structure and the shear wall, but also as
the support of the cantilever. The shear wall plane is placed in the direction
of the cantilever so the large bending moment of the cantilever can be better
resisted.
Steel trusses are used as the structural system for the lifted third floor
including the large merged cantilever. Regarding gravity loads, the depth of
the truss is the full story height, with the roof and floor edge beams as the
top and bottom chord members to efficiently carry the bending moment of
the cantilever. Relatively long diagonal members are placed in the directions
to primarily work in tensile actions to carry the overall shear forces of the
cantilever without buckling. The lengths and structural depths of the two
merged cantilevers are very similar. Therefore, the effect of merging is not
significant regarding gravity loads. Trusses are also placed on the roof and
floor planes to carry lateral loads. The merged cantilever produces superior
structural performance in terms of both strength and stiffness regarding
lateral loads.

125
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

The lifted third floor is gently sloped because it mainly contains ramped
gallery space. In terms of aesthetic performance of the truss structures for
the lifted floating gallery space, three different types of enclosure con-
cept are used. On the façades facing outwards, the truss structures are sand-
wiched by translucent enclosure materials. Therefore, in daytime, only a hint

Figure 3-67. Third floor plan of Nanjing Sifang Art Museum. With permission of Steven Holl Architects.

Figure 3-68. Exterior night view and interior view of Nanjing Sifang Art Museum. With permission of Steven Holl Architects.

126
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

of trusses is expressed, and, at night, the silhouetted trusses are more clearly
expressed. The inner surfaces of the exterior walls are mostly used for exhib-
itions, and consequently opaque enclosure materials are used and the trusses
are concealed by them. The trusses on the floor are also concealed. How-
ever, the trusses on the ceiling are exposed as an interior design element.
Depending on how to define the relationship between the structure and the
enclosure, the aesthetic performance of the resulting design can be signi-
ficantly different. Synergistic design integration should always be considered
between the systems to construct built environments of higher performance.

Technological Park, Obidos, Portugal

Technological Park in Obidos, Portugal, designed by Jorge Mealha is character-
ized by a lifted large square donut shaped volume containing offices hovering
over two long rectangular volumes on the ground with civic space and
technical areas. The outer and inner square dimensions of the square donut
shaped volume are about 67 m x 67 m and 59 m x 59 m, respectively. Two
long rectangular volumes containing the ground floor are arranged in a V shape
with an angle of about 60 degrees. The lifted square donut which is supported
at six locations defines a piazza on the ground. Four of the six supports are
vertical circulation cores which shoot up from the two rectangular ground floor
volumes to connect them with the lifted square donut. Two more supports
are added to prevent extremely long cantilevers.
The lifted square donut shaped volume is structured with trusses which
are clearly expressed on the inner façade of the square donut facing the piazza.
A simplified model of the square and its six supports are shown in Figure
3-71. With these support locations in relation to the lifted square, all four
corners of the lifted square are merged cantilevers with an angle of 90
degrees. East and west corner merged cantilevers are composed of two equal
length cantilevers. North and south corner merged cantilevers comprise two
substantially different length cantilevers.
In the simplified model shown in the left diagram of Figure 3-71, the
four linear elements composing the square are all connected at their ends.
In the simplified model shown in the right diagram, the four linear elements
composing the square are all disconnected, to comparatively evaluate
structural performance of the individual and merged cantilevers. As can be
seen from the bending moment diagrams, bending moments of the merged
cantilevers composed of two identical cantilevers are the same as those of
the individual component cantilevers before merge. However, bending
moments of the merged cantilevers composed of two different cantilevers
are substantially different from those of the individual component cantilevers.
When merged by connecting the free ends, larger bending moments of the
longer cantilever are reduced, and smaller bending moments of the shorter
cantilever are increased. As a result, bending moments throughout the merged

127
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-69. Floor plans of the Technological Park in Obidos, Portugal. With permission of Jorge Mealha Arquitectos.

128
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-70. Technological Park in Obidos, Portugal. With permission of João Morgado.

cantilever are substantially equalized. And the maximum bending moment

of the merged structure becomes much smaller than that of the structure
before merge.
In terms of displacement control, the merged cantilever is also advan-
tageous when the component cantilevers are different. In the Technological
Park in Obidos, the shorter to longer cantilever length ratio is about 2:7 for
the north and south corner merged cantilevers. Compared with the dis-
placement of the free end of the longer component cantilever, that of the
merged cantilever is only about 5 percent, when the cantilevers are designed
with identical structural members and the same uniformly distributed loads
are applied. Certainly, the displacement of the shorter component cantilever
becomes larger by about four times when it becomes a part of the merged
cantilever. However, this increase is negligible compared with the decrease
of the displacement of the longer component cantilever. Figure 3-71 also
shows comparative deformed shapes of the simplified model of the
Technological Park. In the model on the left, the square composing members
are all connected, while in the model on the right, they are all disconnected.
Significantly reduced vertical displacements by merging the cantilevers of two
different lengths are clearly observed.

129
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-71. Comparative bending moment diagrams and deformed shapes of the Technological Park in Obidos with merged
cantilevers (left) and independent cantilevers (right).

3.6. STACKED MULTIPLE CANTILEVERS

Multistory buildings are typically constructed by stacking the same or very
similar floors vertically with elaborate vertical alignments of structural columns,
floor plates and enclosures. This design and construction process produces
multistory buildings very efficiently, and many mid-20th century multistory
office buildings, for example, were produced by this approach. Different from
this conventional approach, some of recent multistory buildings are con-
structed by stacking the same or different floors with intentional no vertical
alignments to produce an expression of random stacking. Non-aligned stacking
results in irregular cantilevers around the building.
Two different design approaches are typically used. When the desired
expression of random stacking and consequently produced cantilevers are not
severe, primary vertical structural members can be placed with vertical
alignments as in any conventional buildings. In this case, the expression of
random stacking can be produced by cantilevering horizontal structural ele-
ments such as floor beams and slabs. When the desired expression of
random stacking and consequently produced cantilevers are severe, one or
multiple story height module structures can be produced first and actually
stacked. To support substantial cantilevers resulting from non-aligned stacking,
trusses are often employed as a feasible system to frame the module
structures.
With trusses, necessary façade openings can be produced through
large void areas on the web portions of the trusses. When the modules struc-
tured with trusses are stacked, it is a good strategy to configure the trusses

130
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

in such a way that the joints between the stacked modules coincide with the
nodes of the trusses. With this type of configuration, large loads from one
module to another can be transferred primarily through axial actions of the
truss members. When the joints between the trussed module structures do
not coincide with the nodes of the trusses, large bending moments are
developed in the truss members, which should be avoided in any truss design
in order to maximize the structural capacity of the system.
In stacked structures producing substantial cantilevers, it is important
to carefully configure the stacking so that the resulting proportions of the back
spans and cantilevers can be structurally beneficial if possible. When stacked
modules create two-sided cantilevers, symmetrical configurations usually
provide superior structural performance. Asymmetrical configurations could
be less efficient and more vulnerable to overturning failure depending on the
proportion and loading conditions, though they produce more dramatic
cantilevers in general.

Halifax Library, Halifax, Canada

The Halifax Library in Halifax, Canada, by Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects
is expressed as four piled up rectangular volumes. It is, in fact, a five-story
building. The second volume from the ground contains two stories – second
and third floors – and the other three volumes contain one floor each. The
planar dimensions of the first three volumes are very similar, while the
topmost volume is much narrower with a relatively long cantilever in one
direction. The second and third volumes also have some cantilevers because
the shapes and planar dimensions of the stacked volumes are slightly different
and their outside boundaries are not aligned to follow the different angles of
the adjacent streets.
Due to this configuration, it looks like the building was constructed by
randomly stacking four rectangular volumes. However, despite the randomly
stacked look of the building, the primary vertical supports of this building
are mostly aligned and differently cantilevered floor beams and slabs are what
give it the randomly stacked expression. This is an efficient strategy to
achieve this type of building form with relatively small cantilevers. The topmost
volume is cantilevered much longer than the floors below. This substantial
cantilever could be challenging to structure only with cantilevered floor beams
and slabs. Therefore, the Vierendeel truss of the story height was used for
the cantilever of the fifth floor. While the structural components up to the
fourth floor are primarily constructed with reinforced concrete, the fifth-floor
cantilever is mainly constructed with structural steel, which typically produces
lighter structures of the same strength and stiffness compared with reinforced
concrete.
As discussed earlier, the story-height Vierendeel trusses used for the
cantilever carry loads primarily by bending actions of the structural members
which is a very inefficient load carrying mechanism. An alternative could be using

131
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-72. Halifax Library. Photographer: Adam Mork, Architect: Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects.

Figure 3-73. Halifax Library Floor Plan. With permission of Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects.

132
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

triangulated normal trusses. However, this option was not employed in this
building to better satisfy the functional requirements. The cantilevered portion
is designed as a quiet reading room with a good view towards the harbor across
the city. Diagonal members of trusses would obstruct the view, though normal
trusses are a much more efficient solution than the Vierendeel trusses from
a structural viewpoint. Furthermore, the cantilevered Vierendeel trusses in
this building are located not on the perimeter of the cantilever but within
the interior space. The floor beams supported by the cantilevered Vierendeel
trusses are placed across the Vierendeel trusses and produce two symmetrical
cantilevers for structural efficiency. Therefore, employing regular trusses to
replace the Vierendeel trusses in this overall configuration would result in large
diagonal members within the interior space.

Pierre Lassonde Pavilion at the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec, Canada
The expansion of the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec by OMA links
three existing buildings, integrates the surrounding park, and tries to actively
engage the city with the new building, Pierre Lassonde Pavilion. The linkage
between the new and the existing buildings is made underground. The three-
story above ground floors are primarily composed of stacked galleries in a
cascading form. The plan dimensions of the first, second and third floor
galleries are 50 m x 50 m, 45 m x 35 m and 42.5 m x 25 m, respectively. The
second-floor gallery volume has a cantilever-looking 18 m portion (40 percent)
out of the total length of 45 m, in the direction of the city. The third-floor gallery
volume has an actual cantilever of 20 m (47 percent) out of the total length
of 42.5 m, again in the direction of the city. This cascading arrangement of
the masses is structurally supported by steel trusses.
The south-west elevation of the building was designed as if the
second-floor volume were cantilevered from the first floor and the third floor
were cantilevered from the second floor. However, in reality, the second
floor is not fully cantilevered. There are vertical building core and columns under
the end of the slid-out second floor volume. The vertical core and columns
support the slid-out second floor with a slight setback from the south-west
façade. The south-west façade design which emphasizes cascading masses,
in conjunction with the set-back supports, produces an illusion of cantilever
for the second-floor volume.
The third floor is actually cantilevered by slightly less than 50 percent
of the entire length of the floor. If the building was designed and constructed
to have an actual second floor cantilever of about 40 percent, it would be very
challenging to structure the entire combined cascading cantilever of the
second and third floors because the combined length and proportion of the
cantilever is very large. Figure 3-78 shows comparative axial force diagrams
of the two cases. When the cascading second and third floors are cantilevered,
significant compressive forces are developed at the beginning of the canti-
lever, and substantial tensile forces at the back spans. With only the third

133
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-74. Massing diagram of the Pierre Lassonde Pavilion at the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec.
Image courtesy of OMA.

Figure 3-75. The Pierre Lassonde Pavilion at the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec. Image courtesy of OMA

134
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-76. The Pierre Lassonde Pavilion under construction. Image courtesy of OMA.

Figure 3-77. The south-west elevation view of the model of the Pierre Lassonde Pavilion at the National Museum of Fine Arts of
Quebec. Image courtesy of OMA.

135
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-78. Comparative axial force diagrams of the trusses of the Pierre Lassonde Pavilion with and without vertical support
under the slid-out second floor volume.

floor cantilever, the compressive force at the beginning of the cantilever is

significantly reduced, and no substantial tensile forces are developed at the
back spans.

Capital City Towers, Moscow, Russia

Capital City Towers in Moscow are two luxury residential buildings with a
unique expression of stacked rectangular volumes. The Moscow Tower and
the St. Petersburg Tower are 76 stories and 65 stories tall, respectively. The
towers were designed by NBBJ and engineered by Arup. On top of the 18-
story podium which contains commercial office spaces and amenities facilities
for the residents in the towers, four and three rectangular volumes of about
15 stories are piled up to produce the Moscow Tower and the St. Petersburg
Tower, respectively.
Though the form of the towers visually suggests that they were con-
structed by stacking rectangular volumes without vertical alignments, the
towers were actually structured with the outrigger system composed primarily
of the vertical core, outriggers, belt trusses and perimeter mega-columns. The
core and perimeter mega-columns are all vertically aligned. The visual stacking
effect was produced by cantilevering only slab edges. In order to give an effect
of rotation to the stacked looking rectangular volumes, slab edges on only
two adjacent façades of each volume are cantilevered. The slab edges on
the two opposite side façades are cantilevered in the successive rectangular

136
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Figure 3-79. Capital City Towers. With permission of Tim Griffith/NBBJ.

volume. The executed outrigger system with vertical continuity in conjunction

with cantilevered slab edges is far more efficient structurally than actually
stacking rectangular volumes of autonomous structures without alignment of
the vertical structural elements. The concept of vertically continuous structural
systems with maximized structural depth is more important in taller structures
because as a building becomes taller lateral stiffness begins to govern
its structural design. This subject along with more detailed discussions on the
structural systems for vertical cantilevers including the outrigger system will
be presented later in Chapter 4.
The façades are designed with glass curtain walls combined with a
bold expression of orthogonal “super grids” of aluminum panels. The spacing
of the super grids varies depending on the rectangular volume, and some of

137
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-80. Section and typical floor plans of Capital City Towers. With permission of NBBJ.

the vertical bands of the super grids are not aligned between the rectangular
volumes. This non-alignment, in combination with the expression of randomly
stacked masses, produces an illusion that the buildings were actually built by
stacking rectangular masses and the vertical structural elements were not
aligned.
In Capital City Towers, the columns behind the cantilevered slab
edges become interior columns. In today’s typical tall buildings with a central
core, interior columns are usually not preferred for more flexible interior
spatial organizations. Depending on the function of the building, however, the
level of influence of interior columns on spatial organization varies. In open
office floors, interior columns could be more obtrusive, while in residential
buildings, interior columns could be better integrated with necessary functional
components such as demising walls.

138
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

Statoil Oslo Office Building, Oslo, Norway

The design of the Statoil Oslo Office Building by A-Lab uses the concept of
actually stacking large structural modules to complete the building. Though
this is not an unprecedented concept, the Statoil Oslo Office Building is one
of the most recent and interesting additions to this type of architecture. The
building is composed of five modules of three-story tall rectangular volume
which is 140 m long and 23 m wide. The five modules are stacked in a criss-
crossed form. Two modules on the ground are placed close to parallel
as shown in Figure 3-81 with about a 30 m distance between them. Two other
modules, again with about a 30 m distance between them, are placed on top
of the two modules on the ground at an angle of about 90 degrees. The last
module is placed at the top diagonally to the squarish form produced by
the four modules below. According to the architect, this arrangement of the
modules integrates well with the surroundings, maximizes natural light and
enhances views from the building. The form created by this design concept
holds a strong iconic power.
This configuration of stacking rectangular modules produces cantilevers
of about 30 m maximum for the two modules in the middle tier and the last
one at the top. Two three-story tall and 140 m long trusses are used on the

Figure 3-81. Massing diagram of the Statoil Oslo Office Building. With permission of a-lab.no.

139
HORIZONTAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 3-82. Statoil Oslo Office Building under construction showing the junctions between the rectangular volumes structured
with trusses. Photo: Luis Fonseca/a-lab.no.

Figure 3-83. Statoil Oslo Office Building. Photo: Ivan Brodey/a-lab.no.

140
 CANTILEVERED BUILDINGS

longitudinal perimeters of each module to structure it and carry the applied

loads. Based on the strategic stacking of the modules, approximately maxi-
mum 20 percent of the entire length of the stacked modules is cantilevered
at both ends. With this configuration, the stacked modules can be structured
very efficiently with less structural materials compared with plausible
alternative cases such as those with no cantilevers or much longer cantilevers.
In truss structures it is desirable whenever possible that loads are
applied to the nodes instead of in the middle of the members to maximize
the fundamental structural effectiveness of the system. With applied loads
on the nodes, trusses carry the loads by axial actions of the members. Where
the construction modules meet in this building, the geometric configurations
of the web members of the trusses in the modules are adjusted so that the
loads can be transferred through the nodes of the trusses.
Four vertical cores are located at the four intersecting locations of the
five modules. These reinforced concrete cores, containing vertical circula-
tions, work also as a lateral load resisting system for the building. The central
area defined by the surrounding five rectangular modules is enclosed by a
glass roof structure to create an atrium space. Passing through the edges of
the atrium roof, it is interesting to observe that the exterior façade becomes
interior atrium walls. The expression of the truss structures behind the façade
is done in an abstract way by pixelating the façade.

141
 PART II
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS
CHAPTER 4

STRUCTURAL
SYSTEMS FOR
TALL BUILDINGS
IN PART I OF THIS BOOK, horizontal cantilevers in buildings subjected to primarily
gravity loads have been presented. Buildings are subjected to not only gravity
loads but also lateral loads. With regard to lateral loads, any building should
be designed as vertical cantilevers. Two primary lateral loads to be considered
are wind and seismic loads. Between these two, seismic loads are more critical
for low-rise buildings because low-rise buildings with high fundamental natural
frequencies are much more vulnerable to the resonance conditions with the
applied seismic loads of the similar frequencies. Providing more damping is
a good strategy to resolve this serious structural issue. Various damping
strategies for vertical cantilevers will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. As
a building becomes taller, wind loads begin to govern the structural design,
and providing lateral stiffness sufficient to resist wind loads is of critical
importance. This chapter presents lateral load resisting systems for tall
buildings primarily against wind loads. Winds also make tall buildings laterally
vibrate, and various damping strategies for wind-induced vibrations are also
discussed in detail later in Chapter 5.
Tall buildings emerged in the late 19th century in the U.S. based on
economic equations – increasing rentable area by stacking office spaces
vertically and maximizing the rents of these offices by introducing as much
natural light as possible. In traditional masonry construction, very thick and
deep masonry walls were unavoidable in the lower floors of tall buildings.
Heavy masonry walls with small window openings minimized the amount of
daylight entering the interior spaces of early tall buildings, resulting in lower
rental income. Before the invention of fluorescent lamps, daylighting was the
main source of lighting in office buildings. In order to overcome this challenge

145
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-1. Home Insurance Building.

and serve the emerging economic driver at the time, new technologies were
pursued. The result was the iron/steel skeletal structure which minimized the
depth and width of structural members at the building perimeters to maximize
the introduction of natural light to the interior space.
Generally, the 138 ft (42.1 m) tall 10-story Home Insurance Building
of 1885 by William LeBaron Jenny in Chicago is considered as the first
skyscraper. (Two more floors were added to the building in 1891 and
consequently its height was increased to 180 ft (54.9 m).) This is based on
the consideration of its tallness, spatial configuration related to function, and
the applied technologies of the building. These factors opened a great potential
for a new building type, and ultimately generated one. The combination of
these criteria is of critical importance. If only the tallness of a building, which

146
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

mainly contains the spaces people can occupy, is considered, some Gothic
cathedrals can place the height of the Home Insurance Building underneath
the vaulted ceilings of their naves. However, while a modern skyscraper has
multiple stories within its height for maximum occupancy, underneath the
ceiling of the nave of a Gothic cathedral is only a very high single-story space.
The importance of applied technologies in early skyscrapers exists
in their potential. For instance, the heights of some early tall office build-
ings, such as the Montauk Building in Chicago or the Western Union Building
and the Tribune Building in New York, constructed earlier than the Home
Insurance Building, are comparable to, or even much greater than, that of
the Home Insurance Building. Yet, they achieved their heights primarily by
employing traditional load-bearing masonry structures, which required wall
thicknesses of several feet on their ground levels. Thus, these earlier tall office
buildings did not have the potential to grow further because of the technolo-
gical limitations of their structural system. In these technological contexts in
both New York and Chicago – the only two skyscraper cities in the world at
that time – the invention of the iron/steel skeletal structure for the Home
Insurance Building was a remarkable breakthrough towards the development
of a new building type.
As a building becomes taller, the influence of lateral loads, especially
wind loads, on the structural design becomes exponentially large. Eventually,
for a very tall building, not strength but lateral stiffness requirement regarding
wind loads is generally the governing factor of its structural design. Following
the emergence of the iron/steel skeletal frame structure, various lateral load
resisting systems were developed. Systems developed in the late 19th
century were riveted steel connections, portal bracings and braced frames.
Riveted connections were introduced in Holabird and Roche’s Tacoma Building
of 1889 in Chicago. Portal bracings were employed first in Burnham and
Root’s Monadnock Building of 1891 and Jenny’s Manhattan Building of 1891
in Chicago. And braced frames were used widely. These series of structural
innovations, occurring within the real estate boom in the late 1880s in Chicago,
established a solid technological foundation for much taller buildings to come.
The symbolic power of skyscrapers being recognized, a notable pheno-
menon occurred in the development of tall buildings from the turn of the
century. A skyscraper height race began, starting from the Park Row Building,
which had already reached 30 stories in 1899. This height race culminated
with the completion of the 102-story tall Empire State Building in 1931. Even
though the heights of skyscrapers were significantly increased during this
period, contrary to intuition, there had not been much conspicuous technolo-
gical evolution. In terms of structural systems, most tall buildings in the early
20th century employed steel braced frames just as did those built during the
previous century. Among them are the renowned Woolworth Building of 1913
and the Empire State Building. Their enormous heights at that time were
accomplished not through notable technological evolution but through

147
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-2. Height race in the early 20th century.

excessive use of structural materials. Due to the absence of advanced

structural analysis techniques, they were over-designed.
Structural systems for tall buildings have undergone dramatic changes
in the second half of the 20th century. Such changes in the structural form
and organization of tall buildings were necessitated by the emerging archi-
tectural trends in design in conjunction with the economic demands and
technological developments in the realms of advanced structural analysis and
design using high-speed computers. Innovative structural systems including
various tube systems, outrigger systems and mixed steel-concrete composite
systems are some of the new developments since the 1960s.
Since structural design of tall buildings is generally governed by lateral
stiffness, one of the most important structural design considerations for tall
buildings is producing higher lateral stiffness more efficiently. Tall buildings

148
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

are built with an abundant amount of resources including structural materials.

The amount of structural materials to carry lateral loads increases drastically
as the height of the building increases. Therefore, the importance of producing
higher lateral stiffness using less structural materials is of significant
importance to save our limited resources and consequently create more
sustainable built environments.
In order to make a tall building a more efficient vertical cantilever, it
is important to maximize the structural depth of the building against lateral
loads. One of the very efficient strategies to achieve this goal is to place the
primary lateral load resisting components on the building perimeter. Based
on the characteristic of the configuration, this type of structure can be called
exterior structures. The concept of exterior structures produces superior
structural solutions for tall buildings. However, placing major structural
components on the building perimeter may cause limitations on the façade
design. Therefore, if possible, mainly using interior structural elements, such
as building cores, as the primary lateral load resisting system, is another
important concept to consider. This type of system can be called interior
structures. Unlike exterior structures, interior structures can provide ample
flexibilities in façade design. Since the entire building depth is not fully
engaged in interior structures, however, their structural capacity and efficiency
may be limited. To overcome this structural limitation and, at the same time,
give flexibility in façade design, a concept of interior-exterior-integrated
structures, which uses both interior building core and some of the structural
elements on the building perimeter, can be considered. This type of system
can take advantage of the interior and exterior structures.
This chapter presents various lateral load resisting systems for tall
buildings divided into these three different conceptual categories – interior
structures, exterior structures and interior-exterior-integrated structures.
Performance characteristics of different structural systems in each category
are discussed in relation to architectural and other design-related issues
theoretically and with real world examples. Furthermore, comparative
performances between the systems within each category as well as between
the categories are discussed.

4.1. INTERIOR STRUCTURES

Basic types of lateral load-resisting systems in the category of interior
structures are the moment resisting frames, braced frames and shear walls.
These systems are usually arranged as planar assemblies in two principal
orthogonal directions. Moment resisting frames may be employed together
with braced frames or shear walls, resulting in combined systems in which
they interact.

149
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

4.1.1. Moment Resisting Frames

The moment resisting frame (MRF) typically consists of vertical columns and
horizontal girders rigidly connected in a planar grid form. The overturning
moment in an MRF is carried by axial actions of the columns – tension of
the columns on the windward side and compression of the columns on the
leeward side. However, lateral shear forces are resisted by bending of
the columns and girders. Providing lateral stiffness by bending of the columns
and girders is a very inefficient mechanism. This is a serious limitation of MRFs
for the application to tall buildings. MRFs in vertical cantilevers subjected to
lateral loads are comparable to Vierendeel trusses in horizontal cantilevers
subjected to gravity loads.
Another related limiting aspect is that MRFs require progressively larger
girder sizes towards the base of the building. Gravity loads in all typical floors
are more or less the same in tall buildings, and, consequently, girder sizes
can be very similar in all typical floors, if the girders carry only gravity loads
as can be seen in the bending moment diagram of the MRF subjected to only
gravity loads in Figure 4-3. However, girder sizes in MRFs need to be increased

Figure 4-3. Bending moment diagrams of moment resisting frame under gravity and lateral loads.

150
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-4. 860 & 880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments, Chicago.

towards the base to carry the lateral loads which accumulate towards the base
just like the gravity loads on columns as can be seen in the bending moment
diagram of the MRF subjected to only lateral loads in the figure. This means
that the floor to floor height needs to be larger in order to produce the same
ceiling height for every story or the ceiling height needs to be smaller towards
the base in order to keep the story height identical. Either solution may not
be desirable. Due to these limitations, the maximum height of an MRF is
limited to about 20–30 stories.

151
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-5. One Park Place, Kansas City.

For both the gravity and lateral loads, progressively larger column
sizes are required towards the base of the building. The size of the columns
is mainly determined by the gravity loads that accumulate towards the base
of the building. Column sizes determined for the gravity loads may need to
be increased to provide the required lateral stiffness of the MRF. Examples
of MRFs include the 26-story tall Lake Shore Drive Apartments in Chicago
designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the 19-story tall One Park Place
(formerly known as Business Men’s Assurance Tower) in Kansas City
designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, and the 27-story tall Tokyo Marine
Building in Osaka designed by Kajima Design.

152
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Tokyo Marine Building, Osaka, Japan

The Tokyo Marine Building in the Osaka business park district is a 27-story
office building of steel moment resisting frame. Using the exoskeleton
concept and framed columns, the moment resisting frame was uniquely
employed for this building. This is a rectangular box-form building with single
long spans of 21 m in the transverse direction. There are no interior columns

Figure 4-6. Tokyo Marine Building.

153
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-7. Bending moment diagram and deformed shape of the Tokyo Marine Building subjected to lateral loads in comparison
with the alternatively designed frame with normal single columns instead of framed columns.

in this building and therefore column-free interior spaces are obtained through-
out the building. In order to support the single long spans, the columns are
composed of four members framed together with short beams of 2.7 m long,
using moment connections. With these framed columns, the building’s lateral
stiffness is significantly improved, and the role of the floor girders as part of
the lateral load resisting system is reduced to a great degree.
Figure 4-7 shows comparative bending moment and deformed shape
diagrams between the simplified Tokyo Marine Building frame with the unique
framed columns and an alternatively designed moment resisting frame
with normal columns. When subjected to the identical lateral loads, bending
moments of the moment resisting frame with the framed columns are much
smaller than those of the alternatively designed normal moment resisting
frame. This is because the framed columns, which are much stiffer than normal
columns, carry a significant portion of the lateral loads. Consequently, deform-
ation of the moment resisting frame with the framed columns employed for
the Tokyo Marine Building is much smaller than that of the normal moment
resisting frame.

4.1.2. Braced Frames

Braced frames resist lateral loads primarily through axial actions. The system
acts as vertical cantilever trusses where the columns act as chord members
and the concentric K, V, or X braces act as web members. The lateral effici-
ency of the braced frame is much greater than that of the moment resisting
frame because the design of the braced frame is governed by axial forces of
the members while that of the moment resisting frame is governed by the
bending moments of the columns and girders.

154
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

In terms of its application to tall buildings, the moment resisting frame

can be applied throughout the entire building. However, the braced frame is
typically applied to the building partially because the bracing members may
obstruct architectural design aspects such as view, spatial organization or circu-
lation. The building core which typically encloses vertical transportation systems
such as elevators and stairwells is a common location for the braced frame.
In the braced frames, the bracings can be placed not only concentrically
but also eccentrically with the nodes where typically the columns and beams
meet. The former is called concentrically braced frames (CBF), and the latter,
eccentrically braced frames (EBF). CBFs with triangular truss configuration
provide greater lateral stiffness than EBFs. In EBFs, braces are connected to
the floor girders with axial offsets. This lowers lateral stiffness but increases
ductility and therefore EBFs are often used for seismic zones where ductility
is an essential requirement of structural design. EBFs can also be used to
accommodate wide doors or other openings, and have on occasions been
used for non-seismic zones.
Figure 4-8 shows comparative axial force diagrams of single bay MRF,
EBF and CBF of 10 stories subjected to lateral loads. Tension and compression
in the columns resist overturning moments-induced bending in all three

Figure 4-8. Comparative axial force diagrams of MRF, EBF and CBF subjected to lateral loads (tension in darker
shade and compression in lighter shade in all axial force diagrams in this chapter).

155
Figure 4-9. Comparative bending moment diagrams of MRF, EBF and CBF subjected to lateral loads.

Figure 4-10. Comparative deformed shapes of MRF, EBF and CBF subjected to lateral loads.
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

structures. Axial forces in the bracing members primarily carry lateral shear
forces in the EBF and CBF. Figure 4-9 shows comparative bending moments
of the same MRF, EBF and CBF subjected to lateral loads. Bending of the
columns and beams carries lateral shear forces in the MRF. Relatively small
bending moments are developed in the EBF, and negligible bending moments
are developed in the CBF, because the EBF and CBF carry lateral shear forces
primarily by axial actions of the diagonal members as shown in Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-10 shows comparative deformed shapes of the same MRF,
EBF and CBF subjected to lateral loads. The lateral displacement of the
MRF is significantly larger than that of the EBF or CBF, which clearly expresses
inefficiency of carrying loads by bending actions of the members instead of
axial actions. The EBF and CBF show superior performance in terms of lateral
stiffness. Between the two, the CBF is stiffer. The stiffness of the EBF is
reduced as the length of the link beam between the bracing is increased.

4.1.3. Shear Walls

Reinforced concrete shear walls have been one of the most prevalently used
structural systems for tall buildings to resist lateral loads. They are treated

Figure 4-11. Solid shear wall, coupled shear walls with relatively deep link beams, coupled shear walls with relatively shallow
link beams and two independent shear walls, all subjected to the same magnitude lateral loads.

157
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

as vertical cantilevers fixed at the base. When two or more shear walls in
the same plane are interconnected by beams or slabs, the total stiffness
of the system exceeds the sum of the individual wall stiffness because the
connecting link beam forces the walls to act as a single unit by restrain-
ing their individual cantilever actions. These are known as coupled shear
walls. Shear walls with door or window openings form coupled shear walls.
The stiffness of the link beams significantly affects the performance of
coupled shear walls. Stiffer link beams produce more efficient coupled shear
walls. Shear walls used in tall office buildings are generally located around
service and elevator cores, and stairwells. Many possibilities exist with single
or multiple cores in a tall building with regard to their location, shape, number
and arrangement.
Figure 4-11 shows deformed shapes of concrete shear walls of four
different configurations subjected to the same magnitude lateral loads. The
solid shear wall is stiffest, while the two independent shear walls are most
flexible. In the coupled shear walls, the stiffness of the link beams determines
the overall stiffness of the system. As the stiffness of the link beams is
increased, the lateral stiffness of the coupled shear wall is also increased.

4.1.4. Shear Wall Frame Interaction System

Vertical steel trusses or reinforced concrete shear walls may be combined
with rigid frames to create shear wall-frame interaction systems. Rigid frame
systems are not efficient for buildings over about 30 stories in height because
the lateral shear-induced deflection caused by bending of the columns and
girders makes the building to sway excessively. Vertical steel shear trusses
or concrete shear walls are efficient lateral load resisting systems. However,
when these systems are employed partially only in building cores, the height-
to-width aspect ratio of the system becomes very large, and may provide
resistance for buildings up to only about 40 stories. When shear trusses or

Figure 4-12. Concept diagram of shear wall-frame interaction system.

158
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

shear walls are combined with MRFs, a shear truss (or shear wall)-frame
interaction system results. The upper part of the truss is restrained by the
frame, whereas at the lower part, the shear wall or truss restrains the frame.
This effect produces increased lateral rigidity of the building. This type of
system has wide applications for buildings up to about 50 to 70 stories in
height.
Figure 4-13 shows comparative axial force diagrams of 3-bay 15-story
building structures of three different configurations subjected to lateral loads.
The first structure is the moment resisting frame discussed in 4.1.1. In the
braced hinged frame shown as the second structure in the figure, the middle
bay is the braced frame studied in 4.1.2 and the two outer bays are connected
to it by shear connections. Therefore, the interaction between the central
braced frame and the outer bay frames is negligible. The configuration of the
third structure is visually similar to the second one. However, the central braced
frame and the outer bay frames are rigidly connected in the third structure.
Thus, the shear truss-frame interaction is developed as has been explained.
Figure 4-14 shows comparative bending moments of the three
structures. As has been discussed, lateral shear forces are carried by bending
of the girders and columns in the moment resisting frame. In the braced hinged
frame, negligible bending moments are developed in the frame members. This
is because both overturning moments and lateral shear forces are carried
primarily by axial actions of the braced frame in the middle bay and the
participation of the two shear-connected outer bays in resisting lateral loads
is minimal. In the shear truss-frame interaction system, lateral shear forces
are carried by both axial actions of the diagonal members of the middle bay
braced frame and bending of the outer bay frame members rigidly connected

Figure 4-13. Comparative axial forces of moment resisting frame, braced hinged frame, and shear truss-frame interaction system
subjected to lateral loads.

159
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

to the braced frame. Therefore, bending moments are developed in the outer
bay frames as shown in the figure. However, these bending moments are
much smaller than those developed in the moment resisting frame because
of the greater participation of the braced frame in the middle bay in resisting
lateral shear forces.
Figure 4-15 shows deformed shapes of the three structures subjected
to lateral loads. The deformation of the moment resisting frame is primarily

Figure 4-14. Comparative bending moments of moment resisting frame, braced hinged frame, and shear truss-frame interaction
system subjected to lateral loads.

Figure 4-15. Comparative deformed shapes of moment resisting frame, braced hinged frame and shear truss-frame interaction
system subjected to lateral loads.

160
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

governed by bending of the columns and girders caused by lateral shear

forces. In the braced hinged frame, the deformation is mostly governed
by axial actions of the central braced frame’s chord members caused by
overturning moment. The participation of the outer bays is negligible because
they are connected to the central braced frame by shear connections.
Deformation characteristics of these two frames are combined in the shear
truss-frame interaction system. Large displacements of the moment resist-
ing frames at lower levels are confined by the braced frame and those of
the braced frame at higher levels are confined by the moment resisting
frame. As a result, the interaction system produces superior lateral perform-
ance.

Seagram Building, New York, USA

The 38-story Seagram Building of 1958 in New York designed by Ludwig Mies
van der Rohe employed shear wall-frame interaction system at lower levels,

Figure 4-16. Seagram Building. With permission of Marshall Gerometta, CTBUH (L).

161
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

shear truss-frame interaction system at mid-levels and moment resisting

frame at higher levels. The shear walls were produced by embedding steel
shear trusses in the concrete shear walls at lower levels of this building sub-
jected to larger lateral loads. The shear trusses are used without concrete at
the mid-levels subjected to intermediate lateral loads. And, finally, the shear
trusses are eliminated at higher levels subjected to smaller lateral loads. The
structural systems change logically along the height of the building. Though
shear walls (or shear trusses) had widely been used in combination with
moment resisting frames in tall buildings including the Seagram Building, the
interaction between the systems had not fully been understood until the clear
recognition of it by Fazlur Khan for the first time in the mid 1960s.

4.1.5. Staggered Truss System

The staggered truss system was developed in the mid-1960s at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology as an efficient lateral load resisting system for steel
tall buildings. The system is composed of story-deep trusses placed at
alternate floors throughout the height of the building. The staggered trusses
are also alternately placed in the longitudinal direction of the building. Typically
no trusses are placed on the ground floor. Therefore, column-free interior
spaces are obtained on the ground floor.
Figures 4-17 shows comparative bending moment diagrams and
deformed shapes of the staggered truss system and moment resisting frame
subjected to the same lateral loads. As can be seen in the figures, the major
bending moments in the staggered truss system are developed only in the
columns with no trusses because the alternately placed trusses carry the loads
by axial actions. In the moment resisting fame, the lateral loads are carried
by bending of the columns and girders, which is a very inefficient load carrying
mechanism. Consequently, the moment resisting frame produces much larger
deformations than the staggered truss system.

Figure 4-17. Comparative bending moment diagrams and deformed shapes of the staggered truss system and moment resisting
frame subjected to the same lateral loads.

162
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

The unique compositional characteristics of the staggered truss

system may impose some functional limitations to the building structured
with the system. For example, column-free office spaces cannot be produced
using the system. The most appropriate functions the system can accommo-
date are those requiring demising walls such as hotels, condos and apartments.
Typically, one module of the trusses is Vierendeel without diagonals to place
corridors there. It is better to place the Vierendeel module at the mid-span of
the trusses because the shear force of the span is minimal there. Despite its
structural efficiency, the staggered truss system is used only occasionally
because of its inherent functional limitation.

4.2. EXTERIOR STRUCTURES

The nature of building perimeters has more structural significance in tall
buildings than in low-rise and mid-rise buildings due to their very tallness, which
means greater vulnerability to lateral loads, especially wind loads. Thus, from
a structural viewpoint, it is desirable to concentrate as many lateral load-
resisting system components as possible on the perimeter of tall buildings
to increase their structural depth, and, in turn, their resistance to lateral loads.
Typical exterior structures include tube systems, which can be defined as a
fully three-dimensional structural system utilizing the entire building per-
imeter to resist lateral loads. Notable examples include the 100-story John
Hancock Center, 83-story Aon Center, both in Chicago, and the terrorist
attacked One and Two World Trade Center Towers in New York. Many other
recent buildings in excess of about 50 stories have employed the tubular
concept or a variation of it. Tubular structures have several types depending
on their configurations and the consequent structural efficiency.
Tubular structures locate their major lateral load-resisting components
at the building perimeters where building façades are, creating structural domi-
nation in the expression of the buildings. This performance-based juxtaposition
naturally leads to an integrative design approach between the structural and
façade systems. As a consequence, in tall buildings that employ perimeter
tube type structures, technological components and architectural components
of building façades are inseparable, one complementing the other. These
circumstances require very intimate collaboration between architects and
engineers.

4.2.1. Framed Tubes

Solely from the viewpoint of structural performance, the best tube structure
is a solid tube with no fenestration. However, this type of structure cannot
perform architecturally. In a framed tube system, the building has closely
spaced columns and deep spandrel beams rigidly connected throughout the
perimeter to minimize the area of openings. Depending on the structural

163
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

geometry and proportions, exterior column spacing typically varies from about
5 to 15 ft (1.5 to 4.5 m) on centers. Practical spandrel beam depths vary from
about 24 to 48 in (600 to 1200 mm).
In terms of construction, it is very time-consuming and cost-inefficient
to produce a large number of rigid connections between the closely spaced
perimeter columns and deep perimeter beams at the job site. In order to
expedite the construction process of framed tube structures, column trees,
composed of rigidly connected perimeter columns and beams of about two-
to three-story tall and two- to three-bay wide, are produced at the factory and
brought to the job site. Column trees are designed and produced in such a
way that the connections between the column trees occur at the mid-heights
of the columns and mid-spans of the beams, where bending moments are
zero in the rigid frames under lateral loads because these are inflection points
(see Figure 4-3).
For a framed tube subjected to lateral loads, the axial forces are
greatest in the corner columns and the distribution is non-linear for both the
web frames (i.e., frames parallel to wind) and the flange frames (i.e., frames
perpendicular to wind). This is because the axial forces in the columns
towards the middle of the flange frames lag behind those near the corner
due to the bending of the spandrel beams. This phenomenon is known as

Figure 4-18.
Construction of framed tube system with
column trees.

164
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-19. Shear lag effect in framed tube system.

shear lag. To maximize the efficiency of framed tube structures, it is important

to limit the shear lag effect and aim for more cantilever-type behavior of the
structure. In the braced and bundled tube structures which are discussed in
more detail in the following sections, shear lag effect is reduced and structural
efficiency is increased.
Figure 4-20 shows deformed shape, bending moment and axial force
diagrams of a framed tube’s windward flange frame. This is a 60-story framed
tube model, but the diagrams show only about 10 stories from the ground
for clarity. The shear lag effect is most severe at lower levels of the structure.
As can be seen in the figure, the extensions of the columns are greatest at
both ends, gradually reduced towards the center of the frame, and smallest
at the center columns. Consequently, axial forces – tension on the windward
frame in this case – are greatest at the both end columns, which also work
as end columns for the web frames perpendicular to the flange frames, and
gradually reduced towards the center columns. This phenomenon occurs due
to the bending of the beams which rigidly connect the columns as can also
be seen in the figure.
Figure 4-21 shows deformed shape, bending moment and axial force
diagrams of the windward flange frame of a bundled tube composed of four
identical framed tubes. Though the bundled tube system will be presented
again later in this chapter, the basic compositional difference between the
bundled tube and the framed tube can be noticed from the simplified plan

165
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-20. Deformed shape, bending moment and axial force diagrams of a framed tube’s windward flange frame.

drawing of the bundled tube shown in the figure. The extensions of the peri-
meter columns are still not the same because the spandrel beams still bend
and shear lag effect occurs. However, the extensions of the columns on the
flange frame are much more equalized due to the additional web frame at
the center across the floor plan, compared to the framed tube shown in Figure
4-20. Consequently, axial forces in the columns on the web frames are also
more evenly distributed in the bundled tube than in the framed tube.
Figure 4-22 shows deformed shape, bending moment and axial force
diagrams of a braced tube’s windward flange frame. Though the braced tube
system will also be presented again later in this chapter, the basic composi-
tional difference between the framed tube and the braced tube can be noticed
from the flange frame drawing of the braced tube shown in the figure. Lateral
shear stiffness of the braced tube is much greater than that of the framed
tube due to the braced web frames. Therefore, the braced tube tends to
behave more like a bending beam, which is very efficient for vertical canti-
levers. Though the extensions of the perimeter columns are still not the same
on the flange frames, they are more equalized compared to the framed tube
shown in Figure 4-20 because the diagonal members help reduce bending of
the perimeter beams. Consequently, axial forces in the columns on the web
frames are also more evenly distributed.
Deformation profiles of the framed tube, bundled tube and braced
tube are comparatively shown in Figure 4-23. Bending of the columns and
beams caused by lateral shear forces still contributes to a large degree to the
deformation of the framed tube, and this tendency is reduced in the bundled
tube due to its increased shear stiffness based on the added web frames. In
the braced tube, with greater shear stiffness based on bracings on the web
frames, axial actions of the perimeter columns govern the deformation instead
of the bending of the beams and columns. Among these three, the braced
tube typically produces lateral stiffness most efficiently, and the framed tube,
least efficiently.

166
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Therefore, in real world projects, the perimeter column spacing is

comparatively widest in the braced tube and narrowest in the framed tube in
general, though the same column spacing is used in the simplified comparative
study presented here.

Figure 4-21. Deformed shape, bending moment and axial force diagrams of a bundled tube’s windward flange frame (above)
and simplified plan of the bundled tube.

Figure 4-22. Deformed shape, bending moment and axial force diagrams of a braced tube’s windward flange frame.

167
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-23. Comparative deformation profiles of the framed tube (left), bundled tube (middle) and braced tube
(right) subjected to lateral loads.

One and Two World Trade Center Towers, New York (Demolished)
The World Trade Center (WTC) Tower 1 of 1972 and Tower 2 of 1973 in New
York designed by the architect Minoru Yamasaki and structurally engineered
by Leslie Robertson were 110-story tall twin towers. Both the 1368-ft (417 m)
tall Tower 1 and 1362-ft (415.1 m) tall Tower 2 employed the framed tube
system to resist lateral loads. With their plan dimensions of about 207 ft x 207 ft
(63.1 m x 63.1 m), the height-to-width aspect ratio of the towers is about 6:6.
The dimension of the central core is about 87 ft x 135 ft (26.5 m x 40.1 m) in
the east–west direction. Therefore, the depths of the office spaces between
the perimeter walls of the core and the exterior walls of the building are
approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) and 36 ft (11 m) in the north–south and east–west
direction respectively.
The perimeter framed tube structural system employed for the
WTC Towers is typically composed of very closely spaced 14 in. (36 cm) wide
columns and 52 in. (132 cm) deep spandrel beams at every floor level. The
perimeter columns were made of 2.5 in. (6.4 cm) thick steel plate at lower levels
and the thickness of the plate was gradually reduced to 0.25 in. (0.64 cm) at
the top. The perimeter column spacing was typically 3 ft 4 in. (102 cm) on center
and the typical story height was 12 ft (3.7 m).

168
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-24. Demolished World Trade Center in New York.

From the viewpoint of structural performance, the very narrow perim-

eter column spacing used in the WTC is desirable to make the structure closer
to the most effective solid tube. However, this configuration in this building
allowed only about 2 ft 2 in. (66 cm) wide fenestrations between the columns.
With this narrow spacing, it was impossible to make entrances to the towers
on the ground level having reasonably sized entrance doors. In order to resolve
this issue, three columns were merged into a larger column on the ground lobby
level to allow larger openings there as can be seen in Figure 4-24.
Another structural component on the perimeter of the WTC Towers
was hat trusses on the roof. The hat trusses were placed between the 107th
floor and roof and connected the central core structure and perimeter tube
structure. The primary purpose of these hat trusses was to support antennae
atop the buildings, though their configuration looks similar to the outrigger
trusses in the outrigger structural systems. More detailed discussions on actual
outrigger trusses, their optimal locations and performances in the outrigger
structural system are presented later in this chapter.
The perimeter framed tube system, obtained by placing narrowly
spaced columns and deep spandrel beams on the building perimeter, carries
lateral loads applied to tall buildings very efficiently. However, the required
density of the structural members on the building perimeter may seriously
limit the façade design. The maximum possible vision glass area on the building
perimeter to allow natural light is also significantly limited in framed tube
structures. In the WTC Twin Towers in New York, the vision glass area was
limited to only about 40 percent of the entire façade area.

169
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

The demolition of the towers by the terrorist attacks on September

11, 2001, produced great concern about the safety of tall buildings. Among
many post-9/11 tall building design trends, the most frequently adopted one
throughout the world is constructing cores of tall buildings with reinforced
concrete shear walls instead of steel frames, in order to enhance performance
of the core as a safer route for evacuation during emergency situations
especially those involving fire and high temperature.

Aon Center, Chicago, USA

Figure 4-25. Aon Center in Chicago.

170
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

The Aon Center of 1973 in Chicago designed by Edward Durrell Stone with
Perkins and Will is an 1136 ft (346.3 m) tall 83-story office tower. The perim-
eter framed tube was employed as the lateral load resisting system for the
building. The central core of structural steel frames carries only gravity loads.
The tube is composed of perimeter columns of V-shaped steel plate spaced
at 10 ft (3 m) and deep channel-shaped bent plate spandrel beams.
Three-story tall column trees were shop-fabricated as construction units
to expedite the construction process of the perimeter tube. Moment connec-
tions are required for the connections between the perimeter columns and
spandrel beams to achieve the tubular behavior. By using column trees, these
time-consuming moment connections are made in the shop under higher
quality control. The column trees are connected at the job site at the mid-
span of the spandrel beams with bolted connections and mid-height of the
columns with welded connections at lower stories and bolted or welded
connections at upper stories. The mid-span of the beams and mid-height of
the columns are inflection points of the web frames of the framed tube
structures subjected to lateral loads. Since there are no bending moments
at inflection points, these are the best locations to make field connections of
the column trees. A very similar construction mechanism was also used for
the previously discussed WTC Twin Towers.
In addition to the typical framed tube structure composed of column
trees, L-shaped solid steel plate columns are employed at the four corners of
the building. Placing the large L-shaped columns in the building corners sub-
stantially contributes to increasing the lateral stiffness of the building. When
the same amounts of structural materials are used for two tall structures
shown in Figure 4-26, the structure with only four large corner columns pro-
vides larger lateral stiffness than another structure with evenly spaced smaller
columns. With the perimeter framed tube combined with the four large
L-shaped corner columns, the weight of the structural steel used per each
square foot area of the Aon Center is 33 psf (161.1 kg/m2). The weight of the

Figure 4-26. Simplified structural plans with many evenly spaced smaller perimeter columns and four large corner columns.

171
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

structural steel used for the bundled tube system, which is generally more
efficient structural system than the perimeter framed tube, employed for the
Willis Tower is also 33 psf. Both the Aon Center and Willis Tower are in Chicago
and their height-to-width aspect ratios are about 6 and 6.4 respectively.
The V-shaped steel plate columns are integrated with the HVAC
system of the building. The void spaces naturally provided by the V-shaped
columns are used to contain air shafts and hot and chilled water pipes for the
perimeter zone.

DeWitt-Chestnut Apartments, Chicago, USA

Figure 4-27. DeWitt-Chestnut Apartments Building in Chicago.

172
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

While the WTC Twin Towers and Aon Center are renowned supertall
examples of the steel framed tube system, the framed tube concept was, in
fact, employed first to the reinforced concrete DeWitt-Chestnut Apartments
(now called the Plaza on DeWitt) of 1966 in Chicago designed by Skidmore,
Owings and Merrill. As the very first framed tube building, the DeWitt-
Chestnut Apartments is a 395 ft (120.4 m) tall 42-story building. In order to
produce the tubular action, the perimeter columns are very narrowly placed
at 5 ft 6 in. (1.7 m) on center. Size of the columns on the lower floors is
20 in. x 20 in. (50.8 cm x 50.8 cm) and gradually reduced to 14 in. x 14 in.
(35.6 cm x 35.6 cm) at the top, as the lateral loads applied to the tower are
also gradually reduced towards the top of the building. Similar to the demol-
ished WTC Twin Towers in New York, the column spacing is increased on
the ground level to accommodate more reasonably designed entrances. In
order to increase the column spacing by two times, very deep transfer girders
are employed where the transition occurs. And the widely spaced columns
on the ground level are much larger than those above the transfer girders.
The building contains 407 apartments of studios, one-, two- and three-
bedroom units. Since all lateral loads are carried by the perimeter reinforced
concrete framed tube structure, great flexibility is obtained in placing interior
columns. However, the exterior façade design is primarily governed by the
pattern of the framed tube composed of dense structural members.
Another early example of reinforced concrete framed tube structures
includes the 52-story tall One Shell Plaza of 1971 in Houston also designed
by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. In combination with the reinforced concrete
shear wall core, the structural system of this building is considered as a tube-
in-tube system, which is categorized as interior-exterior-integrated structures
and discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

4.2.2. Braced Tubes

The framed tube becomes progressively inefficient over about 60 stories since
the web frames begin to behave as conventional rigid frames. Consequently,
beam and column designs are controlled by bending action, resulting in large
size. Also, the cantilever behavior of the structure is thus undermined and
the shear lag effect is aggravated. Figure 4-28 comparatively shows axial force
and bending moment diagrams of the web frames (frames parallel to wind)
of a 60-story framed tube and braced tube subjected to lateral loads.
The bending moment diagram of the framed tube represents the lateral
shear force carrying mechanism of the system through bending actions of
the beams and columns. The braced tube overcomes this problem by
stiffening the perimeter frames in their own planes. The braced tube system
can be understood as the braced frame system employed over the entire
building perimeters instead of the interior core. The system is a three-
dimensional vertical truss with the maximum structural depth. Consequently,
lateral loads are carried very efficiently primarily by axial actions of the

173
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-28. Comparative axial force and bending moment diagrams of the web frames of 60-story framed tube
and braced tube.

perimeter columns and diagonal bracings. Furthermore, the diagonals of a

braced tube connected to the perimeter columns at each joint effectively
reduce the effects of shear lag. Therefore, the columns in the braced tube
can be much more widely spaced than those in the framed tube, allowing for
larger window openings, though the same column spacing is used for both
the framed tube and the braced tube shown in Figure 4-28 for the purpose
of direct comparison.
As can be seen in Figure 4-28, axial forces of the diagonal members
represent the lateral shear force resisting mechanism of the braced tube
through axial actions of the diagonal members. Bending moments of the web
frame members are very small compared with those of the framed tube. Axial
forces of the perimeter columns represent overturning moment resisting
mechanism of the braced tube system also through axial actions.
A steel braced tube was first applied to the 100-story John Hancock
Center of 1969 in Chicago. Reinforced concrete braced tube is also possible
by strategically infilling the windows to create reinforced concrete bracings
as is the case with the 58-story Onterie Center of 1986 in Chicago. While
the braced tube is structurally very efficient, the quality of the interior space
within the system may be compromised due to obstruction of the view.

174
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

In addition, construction of diagonals is by itself involved and consequently

constructability could be an issue. Nonetheless, with their superior structural
efficiency, braced tubes have been used for many tall buildings worldwide.
Studies on the performance of braced tube structures of various configurations
and more efficient design of the system are presented later in this section.
Because of their enormous scale, tall buildings are built with an abundant
amount of resources including structural materials. It is important to save our
limited resources through efficient design to construct more sustainable built
environments.

John Hancock Center, Chicago, USA

Figure 4-29. John Hancock Center in Chicago.

175
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

The John Hancock Center (now called 875 North Michigan Avenue) in Chicago
designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is a 1128 ft (343.7 m) tall 100-story
mixed use tall building with three floors of commercial, eight floors of park-
ing, 25 floors of office and 50 floors of condominium spaces. This is the first
major tall building structured with the braced tube system. Employing the cross
bracings on the building perimeter allowed the typical exterior column spacing
of 40 ft (12.2 m) on the wide façade planes and 25 ft (7.6 m) on the narrow
façade planes, which are incomparably larger than typical column spacing used
in framed tube structures. Even with these more widely spaced perimeter
columns, the braced tube system is still more efficient than the framed tube
system in general. This is because the braced tube system carries lateral shear
forces primarily by axial actions of the cross bracings on the web planes (planes
parallel to wind) of the building, while the framed tube system carries lateral
shear forces by bending actions of the perimeter columns and beams on the
web planes. Apparently, carrying applied loads by axial actions is one of
the most efficient load-carrying mechanisms, while carrying applied loads by
bending actions is far less efficient.
The performance of the braced tube employed in the John Hancock
Center is enhanced by tapering the building. The building tapers from the
ground floor of about 160 ft x 260 ft (48.8 m x 79.2 m) to the roof of 100 ft x
160 ft (30.5 m x 48.8 m). This is also related to the functional requirements
of the building uses on different levels. Commercial spaces do not much rely
on natural light, while it is better to introduce more natural light into residential
units. Therefore, deeper spaces on the lower levels accommodate commercial
spaces including offices, and the spaces with relatively short clear spans
between the core and exterior façades are used for residential units. More
detailed discussions on the impact of tapering tall structures are presented
in Chapter 6.

780 Third Avenue, New York, USA

The 780 Third Avenue of 1983 in New York also designed by Skidmore, Owings
and Merrill is a 570 ft (173.7 m) tall 49-story office building. The braced tube
concept of the John Hancock Center in Chicago was adopted for this building
using reinforced concrete. Though the structural system is the same for the
two buildings, based on the employed structural materials, construction
mechanisms are different and architectural expressions are uniquely charac-
terized accordingly. Unlike the continuous steel diagonal members across
the exterior windows in the John Hancock Center, the reinforced concrete
diagonals in the 780 Third Avenue were created by infilling window spaces
with reinforced concrete in a diagonal pattern.
The exterior perimeter columns are spaced typically at 9 ft 4 in. (2.8 m)
on center. The widths of the perimeter columns and window openings are
4 ft (1.2 m) and 5 ft 4 in. (1.6 m), respectively. The column thickness is 24 in.
(61 cm) on the ground and gradually reduced to 14 in. (35.6 cm) at the top.

176
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-30. 780 Third Avenue in New York. With permission of John W. Cahill.

The plan dimensions of the building are 125 ft x 70 ft (38 m x 21 m). Two appro-
priate window openings at every level are filled on each wide face to produce
X bracings, while one appropriate opening at every level is filled on the narrow
face to produce single diagonal bracing in a zigzag pattern. These patterns of
bracings not only produce different architectural expressions but also impact
the structural performance of the system. The influence of the bracing pattern
on the performance of the braced tubes is presented later in this section.

177
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

This building also has a reinforced concrete core structure composed

of shear walls which houses vertical transportation. Because of the inherent
characteristics of the reinforced concrete structure, the core, the exterior
braced tube and flooring structures are all monolithically connected. Therefore,
the systems carry lateral loads by interactions as well.

4.2.2.1 Braced Tubes of Varying Column Spacing

Braced tube structural systems are configured with perimeter diagonal
bracings and vertical columns spaced evenly in general. This section inves-
tigates various perimeter column spacing strategies to improve the system’s
performance. Figure 4-31 shows four different cases. The braced tubes
studied are 100-story tall with a story height of 3.9 m, and their plan dimen-
sions are 54 m x 54 m. In Case 1, all the perimeter columns are spaced evenly
at every 9 m. In Case 1.1, the column spacing is gradually reduced from
12 m at the mid-width of each façade plane to 6 m at the building corner,
with 9 m between them. In Case 1.2, the column spacing is gradually
increased from 6 m at the mid-width of each façade plane to 12 m at the
building corner, with 9 m between them.

Figure 4-31. Braced tube structures configured with different column spacing strategies and their lateral displacement profiles.

178
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

The bending stiffness of each case is different because of the influ-

ence of the different column spacing, while each case’s shear stiffness is
almost the same regardless of the column spacing because the configuration
of the bracing is unchanged. As the column spacing becomes denser towards
the building corners, the contribution of the columns on the web planes (planes
parallel to wind) to the bending rigidity increases, and vice versa. This pheno-
menon has a direct impact on the lateral displacement of each tower. When
designed with the same amount of structural material, the lateral displace-
ment of Case 1.1 is decreased and that of 1.2 is increased, compared with
that of Case 1.
William LeMessurier’s theoretical study of the 207-story Erewhon
Center is conceptually the most extreme version of Case 1.1. The Erewhon
Center uses four large corner columns in combination with X bracings between
them. Regarding overturning moments, the configuration with four large
corner columns produces greater bending rigidity than any first three column
configurations shown in Figure 4-31, when the same quantity of structural
materials is used for each alternative.
Case L of Figure 4-31 shows a 100-story braced tube structure
with four large corner columns and X bracings. Except for the perimeter col-
umns, the building’s other configurations are the same as those of Case 1.
While Case 1 is composed of 24 evenly spaced perimeter columns on each
floor, Case L has only four large corner columns. The cross-sectional area of
each column of Case L is six times larger than that of each perimeter column
of Case 1 on each floor. Therefore, the quantity of structural materials used
for Case 1 and L is identical. Case L, as the most extreme version of Case 1.1
conceptually, is much stiffer than Case 1.1.
Though Case L provides greater lateral stiffness based on higher
bending rigidity, however, a critical design issue of this type of configuration
is that it requires a far more challenging gravity load resisting system. This is
because the dead and live loads of the floors must be carried also primarily
by the four large corner columns spaced at 54 meters in this particular case.
The maximum 54 meters cannot be simply spanned with typical deep wide
flange beams. An alternative flooring system such as deep trusses should be
considered.

4.2.2.2. Braced Tubes of Various Bracing Configurations

Impact of Bracing Angles

Diagonals in a braced tube structure can be configured with various different
angles. Theoretically, an angle of about 35 degrees produces the maximum
shear rigidity. Therefore, diagonal member sizes can be smaller as the diagonal
angle becomes closer to about 35 degrees. However, smaller member sizes
at each level do not guarantee the least amount of material use overall. While

179
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-32. Braced tube structures configured with two different diagonal angles.

the diagonal member sizes become smaller as the angle nears 35 degrees,
the total length of all diagonals decreases as the angle becomes steeper.
Figure 4-32 shows two different cases. Case 1, with diagonal bracings
placed at an angle of 55 degrees, is the same structure studied in the previous
section. Case 1.5 is a 100-story braced tube structure with diagonal bracings
placed at 36 degrees, which is very close to the optimal angle in terms of the
system’s lateral shear rigidity.
Larger size diagonal members are required as the angle of diagonals
deviates more from the optimal. Therefore, the required cross-sectional area
of each module’s diagonal members in Case 1 is much larger than that of
Case 1.5 to produce the same level of lateral shear rigidity. However, the total
required steel mass for the entire diagonal members of Case 1 is very similar
to that of Case 1.5 because of the different total lengths of the diagonals in
these two cases. Therefore, the influence of the angle of diagonal bracings
on structural efficiency is minimal, if the angle is larger than the optimal within
a reasonable range. In terms of constructability, Case 1.5, with the diagonal
angle closer to the optimal, results in a much larger number of complicated
joints than Case 1. Complicated structural joints require costly construction in
general.

180
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Impact of Bracing Shapes

While X is the most common shape of bracing for braced tubes, other types
of bracings are also used. Figure 4-33 shows four different bracing types, X,
chevron, alternate and single direction single diagonal bracings. Identical
member sizes are used for each level bracings of Case 1 and 2, while two
times larger member sizes in terms of cross-sectional area are used for those
of Case 3 and 4, in order to design all these four cases with the same quantity
of structural material.
The structural performance of braced tubes is influenced by the shape
of bracings. Figure 4-33 also summarizes lateral deformation profiles of the
four cases, based on the results analysed with structural engineering software.
The case with X bracings, which are continuously connected over the entire
building height, provides the greatest lateral stiffness among the four cases
studied. Perimeter X bracings can be found in many tall buildings including
the John Hancock Center in Chicago. Structural performances of Case 2
with chevron bracings and Case 3 with alternate direction single diagonal
bracings are not much different in terms of their lateral stiffness. The Bank
of the South West in Houston uses chevron bracings, and the narrow face
of 780 Third Avenue in New York (Figure 4-30) uses the alternate direction

Figure 4-33. Braced tube structures with different bracing configurations and their lateral displacement profiles.

181
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

single diagonal bracings shown in Case 3. The lateral stiffness of Case 4 with
single direction single diagonal bracings is smaller than that of the other three
cases.

4.2.3. Bundled Tubes

Structural performance of a framed tube could be substantially improved by
providing cross frames within the tube. The resulting structure could
be conceived as a bundle of framed tubes. The 110-story Sears Tower (now
called Willis Tower) of 1974 was the first bundled tube structure. The confi-
guration of the bundled tube could be conceived as a large perimeter framed
tube with interior web frames. The shear lag effect of the typical framed tube
is substantially reduced by placing interior web frames. Therefore, the bundled
tube concept allows for wider column spacing in the tubular walls, which
makes it possible to place interior frame lines without seriously compromising
interior space planning of the building, though the same column spacing is
used for both the framed tube and the bundled tube shown earlier in Figure
4-20 and 4-21 respectively for the purpose of direct structural performance
comparisons of the two systems. Due to the participation of major tube frames
located inside the building by bundling multiple tubes, this system can be
categorized as hybrid structures (interior-exterior integrated system) as well.

Willis Tower, Chicago, USA

The Willis Tower in Chicago designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is a
1451 ft (442.1 m) tall office building. This building employs the bundled tube
structure in which nine steel framed tubes are bundled at the base. Each tube
is 75 ft (22.9 m) square with columns spaced at every 15 ft (4.6 m). Two
diagonally positioned corner tubes are terminated at the 50th floor, and the
remaining two corner tubes are terminated at the 66th floor. The cruciform
bundled tube composed of five modules runs from the 67th to 90th floor.
Three wings of the cruciform are dropped at the 90th floor and only two
modules reach to the topmost floor. This massing strategy based on the
bundled tube structural concept produced a unique stepped tapered building
form much different from that typically produced by framed tube or braced
tube structural concepts.
Stepped tapered form is possible typically with the introduction of large
transfer girders which are very costly. In the bundled tube system employed
for the Willis Tower, the stepping occurs based on the tube modules of the
bundled tube. Therefore, terminating any tube module simply produces a
desired step without any transfer girder. The tapered form with the greatest
structural depth at the base and gradually reduced depth towards the top is
structurally logical to carry lateral loads, the magnitude of which is also
greatest at the base and gradually reduced towards the top.

182
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-34.
Bundled tube systems and its improved
shear lag effect.

183
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-35. Willis Tower in Chicago. © SOM (R).

4.2.4. Diagrids
With their superior structural efficiency as a varied version of the conventional
braced tube system, diagrid structures have widely been used for tall buildings
recently. Early designs of tall buildings recognized the effectiveness of diag-
onal bracing members in resisting lateral loads. Most of the structural systems
deployed for early tall buildings were steel frames with diagonal bracings of
various configurations such as X, K, chevron, etc. While the structural import-
ance of diagonals was well recognized, however, their aesthetic potential was
not appreciated since they were considered to obstruct viewing the outdoors.
Thus, diagonals were generally embedded within the building cores which
were usually located in the interior of the building.
A major departure from this design approach occurred when braced
tube structures were introduced in the late 1960s for the 100-story tall John
Hancock Center in Chicago. The diagonals were located along the entire
exterior perimeter surfaces of this building to maximize their structural
effectiveness and capitalize on the aesthetic innovation. This strategy is much
more effective than confining diagonals to narrower building cores. Despite
the clear symbiosis between structural action and aesthetic intent of the
Hancock Tower, this overall design approach has not emerged as the sole
aesthetic preference of architects. However, recently the use of perimeter
diagonals – thus the term “diagrid” – for structural effectiveness and lattice-
like aesthetics has generated renewed interest in architectural and structural
designers of tall buildings.

184
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

The difference between conventional braced tube structures and

diagrid structures is that, for diagrid structures, almost all the conventional
vertical columns are eliminated. This is possible because the diagonal
members in diagrid structural systems can carry gravity as well as lateral loads
due to their triangulated configuration. Compared with conventional framed
tubular structures without diagonals, diagrid structures are much more
effective in minimizing lateral shear deformation because they carry lateral
shear by axial actions of the diagonal members on the web planes, while
conventional framed tube structures carry shear by the bending of the vertical
columns and horizontal spandrel beams.
Figure 4-36 shows axial force and bending moment diagrams on the
web planes of a 60-story diagrid structure subjected to lateral loads. Axial forces
of the diagonal members primarily represent the lateral shear force resisting
mechanism through axial actions of the diagonal members. Bending moments
of the diagrid members on the web planes are very small compared with those
of the framed tube. Since the diagrid structure does not have conventional
vertical columns, axial forces of the diagrid members on the web planes also
represent the overturning moment resisting mechanism of the system, but
to a minor degree. Diagrid members on the flange planes primarily participate
in the overturning moment resisting mechanism.
The shear lag effect in diagrids is much smaller than that in framed
tube structures because of the triangular configurations. Figure 4-37 shows
deformed shape, bending moment and axial force diagrams of the diagrid
structure’s windward flange plane. This is a 60-story diagrid model, but the
diagrams show only about 10 stories from the ground for clarity. The shear
lag effect is most severe at lower levels of the structure. The extensions of
the diagrid members are greatest at both ends, and gradually reduced towards
the center. Consequently, axial force (tension in this case) is greatest at both
ends of the diagrid members and gradually reduces towards the center diagrid
members. This shear lag-induced structural inefficiency occurs due to the
bending of the beams. However, compared with the conventional framed tube,
the shear lag effect is smaller in the diagrid structure because the diagrids of
triangular configuration are much stiffer than the framed tube of orthogonal
configuration. Therefore, bending of the perimeter beams on the flange
planes is much smaller in the diagrid structures, extensions of the diagrid
members are more equalized, and axial forces are also more evenly distributed
in the diagrid members.
When compared with braced tube structures composed of verticals
and diagonals, diagrid structures carry both lateral shear forces and overturning
moments by axial actions of the diagonal members, while, in the braced tube
structures, the lateral shear forces are primarily carried by axial actions of the
diagonals and overturning moments, by axial actions of the vertical columns.
More detailed comparisons between the diagrids and braced tubes are
presented later in this chapter.

185
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-36. Axial force and bending

moment diagrams of diagrid structure
subjected to lateral loads.

Figure 4-37. Deformed shape, bending moment and axial force diagrams of diagrid structure’s windward flange frame

186
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

An early example of diagrid structures is the IBM Building of 1963 in

Pittsburgh. With its 13-story building height, this building was not given much
attention by architects and engineers. In the early 1980s Humana Headquarters
competition, a diagrid structure was proposed by Norman Foster. However,
the winning entry at that time was the post-modern style building designed
by Michael Graves. Only recently have notable diagrid tall buildings been
commissioned. Examples are 30 St. Mary Axe of 2003 – also known as the
Swiss Re Building – in London, the Hearst Headquarters of 2006 in New York,
both by Norman Foster, and Guangzhou International Finance Center of 2010
in Guangzhou, China by Wilkinson Eyre. Another important super-tall diagrid
structure was proposed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill for the Lotte Super
Tower in Seoul, which employed a diagrid multi-planar façade. However, the
structural design was changed from the steel diagrids to reinforced concrete
outrigger structure in the newly designed Lotte World Tower by Kohn
Pederson Fox. The structural concept of outrigger systems is presented later
in this chapter.
The framed tube and bundled tube structures, with their dense
orthogonal structural elements on the building façades, worked well with the
1960s and 1970s architecture primarily composed of verticals and horizontals.
On the contrary, in contemporary urban contexts, diagrid tall structures are
quite dissimilar to their tall neighbors. While many contemporary aesthetic
decisions are substantially guided by subjective judgments, the use of diagrid
structures stands as an innovation that requires a partnership between tech-
nical and compositional interests. These exterior structures can create a
type of aesthetics, the so-called structural expression. Though the notion of
structural expression is now receding with the advent of other forms of
aesthetic expression at present, the diagrid system remains the exception.

Hearst Headquarters, New York, USA

The Hearst Headquarters Building in New York designed by Norman Foster
is the first major diagrid tall building in North America. The 597 ft (182 m) tall
46-story building rises from the landmark façade of the existing old Hearst
Building of 1926 on the site. Three sides of the building face surrounding
streets – 8th Avenue, 56th Street and 57th Street. Considering this condition
and better floor layout, the core is not located centrally but pushed to the side
not facing the street, which reduces the benefit of the core as the main spine
of the building to carry the lateral loads. With these conditions, the design
evolved to finally employ the perimeter diagrid system to carry the lateral loads.
The perimeter diagrid system is used from the 10th floor to the top.
Vertical mega-columns and super diagonals up to the 9th floor support the
diagrid tower above. The plan dimension of the building is 120 ft x 160 ft (36.6
m x 48.8 m) with a typical story height of 14 ft (4.3 m) for the diagrid portion
of the building. Three and four diamond shaped diagrid modules are placed
within the 120 ft and 160 ft widths of the building, respectively. The height

187
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-38. Hearst Headquarters in New York and its typical floor plan. With permission of Marshall Gerometta, CTBUH (L),
Foster + Partners (RT&RB).

of the diamond shaped diagrid module is eight stories. This geometric confi-
guration results in the diagrid angle of about 70 degrees. Since the total height
of the building is about 600 ft (182.9 m), the height-to-width aspect ratio of
the building is about 5. With this aspect ratio, the uniform angle of about
70 degrees is close to the optimal condition to carry the lateral loads efficiently.
More detailed discussions on optimal angles of diagrid structures are presented
later in this section.
When the plan dimension of 120 ft x 160 ft is used to produce a
rectangular floor for every level of the diagrid tower portion of the building,
cantilevers of 5, 10, 15 and maximum 20 ft (1.5, 3.0, 4.6 and 6.1 m) are repeat-
edly created at the four corners of the building. It is likely that the 20 ft
(6.1 m) cantilever will create some concerns about floor vibration. In order
to eliminate this structural issue, to produce column free corner spaces, and
to create diagrid specific architectural aesthetics, corners of the Hearst Tower
are chamfered following the form of the diamond shaped diagrid module.
Chamfered corners also enhance aerodynamic properties of the building.

188
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-39. Construction of Hearst Headquarters and its prefabricated diagrid node. With permission of
Michael Ficeto.

Compared with the conventional orthogonal structures, diagrid struc-

tures naturally include more complicated nodes involving six members on
the diagrid planes. In the Hearst Tower, steel wide flange rolled sections are
used for the diagrid members as well as for the nodes. The nodes were
prefabricated and brought to the job site. The connections between the
diagrid members and the nodes were done using only bolts. This method
expedited the construction process significantly. If considerately designed
using prefabrication strategy, constructability may not be such a limiting
factor of diagrid structures.

Lotte Super Tower Project, Seoul, Korea

The 555 m tall Lotte Super Tower proposal by Skidmore, Owings and
Merrill (SOM) would have become the tallest steel diagrid tower in the world.

189
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

(The final execution of the tower has been based on the design by Kohn
Pederson Fox, which uses a reinforced concrete outrigger structure instead
of steel diagrids.) The proposed tower possessed unique design features
specific to very tall and slender diagrid structures.
The form of the SOM designed Lotte Super Tower employs an
abstract regional motif coming from the shape of Chumsungdae – a celestial
observatory built in 647 in Kyung-Joo, Korea. The 112-story tower has a 230
ft (70.1 m) square plan at the base which smoothly transforms to a 128 ft

Figure 4-40. Lotte Super Tower. © SOM.

190
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

(39 m) diameter circle at the top. Tapering and morphing, these are employed
not only to express the desired form architecturally but also to produce a better
performing building structurally. The tapered form naturally reduces wind loads
applied to the tower, and the constantly changing form along the building height
helps prevent formation of organized alternating vortexes around the building,
which usually produce the most critical structural design condition for very
tall buildings.
Diagrids are very efficient structures for very tall buildings, the design
of which are primarily governed by lateral stiffness. The proposed Lotte Super
Tower even further maximizes the structural potential of diagrids. The diagrids
at the Lotte Super Tower are placed at different angles over the tower’s height.
The diagrid angles become steeper towards the ground in order to resist
overturning moments more efficiently there and shallower towards the top
where the impact of lateral shear forces is larger. Based on this logic, the
angles of the diagrids change from about 78 degrees at the base to about 60
degrees at the top. This structural arrangement also makes visual expression
of the diagrids much more dynamic. More detailed discussions on structural
efficiency of varying angle diagrids are presented later in this section.

Capital Gate Tower, Abu Dhabi, UAE

The Capital Gate Tower of 2011 in Abu Dhabi designed by RMJM is an iconic
freeform leaning tower in the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Center complex
and the Capital Center master development. With its 18-degree westward
lean, the Capital Gate is recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as
the “world’s furthest leaning man-made tower.” Being located in the desert
near the sea, the form of the tower represents a “swirling spiral of sand” and
“splash” of sea water.
The Capital Gate Tower is a 164.7 m tall 36-story mixed use building
with office spaces up to the 17th floor and a hotel from the 18th floor to the
top. The lateral load resisting system of the Capital Gate is primarily composed
of the reinforced concrete core and the perimeter diagrids. The core structure
is pre-cambered by a lean of 350 mm and vertically post-tensioned to be
straightened up and carry the eccentric loads from the tilted form of the
building. The diagrid system with its triangular geometric configuration is very
efficient to carry lateral loads by axial actions in term of structural performance
and perhaps most appropriate to define the irregular freeform of the building
without distortion in terms of construction. There also exist the internal
diagrids in this building to form and support the hotel atrium. The perimeter
diagrids are composed of steel hollow square sections of 600 x 600 mm.
Because of the freeform geometry of the building, all 8,250 diagrid members
are different. In order to support the building, 490 piles were driven about
20–30 meters. All of the piles were in compression at the early stage of the
construction. Upon the completion of the construction, some of the piles are
in tension due to the extremely tilted form of the building.

191
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

In order to enclose the perimeter diagrids of the Capital Gate Tower

of irregular free form, the curtain wall units are composed of triangular glass
panes following the triangular geometric configuration of the perimeter
diagrids. Each two-story tall diamond shaped diagrid module is enclosed by
a diamond shaped curtain wall unit composed of 18 triangular glass panes.
Because of the irregular form of the building, every one of the 12,500 glass
panes is different. The “splash” composed of metal meshes adds another
layer on the southern façade of the office spaces to screen the sun. For the
hotel, double skin façades are employed for superior environmental control.

Figure 4-41. Capital Gate Tower. With permission of Terri Boake.

192
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

O-14 Building, Dubai, UAE

While the previously presented examples are all steel diagrids, which clearly
express their diagrid geometries on their façades, reinforced concrete diagrids
can create concrete specific architectural aesthetic expressions quite different
from those produced by steel. The O-14 Building of 2010 in Dubai by RUR
Architecture employs the reinforced concrete diagrid structure as its primary
lateral load-resisting system. Using the unique properties of concrete, the
structural diagrid patterns, which are directly expressed as building façade
aesthetics, are designed to be more fluid, irregular, and different from the

Figure 4-42. O-14 building. With permission of Reiser+Umemoto.

193
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

explicit features of steel diagrids. The reinforced concrete diagrids of the O-14
forms the exoskeleton of the 22-story office building and also function as the
sun screening exterior skin of the double skin façades. The glass curtain wall
façades are placed about 1 m behind the diagrid structural façades. Through
the openings of the exterior diagrid skin, the 1 m deep cavity space is ventil-
ated and heat is removed.
The diagrids are composed of perforated reinforced concrete walls,
the thicknesses of which are 2 ft (61 cm) and 1 ft 3 in. (38 cm) from the ground
to the 3rd level and from 3rd level to the top, respectively. Rounded square
shape openings of various sizes are placed throughout the reinforced concrete
exterior walls to form the unique diagrid structure. There are in total 1,326
openings, the diameter of which ranges from 4 ft 7 in. (1.4 m) to 27 ft 3 in.
(8.3 m). The size, location and density of the diagrid forming openings are
determined through the integrative design process to meet the architectural
and structural requirements. The overall void ratio of the diagrid façades is
about 45 percent in the O-14 building. The exoskeleton diagrids and interior
floor slabs are connected at about 30 locations per each floor.
Different from the conventional orthogonal structures, diagrid struc-
tures involve system-specific construction challenges. In steel diagrid cases
presented earlier, prefabrication technique is essential to minimize the job site
work and expedite the construction process. In the O-14 building, the rein-
forced concrete diagrids were built using slip-form construction technique. In
order to place the diagrid defining rounded square openings throughout the
walls, polystyrene void forms were inserted during the placement of reinforce-
ments.

4.2.4.1. Uniform Angle Diagrids

In diagrid tall buildings with no vertical columns, the diagonals carry not only
lateral shear forces and overturning moments but also vertical gravity loads.
Diagrid structures can be configured with any uniform angle to meet archi-
tectural and structural requirements. While the judgment of aesthetic
expression provided by the selected angle could be a subjective matter, optimal
angles for different types of loads exist in terms of structural performance.
Consequently, an optimal angle for the combined loads exists for a given
structure.
The optimal angle of diagonals for maximum shear rigidity for a con-
ventional braced frame composed of vertical columns and diagonals is about
35 degrees. Overturning moments in a typical braced frame is carried by axial
forces of the vertical columns, and the corresponding optimal angle of the
columns is 90 degrees. In terms of gravity loads, 90-degree vertical columns
are also most effective. Since the optimal angle of the columns for gravity
and overturning moments is 90 degrees and that of the diagonals for
maximum shear rigidity is about 35 degrees, it is expected that the optimal

194
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

angle of the diagonal members in diagrid structures carrying all the combined
loads will fall between these angles.
In a slender tall building design with typical maximum lateral displace-
ment index of about a five hundredth of the building height, lateral stiffness
rather than strength generally governs the structural design. Shorter buildings
with low height-to-width aspect ratios behave more like shear beams, and
taller buildings with high aspect ratios tend to behave more like bending beams.
Thus, it is expected that as a building height is increased, the optimal diagrid
angle also becomes steeper.
Figure 4-43 shows 60-story diagrid structures with a height-to-
width aspect ratio of 6.5 and having various diagonal angles ranging from 53
to 76 degrees depending on the heights of diagrid modules. The building’s
plan dimensions are 36 m x 36 m, and its typical story height is 3.9 m.
Therefore, with three diamond-shaped sub-modules placed horizontally within
the building width of 36 m, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10- and 12-story tall diagrid modules
result in diagrid angles of 53, 63, 69, 73 and 76 degrees, respectively. The
structures are designed in such a way that lateral stiffness is provided only
by the perimeter diagrids and core structures carry only gravity loads.
Each structure, assumed to be in Chicago and subjected to the code
defined wind loads, is optimally designed to meet the maximum lateral
displacement requirement of a five hundredth of the building height. Figure
4-43 also shows steel masses required for each structure to meet the target
stiffness requirement. As can be seen from the figure, the diagrid structure
configured with a diagonal angle of 69 degrees meets the design requirement
with the least amount of material. As the diagrid angle is deviated from its
optimal configuration, structural steel usage is increased.
Based on the similar studies with diagrid structures of various heights
ranging from 40 to 100 stories, optimal angles of diagrids of different heights
and height-to-width aspect ratios can be found. The structures’ height-to-width
aspect ratios range from about 4 for the 40-story diagrids to 10 for the 100-
story diagrids. Study results show that an angle of 63 degrees is the near
optimal angle for the 40- and 50-story diagrids. For the 60-story and taller dia-
grid structures, an angle of 69 degrees is the near optimal angle. In fact, the
theoretical optimal angle for the diagrids should be increased continuously as
the height-to-width aspect ratio of the building is increased. In this case,
however, it is very likely that the diagrid nodes will be placed arbitrarily
between the perimeter beams of two adjacent floors. This may cause some
architectural, structural and constructability issues. Therefore, the diagrid
module heights in this study are determined to have diagrid nodes always
meeting with the perimeter beams. It should be noted that when the diagrid
angle is determined to be close to the optimal with a deviation of up to about
5 degrees, structural efficiency of the system is still very high. Though the
most efficient structural solution may not always best satisfy other design

195
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

requirements, an integrative design approach, which considers every aspect

of design holistically, should be taken to create more sustainable built environ-
ments.

Figure 4-43. Sixty-story diagrids of various uniform angles and required structural steel for each to meet the
same target stiffness requirement.

196
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

4.2.4.2. Varying Angle Diagrids

Uniform angle diagrids presented in the previous section produce very efficient
structural systems for tall buildings. Structural efficiency of diagrids can be
further increased for very tall buildings by varying diagrid angles. Incremental
rates of shear forces and overturning moments towards the base of a tall
building are different. While lateral shear forces increase almost linearly,
overturning moments increase drastically towards the base of the building.
Thus, in a properly designed diagrid structure, the design of the upper portion
of the building is governed by shear, and the lower portion is governed by
overturning moment. Considering this fact, it can be presumed that diagrid
structures with gradually changing diagonal angles shall have potential for
greater structural efficiency.
Comparison of the diagrids designed for the Hearst Headquarters
Tower in New York and the Lotte Super Tower project in Seoul provides
important structural logic related to optimal diagrid angles. Clearly, the Lotte
Super Tower is a much taller building with a greater height-to-width aspect
ratio. Overall, the angle of diagrids in the Lotte Super Tower is steeper than
that of the Hearst Headquarters. As a building becomes taller, the optimal
diagrid angle increases because a taller structure with a large height-to-width
aspect ratio tends to behave more like a bending beam, and steeper angle
diagonals resist overturning moments more efficiently by their axial actions.
For tall diagrid structures, with height-to-width aspect ratios ranging from about
4 to 10 and diagonals placed at a uniform angle, the range of the optimal angle
is from approximately 60 to 70 degrees.
It can also be noticed that the Hearst Headquarters is designed with
uniform angle diagrids, while the Lotte Super Tower is designed with varying
angle diagrids with steeper angles towards the base. Based on design studies,
it is found that diagrid structures with diagonals placed at steeper angles
towards the base generates more efficient design than those with uniform angle
diagonals when the height-to-width aspect ratio of the structure is larger than
about 7. However, for diagrid structures with the aspect ratio smaller than about
7, it is found that diagrid structures with uniform angle diagonals produce
more efficient design. Therefore, from the viewpoint of structural engineering,
it is suggested to use a varying angle diagrid structure for a very tall building
with an aspect ratio greater than about 7 to save resources and, in turn, to
create more sustainable built environments. Certainly, other design conditions
should be carefully considered integratively to reach the final design decision.
A selection of varying angle diagrid configurations are shown as
examples in Figure 4-44 for 80-story diagrid structures with a height-to-width
aspect ratio of about 8. Notice that Alt. 3 is in fact a uniform angle design with
the near optimal angle. Each structure is designed to meet the same maximum
lateral displacement requirement of a five hundredth of the building height
to find the optimal angle configuration for the diagrid of this height and
height-to-width aspect ratio. As can be seen in the figure, varying angle design

197
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-44. 80-story diagrids of various varying angles and required structural steel for each to meet the same target
stiffness requirement.

Alt. 2, which is configured with steeper angle diagonals towards the base, uses
the least amount of structural material for the 80-story diagrids. However, if
the angle becomes too steep (i.e., Alt. 1), it loses its shear rigidity drastically,
resulting in a less efficient solution. Alt. 4 and 5 are included for the complete-
ness of the study, but they use more materials than other design alternatives
because their grid configurations do not follow the shear and bending moment
characteristics of tall buildings.

198
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

4.2.5. Space Trusses

Space truss structures, which have been used occasionally for tall buildings,
are modified braced tubes with some diagonals connecting the exterior to
interior. In a typical braced tube structure, all the diagonals, which connect
the chord members – vertical corner columns in general, are located on the
façade planes. However, in space trusses, some diagonals penetrate the
interior of the building and connect the corner columns diagonally.

Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong

Figure 4-45. Bank of China Building in Hong Kong. With permission of Terri Boake.

199
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

The Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong designed by I M Pei is a 367.4 m tall
72-story office building. With the structural concept of the space truss, the
building is primarily structured with four large corner columns, one large central
column in the middle of the building and diagonal bracings on the building
perimeter. With the five large columns, the building’s floor plan and conse-
quently mass is diagonally divided into four segments. Each triangular shape
vertical mass, defined by the building’s two corner columns, central column
and diagonal bracings, is terminated at different heights. Therefore, the space
truss structure employed for the Bank of China looks like a bundled braced
tube in a sense.
Unlike the typical bundled tube structures, such as the Willis Tower
in Chicago which is composed of nine bundles of framed tubes vertically
cantilevered from the ground and terminating at different heights, the four
triangular braced tube-like modules of the Bank of China are merged from the
25th level towards the ground. The central column is terminated at the 25th
level and the loads are transferred to the four corner columns from there. This
structural configuration provides a unique spatial experience as can be seen
in Figure 4-46.

Figure 4-46. Bank of China interior where the central column terminates and the loads are transferred to the four corner columns.

200
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

4.3. INTERIOR-EXTERIOR INTEGRATED SYSTEMS

In the interior and exterior structures, major parts of the lateral load resisting
system components are placed in the interior and on the perimeter of the
building, respectively. Some structural systems for tall buildings, such as
outrigger structures and tube-in-tube structures, actively engage both the
interior and exterior structural components integratively to resist applied
lateral loads.

4.3.1. Outrigger Structures

Compared with core shear wall structures, outrigger structures carry wind-
induced overturning moments much more efficiently with greater structural
depth by connecting perimeter mega-columns to stiff building cores through
outriggers. The outrigger system’s lateral load carrying mechanism is concep-
tually explained in Figure 4-47. The overturning moment (Mo) caused by wind
loads (W) is reduced due to the counteracting moment (Mc) provided by the
axial actions of the perimeter mega-columns connected to the core through
outriggers.
The outriggers are generally in the form of trusses in steel struc-
tures or walls in reinforced concrete structures, and effectively act as stiff
headers inducing a tension-compression couple in the perimeter columns.
Perimeter columns connected to the outriggers are typically designed as mega-
columns with very large cross-sectional area to maximize the counteracting
moment by their large tension and compression forces. Belt trusses are often

Figure 4-47. Concept of outrigger structure.

201
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

provided at the outrigger levels, especially when mega-columns are not used,
to distribute the tensile and compressive forces to the exterior columns. The
belt trusses also help in minimizing differential elongation and shortening of
the perimeter columns.
In outrigger structures, outriggers are placed on one or multiple levels.
Optimal locations of outriggers to minimize the lateral deformation have been
investigated by many researchers and engineers. For the optimum perform-
ance, the outrigger in a one outrigger structure should be at about half height;
the outriggers in a two outrigger structure should be at about one-third and
two-thirds heights; the outriggers in a three outrigger structure should be at
about one-quarter, one-half and three-quarters heights, and so on. In outrigger
structures with multiple outriggers, the lowest outrigger induces the greatest
resisting moment and the outriggers above carry successively less. Therefore,
the outrigger at the top is least efficient and often omitted. Since the effec-
tiveness of the outrigger structures is very much dependent upon the stiffness
of the outrigger trusses, two-story tall outrigger trusses are commonly used.
Figure 4-48 shows performance of a 60-story outrigger structure with
two outriggers at one-third and two-thirds heights of the building. As the
vertically cantilevered braced frame core bends due to lateral loads, outrigger
trusses connected to the core and the perimeter mega-columns provides
resistance against the bending deformation. Curvature reversals around the
outrigger truss locations shown in the deformed shape clearly show this
resistance.
Architecturally, connecting the outriggers with perimeter mega-
columns opens up the façade system for flexible aesthetic and architectural
articulation thereby overcoming a principal drawback of closed-form tubular
systems. In addition, the building’s perimeter framing system may consist of
simple beam-column framing without the need for more involving rigid frame
type connections.
The principal disadvantages are that the outriggers interfere with the
occupiable or rentable space and the lack of repetitive nature of the structural
framing results in a negative impact on the erection process. However, these
drawbacks can be overcome by careful architectural and structural planning
such as placing outriggers in mechanical floors and development of clear
erection guidelines.
The outrigger systems may be formed in any combination of steel,
concrete and composite construction. Because of the many benefits of
outrigger systems outlined above, this system has lately been very popular
for supertall buildings all over the world. A very early example of outrigger
structures can be found in the Place Victoria Office Tower (now called Stock
Exchange Building) of 1964 in Montreal designed by Nervi and Moretti. It was
also used by Fazlur Khan in the 42-story First Wisconsin Center of 1973 in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. However, major applications of this structural system
can be seen in more recent supertall buildings such as the Jin Mao Tower of

202
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-48. Axial force diagram and deformed shape of 60-story tall outrigger structure.

1999 in Shanghai, Taipei 101 Tower of 2004 in Taipei, International Commerce

Center of 2010 in Hong Kong and Lotte World Tower of 2017 in Seoul.

Taipei 101, Taiwan

Taipei 101 designed by C.Y. Lee Architects is a 508 m tall 101-story tower
with a unique profile which resembles that of Chinese old pagodas of multiple
stacked units or bamboo with many joints to grow upwards with structural
integrity. From the ground to the 25th floor, the tower is tapered upward with
an angle of taper of about 5 degrees. Above that, eight modules of eight-story
tall identical units are stacked to level 90. The units are tapered downwards
with an angle of taper of 7 degrees. Finally, there are 11 mechanical levels

203
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-49. Taipei 101 and its structural concept. With permission of Thornton Tomasetti (R).

beginning from the 91st level and a 60 m tall pinnacle above that to complete
the tower at the height of 508 m.
In order to resist the lateral loads, the outrigger system integrated with
the architecture of the building is used. The 22.5 m x 22.5 m square shaped
central core of braced frame is connected to 8 vertical mega-columns of 3 m
x 2.4 m through single story height steel outrigger trusses at the lowest
levels of the eight modules. These outrigger truss levels are integrated with
the emergency shelter area and mechanical rooms. Double story height out-
rigger trusses are also located on the levels 7 and 8 and levels 17 and 18.

204
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

These outrigger trusses connect the vertical core and the sloped perimeter
mega-columns from the ground to the 25th floor. Outrigger trusses at each
level are connected by belt trusses.
The gravity and lateral loads are increased towards the base of the
building. The geometric configuration of the outrigger system and struc-
tural material used follow this fundamental structural logic in Taipei 101. While
the core structure is vertical, the mega-columns are slanted from the ground
towards the 25th floor where the eight modules begin, following the pro-
file of the building. This configuration produces the largest counteracting
moment arm on the ground, where the maximum overturning moment
is developed. The counteracting moment arm is gradually reduced up to the
25th floor, and constant from there to the top. The mega-columns and core
columns are concrete filled steel members up to the 62nd floor and change
to just steel members from there. In addition to the outrigger structural
system, a pendulum type tuned mass damper (TMD), primarily composed
of a 6 m diameter steel ball of 660 tonnes hung from level 92, is added to
this building structure to ensure user comfort against wind induced vibration
of the building. More detailed discussions on the performance of TMDs are
presented in Chapter 5.

Jin Mao Tower, Shanghai, China

The Jin Mao Tower of 1999 in Shanghai designed by Skidmore, Owings and
Merrill is a 420.5 m (1380 ft) tall 88-story mixed use building. The design of
the ornamental tiered form was influenced by Chinese old pagodas. The eight-
sided core plans and 88 stories of the tower are the result of the influence
of Chinese culture which considers eight as a lucky number. Above the two-
story tall main lobby, the office floors occupy the tower from the 3rd to the
50th floor. The hotel begins from the 53rd floor with a two-story tall sky lobby.
The mechanical rooms are located on the 51st and 52nd floors between the
office and hotel and on the penthouse floors above the hotel.
The lateral load resisting system employed for the Jin Mao Tower is
the outrigger system. The system is composed of the central octagonal rein-
forced concrete core, eight composite perimeter mega-columns and two-story
tall steel outrigger trusses which connect the core and mega-columns. The
two-story tall steel outrigger trusses are located between levels 24 and 26,
levels 51 and 53, and levels 85 and 87. The topmost outrigger trusses become
a part of the hat truss. The outrigger trusses, except those between the levels
24 and 26, are strategically located to be integrated with the mechanical floors
on the 51st and 52nd floors and the penthouse floors.
The octagonal core is normally 27 m deep and has two interconnecting
web walls spaced at 9 m in two orthogonal directions on the office floors. The
internal web walls are removed on the hotel floors, creating an atrium of over
30 stories. The octagonal core’s perimeter wall thickness varies from 85 cm
at the base to 45 cm at the top. The thickness of the interconnecting web walls

205
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-50. Jin Mao Tower and its typical office and hotel floor plans.

of the core is 45 cm. The steel outrigger trusses embedded in these web walls
are continued from these walls and connected to the perimeter mega-
columns. The size of the composite mega-columns varies form 1.5 m x 5 m
at the base to 1.5 m x 3.5 m at the top.
As has been presented earlier, the performance of the outrigger
system is influenced to a large degree by the vertical distributions of the out-
rigger trusses. Considering their structural performance, the primary outrigger
trusses are located at about one third and two thirds heights of the building

206
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 4-51. Jin Mao Tower atrium.

in the Jin Mao Tower. The distance of the mega-columns from the core
perimeter walls is another very important factor which determines the per-
formance of the outrigger system. The longer, the better, as long as the
outrigger trusses provide sufficient stiffness because the longer distance
creates greater counteracting moment arm. In the Jin Mao Tower, the four
building corner areas taper towards the top of the building. However, the
central vertical strips defined by the two mega-columns spaced at 9 m on
each façade do not taper in order to keep the distance between the core and
the perimeter mega-columns.

4.3.2. Tube-in-Tube System

The stiffness of a perimeter tube can be increased by using the core to resist
part of the lateral load, resulting in a tube-in-tube system. The floor diaphragm
connecting the core and the outer tube transfers the lateral loads to both
systems. The core itself could be made up of a solid tube with minimum
openings, a braced tube or a framed tube. The inner tube in a tube-in-tube
structure can act as a second line of defense against a malevolent attack with
airplanes or missiles. For example, a solid reinforced concrete core in the World
Trade Center Twin Towers in New York could probably have saved many lives

207
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

of those who were trapped in fire above the levels of airplane impact. Since
9/11, reinforced concrete core is much preferred for supertall buildings.

4.4. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SYSTEMS

The direction of the evolution of tall building structural systems – one of the
most important and fundamental technological driving forces behind tall
building developments – has generally been towards higher efficiency. This
direction has led to today’s tall building structural systems of various kinds.
Among various structural systems developed for tall buildings, the systems
with diagonals over the building perimeter are generally most efficient. This
is because they carry lateral loads by their primary structural members’ axial
actions and the structural depth of the systems is maximized by placing the
structural members on the building perimeter. Tall building structural sys-
tems with perimeter diagonals include braced tubes and more recently
developed diagrids presented earlier in this chapter. Another very efficient
structural system widely used today is outrigger structures also just presented
in the previous section. Perimeter mega-columns connected to shear wall type
core structure through outrigger trusses resist overturning moments very
efficiently in outrigger structures. Considering their frequent employment for
contemporary tall buildings due to their fundamental structural efficiency, the
performance of these three structural systems is comparatively evaluated in
this section.
Structural steel is used for the design of the braced tube and dia-
grid systems in this study. Steel is commonly used for the design and
construction of these two systems in real world as well. For the outrigger
system, structural steel is also used here for direct comparison with the other
two systems, though, in real world, reinforced concrete and steel composite
structures are very common for the outrigger system. Because of their
enormous scale, tall buildings are built with an abundant amount of resources,
including structural materials. More efficient structural system selection and
design optimization can substantially contribute to constructing sustainable
built environments by saving structural materials produced from our limited
resources.
Tall buildings of 40, 60, 80 and 100 stories are designed with braced
tubes, diagrids and outrigger structures in order to investigate the struc-
tural efficiency of each system comparatively depending on the building
heights and height-to-width aspect ratios. The buildings’ plan dimensions are
36 m x 36 m, and their typical story height is 3.9 m. Therefore, the height-to-
width aspect ratios of 40- to 100-story tall buildings range from about 4 to 10.
Stiffness-based design is performed for each structure to meet the target
maximum allowable lateral displacement of a five hundredth of the building
height. The ASCE document, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

208
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Structures, is used to establish the wind load and the buildings are assumed
to be in Chicago.
The braced tube structure’s perimeter columns are spaced evenly at
every 9 m, and its diagonals run 10 stories. This diagonal configuration creates
an angle of 47.3 degrees measured from the horizontal. All the required lateral
stiffness of the braced tube is allocated to the perimeter braced tube, and,
consequently, the core structure is designed to carry only gravity loads in this
study. The diagrid structure is configured with diamond-shaped sub-modules.
Three diamond shaped sub-modules, the height of which is 8 stories, fit within
the building width. This geometric configuration results in the diagrid angle
of 69 degrees, which is very close to the optimal condition. All the required
lateral stiffness of the diagrid structure is also allocated to the perimeter
diagrids, and the core structure is designed to carry only gravity loads. In the
outrigger structure, the core structure is a steel braced frame, which carries
not only gravity but also lateral loads. Plan dimensions of the central core are
18 m x 18 m. Two-story tall outrigger trusses, which connect the braced core
and perimeter mega-columns, are located at every 20 floors except at the top.
Therefore, for example, outrigger trusses are located at one third and two
thirds heights of the building for the 60-story outrigger structure as can be
seen in Figure 4-52.

Figure 4-52. Comparative study models of braced tube, diagrids and outrigger structure.

209
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 4-53. Required amount of structural steel for the 40-, 60-, 80- and 100-story buildings of braced tube,
diagrid and outrigger structures.

For the 40- and 60-story buildings, the height-to-width aspect ratio of
which is smaller than about 7, the study results show that the diagrid struc-
ture is the most efficient lateral load resisting system among the three
systems studied. The braced tube is also very efficient for tall buildings of
this aspect ratio range. For the 80- and 100-story buildings, the height-to-width
aspect ratio of which is larger than about 7, the braced tube is the most efficient
lateral load resisting system among the three systems studied. The diagrids
are also very efficient for tall buildings of this aspect ratio range. Though
outrigger structures are efficient structural systems for tall buildings in general,
their lateral efficiency relying largely on the interior core structure lags behind
that of braced tubes or diagrids with large perimeter diagonals.
As buildings become taller, there is a “premium for height” due to
lateral loads and the demand on the structural system exponentially increases.
Figure 4-53, which shows the required amount of structural steel for the
40-, 60-, 80- and 100-story buildings of braced tube, diagrid and outrigger
structures, clearly illustrates this phenomenon. In the all three cases, as the

210
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

building height increases, the required quantity of structural steel increases

drastically. Therefore, the importance of selecting efficient structural systems
becomes more significant for taller buildings. Certainly, efficiency alone is not
what determines the selection of a particular structural system for a tall
building. All other related design aspects should be considered holistically.

211
CHAPTER 5

DAMPING
SYSTEMS FOR
TALL BUILDINGS
THE DIRECTION OF THE EVOLUTION of tall building structural systems, based on
new structural concepts with newly adopted high-strength materials and con-
struction methods, has been towards augmented efficiency. Consequently,
tall building structural systems have become much lighter than earlier ones.
This direction of the structural evolution towards lightness, however, often
causes serious structural motion problems – primarily due to wind-induced
motion.
Tall buildings move primarily in two different directions under wind
loads: along- and across-wind directions. Along-wind direction movement is
intuitively clear. As the wind passes around a tall building, vortices are shed
alternatively one side and then the other. This phenomenon creates alternating
low pressure zones on the downwind side of the building and causes the
building to vibrate perpendicular to the direction of the wind.
Tall building structures with higher lateral stiffness reduce the lateral
displacement of the building. For the along-wind direction movements, this
is obvious. For the vortex shedding induced across-wind direction vibrations,
stiffer structures require higher wind speed for the structure to be in the lock-
in condition (resonance condition), while less stiff structures can resonate even
in relatively low speed wind conditions. Therefore, for both along- and across-
wind direction responses, laterally stiffer tall building structures perform
better in general.
In tall buildings, the lateral vibration in the across-wind direction
induced by vortex shedding is generally more critical than that in the along-
wind direction. For both directions, structures with more damping dissipate
the vibration energy more quickly and, consequently, reduce structural

213
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 5-1. Vortex shedding induced across-wind direction force.

motions more rapidly. Since the natural direction of structural evolution

towards lightness is not likely to be reversed in the future, more stiffness and
damping should be achieved with a minimum amount of material.
Achievement of more stiffness in tall buildings is related to the
configuration of primary structural systems, which were discussed in the
previous chapter. For example, more recent structural trends such as various
tubular structures including diagrids and core-supported outrigger structures
achieve much higher stiffness than traditional rigid frame structures. Obtaining
more damping is also related to the choice of primary structural systems and
materials. However, the damping achieved by the primary structure is
uncertain until the building construction is completed. A more rigorous and
reliable increase in damping, to resolve tall building motion problems, could
be achieved by installing auxiliary damping devices in the primary structural
system. The effect of such damping can be relatively accurately estimated.
Thus, when severe wind-induced vibration problems are expected, installing
auxiliary damping devices can be a reliable solution.
Various damping strategies are employed to reduce the vibration of
tall buildings due to wind loads. They can be divided into two categories,
passive and active systems. Passive systems have fixed properties and do
not require energy to perform as intended, while active systems do need an
actuator or active control mechanism relying on an energy source to modify
the system properties against ever-changing loads. Thus, active systems are,
in general, more effective than passive systems. However, due to their
economy and reliability, passive systems are more commonly used than active
systems in building structures. Different types of auxiliary damping systems
are summarized in Figure 5-2.

214
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 5-2. Passive and Active Damping Systems.

Seismic loads are another important lateral load to be considered for

the structural design of any building. The reason why wind loads instead of
seismic loads typically govern the structural design of tall buildings is related
to the fundamental vibration periods of buildings, forcing periods depend-
ing on different loading types, and the impact of the resonance condition based
on these two factors. The fundamental period of a building could be very
roughly estimated as the number of stories of the building divided by 10. For
example, fundamental periods of 10-, 50-, 100-story buildings could be
estimated as 1, 5 and 10 seconds, respectively. Again, these are very rough
estimations. The actual fundamental period of a building is dependent on
various factors, such as slenderness ratios, structural systems and building
materials.
Based on the rough estimates, the fundamental periods of low-rise
buildings of 1 to 10 stories could be estimated as 0.1 to 1 second. It is not
unreasonable to estimate the periods of between 0.1 and 1 second for seismic
forces. Therefore, buildings lower than about 10 stories are very vulnerable
to the resonance conditions with seismic forces and, consequently, serious
damages or collapses. However, a 50-story building, the fundamental period
of which could be estimated as about 5 seconds, is not vulnerable to the
resonance condition with seismic forces of typically much shorter forcing
periods.

215
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Certainly, it is possible for the higher mode vibrations of a tall building

to be in the resonance conditions with the seismic forces because the higher
mode vibration periods are much shorter than the fundamental period. For
example, the second and third mode periods of a 50-story building, the
fundamental period of which is about 5 seconds, could be shorter than about
2 seconds and 1 second, respectively. However, the structural impact of the
higher mode resonance conditions is much smaller than that of the fundamental
mode resonance condition because of the characteristics of the higher mode
shapes. Nonetheless, structural design of tall buildings could be controlled by
seismic loads instead of wind loads in the countries with very severe seismic
zones, such as Japan, Indonesia and Mexico. And some of the passive and
active damping systems are sometimes employed as the primary means of
seismic energy dissipation for tall buildings in these countries.

5.1. PASSIVE DAMPING SYSTEMS

The passive damping system can be further divided into two sub-categories:
1) energy-dissipating-material-based damping systems such as viscous
dampers and viscoelastic dampers, and 2) auxiliary mass systems to generate
counteracting inertia forces such as tuned mass dampers (TMDs) and tuned
liquid dampers (TLDs).

5.1.1. Energy-Dissipating-Material-Based Damping Systems

Energy-dissipating-material-based damping systems are generally installed as
integral parts of primary structural systems at vantage locations, reducing the
dynamic motion of tall buildings. The damping force in a viscous damper or
viscoelastic damper is dependent on the time rate of change of the deform-
ation. Damping is accomplished through the phase shift between the force
and displacement. The performance of viscoelastic and viscous dampers is
dependent on the vibration frequency and temperature due to the charac-
teristics of the materials.
Viscoelastic dampers are very effective for the vibrations of high
frequencies and low magnitudes. Viscoelastic dampers, which increase
both damping and stiffness, can be conveniently installed as part of diagonal
braces. Typical viscoelastic dampers are composed of viscoelastic material
layers bonded between steel plates, and the energy dissipation occurs with
the relative movement-induced shear deformation of the viscoelastic mat-
erial. The destroyed World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers in New York had
viscoelastic dampers to resolve vibration problems. In the WTC Twin Towers,
about 20,000 viscoelastic dampers were located between the perimeter
columns and lower chords of the floor trusses. In the Columbia Seafirst
Building in Seattle, viscoelastic dampers are incorporated with diagonal bracing
members in the building core.

216
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

While viscoelastic dampers typically use the action of solids, viscous

fluid dampers employ fluids to achieve passive motion control. Various
different configurations of viscous fluid dampers include cylindrical pot,
damping wall and piston type dampers. The cylindrical pot and wall type viscous
dampers use viscous fluids in open containers. In these dampers, the piston
and damping wall hung from the upper floor move through the viscous fluids
based on the inter-story movements, and energy dissipations occur through
the conversion of mechanical energy to heat as the piston and damping wall
deform the viscous fluids. The piston type uses viscous fluids within a closed
container and is more efficient than the cylindrical pot and damping wall type.
In this type, the piston designed with orifices not only deforms the viscous
fluid, but also force the fluid to pass through the small orifices. An example
of viscous dampers, installed as an integral part of the bracing members as
pistons filled with viscous fluids, can be found in the 55-story Torre Mayor in
Mexico City. The viscous dampers in this building located in a severe seismic
zone are used as the primary means of seismic energy dissipation.

Figure 5-3. Torre Mayor in Mexico City (left) and viscous dampers as integral part of the bracings in Torre Mayor (right). With
permission of Terri Boake.

217
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Other types of damping systems in which the damping mechanism

is through direct dissipation of energy from the system include hysteretic
damping and friction damping. Hysteretic damping dissipates energy through
inelastic deformation of metallic substances. Various configurations of
hysteretic dampers include triangular plate hysteretic dampers, buckling
restrained brace frames, eccentrically braced frames, etc. In triangular plate
dampers, which are typically incorporated with chevron braces, triangular plates
are inserted between the chevron braces and horizontal beam element. The
triangular plates are designed as the element which yields first to perform
as hysteretic dampers when a large cyclic excitation occurs. In buckling
restrained brace frames, concentric brace members are encased by metal
jackets and the space between the braces and jackets are filled with non-
bonding materials such as concrete and mortar. Therefore, the braces can be
designed as yielding elements without buckling even in compressive modes.
In eccentrically braced frames, the braces are placed eccentrically with
typically orthogonal building frames. The short link beams created by
eccentricity are designed as yielding elements to perform as hysteretic
dampers.
Friction dampers adopt the concept of automotive brakes which use
friction between two solid bodies to dissipate energy. X-braced friction
dampers proposed by Pall and Marsh have been used in many buildings in
seismic zones. The X-braced friction dampers are sometimes exposed due
to their aesthetic appeal as is the case with the McConnel Library Building at
Concordia University in Montreal.

5.1.2. Auxiliary Mass Dampers

Auxiliary mass dampers, such as a tunes mass damper (TMD) or tuned liquid
damper (TLD), are typically installed near the top of tall buildings, where the
lateral displacements are large, to generate counteracting inertia forces
effectively. A TMD is composed of a counteracting-inertia-force-generating
large mass accompanying relatively complicated mechanical devices that
allow and support the intended performance of the mass. The frequency of
the TMD mass is generally tuned to the fundamental frequency of the primary
structure. Thus, when the fundamental mode of the primary structure is
excited, the TMD mass oscillates out of phase with the primary structure
(about one quarter of a full cycle difference between the two for optimal
performance), generating counteracting inertia force.
The performance of TMDs is largely dependent on the TMD to building
mass ratio. Larger auxiliary masses added to the building can produce greater
counteracting inertia forces. Large TMD masses are generally made of dense
materials such as steel or concrete. The 660 tonne steel and 366 tonne
concrete TMD masses are employed for the 101-story Taipei 101 and 59-story
Citicorp Building respectively. These large additional masses are added to the
building for the purpose of damping.

218
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 5-4. Concept of Tuned Mass Damper.

Figure 5-5. Pendulum type TMD in Taipei 101.

219
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

TMDs are generally installed in a room that is usually not accessible

to the public, as in the cases of the sliding type TMDs installed in the Citicorp
Building in New York and the John Hancock Building in Boston. In Taipei 101,
however, the pendulum type TMD shown in Figure 5-5 is placed in the exposed
five-story tall atrium-like space and performs as an ornamental element of the
building as well. This ornamental installation of the TMD is unprecedented.
A 6 m diameter steel ball of 660 tonnes is hung from Level 92. The steel ball
is placed between Level 87 and 89. The connections between the steel

Figure 5-6. Crystal Tower in Osaka. With permission of Terri Boake.

220
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

ball and the four sets of cables hung from Level 92 are made about at Level
88. The length of the cables about four stories tall is determined to make the
vibration period of the pendulum similar to the fundamental period of the
building. Then, the movements of the pendulum become out of phase with
the building to generate counteracting inertial forces. According to the damper
designer, the damper is expected to reduce the tower’s peak vibrations by
more than one-third. As a building becomes taller, its natural vibration period
becomes longer, and consequently the length of the cable should be longer
unless compound pendulum type TMDs are used.
It is also possible to use existing masses in the building, such as ice
thermal or water tanks, as TMD masses in order not to add additional masses
to the building, and consequently to save cost and space. The 31-story Rokko-
Island P&G Building in Kobe and 37-story Crystal Tower in Osaka use ice
thermal tanks of 540 and 270 tonnes respectively. The 36-story Sea Hawk
Building in Fukuoka uses 132 tonne capacity water tank as a TMD mass.
Through innovative systems integrations, the intended performance can be
obtained more efficiently. Compared with TMD masses made of steel or
concrete, however, those primarily composed of water require much greater
volume because of the much lower density of water in order to produce the
identical level of damping.
Tuned liquid dampers (TLD) use waving water mass as a counter-
acting inertia force generator. Two different types of TLDs used today are
tuned sloshing dampers (TSD) and tuned liquid column dampers (TLCD).
The former uses water typically in either rectangular or circular containers,

Figure 5-7. Concept of Tuned Liquid Damper.

221
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

the latter, in a U-shaped vessel. Since tall buildings have a large amount of
contained water for various reasons, the TSD system can be designed using
the existing water source, such as a swimming pool or water tank located
near the top of the building. Therefore, an effective structural motion control
mechanism can be obtained very economically, and the system is very easy
to maintain. In a TSD, sloshing frequencies are tuned by adjusting the dimen-
sions of the water container and the depth of water. The TSD system is divided
into deep and shallow configurations. In the deep water configuration, the
entire water mass often does not participate in providing counteracting inertia
force, and the system requires baffles or screens to increase its effectiveness

Figure 5-8.
Shin-Yokohama Prince Hotel
in Yokohama.

222
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

of energy dissipation. The TSD system of shallow water configuration dissi-

pates energy through viscous action and wave breaking.
A TSD system of shallow water configuration was installed in the 190 m
tall Shin-Yokohama Prince Hotel in Yokohama. The system is composed of
multiple TSD units located around the periphery of the upper floor. Each unit
is composed of nine stacked layers of circular shape containers. The diameter
of the containers is 2 m and the depth of water on each layer is 12.4 cm.
A TLCD can be constructed by filling liquid in a U-shaped vessel, which
may be configured to work in either one or two directions. It is convenient
to optimally tune the TLCD because the fundamental frequency of the damper
is dependent on the length of the column of the liquid. The TLCD can also
be easily incorporated with active control mechanism.
An example of TLCD installed in tall buildings can be found in the 48-
story One Wall Center in Vancouver, Canada. The use of the TLCD was decided
because the system can be designed to provide dual functions. A large
amount of water of about 600 tonnes at the top of the building required for

Figure 5-9. One Wall Center in Vancouver and its section drawing showing TLCD at the top. With permission of Terri Boake (L),
Glotman Simpson Consulting Engineers and Wall Financial (R).

223
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

damping purposes can also be used for fire suppression in the event of fire
emergency. It was initially required by fire officials to install a high capacity
water pump and emergency generator. However, with the installation of the
TLCD, this requirement was withdrawn. Consequently, the TLCD turned out
to be a very economical solution.
The 975 ft (297 m) tall 58-story Comcast Center is the tallest building
in Philadelphia. In order to solve the expected lateral vibration problem of the

Figure 5-10.
Comcast Center in Philadelphia.
With permission of Marshall
Gerometta, CTBUH.

224
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

building, a very large TLCD, with a water mass of 1180 tonnes (300,000
gallons), was installed at the top of the building. Considering that the vibration
problem occurs primarily in one direction of the larger slenderness ratio, a
U-shaped uni-axial TLCD was installed.
With the height-to-width aspect ratio of 12:1, One Madison Park in
New York is an extremely slender building. The 621 ft (186.2 m) tall residential
tower was built on the 59 ft x 58 ft (18 m × 17.7 m) site. Reinforced concrete
shear walls configured in a cruciform are employed as a primary lateral load
resisting system. Because of the extremely small site and corresponding
building footprint, the entire depth of the building had to be used as the
structural depth against lateral loads. A perimeter tube type structural system
would have substantially limited the façade design providing good views. The

Figure 5-11. One Madison Park in New York, its typical floor plan, and its design concept with TLCD at the top. With permission
of John W. Cahill (L), © CetraRuddy Architecture (RT&RB).

225
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 5-12. Concept of impact damper.

shear walls of the cruciform configuration allowed the façade design with good
views including open corners. With the aspect ratio of 12:1, however, the
tower was expected to produce vibration problems. In order to resolve this
problem, TLCDs were installed at the top of the building. The system is
composed of three large concrete water tanks of a U-shaped section.
Another form of inertial mass damping system is the impact dampers
(ID). An impact damper is typically composed of a suspended mass within a
container. The container is sized to have an optimal spacing between the mass
and the container wall so that collisions occur between them as the primary
structure vibrates. The frequency of the system is determined by the suspen-
sion length and the size of the mass. Though the impact damper has not been
employed for any major tall buildings, it has potential as an effective motion
control device.

5.2. ACTIVE DAMPING SYSTEMS

Connor defines the active structural control system as “one that has the ability
to determine the present state of the structure, decide on a set of actions that
will change this state to a more desirable one, and carry out these actions in
a controlled manner and in a short period time” in his book Introduction to
Structural Motion Control. Passive systems, such as TMDs or TLDs, are effec-
tive only for a narrow range of loading conditions because once the systems

226
 DAMPING SYSTEMS FOR TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 5-13. Applause Tower in Osaka. With permission of Terri Boake.

are tuned for a specific target excitation they cannot adjust themselves to
any untargeted variations. However, active systems, as a more advanced form
of functional performance-driven technologies, can perform effectively over
a much wider range of loading conditions by incorporating active control
mechanisms. In active systems, control forces to adjust the system to any
variations in the parameters of the system or the loading characteristics are
determined by the measured response of the structure or the measured
external excitation or the both. Examples are active mass dampers (AMD),
active variable stiffness devices (AVSD), etc.

227
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

The AMDs resemble the TMDs in appearance except that the actuator
operates on the secondary damping mass in AMDs. The vibration of a build-
ing is picked up by the sensor in AMD systems, and the optimum vibration
control power calculated by a computer is generated to counteract the
movement of the building. The AMDs, which have superior efficiency, require
smaller masses compared with passive TMDs. Further, the AMD systems
can also use existing building masses as damping masses. For example, the
Sendagaya INTES Building in Tokyo and the Applause Tower (also known as
Hanku Chayamachi Building) in Osaka use the 36-ton ice thermal storage tank
and the 480-ton heliport, respectively, as AMD masses. However, the AMDs
require higher operation and maintenance costs. In addition, since any active
system requires external energy to operates, reliability is always a serious
concern.
The active variable stiffness devices (AVSDs) continuously alter the
building’s stiffness to keep the frequency of the building away from that of
external forces to avoid resonance conditions. Therefore, the AVSDs are more
suitable for buildings in strong earthquake zones though the system can also
be employed for tall buildings, the structural design of which is primarily
governed by wind loads. The braced frames, such as the frames with inverted
chevron bracings, can easily be incorporated with AVSDs. The AVSDs are
attached to the bracings. The bracings, controlled by the AVSDs, are either
locked to the orthogonal frame to produce a stiffer structure or unlocked to
make a more flexible structure depending on the external loading conditions
to avoid resonance conditions. In multistory buildings, the active controller
determines which bracings to be locked or unlocked depending on the seismic
ground motions in order to continuously change the lateral stiffness of the
building to eliminate resonance conditions.
Although their cost-intensiveness and reliability issue is limiting the use
of active systems at present, with more research, they have great potential
for future applications. In fact, hybrid mass dampers (HMDs), which
incorporate both TMD and AMD, can be devised to overcome the limitations
of both the active and passive systems. The HMDs normally operate as passive
TMDs, and their AMD mechanism is used only in the case of high excitations.
However, in the event of a power failure, the system will automatically switch
to the passive TMD mode. In addition, in the case of extreme excitations which
exceed the capability of the actuator, the HMD system will also switch to the
passive TMD mode. By this mechanism, the serious issue of reliability of AMDs
can be resolved and their high operation and maintenance costs can be
lowered. Further, the non-adjustability of passive TMDs can be overcome by
the AMD mechanism of the HMDs in high excitation cases. The very high
initial cost is a still limiting issue of the HMD systems.

228
CHAPTER 6

INTEGRATIVE DESIGN
OF COMPLEX-
SHAPED TALL
BUILDINGS
THE DIRECTION OF EVOLUTION of tall building structural systems has been
towards efficiently increasing stiffness against lateral loads – primarily wind
loads. In order to obtain the necessary lateral stiffness, introduced first were
braced frames and moment resisting frames followed by tubular structures,
core-supported outrigger structures, and more recently developed diagrid
structures, etc. In addition to increasing lateral stiffness, the strategy of
reducing the impact of wind loads is also seriously considered by employing
aerodynamic forms.
The inherent monumentality of skyscrapers resulting from their scale
makes their architectural expression very significant in any urban context
where they soar. While the early design of tall buildings culminated with the
dominance of the International Style, which prevailed for decades and pro-
duced prismatic Miesian style towers all over the world, today’s pluralism
in architectural design has generated tall buildings of many different forms,
including more complex forms such as twisted, tilted, tapered and free
forms. This chapter presents the dynamic interactions between the various
complex building forms and structural design of tall buildings.

229
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

6.1. AERODYNAMIC FORMS

In conjunction with increasing lateral stiffness against winds, a recent trend
in tall building design practice is to improve aerodynamic properties of tall
buildings to reduce wind forces carried by them. This can be achieved by
various treatments of building masses and forms. An early example of aero-
dynamic building forms can be found from Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion
project, in which the streamlined aerodynamic shield rotates about the central
axis of the cylindrical form multistory building according to the direction of
wind to minimize the impact of the wind force.

Figure 6-1.
Shanghai World Financial
Center with a large
through-building opening.
With permission of Terri
Boake.

230
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-2. Pearl River Tower in Guangzhou. With permission of Terri Boake.

231
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Examples employed in contemporary tall buildings to improve aero-

dynamic properties include chamfered or rounded corners, notches, stream-
lined forms, tapered forms and openings through buildings. The Shanghai
World Financial Center in Shanghai and the Kingdom Center in Riyadh employ
large through-building openings at the top combined with tapered forms. The
Guangzhou Pearl River Tower’s funnel form façades catch natural wind not
only to reduce the building motion but also to generate energy using wind
turbines. Aerodynamic forms generally reduce the along-wind response as
well as across-wind vibration of tall buildings caused by vortex-shedding. Due
to the nature of the strategy which manipulates building masses and forms,
this approach blends fittingly with architectural aesthetics.

6.2. TWISTED TALL BUILDINGS

Employing twisted forms for tall buildings is a recent architectural phenom-
enon. Twisted forms employed for today’s tall buildings can be understood
as a reaction to rectangular box forms of modern architecture. In fact, this
contemporary architectural phenomenon is not new in architecture. It is com-
parable to twisted forms of Mannerism architecture towards the end of
Renaissance period. For example, in Cortile della Cavallerizza at Palazzo
Ducale in Mantua, Giulio Romano designed twisted columns. This twisted form
can be found again in today’s tall building designs such as the Shanghai Tower
in Shanghai designed by Gensler, Cayan Tower in Dubai by SOM, and Chicago
Spire project in Chicago by Calatrava.
In terms of static response, twisted forms do not provide any structural
benefit. If solid sections are considered, the moment of inertia of a square
plan is the same regardless of its twisted angle. Therefore, there is no lateral
stiffness change. Building type structures are different from the solid struc-
tures. They are typically composed of numerous frame elements, and their
structural behavior is very much dependent on the building forms and
arrangements of the frame elements. If the building type frames are
considered, the lateral stiffness of the twisted forms is generally not as large
as that of straight forms. This section presents studies on performance of
various structural systems employed for twisted tall buildings.
The plan dimensions of the studied buildings are 36 m x 36 m with
an 18 m x 18 m central core, and their typical story height is 3.9 m. The studied
rates of twist are 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 degrees per floor. Stiffness-based design is
performed for each structure to meet the target maximum allowable lateral
displacement of a five hundredth of the building height. The ASCE document,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, is used to
establish the wind load and the buildings are assumed to be in Chicago.

232
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-3. Shanghai Tower.

233
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-4. Moment of inertia of square area.

6.2.1. Twisted Braced Tubes and Diagrids

As presented in Chapter 4, both the diagrids and braced tubes are very efficient
structural systems for tall buildings of conventional shapes, such as rectan-
gular box form towers, because these systems carry lateral loads primarily
by axial actions of the vertical and diagonal members on the perimeter. When
these structural systems are employed for twisted tall buildings, the systems’
structural efficiency is decreased as the rate of twist is increased.
Suppose the diagrids are initially configured with diagonals placed
at a near-optimal uniform angle for a straight rectangular box form building.

Figure 6-5. Sixty-story twisted diagrids with twisted rates of 0, 1, 2 and 3 degrees per floor.

234
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-6. Sixty-story twisted braced tubes with twisted rates of 0, 1, 2 and 3 degrees per floor.

As the rate of twist is increased, the diagrid angle deviates more and more
from its original near-optimal condition and the lateral stiffness of the system
is gradually decreased. Consequently, the tower’s lateral displacement is
increased.
For the conventional rectangular box form towers, braced tubes are
typically designed with vertical perimeter columns and diagonal bracings, which
primarily carry overturning moments and shear forces, respectively, by axial
actions. The vertical perimeter columns provide the maximum bending rigidity
for braced tubes. As the tower begins to be twisted, the vertical columns
become slanted ones. As the rate of twist is increased, slanting of the vertical
columns becomes greater, which consequently reduces the system’s bending
stiffness gradually. Therefore, the lateral displacement of the twisted braced
tube is increased as the rate of twist is increased. The angle of the perimeter
diagonals is also changed by twisting the braced tube. However, the impact
of diagonal angle changes caused by twisting the tower at the studied rates
of 1, 2 or 3 degrees per floor is not substantial. The stiffness reduction of
braced tubes, composed of verticals and diagonals, is much more sensitive
to the rate of twist, compared with that of diagrids, composed of only
diagonals. And this sensitivity becomes accelerated as the building height is

235
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-7. Maximum lateral displacements of twisted diagrids and braced tubes.

increased. Figure 6-7 shows maximum lateral displacements of twisted braced

tube and diagrid structures of 60, 80 and 100 stories.

6.2.2. Twisted Outrigger Structures

Lateral load-carrying mechanism of outrigger structures is different from that
of tube type structures, i.e., diagrids or braced tubes. Perimeter mega-
columns connected to the stiff braced core structure through outrigger trusses
significantly contribute to the bending rigidity of the outrigger structure.
As the outrigger structures are twisted, the mega-columns on the building
perimeter wrap around the building spirally. Therefore, the position of the
mega-columns on the flange planes (i.e., planes perpendicular to wind) at the
base changes to those on the web planes (i.e., planes parallel to wind) or even
to those on the opposite flange planes at higher levels depending on the rate
of twist. Lateral stiffness of the outrigger structures with these spirally slanted
perimeter mega-columns is substantially reduced as the rate of twist is
increased. Figure 6-9 shows maximum lateral displacements of twisted out-
rigger structures of 60 and 90 stories with rates of twist of 1.5 and 3 degrees
per floor.

236
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-8. 60-story twisted outrigger structures with twisted rates of 1.5 and 3 degrees per floor.

Figure 6-9. Maximum lateral displacements of twisted outrigger structures.

237
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Outrigger structures with set-back vertical mega-columns may be a

feasible alternative for twisted buildings. Compared with the straight tower
case, the vertical mega-columns can be set back from the building perimeter
by a certain distance so that every mega-column can be vertical rather than
slanted within the rotated floor slabs. The proposed twisted form of Calatrava’s
Chicago Spire is designed to be supported by an outrigger system with set-
back vertical mega-columns. Though the twisted outrigger buildings with
set-back vertical mega-columns produce obviously smaller lateral stiffness
compared with the straight outrigger buildings with perimeter mega-columns,
this reduction could be smaller than that caused by using spirally slanted
perimeter mega-columns. Some important design considerations related to
this structural configuration include that this results in interior mega-columns
between the building façades and core walls. Therefore, this configuration is
more appropriate for building types which naturally require demising walls such
as hotels or condominiums rather than column-free offices.
With regard to the across-wind direction dynamic responses due to
vortex shedding, it should be noted that a twisted tower generally performs
better than a prismatic one, as it can mitigate wind-induced vibrations by
disturbing the formation of organized alternating vortexes. Considering the fact
that the vortex-shedding-induced lock-in phenomenon – resonance condition

Figure 6-10.
Twisted outrigger structure with setback vertical
mega-columns.

238
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

– often produces the most critical structural design condition for tall buildings,
the structural contribution of the twisted building’s form can be significant.

6.3. TILTED TALL BUILDINGS

Buildings have traditionally been constructed vertically, orthogonal to the
ground. When a building is found to be tilted, it is typically an indication of
some serious problems. The leaning Tower of Pisa is a famous example of
tilted buildings due to differential settlements. Today, however, tilted buildings
are intentionally designed to produce more dramatic architecture, as is the
case with the Gate of Europe Towers of 1996 in Madrid designed by Philip
Johnson/John Burgee, Veer Towers of 2010 in Las Vegas by Helmut Jahn,
and the proposal of the Signature Towers for Dubai by Zaha Hadid. Tall
buildings carry very large gravity and lateral loads. Therefore, structural impacts
of tilting tall buildings are significant, and more careful studies are required
for the design of tilted tall buildings. Though not uncommon these days, design
and construction of tilted tall buildings is still a very recent architectural
phenomenon.
In order to illustrate the concepts underlying the structural behavior of
tilted tall buildings, 60-story towers of various angles of tilt are designed with

Figure 6-11. Gate of Europe Towers in Madrid. With permission of Terri Boake.

239
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-12. Signature Towers in Dubai. With permission of Zaha Hadid Architects.

Figure 6-13. Structural models of tilted braced tubes with tilted angles of 4, 7, 9 and 13 degrees.

240
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

three different structural systems prevalently used for today’s tall buildings,
i.e., braced tubes, diagrids and outrigger structures. Structural steel is used for
the design of all three structural systems for the straightforward comparisons,
though reinforced concrete or composite structures are also commonly used
in real world. Each system’s structural performance depending on various
angles of tilt is presented comparatively based primarily on lateral stiffness.
Preliminary member sizes for the straight tower are generated first to satisfy
the maximum lateral displacement requirement of a five hundredth of the
building height. In order to study the structural performances of tall buildings
of various tilted angles comparatively, the member sizes used for the straight
structures are also used for the tilted structures for preliminary designs.

6.3.1. Tilted Braced Tubes

A 60-story tall rectangular box form straight tall building is designed with the
braced tube system first, and the building is tilted at four different angles as
shown in Figure 6-14. The first is the straight braced tube tower. The building’s
typical plan dimensions are 36 m x 36 m with an 18 m x 18 m core at the
center, which produces a floor depth of 9 m between the building façades
and the core perimeter walls. Typical story heights are 3.9 m. The braced tube
system on the building perimeter is designed to carry the entire lateral loads,
and the 18 m x 18 m building core is designed to carry only gravity loads, in
order to estimate the impact of different angles of tilting on the performance
of the perimeter braced tube.
Figure 6-15, with simplified section drawings of the tilted braced
tubes, clearly explains the relationship between the vertical building core
and the tilted perimeter braced tube for each tilted case. The second model
is a tilted case with no floor offset. While the 18 m x 18 m gravity core is
maintained vertical within the tilted perimeter braced tube, the building is tilted
to its maximum angle of 4 degrees. Therefore, on the left side of the building
as seen in Figure 6-15, the distance between the exterior façade and the core
perimeter wall reduces from 18 m on the ground to 0 m at the top. On the
right side, this distance increases from 0 m on the ground to 18 m at the top.
Though this specific configuration produces some architectural issues
regarding the space use as the distance between the exterior façade and the
core perimeter wall nears 0 m, this study assumes architectural issues can
be reasonably resolved in the end. The tilted form of this case is similar to
that of the Gate of Europe Towers in Madrid shown in Figure 6-11 or the Veer
Towers in Las Vegas.
The third, fourth and fifth models are tilted braced tube towers with
floor offsets of 12, 16 and 20 stories at both the top and bottom, resulting in
tilted angles of 7, 9 and 13 degrees, respectively. Tilted forms of these cases
are similar to those of the Signature Towers shown in Figure 6-12. In these
cases, the 18 m x 18 m gravity cores are still maintained vertical within the
perimeter braced tube structures.

241
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-14. Elevations of tilted braced tubes with tilted angles of 0, 4, 7, 9 and 13 degrees.

Figure 6-15. Simplified sections of tilted braced tubes with tilted angles of 0, 4, 7, 9 and 13 degrees.

Figure 6-16 summarizes the maximum lateral displacements of the

tilted braced tubes in the direction parallel to the direction of tilting, when the
wind load is applied also in the same direction. Lateral stiffness of the tilted
braced tubes against wind loads is very similar to that of the straight braced
tube regardless of the changes of the tilted angle between 0 and 13 degrees.
However, initial lateral displacements of the tilted braced tubes due to gravity
loads are significant. This gravity-induced lateral displacement, which is even
larger than the wind-induced displacement in most cases, becomes greater

242
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-16. Maximum lateral displacements of 60-story tilted braced tubes.

as the angle of tilting is increased. It should be noted, however, that gravity-

induced lateral displacements of tilted tall buildings can be managed sub-
stantially during construction if planned carefully.

6.3.2. Tilted Diagrids

In order to estimate the structural performance of tilted diagrids, the 60-story
buildings are now designed with the diagrid structural system. Figure 6-17
shows the straight diagrid structure and its four different tilted versions. The
important dimensions and tilted angles of the diagrid structures are the same
as those of the braced tube structures studied in the previous section. Design
conditions including applied loads are also the same as before. The major
difference is that the perimeter braced tubes studied in the previous section
are replaced with diagrids.
Figure 6-18 summarizes the maximum lateral displacements of the
tilted diagrid towers in the direction parallel to the direction of tilting, when
the wind load is also applied in the same direction. The performance of the
diagrids is very similar to that of the braced tubes previously studied. Lateral
stiffness of the tilted diagrids against wind loads is very similar to that of
the straight diagrids regardless of the changes of the tilted angle between
0 and 13 degrees. However, initial lateral displacements of the tilted diagrids
due to gravity loads are significant. This gravity-induced lateral displacement,
which is even larger than the wind-induced displacement in most cases,
becomes greater as the angle of tilting is increased. As has already been dis-
cussed, gravity-induced lateral displacements of tilted tall buildings can be
managed substantially during construction if planned carefully.

243
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-17. Tilted diagrids with tilted angles of 0, 4, 7, 9 and 13 degrees.

Figure 6-18. Maximum lateral displacements of 60-story tilted diagrids.

6.3.3. Tilted Outrigger Structures

In order to estimate the structural performance of tilted outriggers, the 60-
story tilted buildings are now designed with the outrigger system. Figure 6-19
shows the straight outrigger structure and its four different tilted versions. The
important dimensions and tilted angles of the outrigger structures are the same
as those of the braced tube or diagrid structures studied in the previous sec-
tions. Other design conditions, including the applied wind loads, are also the
same as before. The major differences are that the primary lateral load resist-
ing system is changed to the outrigger system. Consequently, lateral load

244
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-19. Tilted outrigger structures with tilted angles of 0, 4, 7, 9 and 13 degrees.

Figure 6-20. Maximum lateral displacements of 60-story tilted outrigger structures.

resisting braced frames are employed for the core structures of the outrigger
systems, instead of the gravity core structures employed for the previously
studied braced tubes and diagrids. For the straight outrigger tower shown in
the first model of Figure 6-19, the outrigger trusses, which connect the braced
frame core and perimeter mega-columns, are placed at a third and two third
heights of the building. The locations of the outrigger trusses are adjusted for
enhanced constructability depending on the offset locations of different cases.
Figure 6-20 summarizes the maximum lateral displacements of the
tilted outrigger structures in the direction parallel to the direction of tilting,

245
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

when the wind load is also applied in the same direction. The performance
of the tilted outrigger structures is different from that of the tilted braced tubes
or diagrids. Lateral stiffness of the tilted outrigger structures against wind
loads is greater than that of the straight outrigger structure. The tilted outrigger
structures configured as shown in Figure 6-19 carry lateral loads more effec-
tively because tilting the tower results in triangulation of the major structural
components – the braced core, mega-columns and outrigger trusses. As the
angle of tilting is increased from 0 to 13 degrees, the geometry of the tri-
angles formed by the major structural components becomes more effective
to resist the wind load, and consequently the wind-induced maximum lateral
displacement of the outrigger structure is decreased. However, gravity-
induced lateral displacement, which is even larger than the wind-induced
displacement, still becomes greater as the angle of tilting is increased.

6.3.4. Strength Consideration for Tilted Tall Buildings

Though structural design of tall buildings is generally governed by lateral
stiffness rather than strength, tilted towers are subjected to much larger
localized stresses than conventional vertical towers. Figure 6-21 shows axial

Figure 6-21. Axial member forces of the vertical and two tilted braced tube structures subjected to combined
dead, live and wind loads.

246
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

member forces of the vertical and two tilted braced tube structures (the first,
second and fifth models of Figure 6-14) subjected to combined dead, live and
wind loads. Much larger compressive and tensile member forces are
developed in the tilted braced tubes than in the straight braced tube.
Tensile forces developed in tall buildings due to wind loads are often
cancelled by compressive forces caused by gravity loads. In the tilted braced
tubes studied here, however, substantial tensile forces are developed in
perimeter columns and bracings due to the eccentricity. More careful studies
are required for the design and construction of the connections of these
members and foundations.

6.4. TAPERED TALL BUILDINGS

Compared with prismatic forms, tapered forms provide many advantageous
aspects for structural systems of tall buildings. The magnitudes of lateral shear
forces and overturning moments become larger towards the base of the build-
ing. Consequently, greater lateral stiffness is required at lower levels. Tapered
forms provide greater lateral stiffness towards the base because tapered forms
naturally produce greater structural depth towards the base.
Tapered forms also help reduce wind loads applied to tall buildings.
Wind pressure is greater at higher levels and lesser at lower levels due to
the friction with the ground surface. When a building is tapered, the exterior
surface area where the wind load is applied is reduced at higher levels, and
increased at lower levels. Therefore, the lateral shear forces and overturning
moments are decreased as the angle of taper is increased.
For tall buildings, vortex-shedding induced lock-in conditions often
create the most critical structural design issue. Tapered forms help tall build-
ings prevent shedding organized alternating vortices, which cause the lock-
in condition, because of the continuously varying building width along the
building height. Therefore, tapered tall buildings are less susceptible to severe
across-wind direction vibrations than prismatic tall buildings.
Furthermore, tapered forms are often more desirable architectur-
ally for mixed-use tall buildings. For residential functions in tall buildings, for
example, it is important to make living spaces not too far away from natural
light to enhance the occupant comforts. For commercial office functions, how-
ever, daylighting is less important and deeper rentable space is often desired.
Therefore, tapered tall buildings, with commercial office functions on the lower
levels and residential functions on the higher levels, perform very well archi-
tecturally. A famous example of this type of spatial organization in a tapered
tall structure can be found in the 100-story tall John Hancock Center of 1969
in Chicago designed by Skidmore, Owing and Merrill.
Tapered tall buildings of 60, 80 and 100 stories are designed with
braced tubes, diagrids and outrigger structures and their structural perform-

247
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-22. Tapered section and typical floor plans of John Hancock Center in Chicago. © SOM.

248
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

ances are studied comparatively in this section. The height-to-width aspect

ratios of the studied buildings range from about 6 to 10. The angles of taper
studied are 1, 2 and 3 degrees.
Figure 6-23 shows 60-story buildings of the three different angles of
taper designed with braced tubes. A non-tapered straight braced tube
structure is designed first. The straight building’s typical plan dimensions are
36 m x 36 m with an 18 m x 18 m core at the center and typical story heights
of 3.9 m. The perimeter braced tube system is designed to carry the entire
lateral load, and the 18 m x 18 m building core is designed to carry only gravity
loads, in order to clearly estimate the impact of taper on the performance of
the perimeter braced tube system. The building is assumed to be in Chicago
and the ASCE document, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, is used to establish the wind load. This loading condition is also
used for the diagrids and outrigger structures. The braced tube member sizes
for the straight tower are determined based on the stiffness-based design
methodology to meet the maximum lateral displacement requirement of a
five hundredth of the building height.
The braced tube structure is then tapered with three different angles
of 1, 2 and 3 degrees as shown in the figure. Since the building width at mid-
height is maintained to be the same as the original straight tower, each tapered
building’s gross floor area is the same regardless of the different angles of
taper. Member sizes determined for the straight braced tube are also used
for the tapered ones for preliminary design purposes to investigate the impact
of tapering the structure comparatively.
The maximum lateral displacements of the 60-story tapered braced
tubes shown in Figure 6-23 as well as similarly configured and designed
80- and 100-story tapered braced tubes are summarized in Figure 6-24. As
has been predicted, lateral displacements of tapered braced tubes are reduced
as the angle of taper is increased. Further, the rate of displacement reduction
due to taper is accelerated as the building becomes taller.
As another perimeter tube type structure with diagonals, the result of
the same study with diagrid structures is very similar. As the angle of taper
is increased, the lateral stiffness of the perimeter tube type structures is
substantially increased, and the rate of displacement reduction due to taper
is accelerated as the building becomes taller. The lateral performance charac-
teristics of tapered perimeter tube type structures are very similar.
In outrigger structures, as the building is tapered while maintaining its
width at mid-height, the stiffness of the lower level outrigger trusses, which
connect the mega-columns and braced core, is reduced because their length
is increased. This makes the lateral performance of tapered outrigger structures
slightly different from that of the perimeter tube type structures. However, the
lateral stiffness of outrigger structures is still increased substantially, as the angle
of taper is increased, and the rate of displacement reduction due to taper is
accelerated as the building becomes taller.

249
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-23. Structural models of 60-story tapered braced tubes.

Figure 6-24. Maximum lateral displacements of 60-, 80- and 100-story tapered braced tubes.

250
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

6.5. FREEFORM TALL BUILDINGS

Another distinguished architectural design approach for today’s tall buildings
is sculptural freeform design. Early examples of this approach include Peter
Eisenman’s Max Reinhardt Haus and Frank Gehry’s New York Times Building,
both designed in the late 20th century but not built. Today, however, many
freeform tall buildings are designed and actually built worldwide.
It was quite a difficult task to perform the structural designs and
analyses of irregular freeform tall buildings in the past. These days, it can be
relatively easily done with the development of structural design/analysis
computer software. Even though the supporting structural systems behind
the free forms vary depending on the project-specific situations, diagrids are

Figure 6-25. Max Reinhardt Haus project by Peter Eisenman (unbuilt). With permission of Eisenman Architects.

251
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

often employed as can be observed from RMJM’s Capital Gate Tower.

As a building’s form becomes more irregular, finding an appropriate
structural system for better performance and constructability is essential to
successfully carry out the project. The diagrid structural system has great
potential to be developed as one of the most appropriate structural solutions
for irregular freeform towers. Triangular structural geometric units naturally
defined by diagrid structural systems can specify any irregular freeform tower
more accurately without distortion.
Diagrid systems are employed for 60-story freeform tall buildings to
investigate their structural performance in this section. Freeform geometries
are generated using sine curves of various amplitudes and frequencies. For
the purpose of comparison, preliminary member sizes for the 60-story rectan-
gular box form diagrid tall building are generated first to satisfy the maximum
lateral displacement requirement of a five hundredth of the building height.
Once the conventional rectangular box form diagrid structure is
designed, three different freeform diagrid cases shown in Figure 6-26 are
comparatively studied. To estimate the lateral stiffness of diagrid structures
employed for freeform structures, the member sizes used for the straight
rectangular box form tower are also used for the freeform towers. Thus, each
structure is designed with very similar amount of structural materials.
Compared with the rectangular box form diagrid structure, which has 36 m
x 36 m square plan on each floor, the first, second and third freeform cases’
floor plans fluctuate within the ± 1.5 m, 3 m and 4.5 m boundaries of the
original square respectively. Despite these geometry changes, total floor area
of each case is maintained to be the same.
As can be seen in the figure, which shows the deformed shape of
each diagrid structure in a scale factor of 20, the lateral displacement of the
structure becomes larger as the freeform shape deviates more from its
original rectangular box form. This is related to the change of the diagrid angle
caused by free-forming the tower. The straight tower designed first for the
comparison is configured with the optimal diagrid angle of about 70 degrees.
As the degree of fluctuation of freeform is increased, the diagrid angle
deviates more from its original optimal condition, which results in substantial
reduction of the lateral stiffness of the tower. Therefore, freeform shapes
should be determined with careful consideration of their not only architectural
but also structural performance.
With regard to the across-wind direction dynamic responses due to
vortex shedding, it should be noted that irregular freeform towers, like
previously studied twisted towers, generally perform better than a prismatic
one, as it can mitigate wind-induced vibrations by disturbing the formation of
organized alternating vortexes. Considering the fact that the vortex-shedding-
induced lock-in phenomenon often produces the most critical structural design
condition for tall buildings, the structural contribution of irregular free form
can be significant.

252
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-26. Maximum lateral displacements of 60-story free-form diagrids.

6.6. CONJOINED TALL BUILDINGS

In addition to the various complex-shaped tall buildings presented in the
previous sections, another recently emerging tall building design strategy is
conjoining two or more tall buildings functionally and structurally. Quite a few
competition entries for rebuilding the World Trade Center in New York
employed this approach, though the winning entry did not. In fact, the concept
of conjoined towers dates back to the King’s View of New York published by
Moses King in the early 20th century. The King’s Dream of New York in this
publication shows New York skyscrapers connected by sky bridges. Today,
interconnected tall buildings are no longer a dream.
The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur are twin commercial office
towers connected by a double story sky bridge on the 41st and 42nd floors.
In the Pinnacle at Duxton in Singapore, seven residential towers are connected
on the 26th and 50th floors by sky bridges. The same strategy is used in the
Sky Terrace at Dawson in Singapore, which connects four residential towers
on two levels. While connecting structures in these examples are simple
bridges between the buildings, some other connecting structures are
designed to hold substantial programed spaces. In the Marina Bay Sands in

253
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-27. Marina Bay Sands. With permission of JH Song.

Singapore, three hotel towers are connected at the top by the sky park that
brings together many hotel amenity facilities, such as swimming pools,
restaurants and sky gardens. A very similar design approach is used in the
Gate Towers in Shams Abu Dhabi on Reem Island and Raffles City Chongqing
in Chongqing.
A new conjoined towers typology has also been introduced in some
projects. For example, the CCTV Tower in Beijing can be better conceived
as a closed loop type tall building designed to produce unique and enhanced
functional performance, instead of two towers connected by bridging
programed spaces. The concept of closed loop type tall buildings can be found
also in the proposed mixed-use Infinity by Crown Group in Sydney. By inter-
connecting towers with various new design concepts, tall buildings are no
longer isolated individual towers. They are growing into organically intercon-
nected more dynamic megastructures functioning like vertical cities.
The concept of conjoined towers also has great structural potential
to produce very tall buildings. One of the tallest proposed conjoined towers
was the Nakheel Tower for Dubai. The proposed height of the tower was
over 1,000 m, though the project was cancelled. The Nakheel Tower can be
conceived as four megatall buildings structurally belted together at every 25

254
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

Figure 6-28. CCTV Headquarters, a closed loop type tall building. Image courtesy of OMA.

stories. This configuration can provide excellent structural performance for

supertall and megatall buildings. The large openings between the four towers
significantly reduce wind loads, and the large footprint of the conjoined
towers produces a great structural depth against lateral loads.
Though it is very difficult to foresee what is coming next to the field
of supertall and megatall design, the structurally conjoined towers concept
employed for the Nakheel Tower project is expected to serve as one of the
powerful prototypes for upcoming supertall towers over 1,000 m. For very tall
buildings, it is crucial to maximize their structural depths to efficiently provide
lateral stiffness against wind loads. At the same time, it is very important to
keep reasonable lease depths – about 8–15 m for the comfort of occupants.
The structural concepts developed for the Nakheel Tower in conjunction with
building forms can satisfy these fundamental structural and architectural
requirements successfully.

255
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

Figure 6-29. Nakheel Tower project (cancelled). Project: Nakheel Harbor and Tower, Client: Nakheel Properties, Architect: Woods
Bagot, Structural Engineer: WSP Cantor Seinuk.

For extremely tall buildings, structural systems cannot be configured

independently without considering building forms. If a structural depth of about
100 m is used for a 1,000 m tall conventional rectangular box form build-
ing with a central core to maintain its height to width aspect ratio of about
10, the lease depth between the façade and core wall will be very deep. This
depth will be about 25 m when square floor plan and square central core are
considered with the core to gross floor area ratio of about 25 percent. The
height to width aspect ratio is one of the most important factors for structural
design of very tall buildings. With the same slenderness and core area ratio,
if the height of the rectangular box form building is increased to 1,200 m, the
lease depth should also be increased to about 30 m. Extremely large lease
depths for megatall buildings of unprecedented heights will produce many

256
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

serious issues, such as occupant discomfort, interior columns within the lease
depth to avoid floor beams of very long spans, and too large gross floor area,
to list but a few.
In order to maintain the height to width aspect of about 10, the plan
dimensions of the about 1,000 m tall Nakheel Tower on the ground are very
large, about 100 m. However, the structurally conjoined tower concept allows
this building to maintain reasonable lease depths. Further, unlike the conven-
tional rectangular box form tall building with a central core, towers of this
configuration can be designed even taller to a certain height without increasing
lease depths, because increasing the overall plan dimensions to keep the
slenderness and maintaining the desired lease depth can be done indepen-
dently to a large degree. Figure 6-30 comparatively shows simplified structural
plans of the structurally conjoined towers and conventional rectangular box
form concepts employed for 1,000 m and 1,200 m tall buildings, respectively.
Despite its characteristics being appropriate for extremely tall
buildings, this architecture-integrated structural concept may not be easily

Figure 6-30. Simplified structural plans of the structurally conjoined towers and conventional rectangular box form concepts
employed for 1,000 m and 1,200 m tall buildings.

257
VERTICAL CANTILEVERS

employed for existing dense urban land because very large building sites are
required. However, where appropriate, these conjoined towers may be the
solutions for the problem of dense urban environments, by way of creating
three-dimensional vertical cities in the sky.
Structural potential of conjoined towers can be further increased, and
an extremely tall building complex can be designed in a more efficient
way, by extending Fazlur Khan’s superframe concept strategically and in an
integrative way with other design aspects. Figure 6-31 shows a mile-high
superframed conjoined tower design project by Chris Hyun at Yale School of
Architecture, under the guidance of Kyoung Sun Moon. The project was
proposed for the empty site in Chicago, partly including the area once used
for the never-completed Chicago Spire project by Santiago Calatrava. In this
design project, four exceedingly tall buildings are interconnected with the
structural concept of the superframe, to create the mile-high conjoined towers.
Four braced-tube towers are placed in the corners of the enormous
superframe, allowing it to reach the height of one mile (about 1.6 km). The
braced-tube towers are connected by horizontal bands of braced tube

Figure 6-31. Mile-high superframed conjoined towers.

258
 COMPLEX-SHAPED TALL BUILDINGS

structures of multiple story height, which become the connections between

the towers, potentially housing sky lobbies and other public spaces of truly
city-like conjoined mega-towers. At the same time, these are what create the
superframed conjoined towers which use the entire width of the tower
complex as the structural depth, instead of the width of the individual towers.
Therefore, the stiffness of the horizontal connection braced tubes is a very
important structural design consideration of these towers. By structurally inter-
connecting multiple towers, greater structural depths, as a group against lateral
loads for an enormous height and desired lease depths for individual towers
for better functional performance, can be achieved simultaneously.

259
INDEX

30 St. Mary Axe (Swiss Re Building) 187, Bending Rigidity 179, 235, 236
188 Braced Frame 47, 122, 123, 147, 149,
780 Third Avenue 176, 177, 182 154, 155, 159, 160, 161, 173, 194, 202,
204, 209, 218, 228, 229, 245
Acrylic Glass Tube 54 Braced Tube 166, 167, 168, 173, 174,
Active Control Mechanism 214, 223, 226 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182,
Active Mass Damper (AMD) 227, 228 184, 185, 199, 200, 202, 207, 208, 209,
Active System 214, 226, 228 210, 234, 235, 236, 240, 241, 242, 243,
Active-Passive System 215 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250
Active Variable Stiffness Device (AVSD) Breuer, Marcel 2, 7, 8, 11, 12
227, 228 Buckling 81, 100, 116, 117, 125, 218
Actuator 214, 227, 228 Buckling Restrained Brace Frame 218
Aerodynamic Form 229, 230, 232 Bugatti, Carlo 12
Aerodynamic Property 230 Bundled Tube 165, 166, 167, 168, 172,
A-Lab 139, 140 182, 183, 187, 200
Alsop Architects 116, 117 Burgee, John 239
Alto, Alva 7, 14, 15, 18 Burnham and Root 147
Aon Center 163, 170, 171, 172, 173 Busan Cinema Center 109, 112, 113, 114
Applause Tower (Hanku Chayamachi
Building) 227, 228 C.Y. Lee Architects 203
Arabesco Table 21 Calatrava, Santiago 232, 258
Armstrong Rubber Co. Headquarters 12, Camber 54, 93, 191
13 Cantilever Armchair 12
Art Nouveau 12 Cantilever Barn 67
Arup 136 Cantilever Bridge 61, 62, 63, 121, 122
ASCE 208, 232, 249 Cantilever Chair 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
Ataria Nature Interpretation Centre 99, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
100, 101 Cantilever Sofa 11
Ateliers Jean Nouvel 55, 56 Cantilever Table 20, 23, 24, 26
Auxiliary Damping Device 3, 214 Cantilevered Balcony 2, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45,
Awning 49 46, 47, 49, 51, 104
Cantilevered Canopy 49, 50, 51, 52, 56,
Bank of China Tower 199, 200 58
Bank of the South West 181 Cantilevered Stair 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35,
Barkow Leibinger Architects 52 39
Battlement 39 Capital City Towers 136, 137, 138
Bauhaus 43, 44 Capital Gate Tower 191, 192, 251
Beam, J. Wade 24 Carne House 69
Bedside Table 20 Casa Orenga 21
Belt Truss 136, 201, 202, 205 Cayan Tower 232
Bending Beams 166, 195, 197 CCTV Headquarters 121, 122, 123, 255

261
INDEX

Cesca 11 Deep Foundation 24, 72, 109

CetraRuddy Architecture 225 Delaunay, Sonia 22
Chambers, Sir William 29 Demising Wall 138, 163, 238
Chamfered Corner 188 DeWitt-Chestnut Apartments 172, 173
Chevron Bracing 181, 182, 184, 218, Diagonal Bracing 99, 100, 101, 122, 124,
228 174, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 200,
Chicago Spire 232, 238, 258 216, 235
Chord Member 80, 81, 82, 83, 96, 100, Diagrid 112, 113, 114, 184, 185, 186, 187,
115, 125, 154, 161, 199 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,
Chrysler Building 148 196, 197, 198, 208, 209, 210, 214, 229,
Chumsungdae 190 234, 235, 236, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246,
Citicorp Building 218, 220 249, 251, 251, 253
City Point Building 50 Diaphragm 8, 87, 207
Closed Loop Type Tall Building 254, 255 Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes 57, 58
Cobra Chair 12 Differential Settlement 239
Color Distortion 48 Diller Scopidio + Renfro 87
Columbia Seafirst Building 216 Dosmasuno Arquitectos 104
Column Tree 164, 171 Dovetailed Joint 18
Comcast Center 224, 225 Downward Reaction 72, 85, 86, 107, 109
Complex-Shaped Tall Building 229, 253 Dragon Beam 72
Compound Pendulum Type TMD 221 Ductility 96, 155
Concentrically Braced Frame (CBF) 155, Dymaxion 230
156, 157 Dynamic Response 238, 252
Conjoined Towers (Conjoined Tall
Buildings) 3, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258 Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) 155,
Connor, Jerome 226 156, 157, 218
Constructability 175, 180, 189, 195, 246, Eiffel Tower 62, 63, 64
252 Eileen Grey Table 21
Convento della Carita 28 Eisenman, Peter 251
Coop Himmelb(l)au 112, 113, 114 Electro-Magnetic Damper 215
Cortile della Cavallerizza 232 Empire State Building 147, 148
Counteracting Inertia Force 216, 218, 221, Energy-Dissipating-Material-Based
222 Damping System 216
Counteracting Moment 20, 23, 201, 205, Erewhon Center 179
207 estudio ATARIA 99, 100, 101
Coupled Shear Wall 157, 158 Exoskeleton 153, 194
Creative Valley 109, 110, 111, 112 Exterior Structure 149, 163, 187, 201
Crystal Tower 220, 221
Cultural Center in Castelo Branco 114, Falsework 62, 121
115, 116 Flange Frame 164, 165, 166, 167, 186
Curtain Walls 137 Flange Plane 185, 236
Curvature Reversal 202 Float Glass 34, 48, 54
Curved Plywood 15, 22 Floating Staircase 35, 37
Cyclic Excitation 218 Forcing Period 215
Forth Bridge 61, 62
Damping Force 216 Foster + Partners 188
Damping System 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, Foster, Norman 187
219, 221, 223, 225, 226, 227 Framed Tube 163, 164, 165, 166, 168,
Damping Wall 217 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 182, 185,
Daylighting 55, 102, 145, 247 187, 200, 207

262
 INDEX

Freeform Diagrid 252 Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) 87, 88,

Freeform Tall Building 251, 252 89, 90, 91
Friction Damping 215, 218 Interior Structure 2, 149
Fuller, Buckminster 230 Interior-Exterior-Integrated Structure 2,
Fundamental Mode 218 149, 173
Fundamental Period 215, 216, 221 International Style 3, 229
Itamaraty Palace 35, 38
Gate of Europe Towers 239, 241
Gate Towers 254 Jahn, Helmut 239
Gehry, Frank 251 Jenny, William LeBaron 146, 147
Gensler 232 Jetty 72
Gent & Monk Architecten 109 Jettying 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79
Gothic Cathedral 147 Jin Mao Tower 202, 205, 206, 207
Graves, Michael 187 John Hancock Building 220
Grey, Eileen 2, 8, 20, 21, 23 John Hancock Center (now 875 North
Guangzhou International Finance Center Michigan Avenue) 163, 174, 175, 176,
187 181, 184, 248, 249
Guinness Book of World Records 112, 191 Johnson, Philip 239
Jones, Inigo 28
Hadi Teherani Architects 105, 106 Julian Hunter Architects 36
Hale Brown Architects 37 Julien de Smedt Architects 46
Halifax Library 131, 132 Juliet Balcony 45
Hanasaki House 31, 32
Hassfurt Bridge 61 Kajima Design 152
Hat Truss 169, 205 Kaze No Oka Crematorium 32
Haus mit Veranden 45 Khan, Fazlur 162, 202
Hearst Headquarters 187, 188, 189, 197 King, Moses 253
Heat Soaked Glass 34, 35 King’s Dream of New York 253
Heat Soaking 34 King’s View of New York 253
Height-to-Width Aspect Ratio 11, 158, Kingdom Center 232
168, 172, 188, 195, 197, 198, 208, 210, Kohn Pederson Fox (KPF) 187, 190
225, 249, 256
Heliostat 55, 56 Lake Shore Drive Apartments 151, 152
Higher Mode 216 Lamar Construction Company Corporate
Holabird and Roche 147 Headquarters 91, 92, 93, 94
Home Insurance Building 146, 147 Laminated Glass 47, 48, 50
Hourd 39, 40 Laminated Wood 14, 18
Humana Headquarters Competition 187 Lateral Stability 8, 14, 15, 25, 101
HVAC System 172 Lateral Stiffness 137, 145, 147, 148, 149,
Hybrid Mass Damper (HMD) 228 150, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 166, 171,
Hysteretic Damper 215 179, 181, 182, 191, 195, 209, 213, 228,
Hysteretic Damping 218 229, 230, 232, 235, 236, 238, 241, 242,
243, 246, 247, 249, 251, 252, 255
IBM Building in Pittsburgh 187 Lawrence Architecture 32, 33
Ice Thermal Tank 221, 228 Le Corbusier 7
Impact Damper 226 Lease Depth 255, 256, 257
Inelastic Deformation 218 Ledge, The 47, 48
Infinity by Crown Group 254 LeMessurier, William 179
Inflection Point 65, 67, 76, 97, 164, 171 Light Wood Frame 33, 34, 40, 74, 76
Injection Molded Polypropylene 18 Link Beam 157, 158, 218

263
INDEX

Lock-In Condition (Resonance Condition) Nave 147

238, 247, 252 NBBJ 136, 137, 138
Lotte Super Tower 187, 189, 190, 191, Nervi, Pierre Luigi 202
197 New National Gallery 66, 67
Lotte World Tower 187, 203 New York Times Building 251
Low Iron Glass 48 Nickel Sulfide 35
Low-E Glass 54 Niemeyer, Oscar 35
Luckhardt, Hans and Wassili 2, 16 Node 80, 81, 82, 84, 88, 131, 141, 155,
189, 195
Maki, Fumihiko 32
Manhattan Building 147 O-14 Building 193, 194
Mannerism 232 OMA (Office for Metropolitan
Marina Bay Sands 253, 254 Architecture) 95, 96, 121, 122, 123,
Mashrabiya 39 133, 134, 135, 255
Mateo, Josep Lluís 114, 115, 116 One Central Park 55, 56
Max Reinhardt Haus 251 One Madison Park 225
Maximum Lateral Displacement 195, 197, One Park Place (formerly Business Men’s
236, 237, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, Assurance Tower) 152
249, 250, 252, 253 One Shell Plaza 173
McConnel Library Building 218 One Wall Center 223
Mealha, Jorge 127, 128 One-Sheeted Hyperboloid 112
Megastructure 254 Ontario College of Art and Design 116
Megatall 254, 255, 256 Onterie Center 174
Metropolitan Life Building 148 Oriel Window 39
Milstein Hall 95, 96, 97, 98 Outrigger Structural System 136, 137,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and 148, 187, 190, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205,
Other Structures 208, 232, 249 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 214, 229, 236,
Mixed-Use Tall Building 247 237, 238, 241, 244, 245, 246, 249, 251
Mode Shape 216 Overturning Failure 12, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,
Molded Plywood 14, 16 54, 56, 72, 91, 101, 109, 114, 131
Mollino, Carlo 21 Overturning Moment 12, 20, 23, 150, 155,
Moment Connection (Rigid Connection) 9, 159, 161, 174, 179, 185, 191, 194, 197,
18, 32, 33, 34, 42, 69, 83, 154, 164, 201, 205, 208, 235, 247
171
Moment of Inertia 100, 232, 234 Palazzo Ducale 232
Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) 149, 150, Palladio, Andrea 28
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, Panton Chair 18, 19
160, 161, 162, 229 Panton, Verner 18, 19
Moment Reversal 16 Park Row Building 147
Monadnock Building 147 Passive System 3, 214, 215, 226, 228
MoNo 31, 32 Pearl River Tower 231, 232
Montauk Building 147 Pei, I M 200
Moretti, Luigi 202 Pendulum type TMD 219, 220, 221
Moscow Tower 136 Perkins and Will 171
MVRDV 102, 103 Perriand, Charlotte 22
Petronas Towers 253
Nanjing Sifang Art Museum 124, 125, 126 Phase Shift 216
National Archives of France 38, 39 Pierre Lassonde Pavilion 133, 134, 135,
National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec 136
133, 134, 135 Pinnacle at Duxton 253

264
 INDEX

Pixelated Façade Design 119 Shanghai Tower 232, 233

Pluralism 3, 229 Shanghai World Financial Center 230, 232
Portal Bracing 147 Sharp Center for Design 116, 117, 118
Post-Modern 187 Shear Beam 195,
Post-Tension 106, 191 Shear Connection 159, 161
Prefabrication 189, 194 Shear Lag Effect 164, 165, 166, 173, 174,
Premium for Height 210 182, 183, 185
Prouve, Jean 22 Shear Wall 103, 104, 125, 149, 157, 158,
159, 161, 162, 170, 173, 178, 201, 208,
Quebec Bridge 61 225
Queen’s House 28, 29 Shear Wall-Frame Interaction System 158,
161
Raffles City Chongqing 254 Shin-Yokohama Prince Hotel 222, 223
Railing 32, 33, 39, 42, 43, 47 Signature Towers 239, 240, 241
Rasch, Heinz and Bodo 16, 17 Singer Building 148
Rebate 28, 29, 30 Sitzgeiststuhl 16, 17
Reiken Yamamoto and Field Shop 37 Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) 152,
Reliability 214, 228 173, 176, 182, 184, 187, 189, 190, 205,
Renaissance 28, 232 232, 248
Resisting Moment 12, 20, 23, 82, 202 Sky Bridge 253
Resonance 145, 213, 215, 216, 228, 238 Sky Terrace at Dawson 253
Reverse Cantilever Chair 15, 20 Skyscraper Height Race 147
Rietveld, Garrit 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 20 Slenderness 215, 225, 256, 257
Rigid Polyurethane Foam 18 Sliding Type TMD 220,
Rigid Support 69 Slip-Form Construction 194
Riser 33, 34, 37 SMT Coffee Table 24
RMJM 191, 251 Somerset House 29, 30
Robertson, Leslie 168 Spehl, Rainer 23
Rokko-Island P&G Building 221 St. Petersburg Tower 136
Romano, Giulio 232 Staggered Truss System 162, 163
Rüdiger Lainer + Partner 45 Static Response 232
Runner 37 Statoil Oslo Office Building 119, 139, 140
RUR Architecture 193 Steven Holl Architects 124, 125, 126
Stiffness Reduction 235
Sacrificial Lite 48 Stiffness-Based Design 208, 232, 249
Safety 12, 32, 37, 42, 47, 61, 170 Stone, Edward Durrell 171
Safety Films 48 Stringer 33, 34, 35, 37
Saitama Prefectural University 37 Structural Expression 187
Saljaturi 39, 41 Structural Stability 22, 24
Sant’elia Armchair 14 Structural Thermal Break System 43, 44,
S-chair 18 45
Schmidt Hammer Lassen Architects 131, Studio Fuksas 38
132 Superframe 258
Sea Hawk Building 221 Superframed Conjoined Tower 258, 259
Seagram Building 161, 162 Supertall 173, 202, 208, 255
Seismic Zone 96, 155, 216, 217, 218 Sustainable Built Environment 149, 175,
Sendagaya INTES Building 228 196, 197, 208
September 11, 2001 (9/11) 170, 208
Serviceability 3, 11, 61, 66, 69, 110 Tacoma Building 147
Shambles 76, 77 Taipei 101 203, 204, 205, 218, 219, 220

265
INDEX

Tapered Braced Tube 249, 250 van der Rohe, Ludwig Mies 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,
Tapered diagrid 249 10, 11, 17, 19, 67, 152, 161, 229
Tapered Outrigger 249 Varying Angle Diagrid 191, 197
Tapered Tall Building 247, 249 Veer Towers 239, 241
Technological Park in Obidos 127, 128, Vertical City 258
129, 130 Vibration Frequency 216
Tempered Glass 24, 34 Vierendeel 82, 83, 84, 85, 96, 97, 99, 104,
Terragni, Giuseppe 12, 14 131, 133, 150, 163
Thermal Break 43, 44, 45, 46 Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène Emmanuel 39
Thermal Bridge 43, 44, 45 Viscoelastic Damper 215, 216, 217
Thermal Conductivity 43 Viscous Damper 215, 216, 217
Tilted Braced Tube 240, 241, 242, 243, VM House 46
246, 247 Voest Alpine Office Center 56, 57, 58
Tilted Diagrid 243, 244 Vortex Shedding 213, 214, 232, 238, 247,
Tilted Outrigger 244, 245, 246 252
Tilted Tall Building 239, 243, 247
Tokyo Marine Building 152, 153 Wassily 11
Torre Mayor 217 Web Frame 164, 165, 166, 171, 173, 174,
Toughened Glass 34, 35 182
Tower 254, 255, 256, 257 Web Plane 176, 179, 185, 236
Tower of Pisa 239 Web Member 80, 81, 82, 83, 96, 117,
Tread 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37 141, 154
Triangular Plate Damper 218 Western Union Building 147
Tribune Building in New York 147 Whitney Museum of American Art 12, 13
Trumpf Campus Gate House 52, 53, 54, Wilkinson Eyre 187
55, 56, 72 Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) 47,
Tube-in-Tube System 201, 207 48, 172, 182, 184, 200
Tubular Steel 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 88 Woods Bagot 256
Tulip Staircase 28, 29 Woolworth Building 147
Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) 221, World Trade Center (WTC) 163, 168, 169,
223, 224, 225, 226 171, 173, 207, 216, 253
Tuned Liquid Damper (TLD) 215, 216, Wozoco Apartments 102, 103, 104
218, 221, 226 Wright, Frank Lloyd 7
Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) 205, 215, Wrought Iron 62
216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 226, 227, 228 WSP Cantor Seinuk 256
Tuned Sloshing Damper (TSD) 221, 222,
223 X Bracings 177, 179, 181
Tunisian University 22
Twisted Braced Tube 234, 235, 236 Yamasaki, Minoru 168
Twisted Diagrid 234, 236 Yurakucho Underground Station 50, 51
Twisted Outrigger 236, 237, 238
Twisted Tall Building 232, 234 Zaha Hadid Architects 239, 240
Zigzag Chair 16, 17, 18, 20
Uniform Angle Diagrid 194, 197
U-Shaped Vessel 222, 223

266