Optimal Lateral Stiffness Design of Tall Buildings of Mixed Steel and Concrete Construction

OPTIMAL LATERAL STIFFNESS DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS
OF MIXED STEEL AND CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

CHUN-MAN CHAN*
Department of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong,
Peoples Republic of China
SUMMARY
This paper presents an optimal sizing technique for the lateral stiffness design of tall steel and concrete buildings.
The minimum structure cost design problem subject to lateral drift constraints is rst mathematically formulated
and then solved by a rigorously derived Optimality Criteria (OC) method. The emphasis is particularly placed on
the practical applicability of the optimization technique in engineering practice. Once the structural form of the
lateral load resisting system of a building is dened, the optimal steel and concrete element sizes are then sought
while satisfying all serviceability lateral stiffness and practical sizing requirements. The effectiveness and
practicality of the optimization technique is illustrated through an actual application to the preliminary design of
an 88-storey building in Hong Kong. When complete, the building will be 420 m tall and will become the tallest
building in Hong Kong. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
Modern tall buildings are complex large-scale slender structures. Their design is primarily dominated
by the effect of wind and their construction normally involves an enormous nancial cost as compared
to that of low-rise buildings. Consequently, structural engineers have to cope with the challenge of
not only designing safe and functional tall buildings in a relatively short time, but also ensuring
that the design produced must be optimal in the sense of minimum structural cost, maximum
structural efciency and maximum usable oor area. Even with the availability of todays engineering
software, the structural design of tall buildings is a rather labour-intensive and time-consuming task.
This is due to the fact that current engineering software programs are mainly intended for the response
analysis of tall building structures; they do not readily offer insight for economical design. The
traditional structural design of tall buildings is a trial-and-error procedure that relies heavily on
engineers experience and intuition. Although the nal design may be feasible, it does not guarantee
optimality.
The quest for more efcient structural systems has led to a new generation of hybrid mixed steel and
concrete building structures. The notable examples of such structures are the 452 m tall Petronas Twin
Towers in Malaysia (the Worlds current tallest building), the 88-storey Jin Mao Tower in China and
the 70-storey Bank of China in Hong Kong. Mixed steel and concrete construction offers the
THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Build. 10, 155177 (2001)
DOI: 10.1002/tal.170
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received June 2000
Accepted August 2000
Published online 18 July 2001
* Correspondence to: Chun-Man Chan, Department of Civil Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong.
Assistant Professor.
opportunity to utilize the most desirable attributes of each material to its best advantage or to make up
for mutual deciencies of each material. Although steel and concrete materials are strategically
located on different structural components to maximize benets of the different materials, the optimal
proportioning of different structural elements is a rather difcult and tedious task.
The main factors that control the design of a tall building include element strength, serviceability
lateral wind drift and motion perception criteria. As modern tall buildings get taller and more slender,
the effects of wind become more pronounced and the amount of structural materials needed to provide
lateral resistance drastically increases (Stafford Smith and Coull, 1991). In fact, the design of tall
buildings is generally controlled by lateral serviceability criteria rather than by element ultimate
strength requirements. Once the structural layout for a tall building is dened, the main effort is to size
the structural elements to satisfy the lateral serviceability performance criteria. Compared with local
level element strength design, economically sizing elements of a large scale tall building structure to
satisfy system level serviceability design criteria is much more difcult. This is due to the fact that
system serviceability design, such as limiting the top drift of a building, requires simultaneous
considerations of all elements involved in the structure and changes in element sizes to satisfy one drift
constraint may also affect some other drift responses. With the complexity and scale of tall building
structures, the simultaneous consideration of all system design consideration is incomprehensible
using the traditional trial-and-error analysisdesign procedure.
This paper presents a computer-aided structural optimization technique for the stiffness design of
tall buildings structures in which structural steel, concrete or a combination of mixed or composite
steel and concrete may be considered as the construction materials. The structural optimization
methodology used is viewed as a basic framework for computerization of the design process. The
design synthesis process involves coordinated application of structural analysis and the design
optimization process. Given the geometry of a tall building structure and a set of prescribed loading
conditions, the optimal distribution of materials will be automatically sought by systematic goal-
oriented design process while satisfying all specied design performance constraints. Since the design
of tall buildings is generally governed by lateral action due to wind loading, the serviceability
requirements of both static wind and dynamic wind-induced vibrations are the prime design issues to
be addressed in this paper. Practical sizing requirements are also considered in accordance with
constructability and architectural specications.
The optimization methodology is based on a rigorously derived optimality criteria (OC) method that
has been shown to be most effective for large systems (Venkayya, et al., 1973; Berke and Khot, 1970;
Zhou and Rozvany, 1992). The OC approach is an indirect method that rst derives the stationary
conditions at the optimum and then searches for the nal design by applying recursive algorithms to
satisfy the necessary optimality conditions. Although earlier applications of OC were focused more
on aerospace structures, recent research has shown that the OC approach is well suited for tall
building design (Chan et al., 1995; Chan, 1998; Chan et al., 1998). To facilitate a numerical solution
of the design optimization problem, the objective function and design constraints must be
formulated explicitly in terms of design variables. Using the principle of virtual work, explicit
serviceability stiffness constraints can be expressed in terms of cross sectional properties of structural
elements.
In order to verify the effectiveness and practicality of the optimization technique developed in this
study, the optimal design of an actual 88-storey building will be presented. When complete, the
building will be the tallest building in Hong Kong and the fth tallest building in the World. Standing
420 m above the ground level, the tower employs a complicated modern tall building system that
involves the use of a reinforced concrete core, three levels of steel outrigger trusses and eight
composite (concrete encased steel) mega-columns in the exterior perimeter of the building. Using the
156 C.-M. CHAN
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 10, 155177 (2001)
optimization technique, the most economical structure can also be achieved while the least impact on
the use of oor space is ensured.
2. OPTIMAL DESIGN PROBLEM
In structural optimization, proper formulation of the optimal design problem is key to a good solution.
A good problem formulation not only should correctly represent the actual design problem, but also
should maintain a high level of accuracy during the evolution process of the design solution. The
structural optimization problem of tall building design is dened so as to seek the optimal values of
design variables such that the structural cost is minimized and a set of specied design constraints are
satised. Formulation details of the optimal structural design of tall hybrid steel and concrete buildings
subject to multiple serviceability wind drift and acceleration constraints and practical element sizing
requirements are discussed herein.
2.1. Steel and concrete design variables
A structural design is described by some known xed parameters and some yet-to-be-determined
parameters called design variables. In this study, the topology of the structural system for a building
is predened and the material for each structural element is presumed xed, whereas the cross
sectional sizes of structural elements are taken as design variables. For three-dimensional structures,
the six cross sectional properties of each structural member, i.e. the axial area (A), two shear areas
(A
y
and A
z
) and three moment of inertias (I
x
, I
y
, I
z
), can be theoretically considered as basic design
variables. However, structural elements for practical structures are generally not freely independent
of each other. Often, the cross sectional shapes of structural members are predetermined based on
architectural and functionality requirements. For instance, structural steel columns are mostly made
of compact wide-ange sections (see Figure 1) and reinforced concrete beams are usually found in
rectangular shape (see Figure 2). Given the shape of a structural member, the relationships between
various cross sectional properties can then be expressed in terms of basic independent variables as
follows.
For commercially available standard steel sections, several functional relations have been used by
different studies in the past to relate together the area and the strong moment of inertia (Tabak and
Wright, 1981; Cheng and Truman, 1983; Choi et al., 1991). Most of these relations were expressed in a
polynomial form through regression analysis. Previous studies by the author (Chan et al., 1995; Chan,
1997) have shown that section properties such as shear areas (A
Y
, A
Z
) and torsional and exural
moments of inertia (I
X
, I
Y
and I
Z
) can be accurately related to cross sectional area A by reciprocal
Figure 1. Typical wide ange steel section
STEEL/CONCRETE OPTIMAL LATERAL STIFFNESS DESIGN 157
relationships as
1
A
Y
=
C
A
Y
A
C
/
A
Y
;
1
A
Z
=
C
A
Z
A
C
/
A
Z
;
1
I
X
=
C
I
X
A
C
/
I
X
(1a,b,c)
1
I
Y
=
C
I
Y
A
C
/
I
Y
;
1
I
Z
=
C
I
Z
A
C
/
I
Z
(1d,e)
where C and C' are regressional constants derived under the assumption that the cross section remains
within a constant shape group as it changes size. Figure 3 shows graphically the linear reciprocal
relationships between the strong moment of inertia I
z
and the cross sectional area A for W14, W24,
W30 and W36 wide ange sections from the AISC-LRFD design manual (Manual of steel Con-
struction, 1986). Not only has it been found that equations (1a)(1e) can be used to reduce the six basic
design variables (i.e. A, A
y
, A
z
, I
x
, I
y
, I
z
) to one independent cross sectional area variable for each steel
member, but also a more concise expression for stiffness constraints is possible, which is shown later.
Unlike steel, structural concrete is a versatile material that allows elements to be moulded into a
large variety of forms and shapes. Since concrete elements are generally not prefabricated in the form
of standard shapes, their sectional properties cannot be related in a way similar to equations (1a)(1e).
For practical building structures, structural concrete elements normally have rectangular cross sections
and their sectional properties can be expressed in terms of the width (B) and depth (D) as basic design
variables as follows:
A = BD. A
Y
= A
Z
=
5
6
BD (2a,b,c)
I
Y
=
1
12
B
3
D. I
Z
=
1
12
BD
3
(2d,e)
I
X
=
1
3
021
B
D
1
B
4
12D
4
_ _ _ _
B
3
D (2f )
In general, the effect of element torsion is quite small and, thus, equation (2f) for the torsional moment
of inertia can be simplied to approximately
I
X
= uB
3
D (2g)
where b ~03 for thin wall sections or b ~02 for typical rectangular sections. When compared with
Figure 2. Typical rectangular concrete section
158 C.-M. CHAN
steel elements wherein there is only one independent sizing variable (A) for each element, concrete
elements generally have two independent sizing variables (B, D) associated with each element. Cross
sectional relationships similar to equations (2a)(2g) can also be derived for circular concrete cross
sections but as simpler expressions in terms of the section diameter or radius. In this study, structural
walls are considered as shell elements having rectangular cross sections of xed width and the
thickness as the independent variable.
2.2. Design objective function
The aims of the structural design of a tall building are multifaceted. Given a tall building project, the
main goal of the structural engineer is to provide the most economical structure that is safe for its
intended life and serviceable for its intended function. The design should facilitate ease of construction
and future maintenance, and most importantly in densely populated areas such as Hong Kong, it must
result in the least impact on the use of oor space. While it is difcult to formulate one statement to
describe all intended purposes of a tall building design, it is, however, necessary to form an objective
function to use as a measure of effectiveness of the design for comparison of feasible design
alternatives. The value of the objective function determines the merit of the building design.
Unlike many structural optimization studies in which structure weight is primarily used as the
objection function, this study proposes to use initial structural cost as the objective function to describe
the merit of a design. For practical tall buildings, especially those of mixed steel and concrete
construction, minimum structural weight design normally does not represent the most economical
design. Moreover, in cities such as Hong Kong where property prices are sky-high, it is prudent that the
cost of oor area be included into the cost of vertical structural elements since they occupy oor space.
Figure 3. Regressional relationships between strong moment of inertia I
z
and cross sectional area A for selected
AISC W-shapes
A realistic overall cost model that involves both material cost and oor area cost is used to dene the
objective function for the design. In this study, the total cost of the structure is dened as the sum of
individual component costs while the cost of an individual component is the volume of material in the
component times a costing factor. The unit cost for each material can be dened as the market price of
the material including the cost of construction and, when necessary, also the cost of oor area. In terms
of the basic independent design variables, the structure cost of a hybrid building having i
s
= 1, 2, , N
s
steel skeletal elements, i
c
= 1, 2, , N
c
concrete frame elements and i
w
= 1, 2, , N
w
concrete wall
panel elements can be explicitly expressed as:
Minimize Cost =
N
s
i
s
=1
(w
i
s
A
i
s
)
N
c
i
c
=1
(w
i
c
B
i
c
D
i
c
)
N
w
i
w
=1
(w
i
w
B
i
w
) (3)
where w is the cost coefcient for each element. Steel or concrete elements should have different
values of unit cost coefcients that reect the corresponding costs of the materials. Moreover,
horizontal beams and vertical columns or walls may have different associated cost coefcients since
they have different impacts on the use of oor space.
2.3. Stiffness design constraints
Since tall buildings are slender exible structures, the provision of adequate serviceability stiffness,
particularly lateral stiffness, is the primary consideration in the design of these structures. There are
normally two types of serviceability performance constraints to be considered in tall building design
(Ad Hoc Committee, 1986; Ellingwood 1989; Grifs, 1993). The rst type of constraint concerns the
lateral deections under static equivalent wind loads. The second type deals with dynamic wind-
induced motion perception.
2.31 Static wind drift
Inadequate lateral stiffness may cause excessive damage to non-structural components, cracking in
concrete and increase the chance of building instability due to second-order P-Delta effects. The static
serviceability of a building can be secured by carefully controlling lateral deections within certain
allowable limits. Typically, two kinds of lateral deections need be considered. One is the overall
building drift ratio, dened as the total lateral deection at the roof top divided by the building height,
H. Another is the interstorey drift ratio, which is the differential lateral translation of two adjacent oor
levels per storey height, h. While the overall building drift represents the average lateral translation of
a building under wind effects, localized non-structural damage is more dependent on interstorey drift.
The normally accepted range of drift ratio limits for buildings appears to be 1/750 to 1/250, with 1/400
being typical (Ad Hoc Committee, 1986).
Consider a general three-dimensional building structure having s = 1, 2, , S stories, c = 1, 2, , C
column lines under / = 1, 2, , L lateral loading conditions. The lateral drift constraints can be
expressed as
d
csl
=
(c
csl
c
cs1l
)
h
s
_ d
U
s
; (c = 1. 2. . . . . C); (s = 1. 2. . . . . S); (l = 1. 2. . . . . L) (4a)
d
cSl
=
c
cSl
H
_ d
U
H
; (c = 1. 2. . . . . C); (l = 1. 2. . . . . L) (4b)
Equation (4a) denes the interstorey drift ratio d
csl
, where c
csl
and c
cs1l
are the lateral translations on a
160 C.-M. CHAN
column line c at two adjacent s and s1 oor levels under lateral loading condition l, h
s
is the sth storey
height and d
s
U
is the allowable sth storey drift limit. Equation (4b) denes the overall building drift
ratio d
cSl
, where c
cSl
is the lateral translation on column line c at the top oor level S under lateral
loading condition l, H is the building height and d
H
U
is the allowable overall building drift limit, which
may be different from the value of d
s
U
. Although equations (4) have been shown to include all lateral
drift values involved in a building, only the most critical drift values, especially those occurring at the
most distant corners of each oor plan, need be considered for each loading condition.
In order to facilitate numerical solution of the design optimization problem, the drift constraints of
equation (4) must rst be expressed explicitly in terms of the design variables. For general hybrid
buildings with skeletal steel or concrete frame elements and concrete wall panel members modelled by
shell elements, a displacement of interest c can be expressed explicitly by the principle of virtual work
as
c =
N
s
i
s
=1
_
L
is
0
F
X
f
X
EA

F
Y
f
Y
GA
Y
F
Z
f
Z
GA
Z
M
X
m
X
GI
X
M
Y
m
Y
EI
Y
M
Z
m
Z
EI
Z
_ _
i
s
dx
N
c
i
c
=1
_
L
ic
0
F
X
f
X
EA

F
Y
f
Y
GA
Y
F
Z
f
Z
GA
Z
M
X
m
X
GI
X
M
Y
m
Y
EI
Y
M
Z
m
Z
EI
Z
_ _
i
c
dx
N
w
i
w
=1
_
L
iw
0
_
D
iw
0
1
E
F
11
f
11
B

12M
11
m
11
B
3

F
22
f
22
B

12M
22
m
22
B
3
v
F
11
f
22
B
v
12M
11
m
22
B
3
_ _
v
F
22
f
11
B
v
12M
22
m
11
B
3
_
1
G
F
12
f
12
B

12M
12
m
12
B
3
_ _
6
5G
V
23
v
23
V
13
v
13
B
_ __
i
w
dx
1
dx
2
(5)
where L
i
s
, L
i
c
are the respective lengths of steel and concrete members i
r
; E, G are Youngs modulus
and shear modulus of the material; F
X
, F
Y
, F
Z
, M
X
, M
Y
and M
Z
are the frame element forces and
moments due to the actual loading condition; f
X
, f
Y
, f
Z
, m
X
, m
Y
and m
Z
are the frame element forces
and moments due to a unit virtual load applied to the building at the location of and in the direction
of displacement c; L
i
w
and D
i
w
are the wall element lengths along local axes 1 and 2, as shown in
Figure 4; B
i
w
is taken as the thickness of shell element i
w
; F
11
, F
22
, F
12
, V
13
, V
23
, M
11
, M
22
and M
12
are shell element internal forces and moments due to the actual loading conditions; f
11
, f
22
, f
12
, v
13
,
v
23
, m
11
, m
22
and m
12
, are the shell element internal forces and moments due to a unit virtual load
applied to the building at the location corresponding to displacement c; and v is the Poisson ratio.
Assuming that internal element forces and moments can be instantaneously xed after numerical
analysis of the structure and given the cross sectional relationships of equations (1) and (2) for each
structural element, the displacement c from equation (5) can be simplied to a concise and explicit
form in terms of the independent sizing variables as
c =
N
s
i
s
=1
C
i
s
A
i
s
C
/
i
s
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
C
0
ic
B
i
c
D
i
c
C
1
ic
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
C
2
ic
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _
N
w
i
w
=1
C
0
iw
B
i
w
C
1
iw
B
3
i
w
_ _
(6)
C
i
s
=
_
L
is
0
F
X
f
X
M
Y
m
Y
C
IY
M
Z
m
Z
C
IZ
E

F
Y
f
Y
C
AY
F
Z
f
Z
C
AZ
M
X
m
X
C
IX
G
_ _
i
s
dx (7a)
C
/
i
s
=
_
L
is
0
M
Y
m
Y
C
/
IY
M
Z
m
Z
C
/
IZ
E

F
Y
f
Y
C
/
AY
F
Z
f
Z
C
/
AY
M
X
m
X
C
/
IX
G
_ _
i
s
dx (7b)
C
0
ic
=
_
L
ic
0
F
X
f
X
E

F
Y
f
Y
F
Z
f
Z
5G,6
_ _
i
c
dx (7c)
C
1i
c
=
_
L
ic
0
M
Z
m
Z
E,12
_ _
i
c
dx (7d)
C
2i
c
=
_
L
ic
0
M
Y
m
Y
E,12

M
X
m
X
Gu
_ _
i
c
dx (7e)
C
0i
w
=
_
L
iw
0
_
D
iw
0
F
11
f
11
F
22
f
22
vF
11
f
22
vF
22
f
11
E

F
12
f
12
6
5
V
23
v
23
6
5
V
13
v
13
G
_ _
i
w
dx
1
dx
2
(7f )
C
1i
w
=
_
L
iw
0
_
D
iw
0
M
11
m
11
M
22
m
22
vM
11
m
22
vM
22
m
11
E,12

M
12
m
12
G,12
_ _
i
w
dx
1
dx
2
(7g)
As both the interstorey drift constraints of equation (4a) and the overall drift constraints of equation
(4b) are similar to each other, they can be simplied collectively into one single type of constraint for
the convenience of future discussion. The subscript (c, s, l) in the drift constraints of equation (4) can
be changed to a single subscript d to represent the dth constraint in a collective set of N
d
drift
Figure 4. Shell element internal forces
162 C.-M. CHAN
constraints, where N
d
is the total number of interstorey and overall building drift constraints for an S-
storey framework having concern for the drift control of C column lines under L lateral loading
conditions. Using the explicit displacement expression of equation (6), the drift constraints of equation
(4) can be expressed in terms of the design variable A
i
s
, B
i
c
, D
i
c
and B
i
w
as
d
d
=
N
s
i
s
=1
e
i
s
d
A
i
s
e
/
i
c
d
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
e
0i
c
d
B
i
c
D
i
c
e
1i
c
d
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
e
2i
c
d
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _
N
w
i
w
=1
e
0i
w
d
B
i
w
e
1i
w
d
B
3
i
w
_ _
_ d
U
d
(d = 1. 2. . . . . N
d
) (8)
where, for interstorey drifts.
e
i
s
d
=
C
i
s
csl
C
i
s
cs1l
h
s
; e
/
i
s
d
=
C
/
i
s
csl
C
/
i
s
cs1l
h
s
;
e
0i
c
d
=
C
0i
c
csl
C
0i
c
cs1l
h
s
; e
1i
c
d
=
C
1i
c
csl
C
1i
c
cs1l
h
s
; e
2i
c
d
=
C
2i
c
csl
C
2i
c
cs1l
h
s
e
0i
w
d
=
C
0i
w
csl
C
0i
w
cs1l
h
s
; e
1i
w
d
=
C
1i
w
csl
C
1i
w
cs1l
h
s
(9a)
and, for overall building drifts,
e
i
s
d
=
C
i
s
cSl
H
; e
/
i
s
d
=
C
/
i
s
cSl
H
e
0i
c
d
=
C
0i
c
cSl
H
; e
1i
c
d
=
C
1i
c
cSl
H
; e
2i
c
d
=
C
2i
c
cSl
H
(9b)
e
0i
w
d
=
C
0i
w
cSl
H
; e
1i
w
d
=
C
1i
w
cSl
H
2.32. Wind-induced vibrations
It is widely accepted that wind-induced acceleration has become the standard for evaluation of motion
perception in buildings (Ellingwood, 1989; Grifs, 1993). Semi-empirical formulas have been derived
from numerous wind tunnel studies to predict the acceleration responses of buildings in an urban
environment. These formulas are expressed in terms of the wind velocity and the buildings shape,
damping ratio, mass and fundamental natural periods (Tallin and Ellingwood, 1984; Vickery et al.,
1983). Wind-induced accelerations can be reduced by changing the building shape to maintain better
aerodynamic stability, but, unfortunately, this is often beyond the control of the engineer. In practice,
the mass of a building is hardly changeable and it has not been common to design damping into a
structural system. A common approach to suppressing wind-induced vibrations remains limiting the
natural periods.
Using the Rayleigh method, the fundamental circular frequency of vibration . for an undamped
structure can be found by equating the maximum kinetic energy of the system at zero displacement to
the work done by the inertia forces as the system moves from zero to maximum displacement, as
follows:
1
2
.
2
c
T
Mc (kinetic energy) =
1
2
c
T
F (work done by inertia forces) (10)
=.
2
=
c
T
F
c
T
Mc
=
c
T
Kc
c
T
Mc
=
K
+
M
+
(11)
where M, M* are the structure mass matrix and generalized mass; K, K* are the structure stiffness
matrix and generalized stiffness; f is the the computed mode shape under the inertia force F.
Initially, if the structure has circular frequency .
o
and mode shape f
o
, the inertia force F can be
obtained as .
2
o
Mc
o
.For an undamped hybrid structure, the external work done by static inertia force
F is equal to the total internal work W represented as the sum of work contributions from each
member
W =
N
s
i
s
=1
_
L
is
0
F
2
X
EA
F
2
Y
GA
Y
F
2
Z
GA
Z
M
2
X
GI
X
M
2
Y
EI
Y
M
2
Z
EI
Z
_ _
i
s
dx
N
c
i
c
=1
_
L
ic
0
F
2
X
EA
F
2
Y
GA
Y
F
2
Z
GA
Z
M
2
X
GI
X
M
2
Y
EI
Y
M
2
Z
EI
Z
_ _
i
c
dx
N
w
i
w
=1
_
L
iw
0
_
D
iw
0
1
E
F
2
11
B

12M
2
11
B
3

F
2
22
B

12M
2
22
B
3
v
F
11
F
22
B
v
12M
11
M
22
B
3
_ _
v
F
22
F
11
B
v
12M
22
M
11
B
3
_
1
G
F
2
12
B

12M
2
12
B
3
_ _
6
5G
V
2
23
V
2
13
B
_ __
i
w
dx
1
dx
2
(12)
where F
X
, F
Y
, F
Z
, M
X
, M
Y
and M
Z
are the internal frame element forces and moments due to the
external inertia loading condition; F
11
, F
22
, F
12
, V
13
, V
23
, M
11
, M
22
and M
12
are the shell element
internal forces and moments due to the external inertia loading condition.
Using again the section properties relationships of equations (1) and ((2)), the total internal work of
equation (12) can be expressed in terms of explicit functions of the sizing variables as
W =
N
s
i
s
=1
e
i
s
A
i
s
e
/
i
c
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
e
0i
c
B
i
c
D
i
c
e
1i
c
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
e
2i
c
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _
N
w
i
w
=1
e
0i
w
B
i
w
e
1i
w
B
3
i
w
_ _
(13)
164 C.-M. CHAN
where
e
i
s
=
_
L
is
0
F
2
X
M
2
Y
C
IY
M
2
Z
C
IZ
E

F
2
Y
C
AY
F
2
Z
C
AZ
M
2
X
C
IX
G
_ _
i
s
dx (14a)
e
/
i
s
=
_
L
is
0
M
2
Y
C
/
IY
M
2
Z
C
/
IZ
E

F
2
Y
C
/
AY
F
2
Z
C
/
AY
M
2
X
C
/
IX
G
_ _
i
s
dx (14b)
e
0i
c
=
_
L
ic
0
F
2
X
E

F
2
Y
F
2
Z
5G,6
_ _
i
c
dx (14c)
e
1i
c
=
_
L
ic
0
M
2
Z
E,12
_ _
i
c
dx (14d)
e
2i
c
=
_
L
ic
0
M
2
Y
E,12
M
2
X
Gu
_ _
i
c
dx (14e)
e
0i
w
=
_
L
iw
0
_
D
iw
0
F
2
11
F
2
22
vF
11
F
22
vF
22
F
11
E

F
2
12
6
5
V
2
23
6
5
V
2
13
G
_ _
i
w
dx
1
dx
2
(14f )
e
1i
w
=
_
L
iw
0
_
D
iw
0
M
2
11
M
2
22
vM
11
M
22
vM
22
M
11
E,12

M
2
12
G,12
_ _
i
w
dx
1
dx
2
(14g)
By denition, the natural period T is inversely related to the circular frequency . by
T =
2
.
(15)
To limit the natural period T, one can increase . by increasing the structure stiffness according to
equations (10) and (15). If one temporarily assumes constant initial inertia force F such that the
internal member forces and moments are invariant, an increase in the structure stiffness can be
achieved by increasing member sizes and thus reducing the internal work W. Assuming that the initial
mode shape f
o
, interia force F and structure mass M are invariant, one can limit the natural period T by
the following explicit equivalent design constraint on internal work:
W =
N
s
i
s
=1
e
i
s
A
i
s
e
/
i
c
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
e
0i
c
B
i
c
D
i
c
e
1i
c
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
e
2i
c
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _
N
w
i
w
=1
e
0i
w
B
i
w
e
1i
w
B
3
i
w
_ _
_ W
U
(16)
where the allowable work limit W
U
can be shown to be equal to (T
U
/T
o
)
2
(W
o
), in which T
U
is the
targeted natural period, T
o
is the initial natural period and W
o
is the initial strain energy for the
framework having the original member sizes.
Under the inuence of dynamic wind loads, tall buildings vibrate in the along-wind, across-wind
and torsional directions. Normally, there is one natural period to be limited in each of these three wind
sensitive directions, i.e. two translational and one torsional mode of vibration. While slight
modications on the Rayleigh method are needed to obtain a higher mode shape and frequency, the
same form of explicit strain energy constraints as given by equation (16) can be expressed for t = 1, 2,
, N
t
multiple natural period constraints as
W
t
=
N
s
i
s
=1
e
i
s
t
A
i
s
e
/
i
c
t
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
e
0i
c
t
B
i
c
D
i
c
e
1i
c
t
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
e
2i
c
t
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _
N
w
i
w
=1
e
0i
w
t
B
i
w
e
1i
w
t
B
3
i
w
_ _
_ W
U
t
(17)
where t denotes the modal number of vibration and N
t
is the total number of natural period constraints.
2.4. Explict problem formulation
Recognizing the fact that the explicit lateral drift of equation (8) and equivalent period constraint of
equation (17) are very much alike, one can collectively express the optimal structure cost design
problem by j = 1, 2, , N
g
stiffness constraints in terms of sizing variables A
i
s
, B
i
c
, D
i
c
, B
i
w
as follows:
Minimize:
Cost =
N
s
i
s
=1
(w
i
s
A
i
s
)
N
c
i
c
=1
(w
i
c
B
i
c
D
i
c
)
N
w
i
w
=1
(w
i
w
B
i
w
) (18a)
subject to:
g
j
(A
i
s
. B
i
c
. D
i
c
. B
i
w
) =
N
s
i
s
=1
e
i
s
j
A
i
s
e
/
i
c
j
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
e
0i
c
j
B
i
c
D
i
c
e
1i
c
j
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
e
2i
c
j
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _
N
w
i
w
=1
e
0i
w
j
B
i
w
e
1i
w
j
B
3
i
w
_ _
_ g
U
j
(j = 1. 2. . . . . N
g
) (18b)
A
L
i
s
_ A
i
s
_ A
U
i
s
(i
s
= 1. 2. . . . . N
s
) (18c)
B
L
i
c
_ B
i
c
_ B
U
i
c
(i
c
= 1. 2. . . . . N
c
) (18d)
D
L
i
c
_ D
i
c
_ D
U
i
c
(i
c
= 1. 2. . . . . N
c
) (18e)
B
L
i
w
_ B
i
w
_ B
U
i
w
(i
w
= 1. 2. . . . . N
w
) (18f )
Equation (18b) denotes the stiffness constraints, where the constraint g
s
with subscript j = 1, 2, , N
d
represents the static drift constraint in which g
U
j
= d
U
d
as given in equation (8); the constraint g
j
with
subscript j = N
d
1, , N
d
N
t
represents the period constraint in which g
U
j
= W
U
t
as given in
equation (17). In the case of having a set of multiple drift and period constraints, the value N
s
represents the total number of stiffness design constraints, i.e. equal to N
d
N
t
. Equations (18c)(18f)
specify each design variable to be selected from its lower bound size and upper bound size.
Note that the energy based formulation of explicit stiffness constraints is only an approximation but
yet more highly accurate than the common approach derived from the rst-order sensitivity
166 C.-M. CHAN
approximation of the structure stiffness. The energy based approximation is more accurate because
stiffness constraints have been calculated from element forces and moments that are usually somewhat
invariant due to moderate changes in element sizes. This peculiar phenomenon is particularly true for
tall buildings, since these structures, in a global sense, are inherently cantilevers such that the storey
shear and overturning moment at each oor are determined statically. The use of the explicit equation
(18b) not only allows for updating stiffness constraints for any instantaneous changes in design
variables, but also leads to accurate representation of the stiffness design problem of tall buildings
resulting in rapid convergence in the design process. Furthermore, the explicit stiffness formulation
can be generated rather easily by most common nite element analysis software and does not require
information about stiffness matrices, normally required by other sensitivity techniques but not usually
readily available to most analysis packages.
3. OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE
Upon formulating the design optimization problem for the serviceability requirements of a tall steel
building framework, the next task is to apply a suitable method for solving the problem. A rigorously
derived optimality criteria (OC) method, which has been shown computationally very efcient for
large-scale structures, is employed (Venkayya et al. 1973, Chan et al., 1995). The OC method rst
involves the derivation of a set of necessary OC for the design. Then, a recursive algorithm is applied
to resize the structure to satisfy the optimality conditions and thus indirectly optimize the structure.
3.1. Derivation of optimality criteria
In classical optimization theory, the necessary OC for the constrained optimal design problem
(equation (18) can be obtained indirectly by rst converting the constrained problem to an uncon-
strained Lagrangian funtion and then solving for the stationary condition of the Lagrangian function.
Temporarily omitting the sizing constraints of equations (18c)(18f), the unconstrained Lagrangian
function can be formulated as
L(A
i
s
. B
i
c
. D
i
c
. B
i
w
. `
s
) =
N
s
i
s
=1
(w
i
s
A
i
s
)
N
c
i
c
=1
(w
i
c
B
i
c
D
i
c
)
N
w
i
w
=1
(w
i
w
B
i
w
)
_ _
N
g
j=1
`
j
N
s
i
s
=1
e
i
s
j
A
i
s
E
/
i
c
j
_ _
N
c
i
c
=1
e
0i
c
j
B
i
c
D
i
c
e
1i
c
j
B
i
c
D
3
i
c
e
2i
c
j
B
3
i
c
D
i
c
_ _ _
N
w
i
w
=1
e
0i
w
j
B
i
w
e
1i
w
j
B
3
i
w
_ __
(19)
The rst part of the Lagrangian function describes the structure cost, whereas the second part involves
the design constraints multiplied by their corresponding Lagrange multipliers, `
j
. For minimization
problems, the Lagrange multipliers must be positive for active constraints (i.e. g
j
= g
U
j
),or equal to
zero for inactive constraints (i.e. g
j
5 g
U
j
). Differentiating the Lagrangian function of equation (19)
with respect to each type of design variable and setting the derivatives to zero, one can obtain the
following necessary stationary conditions:
0L
0A
i
s
= 0 =
N
g
j=1
`
j
(
e
i
s
j
w
i
s
A
2
i
s
) = 1 (i
s
= 1. 2. . . . . N
s
) (20a)
0L
0B
i
c
= 0 =
N
g
j=1
`
j
e
0i
c
j
w
i
c
B
2
i
c
D
2
i
c
e
1i
c
j
w
i
c
B
2
i
c
D
4
i
c
3e
2i
c
j
w
i
c
B
4
i
c
D
2
i
c
_ _
= 1 (i
c
= 1. 2. . . . . N
c
) (20b)
0L
0D
i
c
= 0 =
N
g
j=1
`
j
w
i
c
e
0i
c
j
B
2
i
c
D
2
i
c
3e
1i
c
j
B
2
i
c
D
4
i
c
e
2i
c
j
B
4
i
c
D
2
i
c
_ _
= 1 (i
c
= 1. 2. . . . . N
c
) (20c)
0L
0B
i
w
= 0 =
N
g
j=1
`
j
w
i
w
e
0i
w
j
B
2
i
c
3e
2i
w
j
B
4
i
c
_ _
= 1 (i
w
= 1. 2. . . . . N
w
) (20d)
Equations (20a)(20d) represent the necessary optimality conditions for the optimal solution and they
have a valuable meaning for design. Each Lagrangian multiplier `
j
can be interpreted as a sensitivity
weighting factor that measures the importance of the corresponding jth constraint to the optimal
design. The larger the value of `
j
, the more inuential is the constraint on the optimum design. When a
constraint does not affect the design, the corresponding `
j
diminishes to zero. The quantity in
parenthesis, as shown in equations (20a)(20d), represents the change in the element strain energy
corresponding to the jth constraint for unit change in the element cost. Since the element strain energy
can be interpreted as the work contribution of the element to the corresponding constraint, equations
(20a)(20d) state that the weighted sum of the work contribution to all constraints must be the same for
each element design variable. For the case of only one stiffness constraint, `
j
is a constant that applies
to all elements and equations (20a)(20d) lead to the condition that the work contribution per unit cost
of each member is uniform or, in fact, equal to 1/`
j
.
3.2. Recursive resizing algorithm
Equations (20a)(20d) are stationary conditions, equal to unity at the optimum, that can be used to
derive a linear recursive relation for the active sizing variables (i.e. those variables that are within the
size bounds and are free to participate in the optimization) as follows:
A
v1
i
s
= A
v
i
s
1
1
j
N
g
j=1
`
j
w
i
e
i
s
j
A
2
i
s
_ _
1
_ _
v
_ _
for active A
i
s
(21a)
B
v1
i
c
= B
v
i
c
1
1
j
N
g
j=1
`
j
w
i
c
e
0i
c
j
B
2
i
c
D
2
i
c
e
1i
c
j
B
2
i
c
D
4
i
c
3e
2i
c
j
B
4
i
c
D
2
i
c
_ _
1
_ _
v
_ _
for active B
i
w
(21b)
D
v1
i
c
= D
v
i
c
1
1
j
N
g
j=1
`
j
w
i
c
e
0i
c
j
B
2
i
c
D
2
i
c
3e
1i
c
j
B
2
i
c
D
4
i
c
e
2i
c
j
B
4
i
c
D
2
i
c
_ _
1
_ _
v
_ _
for active D
i
c
(21c)
B
v1
i
w
= B
v
i
w
1
1
j
N
g
j=1
`
j
w
i
w
e
0i
w
j
B
2
i
w
3e
1i
w
j
B
4
i
w
_ _
1
_ _
v
_ _
for active B
i
w
(21d)
168 C.-M. CHAN
where v and v 1 denote the current and successive iteration numbers; and j is a relaxation parameter
that can be adaptively adjusted to control the rate of convergence. Note that the resizing relations of
equations (21a)(20c) are only applicable for active members having their element sizes within their
lower and upper size bounds. Any member reaching its size bounds during the recursive iteration is
deemed an inactive member having its size set to its corresponding size limit.
Before equations (21a)(20d) can be used to resize the sizing design variables, the Lagrange
multipliers `
j
must rst be determined. Considering the sensitivity of the kth drift constraint due to the
changes in the design variables, i.e.
g
U
j
g
v
j
=
N
A
i
s
=1
0g
j
0A
i
s
_ _
(A
v1
i
s
A
v
i
s
)
N
B
i
c
=1
0g
j
0B
i
c
_ _
(B
v1
i
c
B
v
i
c
)
N
D
i
c
=1
0g
j
0D
i
c
_ _
(D
v1
i
c
D
v
i
c
)
N
W
i
w
=1
0g
j
0B
i
w
_ _
(B
v1
i
w
B
v
i
w
) (22)
a set of simultaneous linear equations in terms of `
s
can be obtained as follows:
N
g
j=1
`
j
N
A
i
s
=1
e
isj
e
isk
w
is
A
3
is
_ _
N
B
i
c
=1
1
w
ic
B
3
ic
D
3
ic
e
0i
c
j
e
1icj
D
2
ic
3e
2icj
B
2
ic
_ _
e
0i
c
k
e
1ick
D
2
ic
3e
2ick
B
2
ic
_ _
N
D
i
c
=1
1
w
ic
B
3
ic
D
3
ic
e
0ij
3e
1ij
D
2
ic
e
2ij
B
2
ic
_ _
e
0i
c
k
3e
1ik
D
2
ic
e
2ik
B
2
ic
_ _
N
W
i
w
=1
1
w
iw
B
3
iw
D
3
iw
e
0i
w
j
3e
1iwj
B
2
iw
_ _
e
0i
w
k
3e
1iwk
B
2
iw
_ _
_
_
_
_
v
=
N
A
i
s
=1
e
i
s
k
A
i
s
_ _
v
N
B
i
c
=1
1
B
v
i
c
D
v
i
c
e
0i
c
k
e
1i
c
k
D
2
i
c
3e
2i
c
k
B
2
i
c
_ _
v
N
D
i
c
=1
1
B
v
i
c
D
v
i
c
e
0i
c
k
3e
1i
c
k
D
2
i
c
e
2i
c
k
B
2
i
c
_ _
v
N
W
i
w
=1
1
B
v
i
w
D
v
i
w
e
0i
w
k
3e
1i
w
k
B
2
i
w
_ _
v
j(g
U
k
g
v
k
) (k = 1. 2. . . . . N
g
) (23)
where N
A
is the number of active steel sizing variables; N
B
and N
D
are the number of active width and
depth sizing variables for concrete elements; and N
W
is the number of active wall thickness variables.
Equations (21) for the sizing variables and equations (23) for the Lagrange multipliers form the basis
of the iterative OC algorithm for the solution of the design problem of equation (18). Having the
current sizing variables A
v
i
s
. B
v
i
c
. D
v
i
c
and B
v
i
w
,the corresponding `
j
v
values are readily determined by
solving the simultaneous equations (23). Having the current values of `
j
v
, the new set of design
variables A
v1
i
s
. B
v1
i
c
. D
v1
i
c
and B
v1
i
w
can then be obtained by the respective recursive relations (21a)
(21d).
Note that the OC optimization technique developed herein allows for simultaneous consideration of
multiple sets of serviceability constraints involving building top drift together with interstorey drifts
and the translational periods as well as the rotational periods.
Once the continuous optimal solution is obtained, one may have to nalize the design with discrete
standard steel sections and concrete dimensions to be rounded up to the nearest 10 mm. A pseudo-
discrete OC technique (Chan, 1992) can be adopted to achieve a smooth transition from the continuous
variable design to the optimal nal design using element sizes of discrete dimensions. The essence of
the pseudo-discrete OC technique is to maintain the least changes in the structure cost while members
are progressively assigned discrete section sizes. Further details of the pseudo-discrete OC technique
can be found in references by Chan (1992).
3.3. Overall design procedure
The procedure to implement the optimal design method for limiting lateral drifts and natural periods of
tall hybrid steel and concrete building structures is listed as follows.
(1) Analyse the structure under wind and gravity loads as well as virtual loads.
(2) Design members to satisfy strength requirements in accordance with code specications and
adopt the strength-based member size as the lower size bound for each member.
(3) Establish the explicit drift constraint of equation (8).
(4) Perform an eigenvalue analysis to nd the initial natural periods (T
0
) and corresponding mode
shapes (f
0
) for the structure.
(5) Compute an inertia force F = .
2
0
Mc
0
for each vibration mode and analyse statically the
structure under inertia force.
(6) Compute the explicit equivalent period constraints of equation (17).
(7) Combine both explicit drift and period constraints, and establish size bounds for members to
form the explicit design optimization problem of equation (18).
(8) Apply the recursive optimization algorithm of equations (21) and (23) until optimal member
sizes are obtained.
(9) If the structure is statically indeterminate, return to step (1) to repeat the design process until the
structure cost converges to a continuous optimal value; otherwise, apply a pseudo-discrete
section selection procedure to nalize the optimal design with discrete section sizes and
terminate with the optimal building structure.
4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: 88-STOREY NORTH EAST TOWER
The preliminary design of the superstructure for the North East Tower consists of a mixed use of
structural steel and reinforced concrete (Gibbons et al., 1998). It includes a central reinforced concrete
core wall linked to eight exterior composite mega-columns by three levels of steel outriggers. Figures
57 present an exterior view, a 3D computer model and a typical oor plan of the Tower. With an
overall aspect ratio of 76:1 and the severe wind conditions in Hong Kong, the structural design of the
Tower is primarily governed by lateral serviceability stiffness criteria. In order to investigate the
optimal proportions of the structural elements that contribute to the lateral stiffness of the tower, two
key design objectives were dened at the outset of the optimization study. While the rst objective was
to minimize the structural material cost of the Tower, the second objective was to minimize the overall
structural cost involving both the material cost and the cost associated with the oor area occupied by
vertical elements. Construction cost coefcients adopted for various structural elements were based on
the approximate market values at the time of the study. It should be noted that the specied cost
coefcients are only estimated data at the time of the study and do not necessarily represent the actual
cost of the building.
Both orthogonal and diagonal wind loading conditions obtained from wind tunnel tests were
considered in this study. Under each wind condition, the lateral top deection was limited to H/400 and
170 C.-M. CHAN
the interstorey drift was limited to h/300, where H is the overall height of the building above the pile
cap level and h is the storey height. It should be noted that overall top drift and interstorey drift
performance criteria are the major design issues adopted for the purpose of this study at a very early
Figure 5. Exterior view
stage in the design. Design considerations addressed subsequently also included the issue of
acceleration performance criteria. For constructability reasons, core wall panels, as well as the mega-
columns, on opposite faces were grouped symmetrically to have the same sizes with respect to each
perpendicular direction. All elements were to be sized within practical lower and upper size bound
limits as shown in Table I. The lower bound limits correspond typically the minimum strength-based
sizes whilst the upper bound limits represent the largest buildable dimensions for structural elements.
Figure 6. Computer model
172 C.-M. CHAN
Along the height of the building, the mega-columns were sized in four different zones. Variations in
wall thickness were considered whenever it was deemed appropriate, but were not allowed to have
more than one variation for every 810 storeys. Lintel beams were sized to have their width to be the
same as the thickness of adjacently connected walls and their maximum to maintain a minimum
headroom. The outrigger steel members were modelled as truss elements while the concrete lintel
beams were modelled as frame elements and the shear walls as shell elements. Each composite mega-
column mobilized by the outriggers is idealized as a pair of two axially jointed truss elements
representing, respectively, the steel and concrete materials involved in the composite mega-columns.
4.1. Results and discussions
The lateral deections and interstorey drift ratios of the building under the most critical diagonal wind
loading condition are shown in Figure 8. Initially, some violations have been found in both the overall
lateral deection and interstorey drift ratios near the top of the building. In terms of interstorey drift
ratios, all storeys above the 70th level are found to exceed the limit of 1/300 with the most critical
violation, at the 87th level, having a drift ratio of 1/234 (i.e. 282 per cent violation). For the overall
building deection, an initial violation of 115 per cent in the top deection has been found. At the
optimum, both the top deection and interstorey drift constraints are found to be simultaneously active
with their most critical values reaching their allowable limits. In any event, the optimization
guarantees design quality assurance that the nal design must satisfy the specied drift performance
requirements for the building.
Figure 9 shows the design history of the optimization process for the building. The results of
normalized structure costs (with respect to the initial cost) are presented for each design cycle, which
includes the numerical computation of one structural reanalysis and one resizing optimization process.
Rapid and steady solution convergence is found in a few design cycles for the two optimization runs
considered in this paper. In other words, with the time required for the order of only a few additional
Figure 7. Typical oor plan
analyses of the structure, the optimal distribution of element sizes of the building has been achieved by
the optimization technique. In addition to quick solution convergence, the nal design is found to be
not only stiffer, but also more economical, than the initial design. With the complexity and scale of the
88-storey composite steel and concrete building, such results obtained demonstrate clearly the
efciency and effectiveness of the optimal design technique. It is believed that the results could not
have been easily achieved by the traditional trial-and-error design method.
Table II presents a summary breakdown of the non-dimensionalized cost distribution of various key
structural components of the tower for the two optimization runs. When the impact of oor area on the
benets of revenue is considered in the overall cost optimization run, the optimization recommends a
substantial increase in the steel materials in the outriggers, since the outrigger materials, being located
within mechanical and refuge oor zones, do not occupy usable oor space. A close look at the
proportions of the composite mega-columns indicates that the steel quantities in these columns are also
increased. Although the outcome of the increase in the more expensive steel material results in an 81
per cent increase in the total material cost of the structure, the savings in oor areas by the reduction in
the concrete of the core wall and the composite mega-columns achieve approximately a 91 per cent
reduction in the total overall cost. Optimization run 2, while taking into account the benet of usable
oor area savings, did identify zones within the tower where the wall thicknesses and the mega-
column sections could be reduced. In fact, much of the usable oor area saving is found on the more
valuable upper levels of the building.
Table I. Size limits for major structural elements of the North East Tower
Core wall Thickness
Perimeter walls (mm) Interior walls (mm)
Location Original Lower limit Upper limit Original Lower limit Upper limit
BaseG/F 2000 2000 2000 1000 1000 2000
1/F5/F 1500 1500 1750 450 100 450
6/F12/F 1000 1000 1500 450 100 450
13/F21/F 1000 1250 100 450
22/F34/F 1000 1250 100 450
35/F44/F 850 750 1250 450 100 450
45/F54/F 700 1000 100 450
55/F64/F 750 600 1000 450 100 450
65/F69/F 600 1000 100 450
70/F75/F 650 500 750 450 100 450
76/FRoof 500 750 450 100 450
Cross Sectioned Area of Composite mega-columns
Location Steel (m
2
) Concrete (m
2
)
Base7/F 05 _A
s
_15 60 _A
c
_80
8/F1st outrigger (8/F32/F) 03 _A
s
_10 55 _A
c
_80
1st2nd outrigger (33/F52/F) 02 _A
s
_06 30 _A
c
_65
2nd3rd outrigger (53/F67/F) 005 _A
s
_025 15 _A
c
_50
All cross sectional areas of outrigger elements should be less than 075 m
2
.
174 C.-M. CHAN
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a computer based optimization technique for the design of practical tall hybrid
mixed steel and concrete buildings encountered in professional practice. The technique developed is
also applicable to either pure steel or concrete tall buildings. The optimizaton technique is based on a
rigorously derived optimality criteria method, which has been found to be particularly useful for tall
buildings involving many design variables but yet with relatively few design constraints. The
efciency of the technique is mainly inuenced by the number of design constraints and is only weakly
Figure 8. Lateral drift response under the most critical wind condition
Figure 9. Design history
dependent on the number of design variables. Moreover, rapid and steady converging design history is
generally found since the energy based formulation of design constraints has exploited to advantage
the peculiar behaviour of building framework that the member force distributions for such structures
are somewhat insensitive to changes in member sizes. The outcome of the actual 88-storey building
project has clearly demonstrated that the optimization technique can now allow for economical, least
cost structures for tall buildings subject to critical wind drift and vibration constraints. Not only was
the optimal distribution of construction materials for the lateral resisting system of the tall building
achieved, but also minimum impact on oor area was attained while ensuring all specied design
performance requirements were satised. When used properly, the computer aided optimization
technique is a powerful practical design tool that can guide designers to the most efcient and
economical tall building structures which could not have been easily achieved otherwise by the
traditional trial-and-error design procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this paper was partially supported by Ove Arup and Partners (HK) Ltd., and the
Research Grant Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. HKUST6226/
98E). Special thanks are also due to the developers of the North East Towerthe Central Waterfront
Property Project Management Co. Ltd., a joint venture between Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. and
Henderson Land Development Co. Ltd., Bank of China Group Investment Ltd., the Hong Kong &
China Gas Co. Ltd., and the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC).
REFERENCES
Ad Hoc Committee on Serviceability Research. 1986. Structural serviceability: a critical appraisal and research
needs. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 112(12): 26462664.
Berke L, Khot NS. 1970. Use of optimality criteria method for large scale systems. NATO AGARD-LS-70.
Chan C-M. 1992. An optimality criteria algorithm for tall steel building design using commercial standard
sections. Structural Optimization 5: 2629.
Chan C-M, Grierson DE, Sherbourne AN. 1995. Automatic optimal design of tall steel building frameworks.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 121(5): 838847.
Chan C-M. 1997. How to optimize tall steel building frameworks. In ASCE Manuals and Report on Engineering
Practice, No. 90, Guide to Structural Optimization, J. Arora (ed.). ASCE; 165195.
Chan C-M. 1998. Optimal stiffness design to limit static and dynamic wind responses of tall steel buildings.
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Third Quarter: 94105.
Chan C-M, Gibbons C, MacArthur J. 1998. Structural optimization of the North East Tower, Hong Kong Central
Station. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Tall Buildings, Hong Kong: 319324.
Table II. Non-dimensional cost comparison with respect to the total cost for run 1
Elements (1) Minimum material cost (2) Minimum overall cost Difference (%)
Core 0368 0364 10
Mega-columns 0478 0496 37
Top outrigger 0041 0057 390
Middle outrigger 0052 0074 420
Bottom outrigger 0061 0090 475
Total material cost 1000 1081 81
Floor area occupied 0 0172
Total cost 100 0909 91
176 C.-M. CHAN
Cheng FY, Truman KZ. 1983. Optimization algorithm of 3D building frames for static and seismic loadings.
Modeling and Simulation in Engineering. Ames F (ed.). North-Holland Pub. Co.: 315326.
Choi CK, Lee DG, Lee HW. 1991. Optimization for large-scale steel structures with discrete sections. Computers
and Structures 39(5): 547556.
Ellingwood B. 1989. Serviceability guidelines for steel structures. Engineering Structures, American Institute of
Steel Construction, First Quarter: 18.
Gibbons C, Lee ACC, MacArthur J. 1998. Design of North East Tower, Hong Kong Station. In Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference of Tall Buildings, Hong Kong: 126132.
Grifs L. 1993. Serviceability limit states under wind load. Engineering Structures, American Institute of Steel
Construction, First Quarter: 116.
Manual of Steel ConstructionLoad and Resistance Factor Design. 1986. 2nd edn. American Institute of Steel
Construction: Chicago, IL.
Stafford Smith B, Coull A. 1991. Building Structures: Analysis and Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tabak EI, Wright PM. 1981. Optimality criteria method for building frames. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE
107(7): 13271342.
Tallin A, Ellingwood B. 1984. Serviceability limit states: wind induced vibrations. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 110(10): 24242437.
Vickery BJ, Isyumov N, Davenport AG. 1983. The role of damping, mass and stiffness in the reduction of wind
effects on structures. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 11: 285294.
Venkayya VB, Khot NS, Berke L. 1973. Application of optimality criteria approaches to automated design of
large practical structures. In Second Symporium on Structural Optimization (AGARD-CP-123), North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), Milan, Italy: 31319.
Zhou M, Rozvany GIN. 1992. DCOC: an optimality criteria method for large SystemsPart I: Theory. Structural
Optimization 5(12): 1225.

Optimal Lateral Stiffness Design of Tall Buildings of Mixed Steel and Concrete Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimal Lateral Stiffness Design of Tall Buildings of Mixed Steel and Concrete Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPTIMAL LATERAL STIFFNESS DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS

OF MIXED STEEL AND CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

You might also like