Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development

(ICCESD-2012), 23~24 March 2012, KUET, Khulna, Bangladesh (ISBN: 978-984-33-4247-8)

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN DRIFT CONTROL OF TALL BUILDINGS

DUE TO WIND LOAD: CRITICAL ANALYSES OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS.

Md. Mashfiqul Islam1, Ashfia Siddique2, Arefin Murshed3*

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology,
Dhaka 1208, Bangladesh, e-mail: mashfiq7777@yahoo.com.
2
Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology,
Dhaka 1208, Bangladesh, e-mail: ashfia2002@yahoo.com.
3
Sr. Assistant Manager (Engineering), Multiplan Development Ltd.,
Dhaka 1205, Bangladesh, e-mail: arefinmurshed@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT
The concept of sustainability should be included in consideration of structural systems during the design and
construction of tall buildings (more than 10 storied). The provision of adequate lateral stiffness is also major
consideration during selecting proper structural systems for tall buildings. A tall flexible structure subjected to
lateral deflection due to the action of fluctuating wind resulting oscillatory movements may induce mild
discomfort to acute nausea to the occupants. In this regard, this paper provides results from critical analyses of
the structural systems to control the drift (lateral deflection) of tall buildings using STAAD.Pro 2006. Framed
system, shear wall-frame system, braced-frame system, tubular system, outrigger system and also hybrid
structural systems are analyzed in this research. Braced system and shear wall system are efficient in reduction
of drift. Hybrid shear wall-bracing system and large-scale diagonal bracing system are found to be most
effective in controlling the drift of tall buildings.

Keywords: Sustainable development, tall buildings, structural systems, wind loads and drift control.

1. INTRODUCTION
Sustainable development of drift control refers to maintain the lateral deflection of tall building at sufficiently
low level to allow the proper functioning of nonstructural components (elevators, escalators etc.) and to avoid
distress in the structure, to prevent excessive cracking due to deflection and consequent loss of stiffness. The
adopted structural system should be sufficiently stiff to prevent dynamic motions (due to wind and seismic
loading) becoming large enough to cause discomfort to occupants, prevent delicate work being undertaken,
affect sensitive equipment and to avoid any redistribution of load to non-loadbearing portions or infills. One
simple parameter to estimate the lateral stiffness of a building is the drift index, defined as the ratio of maximum
deflection at the top of the building to the height due to lateral forces (Smith & Coull, 1991). As per ASCE 7-05
(2005), the limit for drift index is below 0.0025. For conventional structures the preferred acceptable range is
0.0015 to 0.003 and sufficient stiffness must be provided to ensure that the top deflection does not exceed the
value under extreme loading condition (Smith & Coull 1991, Islam et. al. 2011). The shear walls are often parts
of the elevator and service cores, while the frames are arranged in plan, and they are linked by floor slabs such
that the building will deflect as a structure with rigid section. When a wall-frame structure is loaded laterally,
the wall deflects in a flexural mode with concavity downward and a maximum slope at the top, and the frame
deflects in a shear mode with concavity upward and a maximum slope at the base. Accordingly, the deflected
shape of the whole structure has a flexural profile in the lower part and a shear profile in the upper part. The
interacting forces cause the wall to restrain the frame near the base and the frames to support the wall at the top,
and thus reduce the lateral drift of the structure. The major advantages of a wall-frame structure depend on the
amount of horizontal interaction, which is governed by the relative stiffness of the walls and frames, and the
height of the structure. The key idea in limiting the wind drift in a tall building is by changing the structural
form of the building into something more rigid and stable to confine the deformation and increase stability. The
 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD-2012)

stiffness (rigidity) and stability requirements become more important as the height of the structure increases, and
they are often the dominant factors in the design (El-Leithy et. al. 2011).

An important problem associated with wind induced motion of buildings is concerned with human response to
vibration and perception of motion. At this point it will suffice to note that humans are surprisingly sensitive to
vibration to the extent that motions may feel uncomfortable even if they correspond to relatively low levels of
stress and strain. Therefore, for most tall buildings serviceability considerations govern the design and not
strength issues (Mendis et. al. 2007).

The major factors that has to be taken into account in selecting the appropriate structural system includes the
internal planning, the material and method of construction, the external architectural treatment, the planned
location and routing of the service systems, the nature and magnitude of horizontal loading and the height and
proportions of the building. Common structural systems are framed system, braced-frame system, rigid-frame
system, infilled-frame system, flat-plate and flat-slab system, shear wall and coupled-shear wall system, shear
wall-frame system, framed-tube (tubular) system, tube-in-tube and bundled-tube system, braced-tube system,
outrigger-braced system, suspended structure system, core structure system, space structure system, hybrid
structure system etc. In this paper, the structural systems are critically analyzed to identify the sustainable option
to control the drift of tall buildings.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PLANS AND NUMERICAL MODELING

Six major structural systems are selected to investigate the drift pattern due to lateral loading; they are framed
system, braced-frame system, tubular system, shear wall-frame system, outrigger-braced system and hybrid
system. A 20 storied frame system is considered as a prototype model for the analysis. The plan of framed
system and shear wall-frame system are shown in Figure 1(a) and (b). Table 1 provides the short description of
the structural system analyzed in this research work.

(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) Plan of the framed system tall building, (b) plan of the shear wall-frame system tall building.

The tall buildings of different structural system are modeled considering 20 stories with story height 12.5ft using
STAAD.Pro 2006, which is a structural analysis software. The thickness of the shear walls are considered 12in.
The sizes of the beams are 12in x 20in and columns are 24in x 24in. The thickness of the shear walls are
considered 12in, the cross sections of all the bracings are considered 12in x 12in and cross section of the
outrigger beam is considered 12in x 48in. The wind load is applied as per BNBC (1993) considering exposure
condition A and wind velocity 210 km/hr. Thus the lateral deflection due earthquake is much less compared to
the wind load so wind load is considered as the governing lateral load for drift analysis in this research. Fixed
support is applied at the base of the structures.

2
 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD-2012)

Table 1: Description of the structural systems

Type of structural system I.D. Drift index Description Figure

Framed system F1 0.0103 Rigid frame system 2(a)
F2 0.0029 Rigid frame system (beam size 2x)
F3 0.0069 Rigid frame system (column size 2x)
Braced-frame system B1 0.0024 Large-scale diagonal bracing (only at Ext. frame) 2(b)
B2 0.0014 Large-scale diagonal bracing (Ext. & Int. core frame)
B3 0.0034 Diagonal bracing 2(c)
B4 0.0029 K bracing 2(d)
B5 0.0024 Double K bracing 2(e)
Tubular system T1 0.0059 Tube-frame system 2(f)
T2 0.0052 Tube-in-tube system
T3 0.0039 Tube-in-tube system (column size 1.5x)
Shear wall-frame system S1 0.0029 Shear wall-frame system (1 core and 2 plain) 2(g)
S2 0.0019 Shear wall-frame system (beam size 1.5x)
S3 0.0027 Shear wall-frame system (column size 1.5x)
Outrigger-braced system O1 0.0033 Outrigger truss with braced core 2(h)
O2 0.0062 Outrigger beam with column core 2(i)
Hybrid system H1 0.0009 Shear wall-bracing (diagonal) system 2(j)
H2 0.0027 Shear wall-outrigger beam with shear wall core 2(k)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i) (j) (k)

Figure 2: (a)-(k) Structural systems as in Table 1.

3. NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Critical numerical analyses are done to investigate the efficiency of different structural systems for tall buildings
in reducing the drift (lateral deflection) due to lateral loading. Figure 3(a) shows the effects of framed system.
Drift can be significantly reduced by increasing the moment of inertia (i.e. size) of the beams & columns, and it
is interesting to note that the reduction of drift is more with increasing the moment of inertia of beams compared
to columns which is also described in Islam et. al. 2011. Figure 3(b) shows that the inter-story drift is higher
from 3rd story to 10th story. Increase the size of beams reduced the inter-story drift at 3rd floor as a result the drift
is lowered.

3
 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD-2012)

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Effect of framed system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

In case of large-scale bracing in Figure 4(a), the reduction of drift is extensively higher compared framed
system, even the bracing at the external frame reduced the drift of the whole structure most efficiently. The
inter-story drift in Figure 4(b) shows that the reduction of drift started from the 2nd floor and lower at the
connection floors of the bracings. For diagonal bracing, K bracing and double K bracing in Figure 5(a) & (b),
the reduction is quite similar to large-scale bracing at exterior frame.

(a) (b)
Figure 4: Effect of large-scale bracing system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

According to tubular system in Figure 6 (a), the reduction of drift is significant but not so satisfactory compared
to large-scale bracing system. Figure 6(b) shows that in tubular and tube-in-tube system if unable to reduce the
inter-story drift at low story level that results less reduction of drift.

Shear wall-frame system is found to be capable of reducing the drift in significant way (Figure 7a) as described
in Islam et. al. 2011. Figure 7 (b) shows that the inter-story drift is considerably reduced by the shear walls at
the lower stories (from 2nd story). The increase the moment of inertia of column is less effective compared to
beam in shear wall-frame system to reduce the drift. Figure 8(a) shows the effect of outrigger-braced system.
Two types of outrigger-braced system are analyzed here. The outrigger truss and braced must/core system
showed considerable reduction of drift compared to outrigger beam and column core system. The inter-story
drift is lowered more efficiently by the outrigger truss and braced core system (Figure 8b).

4
 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD-2012)

(a) (b)
Figure 5: Effect of braced-frame system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

(a) (b)
Figure 6: Effect of tubular system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

(a) (b)
Figure 7: Effect of shear wall-frame system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

5
 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD-2012)

(a) (b)
Figure 8: Effect of outrigger-braced system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

(a) (b)
Figure 9: Effect of hybrid system (a) lateral deflection (b) inter-story drift.

Hybrid shear wall-diagonal bracing system is found to be the most efficient structural system in reducing the
drift of the tall buildings (Figure 9a). The efficiency of hybrid shear wall-outrigger beam system is more or less
similar to shear wall-frame system. The inter-story drift of the hybrid shear wall-diagonal bracing system is also
low from 2nd story which results in the lesser lateral deflection (Figure 9b). The drift indexes are calculated for
all the structural systems and are shown in Figure 10. It is clearly visible that the drift index is the minimum for
hybrid shear wall-diagonal bracing system (H1) and is followed by large-scale diagonal bracing system (B2) and
both lie below 0.0015. With these two systems, B1, B5 and S2 also lie below the limit of ASCE 7-05 (2005) i.e.
drift index below 0.0025. Again F2, B4, S1, S3 and H2 structural systems are found to be lower drift index
below 0.003 as for the requirement for conventional tall buildings. Tubular system and outrigger system are not
found effective in reduction of the drift of tall buildings for above considering specifications. Following
expression shows the comparative situation of the structural systems with respect to drift index:

H1 < B2 < S2 < B5 < B1 < H2, S3 < F2, S1, B4 < O1 < B3 < T3 < T2 < T1 < O2 < F3 < F1

6
 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD-2012)

Figure 10: Drift index of the structural systems.

4. CONCLUSION

Considering all the above structural systems, the hybrid shear wall-bracing system (H1) is found to be the most
effective structural system for drift control of tall buildings and this system is followed by large-scale diagonal
bracing system (B2). Shear wall-frame system with increased moment of inertia (1.5x) of beam (S2) is found to
be efficient next to H1 & B2 and is followed by double K bracing system (B5) & large-scale diagonal bracing
system at only exterior panel (B1). The performances of hybrid shear wall-outrigger beam system (H2) and
shear wall-frame system with increased moment of inertia (1.5x) of column (S2) are quite similar though their
inter-story drift pattern is different. It is interesting to note that, in reduction of the drift of tall building, when
wind load is governing parameter over earthquake load, the increase of moment of inertia of beam is found to be
more efficient instead of column for both the cases of framed system (i.e. F2) and shear wall-frame system (i.e.
S2). Tubular system and outrigger braced system are not found much efficient in drift reduction as per the
structural considerations.

REFERENCES

ASCE 7-05, (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 424.
Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), (1993), Housing and Building Research Institute and Bangladesh
Standards and Testing Institutions.
El-Leithy, N. F., Hussein, M. M. and Attia, W. A. (2011), Comparative Study of Structural Systems for Tall
Buildings, Journal of American Science, Vol: 7(4).
Islam, M.M., Siddique, A. and Murshed, A. (2011), Sustainable Development in Drift Control of Tall
Buildings: Study of the Structural Parameters, 4th Annual Paper Meet and 1st Civil Engineering Congress,
Civil Engineering Division, Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh (IEB).
Lee, J., Bang, M. and Kim, J. (2008), An Analytical Model for High-Rise Wall-Frame Structures with
Outriggers, THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS, Struct. Design Tall
Spec. Build. Vol: 17, 839851, Published online 1 October 2007 in Wiley Interscience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).
Mendis, P. Ngo, T. Hariots, N. Hira, A. Samali, B. Cheung, J. (2007). Wind Loading on Tall Building, EJSE
Special Issue: Loading on Structures, 41-54.
Smith, B.S. & Coull, A. (1991). Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design, Singapore: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.