RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF PLUS SHAPED TALL BUILDING WITH DIFFERENT BRACING

SYSTEMS UNDER WIND LOAD

Dr. Ritu Raj.
Response study technique The present study is focused on wind load response analysis of a
plus shaped tall building. Data from boundary layer wind tunnel testing experiments was
used to calculate forces acting on the models of uniform area along the height. The different
cases considered for study included isolated condition (plus shaped building without any
bracing system), plus shaped building with single diagonal bracing, V-bracing, cross bracing
and inverted V-bracing respectively.

Base shear at 0 degree was higher than 30 degree and 60o degree angles of attack in both
cases i.e. windward side and leeward side of the building. However, at 0o wind incidence
angle, cross bracing exhibited maximum base shear at windward side (7462.84 kN) while V
bracing exhibited maximum base shear at leeward side (12480.57 kN). At 30o and 60o wind
incidence angles, single diagonal bracing system exhibited maximum value of base shear at
both windward and leeward positions of the building. For windward position of the building
(column A), V bracing system showed minimum values of base shear at all angles of attack
with least value of base shear being 4722.85 kN at 30o angle of attack, whereas for leeward
position of the building (column B), isolated condition (without any bracing system) showed
minimum values of base shear at all angles of attack with least value of base shear as
5685.17 kN at 60o angle of attack.

Base moment was seen to be maximum at 0-degree angle of wind attack for both columnA
(windward position) and Column B (Leeward position), as observed in Figures 4 and 5. It was gauged
that base moment (My) in an isolated condition was maximum at 60 degree angle of attack for
column-A (windward position) and at 30 degree angle of attack for Column B (Leeward position).
At all angles of attack, Inverted V bracing showed minimum values of My at windward position and
maximum values of My at leeward position while V bracing showed maximum values of My at
windward position and minimum values of My at leeward position.

Numerical values obtained for twisting moment were negligible in all conditions as compared to
corresponding values of base moment about Y-axis. It was hence concluded that a section designed
for maximum axial force or base moment is safe and can take care of the twisting moment.
Therefore, there is no need to design the section of a column separately for twisting moment.

Deflection in isolated condition was seen to be maximum at all angles of attack with highest value of
deflection as 161.46 mm at leeward position and 0o wind incidence angle. For both i.e. leeward and
windward positions of the building, inverted V bracing had the minimum value of deflection at all
angles of attack with least value of 42.35 mm at 60o wind incidence angle at windward position. At
windward position, reduction of sway by 44.8%, 46.33% and 18.29% while at leeward position,
reduction of sway by 41.37%, 48.61% and 53.17% at 0o , 30o and 60o wind incidence angles
respectively was observed due to Inverted V bracing
Conclusion:
1.Single diagonal bracing system reflected lesser axial force values. The axial force values
show a very slow decrease from bottom to 30% height of the building and then a rapid
decrease to the top.
2. Twisting moment was observed to be negligible in all systems, except in the case of
inverted V-bracing system for column B (Leeward position) at 60-degree angle of attack.
3. It was concluded that, at 0-degree, 30 degree and 60-degree angle of wind attack, V and
inverted V-bracing systems gave comparable values with minimum sway of 67%, 50% and
54% respectively.

INNOVATIVE DESIGN METHOD OF TALL BUILDINGS A computational-based

approach in optimizing the wind effects on tall buildings

3 authors: 1,727

Matin Alaghmanda
Shahid Beheshti Universit
Farid Abdolhossein Pour
16PUBLICATIONS52CITATIONS
Illinois Institute of Technology
SEE PROFIL

Jamshid Mohammad
Illinois Institute of Technolog
84PUBLICATIONS722CITATIONS

SEE PROFIL

OPTIMIZATION METHOD:
 In the proposed method of design, the optimization process is considered on the
workbench and works in two steps, simultaneously; first, in the process of the CFD
simulation and second, in the process of the structural design and analysis. In the
first step, models have to be optimized to find a model with the minimum wind
impact and in the second step; the structural systems and elements have to be
optimized to obtain the lowest weight of the structure of the models.

There are different methods of optimization such as dynamic programming,

linear programming, non-linear programming and genetic algorithm. In the
following section the genetic algorithm method is explained, because the
ParaGen method is based on the GA
Conclusions
The main achievement of this paper is to show the importance of proper
coordination among a host of design parameters towards designing efficient tall
buildings to meet desired performances. Specific performance conditions
considered in this research included the geometry to meet reduced wind effects;
and incorporating design for an appropriate lateral-load resisting system. The
following are the main conclusions of this research. (1) It was found that the
quantity of modifying the form of tall buildings can have an optimum impact in
reducing wind effects. (2) It was also found that the effectiveness of the structural
system will be influenced by the form of the tall buildings. For example, among the
generation of tapering models with two separate tube structural system and core-
supported outrigger system, only a unique model can be found with the least wind
effects, when the angle of tapering is used as a geometrical parameter. This
research finds that the model with the least wind effect is not necessarily the
model with the least weight for the structure. This is because the geometry of the
model and dynamic and aerodynamic effects of wind have a dramatic influence on
the optimum system.

Examination of the code requirements for the inter-story drift ratio

limits(ISDR).
0 289

1 author:

Özgür A
Eskişehir Technical University
67 PUBLICATIONS 367 CITATIONS

SEE PROFIL

Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The type of the building affects the ISDR limit specified by TBEC (2018) considerably. The ISDR
limit for steel buildings is half of the ISDR limit for RC buildings. On the other hand, considering
the effective flexural rigidities for the RC sections increases the displacement demands of RC
buildings with the implementation of TBEC (2018).
2. TBEC (2018) enforces to reduce the ISDR limit to its half when the infill walls interact with the
neighboring structural components. This requirement enforces the structural engineer to design
 much stiffer buildings. Otherwise, the infill walls should be separated from the structural
components with sufficient gap inbetween. Separation of infill walls will require additional details
to prevent their out-of-plane failure and to fulfill thermal and sound insulation.
3. Smaller ISDR limits were calculated for buildings constructed at soft soil sites especially if the
fundamental period of the building is in the range of 0-0.6 seconds.

Deflection Limits in Tall Buildings

1 author:

Rob J. Smit
Aru
9 PUBLICATIONS 265 CITATIONS

SEE PROFIL

DEFORMATION UNDER WIND OR EARTHQUAKE

The following are useful definitions to describe how a building deforms. Total
building drift ratio is defined as the peak lateral deflection at the top of a building
divided by the height of the building (excluding items such as masts etc) under the
design wind load. This is a crude measure of assessing the stiffness of a
building and its likely performance.
Interstorey drift is defined as the difference in horizontal displacement over one
storey (floor) divided by the storey height. This is the most commonly used form of
deformation criterion and many structural design standards refer to this. This can be
seen as ș in Figure 1.
.
Panel deformation is a measure of the in-plane shear deformation of a wall panel.
It is the difference between the interstorey drift and the local floor slope. Whilst in
framed perimeter structures the floor slope will generally mean the panel deformation
is less than the interstorey drift, in some cases the effect of floor slope is additive ( e.g.
between a core and a perimeter structure). This is a measure of the deformation that
would cause damage to non-structural elements. This is ȕ in Figure 1. If one compares
figures b and c, it can be seen that panel deformation may vary across a storey. A
famous example of a building with a high floor slope and high interstorey drift but no
panel deformation is the leaning tower of Pisa. All the deformation is in the
foundation.
Racking deformation can be defined as the average panel deformation over a storey.
Inclination may be defined as the slope of a nominally vertical element such as a lift
shaft in wind. It is the same as interstorey drift.
 a/ Low rise building – interstorey drift same as b/ Tubular building – interstorey drift
panel deformation higher than panel deformation

c/ Core building – interstorey drift can be lower d/ Example of building with high
than panel deformation interstorey drift and low panel
deformation

Figure 1 - Definitions of drift - based on CTBUH (2008)

SAMPLE DATA FROM BUILDINGS

The following gives examples of tall building designs.
Table 1 - Design deflections
Lctn Source Structural System Max
Name of of data Ht Max Interstore
building (m) Lateral y Drift
Deflect
Arup 374 H/785
Central Plaza Hong perimeter tube core
Kong
Arup 432 H/575 h/500
West Tower Guangzh
ou RC Core + CFT Diagrid
Shanghai Taranath 421 H/575
Jin Mao RC Core + SRC (Chinese
Tower Column frame code
wind)
International Hong Arup 480 RC Core + Outrigger + H/400 h/300
Commerce Kong SRC Column frame
 Centre
Arup 420 H/466 h/315
2IFC Hong RC Core + Outrigger +
Kong SRC Column frame
Petronas Taranath 452 H/560
Tower Kuala RC Core + Outrigger + (50 year
Lumpur SRC Column frame wind)
Elysian Hotel Chicago Taranath 208 RC Core + outrigger + H/800
RC Mega columns
Pinnacle London Arup Braced steel h/300
perimeter with
viscous dampers
St Francis Manila Arup 210 RC core, moment H/230 h/250
Towers frame, Damped
outrigger
Al Bateen Dubai Taranath 204 Coupled shear wall h/300
Towers (reported
as 10 year
wind)
SRZ Tower Dubai Taranath 265 RC Core + outrigger + Approx
frame h/350 (10
year wind)
Sources of data : Arup – internal Arup correspondence
Taranath – see Taranth (2009)

EXISTING CODES AND STANDARDS

The following data has been taken from various international design and loading
codes. Many modern design codes do not apply limits on lateral deflection of
buildings. Table 2 - deflection limits in international standards
Standard/ Reference Effect Type Inter-storey Top
Drift Ratio Deflection
Limit Limit
Chinese Standard

JGJ3-2002 Technical Wind Concrete/ Steel/ 1/500 No

specification for (H>250m) Composite guidance
concrete structures of Seismic Concrete/ 1/500 No
tall building (50yrs) Steel/Composite guidance
(H>250m)
JGJ 99-98 Technical Wind Steel Structure 1/400 No
specification for steel guidance
structure of tall Seismic Steel Structure 1/250 No
building (50yrs) guidance
DG/TJ08-015-2004 Code for Wind Composite 1/500 No
design of steel – concrete (H>250m) guidance
hybrid structures for high – Seismic Composite 1/500 No
rise buildings (Shanghai) (50yrs) guidance
(H>250m)
Hong Kong Code

Code of practice on Wind Wind RC/Steel No guidance No

Effects in Hong Kong 2004 guidance
Code of Practice for Wind RC No guidance 1/500
Structural use of Concrete
2004
Code of Practice for Wind Steel 1/400 1/500
Structural Use of Steel 2005
Eurocode

Eurocode 3 Wind Steel No guidance No

ENV 1993-1-1:2005: guidance
Eurocode 8 Seismic Steel / Concrete 1/200 – 1/100 No
EN 1998-1-2004 (approx 95 (limits depend guidance
year) on finishes)
British Standards

BS 5950 – structural steel in Wind Steel 1/300 No

buildings guidance
BS 8110 – structural use of Wind Concrete 1/500 No
concrete (limit applies guidance
unless partition, claddings
have been specifically
detailed ..)

American Standards

ASCE 7-05 – Minimum Wind No guidance No

design loads for buildings guidance
and other structures
Seismic Steel / Concrete 1/100 – 1/200 No
(2/3 of guidance
2475
event)
Standard/ Reference Effect Type Inter-storey Top
Drift Ratio Deflection
Limit Limit
Los Angeles Tall Building Seismic All 1/33 No
Structural Design Council, (MCE) guidance
An alternative procedure for
Seismic analysis and design
of
Tall buildings located in the
Los Angeles region (2008)
Japanese Code

Building Codes of Japan and Seismic Steel Typically: No

Recommendations from the (100yr): 1/200 guidance
Special Approval Process by (500yr): 1/75
a Selected Expert Review 1/100
Panel
(applies to any building over Concrete Typically: No
60m) (100yr): 1/500 guidance
(500yr): 1/200
Guidelines for the Evaluation Wind Steel Same as above No
of Habitability to Building guidance
Vibration
LITERATURE REVIEW Interstorey drift
Recommendations for criteria on drift limits have been in existence for many years.
For instance “The stability of tall buildings” (Wood, 1958) gives a table of racking tests.
From this, it can be seen that typically first cracks in a masonry wall would occur at
around H/400, although there is considerably more movement before ultimate load is
reached.

Similarly, tests by Freeman (1977) on plasterboard partitions indicated that first cracks
would occur around H/300 to H/400. The paper also discusses how partitions may
effect the overall damping and stiffness of the building.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the drifts is published by the Council of
Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (1980) includes a study of the state of the art in the
1970s. Limits for interstorey drift from literature range from H/333 to H/666. Note
that the latter is based upon a wind pressure of 958 Pa (20 lb/ft2) at 30m height,
rather than a specific return period. Most of the drift values in this book refer to those
in common usage, but little mention is made of physical testing. A later study by ASCE
(Ellingwood et al 1986) shown in table 4 compiled the results of various tests to
ascertain the effect of drift on damage to non-structural components. As can be seen,
the critical point where damage becomes visible would appear to be H/500 to H/300.

Table 3 - test data from Wood (1958)

Type of frame and infill First visible First crack Ultimate
crack : deflection / deflection deflection
height (inches) (inches)
Frame type 1
Horizontal girders 10 in x 4.5 in (I25)
Vertical stanchions 10 in x 8 in (I 55) (weak direction)
6 in x 3 in x 0.5 in bolted cleat connections to top and bottom flanges of each beam
Open bare frame n/a 1.0 6.0
Encased frame 1/100 1.0 2.3
Encased frame with 4.5 inch brick 1/350 0.3 2.5
panel
(repeat test) with 4.5 inch brick 1/400 0.28 2.8
panel
Brick on edge in filling 1/400 0.27 2.0
3 in hollow clinker block 1/450 0.25 0.8
(repeat test) 3 in clinker block 1/400 0.28 0.7
3 in hollow clay block 1/275 0.4 1.5
3.5 inch brick 1/425 0.26 0.6
4.5 inch brick with door opening 1/1000 0.11 2.1

Frame type 2 (stiffer)

Horizontal girders 13 in x 5 in (I35)
Vertical stanchions 10 in x 8 in (I 55) (strong direction)
6 in x 4 in x 3/8 in bolted cleat connections to top and bottom flanges of each beam
Encased frame 1/100 1.0 2.2
4.5 inch brick infilling 1/400 0.28 1.5
Table 4 - Serviceability performance levels published by ASCE (Ellingwood 1986)
 Deformation as a Visibility of Typical behavior
fraction of span or deformation
height
< 1/1000 Not visible Cracking of brickwork
1/500 Not visible Cracking of partition walls
1/300 Visible General architectural damage
Cracking in reinforced walls
Cracking in secondary members
Damage to ceiling and flooring
Façade damage
Cladding leakage
1/200 – 1/300 Visible Visual annoyance Improper
drainage
1/100 – 1/100 Visible Damage to lightweight partitions, windows,
finishes
Impaired operation of moveable components
such as doors, windows, sliding partitions
Galambos and Ellingwood (1986) suggest that the serviceability criteria based upon 50
year winds are too onerous and it would be more suitable to use a reliability method
based around the 8 year period (8 years being a typical lease period in a tall building),
such that the design deflections are not exceeded more than once in that period. We
do not believe that this suggestion was ever taken up in building codes.

A further study by the ASCE (1988) conducted a survey of US structural engineering

practices. The study focussed on engineers treatment of drift in tall buildings.
Typically (41% of respondents), engineers designed to H/400 interstorey drift for the
50 year wind. A number used different numbers between H/600 and H/200.

Of course, the above has focussed on determining a deflection limit for a defined wind
event, ie a deterministic approach. In reality, a probabilistic approach is more realistic,
although not practical in normal building design. Reid and Turkstra (1981) reviewed
this process and concluded the most important variable was the damage limitation
threshold (ie the drift limit!) The other conclusion that can be drawn from their work
is rather simple – flexible buildings are more likely to suffer damage if not detailed
correctly. This is a sliding scale and not based on a single number.

Examples of buildings which have been designed outside of “normal” drift limits are
given in Taranth (2009) The SRZ tower in Dubai (265m high office building, designed by
Lemessuirier Consultants) did not meet a limit of H/500 in design, and this
requirement was relaxed owing to the nature of the deflection (bending rather than
shear). The same argument was applied to the Al Bateen Towers in Dubai (204m). See
table 2.

Another building designed (but not built) with high drifts is the 600m Chicago Spire.
While the drifts are not reported publicly (Burns et al, 2008) the first natural period is
– 18 seconds. This is an indication of a very flexible building which could not meet
traditional deflection limits.
Total building drift
Much of the older literature (CTBUH, 1980) focused on total building drift limits,
discussing occupant comfort and dynamics. At that time, the use of damping to
control building dynamics was in its infancy, as was the understanding of the
sensitivity of building occupants to lateral movement. A survey of engineers in
Boston, Ma indicated that total building drifts used in the 1970s was between H/1000
and H/200, with the majority using a limit of H/400. Two companies reported that
buildings designed with a limit of H/200 had performed adequately in the past,
although no details are given.
A key point to note that in the 1970s US design practice, there was no fixed deflection
criteria. This remains true in today’s practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS Stiffen building for the appropriate

us and wind event
The degree of stiffening required for a building should consider the contents (brittle
finishes, flexible panels etc) and the climate (typhoon, non-typhoon)
In a typhoon climate, it may be more appropriate to take a lower return period wind
with a tighter deflection criteria (for brittle finishes). This might be H/600 for a 10
year wind. The rationale is to concentrate on ensuring no damage in a more realistic
service state. Although, in this case, the 50 or 100 year wind deflection may be high,
the accumulated damage over the life of the building would be similar to that of a
structure designed in a non-typhoon region.
Similarly, for certain buildings, the vortex shedding peak may occur at a low return
period. This means that the wind loading would be higher for a medium wind speed
than higher wind speed and the peak load may occur at a speed corresponding to say,
the 10 year event. Again it would make sense to design for a lower return period. For
synoptic wind climates (non-typhoon), where detailing cannot accommodate higher
deflections, panel deformations should be limited to between 1/300 and 1/500 in the
50 year wind.

Accommodate movements
In many case, non-structural items can be designed to accommodate deflections.
Items which can be designed for this are cladding panels, partitions, lift cables, services
etc.. As has been discussed previously, overall deflection limits and interstorey drift
limits can in general be a crude measure the functional requirements, and specific
‘performance based’ approaches offer greater flexibility and make more sense
particularly for very tall buildings. In seismic zones construction details are modified to
permit greater movement than normal without damage to cladding and fit-out. .

Measure “panel” deflections

Deflections should be measured in appropriate panel sizes, which represent cladding
panels or non-structural walls. Interstorey-drifts, even when considering the differing
effects of shear and bending are fairly meaningless as they do not consider the
internal deformation of the building.
 . Drift minimization of tall building frames
Md. Mahmud Sazzad
Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology
78 PUBLICATIONS 325 CITATIONS