Structural System For Tall Buildings

. ,.
..:#: ,
..;F , ' .
..
Structural syst.erns
for ~ a l l ~ u i l d i n g s
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Canlribulon
S p o n s o r i n g Soclellcr
Internntlonul Asrocintion for Bridge and S w c t u r a l Engineering (IABSE) Office o f Irwin G. Cwlor. P.C., N e w York L i m ConsulU~tts.Inc.. Cambridge
American Society of Civil E n g i n e e n (ASCE) H.K. Cheng & Pnrtnen Ltd. Hung Kong Meinhnrdt Auslrnlin Pty. Ltd.. Melbourne
American Inrtitute o f Architects (AIA) Douglas Specinlist C o n u n c t o n Ltd.. Aldridgc Mclnhnrdl (HK) Ltd.. Hong Kong
American Planning Asrocintion (APA) H n n Conrulwnt Grnup. Snntn Monica Mucrer Rutledge Consulting Engincen.
Inernalional Union of Architects (UIA) The G c o r g ~Hymnn ConsWclion Co.. N e w York
American Society o f Inleriar Designers (ASID) ;., .~;
.z~......I:.,, Balhrsdn Oboynshi Corpomtion. T o k y o
Jnpon S t r u c t u n l Consultono Arrociotlon (ISCA) ..:; :.~ Ingenicurburo Mullcr Mnrl GmbH. Mnrl O T E P In~crnntional.SA. Mndrid
Urban Lnnd Institute (ULI) Institute Sulwn lrknndnr. Johor Charles Ponkow Builders. Inc.. Alwdenn
International Fedemlion of lnlerior Dcsignen ( I R ) INTEMAC. Madrid Projcst S A Emprecndimentos e Servicos
J H S C o n s w e n o e Plnncjnmento Ltd.. Sno Tecnlcos. Rin d c Jnncim
The following identifier those firms m d orgmiwtionr who provide fartheCouncil's financivl s u p p o h
Pnulo P S M Inlernnllonnl. Chicago
Patrons Johnson Fain a n d Perrim Asroc.. Los Angeler Skilling Ward Megnurson B n r b h i r c Inc..
A1 Rnyes Group. Kuwait T h e Kling-Lindquist P m c n h i p . Inc. Senltlc
Consolidnted C o n t m a o r r Internulional Co.. Athens Philadclphio Tooley & Company. L a s Angcles
Dnr Al-Hnndnsah '.Shnir & Panncrr." Amman LeMessurier Conrultnntr Inc.. Cnmbridge Nobih Yourref and Arrocinlcr. Los Angelcs
D L F Univcrsnl Limited. Ncw Dclhi
Zuhair Fnyez & Arrociales. Jeddvh C o n t r i b u t i n g Pnrtlclponlr
Juros. B n i m & Bolles. N e w York Advnnccd Slructuml Concrplr. Danvcr
Kuwait Foundmion for the Advonccmcnt of Sciences. Kuwait Advicrburnu Voor Bouwwchnick BV. Amhcm
Shimizu Corpondon. Tokyo Amcrirnn lwti~uteof Slecl Con.uu~Lion. Chicago ~ n n i& n Bmvo, inc.. Honolulu
T h e T u r n e r Corpomtion. New Yark Anglo Amcricnn Pmpcny Scrviccr (Ply1 Lld.. lohnn- Monin.Middirhrook & Louic. Snn Fmncirco
"&burg Enriquc Mmincr-Romcm. S.A.. Mexico
Sponsors Archituaml Scrviccr Dcpl.. Hong Kong Mitchell McForlane Brrnlnoli & Paonen Inll. LId..
Europrofilc Tecom. Luxembourg Alelici D'Architcctum, dc Genvnl, Genvnl Honk Kong
Gcorge A. Fuller Co.. New York ~uslnlinnlnstitulc olSlccl Conrwcdon, hlllronr Poinl Miuubirhi Erwlc Co..Ltd.. Tokyo
T.R. Hnmrah & Yeung Sdn. Bhd.. Sclangor B.C.V. . Pmnctti ~ S.r.1..
~ Miiono
~ - Moh nnd Arrociau. inc..Tnipci
HL-Technik A.G.. Munich w.S. Bcllowr conrtriction Corp.. Hourton Morrc Diesel Inlcmorionrl. Ncw York
Hong Kong Lnnd Group Lld.. Hong Kong Aificd Bcncrch & Co.. Chicngo Mvlriplci ConrWclions (NSWI Pfy. Lid.. Sydncy
Balro dc lrnovclr Err Sno Poulo. S.A.. Sno Poulo Nihoasckkci. U.S.A., Ltd., Lor Angclcr
Kone Elevators. Helsinki NiWIcn Sckkci. Ltd.. Tokyo
Bomhont & W a d Pty. Lld.. Spring Hill
John A. Mnnin & Aaroc.. Inc.. L o r Angelcr ~ ~ ~ n y cWind
ur Tunnci
~ Labornlory
d ~(U. Wcrr- Norman Dirncy & Young. Brirhonc
Ahmad Mohnrrom. Cairo cm Ontnriol. London Pacific Adnr Dcvclopmenl Corp.. Lor Angclcr
Walter P. Moore & Associates. Inc.. Hourton Bovir ~ i m i l i London
. PcddlcThorp Aururlin Ply. Lld.. Brirhnnc
Nippon Slcel. Tokyo Bnndow & Johulon ArrociaLcr. Lor Angclcr PorkTowrr Gmup. New Yo*
Otis E l e w l o r Co.. Forminglan Bmokc Hillier Porker. Hong Kong Ccror Pclii & Asrociolu. Ncw York
O v e A m p Pmnerrhip. London Buildings & Dan. S.A. Bwsrclr Pcrkinr & Will. Chicngo
P D M Strocnl Inc.. Slockton CBM Engincm Inc.. Houston Rnhulnn Zain Arrociacr. Kuolo LumDur
Ccrmo* Pcerkn Pacnen. Inc.. Fon Coilinr RFB Consulting Arrhilcnr, lohunnuhurp
Leslie E. R o b c m o n Associatea. New York Rnrrnunrrrr G m r ~ m mCons Engrr.. PC. llru York
CblA A r h i t u ~& Enginecn. Sari luon
Snmrung Engineering Br Conrtruction Co. Lrd..Seoul Conrfnction Conwlung Lbonlor). Dallor E- m~,
r n Rod, & Sons lnd. lnc.. New Yoik
Snud Consult, Riyadh Cmnr Fuhicu Door Cu.. Lnkc Bluff Rovon Woll8~mrD l r t r l & lruin 1°C. Gurlph
Schindlcr Elevntor Corp.. Morrislown Cmnc & Arloriolcr Ply. Lld. Sydnr) ScpllotSaio rcmnding (Sdnl Bhd, K ~ o l oLumpur
Siecor Corporntion. Hickory Da(11 Lugdon & Evcnll. London scrrrn S m : m r Gimi5 dc Encrnhon~S A . Rlo dc
Tukenako Corporation, Tokyo DeSimonc. Ch~plin& Dohr)n Inc. Kc. York lnncim
Tishmon Conslruction Corporarion of N c w York, New York D O ~ Arlrlnc ~ ~ g l n r r~nn~r scatllc ~. . Scvcmd Asrociacr Conr. Engn.. New York
Tiihman Speyer Properties. Ncw York Fujilnva lohns~non1 A s ~ o c i l r rCnlcagn . SOBRENCO. S.A.. Rio dr Inncim
W c i r k o p i & Pickwonh. N e w York Cunrndgc l i n l t n s k D n r ) Ply Ltd. Sldnc) south Africnn lnrtiatc of Srccl Conslrucdon. Johm-
Holn.5 Lundhcrg U'nrhlcr Inlcmolion~l.Nc* YvrA ncrbvrg
Wing T a i Conrtmction &Engineering. Hong Kong 1io)ok;i~xAr$ocialcr. Lo, Anerlcr stccl Rcinlorrcmcnt lnrlilulc of Aurlrnlio. Sydncy
Wong & Ouynng (HK) Lld.. Hong Kong I l r ~ l l l ~Buildtng$
) lnlrrn:l8vnll In:. F ~ i d r i STS Conrultnnu Lrd.. Nonhbmok
Donor5
l l ~ l t m ~O~ h m .
. & Klsrlboum. lnc S 81, F i a n r 8 ~ ~ o
lnlrrnaliond lmn k Slrrl Imlilutc. Brulrcl$
Studio Find. Nova E Coslcilnni. Milnno
Tnyior Thornson Whining Ply Lld. St. Lconordr
American Bridge Co.. Pittsburgh O'Brien-Kreilrbcrg & A S T O C ~ ~ ~In=..
~CI. Irwin Iohnrlon nnd Ponncn. Sydncy B.A. Vrvnroulu & Asrociacr. Athenr
Pennrlukcn Infoc~er.S.A. Rio delnoeim VlPAC Encinrcn & Sricndru Lid. hlclhovmc
American Iron and Slcel Institute. Worgon Cbpmon Pmnrrr. S)uncy
\Vushington, D.C. R T K L Associates. Inc.. Bnltimore I.A. loner Conruuction Co., Charlotic
Kcsting Mnnn Iemigan RoacL. Lor Angclcr Wndl~nl.crA?ro:irlrl. Nrw Yorl
W.R. Grncc & Comp;my. Cambridge Skidmore. Ou,ingr & hlerrill. Chicogo KPFF Conrulting Engineen. Scuulc wond~.,d.cl,dc Con~.lurn,. ~ r rYolk .
Hnscko Corporaion. Tokyo Steen Con~ultuntrPty. Ltd., Singspore Lcnd Lwre Dcrign Gmup Lld.. Sydncy
T h c Herrick Corp.. Pleasnnton Syiko & Hcnnery. lnc.. New York
Hollundsche Belon Mnnlschappij BV, nornton-TomorcuilEngineer5. Ncw York
Rijswijk Werner Vosr & Ponncrr. Braunrchwcig
Hong Kong Housing Autl~orily.Hong Kong Wong Hobach Luu Consulting Engineers. La5
lffland Kivvnvgh Waterbury. P.C.. New York Angcles
Other Books in the Tall Buildings and Urban Environment Series Systems and Concepts
Casf-in-Place Concrete in Tall Building Design and Constructio~t

Cladding
Building Design for Handicapped and Aged Persons
Structural Systems for
Semi-Rigid Connecrions in Steel Frames
Fire Sofery in TON Buildings
Cold-Formed Steel in Toll Buildings
Tall Buildings
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Committee 3
CONTRIBUTORS
I.D. Berzrretf~
Joseph Bicnls
Brian Coviil
P.H. D a y o ~ ~ ~ n r ~ s a
Eiji Frrk!ria~ro
him B, Ki1,rzister
Rpscard M. I;o~~,aicz)k
Owerr bJanin
Il'iliion! Afuibortnie
Sciichi Ml,ra?lrofsll
% Okoshi
AR,r~adRolrirnian
Tltonras Scararrgeiio
Roben Si,m
Richard Ton!asefri
A. )'atnohi
Editorial Group
Ryszard M. Kowalczyk, Chairman
R o b e r t Sinn, Vice-chairman
M a x B. Kilmister, Editor
McGtaw-Hill, Inc.
New York San Francisco Washington. D.C. Auckland Bogoti
Caracas Lisbon London Madrid MexicoClty Milan
Montreal New Delhi San Juan Singapore
sydney Tokyo Toronto
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
This Monognph uar prepxed h j Commillcc 3 (Slmctuml Syrtcm5)of ihc Council onToll Buitdlngr
and Urban Hnbitnt nr p ~ onf the Tali Building, and Urban Environment Series. Thc edtlonll gmup
$bas R)szxd hf. Kowatcz)k, chairman; Rohen Sinn, ricc-chnirmln; and hlox B. Kiimister, editor.
Foreword
Special ncknowledgmentir due more individuals whore n k u w ~ i p l formedthe
s mjorconvibution UI the
chapters in his volume. These individuals and the chnpters or sections lo which they conhibuled ore:
Chapter 1: Editorial Group Section 4.3: Thomu Scmngello

Chapter 2: Editorinl Group Section 4.3: Richard Tomasetti
Section 3.1: Editorial Group Section 4.3: A. Yamoki
Scction 3.2: Brian Cnvill Section 4.4: Editorial Group This volume is o n e of a series o f Monographs prepared under the aegis o f the Council
Section 4.1: Eiji Fukuzawn Section 4.5: Editorial Group on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a series that is aimed a t documenting the state of
Section 4.1: Seiichi Murnmulsu Section 5.1: William Melbourne the art o f the planning, design, conslruction, and operation of tall buildings as well as
Section 4.1: Ahmod Rohiminn Secdon 5.2: 1. D. Bennettr their interaction with the urban environmenL
Section 4.2: Owen Mnnin Secdon 5.2: P. H. Doynwnnrn T h e present series is built upon an original set of five Monographs published by the
Sccdon 4.3: T. Okorhi Chapter 6:Joseph Bums American Society of Civil Engineers, as follows:
Project Dercriptionr were conuibuted by:
Volume PC: Plnrming nrzd En~rironn~enral Crireriofor Toll Beildings
The Office of Irwin Cantor Paulus. Sokolowski, and Snnor. Inc. Volume SC: Tall Building Sysrems ond Cortceprs
CBM Engineers, Inc. Pcrkins and Will
Ellisor and Tanner. Inc. Roben Rorenwarser Asrocioter Volunze CL: Tall Building Criteria nnd Loading
Kajima Design, Inc. Sevemd Associnter Volume SB: Srrucrurol Design of Toll Sreel Btrildings
KingiGuinn Associates Shimizu Corporation
LcMessuricr Consulrunls. lnc. Voltrme CB: Srmcrural Design of Tall Concrele and Mosorrry Buildings
Skidmore. Owings and Merrill
Leriie E. Roberlson Arnocintes Skiliing Ward Magnurron Barkshire. Inc
Nihon Sekkei. Inc. Following the publication of a number of updates to these volumes, it was decided
Thomton-Tomaretti Engineers
Ovc Amp & Pamcn Walter P. Moore and Asrocioter by the Steering Group o f the Council lo develop a new series. It would b e based on the
original effort but would focus more strongly o n the individual topical committees
rather than the groups. This would d o two things. It would free the Council committees
COMMllTEE MEMBERS from restraints as t o length. Also it would permit material on a given topic to reach the
public more quickly.
Hcrben F. Adigun. Mir M. Ali. Luis Guillermo Aycardi. Prnbodh V. Bnnavnlkur. Bob A. Bcckner. T h e result was the Toll Buildings and Urban Enr,iron~nenfseries, being published by
Charles L. Bcckncr. George E. Brandow. John F. Bmtchie, Robcn J. Bmngmber. Yu D. By- McGraw-Hill. Inc.. New York. T h e present Monograph joins s i x o t h e r s , the first of
chenkov. Peter W. Chen. Ching-Chum Chcm. Pave1 Cirek. Andrew Dnvidr. John DeBremoekcr, which was reieased in 1992:
Dirk Dickc. Robcn 0. Disque. Richard Dziewolnki. Ehun Fang. Alexander W. Founleh. James G.
Forbes. Roben I. Hanren. Roben D. Hnnsen. Toshihnm Hisatoku. Arne Johnson. Michael Kavyr- Cost-in-Place Concrere in Toll Building Design ond Consrrucrion
chine. Mnn B. Kiimirler (editor). GcnF. Konig. Ryszwd M. KowaIczyk (chairman). Juraj Korak. Clodding
Monsieur G. Lacombe. Siegfried Liphardl. Miguel A. Mneiar-Rendon. Owen Mnrrin. Jaime Mn-
son. N. G. Mutkov. Gerardo G. Mayor. Leonard R Middleton. Jaime Munoz-Duquc. Jacques Building Design for Handicapped ond Aged Persons
Nasser. Anthony F. Nnrretta. Fujio Nirhikown. Alexis Ortapenko. Z. Powlowski. M. V. Parokhin. Fire Safely in Tall Buildings
Peter Y. S. Pun. Wcmer Quoscbnnh. Govidan Rahulan. Anthony Fracis Roper. Sntwant S. Rihai.
Leslie E. Robenson. Wolfgang Schurilcr. Duiliu Sfintesco. Robert Sinn (vice-chairman). Ramiro Senxi-Rigid Connecrions in Steel Frornes
A. Sofronie. A. G. Sokolov. Euuro Suzuki. Bungaie S. Tnranalh. A. R. Tonkley. Kenneth W. Wan. Cold-Formed Sfeel in Tall Buildings
Morden S. Yollcr. Nobih F. G. Yourrcf. Stefan Zucrek.
This parlicular Monograph was prepnrcd by the Council's Committee 3. Strucmral
Systems. Its earlier treatment was n part of Volume SC. I t dealt with the many issues
relating t o tall building structural systems when it was published in 1980. T h e com-
GROUP LEADERS mittee decided that a volume featuring cane studies of many of the most important
buildings o f the lust two decades would provide professionals with some interesting
The committee on Structural Systems is part of GroupSC of the Council, "Systems and Concepts." comparisons of how and why structural systems were chosen. T h e result of the com-
The leaders are:
mittee's cfforls is this Monograph. It provides case studies of tall buildings from Japan.
lamer G. Forbes. Chairman the United States. Malaysia. Australia. New Zealand. Hong Kong. Spain, and Singa-
Joseph P. Coluco, Vice-Chairman pore. This unique international survey examines the myriad o f archirecturni. engineer-
Henry J. Cownn. Editor ing, and construcdon issues that must b e taken into account in designing tall buildtag
structural systems.
Preface
Although tall buildings are generally considered to be a product of the modem indusui-
alized world. inherent human desire to build skyward is nearly as old as human civi-
lizntion. The ancient ovramids of Giza in Eevot, the Mavan temdes in Tikal. Guata-
mala, and the Kuwb in lndia arcjust a-fiw erampl& eternaily benring witness to
this instincL Skyscrapers in thc modcrn sense began to appear over a century ago; how-
ever, it was nnly after World War I1 that rapid urbani'ration and population growth cre-
ated the need for the conswction of tall buildings.
T h e dominant impact of Llll buildings on urban landscapes has tended to invite con-
...
trnvenv. o~ticularl; in cities with older historic structuris. The skvscraoer silhouette
has transformed andshaped the skylines of many cities, thercby creGing ;he most cbrr-
acteristic and symbolic lrstaments to thc cities' wealth and their inhabitants' collecti!,e
The ordinary observer recognizes the tall building primarily with respect to its exte-
rior architectural enclosure. This is nnly natural, as when we consider the great pyra-
mids of
~~~
.
-~ Eevot - -
-, our overridine imaee is bf their characteristic sharre. It is o d v re&ntlv
that we have begun to realize the creativity and colossal effnn expended by these an-
cient people to erect these swcmres in the desert at that time. So it is with the modem
~.
skvscrao;r.
- , The overall soatial form as well as the intricate deWiline -
- of the claddine svs-
tems are crucial in defining the architectural expression and in placing the tower within
-
the overall urban environment. The aim of this Monograph, however, is to have a look
under the outer covering of the building to reveal the stiuctural skeleton as well as to
provide historical knowledge documenting the design and construction techniques used
to realize these monuments in today's world.
This Monoeraoh is therefore dedicated to the structural systems for tall buildings:
their evo~utinn~anh historical development as well as the variety of solutions engendered
to allow the tower to be realized safely andcfliciently. As in the pas!, new nchievoments
. -
.in material science.. comouter-aided desien. and construction technology -. have opened
paths toward more sophisticated and elcgant swcturnl syslems for wll buildings. The
rwctuml system organization chosen for a p d c u l a r project determines the fundamen-
[at oropcnies of the aver;lll buiidinc. the behavior under imposed loads, its safety, and
oftin mav,have a drnmatic imoact on the architectural design. - The intent of this volume
is lo demonstrate the chmcteristic features of many outstanding syslem form5 while
documenting the faclors leading lo their selection for projects aclually realized.
The swctural systems for high-rise buildings are constantly evolving and at no time
can be described as a completed whole. Every month new buildings are being designed
and created, new projects conceived, and new schemes applied. Nevcnheless, we hope
it is worthwhile to present the current state of the M while being aware that progress in
svstems develooment is oneoine. -
The planning for thts Monograph began soon after the decision u,nc made by the
Council to expand the chapters of the original Monograph into separate volumes. The
concept of a volume based-on a survey of some of the most innovative examples of tall
building swctural systems conuibuted by leading engineers and design firms of the
xiv Preface
profession was conceived during the committee workship in Hong Kong in 1990. It was
only after estnblishina the editorial lendershir, for the work that the volume began to
takc form, will1 tlte scope and content of the book finallred. At this time a buildinf data
Contents
form wns prepared for collecting thc most essential inform3tion concerning the struc-
tural design of the buildings included herdin. The surveys were initiated and the re.
s ~ o n s e cs o m ~ i l e dbv Max filmister. This material reoresen& the core of the comoleled
dook and the.vast mijority of the work. Bob Sinn then'assembled all of the "looseknds"
of the compilation in the summer of 1993 in order to finish the completed volume in
time for publication.
The ~ o n o g r a as ~ ha uhole is a product of extensive lenmtr,ork. Sincere thanks go to 1. Introduction
all ofthc conuibutors who offered their valuablc time to share thew cxperirncc with the
1.1. Condensed Rererenccs/Bibliography
readers. It Is around this information that the cnurc uork is construc[ed. W e hope that
the information included may be presented lo a broad professional audience. This ex-
change of information is one of the tenets of the Council and is in fact a condition for 2. Classification of Tall Building S t r u c t u r a l S y s t e m s
progress in the design of tall buildings.
Supporting information for Chapter 5 from Drs. B. 1. Vickery. 1. D. Holmes. and 2.1. Condenrcd RererenceJBibliogmphy
J. C. K. Cheung is gratefully acknowledged, as is the Australian Research Grants Com-
mission for its suppon of the fundamental research.
As mentioned, we are aware that everyday Progress is made in the field of structurnl 3. Tall Building Floor S y s t e m s
engineering for high-rise buildings. Thc comn~itlceis already thinking about expmdlng 3.1. Composite Sleel Floor Systems
and updating this \,olume. \\'c urge all readers lo enrich and complement thia rrrrrk by 3.2. Presmssed and Porttcnrioned Concrete Floor Systems
writing the Council or ioining the commitke. Project Dereriptionr
~ i n ~ ~wcl lwould ~ . like lochpress our appruui;!lion to Dr. Lynn Beedle, ulto encour- Melbourne Ccnuvl
aged us to prepare this work and \rho ad\,ised and aupponed tltc efiori. \\'e dudicall: this Lulh Hcndqumers Building
book to him. Riverside Centcr
Bourke Plncc
Cenuvl P l m One
3.3. Condensed RefercncerlBibliogmphy
4.. Lateral Load Resisting S y s t e m s

Robert Sirm
Vice-Cltoimmn 4.1. Bnced Frnme and MomentRc;isting Frnme Sysrems
Project Derertptions
Mar B. Kilmisrer S~nwnBank
Editor ACTTower
Kobc Portopin Hole1
Nanhi South Tower Hotel
World Tmde Center
KobeCommercc. Indusuy and Trade Centcr
Mvrriott M q u i r Hotel
Taj Mnhnl Hotel
Tokyo Marine Building
Knmognwn Grand Tower
Shear Wall Syrlemr
Project Dc.cipUonr
Mcmpolitnn Tower
Embassy Suites Hotel
Singapore Treasury Building
77 Wcrt Wuckcr Drive
Casielden Ploce
Twin 21
Majestic Building
Telecorn Corporate Building
Contents Contents
4.3. Core nnd Outrigger Systems 6. Systems for the Future

Project Daeriptions
Cityspire 6.1. A~hiEhilecedTendencies
Chifley Tower 6.2. Slructural Tendencies
One Liberly Place 6.3. Other Tendencies
17 Smle Sueel Project Descriptions
Figuema at Wilrhlm Miglin-Beiller Tower
Four Allen Center Deurbom Ccnter
Tmmp Tower Bnnkof thc SouthwertTowcr
Woterfmnt Place Shimiru Super High Rise
Two Pmdentinl Plnw 6.4. Condensed RclerenceslBibliogmphy
1999 Bmadwvy
CilibnnkPloro
4.4. Tubulorsyslemr Current Ouestions, Problems, and Research Needs
P r o j s l Descriptions: Frnmed Tuber
Amoco Building
181 West Madiron Sueet
Nomenclature
AT&T Corpamte Cenler
Georgia Pacific Glorrury
450 Lexington Avenue Symbols
Mcllon Bank Abbreviudonr
Sumitorno Life Insumnce Building Units
Dewcy SquoreTou'er
Monon international
Nations Bank Coipante Center
Bvnk One Center
Cenml Ploro
Hopewcll Ccnuc
Project Descriptions: T-cd Tuber Contributors
F m l Inlemationol Building
Onteric Center
John Hancock Ccnter Building lndex
780 Third Avenue
Holel de las h e r
PI'ojffL Dereriptions: Bundled Tuber Name lndex
Sears Tower
Rinlto Building
N6E Building
Cnmegie Hall Tower Subject lndex
Allied BonkPloro
45. Hybrid Systems
PmjeclDiscriptions
Ovcrreos Union Bonk Cenler
Citicorp Ccnrer
CcnTmrusl Center
Columbia Seafirst Center
First Bnnk Place
Two Union Squorc
Fist Intersmte World Center
Hong Kong Bank Headqumers
4.6. Condensed ReierencesiBibliogmphy
5. Special Topics
5.1. Designing lo Reduce Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions
5 2 Fire Prolection of Swctunl Elements
5.3. Condensed RcfemnccdBibliognphy
Structural Systems
for Tall Buildings
Introduction
Smctural system for tall buildings have undergone a dramatic evolution throughout
the orevious decade and into the 1990s. Developments in structural system form and
orgnnirntion h m e historically been realized as a rcsponse to as well as an impclus
toward emerging architectural uends in high-rise building design. At thc time of pub-
lication of the initial Council Monograph Tnll Building Systems and Concepts in 1980.
international style and modernist high-rise designs, chanclerized by prismalic, repcti-
live verticnl geometries and flat-topped roofs, were predominant (Council on Tnll
Buildings. Group SC 1980). The devclopmcnt of Lhc prototype tubular systems for lnll
buildings was indeed predicated upon an ovcrall building form of constnnt or
smoothly varying profile. A representative office building project from the period is
shown in R g . 1.1. The rigid discipline of the cxterior rower form has since becn
rcplaccd in many cases by the highly articulated vcnical modulations of rhc building
envclopc characleristic of eclrclic postmodern. deconslructivist, and nrohistorical
high-risrexpressions (Rg. 1.2). This general disconlinuily and erosion of thc cxterior
facade has led to a new generation of tall building struclural systems that respond lo
the more flexible and idiosyncratic requirements of an increasingly varied architec-
tural aesthetic. Innovntive swctural systems involving megaframes, interior super-
diagonally braced h m e s , hybrid steel and high-strength concrete core and outrigger
systems, artificially damped structures, and spine structures nre among the composi-
tions which represent a step in the development of structural systems for high-rise
buildings. This Monograph seeks to further the plncement of some of the most excit-
ing and unique forms for today's tall building structures into the overall tall building
system hierarchy.
One of the fundamental goals of the Council has been to continualiy develop a tall
buildings dambase. The members of Committee SC-3, Structural Systems, decided
that rather than being a collection of papers or a general survey of tall building struc-
tural systems, the Monogmph would be organized with respect to such a database-type
format of structural and . .
. information on actual buildine-.oroiecu. The commit-
oroiect
tee thererore requested detailed informarion from engineers in Lhe profession, regard-
ing the structural design of some: of the most innovative high-rise projecrq throughout
the world. An enthusiastic resoonse from the s l ~ ~ c t u r eneineerine
nl ..
communirvoro-
vided very spucific engineering informntion such as wind nnd seismic Iondingz.
dynamic propenics. materials, and systems for a wide range of intcrnalional high-rise
oroiecls, both comoleted and in o&oosal staee. which i r e comoiled in this single
&k. These compr;hensive data &e [he p r i m 5 focus of this ~ o n n ~ r n pand h should
1
2 Introduction
b e of interest and value to practicing engineers and architects as well as other tall
[Chap. 1
I Chap. 11
3
I
building enthusiasts.
This Monograph is organized into six chapters. A general introduction to the clas-
sification of tall building structural systems is found in Chapter 2. The section begins
to define the parameters and characteristics for which tall building systems are evalu-
ated. Tall building floor systems arc discussed in Chapter 3, which includes recent
fierrill.)
.. .
Fic. 1.1 Ouolicr Onb Tuwcr. Chicuco.. Illinois.. Comnleted 1984. I.-
C c ~ ~ , n r sSkirln,oru
~~: O w i n"~ r&
Rg. 1.3 NBC TOCC~,
Chicago. Illinois, Cumplclcd 1991. (Cauncry: Skidruorr O t ~ i n ~S sblerriil.1
4 Introduction [Chap. 1 . ,.
: , , ., 1' ;.!
developments in posttensioned concrete floor systems for high-rise construction in

Australia. Structunl systems for tall buildings have historically been grouped with
respect to their ability to resist lateral loads effectively. Therefore Chapter 4. "Lateral
Load Resisting Systems." forms the core of the work, with system descriptions for
nver 50 r~ -
- - oroiects. . -
The oroiects are arraneed within five basic subclassifications for lat-
era1 load resistance with generally increasing efficiency and application for taller . ,..
buildines: braced frame and moment resisting frame systems, shear wall systems, core
and ouGigger systems, tubular systems, anhhybrid systems. Each subsection is pre-
$$:$$8%1. k
'. Classification of
ceded by a general introduction outlining the system forms. limimtions, advantages,
and applications. Chapter 5 discusses special topics in high-rise building structural Tall Building
systems. It presents infor!nation concerning the developing topics of wind-induced
motions and fire protection of structural members in tall buildings. The concluding Structural Systems
Chapter 6, in dealing with systems for the future, presents examples of projccts on the
drawing board and proposals which represent innovative state-of-the-art structural
designs for tall buildings.
1.1 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
Council on Tall Buildings. Group SC 1980. Toll Btrilding Syrlerm ond Conceplr.
The Council definition of a tall building defines the unique nature of the high-rise proj-
ect: "A building whose height creates different conditions in the desieo, construction.
and use than those that exisi in common buildines u
of a cenain reeionand oeriod." For
b
the practicing structural engineer, the cataloging of suuctuial systems for tall buildings
has historically recognized the primary importance of the system to resist lateral loads.
.
The ~roeressionofiateral load resisiineichemes from eiemental beam and column
assemblages toward the notion of an equivalent vertical cantilever is fundamental to
any suuctunl systems methodology.
In 1965 Fazlur Khan (1966) recognized that this hierarchy of system forms could
be roughly categorized with respect lo relative effectiveness in resisting lateral loads
(Fig. 2.1). At one end of the spectrum are the moment resisting frames, which are effi-
cient for buildings in the range of 20 to 30 stories; at the other end is the generation 01
tubular systems with high cantilever efficiency. With the endpoints defined, other sys-
tems were placed with the idea that the application of any panicular form is economi-
cal only over a limited range of building heights. The system charts were updated
periodically as new systems were developed and improvemcnts in materials and
analysis techniques evolved.
Alternatively, the classification process could be based on cenain engineering and
systems criteria which define both the physical as well as the design aspects of the
building:
Material
Steel
Concrcte
Composite
Gravity load resisting systems
Floor framing (beams, slabs)
Columns
6 Classification of Structural Systems [Chap. 2
Chap. 21
and load transfer. These levels are further broken down into subgroups and discrete
7
I
Trusses systems (Fig. 2.2). This format allows for the consistent and specific identification
Foundations and documentation of tall buildings and their systems. the overriding goal being to
. Lateral load resisting systems achieve a comprehensive worldwide survey of the performonce of buildings in the
hieh-rise
=~~~ environment
~~~ -~ . -
~
Walls While any cataloging scheme must address the preeminent focus on lateral load
Frames resislance, the load-carrying function of the tall building subsystems is rarely indepen-
Trusses dent. The most efficient high-rise systems fully engage vertical gravity load resisting
elements in the lateral load subsystem in order lo reduce the overall structural pre-
Diaphragms
. Type and magnitude of lateral loads
mium for resisting lateral loads. Some degree of independence is generally recognized
between thefloor fmnzing sjsrr,t!s and the loferal load rerisring qsrenzs, although the
integration of these subassemblies into the overall structural organization is crucial.
Wind
Seismic
Strcngth and serviceability rcquirements
Drift
Acceleration
Ductility
LEVEL A
Framing
systems
I LEVEL B
I
In 1984 the Council attempted to develop a rigorous methodology for the cata-
loging of tall buildings with respect to their structural systems (Falconer nnd Beedle.
1984). The classification scheme involves four distinct levels of framing-oriented
division: primary Framing system, bracing subsystem. floor framing, and configuration
Building
I /
framing configuration
subsystems and load
(XX) transfer
(XX YY 2)
Elevation
TYPE I I TYPE 11 I I TYPE Ill 1) TYPE IV I

Fig. 2.2 Clvrrilicoliun of rlrurlurul syrlernr. (Folnl,ler rrnd Beedlr. 1984.1
Fig. 2.1 Cornpurironof rlruelurol syetcmr. (CTDUH, CrortpSC. 1980.1
[Chap. 2
8 Classification of Structural Systems
This Monograph therefore divides the discuss~onof tall bu~ldtngsmctural Systems

into the subsystems mentioned.
1
I 3
2.1 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BBLIOGRAPHY Tall Building
Falconer and Beedlc 1984. Clarrlficnr!on of Toll Bulldlng S),srem.
Khnn 1966, oprlmtzo~lonO ~ B U LS:rucrurer
I ~ ~ ~
Floor Systems
3.1 COMPOSITE STEEL FLOOR SYSTEMS
Composite floor systems typically involve simply supported structural steel beams.
joists, girders, or trusses linked via shear connectors with a concrete floor slab to form
&I effective T-beam flexural member resisting primarily gravity loads. The versatility
of the system results from the inherent strength of the concrete floor component in
compression and the tensile seeneth and spannabiliw of the steel member. ~ o m o o s i t e
flw; system are advantageous because ofreduced material costs, reduced labor i u e to
prefabrication, faster couslruction times, simple and repetitive connection details.
-.
reduced stiuctural depths and consequent efficient use of interstitial ceiline soace. and
reduced building mass in zones of henvy scismic activity. The composite floor system
slab element can be formed by a flat-soffit reinforced concrete slab, precast concrete
planks or floor panels with or without a cast-in-place t o.. ~ ~-i slab.
n e . o r a metal steel
deck, either composite or noncomposite (Fig. 3.i). When a composite floor framing
membcr is combined with a composite metal deck and a concrete floor slab, an
e x ~ c m e l yeff~cientsystem is formed. The composite action of the beam or truss elc-
men1 is due to shear studs welded directly through the metal deck, whereas the compos-
ite action of the metal deck results fmm side embossments incorporated into the steel
sheet profile. The slab and beam arrangement typical in composite floor systems pr*
duces a rigid horizontal diaphragm, providing stability to the overall building system
while distributing wind and seismic s h e m to the lateral load resisting system elements.
1 Composite Beams and Girders
. .
Steel and concrete com~ositebeams mav be formed either bv com~letelvencasine a
steel member in concrete, with the composite action depending on the natural bond
~~
caused by the chemical adhesion and mechanical friction between steel and concrete.
or by connecting the concrete floor to the top flanee of the steel frnmine member
- shear c&nectors (Fie.
throueh .
. - 3.1). The concrete-encased comoosite steelienm
~~ - ~~~was ~
common prior lo the dcvclopment of sprayed-on ccmentitious and board or ball type
fireproofing materials, which economically replaced the henvy formed concrete insu-
lation on the steel beam. Todny the m o s ~ c o ~ m onrrangemmt
n found in composite
9
10 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Sect. 3.11 Cornposits Steel Floor Systems 11
floor systems is a rolled or built-up steel beam connected to a formed steel deck and In composite beam design. h e stress distribution at working loads across the com-
concrete
- - ~~~
-. . roans
slab. The metal deck tvnicallv . unshored between steel members while
also providing a uorking platlonn for steel erection. The met31 deck slab may be ori-
-
. flanee of h e steel section is
nosite section is shown schematicallv in Fie. 3.3. As the tor,
normally quite near h e neutral axis and consequently lightly stressed, a number of built-
enled parallel or perpendicular lo the compo>ite beam span and may ilself be either up or hybrid composite beam schemes have been formulated in an attempt to use the
comoosite or noncomnosilr (form deck). . F i-~ u r c3 ? shows a typical
.. office building structural steel material more efficiently (Fig. 3.4). Hybrid beams fabricated from
floor that is framed in composite steel beams. ASTM A36 grade top flange steel and 345-MPn (50-hi)-yield bonom flange steel have
been used. Also, built-up composire beam schemes or tnpered flange beams are possible.
In all of these cases. however. the increased fabrication costs must be evaluated which
lend lo offset the rclalivt: malerial efficiency. In addition. a rcl3tively wide and thick-
gauge top flange must be provided for proprr and rffr.cli$,e shex slud isslallalion.
A n"smat& comnosik steel beam h& two fundamental disadvantapes - over other
types of composite floor framing types. ( I ) The mcmbcr !nus1 bc designed for the
maximum bending momenl near midspan and thus is oRcn undcrs!rrs,ud near h e sup-
COMPOSITE BEAM
wm FlAT
MFFlrRElNFORCW
CONCRETESLAB
Fig. 3 2 Three First Nntionol Plnm, Chicago, Illiooir, lyplcnl noor.
C O M P O S E BEAM COMPOSEBEAM
wrm METAL DECK W m MEFALOECK
A N 0 CONCRETE SLAB A N 0 CONCRETESLAB WORKING ULTIMATE
(RIBS PEAPENDICUldR~ (RIBS PABALLEL) LOADS LOAD
Fig. 3.1 Comporite benm sjstems. Fig. 3.3 Composite beam stress dirlribution.
I :>,i;~
Sect. 3.11 Composite Steel Floor Systems 13
12 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 j ,. ,:,: . ~
Succc$si~llcnmpnwte hc:m ile.;ign T'LII.IIL.\ the c~nsideri~tio~t ni \.ilriol~<<cr\ic~.-
pons, and (2) building-serviccs ductwork and piptng must pass beneath the beam, or ability ~*.os; >o;b ;IS I~rnn-tsr~tt (clsupl denc:ti~rns ;lnJ nuor vihr;dinns. 0 1 p3rticul;tr
the beam must be provided with web penc~rattons(normally reinforced with plates or
- - .
ancles leadinc to hirher fabricatton costs) to allow access for this csui~ment
u . For this
reason, a number of composite girder forms allowing the free passage af mechanical,
cunccrn is lltc iw.c oi pcrc~ptihilityof n:cupaot-indursd tl~tnrr ~ h r ~ l ~ oThe n s . rsln-
lively l!i;lt II~.rur;ll~ l i l l n c roi~ a1o.l nltnporilc noor fr;lming a)slr.m> rerulls ill rela-
t i t c h lot. !ihralion :~!#,t>litndrc irnm 1r.losilory hcel-dlop d ~ ~ i l : l t ~ oand
n s thcr:lore is
ducts and related services through the depth of the girder have been developed. They' effective in reducing perccptihility. Recent studies have shown that short 17.6 m (25
include tapered and dapped girders, castellated beams, and stub girder systems (Fig. fi) and lcss] and rery lollg clcar-sp;ln 113.7 nl (45 St) and longer] cunlposile floor
3.5). As the tapered girders are completely fabricated from plate elemenls or cut from
rolled shapes, these composite members are frequently hybrid, with the top flange -.
framine svstcnls ncriornl suite well and :!re rarely found to transmit annoying
tions to the occup8tnts. Particular care is requircd for span conditions in thc (9.1- to
. .vibra-
designed in lower-strength steel. Applications of tapered composite girders to office
10.7-m) 130- to 35-ftl rangc. Anticip.atcd danlping provided by partitions which extend
building construction are limited since the main mechanical duct loop normally runs
to the sl:lb cthovc. serviucs. ceiling constructiot~,andthe structure itself are used in
through the center of the lease span rather than at each end. The castellated composite
conjunctiott with htate-of-thc-;lrt prediction tllodels to evalue~ethc potential for pcr-
beam is formed from a single rolled wide-flange steel beam cut and then reassembled
ceptible noor i~ibrations.
by welding with the resulting increased depth and hexagonal openings. These mem-
bers are available in standard shapes by serial size and are quite common in the United
Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Use in the United Stales is limited due to the
increased fabrication cost and the fact that the standard castellated openings are not 2 Composite J o i s t s and Trusses
large enough to accommodate the large mechanical ductwork common in modern
high-rise, large floor plate building construction common in the United States. The
stub girder system involves the use of short sections of beam welded to the top flange
Preeneinccred
= . . . .
nronrictnrv oncn-web lloor ioists. ioisl -rirders. and fabricated noor
trusses are viable composite memhcrs when combined with a concrete noor slab. The
of a continuous, heavier bottom girder member. Continuous transverse secondary advanta~esof an opetl-wcb nour framing 5ystcm include increnscd spannabilily and
beams and ducts pass through the openings formed by the beam stubs. This system has stiffnus;due to 1he.decocr s~ructuralden& =ncl case in nccomrnodatine- electrical con-
~ ~
been used in many building projects, but generally requires a shored design with con- duit. plumbing pipes. and heating and air-condilioninp ductwork. Open web systems
sequent construction cost premiums. do, however. carry :I picmiuln for itreprunling thc many. rcla~ivelyihin, components of
............................................................
C5ZJ -J?C: .... .-,.
; .-.,
.. - L..
1 bc:;'TAPERED
;~
....... ....?..........-....................... .*.,

6C",I~~~~TE
TAPERED
HYBRID
C0MPOSITEBEb.M
BUILT-UP .. .. -..,. ......................... ..........................
?
COMPOSm BEAM
a??+-'.
V--=d "
....
. . <:. .;-,. 1
>.
DAPPED
CASTELLATED
Lf4-Z
ROLLED
.......... ........ .,,.,, . . . . ., . . . . ."

'
t
.
. . .,. . . . . .
I I <. I -.*
TAPERED FLANOE BUILT-UP HYBRID SYSTEM
COMPOSITEBEAM COMPOSm BEAM
Fig. 3.5 Nonprismulie enn~purilcgirdur.5.
Fig. 3.4 Buill-up and hybrid composite bcnms.
14 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 15
the member. Open-web steel joists have been used in composite action with flat-soffit shear connectors. The most common floor system in building construction is a com-
concrete slabs and metal deck slabs supporting concrete fill with and without sheer oosite metal deck and concrete slab chosen based on fire seoaration and acoustical
conhectors. The desien for these svstems is orimarilv based on manufacturers' test requiremenu spanning between composite floor trusses. The floor trusses are normally
d313 , I s ~~p'n-~veb steel jotbtb and joist girders nornlally are \paced relatively clusaly. spaced such that the metal deck slab sonns as the concrete form between the trusses
rile full polenrial lor composite elilc~cncyis not rcalircd as conlpared to o1hr.r cunlpor- without requiring any additional shoring.
ite floo; systems. Composite design does provide quantifiableadvantages over "on-
comoositc desien for oocn-web floor ioisls such as increased stiffness
b
- -and~ducdlitv.
~~
Ruill-up labricatcd compo\ilu nonr trusses cumbinc m ~ t u r ~ ciilcicncy

al io rcln-
lively long-span 3pplicntions svtlh rn;lxinlom flea~h~lity fnr iscorporaung huildinz-ser- 3.2 PRESTRESSED AND POSTTENSIONED
\,ic<r dusluork and .oioina-
. into tilu cellinr!- caritv. The urufill: of the truss lorm alluhi,
for large mechanical air ducts as well as other piping and electrical lines to pass
CONCRETE FLOOR SYSTEMS
through the openings formcd by the lriangularization of the web mcmbcrs. The
increased depth of the comuosite truss svslcm over a standard rolled-shaoe comnosite
Prestressed floors are commooolnce in buildines throuehout
u .
the world.. narticularlv in
low-rise SlNCtUreS such as parking garages and shopping centers. Precast pretensioned
beam system with building-scrvices dictwork and piping passing bclbw the'beam floor units have remained popular since the 1960s. and cast-in-place posttensioned
results in maximum material eificicncy and high flexural stilfness. Generally, com-
posite floor trusses are considcrcd economically viable lor floor spans in excess of -
concrete floors have eainedwfde acccotance since the mid 1970s
Poslrensioncd floors have been widely uscd for high-rise office buildings in Aus-
about 9 m (30 it). A iurtltcr requirement Tor noor truss systems is that the Framing Iny- tralia since the cnrly 1980s. and there are examples in the United States, the most
out be uniform. resuldng in relatively few truss types, which can be readily built in the
notable bcing 31 1 South W a c k r Drive, Chicago, which was the tallest concrete build-
fabrication shop using a jig. Otherwise the high lcvcl of fabrication inherent in the ing in the world when completed.
floor truss assemblage Lends to ofissct the relative material eliicicncy. For this reason,
composite floor truss systems are particularly nttractive in high-rise uiiice building
applications where large open lcnsc spans are required and noor configurations arc
generally repetitive over the ltcight of the building. Figure 3.6 shows an example of a
project utilizing composite noor trusses as part of an o\,erall mixed steel and concrete EXTEA1OR STEEL COUPOS~
building irante. GR4VITI COLUMNS
- -
Anv trianaulated oocn-web form can be used lo define the reometrv o f t h e fabri-
cated noor truss: however. the Warren w s s , with or without web verticals, is the one
AIIb SPANDRELS
utilized most often (Fig. 3.7). Thc Warren truss without vcrdcals provides n maximum
open-web area to acco&modate ducta,ork and piping. Vertical wdb membcrs added to
the Warren truss or a Pratt truss geometry may be utilized when the unbraccd length
of the compression chord is critical. Often a Vierendeel panel in thc low-shenr zone
near the center of the span is incornorated into the truss confiruration to accommodate
the main air-handling mechanical buct loop in office building applications. The spac-
ing of the web members should bc chosen such that the free passage of ductwork and
. - .is not inhibited while maintaining a reasonable c o m o ~ c s s i o ntop-chord
piping
unbraced lensth. On the other hand. the nnlle =~~of the web diaeonalr should be made
~~ L~~~ ~
~ ~
relatively sha~lowto reduce the number of members and associated joint \\-elding. This
must be balanced by the fact that shallower web members result in loneer - unbraced
lengths and higher member axial forces, often requiring connection gusset plates.
thereby increasing iabrication costs and decreasing the clear area for ductwork and
piping. A panel spacing of roughly two to three limes the truss depth is a good rule of
thumb for orienting web diagonals. The floor truss configuration should be detailed
such that any significant point loads are applied at truss panel points. A vertical web
member may be introduced into the truss girder geometry Lo transfer these imposed
shear loads into the truss svstcm.
A variety o i chord and web member cross sections may be utilized in building,up
the floor truss geometry (sec Fig. 3.8). Chord mcmbers may be wide-flangc - T or sin-
gle-angle sections to allow easy, direct connection of web mcmbers without gusset
plates. Rectangular tubes o r double-angle s e ~ t i o n sare less commonly used chord
members as they require gusset-plated connections. Web members are most often Ts
o r single- or double-ancle sections welded directly Lo the chord T or angle stem.
~ ~
althouih tube sections lhive been used. The composiie floor truss system is &mpleted TYPICALCOMPOSrrE FLOOR TRUSS
through the direct connection of the top chord flange to the concrete floor sl-b by Fig. 3.6 One North Fmnkiin, Chiengo. lllinoir.
16 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3
I '
Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 17
7 General Considerations
High-rise oftice buildings usually have long-span floors to achieve the desirable col-
umn-free space, and the spans are usually noncontinuous between the core and the
facade. To achieve long spans and still maintain acceptable deflections requires a deep
I tensioned concrete beams it is possible to achicve a shallow floor structure and still
m~intainaccepwble deflections witl~ourthe need for expensive prrcamhering.
Hirlt-risc residential buildin~susunllv do nor require lona spans because column-
free s b c e is not a selling point;the tenant or buyer ices the spice already subdivided
by walls, which effectively hide the columns. Hence continuous spans can be
floor system in steel or reinforced concrete. However, by adopting prestressed post- achieved. Unlike office buildings, residential buildings do not as a rule have sus-
pended ceilings-the ceiling may be just a sprayed h~gh-buildcoating on the slab sof-
fit or a plasterboard ceilina on battens fixed to tbe slab soffit. Flat-plate floors are
mumm
WARREN TRUSS 1 therefore required and deflection control is an imponant design consideration. Where
I the columns form a reasonably regular grid, prestressing can be very effective in mini-
mizing the slab thickness while at the same time controlling deflections.
~ l f h o u g hit is customary to use posttensioning for prestressed concrete high-rise
buildings, precast pretensioned concrete can be used and has been employed in some
buildines described in this Monomph (Luth Building: Mnrriott Hotel, New York; Tai
- .
Mahal hotell. The maior disadvaitaee of nrecast oretensioned concrete floor beams or
slabs is the cranage required to lift the heavy uniu along with the field-welded connec-
tions required for stability and diaphragm
. - action. Precast prelensioned floor members
are usually tied together by and made composite with a thin cast-in-place topping slab.
Floor posttensioned systems use either 12.7- or 15.2-mm (0.5- or 0.6-in.) high-
streneth
" steel strand formed into tendons. The tendons can be either "unbonded,"
where individual strands are greased and sheathed in plastic, or "bonded," where
groups of four or five strands are placed inside flat metal ducts that are filled with
Eement eroul after strcssina. On a worldwide basis, bonded systems are preferred in
high-rise buildings becausithey have demonstrated better long-term du&bility than
unbonded systems. Although unbonded systems used today have improved corrosion
Fig. 3.7 Camporilc noor trusr geometries. resistance compared to earlier systems, there is still a large number of older buildings
that exhibit corrosion problems in their unbonded tendons. Another reason that
bonded posttensioned systems nre preferred is that cutting tendons for renovations or
demolition is both simpler and safer when the tendons are bonded to the concrete.
Nevenheless, care musibe exercised as it is by no means unknown for tendons speci-
fied to be grouted to have had this vital operation omitted. In this aspect. good quality
control is essential. Figure 3.9 illustrates a typical posttensioned floor using unbonded
tendons, whereas Figs. 3.10 and 3.11 illustrate the construction of a typical postten-
sioned floor using bonded tendons.
The most common posttensioned systems are:
Posttensioned flat slabs and flat plates (Fig. 3.12)
Posttensioned beams supporting posttensioned slabs (Fig. 3.13)
Posttensioncd benms supporting reinforced concrete slabs (Fig. 3.14)
Currently with computer programs readily available to carry out cracked section
analysis of prestressed concrete, it is normal to design for partial prestress where the
- -
concrete is assumed to be cracked at full desien workine food and untensioned steel
comprises a significant portion of the total reinforcement. The partial prestress ratio
(PPR) gives the degree of prestress
PPR = .--! &-

A,&,
+
CHOilOB hubl~lnglem Ree?.TUk R L U b . . -

whereA r-f"2 is the cross section area of orestressed steel multiolied bv its vield shenath
WEB MEMBERS IL.% IL %. ,,-Tub. and A,J 8 ) is the cross section are3 of normal rcinforccd sleel multiplied by its yisld
ri,n IZX
stress A useful starling point in d:tarm!ning the amount uf prcstrcss rzqi~ircdis lo pro-
Fig.3.8 Composite trurr romponcnleections. ride culficicnt prestress lo lh313ncc oboul 15% of the self-weight of the nnor blrUclllrLI.
i
i
; ,:
:
I Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems
l9 I
Untensioncd steel is then added to satisfy the ultimate limit state. (This will often result In high-rise buildings it is preferable to avoid running floor beams into heavily
, i reinforced perimeter columns for two reasons:
in a PPR of about 0.6.) Deflections and shear capacity must also be checked:
The span-to-depth ratio of a single-span noncontinuous floor beam will be about 1. There are difficulties in accommodating tendon anchorages, which compete far
25; for a continuous beam it will be about 28 and for a flat-plate beam about 45 for an space with the column reinforcement.
internal span and 40 for an end span.
I/ 2. Frame action developed between the beams and columns causes the design bending
moment between floors to vary as the fram~sresist lateral load, thereby diminishing
the number of identical floors that can be designed, delailed. and conswcted.
Instead of being directly supponed by columns, the floor beams should be supported
by the spandrel beams.
Prestressing anchorages can be on the outside of the building (requiring external
access). at a step in the soffit of the beams [see Riverside Centre and Bourke Place
(Figs. 3.15. 3.30, and 3.33)], or in a pocket at the lop of the floor. Top-of-floor pock-
ets have the disadvantage that they usually cause local vnrialions in the flatness o i the
floor and rough patches, which may need to be ground flush.
Bccause posttensioning causes axial shortening of the prestressed member, it is
necessary to consider the effects of axial reslraint, that is, the effects of stiff columns
!
I
Fig. 3.9 Typical porllcnrioncd noor wing unbondcd lendonr.
SRESSING GROUTING
~ i g3.11
. Construction requcnce Ibr bondcd purttrnrionud conercle.
Fig. 3.10 Typiroi porllcnrioncd noor using bondcd lunduns.
.:~.
..3)>
~:?* .
20 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 '2 , Sect. 3.21 Prestressed and Posnensioned Concrete Floor Systems 21
and walls. Such restraint has two potential effects: it can overstress the co!umns or The last item can be very significant as any height reduction translates directly into
walls in bending and shear, and it can reduce the amount of prestress in the floor. savings in all vertical structural, architectural, and building-services elements.
Fortunately the stiff core of a high-rise building is usually fairly central so that the The construction will proceed wilh the same speed as a normal reinforced concrete
axial shortening of the floor can be generally in a direction toward the core. This floor, with four-day floor-to-floor construction cycles being achieved regularly on
means that the perimeter columns move inward, but because they move by the same high-rise office buildings with posttensioned floors (Fig. 3.18). Three-day cycles can
amount from story to story, no significant permanent bending stresser occur except in ..., easily,..be achieved using an additional set of forms and higher strength concretes to
the first story abuus a nonprestressed,floor, which is often the ground floor. As this*:' shorteb posttensioning time.
,lev is usually higher than a typical ,tory. the flexibility of rhc columns is greater and A major cost variable in posuensioned floors is the leneth of the tendons. Short
~
1111: induced bdndinp mo~nents[nay be easily accommodated. Horvevsr. the loss of prc- tendons ;re relativsly expen\c\,e compared lo long tendons. &re 3.1'1 shows tltc cost
stress in thc floor may necessitate some additional t~nte~~sioned reinforcement. trend for tendons ranging front 10 to 60 m (33 to 200 it). Tlte relntively high cost of
short tendons rssults from fixcd-cost components such as setup costs, asohorapcj, and
lcndon stressing being prorated over lesser a m o ~ n t sof itrand. Tlte influence of strmd
2 Economics of Posttensioning "retli~tglosses" is also greater with ruv shun strands, thus incrc3sing the area of ten-
don required. Nevertheless, even though most tendons in a high-rise building floor
Posttensioned concrete floors will usually result in economics in the total construction will be only around 10 to 15 m (33 to 50 it), the system is economical because of sav-
cost because of the following: ings in floor depth, and it is desirable because of control of deflections and the lack of
.. Less concrete used because of shallower floor Structure (Fig. 3.16)
Less load on columns and footings
,, .~
need for precambering. For grouted tendons. the optimum economical size has been
round to be the four- or five-strand tendon in a flat duct because the anchorages are
. Shallower structural depth, resulting in rcduced story height (Fig. 3.17)

compact and readily accommodated within normal building members and because
stressing is carried out with a lightjack easily handled by one person.
no drop panels
1 Multispan,flat plate,
l r o panels
~ I
22 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 1 , Ssct. 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 23
Comparing the cost of bonded and unbonded tendons will generally show the
unbonded system as being slightly cheaper. This is because unbonded posttensioning
usually requires less strand due to lower friction and greater available drape. Unbonded
strand also does not need grouting with its costs of time and labor. As a floor using
unbonded strand will require more reinforcement than a bonded system due to lower
ultimate flexural strength and code requiremcnls, the combined cost of the strand and
untensioned reinforcement will be almost the same as that for bonded systems.
The cost of a posttensioned system is funher affected by the building floor geome-
try and irregularities. For example:
The higher the perimeter-to-area ratio, the higher the normal reinforcement content
. since reinforcement in the perimeter can be a significant percentage of the lolal.

Angled perimeters increase reinlorcement and make anchorage pockets larger and
more difficult lo form.
Inlernal stressing from the floor surface increases costs due to the provision of the
wedge-shaped stressing pockes and increased amounts of reinforcement.
Slab steps and penetrations will increase posttensioning costs if they decrease the
length of tendons.
Fig. 3.15 Bourkc Ploce. Melbourne, Aurlmlin: 53 levels.

Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 S e c t 3.21 Prestressed and Posttensioned Concrete Floor Systems 25
3 Cutting Prestressed Tendons I Floor being poured7

One of the main drawbacks of posttensioned systems is the difficulty of dealing with
stressed strands and tendons during structure modifications or demolition. Although
.,..
+
modifications are more difficult, some procedures have been developed to make this
.,.:
process easier.
Small penetrations required to meet changes lo plumbing or similar requirernenls
are the most common of a11 modiiications that are made to the floor system. The size ' 1
,~-r..;.,., :.:,?$ .
!y::'J.-c: --2.
!
-~ . .
of lhcse penetrations is typically from 50 to 250 mm (2 lo 10 in.) in~dinmeter.As a

posrlenrioned floor relies on the posttcnsioncd tendons for IS strcnglh, it is prufrrablc
to avoid cuttine, the tendons whcn drilling through the floor for the new penetrat~on.
Finding the tendons in a floor to permil the localbn of penetrations without damaging
1
any tendons is a very simple procedure that is carried out with the aid of an electronic
tendon locater. Tendons are accurately located using this system withon1 any need to
remove floor coverings or ceilings.
Full access for Finishing Trades
Fig. 3.18 Typlcnl noor propping.

1
Concrete Reinf + P.T.
Bl3.C. R P.T.
Fig. 3.16 hlnteriul hnndling-reinforced concrete versus portlcnrioncd ryrlem.
Average tendon length, rn

Fig. 3.17 Exnmplc orstepped beurn sullil; Bourkc Plucc, hlclbourne. Aurlrnlln. Fig. 3.19 Portlenrianing corb.
26 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Project Descriptions 27
,,. .
In a typical posttensioned floor it is possible.to locate penetrations of up to 1000 by

3000 mm (3 by 9 ft) belween posttensioned tendons and to require no other modifica- I PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
tion to the floor. Penetrations that require cutting of the posttensioned tendons will
need lo be checked and designed as would any large penetration in any floor system.
The procedure commonly adopted in a floor using bonded tendons is as follows: I ...:,
<..
.,
...I,
Melbourne Central
Melbourne, Australia
Architect Kisho Kurokswa with Bates Smart &
1. Design the modified floor smcture in the vicinity of the penetration, assuming McCutcheon
that any cut posttensioned tendons are dead-ended at the penetration.
Structural engineer Connell Wagner
2. Install any strengthening required.
Year of compleIion 1991
3. Locate tendons and inspect grouting.
He~ghtfrom street to roof 21 1 m (692 ft)
4. If there is no doubt as to the quality of the grouting, proceed lo step 5. Other-
wise strip off ducting, clean out grout, nnd epoxy grout the strands over a length Number of stories 54
of 500 mm (20 in.) immediately adjacent to the penetration. Number of levels below ground 3
5. Install props. Bullding use Office
6. Core drill the corners of the penetration to eliminate the nced for overcutling. Frame maanal Concrete core, steel floor beams
and then cut the perimeter using a diamond saw. Typical floor live load 3-kPa (60-ps0 beams, 4-kPa (80-psf)
7. Cut up the slab and remove. slabs
8. Paint an epoxy-protective coating over the ends o i the strands to pre\,enl corro- Basic wind velocity 5 0 m/s (112 mph) ullimate. 100-yr return
sion. Maximum lateral deflcction 100 mm (4 in.), 50-yr rctum
9. Remove props. Design fundamental per~od 4.2 scc
If a large penetration through a floor cannot be located within the slab area but Design accelcrat~on 2.9 mg rms. 5-yr return
must intersect a primary support beam, then substantial strengthening of adjacent Dcs~gndamping 1% serviceability, 5% ultimate
beams will usually be necessary.
Earthquake loading Not applicable
Whcn culling openings into floors built using unbondcd postlensioned tendons the
procedures used for bonded posttensioned tendons cannot bc applied. The preferred Type of structure Concrete core, concrete perimeter tube
procedure that has been developed to permit controlled cuttinf of unbondcd strands is in lube
to use a special detensioning jack. The jack grips the strand and the strand is then cut. Foundation conditions Mudstone, 2000-kPa (20-tonlfl') capacity
i with the force in the strands being released slowly. New anchorages are then installed Footing type Pads to columns, raft to core
at each side of the new opening and the strands restressed.
Extensive experience has been gained in demolition procedures for posllensioncd Typical floor
floors, and some general comments can be made. In bonded systems the procedures Story height 3.85 m (12 ft 7 in.)
for demolition are the same as for reinforced concrete. The individual strands will not Beam span 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in.)
! dislodge at stressing anchorages. In unbonded systems the strand capacity is lost over Beam depth 530 mm (21 in.)
its entire length when cut; therefore the floor will require backpropping during demo- Beam spacing 3 m ( l 0 it)
lition. The individual cut strands will dislodge at stressing anchorages, but will move Slab 120 mm (4.75 in.) on metal deck
generally less than 450 mm (18 in.). However, precautions should al!i~ays be taken in Columns
case the strands move more than this. Size at ground floor
Spacing
Concrete strength
Core
Shear walls 65 MPa (10,000 psi) maximum
Thickness at ground flool 600 and 200 mm (24 and 8 in.)
Melbourne Central comprises a 57-level office tower of 60,000 m' (646,000 fl') (net
rentable) and a large retail development of a funher 60.000 m' (Fig. 3.20). The overall
dimensions of !he tower are 43.72 by 43.72 m (143 by 143 ft). The tower is 21 1 m
(692 ft) above street level and 225 m (738 ft) above the core raR. The facade is a glass
and aluminum curtain wall.
The lower floors consist of steel b u m s spanning from the core to the facade wi
composite concrete slab. supported on stoctural steel decking, spanning brtwecn
.. ,,
".
Project Descriptions
The column spacing at the facade is 6 m (20 ft). A perimeter beam is required to
29
I
carry the intermediate floor beams. This is a 900-mrn-deep by 300-mm-wide (36- by
steel beams (Fig. 3.21). The steel beams are generally at 3-m 1 10-it) centers. and 12-in.), prccasl concrete beam. Although this is precast concrete, it is erected in the
typical beam is a 530UBB2 (21UB55). Tlie structural steel decking is I mm (0.04 same way as a sleel beam and as part of the steel frame. The use of precast concrete
thick, unpropped. simplifies the fire rating of the slructure at the perimeter where access is difficult. It
. also provides the 900-mm (36-in.)-deep fire barrier between floors required by the
building regulations. The fixings for the curtain wall are cast into lhis beam, resulting
in reliable and accurate positioning.
The floor-to-floor height is 3875 mm (12 ft 8.5 in.) for the typical floors. The
floor-to-ceiling height is 2900 rnm (9 ft 6 in.), which allows for a future access floor
of 200 mm (8 in.) in height, to be installed by a tenant, providing a minimum 7700-
mm 18-it 10-in.) occuoied soace.
~ i wind
v resistance~- stricture for this buildine" consists of the core cantileverine.
from lhe lootin: in combinslion w i l l 1 3 nominal conlribulion from the filcndc rtruclurr.
oi ihd column 2nd nrecnst bcnm. This ru,ulls in the fac3de structure cnrqing approxi-
mately 10% of the wind load on the building, and, more importantly, it convibutes
gig.3.11 LOW-rircfloor LE-L14 hl~lbourneCcnlml.

30 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Project Descriptions
significantly to the sway serviceability perromance. The remainder of the wind load
is carried by the core element.
The central-services core to the building is reinforced concrete from the footings to
the roof. All the internal walls are 200 mm (8 in.) thick. This thickness remains
unchanged over the full height of the building. The 200-mm (8-in.) internal wall thick-
ness is h e optimum to achieve load-carrying capacity, minimal slenderness effects, and
conslructability. The external walls vary from 600 and 550 mm (24 and 22 in.) thick at
the bottom of the buildine to 250 mm (10 in.) thick at the buildine too. Concrete
strengths in the core walls &y from 70 td 30 h&a (10.000 to 4300 psijat 9'0 days.
The columns are a composite of reinforced concrete with a 310UC137 steel column.
These steel columns are erected as part o f the steel frame. Subseuuentlv thev arc
encased within the reinforccd concrete column and oermit erection - ~ n ~
-~i the
~ - - sirel
~ - -frame
~ ~
I0 floors J x a d ofconcrc.le cnc3semcn1 ( R E 3 22). This conccpl, in comb!nolion wilh

s rlructural aleel d:cking. pcrmils bun-fit in^ from 111c~ d v a ~ l -
~ h crtci'l noor b u ~ n ~and
- - .
tares of steel construction while at the same time minimizine the ouantitv of the rela-
lively cxpun<ive material tl~atis sleel. This is iund3menlal lo 3 coniporile steel ind
MELEOURNE CENTRAL
TLOm TO FLOOR OlllENYOl6
concrele buildine of this lype. where lhu advnnljges uf rctnforc~.dconcrels 2nd sled -- r ~ ~ nrrm
~ n firm
i
il
are both incornorated into ihe strucmre.
The footings to the tower are foundcd in moderately weathered mudstone having a P ~ E F ~ O ~ I C A T ECSE
O LIR am
f
R)l,ilOll
bearing capacity of 2000 Wa (20 tonlit'). The depth of the excavation and the base- ~ ELECT m wut~eci
O U ~ L D EMI."
T l t i ~ CAGE m nllil STEEL CDLUNII
ment i; such thnl the footines - at the west end of the tower arc foundcd near the too of ARD LIFI ltim PJIIIIDII-!YITH
this material. The footing lo the core is a 3.2-m (10-it 6-in.)-thick reinforced concrete STEEL CO.UI4N
raft. This extends approximately 2 m (6 ft 6 in.) past the outside face of the core wall.
PRCFLOR~UTED C~GE-' -t~n,io L ~ G A r~ lU~~ o

~EL
FLMR STEEL BEAN
Rg.3.22 noor-lo-floor dimcnri~nrand typical torer column reinrorccmcnt details; hlclbournc

Ccntmi.
[Chap. 3 Project Descriptions
32 Tall Building Floor Systems
Luth Headquarters Building

Kuala Lurnpur, Malaysia
Architect Hijjas Kasturi Associates
S m c t u n l engineer Ranhill BersekuN
Ycw of completion 1984
Height from slrcet to roof 152 m (498 ft)
Number of stories 38
Number of levels below ground 0
Building use Offices, parking garage
Frame material Concrete
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psfl
Basic wind velocity 30 m/s (67 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection Not available
Design fundamental period Not eswblished
Design acceleration Not established
Design damping Not established
Type of swclure Tube in tube
Foundation conditions Stiff silly clay
Footing type 1500-mm (5-ft)-diameter bored piles.
20 m (60 ft) deep
.
. floor
Tvnical
3.66 m (12 ft)
Story height
Beam span Varies from 19.2 to 8.7 m (64 to 28.5 ft)
Beam depth Typically 640 mm (25 in.)
Beam spacing 9degrees radially
Material Precast prelensioned concrete
Slab 100 mm (4-in.) precast planks, 50-mm
(2-in.) topping
Columns
Size at ground floor 5 by i.2 m (16.4 by 4 ft)
Spacing 38 m (125 ft) around circumference
-
Concrete slrenrlh 32 MPa (5000 psi)
Core Reinforced slip-funned concrete
Thickness at ground floor 400 and 200 mm (16 and 8 in.)
Concrete strength 32 MPa (5000 psi)
The Luth Headquarters Building is a 38-level office building in Kuala Lumpur (Fig.
Fig. 3.23 Lulh Hcodqunrl~rrBuilding, Kunin Lurnpur, Mnioysin.
3.23). Of the 38 levels. 37 are at or above ground and comprise 7 levels of parking
garage, 2 mechanical-plant levels, and 28 levels of office space.
All floors are circular and contain a circular central core. However, in elevation the
building is most unusual in that the facade is not vertical but formed from several
solids of revolution. The facade of the lowest 22 levels is described by one circular
36 Tall Building Floor Systems
L 3 5 J
Fig. 3.27 Core to noor henm joinl; Luth Hcndqunrlerr Building.
V
Fig. 3.25 Tgpieul midrire noor plan; Luth Hcndquorters Building.
slrands
\4$12 500 4
Fig. 3.26 Typicill noor section; Lulh Hcildquorlcrs Building.
Tall Building Floor Systems Project Descriptions
:.,7.. .
.,...,,:
... Riverside Center
3.'1, . Brisbane, Australia
Architect Harry Seidler & Associnter
Struclunl engineer Rankine & Hill
Year of completion 1986
Height from street to roof 150 m (492 ft)
Number of fevels below ground 2
Building use Office
Frame mnterial Concrete
Typical floor live load 4 kPa (80 psO
Basic wind velocity 50 d s (112 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection 63 mm (2.5 in.), 50-yr return
Design fundamental period 3.8 rec
Design damping 2% serviceability, 5% ultimate
Type ofslructure Tube in tube
Foundation conditions Rock, 5-MPa (56-todft') capacity
Footing type Pads to columns, mat to core
Typical floor
Story height 3.475 m (1l f t 5 in.)
Beam span 12 m (39 ft 4 in.)
Beam depth 600 mm (24 in.)
Beam spncing 3.35 m (1 l ft)
Material Posttensioned concrete
Slab 125 mm (5 in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 1100 by 700 mm (43 by 27 in.)
Spacing 6.7 m (22 A)
Fig. 318 Scclion of Lutb Hcndquorters Building. Concrete slrength 50 to 32 MPa (7200 to 4500 psi)
Core Concrete shear walls
Concrete strength 40 to 25 MPa (5700 lo 3500 psi)
This 39-story. 42-level building is a totally reinforced concrete slructure designed as a
"tube in tube" (Fig. 3.29). However, because the triangular shape leads to unusually
long exterior core wnlls. the core has a greater than normal stiffness, and the exterior
spandrel beams and columns play only n minor role in the resistance to wind load
(Fig. 3.30). The floors nre suppotled by simply supported partially prestressed beams
spanning 12 m (40 ft) from core to perimeter. Slabs nre not prestressed.
Apart from the office building. the development includes a two-level basement
garage, which covers the site and extends into the Brisbane River. The lowest floor is
below normal high-tide levels, and the whole basement is designed to continue to
function normally during a flood of a height resulting in a head of 6 m (20 11)of water
at the lowest floor. The garage is topped by a ground-level plaza, low-rise commercial
and retail buildings, and a restaurant which cantilevers 14 m (46 ft) o\,er the river.
Tall Building Floor Systems
125 SLAB
8601 4W SPANDREL BEAM XII SLAB

7
POCKETS IN
CORE WALL
Fig. 3.29 Riverride Center, Brirbnnc, Auslrnlin.

I
I
DUCTS
4"-
,LO,,
PRESTRESSING T E N D O N S ~
Fig. 330 Floor plnn; Riverride Cenler.

I
I
I Bourke Place
The ground conditions comprise hard phyllite. a metamorphosed mudstone, which
allowed the use of design bearing pressures of 5000 kPa (50 tunlft'). Footings for the Melbourne, Australia
tower are reinforced concrete pads to columns and a raft slab to the core. The sur-
Architect Godfrey & Spowers
rounding basement columns are supported on either pads or piers, depending on the
rock level, which sloped away into the river. Structural engineer Connell Wagner
Floor slabs are designed for a general live load o f 4 Wa (80 psf) with a 5-kPa (100- Year of completion 1991
p s 0 zone around the perimeter of thc core. The use of 4 kPa (80 psi) rather than the Height from street to roof 223 m (732 ft)
statutory 3 %Pa (60 psf) provides for the more ready accommodation of safes, isolated
compacting units, and other heavy loads over a small area. The 125-mm (5-in.)-thick Number of stories 54
slabs span 3.3 m (10.8 ft) and are reinforced with fabric. Number of levels below ground 3
Floor beams are 600 mm (24 in.) deep nnd 350 mm (14 in.) wide at the soffit. Building use Office
(Sides are tapered to ease form removal.) At each end the beams terminate in a 300-
mm (12-in.)-thick slab, leaving about a 1200-mm (4-ft)-wide zone in which to locate Frame material Concrete
maior air distribution ducts. The prestressing.tendons, of which there are two per Typical floor live load 4 kPa (SO psf)
bsnm, usually four-strand. arc contained in uirculnr ducts, but anchored i n ilxb t)pc Basic wind velocity 39 m/s (87 mph), 50-yr return
nnchongus. The s l h nochornpc> are the m o t econo,nicel and lend tbsmsulrss tu ibt Maximum lateral deflcction
uss of rm:lll. linht incks. Tlte circular ducts rdrult in o a r r a ~ e br d i ~ n scu~nparcdnlth 200 mm (8 in.). 50-yr return
the width required ior two flat slab ducts side by side. Design fundamental period 4.8 sec
The partially prcstresscd design provides for a load-balanced condition for about Design acceleration 3.7 mg rms. 5-yr return
80% of the weight of the bare concrete. This resulted in a flat floor. Ultimate load
canacitv
~ ~
. .
~, was orovided bv additional unlensioned steel. Untensioned steel stresses
ucrc limilcd to 130 hlP:, (?1.100 psi). Bcams were designed for lhe same li\c lu:lds 3s
Design damping
Earthquake loading
1% serviceability, 5% ultimate
Not applicable
the slabs. chccpt th;tt rcduclions in 3ccurJancr. a!111 lllc luxling code a.r.rc urr.J. Type of structure Reinforced concrete core and perimeter
,\I tach end ofth.: btnm. t ~ h ~ ri tl b~comcs
: a \\id< 300-mm (I?-i,l ).deep slnb, cnnsid- frame tube-in-tube
urjble anal)sis eifon *;is undsnaksn to ensure s3ttsf3ctu~stress IL.VCIS.Ilcrc rdirliorie- Foundation condttions Highly weathcrcd siltstone
lment is predomtnantly untcnsioncd slecl. wilh onl) otle of the tendons uontin.!iltg trl Ihc
.. -.
suooonine s~andrelbeam: the other tendon terminates in a stressing anchorage at the end
uf the 6UO-mm (2-i-in.).dcep rection of the bdnnl. This a r n ~ l g e m ot ~i tendons
~ pr0vtdi.J
F o ~ t i n gtype
Typical floor
Pads to columns, raft to core
for strtssing off ihd floor bclow-there nerd no externdl scnffulding r?quiremcnts. Story height 3.7 m (12 it 2 in.)
Strcssinn was carried out in two stares: 50-c 3 d a \ s niter puurinc ths slnb and Beam span 10.8 m (35 f t 5 in.)
100% after? days. These requirements dictated the concrete strength &her than the Beam depth 400 mm (16 in.)
minimum design strength specified. [The concrete yielded a strength of about 35 MPa Beam spacing 4.6 m (15 ft)
(5000 psi) at 28 days. with 25 MPa (3500 psi) having been specified.] A prop load Material Posuensioned concrete
analysis was curried out, tnking into account the load-relieving effect of the prestress. Slabs 125-mm (5-in.) reinforced concrete
in order to arrive at lhc time when props could be removcd. Columns
Plant-room beams support a much heavier load than office floor beams, but the
Size at ground floor 1I00 mm (43 in.) square
same floor formwork could be utilized bv increasinn- the slab thickness and o\'erall
Spacing 8.1 m (26 ft 6 in.)
beam depth and by sloping the floor surface upward from the midspan of the beams.
(The slab had to be thicker for ocoustic reasons anyway, and a fall for drainage was Concrete strength 60 MPn (8500 psi) maximum
always required, so the structural requirements matched the other requirements.) Core Slip-formed shear walls
The service- care
...- ~-~~ ~-~~ has concrete walls. eenerallv 200 mm (8 .
. in.). thick.. exceot far the Thlchness at ground floor 400 and 200 mm (16 and a n . )
perimeter walls. alli;h wry from 350 to 300 tu 250 tnm ( l a in. lo I2 td I0 in.). Some Concrete svength 60 MPa (8500 psi) maximum
tension in the lowcr rtonc5 occurs under dcsien wind Inads, but in ccncrnl loids ars
comprcssion. Concrete was pumped for the full 150-m (492-11) height, with strengths The Bourke Place project includes a lower structure with 5 4 floors above Bourke
varying from 40 to 25 MPa (5700 to 3500 psi). Street in the city of Melbourne (Fig. 3.31). On top of the concrete tower is a steel-
An architectural limit was ulaced on the column sizes, resulting.in thc use of 50- framed, aluminum-clad cone roof reaching another four stories and a communications
MPa (7100-psi) concrete and 4% reinforccmcnt at the lower levels. Some carly prob- tower rising to approximately 255 m (837 ft) above the street. Alongside the tower
lems were encountered with misplaced bars, which made the placing of spandrel beam
reinforcement very difficult, particularly as the column bars w e e 36 mm (1.4 in.) in
. --
there are an 8-storv, narkine raraee (four
b , .. . .
of which are below eround) and olazas with
rood and retail areas. The total leasable floor space in the office tower is approxi-
dinmcter and in bundles of up to four bars, but once a stccl template was employed to mately 60,500 m' (651.200 ft').
locate the bars. the problems disappeared. Where bundled bars were used, all column The tower structure consists of a slip-formed reinforced concrete core, postten-
bars were specified io have splicing sleeves. sioned concrete band beams, and a reinforced concrete perimeter frame (Figs. 3.32
44 Tall Building Floor Systems [Chap. 3 Project Descriptions 45
and 3.33). The core structure is approximately 20 m (66 ft) square at the base. Most
internal walls are 200 mm (8 in.) thick. with some 150 mm (6 in.). and remain con-
stant for the full height of the structure. The external wails vary from primarily 400
mm (16 in.) thick at the base. using 60-MPa (8500-psi) concrete. to 200 mm (8 in.) lor
the top 15 slories, requiring only 25-MPa (3500-psi) concrete [40 MPa (5500 psi) was
used for pumpability.]
The use of high-strength 60-MPa (8500-psi) concrete allowed the wail thicknesses
to be minimized. It wns estimated that the loss of floor space for thicker walls, if40-
Fig. 3.32 Typical tower floor plon; Bourke Place.
?OR ivn,oxn ,m
"liiiillilC DiiYI*i
Fig. 333 Typicill noor profile, ~ o u r k e~ i u c c .
Fig. 3.31 Bourke Piore, hlelbourne, Autrniin. (Plioro by Srjl~ircPlio!ogropi!ic.r.)

MPa (5500-psi) concrete was used, represented an effective extra ovcmll capitalized CentralPlaza One
cost to the client of approximately $;100,000 (Australian) per floor. Brisbane, Australia
Two substantial core shape changes occur up in the tower as elevator shafts that
service the lower levels become redundant. The location of these shaoe changes and
the changes in wall thickness were positioned sufficiently high up in the tower to
- Architect Dr. Kisho Knrokawa. Peddle Thorp
Partnerships
ensure that the cote aould be off the construction crilical path in order to avoid any Suuctural engineer Maunscll Pty. Ltd.
time delays. The design of the slip form incorporated the facility to reduce the wall
thickness and to "drop off' these portions. Cost comparisons during the design dcvel- Year of completion 1988
opment phase indicated that slip forming was the most cost-efiicient method of con- Height from sveet to roof 174 m (571 ft)
struction, and the Bourke Place core was the largest single slip-formed core ever con- Number of stories 44
structcd in Austmlia. The core conrtruction set an Australian record in Novemhcr 4
1989 lor pumping concrelc to 2 10131 risc of236 m (77.1 it).
~ ~ ~
Number of levels below ground

A t the tilne of dcs~gn,building rcgulations lor fire prolcc~innrequired 1h3t spandrel Building use Office
benms he a1 least 900 lllln (36 in ) d~wp.11 ulas recoQnized that. In cunjunction with Frame material Concrete
the columns, lllese beams svould therslore m?ke some contnbu~ionlo the oucrall resis- Typical floor live load 3 P a (60 psO
t2nce lo brnd In3d5 on lhc slnlcturc. Tnr h e ~ m sucr? designed for l l ~ cdead and livc
load requircmcnts: then their capacity to resist additional wind load was assessed. This Basic wind velocity 49 d s (1 I 0 mph). 50-yr return
amounkd to approximately 7.5% ofthe total wind load on the structure, meaning that Maximum lateral deflection 350 mm (13.75 in.), 25-yr return
the core need only be designed for 92.5% rather than the full wind load. The "core and Design fundamental period 4.4 and 3.8 sec
partial-frame" approach represented significanl cost savings to the client. 16 mg peak. 5-yr return
A 125-mm (5-in.) normally reinforced concrete slab spans between 10.8-m (35.4- Design acceleration
it)-long band beams at typically 4.6-rn (15-it) centers. The band beams radiate out Earthquake loading Not applicable
from the core and are typically 400 mm (16 in.) deep, but are notchcd at each end to Type of structure Central core with perimeter framed tube
275 mm (1 1 in.). The notches wcrc introduced to accommodate primary mechanical Marine clay over rock. 5-MPa (5-tonlfi')
ducts, and they enable the total floor-lo-floor height to be minimized. This represents Foundation conditions
capacity
savings to the client as the overall height of the building can be reduced without
aflectine, the number of Floors. Footing type Spread footings, anchored perimeter wall
The band beams are posttensioned from underneath, utilizing the vertical face of Typical floor
the notches. This separates the posttensioning contractors from the "work hce." Story height 3.66 m (12 ft)
allo!vine- stressine - to be carried but indeoendent of scaffold erection on the newlv Slab 10-m (33-ft)-span posttensioned. 275 mm
poured floor. nnd it r l i m i ~ ~ a ihc
~ e sn<<dTor reccsssd pockets in the flour surlace. (10.8 in.) thick
T11c b~ildcrused three seu oll;!ble fonns which "lclpfrog~ud"up tllc structure and
dit,idcd the floor into four pours of appruxirnatcly 350 rn' (3800 it'), with 111s inten- Columns
riun or pouring one qulidr~n~ wcry dzy. To sssist in mli~ntninlng his &day cycle, col- Size at ground floor 1200 by 1000 mm (47 by 39 in.)
umn xnd bean^ reinforccn~~.nt cages \tJcre stmdardiz2d u,here possiblc and prefabrib Spacing 7 m (23 fl)
c;11cd. -
Concrete streneth 50 MPa (7100 psi)
Tllc floor! ~ V C Tc11~~kcd
~ 10 CnsUrL: 111.11~lnderllle lll~slf a v ~ r ~ c~r~umsliinces
bl~ 110 Core Concrete shear walls
hack propping trould be necessary. Typically, Floor cyclcs of apprurimatuly -I lo 5 Thickness at ground floor 600 and 250 mm (24 and 10 in.)
working dnys were acllieved Concrete strength 50 to 32 MPa (7100 to 4600 psi)
Central Plaza One is currently Brisbane's tallest building with a total of48 levels and
has a total height of approximately 174 m (571 ft) above sveet level (Flg. 3.34).
The building features a four-story avium with an internal running stream and land-
scaping at the ground-floor level. and a four-level basement garage. A distinctive roof
line with a lifting, slewing telescopic building maintenance unit forming the top 2.5 m
(8 ft) of the roof structure makes the building unique among modem high-rise build-
ings in Australia. The tower houses three plant rooms at levels 4.26. and 41.
A six-story office block adjacent to the main tower has banking facilities at the
ground-floor level and shares the common basement structure with the tower. ThlS
"hank annex" incorporntes an additional plant room nt level 5.
Tall Building Floor Systems Project Descriptions
The tower structure comprises a reinforced concrete core and frame with postten-
sioned floors and is founded on rock approximately 13 m (43 it) below street level.
Design requirements were as follows:
. An accurate assessment of deformations due to creep, shrinkage, and load effects to
allow for joint design at critical locations in the curtain-wall system
Column-free office space requiring floors to span 10 m (33 ft) from perimeter
beams to central core
-
m
j
$
!
A bosement structure to accommodate 270 cars
A roof shucture to support a lifting, slewing. and telescoping building maintennnce unit
. Preliminary analysis of the building using a simplified annlyticnl model indicated
Floors to be designed to allow for maximum flexibility in locating penetrations for
services that the tower would be wind-sensitive and accelerations could be excessive. The sim-
s Floor edgr beams to be designed and detatled to allow for variations at corners to plified model comprised the central core as a cantilever linked to the outer frames,
range from 6-m (20-11') cantilevers to fully truncated corners with axially stiff linkages representing the floors. the entire assemblage being consid-
ered as a plane frame. Having gained considerable insight into the behavior of the
A minimum number uf minimum-size columns up through t l ~ catrium and above structure from the preliminary analysis, the tube-in-tube structural system was chosen
togerhcr with the assurance that accclerat~onsdue to wind-rxcitcd oscillations be for resistance to lateral wind loads.
within acceptable human response lirnitotions During the preliminary design stage a l:400 aeroelastic model was being devel-
oped and tested in a wind tunnel to d e t e d n e and minimize wind pressures by varying
the dvnamic earnmeters. Considerable analytical work was carried out to tune the
I ' *truckre~- aera~lasticallv.
~ -~ The stiffness and mass of various structural components were
1
I adjusted nnd readj~rstcdin this process to minimize !he aeroelastic forces.
Once the slructurai form was finalized. a rigorous three-dimensional tobc-in-tubc
.~n~lvclq
,-.- was
-~
carried out. This was necessarv toensure that disolacements and acceler-
II ations under \vind 1o;ading were brlou acceptable Ie\,cls. In lhc analysis for core-frame
interaction. the structure \\,as propped at the ground floor :,nd ;!I each of the basemrnt
levclc
.. qo hat lateral loads could be transferrid out to the site oerimeler walls throueh
.-
diaphragm action of the floor slabs. Propping of the structure'at the ground floor a i d
basements avoided the problem of having Lo deal with large momens at the core fool-
i ing and also served to convol deflectioniand accelerations of the building under wind
I load. Of particular importance was the cross-wind response of the building, which
j produced a resulting ntoment 1.6 times the along-wind response.
The cenval core occupies a space approximately 16 m (52.5 ft) square in the center
of the building and is, in reality, two cores with an elevator foyer space between. The
two cores are linked together via floor slabs and beams, and in addition, by large
diaphragms in the atrium and plant rooms. The atrium diaphragms were found to be
particularly effective in reducing deflections by giving the building an exceptionally
high point of rotation approximately 45 m (148 ft) above street level.
The central core is a multiccll reinforced concrete structure with wall thicknesses
varying from 200 to 600 mm (8 to 24 in.). Reinforcement ratios vary from about 1%
in the lower parts of the building to 0.5% at the top. The core was designed globally
for biaxial bending and axial load using the program FAILSAFE. In this program a
particular section of the core is defined as an assembly of square elements within a
system of coordinates, and the quantity and location of steel is also defined within the
coordinate system. The program outputs a failure surface for axial load versus
moment.
A detailed dcsiyn of the core at licodcrs. coupling bu.lrns. xnd dii~phr~gnlb \+.IS Car-
ried our using decp-hmm liicury, hear-fricuon theory, and cun\,r.ntion~lrdinC0rci.d
concrete theory, as appropriate for the element under consideration.
Basement floors u.ere designed as conventional reinforced concrete flat slabs.
except that two special effects required particular attention in the design and detailing
of reinforcements, namely. (1) transfer of wind loads out of the core to the basement
walls. and ( 2 ) differential settlement betwccn the core, maiar columns, and basement
columnr. Pcrticulx :!ttention rrar paid to detailing the r~inforcunlentrat thc core-Sl:lh
Fig. 3.34 Central Pinzn One, Brisbnne, Aurtmlin. joints, both on lhc dm\r!ng board :!nd on rltc during cnnstruction.
The ground-floor slab was designed in reinforced concrete, incorpomting an exten-

sive beam system. At this level the wind-propping loads were considerably higher
than in the basement slabs, and in addition the slab was designed to support a 10-Wa
(200-psO conswction live load to allow for scaffolding up to support level 4 plant-
room slab over the atn'ltrn
~ ~
The ground-floor slab is a multilevel slab with sloping and stepped purtions, and in
the nonheast comer it contained large openings. Special bands of heavy reinforcing
steel were required around the perimeler to vansfer wind loads into perimeter walls. A Lateral Load
diagonal band of heavy steel from the core to the northwest corner of the site was
required lo ensure a load path to compensate for the large penetrations ofthe nonheast Resisting Systems
corner.
Tower floors were designed as posuensioned flat plates spanning approximately 10
m (33 ft) from the spandrel beams to the cenval core. Typical floor slabs are 275 mm
(I I in.) thick and are stressed with tendons in bands of six, each tendon comprising
five 12.7-mm (0.5-in.)-diameter supergrade strands in 90-mm (3.5-in.)-wide ducts.
The banded tendon arrangement provides maximum flexibility of floor layout for the
positioning of penebations for services and internal stairs in the tenancy design stage.
*
The flat-plate soffit was important in allowing the builder to speed up the form- -,
work placing and in achieving the specified cycle times. Posttensioning also meant .<.
minlmum passive reinforcement, another feature to assist thc builder.

Finite-elemcnt analysis of the floor slab indicated the existence of high shear -' 4.1 BRACED FRAME AND MOMENT RESISTING
slresses near the comers of the core. This was dealt with by installing some shcar stccl FRAME SYSTEMS
locally in the slab near each corner of the core. Spandrel beams n8ercgenerally rein-
forced concrete, except for the longer cantilever bcams at the comers of the building, Two fundamental loteral force resisting systcms are the braced frame (also kno\\'n as
which were posttensioned to minimize deflections. shear truss or vcrtical truss) and the momcnl rcsisting frame (moment frame or rigid
frame). Thesc systems evolved during the beginning of high-rise construction in the
twentieth century. Braced framcs and momcnl resisting frames are normally orga-
3.3 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY nized as planar assemblies in orthogonal directions to create ~ l a n a rframcs or a tube
frame system. Thc two systems may be used together as an overall interactive SySlem.
thereby their individual applications to taller buildings. Both systems arc
Kilmirrer 1983. Design and ConnnlcIia,r offl~eLull?Heodqaunrrs Buiidirtg, K ~ o i oLu,npur commonly used today as effective means of resisting lateral forces in high-rise con-
Monin 1989, lVirzd Design ofFourBuiidirtgr up to 306 ,n TO!!. struction ior buildings of up to 40 or 50 stories.
L'in*fistrin Irnliimn *el Cementa 1987. T/U Lurb Bsiidittg ir2K ~ , ~ IL~~~~~
O ( ~ f ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~
I . 1 Braced Frames
1, .
!.,
Braced framcs arc cantilevered vertical trusses resisting lateral loads primarily through
I '? the mial stiffness of the frame members. Axial shortening and elongallon of the column
I memben under lateral loading accounts for 80 to 90% of the overall system deforma-
tion lor slender truss systcms. The effecriveness of the system, as characterized by a
1 h i ~ ratio
h 01stiffness to material quantity, is recognized lor multistory buildings in the
low- to midhcight range.
Braced frame geometries are grouped, based on their ductility characlcristics. as
either concentric braced frames (CBF) or eccentric braced frames (EBF). In CBFs the
axcs of all mcmbcrs intersect at a point such that the member forces are axial. CBFs
have a great amount ofstiffncss but low ductility. Thus in areas of low seismic acr~vil)~.
wllcre high ductility is not essential, CBFs arc the lirst choice or engineers for lalcral
load resistance. EBFs. on the other band. utilize axis offsets to introduce flexure ,and
shcar into the frame, which lowers the stiffness-to-weight ratio but increases ducttl~ty.
The CBF can take the lorm of an X. Pmtt, diagonal, K.or V, as sho$\,n in Fig. 4. I .
The X bracings exhibit hizhcr lateral stiffness-to-\lzeigl~tr ~ l i o sin comparison to K OrV
bracings. Ho\ree\'er, the X bracings crcnte a short circuil in the column gravity load
52 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 53
lransfer path as they absorb a ponion of the column load in proportion to their stiffness. 3;. lourr where laleral forces are reduced. The strength and stillness of the lruss syslcm is
This creates additional forccs in both diagonal and horizontal members of X-bracing thus sensitive lo the lootprtnt of ihe core area and the arrangement 01the clcvators.
svstems which need to be considered in svstem derivn
-..=.. When ihe slenderness ratio of a core truss (the ratio of truss height lo le2rt u,idth) In-
To accommodate door and other openings, EBFs are commonly used, a s shown in . creases. the o,,emll overturning cffecl manifests il5:If in ~ncrcascdaxid dclorn~ntion
Fig. 4.2. The shear and flexural action caused by the axis offset in Ule link beam improves and uolifr forces of chord columns. While truss chord members may rr3dily be drsigned
ductility. Higher ductility through inelastic shear or bending action of the link beam forces, net foundation uplift forces are generally &desirable. A design
make it a desirable lateral system in areas of high seismic activity. Ductility is measured be lo spread Lhe chords as far apart as possible while diverting gravity
by a well-behaved hysteresis loop and achieved through proper connection and member load to these chords to Drevent or reduce the net tensile force.
design such that all modes of instabilities and brittle failures are eliminated. As slenderness increases. the a i a l drformalions of lllc chord columns o f a truss sys-
Braced frames are most often made from structural steel because of ease of con- tem become more critical in controlling the sway of the slructurc. Increasing the r l ~ l f -
struction. Depending on the diagonal force, length, required stiffness, and clearances. nrss and strsnath of lhe chord members in proponion lo the work done by those mem-
the diagonal member in structural steel can be made of double angles, channels, tees. bers will prov%e an effective way to minimiz; sway. The bracing system between the
tubes, o r wide-flange shapes. Besides performance. the shape of the diagonal is often .~. chords can be designed to transfer the gravity loads of any intermediate chord columns
based on connection considerations. Examples of typical braced frame connections are ,
to the boundary chord columns. As a result the intermediate chord columns could be
depicted in Fig. 4.3. eliminated or minimized in size and the efficiency of the boundary chords maximized.
Vertical trusses are often located in the elevator and service core areas of high-rise To further reduce the steel tonnage and cost of the structure, composite steel and con-
buildings, where frame diagonals may be enclosed within permanent walls. Braced crete chord columns may be utilized. Using concrete in chord columns will most likely
frames can be joined to form closed section cells, which logetherare effective in resist- provide a lower unit price for strength and axial stiffness.
ing torsional forces. These cells may be bundled to take advantage of additional stiff- .,
ness and provide a systematic means of dropping off the cclls at the upper levels of a
4
2 Moment Resisting Frames
Thc moment resisting frame consists 01horizontal and vertical members rigidly con-
nected together in a planar grid form which resists lateral loads primarily through the
flexural stiffness of the members. Typical deformations of tha moment resisting frame
/........
,.. system under lateral load are indicated in Fig. 4.4. A point of contraflcxure is normally
:. .. located near the midheight of the columns and midspan of the besms. The lateral defor-
mation of the frame is due partly to the frame racking, which might be called shear
sway, and partly to column shortening. The shear-sway camponen1 constitutes approx-
....... imately 80 to 90% of the overall lateral deformation of the frame. The remaining por-
:. ...
j..
... tion of deformation is due to column shortening (cantilever component or so-called
chord drift).
>lomen1 rcs~.ting lramrs h ~ v advantages
e in high-ri5e conslruclion due lo their flex-
PRATT ibility in nrchitsclural planning. A moment reslbling frarnr. may he placed in o r around
X-BRACING DIAGONAL tltc core, on the exterior. or throughout the interior o f the building with nlinimll con-
BRACING BRACING 5traint on the olannineu module. ~ h frame
~~~ ~~ ; mav be architecturallv. exposed
. to express the
gridlike nature oflhs structure. The sp3cing of lhs column: in n moment resisting frame
c ~ match
n !hat required fur -grnvity lraming. In lac1 ths stecl u e ~ g h prenlium
~
t for iatual
frame resistance decreases with increasing gravity londs on the frame
KNEE
K BRACING V BRACING BRACING
Fig. 4.1 Concentric br;lrcd rromc rorms.
54 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
. ..
(b)
~ i ~ , 4~3 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it i ( no) CBF.
n ~dttniis. ~
n EBF. (Codinued)
[b)~ l
...
(a)
Fig. 4.3 Typicul corlncrlion debiir. lo) CUF. (b) EUF. derurmntion under Inter loud. (01 Frame deformntion.
rig,
4.4 ~~~~~t rwirting
behavior.
58 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 IJ3~ sect. 4.7, Braced Frame an. Moment Resisting Frame *terns 59
volves a transfer of shear forces from the top to the bottom of the building. Figure 4.7 connections. If the lateral stiffness of the system is adequate, this then would ~ r o d u c e
shows the truss and frame deflections if each resisted the full wind shear. The distrihu- ,
an oplimal design. If additional stiffness is required. the decision of whether to Increase
tion of wind shear between lruss and frame can also be noted. Frame-truss interacting ... the core or the frame members depends on the relative efficiency of the two compo-
systems have a wide range of application to buildings of up to 40 stories in heieht. nents. The frame beam spans, story heighls, and core uuss depth are key parametcrs.
In general, core trusses are combined with moment frames located on the building Tension or uplift conditions may limit the possibility of increasing chord columns.
perimeter,where the column spacing and the member proportions of the frame may be
appropriately manipulated. Optimum efficiency is obtained when gravity-designed
columns are used as buss chords without increasing them for wind forces. These are P
v:
then combined with gravity-designed exterior columns and spandrel beams with rigid
SEMIRIGID
BOLTED CONNECTION RIGID FIELD
WELDED CONNECTION
DEFLECTION
>
FRAME SHEM
RIGID CONNECTION RIGID CONNECTION

SHOP WELDEDIFIELD BOLTED SHOP WELDEDIFIELD BOLTED
WITH COVER PLATES WITH END PLATES SHEAR
Fig. 4.6 Mamcnt resisting frame connection types. ~ i g 4.7
. ~mmc-trussinlemeting rsrlcm.
,.
.I..
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ,ir. together u,ill~the rigid frames. The di3gOIIal members of eccentric K-bmccd framcs do no!
'
L.? intercect
.......-- at the cenkr of the beam. Thus yielding 1 the center of the beams will occur be-
~
Sanwa Bank fore braces buckle, ensuring ductility and allor;ing for adjustment of the f m e ductility
~.
Tokyo, Japan (Figs. 4.9 to 4.11). This hor, been confnned, both experimentally and theoretically.
Ductility and strength are ensured by using acomposite beam for the 24-m (78.9-in.)
Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd. office floor spans. This also minimizes vibration disturbance due to people walking, as
Structural engineer was confirmed through a composite beam mock-up test
Nikken Sekltei Ltd.
Precast concrete panels faced with granite are used as cladding material, providing a
Year of completion 1973 solid appearance to the building (Fig. 4.12). The panel fixings were designed so that
Height from street to roof 99.7 m (327 ft) during an earthquake, the panels can follow the building deformations without damage
Number of stories 25 or risk of dislodgement. This was checked using a two-story two-span full-scale model.
Building use Office
Frame material Stmcmral sleel
Typical floor live load 3 Wa (60 p ; ~
Basic wind velocity Not available
Maximum lateral deflection Not available
Design fundamental period 3 sec in both directions
Design acccleration 20 mg: 40 mp for seismic loading
Design damping 2% of critical
Earthquake loading C = 0.10
Type of swcturc Combination of rigid frames and eccentric
K bracing
Foundation conditions Alluvium and diluvial gravel
Footing type Raft on reinforced concrete driven piles
Typical floor
Story height 3.84 m (12 f t 6 in.)
Beam depth 850 mm (33.5 in.)
Beam spacing 3.15 m (10 ft 4 in.)
Material Steel, grade 400 MPa (58 ksi) 2d floor and
above; concrete-encased steel below 2d
floor
Slab 120-mm (4.75-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ~ o u n floor
d -100- by 400-mm (16- by 16-in.) H sections
Material Steel. grade SM 490.483 MPa (70 ksi)
Core Shear walls below ?d floor, 800 mm (31.5
in.) thick combined rigid and braced steel
frames, grade Shl490, above 2d floor
111designing the Saniva Bank bullding for carlitquakc and \bind loads (Fig. 4 8 ) , it was de-
cided to place ccce~llricK-br3c:d frnmea al npproprio~clucntions such !hat [hey uill act
62 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
I
"7
~k:!
Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
Fig. 4.8 Snnwil Bank. Tokyo, Jnpun.

Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 65
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
i
Fig. 4.11 Specimen olecc~nlricI( Imme; Snnno Bnnk
i
I
4 u,m 1
t* %%%%%%%%%%
bb'b
Fig. 4.10 Fmme~arL;Snnwn Bank.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems
PLAN
I\vibration
COLUMN PANEL FASTENING
(a)
Fig. 4.12 Dclniir otprerut concrele pnnel; Snnwn Bank.
I
, ,,,,r
,, ..;.,-
"
4,., - I
;.., -2
,
-..,.-....-
,.
C
,.i :*
',/
:"
,;
6
I..
:'
0
"
E . - - 2 .-.,< T. .....!?.L::i;
*.>' ,'I.
,:i
0
.I
,.$"
0
<;I
A
SECTION
(4
Fig. 4.12 Dctililr o f prcrort rnncrclc pnnel: Scnwn Bunk. (Conrir#ucdl
67
68 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
Sect. 4.11
ACT Tower
Hamarnatsu City, Japan
3. A dynamic test to check the dynamic analysis results
I
Architect Nihon Sekkci Inc. and Mitsubishi Estate
Co. Ltd.
The dynamic annllsis war performed using the mean and the standard dc\'iarion as
well as the power spectruln of the ovrnurning moment and the torsional moment coci- I
1
1
cienls obiined inthe wind force test
Structural engineer Nihon Sekkei Inc. i The building response specva are obtained by combining the wind spectra (for the x,
Year of completion 1994 y, and 8 directions) and the magnification factors versus frequency curve. As the build-
Height from street to roof 21 1.9 m (695 ft) ing cross section is ellipsoidal, special consideration was given to getting the maximum
response values used in the design in the x, g, and E directions. The dynamic stability
Number of stories 47 and the possibility of galloping were also checked.
Number of levels below ground - Strong winds can occur several times a year, causing uncomfortable building mq-
Building use tion. In order to avoid this problem, a damping systcm has been installed to reduce the - .
Hotel, offices, retail space
acceleration in they direction.
Frame material. Steel The building site is located in a very active seismic area. The largest eanhquakes in
Typical floor live load 5 kPa (100 psfJ this zone to dare were of magnitude 8. A special seismic analysis was performed using
Basic wind velocity 30 mlsec (67 mph) the data of the three largest earthquakes that have originated in this area in order to
Maximum lateral deflection model the earlhquake waves and the maximum possible accelerations for the ACT
Hl2OO. 100-yr return period wind
Towcr site. These 3 earthquake waves were 416 gallsec (550 mmlsec) (Ansei Tohka
Design fundamental period 4.52.4.73 sec earthquake); 150 gallsec (320 mmlsec) (Nohbi earthquake): and 332 gallsec (850
Design acceleration 52 mg peak. 100-yr return period mmlscc) (Tohnankai earthquake).
Dcsign damping 1% serviceability. 2% ultimate
Type of structure Braced frames i
Foundation conditions Clay, sand, and gravel
Footing type Piles 1.5 to 2.4 m (5 lo 8 ft) in diameter. 25
to 30 m (82 to 98 it) long
Typical floor
Story height 4 m (13 ft) office: 3.15 m (10 f t 4 in.) hotel
Beam span 17.5 m (57 f t 5 in.) max. office: 10 m (33
ft 10 in.) hotel
Beam depth 850 mm (33.5 in.) office: 700 mm (27.5
in.) hotel
Beam spacing 3.2. 6.4 m (10 f t 6 in.. ?I ft) office: 3.2,
4.27 m (10 h 6 in.. 14 ft) hotel
Slab 135- to 180-mm (5.25- to 7-in.) concrcte
Columns
Sire at ground floor 750 by 600 mm (30 by 24 in.)
Spacing 3.2 and 6.4 m (10 ft 6 in. and ?I ft)
Corc X- and K-braced framer
Braced frames were used lo increase the stiffness of the ACT Tower (Fig. 4.13) and to
achieve an optimum structural system (Figs. 4.14 to 4.16). Three u.ind-tunnel tesls were
performed:
Fig. 4.13 ACT Towcr. Humnmolsu City, Jnpnn.
I. A wind pressure test to evaluate facade pressures
2. A wind force test to measure the horizontal force, overturning moment, and tor.
sional moment
M i c a 1 Structural Plan (Hotel)
>pica1 Structuroi Plnn (OCrice)

Fig. 4.14 'Typical slruelurul plunr; A C T Toner.
I! Ti%-
Nikkeu Sekkei Ltd. with Portopia ~ o t ~ l
Design O f i c e
Nikken Sekkei Ltd. with Portopia
Design Office
Hotel
F n m e material Structural steel
Typical floor live load 1.8 kPa (36 psf)
Basic wind velocity Not available
Maximum lateral deflection 350 mm (13.75 in.)
Design fundamental period 3.5 sec transverse; 3.6 sec longitudinal
Design acceieration 20 mg; 35 mg for seismic loading
2%
Ii Type of structure Moment frame and braced frame
Foundation conditions . Fill over alluvial and diluvial strata
Raft on prestressed concrete driven piles
3.02 m (9 ft l l in.)
7.5 and 6.75 m (24 ft 7 in. and 22 ft 2 in.)
800 m m (31.5 in.)
7.5 m (24 ft 7 in.)
Steel, grade 400 and 490 MPn (58 and 70
ksi) 5th floor and above; concrete-encased
steel below 5th floor
130-mm (5-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor I100 by 1100 mm (43 by 43 in.)
Spacing 7.5 m (24 fi 7 in.)
Material Steel encased in 24-MPa (3400-psi) con-
crete
Core 600-mm (24-in.) concrete shear walls be-
low 5th floor, smctural steel rigid frames
5th floor and above
Tllr typical floor pi2n of the Kobe Ponopix Holcl (Fig. 4.17) is .an oval, rncnsuring 7j.5
m (24.4 Ir) in the earl-weal dirccrion and 13.5 rn (4.4 fr) in the north-soutl~dirucrion IFlp.
Fig.1.16 Y5A frame elemlion; ACT Tower. 4.18). Above the fifrh floor of the high-rise p m . strength and ductility are provided hy
using a reinforced concrete rigid frame. The fifth and lower floors, which have a larger
Ik Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
tonnes (1 10.000 tons), a basement withgood foundation load balance was possible, with
75
the weight of h e excavated soil being designed to exceed the weight of the building.
story height. have a composite structure of shear walls and rigid frames made of steel
Piles of about40-m (130-11) length were used. The building is supponed by using the
encased in reinforced concrete (Fig. 4.19).
The site is part of about 500 ha (1200 acres) of artificially reclaimed ground. which diluvial layer as the bearing stratum. In pile design, pile groups were used wherever pos-
has been filled over a oeriod of 10 years, starting in 1965. Before building construction sible to cope with unmeasured ncgative friction. Structural safety was confirmed by per-
commenced, the site Was preloaded. theoretically completing settlemen~ofthe former forming a seismic response analysis of the building-pilc-bearing stratum composite
12-m (40-it)-thick sea-bottom clay layer. Because the building weigh1 is about 100.000 form against horizontnl seismic loads.
The floor plan has an unusual form, so various wind tunnel tests were performed to
investigate such factors as the wind force coelficicnt. the wind pressure coefficient, nm-
bienl wind velocity, and the dynamic stability against wind. In everything from the
structure itself to cladding matcrinls, external doors and windoms, and ground-lcvel
wind velocity, wind tunnel test rcsulls were used to ensure adequate safety and service-
ability.
Fig. 4.18 Typicul slructurul noor plnn; Kobe Purlopin Hotel
Fig. 4.17 Kobc Porlnpiu Holcl. Robe, Japan.

Lateral Load Resisting Systems Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 77
8:;:
-?,..
.*+.
Nankai South Tower Hotel
ah
@ Osaka, Japan
* ,.
j..,, Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
18,
&(
Swctural engineer
,:
41 :Year of completion
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
1990
I $&
@ Height from street to roof 147 m (482 ft)
.,g~,
~.~.
*.~. Number of stories 36
:*.:
, I,S
'A, :
:I: Building use Hotel
&~
.?,. Frame material Structural steel upper floors; concrete-en-
73,'
.:.
.,:
cased structural sleel plus concrete shear
walls lower floors
Typical floor live load 1.8 kPa (36 psO
Basic wind velocity 35 d s e c (78 mph)
Mnximum lateral deflection Not available
Design fundamental period 3.24 sec transverse; 3.03 scc longitudinal
Design acceleration Level 1 EQ. 13 to 25 mg; level 2 EQ. 21 to
40 mg
Design damping 2%
..
.,.,,. Eanhquake loading C = 0.120
. ..
,:, Type of structure Level 5 and above, rigid frames; level 4
and below, combined frames and shear
walls
Foundation conditions Grnvel
Footing type Cast-in-place 2-m (6.5-fr)-diameter bored
piles 10 m (33 ft) deep
Typical floor
Story height 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in.)
Beam span Primnry. 10.5 m (34 h 5 in.); secondary,
... 5.4 m (17 ft 8 in.)
2:.
<- Beam depth 850 mm (33.5 in.)

Material Steel, grade 400 and 490 MPn (58 and
70 ksi)
Slab 140-mm (5.5-in.) concrete on metal deck
Columns
Size at ground level 1300 by 1300 mm (51 by 51 in.)
Material Steel, grade 49 MPa (7000 psi)
\ /
Core Shear wall. 34-MPa (3400-psi) concrete.
I 9 VrnrnesorR; Kobe Portoplu Hofcl, 350 mm (14 in.) thick
This hotel was constructcd over a railway station, which had been designed and con-
structed by another firm up to the fourth floor 10 years earlier (Fig. 4.20). An expansion
Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
niques for high-rise buildings had not fundamentally changed, so the strength ofthc al-
ready constructed parts was for the most pan adequate. However, there was n planning
79
I
of about the same extent was planned even in the original design, but there existed lim-
regulation change in that guest rooms must now have balconies, and it was necessary to
itations with regard to theallowable stress of the already constructed parts, including the
comply with the desires of a desiener. which chaneed the plans considerablv.
piles. While over the course of I0 years structural codes had been modified, mal;ing it
?hi increased weight due to balconies was handled by changing the spciific gravity
more difficult to expand buildings constructed before the code changes, the design tech-
of the concrete irom an original 1.8 lo 1.65. In the original design, slanted columns had
ranged from the sixth to the twentieth floors, which was due to changes in thc spans of
..
t h e k o ~ e and -
r lower floors. and the desiener wanted to reduce thisnnee to dctwecn
llourr 9 m d I?. Tu Improxc the ~.nruingreduction in h~lidlngrigidlly, the s n c 01 tile
c x ~ c n l dcolumns ~ 3 incrcarcd.
s Thir supprcsrcd ihc overall hcnding deformation, and
at the same lime the inner coiumns were effectively used as shear columns. External
- -
columns are larce boxed members. so in the lencth direction the oerimeter irame is used
to rcsirt 111 01 ihe horironnl loading (Figs. 4 21 and I.??).
To facilit3te conrtruclion, bnlconics were dcsigncd in ihc L shops uilh 3 length of
10.5 m 134 it 5 in.). Pn:.lr~.swd cuncr2ls. oniv 90 mm 0 . 5 in1 thick. u a i used lo inioi-
mize the weight.
A composite floor, fire rated for 2 hours, was used in the typical guest room. The
deck has to be of the linked beam type (which covers at least two beam spans). In unit
bath areas, which had to be partially dropped, ordinary slabs using a flat deck were em-
ployed.
Fig. 4.21 Typlcnl noor plan; Nankui South Toscr Hotel.
Fig. 4.20 N ~ n k o South

i T u n ~ rHutcl, Omku, Jnpon.
:g+
.$
+J:
.$I
i7.5.
~..=
9
I *..
w:
*.
Ssct 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
World Trade Center

Osaka, Japan
81
1
ji N i i e n S e k k e i Ltd. with Mancini Duffy
*", Architect
'S.
~ j < Associates
.
*.
.:
-.: i Structural engineer Nikken Sekkei Ltd. with Mancini Duffy
Associates
Building use
3
Office
I
Frame material Structural steel
Typical floor live load 3 kPa (60 psf)
Maximum lateral deflection 1300 mm (51 in.). 200-yr return period
wind
Design Fundamental period 5.3 sec transverse; 5.8 sec longitudinal
Design velocity Level 1 EQ. 250 mm/sec (10 inJsec);
level 2 EQ. 500 mmtsec (20 in./sec)
Design damping 2%
Eanhquake loading C = 0.05 longitudinal; C = 0.075 trans-
verse
Type of shucture Rigid frames with core braced trans-
versely
Foundntion conditions 20-m (65-ft 7-in.) fill over alluvial clay
and sand strata
Footing type Cast-in-place steel-lined bored piles
belled at their bust
Typical floor
Story height 4.0 m (13 ft 1.5 in.)
Beam span 16 rn (52 ft 6 in.)
Beam depth 900 mm (35 ft 5 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2 and 9.6 m (10 R 6 in. and 31 ft 6 in.)
Matenal Steel, grade 400 and 490 MPa (58 and
70 h i )
Slab 175-mm (7-in.) concrete on metal deck
Columns
Size at pound floor 650 by 850 mm (25.5 by 33.5 in.)
Spacing 3.2 and 9.6 m (10 ft 6 in. and 31 ft 6 in.)
Material Steel, grade SM 53B
Core Steel fmmes, braced in transverse direction
Material Stee!, grade 490 MPa (70 ksi)
Fig.4.22 Fmmcrork; Nnnkni South Tower Holrl.
80
82 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
This 252-m (827-it)-high building stands on reclaimed land in the Osaka Nanko (soulh
port) area (Fig. 4.231. As a consequence, the design of the foundation structure and the
resistance to wind were painstakingly invesligated.
A lypical high-rise floor is 36 by 70 m (1 18 by 230 it), and the building has an ex-
tremely slender form where the ratio of shorl side lo heieht - is 1:7 (Fies.
. 4.24 and 4.25).
Beiuw lhc sevenlh flonr, colu~nnsard trnesiendd lo tltc perimeter, iormiltg a supenruss
fr3nlc in order lu slrenglllen lile rusistnnce to !r'~ndand uanhquakcr. and !$idcly distrib-
ute nxiill forces of the high-rise building o\cr tht ground. Titis forms n ' h ~ r r "for [he
tower, which is integrated with the undeirground slructure.
Wind is a more dominant laleral load for this building than earthquakes. The wind
load for the design, including vibration assessment, was determined from the rcsull.; of
wind tunnel testing. The testing investigated instabilities as well as accelerations likely
to affect the comfort of occupants, unstable vibration due to wind, and habitability dur-
ing swaying of the building duc lo wind forces.
As the site is anilicially reclaimed land, and settlement due to canh filling is not
complete. the cast-in-place steel-pipe concrele piles used are coated with asphall to re-
duce friction with the surrounding ground. The bearing stratum is a diluvial sand)
gravel layer around 60 rn (197 it) below ground level.
Fig. 4.24 Typical noor plnn; World Trndc Ccnlcr, Oruku.
Fig. 4.13 World Trode Ccnlcr, Omkn, h p u n .

Kobe Commerce, Industry and Trade Center

Kobe, Japan
Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
S~ucturalengineer Nikken S e k e i Ltd.
Height from svect to roof 110.06 m (363 it)
Building use Office
Frame material Steel
Typical floor live load 3 P a (60 psfJ
Basic wind vclocity Unknown
Maximum lateral deflection HI400
Design fundamental period 3.42 scc each direction
Design accclcration 20 mg elastic: 40 mg elastoplastic
Design damping 2%
Type of structure Perimeter framed tube \\,it11 diagonally
braced core
Foundation conditions Alternating gravel and diluvial clay strata
Footing type Raft
Typical noor
Beam span 9.45 m (31 ft)
Beam spacing 3 m (9 ft 10 in.) .
Material Steel. grade 400 MPa (58 ksi) above 1st
floor, concrete-encased structural steel 1 st
floor and below
Slab 160-mm (6.25-in.) concrctc on metal deck
Columns
Sire at ground floor 700 by 700 mm (27.5 by 27.5 in.)
Spacing ' 3 m (9 ft 10 in.)
Material Steel, grade 490 MPn (70 ksi)
Core Strucmral steel with prestressing-bar di-
agonal bracing
This building is structurally characterized by its "tube-in-lube structure." which consists

of perimeter wall frames with 3-m (10-it) spans and internal braced frames using pre-
I.... I . . - I . . ! . - ! . . - !
stressing steel bars for diagonal bracing (Figs. 4.26 to 4.28). For the purpose of effi-
0 0 9B m 0 ciently increasing the earthquake resisting capacity of a building, it is preferable to de-
Fig. 4.25 Frun~c,vorli:World Trndc Ccnlcr, Osuha. sign its slructure in a bending failure mode so as to disperse the yielding of frames
86 Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 87
[Chap. 4
during an earthqualie. To achieve this objective, the tube-in-tube structure was adopted
for this building.
For the braced frames using prestressing steel bars, F13T steel bars serve as diago-
1 $3!
Ir
!
nal braces (Fig. 4.29). These braces have a wide elastic range and thus can resist the g:
<!::
maximum seismic forces within the elastic region. This enables the overall struchlre to si,.,,
act in a bending failure mode, thereby securing stable recovery characteristics. In this :?
*x:
way the structure is designed to be effective from an aseismic viewpoint. i?s.j.
Perimeter frame Braced frame

Fig. 4.27 Fmmcnorli: Kobe Commerce, lnduslry and Trndc Cenlcr.
Fig. 4.26 Kobc Cemnlcrre, Industry nnd Trndc center, J,,~~,,.

Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 89
Perimeter Braced
Ln
4 . frame\ /frame
1 3 6 . 9 0 0 ]
Fig. 4.18 Typiutl rtructurnl noor plan: Kobe Commerce, industry nnd Trndc Center.
Fig. 4.29 Specimen of brnced frnme wing prcstruing bars; Kobe Commerce, Industry and
Trade Center.
90
Marriott Marquis Hotel

IE S e c t 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resist~ngFrame Systems 91
I
New York, N.Y.. USA
Architect John Portman Associates
S t ~ c t u nengineer
l Weidlinger Associates
Building use Hotel
Basic wind velocity 36 mlsec (80 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection 300 mm (12 in.), 100-yr return
Design fundamental period 5 sec
Design acceleration 20 mg peak. 10-yr return
Design damping I% serviceability; 2% ultimate
Type of SlNcture Braced and rigid frsmes
Foundation conditions Rock, 4-lvlPa (40-tonlft') capecity
Footing type Spread footings
Typical floor
Story height 3.05 m ( I 0 h)
Beam depth 460 mm (I8 in.)
Beam spacing 3.05 m ( I 0 ft)
Material Steel, grade 250 MPa (36 ksi)
Slab Precast concrete. 300 mm (12 in.) thick
Columns 610- by 610-mm (24- by 24-in.) built-up I
shape from 90- to 203-mm (3.5- to 8-in.)
plates, grade 30- to 35-MPa (4200 to 5000
psi) steel
Core Reinforced concrete beam and column
frame with 13 columns in a circle
Facing Times Square on a block front between 45th and 46th Streets. the new 167.000-
m' (1.8 million ft') hotel rises 50 stories above the street (Fig. 4.30). The two sheer fin
walls along the two side streets contrast sharply with the stepped and skylit facade fac-
ing Broadway. It is surmounted by a projecting, rotating cocktail lounge seven storics Fig. 4.30 hlnrriott hlnrqnir Hetcl, New York, undcr construction. (Pl!aro b),Jennreier Leby.)
above the ground, actually the lobby level of the hotel. Above are five-story packages
of hotel rooms that are stepped back and forth between the tin rraallslike a giant's lad-
der. The first six floors of the building contain public facilities, including a 1500-seat
theater, a ballroom, exhibition and meeting rooms, and revail space.
92 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 . Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 93
A circular concrete core, wilh 12 Tivoli lighted elevators and four enclosed eleva- .
deel frames for the packages of hotel rooms. These hotel room oackares were oririnallv - .
tors, rises from the street level through the public levels, breaking free at the lobby level, conceivrd to,be supponed by slerl trusses. The Vierendeel irames nor only climinatcd
into a spectacular 35-story atrium (Fig. 4.31). I1 terminates at a multilevel rotating rhc trusses, but being tied into the s~de-wingvenical fr3mcr. pro\.ide stiifnes in the
rooftop restaurant Skylights on the east facade, between the five-story packages of ho- north-south direction. Stmctumlly. the building is a U with coiumns 8.5 m (28 it) on
tel rooms, bring daylight into the atrium, shining down onto the hotel lobby. The 3 5 center along the thrcu sides, with the closure pro\*idcd by the 31-01 ( 1 12-fi)-\pan V~rren-
guest room floors,. wilh 1876 rooms, are disposed in rectangular bands around the .deel frames. The two sides of the buildingmd the back are rigid iramcs above the lobby
atrium. From the guest floor corridors, with their projecting planters presenting an im- and arc vuased hctween lobbv and round floor. To urovidc the reuuircd 131~ra1stiffness
age of the hanging gardens of Babylon, one can look down at the parklike lobby sur- in the iront, the vierendeel;, combined with a &divided vertical frame on the two
rounded by colorful restaurants. sides, form superframes. In order to avoid the added columns at the ground level, the
As a structure, the building is equally unique, consisting of a steel-framed structure
surrounding the slip-formed concrete core. Between the two I I-m (36-it)-deep fins, a slip joint5 at midhe~glttbetuecn floors.
.
columns placed 6 m (20 fl) from the nonh or south side are. in fact. nosts with vertical
34-m (1 12-it) clear span is framed using girders below the lobby and five-story Vieren- At the hack of the building, along column line I?, a single irantc. cross hrsced bc-
low the lobhv. oro\,ides the stiffness in the north-south dirxrion. Sincc the -eroun of
~ - ~-~r
three superfr&nLs in the front (at column lines 3.4, and 5 ) have substantially different
stiffness, a process of fine-tuning wns undertaken to match deflections betwccn the
packet of superframes and the single frame as closely as possible. The purpose of this
exercise was to avoid torsion in the building. In this connection it should be noted that
even if the two were perfectly matched, a 5% eccentricity is required by the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) between the centroids of mass and rigidity. This has the effect of
requiring a 10% increase in shear carried by the diaphragm above that, resulting from
lateral wind iorces.
.
Below the lobbv.. the floor construction is conventional metal deck and concrete fill.
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
For the guest room floors, this construction was originally specified. However, since a
ceiling is required and since spans for the metal deck are limited, necessitating more
beams, an alternative, using long-span precaslconcrete plank without topping, wus cho-
sen, based on economic considerations. Not only did this result in a reduction in the
number of steel beams, but it also eliminated a hung ceiling since the underside of the
plank is a finished surface. The more than 93.000 mz (I million it2) of plank used makes
this a most dramatic application of plank floors in a high-rise building. As a result ofthe
innovative use of both the Vierendeel msses and the concrete floor plank (which are
only. mar~inallv
- -
.heavier than the orieinal metal deck and concrete solution)... the steel
structure with less thon 117 kglm' (?4 psO is extremely efficient and economical.
~
The planks. a p m from providing normal \enicaI load-carrying capacity. arc re-
quired tu provide the d ~ a p h r a ~ rrsisuncc,
rn transicrring all lateral force5 to the vcnical
\rind irorncs. Becnuse of the height of the building and the unujual configomtiun, this
implied special rcquircmel~tsfor the plank Bas~cally.the plank l~tusldo rhe fi~llowrng:
I. Support dead and live loads
2. Transfer wind iorces to bracing members
3. Transfer column-stability forces to bracing mcmbcrs
4. Transfer forces between bmcing members
Since the planks are an inherent part of the stability of the structure, p l a n k were
placed, grouted, and welded in sequence with the erection of the stccl irame. A rapid-
setting, nonshrink grout with high early strength was specified for the grouting o f t h e
joints between ulanks. These ioinls. which have shear kevs with castellations.. have been
-~~ ~
ihuirn hg cp&itncnt tu proCldu adequate shenr strcng;h for diaphragm action with n
grnut strength of 17 >!Pa (2500 psi). Fur this project. a design strength of 35 hlPn (5000
psi1 w:!s spec~liudto prnvidc higher carly strcngth and 2 magin ofs;tf<ty lor the ultremc
Pig.4.31 Elcvntar core rises 180 m (600 10 through ntriurn to r~volvingrc;tnuronls: hlnrrintt ueather condition5 to bc encountered during the construction cycle. Sinc? nu topping is
hlurquis Hotel. uacd, dixphragm action rdllrs solely un the ~nrcgrit)of th~.j o ~ n t2nd thc anchor.
94 Lateral Load Resisting Systems
[Chap. 4 r S e c t 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems 95
Taj Mahal Hotel When the developer wanted a 1200-room high-rise luxury hotel right on the exposed
Atlantic City, N e w Jersey, USA oceanfront, a prime concern ofthe designers was occupant comfort. Building sway and
Architect acceleration had to be minimized.
Francis Xavier Dumont Preliminary analyses and cost studies were made of four basic structural systems:
Structural engineer Paulus Sokolowski and Sanor, Inc.
Year of completion 1990 Steel staggered truss with concrete floors
Height from street to roof 128 m (420 ft) Concrete frames with shear core and other shcar walls
Number of stories 42 Concrete-fnmcd lube with concrete shear core
Number of levels below ground 0 Steel-framed tube with shear core
Building use
Frame material
Hotcl
Steel with precast concreie perimeter
.
-- truss reouired relativelv laree shear wallr to con-
All svstems excenl the staeeered .
trol ssra).. and the hciv~lyl o ~ d e dwills rcquircd l;lrgc and cxpcnsivc fueling s)ste,ns. In
~ ~
beams iddillon lhe slccl-ir:mi.d lube h:!d p r u b l ~ mof~ uplift. Rcl;,tive car15 w r e .
Typical floor live load Rooms 2 P a (40 psO; corridors 4 W a (80
P~O Steel staggered truss 1.00
Basic wind velocity 40 d s e c (90 mph) Concrete frames and shear rvnlls 1.25
Design wind load deflection 254 mm (10 in.) Concrete-framed tube 1.10
Design fundamental period 3.0 sec Steel-framed tube 1.40
Design acceleration 1.8 mg rms, l-yr return period The stagg~.rr.dtruss fr~mingsyrlcm rvas dcvr.1npr.d Ry a U S . Steel-spunsured rc-
Design damping 1% scrviceabiiity s23rch learn n o r l i n g 21 hl.1.T. i f , the inid-1960s. Its hilsic ~ I C ~ I C I I is
I thc \ I U T ) - ~ U L . ~I ~ U I I
Eanhquake loading C = 0.037; K = I .O (did not govern design) which spans the full width of the buildine at alternate floors on each coiumnlinc. ilcncc
Type of structure the floor spans from the top chord of one truss to thc bottom chord of adjacent trusses
Staggered steel trusses and braced steel so that each truss is iondcd on both the lop and the bottom chords and is laterally fully
core transverse, rigid perimeter frame lon- restrained.
gitudinal direction
Foundation conditions 27 m (90 ft) of loose sand and thin organic
Because all & ..
eravitv .load is suooorted at the oerimeter of the buildine. the tvholc of
th? huild~nga d i ~ l c3n ~ t hi. ~ I I O ~ I ~ I L10
L rdsist
.~ ovcrturnlng eff~.cls.
strata over dense sand Lxcral iorc~.sare transmitted from floor to flour d0u.n the building via the llonr dl-
Footing type 355-mm (14-in.)-diameter steel-shell driven . -
aohraems and I N S S web members. The oerimeter columns c a m onlv-axial load in the
transverse direction and can therefore have their strong axis oriented longitudinally to
. .
cast-in-place concrete piles. 1500-ki-4 (165-
ton) capacity form part of a longitudinal rigid frame.
Typical floor The layout of the Taj Mahal Hotel (Fig. 4.32) with a central double-loaded corriddr
suited the staggered truss arrangement as it allowed the provision of a Viercndeel panel
Story height 2.69 m (8 ft 10 in.) midspan, where the shear is least, for the corridor.
Truss span 20.7 m (68 ft) With the structural svstem selected. a wind tunnel studv rvas canied out to determine
Truss depth 2.69 m (6 ft 10 in.) . atruculnl forces, d)n:trnic bch:,\,ior, c1;ldding pressures, 2nd cnr,irnnnicst31 eifccts s1
Truss spacing ground level. Frdm this. the design l;ltcr:,l looding, building driit, 2nd acceleration ncrr.
9.14 m (30 ft) established.
Material Structural steel Because this is a tall buildine for a staeeered truss svstem. the shears in the floors
uu
Slab 100-mm (4-in.) precast slabs with 100- were an important design consideration. The 200-mm (8-in.)-thick slnbs comprise pre-
mm (4-in.) cast-in-place topping: 3 5 . ~ ~ ~ cast pretensioned concrete plank tapered on their top surface from 127 mm (5 in.) thick
(5000 psi) concrete midspan to 76 mm (3 in.) thick each end, where they are supponed on top of the 254-mm
Columns (IO-in.) -!vide flange steel truss chord, and a cast-in-place topping. The shear connection
between floors and trusses is achieved by stud shear connectors (Figs. 4.33 and 4.34).
Size at ground floor Built-up steel. 2230 kglm (1500 Iblft) Because of functional and architeclural requirements, the staggered truss systcm
Spacing 9.1 by 20.7 m (30 by 68 ft) could not be used at all locations. As a consequence, two other systems were used, a
Material core frame and an end frame. The core framc consists of a truss system with n truss at
Structural steel, grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
every floor. but with n vertical stiffness to match the staggered trusses. The truss at
Core Braced steel frames, g n d e 350 MPa (50 every level !\,as required to carry shears from lateral loading without reliance on the
hi) floor diaphragm which, at this location, is heavily penetrated by service openings.
1
The three-bay end frame comprises a diagonally braced center bay and outer bays of
:..i'
gi
.@:, was one story above the footings, a diagonal brace was provided at the columns to trans-
rigid framing connected to large perimeter columns. This frame is 13.7 m (45 ft) wide fer the load to a steel beam embedded in the footing, similar to the adjacent truss hot-
compared to the 20.7-m (68-ft) width of the typical frames (Fig. 4.35). (g:
._. tom chord. A pile cap at a typical staggered truss bay is 7.6 m (25 ft) square and 2.9
Wind shears are transferred to the foundations by embedding the bottom chords of 4 . , (8 fi) deep, supported on 36 piles. ,. , ,
the lowest trusses in large concrete-gnde beams. On the lines where the lowest truss , ..:.- Both structural steel and concretespandrel beams wereconsidered. with the lnnerh.ino
I
I .*;.
selectcd as they best suild architectud and fire-nting rquiremenk. lllc
mrn (48- by 12-in.) beam rigidly connwtedtothc largrrxtcriorcolumns nnd the small ....
height created a f n m e easily capable of resistine. the lon~itudinalwind forces . r~.:; --.
I ;
fab&alor cut the 44- and 57~mm~diameter(+l4 &d 818) reinforcing b m and uclded them
lo sael Trectians h o l d for bolting nt each end before delivering thcm lo the Prucalcr
finished beams included a shear key and reinforcement for connection to thislabs.
~~. ~.... h . ,,,~
.,:,. , .
.;$; !
~.,..
,-.,,.
.
...
,.-
-21
<.,%I
,..**
->.,
Fig. 433 Typical noor plnn; Tnj Mnhnl Hotcl.
Typical building exterior column

I " + A490X bolls
0
1" Section
Elg. 4 3 2 Toj hfnhnl Hotel,AtlnnUe City, New Jcmey. Fig. 4 3 1 Spandrel beam delnil; Tuj Mnhnl Hulel.
It Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
Tokyo Marine Building

Osaka, Japan
Architect Kajima Design
Structural engineer Kajima Design
Building use Office, retail space, parking
Typical floor live load 0.79 kPa (16.4 psf)
Basic wind velocity 35 d s e c (78 mph) a1 10-m height
Maximum lateral deflection Seismic conlrol
Design fundamental period 3.31 sec longitudinal; 3.95 sec transverse
Design acceleration 4 mg peak, 5-yr return
Design damping 2%
Earthquake loading Base shear coefficient 0.08
Type of structure hloment resisting frnmc
Foundation conditions Fine sand
Footing type Cast-in-olace concrete oile: 22-m (72-ft)
\Piles (typical) length, 5.4-m (7.9-ft) djameter, wiih 4-4
(13-ft) bell
INTERIOR CORE FRAME END FRAME Typical floor
STAGGERED-
TRUSS BENT Story height 3.9 m (12 ft 9 in.)
Beam span 21 m (69 ft)
Beam depth 900 mm (36 in:)
Beam spacing 6.75 m (22 ft)
Material Steel, grade SM 490, 483-MPa (70 ksi)
tensile strength and below
Slab 155-mm (6.1-in.) lightweight concrete
slab on cormgated deck
Columns
Spacing 10.8, 21 m (35, 69 ft)
Matenal Steel. grade SM 490
Fig. 4.35 Fromewurk and typical buy reelion; Taj hlnhul Hotel.
Tlic Tokyo hlcrine building i s n 27-story officl: building locatcd in the Osaka burinsrr
park district bring develuprd just cast of Osaka Castlc. Japan (Fig. 4.36). The burld~ng
urovide~about 69.000 m' (743.000
. . -
11'1 of arca for offices. ret~il.and ,n~rkina.Cun-
struciion was completed in 1990. i\rchitccturaily the buildins a.as conceived to fir into
tht c~~viroo~nentof thc Osaka business p3rk and ro runect the imagl: ofthc cl~ent.Tokyo
Marine. As the base of operations in western Japan for Tokyo ~ & n e the , building tvis
Lateral Load Resisting Systems
I Sect. 4.11 Braced Frame and Moment Resisting Frame Systems
designed to have high-tech capabilities, to reflect ils prestige appropriately by its exter-
nal appearance. and also to be attractive to tenants as office space.
The building has a rectangular plan to fit into the site surrounded by two high-rise
buildings on the longer sides. The exterior facade, exposing columns and beams outside
the building, brings to mind the simple lines of traditional Japanese wood-frame details
and gives a clear identity as well (Fig. 4.37). The lateral force resisting system of the
Fig. 4.36 Tuk).u Rlurlnc building. Oaaku,Japun.

Fig. 4.37 Pilotis columns: Tokyo hlurtnc building.
building consists of the framed columns interconnected with long-span beams [10.8,21- The structure was planned with an unusually long main span of 21 m (70 ft) across
m ( 7 0 4 ) spans]. This allows for an open public urea at the plaza level of the building the full building width. In such cases the vertical component of an earthquake can have
and column-free space across the width of the building with a 2.7-m (9-ft) ceiling height a significant effect on the beam slresses. This was investigated by modeling a typical
on the office floors. bay as a two-dimensional frame. Dynamic analysis was carried out using the time his-
The building is framed in slrucluml steel (Fig. 4.38). Each frame column consists of tory of four earthquake records, inputting their lateral and vertical components simulta-
four vertical membcn joined by short 12.7-m (9-ft)-span] beams to create a three-di- neously. As a preliminary step, the modes of vibration of the structure were obtained,
rnen~ional
~~- ~-~~~ swcture. The combination of the short beams in between the framed column from which it was found that the fifth mode was the first mode in the vertical direction
cicnlcntr and the long-span bcamr cre:ttes unusual static charoclerisrics: migrntiun of nnd involved axial tension nnd compression in the columns, with all the beams vihrat-
column loads. the shorn-span beams being loaded more lightly in bending than the long- ing together. Only at higher modes did the beam vibration become more complex.
swan beams. and an unusunl failure-hinge mechanism for extreme xismic events. The analysis was carried out at two levels of earthquake input. The following were
m 3 mpiium-rise buildine.
~~~~ -~ -. short-sean beams yield at their SuppoN
.. under relatively the results.
low loading levels due 10a conccntmtion of bending stiffness. Houevcr, in this case the
effect of axial deformation; of the frame columns was the dominant mode of behavior. I. At 250-mdsec (10-in./sec) peak input level. the long-span beams developed
An incremcntallv increasine static analysis on an elastic-plastic model C'pushover" large bending moments, in particular high up in the building. It was verified that
analysis) was c a k e d out to obr3in the sceleton cun,cs for story shear. From this analy- even including these stresses. the beams remained within the short-term allotv-
sis thc formntion of plastic hinges at the supportsof the long-span beams. with the shorn- able stresses according to the Japanese design criteria.
span burns remaining claslic even at high eanhquake le!,cls, was notablc. 2. At 400-mdsec (80-in./sec) peakinput level, due to the effect of the vertical com-
- at the ends of lone-snan beams develooed
ponent of the earthquake. elastic hinees u . , ~ ~ -
early on, but the structun remained elaslic in its overall heh3vior and did not de-
grade its ovsr-ll dynamic stiffness charactarislics. Thc reason for this 1s that scr-
tically the period of vibration is much shorter than horizontallv. such that thc
stmciurc isnblc to recover its clastic characteristics. From this risult it was con-
cluded that using horizontal earthquake time history records only for the main re-
I sponse analysis was appropriate
I Although the bullding is not of irregular shape, wind tunnel testtng was carned out
-
- the effect of the cxeosed column frames on the surface rourhness dnd ef-
to investteate
I
~ ~
fcctive lront~l; m a o i the building 11 was also dcsir3ble to prcdiot the vibration bthar-
iur of llte build~tigunder wind loading, since its period is rei;!tlvclg long. Using ihc prcs-
surd cnefficienls from the uind lunncl test. the base shear from u.ind is ahout giro that
of seismic ct,ents. In terms of acctl.aation. it uns pr~.dicted(ha1 although the upper lev-
zls u,ould e~pcricncca peak ncceicration of around 4 mK. his ,\auld nut cause any dis-
comfort.
It was considered that since the exposed frame was outside the main building glar-
' FRAMED tng Itne, it would not be subject to the same intensity of fire as a normal frame, and
COLUMN therefore could be fire-vrotected to an anoroor~atelvlesser deeree. An annlvsis was oer-
iannedonthcframe\<,~rn rubjectedio n.&rtCsdisc/lsrgingfro; insidu 1hc ioilding.!~hc
rcsults shou,vd that the beams uould hc heated 10 273'C and the columns to ?81'C
the outside of their aluminum claddine. - Since the critical lemverature for steel in a firs
nlay bc lakc,! ar 350°C ;,\,crape (with 3 n~nximulnuf 45O'C). the conulusiolt unr d n w n
tIt:!t no fire protection was needed at ail for the cxlcrn.ll froinc. llpon craminxinn b) the
Building Csnlcr Flre Safety and Protection Commitlcc. 10 rnm (0.4 in ) o f fire-res~sl;tnt
cladding material was finoily agreed upon, which represented a substantial reduction in
fireproofing material.
Fig. 4.38 Framing pcrspcclivc; T n k ~ ohlurinc building.

Kamogawa Grand Tower

Kamogawa, Japan
Architect Kajima Design
S m c n t n l engineer Kajima Design
Y e x of completion 1992
Height fmm slreet to roof 105 m (344 A)
Building use Hotel and condominium
Frnme material Concrete
Typical floor live load 1.77 !@a (36.9 psO
Basic wind velocity 35 mlsec (78 mph) at 10-m (3341) height
Design fundamental period 1.92 sec transverse; 1.55 sec longitudinal
Design damping 2%
Earthquake loading Shear coeficient0.085
Type of smcture Moment resisting frame with honeycomb
damper wall
Foundation conditions Fine smdy layer over clay layer over shale
rock layer
Footing type Cast-in-place concrete pile; 19-m (62-ft)
length. 1.7-m (5.6-A) diameter, with 2.8-
m (9.2ft) bell
Typical floor
Beam span 4.5 m d 9 m (15 and 30 ft)
Material Reinforced concrete, normal weight
Slab 160-mm (6.3-in.) concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 900 by 900 mm (35.5 by 35.5 in.)
Material Concrete. 23 to 41 MPa (3400 to 6000 psi)
The Kamogawa Grand Tower is composed of ductile moment resisting frames

(Fig. 4.39). The high-rise reinforced concrete (HiRC) conslruction method developed
by Kajima Corporation was used. It consists of pure reinforced concrete columns, gird-
ers, and floor slabs tvhich are cast on site (Fig. 4.40). The typical floor plan is a stair-
shaved vlan alone the catcrior zones. which consists of rceular souare units ~- 4.5
- rn (1 5
~ ~
11) i n a kide (~i~.-4.41).

The standard p a n is chis? 5 m (l<fl) c r c ~ p;11
t [he central cnr-
ridor, sherc !he spitn is 9.0 rn (30 it) hy skipping columns susraincd by rhc cross gird-
en. Ths cnure struclurl: is desisncd In be au~roairnalelv . ssmmctric
- ilonl! 45 nnd 135O
orientations from the orthogon~lso that carthqu&e resistance is balance: in all lateral
directions.
106 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 I
:@f
j
ig&a.
columns are installed in each typical story. The seismic response of the building is re.
On typical floors, steel plates with honeycomh-shaped openings are installed in the
duced by the hysteresis damping effect due to the yielding of the steel plates.
central corridor connecting to the cross girders (Fig. 4.42). Post columns extending from
the midspan of upper- and lower-story girders are spliced at midstory using these The seismic design criteria for two levels of design earthquake were established as
damper plates, connected by high-strength bolts through gusset plates. Thus the story follows:
shear drift is concentrated in the damper plates. Sixteen units of damper plates and post
1. Severe earrhquake: The stresses in all slructural members must be less than the
allowable values and the story drift must be less than 11200.
WALL WITH hONEY- COMPRESSIVE DESIGN
COMB DAMPER STRENGTH OF COhCRETE 2. Worsr earrhquake: Even if the structural members exceed allowable limits, ex-
cessive large plastic deformation should not he caused and the story drift must be
less than 11100.
Referring Lo the preliminary earthquake response resulls in considcrntion of the hvs-

lrresis steel dlmper, the slory shear coufficienls 3rc dcltrm~ncdThe design a ind sbc;!rs
arc nbnul56Sn of the seismic valucs. In order to secure tbc 111tirn;llustrung11 olthu struc-
tural lrame, it U 3 S cst;~bli~hed that th~.m r y shunr cap;,city
. . rrould hc 1.5 times !hat of
the design earthquake shear forces. The uldmate hcnding and shear strength of the
columns was designed to he at least 1.25 times greater than that of the girder, so that
yielding to bending in the girders precedes yield in the columns: hut at the tops of the
columns, in the lop story and at the bottom of lhc first story, thc bending yield in the
columns is considered.
From the earthquake responses of the structure to both severe and worst-case events
it was assured that the final desien - of the moment resistine frame structure was com-
plclsly s3t1sf~ctog. rvilh respuct tu the design criteria. hlnrco\cr, "ring the huncycor~lb
sICL.I plates 35 hysleresi dampcrr. not only a well-bilanced structurs hut also s2vints i n
the volume of reinforced concrete may hc realized.
I
Fig. 4.41 Tgplcnl nuar plun; Knrnogonn Grnnd Tosrcr.
Fig. 4.40 Framing rlcvulilln In tllc). dlrcctinn: Knrnugurn Grund Tu$vrr.
j
Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems
4.2 SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS
I& $% '
.
Shear walls have been the most common structural systems used in the past for smbiiir
-
ina- building- structures aeainst horizontal forces caused bv wind or earthsuakes. With the
I"; i!.
.,:
advcnt oircinforced concrete, shear wall systems have become widely uscd to stabilize ef-
ficiently even the tallest building slructures. In the last 10 yc-rs, concrete tcchnology has
nd\,anccd lo a point where concrete streneths of over 130 hlPa (19.000 psi) arc achievable
in the field. T k s has led to the design o f the proposed 610-m (2000:itj Miglin-Beitler
Tower in Chicago (which would become the world's tallest building), relying heavily on
a shear wall svslem of verv-hieh-slreneth concrete to resist horizontal forces.
A common shear w d l ; y s t ~ mused-for tall office buildings groups shear walls around
service cores, elevator shafts, and stairwclls to form a stiff box-type structure, such as for
I ; the Melbourne Cenlrnl building in Auslralia (Chapter 3.2). In this example the need to
1001 . I "I ' I ' I100 enclose and lire-protect 21 passengerelevators, service elevators. two stainvells. lobbies,
600 and service risers created the framework for a niff concrete box-type shear wall system.
SHAPE OF HONEYCOMB DAMPER PLATE In contrast with oftice buildings, high-rise residential buildings have less demand for
elevators, lobbies, and services, and hence do not usually have large stiff concrete shear
wall boxes to resist horizontal forces. A more common system will incorporate a small
0
0
BEAM box structure around a smaller number of elevators and stairwells, and include discrete
w shear walls between apartments.
In both shear wnll systems noted, the walls are designed lo canulever from the founda-
tion level. To deslen -
- shear walls -need around service cores. the bcndine.- shcar, and
!<,arpingstroses duc to !\ ind or cmhqoake lo3ds arc combined eith slr:sses due to pmvll)
loldc. Indi\,idunl wdl, within thc box system can then hc designed as unit-length u,alls span-
nine either noor to flour or bctu,ccn return walls. Reinforcrmcnt is proponioncd as iollon,:
HONEYCOMB .. 1. Minimum shrinkage restraint reinforcement where the wall stresses are low,
which can be for a subsmntinl ponion of the shear wall.
.. 2. Tensile reinforcement for areas where tension stresses occur in walls when wind
..
~ ~ l islresses
f1 exceed - eravitv. stresses.
N 3. Compressive reiniorccmcnt with conlinumunt ties u hcre high cumpressi\,e forces
rcquir: that ualls b~.des~pnedas c o l ~ m n sIndividual
. shcnr walls, say at the edge
, ..,.~ . . of a tall huildinp. are dcsiknrd either 3s blade walls or as coluo~nsrer~sling- shcar
and bending as required. -
i b
; > ,'
. i. -
Multi~leshear walls throuehout a tall buildine-mnv.be couoled to vrovide additional
iramu action and hcncc increasr ovcr2ll building stilfncsr. Coupling can bc realized hy
rulalivel) shallow hrader or link b u m s within the ceiling cavil) at each Irvcl or by
I .. means of one- or two-story-high shear coupling walls. By adding a coupling shear wall
at a single level, reverse curvature is induced in the core above the coupling shear wall,
significnntly reducing lateral drift by increasing thc overall building stiffness. As the in-
I crease in mass is minimal, there will be an increase in the building's natural frequency.
1 .
This can be a desirable effect.. in oarticular with resoect to achievine an accentablc
uind-induced ncr~lcmtionresponse tu cnsurc occupxn~comforr. Ccntrnl cure hnxus can
31ro hc coupled \In slifi beams nr lri.,sus, ol discrule lc\uls, Id urlcm>l shear u;ills or
columns to achieve a similar and more pronounced effect than that noted. Thus the con-
crete shear wall becomes the central component in a core and oulrigger system.
MAIN Many tall buildings undergo torsional loading due to nonalignment ofthe building shear
REBAR 10-032 cenar wilh the location of the horizontal load application. Such a situation occurs in the
L600-l HOOP D13-a100 CitySpire Building (Chapter 4.3) due to the asymmetry of Ule location of the shear wall
boxes. Torsional loading can also be induced in a building such as Bourke Place (Chapter
Fig. 1.42 Shilpeand tnrtntlolion olhoneycornb dornpcr ptolc; Knrnogn~mGrnnd Toscr.
110 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems 111
"i;
-
3.2) due to theneriodic sheddine of windvoltices altemalelv fmmeachside of h e shucntre,
moving the insvmtmcous center of pressure oul nf line aid) thc building's shearcenat.
$&
.g
1:
Project Descriptions
Boxed shear all systems pro! ide an efficient means of resisting such lnrsinn. Torsion ,g;.:
'#: Metropolitan Tower
is resisted bv both wa&ine -
. &d uniform shear. Particular care must be tnken during- com-
purer modeling of boxed shear u d l s lo reflect penetrations forelevator and stair doon. Cal-
p',
#;:
.s,
New York, N.Y., USA
culation of incltiv based on a reduced uall thichess, depending on the number of shear @. Architect Schuman. Lichtenstein. Claman and Efron
wdl nenemtions. is common. Boxed shcar wall systems &e very well suited to regular - plan
.
g! with design input from MackboweIDenmanl
'r.*;
n.
oMice buildings. as demonsmled in many of ale project examples in this section. Con- c:'
Werdiger
slruclion advanwges ofr<infomed concrele shear uall systems include the following: .&
~.*.
,I:: Structural engineer Robert Rosenwasser Associatcs P.C.
,p
1. Central-services core shear walls can be efficiently constructed using slip-form :l Year of completion 1985
orjump-form techniques. In the case of 120 Collins Skeet, a 4%-day cycle was
achieved, ensuring that core wall construction was well off the critical path.
.. i
Height from streel lo roof 21810 (716 it)
2. High-strength concrete hns enabled wall thicknesses to be minimized, hence Number of levels below ground 2
maximizing rentable floor space.
Building use Office lo 18th floor; residential above
3. Technology exists to pump and place high-strength concrete at high elevntions.
4. Fire rating for service and passenger elevator shafts is achieved by simply plac-
ing concrete of a determined thickness. Typical floor live load 2.5 P a (50 psi) office; 2 Wa (40 psi) residential
5. The need for c o m ~ l e xboltcd or site-welded steel connections is avoided. Basic wind velocity 47 d s e c (105 mph), 100-yr return
Maximum lalcral deflection HI500
6. Wcll-detailed reinforced concrete will develop about twice as much damping as ,
structural steel. This is an advantage where acceleration serviceability is a criti- Design fundamenlal period 5 and 4 sec horizontal; 2 see torsion
cal limit state, or for ultimate limit state dcsign in earthquake-prone areas. Design accclererion I5 mg peak
Although thcse advantages make concrete shear wall systems a compclitive construc- Dcsign damping 1 2 % servic~ability;2%% ullimatc
tion method, the following must also be considered: Earthquake loading Not applicable
Type ofslmclure Coupled shcar walls plus perimeter frames
1. Shear walls formed around elevator and service risers require a concenvation of
openings at ground level where stresses are critical. Foundation conditions Rock. 4-MPa (40-tonlit') capacity
2. Torsional and flexural rigidity is affected significantly by the number and size of Footing type Spread footings
. -
oocnines around the she& wails throuehout the heieht of the buildine.
3. In 1 and 2 it is difficult to gauge the effect of openLgs precisely wilhout undertnk-
Typical floor
ing time-consuming finite-element analysis. Story height 3.45 m (I l ft 4 in.) office: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in.)
4. Shear wall vertical movements will continue throughout the life of the building. residential
n ~ e impact
~ r on the integrity o f i h r sIructure nlust b;rvalu31rd at the design slag;. Beams Span and spacing vary
5. Consuruclion lime is gsnerally slou,er I I I for ~ n sleel-framed building. Beam depth 508 mm (20 in.) at perimeter
-
6. The additional ueirhl of the \er~icalconcrete elemcnts as compared to steel will in-
duce a cost penalty for the foundations. Slab 216-mm (8.5-in.) flat slab
7. An incrense in mass will cause a decrease in nntural frequency and hence will mast Material Concrete, 42 to 28 MPa (6000 lo 4000 psi)
likely produce an adverse effect of the acceleration response depending on the he- Columns Size and spacing vary
quency range of the building. But shear wall systems are usually stiff and cause a
compensating increase in nntuml frequency. Material Concrete. 58 to 39 MPa (8300 to 5600 psi)
8. There are problems nssocialed with moving formwork systems, including the following: Core Coupled shear walls: thickness varies
a. A sienificant
u - construction and wall construction
time lae will occur between footinc Material Concrete, 58 lo 39 MPa (8300 to 5600 psi)
beenuse ofthe fabrication and ureclion on rile ofthe moving formwork system.
O. Time will be lost at levels !s,hcru aalls are lerminatcd or decrrased in thickness. A rectangular towcr \vould not work because of restrictions on the north-south-oriented
c. Reeular survcv checks must he undertxken to ensure that the vertical and twist
~ ~ site. This problem was solved with a triangular tower whose longest face is oriented
xlignmcnrs of the s h r x walls are uithin tolerance. northeast, with setbacks designed to conform to zoning regulations. The L-shaped com-
d. In pneral it is difficult ru achieve a good finish from slip-form formwork sys- mercial base is 18 stories, whereas the upper .. trianeular condominium towcr is 46 sto-
tems, and hence rendering or sollle other Ispc of finishing may be necessary. rits p l ~ lsa u sluiies iur IllL. 1nec11:~nical
and stn~cu!raiIransiiion. 'l'hr. Iksding edge of lhu
E. When walls IW 100 thin [such 3s 150 iIlnt(6 in.)] it is not unusual for friction be- Inangular lower being north on 57th S1rcr.l 1s continued for lhc enure 21X.m 1716-11)
trrccn ~ h cforms and cuncrcle lo lift lflr concrcle in slip-form conatmction. Icad- Ihti~bIof the bull din^. - inlcgrating
- - thu 1r.o b ~ s i ciorms. In !his w a y lhl: unique lrilneu-
ing to cracks or gsping holes in the wall. lar Yower mximizes one of its greatest assets-the views (Fig. 4.43).
Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems 113
~ ..
The uooer condominium tower contains 246 luxurv apartments tolaline 39.300 mz
(423.000 ft'). The lower commcrci~lbase has 21.000~"(2?5.000 ft') of;ental office
space and 460 m' (5000 it2) for relail rental. The lotal project amuunls lo 60.600 m'
(653.000 11') and required approximately 23.000 m' (30,000 yd') of concrete and 3300
tonnus (366-3 tons) of reinforcing steel. To keep an efficient column grid on tlte commcr-
cia1 floors, a double-height reinforced concrete mechanical floor was crcned at the nine-
teenth floor to allow thetransfer of loads from the triangular plan ofthe building's upper
tower to its L-shaped base (Fig. 4.440). In effect this was a new foundation for the trian-
gular tower, accomplished by using an exlmordlnaiy volume of concrete, an unusually
dense mass of reinforcing stvel. and bcams up to 4 m (13 it) deeq. Thesc transfer girdcrs
ucre c a t in two stages. the bottom 600 to 900 mm (2 to 3 it) belng cast first to s e n c as
..
suooort for the remainder of the concrete in the second placemenL
The depth ofthe meandering shear wall (the main btmctura~support ofthe triangu-
lar footprint) is about 21 m (70 ft) (Fig. 4.446). 0:the three available faces. the west
face was a lot-line face. and therefore obloce to accommodate the elevator shafts for the
high-rise structure. It was recognized, and later verified in a wind tunnel tcst, that the
structure would support larger wind forces acting perpendicular to the hypotenuse of the
-
trianele.
Vnncx rhedding, u,hich ~lsuallypruduces larger forces ironsverse tn ths wind dirdc-
lion, did not matcriallzc for this structure bscausc of its triangul:lr foulpnnt. Shear walls
then migrate from the west lot line, meandering alongside the apartment lobby and cor-
ridors, to the hypotenuse side ofthc triangle, where additional columns were engaged
via Vierendeel action of the spandrel beams. Other frame elements. 508-mm (20-in.)-
..
deeo soandrel beams alone the .oerioherv
. . and 216-mm (8.5-in.) slabs at the interior of
the structure, were needed to help counter large torsional loads since it was impossible
to minimize torsional forces for all possible wind directions. This slender lower was
somewhat stiffened bv a wider bascbelow the eiehteenth floor. However, part of the
shear tva11 and nlany of the columns bad to bc transferred utilir~ngdsep concrets gird-
ers nt this levcl. These deep girders w r r . utilized. via outrigger action, lo ungxgc nddl-
tional supports to help d i v e s hold-down loads for the shear wall and to equalize the
strain in the supports.
The flat slab floors are supported by a hybrid building frame of columns and shear
walls. in purt because of the developer's desire to leave the perimeter as column-free as
possible.'~n the triangular tower. \\;ind on the long side of ;he triangle governs the dc-
sign, so the shear walls were placed at right angles to that face of the building, mean-
derine alone partition lines in a horseshoe shape to the opposite side o f t h e tower and
hackio theidne side of the trianele.
b
Scveml factors contributed to the decision to use concrete rather than steel. Thesc in-
cluded the easier modeling oishapes. the ability to make last-minute changes, and the
-
knowledre that a lareer miss reduces vibration and the .perception. of motion. The choice
ofconcrute raflucls ths needs ofthe u\tremi.ly ?all slel~dsrstruclurc S\ray ofthe huilding
u a s an impnnanl uunccm. In high-nsc hu~ld~ngs i t may range from 11500 tn 1/600 of the
buildine hcieht in a lUU-\u~rwind (tl13t is. thc slronwst uind lhilt inns bi. :~aticipatcJlo
in d A .
occur a 160-"car oeridd). When comoarine buildiks of structural steel and reinforced
u
concrele having similar stiffnesses and movcmenlr. the perceived motion in the concrete
building will be less bccausc the larger mass of the concrclc structure slows do\isn its
swayini motions, that is, the period isincreased and the accclcration reduced.
In the Metropolitan Tower the typical slab floor thickness of 216 mni (8.5 in.) of
stone concretc is important in achieving the mass of t h e building. Nevertheless, the
- -
huildine was designed with provisions lo support
. . the \vcieht- o f a pcndulum-type
.. dnmper
should it be needed. Using thrcc nccclcrometers, field measurements wcrc tekcn when
FIR. 4.43 hlclrupulilun T u ~ e rNPW
, York. (Coi,ncr). o~RobenRarmm~nsrcrA.~rucl the structure reached its fifty-fourth floor and, latcron, at its sirty-sixth floor (at the last
112
Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems 115
possible date, allowing time for a "galno go" decision with regard to the installation of
a damper), indicating that adamper was not needed. Theexlra cost to the owner resulted
from
~ - - lavout,
orovidine a double desien . with and wilhout lhe damper. No materials, ex-
cept those nrcded to support the damper's weight on the footings 2nd columnr. were oc-
tually expended in the svucturz. This suucture can accommodate a future damper, if
-
found necessarv durine its service liir, with some nunor modifications and rerouting of
some mechanical pipes.
Slab formwork was cycled by the "preshoring" method commonly used in New York
(Grossman, 1990). The first 18 stories, larger in floor area, were completed at the rate
of about 4 to 5 days per story. In the triangular tower, two floors per week was typical
progress, with columns and shear walls cast on Mondays and Thursdays and floors on
Tuesdays and Fridays. Near the top of the tower, work speeded up to 2 days per story.
The concrete framewas topped out on October 2. 1985
(4
Fig. 4.44 hlctrnpulllnn Tuscr. to1 L-sllupcd borc. ( b ) hleundrringshcor ,,,,11.
114
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Shearwail Systems
Embassy Suites Hotel entire wsses were encased in concrete. The ballrooms, kivhen, and mechanical spaces
New York, N.Y., USA are located between the 14.9-111 (49-ft)-high trusses. The system is efficient and eco-
nomical and solved the problems associated with constructing over a landmark.
Architect Fox and Fowie Architecls
The hotel superstructure is a reinforced concrete flat-plate system with a 8.5- by 8.5-
Structural engineer DeSimone, Chaplin and Dobryn m (28- by 28-it) column grid and was built on a Zday cycle. Wind is resisted by shear
Year of completion 1990 walls ns well as moment f n m e acdon of slab strips and columns. The total weight of the
Height from street to roof 146.3 m (480 it) reinforcing steel used for the concrcte tower was only 36.7 kglm- (7.5 pSO.
Number of levels below ground I
Building use Hotel
Frame material Concrete above 8th floor: concrcte-en-
cased steel below
Typical floor live load 2 kPa (40 psQ
Basic wind velocity 36 mlscc (80 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection Hl.150, HI700
Design fundamental period 5.4.7.4 sec
Design accclerstion 21 mg peak
Design damping 2% serviceability
Earthquake loading Z = 0.375; C = 0.030 and 0.025; K = 1.0
Type of structure Shear walls above 8th floor; encased-steel
trsnsfer trusscs to steel supercoiumns be-
IO\V
Foundation conditions Rock. 4-MPa (40-tonlft') capacity
Footing type Concrete piers
Typical floor
Story hrigllt 2.65 m (8 fi 8.5 in.)
200-mm (6-in.) flat plate, spanning 7.32
by 7.32 m (24 by 24 R)
Columns 4 supercolumns built up from five 200-
rnm Win.) plates on 14.63- by 39.63-m
(48- by 130-ft) grid
Core Shear walls. 300 to 450 mm (12 to I8 in.)
thick at ground floor
Material 56-hlPn (8000-psi) concrete
1568 Brondway is the site ofthe Embassy Suites Hotel in the Times Square district of
New York Cily (Fig. 1.45). I t is built over the historic Palace Theatre, a landmark dating
back to 1919. Bccausc of the theater's landmark status, New York City would not permit
any disturbance to tbc theater by the new hotel. It was therefore necessary to suppon this
46-story. 146-m (480-TI)-tallbuilding by building e "bridge" over the theeter [Fig. 1.46).
The transfer was accomplished with a hybrid composite steel and concrete structure
consisting oftn,o 40-m (1.X-f11-lung compnsile trusses and steel cross trusses. Four su-
perculun~ns.two on either side ofthe theater, come down to ground to suppon the struc-
ture. Thcsc columns n'erc built up out to thick grsde 350-hIPa (50-ksi) steel plates and
n'eigh up tu 6000 kg/m (4000 lhlfl). The truss menlhers were dcsi~nedto bc light enough
to pern~iterection on an estremcly diflicuit site. To give them the necessary stiffness, the
Fig. 4.45 Emburry Suilcs Hotcl. Nss York.
119
Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems
Singapore Treasury Building

Singapore
Architect Hugh Stubbins and Associates

Swctural engineer LeMessurier Consultants with Ove Amp
and Partners
Height From sueet to roof 234 m (768 fl)
Building use office
Frame material Concrete core, steel floor beams
Typical floor live load 2.5 Wa (50 psf) 30th floor and above: 3.0
kPa (60 psf) below 30th Floor
Design fundamental period 5.6 sec
Design acceleration Not estimated
Design damping ~ p p r o x2% serviceability
Eanhquake loading Not applicable
Type of structure steel floor beams cantilevered off cylin-
drical concrete core wall
Foundation conditions Clay over rock
6 8.m (26-ft 3-in.)-diamctcr caissons. 35
Footing type
(I 15 ft) long, under a 2.9-m (9-ft 6-in.)-
thick mat
Typical floor
Beams Cantilever 11.58 m (38 fr), spacing 4.9 m
(16.42 ft) at core
Beam depth 1470 mm (58 in.). facade w s s 1260 mm
(50 in.) deep, continuous
80 mm (3.25 in.) on 77-mm (3-in.) steel
deck
Columns only erection columns embedded in core
wall
Core Reinforced concrete cylinder. 22.95-m
Fig. 4.46 "Bridgc" rupportlng hotel over thcotcr. Embnsry Suits Hotel. ( 7 5 4 ) I.D., 1.65 to I m (65 to 39 in.) thick
Material Concrete cube. 40 to 30 MPa (4500
3400 psi)
This cylindrical 48.4-m (I 59-Ft)-diameter mixed construction office lower, loca!ed in the
center of Singapore, has an area of more than 132,000 m' (1.42 million h') (FIE.4:-17).
Although the Singapore wind climate is relatively benign, avoidance of resonsnt vlbra-
tion caused by wind-induced vortex shedding conlrolled the required latcral stlffness Of
the tower. This required setting the first vibralion mode period at no more than 5.6 set.
120 Lateral Load Resisting Systems
The architect and owner wanted to have little or no visible StNCtUre obstructing the
[Chap. 4
I Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems
-
of adiacent floors. A stiff continuous nerimeter rine truss at each floor minimizes rela- 1
360" panoramic swcep u l the \vinduu,s at each floor. The simple jet elegnnl structural
solution was lo cantiicvsr evcry floor from an inner cylindrical wall enclosing tile clc-
1,3101and service core. This required radial beams ubich cantliever I 1 6 m (38 h) from 3
live deflcc[ions of adjacent cantilevers on the same floor pruduced hy any unrvrn live
loading. This w s s plus the rrnical tier also provide some redundancy in the unlikely
event of a cantileve; failing.
1
the 24.95-m (81.8-ft)-outside-diameter reinforced concrele core wall. Each cantilever
$;,: All gravity load and all the wind loads are resisted by the concrele core wall. For
girder is welded to a steel erection column embedded in the core wall (Fig. 4.48). The . strength alone, the core wall would have been a constant thickness almost to ground
cantilevers on successive floors are connected at their outer ends by 25- by 100-mm (1-
@j .level, bur in order to meet the building period limitation, it was necessaq to thicken the
.>fS,''
by 4-in.) steel ties, hidden in the curtain wall, which reduce relative vertical deflections T
:@ wall from its typical 1.0-m (3.3-fl) dimension lo 1.2 m (4 ft) and then 1.65 m (5.4 ft) he-
.,..
...
$:q
low the sixteenth floor. A concrete core wall was selected in lieu of an all-steel diago-
:
b
Fig. 4.47 Singuporc Treasury Dullding. Singnpurc. ICounerj olT11ileSr.libi,n r\.~saciorion.) Fg.4.48 Typicnl noor plan; Singopore Tmsury Dullding.
nally braced "wall" for reasons of economy. The core is spanned by two plate girders.
~ h h c o r ewall has four doorway openings on each floor. The headers over these open-
ings consist of rigid steel Vierendeel girders, which allow duct work to pass lhrough
(Fig. 1.19).
Structural steel floor framing was used to facilitate a modular electrified underfloor
steel deck, including trench headers, and to make the long cantilevers quite stiff. Typi-
cal live-load deflection at the end of the cantilever was less than 25 mm ( I in.). Girders
were cambered to countcnct dead-load deflection. Web openings were provided in the
.. - .
cantilevers for ducts and nines. T o vcrifv the dcsirn and fabrication oualitv, and reassure
theowner that deflections would not be excessive, a full-size prolotype cantilever girder
welded to a two-story steel column was tested at the steel fabricator's laboratory in
laoan. Thc test was ouite successful and verified the accuracv of the structural analvsis
within a few percent This ,&aslhc first significallt slcel-iromed building lo bs built In
Sing;.purr.. m the ICSI u.ns also hulpful in pruviding arsurnncc to the huilding ullisials
of the competence ofthe design and steel construction team.
&svslem.
Because of the somewhat unusual s t ~ c l u r a framinr
l . the concrete core wall
WAS designed conscn,alivcly lo rusisl porciblc, slthuugh very unlikely, p;.tlurn lise l o x -
incr i n srhicb scrersl cons~.cutirefloors had live lnods i n ccrlain quxlraols and no li\c
-. -
load in others. The result of such loadinr oatterns was to induce throueh-thickness bend-
ing stresses in the wall due to these asymmetrical forces. The core wall was anslyzcd
using detailed finite-element analyses. and reinforcing stcel was provided to resist !he
in-plane and through-thickness forces and bending moments due to gravity loads with
and without wind loads.
M
Fig. 4.49 Framing perspective; Singopare Trensury Bullding.
123
77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois, USA
Architect ' Richard BofiillDeSteiano and Goettsch

Structural engineer Cohen-Barreto-Marchcrtas, Inc.
Height from street to roof 203.6 m (668 ft)
Building use Office
Frame material Concrete core, steel perimeter
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa'(5O ps0
Basic wind velocity Chicago building code
Maximum lateral deflection Less than HI500
Design fundamental period 6.67.5.88 sec horizontal; 6.67 sec torsion
Design acceleration 29 mg pesk
Earthqunkc loading Not applicable
Type of strucmrc Cnncrete shear core, perimctcr stcel
frames
Foundation conditions Hardpan, 1700-kPa (40.000-ps0 capacity
Footing type 21-m (70-it)-deep caissons. 900- to 3000-
mm (3- to 10-11) shaft diameter bcllcd to
1370 to 7000 mm (1.5to 23 it)
Typical floor
Beam span 13.72 m (45 11)
Beam spacing 3.43 m (I l ft 3 in.)
Material Steel
Columns
Sire at ground floor W350 X 1086 ( W i 4 X 730) plated
Column spacing 3 m (10 ft) min. 13.7 m (45 it) max
h4atcrial Steel. F, = 350 MPo (50 ksi)
Core Central concrew shear core
Wall thickness at ground floor 559 and 355 mm (22 and 14 in.)
Matcrial Concrete. 52 to 35 MPa (7500 to 5000 psi)
This 50-story 96.600-m' (1,040,000-TI') office torver is located at the southwest corner
of Wacker Drive and Clark Street (Fig. 4.50). It is a classically styled addition to the
Chici~noskyline on North \\'ackcr Drive. which is graced by several outstnnding archi-
tectural and structural originals.
I Fig.450 77 West Wnckcr Drivc. Chicago, lllinuir.
126 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.21 Shearwall Systems 127
The building. which is rectangular in shape. 50.29 by 42.67 m (165 by 140 ft) with Casselden Place
4.57-m (15-R) reentrant angles at the four corners, is the first high-rise tower designed Melbourne, Australia
by the Spanish architect, Ricardo Bofill. It was designed in collabontion with the
Chicago architectural firm of DeStefano and Partners. Architect Australian Conswction Services with
The framing system is a central concrete core surrounded by a structural steel h m e Hassell Architects
with a composite floor deck (Fig. 4.51). The core, which is extremely slender [ I 5 5 5 by S I N C I U Iengineer
~~ Connell Wagner
27.45 m (51 by 90 ft) with a height-to-width ratio greater than 13:1] incorporates all the
mechanical, electrical, and verticnl transportation amenities. The column-free floor Year of completion 1992
spans allow for a very flexible 13.72-m (45-ft)-wide tenant soace. Height from street to roof 160 m (525 ft)
Another outstanding feature in the building is its magnificent entrance lobby, which Number of stories 43
extends from the ground to the fiflh floor, with a completely unobstructed space of 3
50.29 by 13.72 m (165 by 45 it). 13.72 m (45 it) high.
Building use Office
Frome material Concrete core, steel frame
Typical floor live load 4 kPa (80 psfl
Basic wind velocity 41 mlsec (92 mph). 50-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection 150 mm (6 in.). 1000-yr return
Design iundemenlal period 3.45.5.00 scc
Design acceleration 4.5 mg rms. 5-yr return
Design damping 1% serviceability; 5% ultimate
Type of structure Core for all lateral load
Foundation conditions Siltstone. 2-MPa (20-ton/ft2) capacity
Footing type Pad footings
Typical noor
Story height 3.75 m (12 f t 4 in.)
Bcam span I 2 m (39 R 4 in.)
Beam spacing 3 m (9.83 it1
Slab 130 mm (5 in.) on metal deck
Columns
Size at ground noor 950-mm (37-in.)-diameter composite con-
crete-filled steel tubes
Material Concrete, 70 MPa (10.000 psi)
Core Concrete shear walls. 500 and 200 mm (22
and 8 in.) thick at ground floor
Material Concrete, 70 MPa (10,000 psi)
Fig. 4.51 hlidrise noor framing plnn, l l d to 36th floors; 77 Wesl Wneker Drive.
This building is interesting for several reasons:
1. Construction over Melbourne underground rail loop
2. Use of high-sbenglh concrete
3. Use of composite concrctc-filled steel-tube columns
~h~ conswctian of Casselden place (Fig. 4.52) orrcr the Melbourne underground
rail loop necessitated two unusual design features. (])The removal of rock for the three-
If S e c t 4.21 Shear Wail Systems
story basement rclnxed the overburden pressure on the tunnels. (2) To prevent heaving
of the tunnels, 26 30-tonne (33-Ion) vertical anchors were inslalled to Lie the tunnels
down. In the areas where only l i ~ h loads
t were reimposed, there anchors are permanent.
but where heavy loads are imposed by the new struch~re,temporary anchor; only were
used. In addition, piling was used in some areas to provide load transfer to below the
level of the tunnels in the event of ground movement
1
\
The mosl inluresting pan of the c~nstructionis the columns construction. Thts method
is the firs1 of i n type in Austrnlia. with only a small number of buildtngs knnwn lo b:
constructed using- similar methods anywhere in the world. The tube columns are erected
in two-slory lifrc, wilh (he bare steel able ro suppon up to six stories of construction. Con-
crete is p ~ m p e dinto the b;lse ofthe lube, and up as man) as six slories at a lime. No 1% 1
bmtinn of the concrele is required. Conncll \'fagner ha.. dcveluped design methods for
this tjpc of column. including lltc use of thin-walled lubes. No codified mclhod for rhe
design of thin-walled concrete-filled lubes is av~ilableanywhere in the world. !i
This
~~- form of construction orovides a column for a steel-fmmine-svstem . at a cost \f
equal to that of a reinforced concrete column. The cost of the columns has been a major
stumbling block in the economies of steel-framed buildings, with the penalty for using
all-steel columns on a building such as this as high as 3% of the total building value-
millions of dollars on projccls of this size. This solution benefils from the economy of
concrete. with the simple concrele placement method -giving the system constructabilily
~ ~.
lhal ir couivalent lo that of a full sicel column.
'llie cure and columns on llic project use concrete olup lo 70 hlPa (10.000 psi). T ~ L
culuinns arc considcr:d to bc an ideal u.3). raluring br~h-slrcnglhroncrele of good cur-
ing ability, which is being placed inside btube. ~ h tube
ing the ductilily of the high-strength materials.
c confines the concrete, enhanc-
I
Fig. 4-52 Cmscldcn Place, hlelbourne, rlunrn)jn.

130 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems 131
Twin 21 spaced at 3.2-m (10-ft 6-in.) inten,nls, connected by the floor slabr to the slucl-fmnlcd
Osaka, Japan core. This suucture is eflicient in resisting horizontnl 2nd torsional deformations due to
earthquakes and wind.
Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd. Below the sixlh floor the building smcture consiss of steel frames encased in rein-
Smctural engineer Nikken Sekkei Ltd. forced concrete, and rigidity is provided by reinforced concrete shear walls around the
core. The majority of the horizontal force is borne by these shear walls (Fig. 4.54).
Year of completion 1986 Had the tower building columns been continued down through the low-rise section
Height from street to roof 157 m (515 ft)' at 3.2-m (10-ft 6-in.) centers, space utilization would have been adversely affected.
Number of stories 38 .
Hence the 3.2-m (10-ft 6-in.) spans are increased to 12.4-m (40-8 8-in.).soans bv,one- -
story-high concrelc-encased ste.el transfer beams at the fifth-ljoor level, thereby pro\,id-
ing for shops and showrooms in the lou,rr floors of the building.
Building use Office, shops, showrooms The uind load response due to the tuin towers bcinr in close proxim~tv*,as checked
Frame material Steel core and perimeter on upper floors: using wind tunnel testing and the results were reflectea in the design.
concrete core and concrete-encased steel The atrium of the low-rise pnrt is surrounded by the low-rise parts of the two towers
perimeter on lower floors and the gallery building (four stories wilh an L-shaped floor plan). It is composed of a
Typical floor live load 3 kPa (60 psO large space [about 47 by 47 m (156 by 156 ft)] nod is covered by alarge steel-pipe space
buss roof suucture.
Basic wind velocity 35 rnlsec (78 mph) There are large forces on the roof due to the uplift of the wind blowing between the
Maximum lateral deflection 400 mm (16 in.) twin towers and the down wash off the buildings.These factors were evaluated by wind
Design fundamental period 3.9, 4.0 scc tunnel testing.
Design velocity 250 mmlsec (10 in./sec) for medium The atrium roof trusses are supported on slide bearings, which can absorb horizon-
earthquakes: 500 mmlsec (20 in./sec) for tal deformations of the high-rise part during an earthquake. Stoppers are provided to
maximum-level earthquakes prevent uplift under upward wind loading.
Design damping 270
Type of structure Primarily perimaer rigid moment frames
Foundation conditions Clay
Footing type 18-m (59-(1)-long. 1.5- to 2-m (5- lo 6.5-
ft) shaft-diameter belled concrete piles
Typical floor
Story height 3.75 m (I? f t 4 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2 m ( I 0 ft 6 in.)
Material Steel, grade SS 400 and SM 490
Columns
Size at ground floor 1400 mm (55 in.)
Spacing 6.4 and 12.8 m (21 and 42 it)
hlatcrial RcinSorced concrete and structural steel
Core Reinforced concrete lower levels: steel
upper levels
Thickness at ground floor 700 to 900 mm (27 lo 35 in.)
Twin 21 comprises t\vo identical 38-story office towers with sbaps and showroom.; on
the lowcr floors (Fig. 4.53). The perimeter frames above the sixth floor have columns Elg.453 Twin 21. Osoko. Jopon.
:q
5'
S e c t 4.21
Majestic Building
,@i,
Shear Wall Systems 133
1
Wellington, New Zealand
.@/:
E
.
, Architect Manning and Associates
I,
..
Structural engineer
.:,:Year of completion
Wass Buller and Associates
1991
Number of stories . 29
Building use Office ...
Typical floor live load 3.5 kPa (70 ps0
Design acceleration 10 mg peak, I-yr return period .
Design damping 1% serviceability (wind). 5% EQ
Earthquake loading C, = 0.0132
Type of structure Core and perimeter frame
Foundation conditions Weathered rock over rock
Footing type Pads and 1.8-m (6-ft)-diameter bored piles
Typical floor
Beam span 12 m (39 f t 4 in.)
Beam spacing 10 m (32 ft 10 in.)
Slab 365 mm (14 in.) Dycore
Fig. 4.54 Typimlstrurhrnl floor plan; sin 21.
Columns
Size at ground level 1400-mm (55-in.)-diameter
Spacing 10 m (32 ft 10 in.)
Material Concrete. 50 MPa (7100 psi)
Core
Thickness at ground level 400 and 600 mm (16 and 24 in.)
Material Concrete, 50 MPa (7100 psi) max
The Majestic Building (Fig. 4.55) comprises 32 levels tolnling 42,000 m' (452.000 it').
including four levels of parking garage, extensive retail, arcade, and public plaza areas.
a fitness center with a 33- by 4.5-m (1 10- by 15-ft) swimming pool, a crkche, an art
gallery. and approximately 24.000 m' (258.000 it2) of office space.
Wind engineering played a major part in determining the building shape, podium
features, and strucmre of the building. Three separate wind tunnel studies were under-
taken to investigate environmental wind effects, cladding pressures, as well as over-
turning moments and acceleration levels. Following completion, further studies of the
134 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems
structure were cnrried out usinf: - a mechanical vibrator and also recording wind dis-
placumenls using scnsili\,c occelcromclers.
The building is located in the most active cismic zone of Sew Zeal;~nd,with knoun
fault lines running lhrouyh the ccnlral business dislricl of \Veilinglon. The first floor of
the tower is I2 m (40 fl) above street letel and the column spacing around the perime-
ter i s !O m (33 fl). These fentures were critical to crtnlc a spncmus lobby and enlrancc
to the building; however, such features in seismic zones require special design to pre-
vent the occurrence of a "soft story." For these reasons a "ductile hybrid structure" was
chosen as the lnleral load resisting system. The concrete core walls and the perimeter
frame work together and were designed using capacity design methods lo be fully duc-
tile.
~ ~ Foundations
- ~ - . and lower levels were designed - to resist the overslreneth. capacity
. .
forces from the superstructure.
The unique floor system comprises prelensioned hollow core planks 1200 mm (4 fl)
wide and 300 mm (12 in.) deee, . seaced
. at 2400-mm (8-ft) centers. A thin metal may was
plscud hctaccn lllc hollow core planks, and 65 mm (2.5-in.) of in-situ cuncrele ~ 3 s
placed over the whole floor.Tlrc floor is only 115 mm 1.1.5 in.) dccp in parts, uhich nl-
lous for~ffic1~111 duct I ~ ) O U II S
t neighs
. only 3.6 kPa (75 psQ and can suppurl in excess
of 3.5 P a (73 psf) overi2.5-m (41-fl) spans (Fig. 4.56).
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.21 Shear Wall Systems 137 I
Telecom Corporate Building
I
Architect Perrott Lyon Mathieson
S l ~ c t ~ rengineer
al Connell Wagner
" Year of completion 1992
~,.
. , ...
Number of stories 47 ....* ~..
Building use Offices
Basic wind velocity 41 mtsec (92 mph). 50-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection 123 mm (5 in.) at 25 mm (1 in.), 1
return
Design acceleration 4.4 mg rms, 5-yr return
Design damping 1% scrviceability; 5% ultimatc !,J@
Earthquake loading Not applicable ,$#
Type ofstructurc Concrete core and perimeter lrame tube~a
@!'
tube ,:%I*:
Foundalion conditions
Footing type
..:,.,
:.s::.
Pads to columns. raft to core !stt
Typical floor
Beam spacing 5 m (16 f t 5 in.)
Material Partially preslressed concrete
Slabs 125-mm (5-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size to ground floor 1000 by 1200 mm (39 by 47 in.)
Spacing 8.1 or 9 m (26 ft 7 in. or 29 ft 6 in.)
Material Concrete. 60 MPa (8500 psi)
Core Shear walls
Material Concrete. 60 MPa(8500 psi) mas
This all-concrete building achieved impressive conslruction times (Fig. 4.57). The en-
tire 50-level concrete core was complclcd in 14 months, using a jump-form system.
Typical cycle times for the core averaged 4 % days per floor.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 ID
'w:
.*
Se. 4.21 Shearwall Systems
with three 15.2-mm (0.6-in.) strands was tensioned from the opposite end. The bands
The tower floor band beams. typically 400 mm (16 in.) deep. are notched to 275 mm
(11 in.) thick at the core to allow the major mechanical ring duct to encroach into the were top-sucssed. Grinding in b ~ c kof the surface ofthe anchorage pockcs was no1 nrc-
structural depth, thereby reducing the floor-to-floor height. essary because access flooring is being provided throuphout the tower
The band beams were designed as ~Ktially - prestressed
. and are offset from the One hundred percent of the prestrr5s force was appiisd to cach tendon u hen the con-
columns. A typical beam has three tendons. Two tendons, each with four 15.2-mm (0.6- crcte had reached a strength of 22 hlPa (3 100 psi). Using a high early-strength concrete
in.)-diameter strands, were stressed from the external end of the beam. A single tendon mix, this uas achieved on lhc second d3y after the pour. This, togeli~erwith d ~ usee of
two sets of table forms, alloued floor-to-noor cycles of three d3ys lo be achieved.
The tendons arrive on site prefabricated with suands already threaded into the ducts.
The connection to the corc is ;imply and posili!,cly affected b; Ihe use of 600-mm (24-
in.)-long 20-mm (0.75-in.) bars which wrap around the vertical rcinforcrme~~t in the
core wall. The prrimeter spandrel beams are 775 mm (30.5 in.) deep by 350 mm (14 in.)
wide, spanningup to 9 m 730 ft). Reinforcement cages for these biams were fabricated
on construction decks on the podium roof and craned directly into position. Loose bars
were added at column locations to provide continuity.
The main enlrance to the building is a dramatic three-story-high entry auium. The
nerimcter of this alrium is elass on exoosed architectural steelwork fabricated from 250-
by 250-mm (10- by IO-in.)-square hollow sections. This steciuork IS hunp from 3 2200-
mm by 950.mm (86- by 37-in.) posrtensi~ncdcnntiicvcr ring beam at lcvel 3, giving the
-
imnression of a glass cube susnendrd in midair. The rinc beam is clad !r ith 200-mm 18-
in.)-thick polished precast panels used as formwork.
The e n y space is further enhanced by the termination of one of the tower columns
above the lobby level. The column load is 24,000 kN (2640 Ions). This is achieved us-
ing slage-stressed 3950- by 1000-mm (155- by 39-in.) posttensioned beams, each span-
ning 18 m (59 ft) in a cruciform la you^ The beams hove eight and six tendons, respec-
tivelv. with 19 12.5-mm (0.5-in.)-diameter strands in each tendon. The beams are
stressed in three stages as load from the tower is progressively applied, achieving es-
sentially flat beams throughout the construction phase.
F~E.4.57 Talccam Carpornte Building, Melbourne, Aurlmlio. (Pboro by S ~ U I TPEI I O I O ~ T O ~ I)~ I C I

I
140 Lateral Load Resisting Systems IChap.4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 141
4.3 CORE AND OUTRIGGER SYSTEMS 1 Why Outriggers?

Modem high-rise buildings frequently incorporate central elevator cores along with
Whilc outriggers have only brcn incorporated into high-risc buildings nithin the last 25 generous column-free floor space between the core and the cxterior support columns.
veors. the o u v i g ~ e as
r a structural rlcmenl has a much longer Itistn~y.The great sailing .
-~ ~~-in greater functional eficiencv.. it also effectivelv disconnects the two
While this results
;hias
.~ . -- to help resist the wind forces in their
r - of the oastand nresent have used outriggers
~~
sails, making the adoption'of tall and slendcr mas& porsible. In high-rise buildings lllc
~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~
major SWcNral elements available to resist the critical overturning forces present in a
- . - of the interior core and the perimeler frame reduces
- This uncoupling
.?';"Hieh-rise building.
corc can be related to the marl of the ship, with rhe oulripger acting like the spreadrrj the overall rerislance of llte StNClUre lo the ovenurning forces lo the sum of llte inde-
~
-
.. oreanization
and the cxterior columns like the stavs or shrouds. The typical of a core and pcndcnt resisrances of the individual rlrmcnrs. The incorporation of outriggers in this
oulriggcr system is picturcd in Frg. 4.58. Just as in sailing ihipb. there outriggers serve Same svstem couales these two comonnents and enhances the system's abilihl lo resist
10 reduce the oven urn in^ moment in the core that would otherwise acl as a pure can- overturning forces dmmatically.
...- - .and- to transfer th; reduced moment to columns outside the core bv
tilever. ~~ ~
. way. o f a len- For buildings of up to 35 lo 40 stories, reinforced concrete shear wall or steel-
siun-comprcssion couple, uhich takes ad\,antage of thc incrcascd momenl arm betu.cen braced cores have been effectivelv utilized as the sole lateral load resisting- svstem..
these columns. In addition lo reducing the size of lhe marl. [lie presence of uutri:pers These iystems are very effective in resisting the forces and associated deformations
n l ~ serves
n ~- reduce the critical conn~ction
-~ to ..
where the mast is sreoned to th? keel beam due lo shear racking- since their resistance vnries approximately linearly with Lhe build-
- ~.
~~~
In high-rise buildings this same bench1 is re3liz~dby a reduc~ionof !be hare core oter- ineu heieht. However. the resistance that core svstems alone arovide to the overlurnine-
turning moments and the associaled reduction in potential core uplill forces. Tlic same component of drift decreases approximately with the cube of the height. so that such
overtuLing moment which is taken through a couple between the windward stay and the core syslems become progressively more inefficient as the height of the building in-
mast to the pretensioned ties in sailing ships, is transferred to gravity-loaded precom- creases. In addition toatiifness limitations. a core svstem alonican also -eenerate ex-
pressed columns in the high-rise building. cessi\u uplift forces in the core structure along with prohibitively high ovenurning
The structural elegance and efficiency of outriggers are well rooted in history. The forces in the building's foundation system. With !he sysrem's inability lo take adv;~n-
outriggers have also becoine key elements in the efficient and economic design of high- ngr. oftlie overall building depth, designing for lhe resulting uplifl forces can be prob-
rise buildings. lematic.
In reinforced concrete cores, excessive or impractical wall elements where large net
tension forces exist can negate the inherent efficiency of concrete in compression resis-
tance. In steel cores. large and costly field-bolted or -welded tension splices greatly re-
duce steel efficiency and the ease of fabrication and erection.
In the foundation system, these uplift forces can lead to the need for the following:
The addition of expensive and labor-intensive rock anchors lo an otherwise "simple"

foundation alternative such as spread footings.
Greatly enlarged mat dimensions and depths solely lo resist overturning forces.
Time-consuming and costly rock sockets for caisson systems along with the need lo
develop reinforcement throughout the complete caisson depth.
Expensive and intensive field-work connections at the interface between core and
foundation. These connections can become particularly troublesome when one con-
siders the difference in construction tolerances between foundation and core StNClUre.
n i e climinarion from consideration of foundation systems which might have bcen
considerably less expensive. such as piles, solely for their innbilily lo rcsist signifi-
cant uplift.
2 Outrigger Benefits
For many bnildines.- the answer to the problems and restrictions of core-onlv or tnbulvr
struclures is the incorporation of one or rnorc lcvcla of oulriggers. Typical oulrigger or-
ganization consisls of linking the core o f a high-rise building to h e exterior columns on
one or morc huildins faces with lruss or wall elements (Fig. 4.59). The outrierer -- sys-
.
tems may be iormcdin any combination of steel, concrere;or composite conswction.
When properly and efficiently utilized, outriggers can provide the following structural
and functional benefits to a building's overall design:
142 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4 31 Core and Outrigger Systems 143
.
IF
Core overturning
~
moments and their associated induced deformation can be reduced lion. In cure-;!lone and tuhuiar systcms. IIIL'SC columns which ;my siglliiicnltl gr;!v-
tltrouglt ths "rc\r.r,c" momdnt applied to the cur< at each outrigger intersection (Fig. it! load nrs either not incorporntcd or ~nderutiiized:In aomc c3ser. oulrigsur s)stems
1.60). This applies to titc core at r3ch outrigger intersection. This momtnt is created $,
9.
.,. can elficicntl\ lncomorate almost e\crv. :rs\,ily
- . column tnto !he laieral load rrsisrinc
by the forcc couple in the exterior columns to which the outriggers connect. It can po- system, leading to significant economies.
tentially increase the effective depth of the structural system from the core only to al-
most the complete building.
Significant reduction and possibly the complete elimination of uplift and net tension 3 Outrigger Drawbacks
forces throughout the columns and the foundalion system.
. The exterior column spacing is not driven by structural considerations and can easily
mesh with aesthetic and functional considerations.
The most significant drawback wilh the use of outrigger systems is their potcntiai inter-
ference with occupiable and rentable space. This obstacle can be minimized or in some
. Exterior framing can consist of "simple" beam and column framing without the need
for rigid-framc-type conncctions, resulting in economies.
cases eliminated by incorporation of any of the following approaches:
Locating outriggers in mechanical and inlerslitinl levels

For rectangular buildings, outriggers can engage the middle columns on the long
Locating outriggers in the naluml sloping lines of the building profile
faces of the building under the application of wind loads in the more critical direc-
Incorporating multilevel single diagonal outriggcrs to minimizc the member's inter-
ference on any single ievcl
Skewing and offsetting outriggers in order to mesh with the functional layout of the
floor space
. Uond Uuilding, Sgdnry, Austrnlin. Toncr bracing, ccsl-~wstlints, looking north. Fig. 4.60 1650 hlnrkcl Slrccl, I'hiludelphlu.
144 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Core and Outrigger Systems
Aitolllcr potential drawback is the impact tile nutrigger isstallation cnn have un the PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
crcctiun pruccss. As a typical building rrcction prouceda. the repelitlve nature of thc
structurai framinr and th~reduetionin member sizes generally result in a learning curve
which can speedbe process along. The incorporatioiof an outrigger at intermediate or
g, Cityspire
uppcr levels can, if not approached propqrly, have a negative impact on the erection N e w York, N.Y., USA
process. Several steps can be taken to mtnimtze this possibility. - ,, ,;
. ATehitect
t
Mumhv. .Jahn
Provide clear and concise erection guidelines in the contract documents so that the Svuclural engineer Robert Rosenwasscr Associates
. erector can anticipate the constraints and limitations that the installation will impose.
If possible, avoid outrigger locations or design constmints that will require "backlnck-
ing" in the consvuction process to install or connect the outrigger. The incorporation of
Year of completion
Height fromstreet to roof
1987
248 m (814 ft)
-- in concrete construction orlarcc
intermediate outriccers - variations in dead-load column Number of levels below ground 2
suesses bctuccn the core and the exterior can in some cases result in the nccd to "back-
unck." Such a need can be minimized if issues such >%creep and differential shoncn- Building use Office and residential
ing are carefully studied during the design process to minimize their impact. Frame material Concrete
Avoid adding additional outrigger levels for borderline force or deflection control.
Typical floor live load 2.5 and 2 W a (50 and 40 psO
Outriggers provide diminishing returns for each additional level added. Incorporate
outriggers in less optimal numbers or locations when doing so will haven significant Basic wind velocity 47 mlsec (105 mph), 100-yr return
positive impact on the overall construction cosls. Mnximum lateral deflection HI500
Design fundamental period 5.5,5.4 sec horizont;U; 2 sec torsion
Design damping 1 2 % serviceability; 2 2 % ultimate
Type of swcture Shear walls with outriggers at transfer lev-
els and interior diagonals in olfice levels
Foundation conditions Rock. 4-MPa (40-ton/ft2) capacity
Typical floor
..
Story height 3.5 m (1 l ft 6 in.) office; 2.85. 2.95. 3.05
m (9 ft 4 in., 9 ft 8 in.. 10 ft) residential
Beam span, spacing Vary
Beam depth 508 mm (20 in.) at perimeter
Slab Flat slab
Thickness 216 mm (8.5 in.) office; 241,267,305 mm
(9.5, 10.5, 12 in.) residential
Columns Size and spacing vary
Material 56 MPa (8000 psi)
Core Concrete walls of varying thickness
CitySpire. 156 West 561h Street, displaced Metropolitan Tower as the tallest concrete
structure in New York CitySoncrctc placement reached to 244 m (800 it) and alu-
minum-dome fins extended the height to 248 m (814 ft) above grade. When completed
in 1987, it was the second fallestconcrete structure in the world (Fig. 4.61). With a 1O:l
ratio, it is the tallest, most slender structure (concrete or steel) in the world today.
CitySpire has about 77.100 m2 (830.000 it') of floor space and required 33,000 m3
(43,000 yd3) of concrete and 4300 tonnes (4700 tons) of rcinforcing bars for its 77 con-
struction levels (including mechanical and below-grade levels).
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 S e c t 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 149
;g:
&?:
&jj
Floors
6M9
.,:..
-:;
,
Floors
2645
,@
.*,,
(a)
Si, (c)
fl:
?g;
5
!a
.-+
'8.
r:
1!
,~,:
.a..
,I..
; a:
,.a.
:*,:
4f
J"
>If
".-L1.
%,I
f>L?r&
'**
x*':
i"i,
,
.:ST
-@,
Floors
47-61
3,
?db3
Office
:t$q
(4 ;L.L
,rb:
(4
-~. Fig. 4.62 Floor plnm; CilySpire (Conrinurdl
Fig. 4.62 Floor plans; CitySpim. gY
: r
7L.
151
Sect. 4.31 core and Outrigger Systems
Chifley Tower
Sydney, Australia
Architect Kohn. Pedersen. Fox with Travis Partners

Structural engineer Hack and Kurtz Australia with Thornton-
Tomasetti
Year o f completion 1992
Number of levels below grol~ n d 4
Building use Office with 2 retail levels
Basic wind velocity 50 mlsec (112 mph) ultimate, 1000-yr
return
Maximum lateral deflection Hl400.50-yr return
Design acceleration 20 mg peak. 5-yr return, with operating
tuned mass damper
Design damping 7 lo 2.5% s~rviceability;6% ultimate
Type of structure Steel perimeter frames, braced steel core
with outriggers at levels 5, 29-30.42-43
Foundation conditions Sandstone, 5-MPa (50-tonlft') capacity
Footing typc Spread footings plus rock anchors ilp to I8
m (60 it) long
Typical noor
Beam span 10 to I5 m (33 to 49 ft)
Beam spacing 2.5 to 3 m (8 ft 2 in. to 9 ft I 0 in.)
Columns Braced steel frame
Material Steel, grade 250 and 350 MPa (36 and 50
ksi)
Rnccd steel frame. grade 350 MPa (50ksi)
Chiflcy To\+,erhas been designed to house financial service organizations. Wiring needs
were met by raised "computer" flooring, by generous riser closets, and by the open na-
lure of a steel-framed core. (Less accessible concrete cores are most commonly used in
Austmlia.) Steel rraming was also used to speed erection and occupancy (Fig. 4.63).
Its 90,000-m' (969.000-ft') tower rises from a 32.000-m' (345.000-11') full-site
"podium." The building has a highly articulnted facade \+pithnonparallel sides, setbacks
at different levels on different elevations, and a mix of flat, gently curved, and circular
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger SYStemS 153
faces. This desicn serves to define and enclose Chiflev Souare. reflect the street uerid.. The irregular building shape, irregular core geometry, and involvement of outriggers
maximize the views ofharbor, park and ocean 1; the'north and east, break up the
bulk ofthe tower, and enliven the Sydney skyline.
. u -
reouired analvzine and desienine- the wind system structure by means of a complete
three-dimensional computer model since no planes of symmetry exist and three-dimen-
The numerous setbacks, the variety of facade geometries, and the desire for open sional interaction was critical.
views made a framed-tube shuctural solution impractical. A braced core would avoid
involvement with the facade, but the tapered nature of the tower floor plans redulted in ,!$.'!.?$:'
. -
A oackaee of analvsis-and-desicn - p.r o-g m s was developed for this projecL An in-
teractive deflection control routine determined "optimal" member areas to meet drift
an inverted T-shape core plan (stepping back to an L at level 31) whose limited width criteria by usinc virtual work establishing relative efficiencies of members, resizing the
would require unreasonably large columns to contra1 deflection (Fig. 4.64). To control most
...--~ effiiient
~~- members to meet deflection limits, and reanalyzing. A "final" analysis
deflections more efficiently, outriggers (or heavy trusses) link the core to perimeter with optimal areas used precise loadings. Another analysis in;estigated dead loads ap-
columns at levels 5.29-30, and 42 (top) in the east-west direction and at levels 5 and 42 'olied to the incomolete structure under consmction.
in the north-south direction. The middle east-west outriggers also serve as transfer A load combin;tion program look the member-force results of lllcse runs and appllcd
trusses for a setback. forccs following an "overluming wind envelope" using directionalily from wind tunnel
Icsts, sclected maximum and minimum wind forces for each member. and used combi-
nations of the load cases lo dclermine maximum design forces for cnch mcmber. Wind
allouablc suers incrrascs (force reductions) were included.
A member selection program used the "optimal" arcas. Ihe design forces, and a table
of acceplahlc member sizes lo select a uial member size, with an arcathilt was near "up-
limal," in order to check the load capacity in accordancc with the Auslralian stecl code
AS 1250-198I.The loop was thcn repratcd with a larger trial size if necessary. Memhrr
selection marks were piotted on diagrams of the core bracing for ease of use. Member
forces were also plotted in various ways to aid in the design of connections.
It is inlerestine to note that ofice dead load plus reduced live load is about 20 lo 25%
higher in ~ u s t m < nthan in U.S. practice, so u ~ ~ p o l a l i nU.S.
g lonnage figures lo Ass-
tralinn projects could be m~sleadingunless faclorcd up. Australian practicc also affecled
the conslruction delails. Available hot-rolled member sizes me more limiled lhan i n the
United Stntes. For floor bcams this mcant using a hunvicr size than onc might athcrwisc
choose. As a result floors have a higher-than-minimum load capacily. For girders, built-
un sections were common. Also, since tl~eavailable plate is 100 mm (4 in.) thick or less.
&e largest column sections use flanges and web of doubled and tripled plates.
Chifley Tower includes a tuned mass damper (TMD) in the original consmction lo
keep building movement below objectionable levels. Its help is not considered in the
wind response for strength. The TMD mass is 400 tonnes (440 tons) of steel plate. sus-
pended from eight 11-m (36-ft)-long cables anchored at level 46. Its period is adjusted
by a tuning frame, which slides along the cables to vary their active length. Damping is
provided by eight hydraulic cylinders which push fluid through a control valve and a
heat exchanger in a closed circuit Movement is permitted in any lateral direction
(NSEW), but torsion is restricted by an antiyaw yoke. The TMD is anticipated to in-
crease damping from 1 to 2.5% and to decrease 5-yr acceleration from 0.03 to 0.02 g.
154
One Liberty Place

Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 155
I
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Architect Murphy Jahn
Structural engtnccr Thornton-Tomasctti Engineers
Height from street lo roof 288 m (945 it)
Building use Office
Frame material Structural stcci-braced core with super-
diagonal oulri:gcrs
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psi)
Basic wind velocity 3 1 mlscc (70 mph)
Maximum lateral deflcclion HI450
Design acceleration 15 111gpcak, 10-yr return
Design damping I to 2%
Earthquake l r ~ d i n g Nol applicable
Type orstructure Braccd slccl core linked by steel girders to
cxlerior columns
Foundation conditions Rock. 4-hlPa (40-tonlf~') capacity
Footing type Caissons
Typical floor
Story heiglll 3.81 m (12 rt 6 in.)
Bcam span 13.4 m (44 rt)
Beam spacing 3.05 m ( I 0 rt)
hlnterial Steel, grade 350 MPa (50 kst)
Slab 63-mm ( 3 - i n . ) concrete over 76-mm (3-
in.) metal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor W350 by 384 (W350 by 257) built up to
2788 kglm (1870 lb/ft)
Spacing 6.1. 13.4.21.3 m(20.44.70ft)
Core Linked braced frame with nutriggcrs
fvlateriol Steel, grade 250-hlPa (36-ksi) hracing.
grade 300-MPa (43-ksi) and 350-h,lPa
(50-ksi) beams and columns
One Liberty Place at 288 m (945 11) is located on a prime block ofdowntorvn Philadel-
phia (Fig. 4.65). The orlice floors range from 2230 m' (24.000 ft') in the lo\ver portions
to 120 ni' (1300 it') at tllc pcak. The 61-story tower contains o\,er 120,000 m' (1.3 mil-
lion ft') of floor area.
I Fig. 4.65 One Libcrty Piocq Philndclpinin, Pcnnrjlronio.
Structural steel framing was chosen for its flexibility and high strength-in particu-
lar, its ability to transmit large tensile and compressive forces efficiently while keeping
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger systems
and shroud system. After various studies utilizing in-house optimization computer pro-
grams, three sets of eight outriggers were found to be the most efficient solution.
157
I
the size of the members to a minimum. Built-up wide-flange sections were used for ail Although simplified models showed that they would be the most effective if spaced
outrigger diagonals and core and outrigger columns due to the large forces and required at equal intervals, optimization programs showed that these outriggers could further re-
thickness ofthe plates. Their use also facilitnted fabrication and erection.
~ ~ duce wind-induced drift without addins additional steel by simply modifying their spac-
The typical floor framing consisU of composile W2I ASThl A-572 gmde 50 stecl
beams spanning 13.4 m (44 it) from the building core to the cxterior face. As a result,
ink o>erthel~cight of the building. ~ l t k a l ethe
l ~ design warc~mpletedwith thr outside
ends of tllc supcrdiagonnls placed at floors 20, 37, and 51. The outrigger supcrdiagonsls
I
thc cntire lease space within thc tower is column-free (Fig. 1.66). The structural slab is are connected'at theexteri& of the building to vertical outrigger columns. I
compuscd of a 76-mm (3-in.) composile decking with 64-mm (2.5-in.) stone concrete To reduce uplift forces on comer core Folumns and the ;itrigger columns it was de-
topping. Floor beams were cambered lo compensate for dead-load deflection under wet sirable to concentrate most of the building's dead load on these columns. This was ac-
concrete placement. complished by introducing exterior transfer Wsses at floors 6,21, and 37, which span
The selected lateral load resisting system is a superdiagonal outrigger scheme com- between the outrigger columns within the exterior face and thus funnel dead load, into
posed of a 21.3- by 21.3-111 (70- by 7041) braced core coupled with six four-stom diaea-
nal oulriggers at each face of the core located at three points over the hcight of the --
. build- the outrigger columns to compensate for uplift dueto wind pressure. Uplift in the exte-
nor outrigger columns was totally eliminated with this approach. The uplift on the cor-
, ,,
$
ing. The system works in a similar manner lo the mast of a sailboat, with the bncud core ner core columns was reduced to 5800 kN (1,300,000 lb).
acting as the most and the outrigger superdi~gonnlsand vcnicolr forming the spre.lder In developing the superdiagonal outrigger system, an intensive effort between the
building's architects, interior planners, and developer was undertaken to determine that
the presence of diagonal outriggers penetrating down through certain lease space at
eight locations on 12 floors would not interfere with theefficient layout of the space. In-
terior planners made various layouts for full-floor and partial-floor tenants and con-
cluded that the presence of the inclined superdiagonal columns would not hinder the real
estate leaseability of these spaces.
Wind forces were generated using prevailing codes and also utilizing a force-balance
wind tunnel lest undertaken by CermakPeterka of Fort Collins, Colorado. It was deter-
mined that average wind pressures on the building varied between 0.25 kPa (5 psO at
the bottom lo 2.9 kPa (58 psf) at the top. Both planar nnd three-dimensional static and
dynamic analyses were performed for combinations of gravity and lateral loads. The pe-
riod of the building was determined to be 5.5 sec.
The lateral load resisting system was initially designed using a purely ailowable
strcss criterion. During the optimization effort, members were increased in size, which
contributed to increasing the building's internal stiffness. As stiffness was increased,
the acceptable limits of building drifl (Hi450) and acceleration (15 mg) were met. In ad-
dition, because of the vertical compatibility between ouuigger columns ald core
columns created by the outriggers, analyses were required to determine the gravtty load 'i
magnitude in the lateral load resisting system. This nnalysis was performed in steps lo
properly model the actual building erection and loading sequences.
Utilization of the optimization program vimmed on estimated 9.8 kgim"2 psf) from
the wind-resisting system, a savings of some 15% by weight. More imporlnnt were the j
savings gained by eliminating cntire components such as two interior bracing lines
above the twentieth floor, which greatly simplified design and consuuclion.
-
Fig. 4.66 Typical noor plan; Onc Liberty Plorc
158 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 159
17 State Street
New York, N. Y., USA
Architect Emery Roth and Sons

Structural engineer Desimone. Chaplin and Dobryn
Height from street to roof 167.3 m (542 ft 2 in.)
Building use Office
Typical floor live load 2.5 Wa (50 psO
Bnsic wind velocity 17 mlsec (105 mph). 100-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection Hl500. 100-yr return
Design fundamenlal period 4.7. 5.0 sec
Design acceleration 20 mg peak
Design damping I% serviceability
Typc of structure Bundled braced core tubes with perimeter
monicnt irame and an outrigger hat truss
Foundation conditions Rock.
Footing typc Concrete piers and steel piles
Typical floor
Story height 3.66 m (12 it)
Beam span 5.5 to 12.2 m (18 to 40 ft)
Beam depth 305 to 530mm (12 to 21 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in.) max
Slab 63-mm (2.5-in.) normal-weight concrete
on 76-mm (3-in.) metal deck
Columns Built-up W350 (W14) core, W610 (W24)
perimeter
Spacing 8.53 m (28 ft) core. 5.69 m (18 fi 8 in.)
perimeter
Core Braced tubes, grade 250-MPa (36-hi) con-
crete encased through lowest two levels
17 State Street is a 44-story office tower located ncross from Battery Park at the tip of
Manhattan (Fig. 4.67). To maximize the unobstructed views of the Statue of Liberty and
the New York harbor, the architects chose a quarter-circle floor plan of 1160 m' (12,500
ft') (Fig. 4.68). Although the perimeter of the plan is symmetric, the core of the tower is
offset to optimize the arrangement of rental floor space. The first level is 10 m (33 ft)
above grade, and typical floors are 3.66 m ( I 2 ft) high.
Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 161
columns consist of W350 (WI1) series rolled shapes in the upper ponion of the build-
Wind tunnel testing predicted that the wind coming off the harbor would produce
ing and built-up membcrs below. Pcrimeler moment f m e s have W6lO (W24) series
loads 40% higher than those required by the New York City building code.
The structural system consists of bundled braced core tubes coupled to perimeter
coiumns. rolled and built uo. .
a . soaced at 5.7 m (18 h 8 in.). The nerimeter hame; do not
~~~
form a tube, as architectural notches at the comers of the quarter-circle prevent effec-
moment frames by means of an outrigger hat truss. The three core tubes are braced with
tive economicd transfer of vertical shear forces around the corners. The hat truss is a
X, diagonal, and inverted V members, as dictilted by core functional requirements. Core
three-dimensional outrigger two stories high, with diagonals sloping downward from
the core to the perimeter.
At the first level. which rises I 0 m 133 ft) above the sidewalk the ~erimelercolumns
and spandrel beam; are encased in cincreie to provide additiooal siffness for the tall
story. Below the ground-floor level, the cores are also encased to add stiffness. Footings
consist of concrete oiers lo 6-MPa 160-ton/h2) bedrock and end-bearinr steel oiles.
Eight columns are Gchorcd for uplif;with postiensioned threadbur rock Gchors.'
Fig. 4.68 Typical floor plnn: 17 SLnle Strcer

162 Lateral Load Resisting Systems IChap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 163
Figueroa a t Wilshire
Los Angeles, California, USA
Architect Albert C. Martin

Structural engineer CBM Engineers. Inc.
Height from street to roof 218.5 m (717 ft)
Building use Office
Frame material All stccl
Basic wind velocity 3 1 mlscc (70 mph)
Maximum lateral dcflcction 380 mm (15 in.), 100-yr rclurn
Design fundamental period 6.5 scc
Design acceleration 17 mg pcnk, 10-yr return
Design damping I% scn2iceability;7% ultimate
Earthquake loading Magnitude 8.3 from San Andrcas fault
Type of structure Braced corc "spine" with outrigger ductile
frame
Found~tionconditions Shnle, 750-kPa (15,000-psn capacity
Typical floor
Story height 3.96 m (13 ft)
Beam span 18.3 to 10.7 m (60 to 35 ft)
Beam depth 914 to406 mm (36 to 16 in.)
Beam spacing 3.05 m (10 it)
on SO-mm (?-in.) melal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor 1067 by 1067 mm (42 by 1 2 in.), cruci-
form shape nl 18.3-m (60-ft) centers
Material Stcei. grade A572.350 MPe (50 ksi)
Core Braced steel, grade A572
This 218.5-mm (717-ft)-tall 53-story office torvcr is located in downtown Los Angcles
(Fig. 4.69). Tltc floor plan of the tower is 45.7 m ( I 5 0 It) square, exhibiting notches and
multiple step backs as it rises above the plaza ( F i g 4.701. The square ton8erplan offers
internal spacc appropriate to banking and law firms. The granite-clad building has a
three-story-tail stepped grccn-colored glass crown, wi~ichis lit from within at night and Fig. 4.69 Figucroo nl Wilrhirc, Lor Angels, Cnltiarnio. (Co~rrresyojCBnf Engiriccrr. Inlc 1
makes a distinct mark on the Los Angeles skyline. Turo six-story ntriums, botit rectan-
gular in plan, which rise like glass and steel staircases, arc attached to two of the build-
ing's corners at 45' angles. Tile plaza of the tower at the corner of Figucron at Wilshire
is articulated by fountains and a 12-m (40-it)-high sculplure.
164 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Out?ggwr Systems 165
..
As onnosed to conventional nerimeter ductile tubular frames. the
~~~~,
~~~-conceot
~- ~~r~ of n saine
~~- r ~
~~
structure is used for [his tower. The spine, the unintempled ponion of this lower, con-
~ ~ - . - .
nected to floor dianhraems bv shem studs lo m s m i t horizontal shew forces to
Ihc frame. Nolchcs at the midspan of those beams, which provide for the passage
sists of a 17.4- by 20.4-mm (57- by 67-h) concentrically braced core linked to perimr- of mcchanlcal ducts, are sllffened lo prevent the formation of a three-hinge mech-
ler columns by aductile frame of outrigger beams. The 'pine in this case has three com- anism when the ends of beams yield-during a major seismic evenl.
ponents (Fig. 4.71): 3. The 914- by 762-mm (36- by 30411.) steel perimeter columns which. because of
their importance in the overall stability of the frame, nre checked for the loads
1. A rectangular concentrically braced core anchored at its extremities by steel created by the plastification of all outrigger beams.
columns of a maximum size of 1067 mm (42 in.) square at their base. The inte-
rior core bracing and beams are proportioned in such a way that, in case of an in- Because of the closeness of lateral periods of vibrations with torsional vibration pe-
advertent failure of the diagonals, the vertical load-carrying ability of the floor is
not affected.
riods.
- the- smciure
~~- ~ .
was checked for the nhennmenon of modal counline. -
The spine struclure nor only provided column-frcc uninlcmptcd lease spaces, bul
2. Outrigger beams linking the internnlly braced core to the perimeter columns. also %asstruciurally very efficient. Designed lo remain essenlially elaslic for the max-
These beams not only carry the floor loads, but along with the perimeter columns
perform the function of ductile moment resisting frames for the entire structure.
imum credible
~~~- ~.
~ ea&ou&e. -. the structure
~ ~ uses~I10 kelm' . .~ s.n ~structural
- 122.5 of steel. as
opposed to aconventional ductile frame, which would have required 132 kglm2(27 psO.
The beams are laterally braced to prevent lateral torsional buckling and are con-
$ SYMM.
i
OUTRIGGER
Fig. 1.70 Comporlle flwr plan; Figucroa o l Wilrhire. Fig. 4.71 Spine slruehre; Figuemn st Wllrhire.
Four Allen Center

Houston, Texas, USA
Architect Lloyd Jones Brewer Associates
S t ~ c t u r aengineer
l Ellisor and Tanner, Inc.
Height from street to roof 210.5 m (690 ft 8 in.)
Building use Office
Fmme material Steel
Typical flqor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psf)
Maximum lateral deflection H/400,50-yr return
Type of SINclurl Braced steel core with outriggers to steel
perimeter lramed tube
Foundation condilions Deep still clay
.Footing type Continuous mat
Typical floor
Story height 3.96 m (13 11)
Beam depth 610 and 915 mm (24 and 36 in.)
Material Steel, grade 250 MPa (36 h i )
Slab 82-mm (3.25-in.) light!vcight concrete on
76-mm (3-in.) steel deck
Columns
Size at ground level 915 by 280 mm (36 by l l in.)
Spacing 4.57 m (15 ft)
Core Braced steel frame, grade 250 hlPa (36 ksi)
The Four Allen Center building rises 50 stories above grade and extends two stories be-
low (Fig. 4.72). The elongated plan, combined with the slenderness of the tower, yields
an illusion of exceptional height when viewed from street level. The 133.800 m' (1.44
million it') ollice building is connected to parking and retail facilities by an air-condi-
tioned pedestrian tunnel and an overhead pedestrian bridge. Figure 4.73 shows the typ-
ical floor freming plan, and Fig. 4.74 illusvales the building section of a typical floor.
The geometry of the slender airloil shape is susceptible lo dynamic oscillation in hur-
ricane-speed winds, thereby establishing a complex and challenging series of structural
frame and foundation problems. Wind tunnel tests of an aeroelastic model of the build- Fig. 4.72 Four Allen Ccnler, Hourtun, Tcxnr
ing were recommended and coordinated by the structural engineers. The testing resulted
167
168 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems
in developing a laternl wind-resisting system to control predicted dynamic oscillation of tiebacks nomaily required, thus enhancing economy and shortening the schedule for
the building. the basement and foundation construction.
A four-celled tube structure was develooed which includes a nerimeter fmmed tube . anaivsis. and desisn
The structural develooment. svslem - were facilitated by devel-
and three vertical trusses m s v e r s e to the eievator core. linked t i t h e perimeter tube by oping a compmhcnsive series of computer analjses and design progmms. The auto-
tree-beam elements. The unique wind-bracing system was subjected to a full-scale test mated analysis and d e s i ~ nprocessing ofall elements in the wind-rrsistun~system of the
during hurricane Alicia in August 1983, and it performed exceptionally well. buiidine
-- - sbucture resulted-in sienifiiant
u savincs in material costs. and enabled the en-
A refinement of the traditional solider pile was developed to retain the 11.3-111 (37- gineen to complele the design and drawings in a short4-month schedule.
ft-deep foundation excavation. The improved shape reduced the number of piles and Advanced methods were also employed . . to assure quality
. ~
control during construe-
lion. in pmicular. Ihe project set new slandards of assurance regarding the Gghtness of
high-suength bolls. Uilnsonic cxtmsomelers were usrd lo measure bolt lightness ac-
cu~atelyfor the first time on a commercial projecL
The 45.7- by 91.4- by 2.6-m (150- by 300- by 8.5-ft) mat foundation containing
11,127 m3 (13.308 yd" of concrete was poured in just over 19 hours. This was made
nossible bv. usine-a svstem
. of belt convevors su~olemenlcd
.. by concrete pumps.
Thc structural stcel was crccled by fabriculing the exterio;lrcc cuiumns. <he vertical
core trusses, and the uce beams in modules to reduce [he number of pieces lo handle and
fieid connections to comdete. The ail-steel smcture was erected at a rate of one corn-
plele noor every 2 % day;. n t e project was completc 6 months ahead ofihe planned fast-
track design and construction completion date, with the first lcnanl mo\'ed in jusl 15
months afler construction of the foundation began.
The project received the following awards:
. "One of the Ten Outstnnding Engineering Achievements in the' United States of
America," National Society of Professional Engineers, 1983
"Grand Award Winner for High Professional Execution of Engineering Design,"
American Consulling Engineers' Council. 1984
"Eminent Conceptor Award for the Most Outslanding Engineering Project" Consult-
ing Engineers' Council of Texas. 1984
J!Q! ED -
I ! I ! ! . I.. I % _
" "'3"B-
Fig. 4.73 Typical noor framing plnn; Four Allen Center.
F p . 4.74 Enlnrgcd building reelion-lypicnl noor; Four Allen Center.

I Sect 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems
Trump Tower
New York, New Vork, USA
Architect Swnnke Hayden Connell

Structural engineer Oftice of Irwin G.Cantor
Height irom sLreel to rooi 1 0 1 m (664 It)
Number of le\'els below ground 3
Building use Retail, offices, residential
Framc material Concrclc
Typical noor live load 5 kPa (100 p r o rerail: 2.5 kPa (50 psi) of-
liccs; 2 kPa (4D 11~1)rcsidcnti:~l
Basic wind \,elocity Unavailable: iorcc = 1.0. 1.25. 1.5 kPa
(20.25.30 psi)
Maximum lateral deflection Hl600. 100-yr return
Design fundamenVal period 5.2 sec
Design accelcretion 16.5 mS peak. 10-yr rcturll
Dcsien damping i.5%
Eanltqunkc loading Not applicable
Type of structure Concrctcshcarcoie linkcd by cuncrelcout-
rigger walls lo conarcle pcriltielcr rralncs
Foundalion conditions hlonhattan mica schist
Footing type Sprcnd footings
Typical floor
Story height 4.8.3.66.2.9m(lh,12.9.5111
Slab 400-mm (16-in.) waffle slab: 190-nlnl
(7.5-in.) flat slab
Columns
Size at ground floor 813 by 513 rnm(32 by 37in.)
Spacing 12.2 to 7.3 m (40 lo 24 it)
hlatcrial Concrete. 49 MPa (7000 psi)
Core Shear walls, -157 mm ( I 8 in.) thick at
ground floor in 49-MPa (7000-psi) concrctc
Trump Tower is n multiuse building occupying a prime site on 5th Avenuc in New York
City. T h i o u ~ the
h purchase of the air rights for adjacent sites and irom bonuses awarded
for the provision of public atncnities, a plot ratio (building floor arcJ lo site area) o f 2 1
was achieved, making this a very slender building.
A perimeter tube lateral load resisting sysleln was unacceptable due to the impact o i
closely spaced columns on the views from the condominiums and on t l ~ cshop fronts at
street level. Also, structural steel was rejecled due lo the lead lime required Tor supply
to the site. The adopted all-concrete solution u!ilized concrcte shear !\,ails for l;~leral
load resistance and deep concrete lransier girderr to chon%cthe structural column grid Column and rnll lond and lnlcrnl dirplnccmcnt;Trump To~ucr,New Ynrk.
(Fig. 4.75).
Through the 38 condominium levcls, loads are carried by 52 concrete columns and Waterfront Place
concrete u d i s around the service corc. At moflcvei, twin oulrigger beams 6 m (20 11) high
and 450 mm (18 in.) thick link the corc with perimeter columns on two opposite sides to
reduce
~ - - latekdisolaczment.
~ - Extended core walls do this iob in the other direelion
Below the twentieth floor a system of lransler girders 7.3 m (24 it) high and 450 to
@?
@;
...,
;.5'
Brfsbane, Australia
Architect Cnmeron Chisholm and Nicol (Qld.) Pty.
Ltd.
600 mm ( I 8 to 24 in.) thick allows for the 52 columns to reduce to only 8 columns Stmctuml engineer Bornhorst and Wnnl Pty. Ltd.
through the 13 office levels. The transfer girders nlso act as outrigger beams to further Year of completion 1990
control lateral displacement. The girders are pierced by many openings for doors, pipes, Height from street to roof 158 m (518 ft)
and ducls.
Another transfer system comprising an inclined-column A frame was introduced be- Number of stones 40
tween the eleventh and seventh n o o n lo allow mother two columns to be removed in Number of levels below ground 2
order to open up the atrium, which rises seven levels through the retail floors at the base Building use Office
-
of the buildine.
The 1087-m' (I 1.700-it2) rcsidcntial floors wcrr poured on a ?-day c)cle. n ~ 56- c Frame material Concrete
and 49-hlPa (8000- and 7000-psi) concrete for the columns contained a superplasticizer Typical noor live load 3 Wa (60 psfJ
to increase workabilitv. for . - -
vlacine- around dense reinforcement. Tieht manGement of
concrete delieerics uas requ~rcdto ensirre that high-strength concrete %,asavsilablc at
the right time for placement in s l ~ b over
s and around columns. Maximum lateral deflection 185 mm (7.25 in.), 50-yr return
Design fundamental period 5 see
Design acceleration 2.3 mg (standard deviation), 5-yr return
Design damping I % serviceability; 5% ultimate
Typc of structure Shear core with outriggers to perimeter
columns
Foundation conditions 17 m (56 ft) of soft clay over rock
Footing type 25-m (82-it)-long 1.5-m (5-it)-diameter
bored piles socketed and belled in rock
Typical noor
story height 3.6 i (12 it)
Material Posttensioned concrete
Slab 130-mm (5-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 1350 mm (53 in.) in diameter
Material Concrete. MI to 35 MPa (8600 to 5000 psi)
Core Concrete shear walls
Thickness at ground floor 600 mm (24 in.) max
Material Concrete. 45 to 35 MPa (6-100 to 5000 psi)
Waterfront Place is a 42-level reinforced concrete framed office tower, located at tile
rivcr edke of Brisbane's central business district on a 15,000-m' (160,000-flZ)site (Fig.
4.76). A steel-level plaza provides access to the river edge for the public, whereas bc-
low and abow river level there is parking for 500 cars. River cdge boardwalks connect
174 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 S e c t 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 175
ncifhboring developmenis with thl: p1311. ilnd mooring is pro!,ldedon the a;1ierfroot for
plc~surr.craft,tour boats, and ferries.
The 42-level tower provides 36 office floors, three plant-room floors, a ground-floor
foyer, and two basements. The configuration of a typical floor provides 12 m (40 ft) of
column-free space between core and glass line, with four cantilevered bay windows on
both the east and west facades, effeclively contributing 10 "corner" windows on each
floor (Fig. 4.77).
High-rise buildings taller than approximately 35 stories may not be structurally cco-
nomical if the core alone is used to resist wind loads. This is particularly thc case for a
building rectangular in plan loaded about its weak axis. Such was the case with Water-
front Place, which has 40 levels above plaza level.
Wind tunnel model testing was undertaken, and the results indicated that it would be
impractical to use the core to fully withstand wind forces. Wall thicknesses and rein-
forcement quantities would be excessive, as would be the sway of the building in the
east-west direction.
Instead the design concept was changed to that of a core-perimeter interaction struc-
tural system where the core "tube" is connected to the exterior columns at specific locn-
tions, in this case at the plant room at levels 26 and 27 (Fig. 4.78). At these levels, four
stilC"wind beams" cantilevering from the core are connected to perimeter transfer beams
between three columns on each lace ofthe building. This induces participation ofthe ax-
ial capacity of the exterior columns in resisting wind-induced loading (Fig. 4.79).
The core is used to resist all horizontal shear, but vertical shear resistance is trans-
ferred from the core to the exterior columns, thereby utilizing the total overturning ca-
pacity of the SINClUre.
Fig. 4.76 Wnlcrlront Place, Brirbone, Auztrolln.
I 3
Y__I
.
Fig. 4.77 Typieul rnidrire noor plon; WnlcrCront Plorc.

I
Research indicated that the most effective location for the wind beams was at the top
levels of the tower. However, this was impractical due lo the stepped profile of the top-
most three plant levels (levels 37, 38, and 39) and the marketing potential of tenancy
..
' levels 29 to 36. As a consequence the wind beams were placed at levels 26 and 27. two
floors containine mechanical rooms and ofice space.
This loca~ion~hri~htcned the possibility of diifcrentiai axial shoncning between the
reinforced concrele core and the colu~nns.A ,lee1 joint was developed to link thc out-
CORE WALLS --
dilfcreniial movement occurred.
.. - as Lhe
rieeer beams with the fransfer beams at the columns lo allow controlled slippage
Thc use of the cantiicvcring wind beam syslem introduced some architeclural and
WIND BEAMS - -
siructural cncinecrine dcsirn challenecs. In order to rcrist the 820-tonne (180.000-lbl
l o ~ dappiied;o thc end ofcach wind hiam. the h e m s had lo be t u o stories high and 900
COLUMN LOAD mm (36 in.) thick and prefenbly without any penetrationr. To have no pcncvations
SPECIAL JOINT
- ooenines
would have meant the ldss of o f f i e soace: th&efore laree . -
were made in these
beams. This precluded the use of conventional beam design theory for these beams.
Consequently the beams were desipned using "strut and tie" theory. Concrete of 55-
MPn ff800-osil streneth and ties cinsistine i f 45 36-mm f 1.4-in.1-diamcler bars were
required to ;ra;mit &! working load of 86 tonnes (1 80,000 lb) per beam.
The noor slabs at levels 26 and 28. which are locally 420 mm (16.5 in.) thick. par-
ticipate in the wind-beam action by working as flanges for the wind beams. The force
paths in the wind beams and the floor slabs arc shown in Figs. 4.79.4.80, and 4.81.
Differential venical shrinkaee betureen core and ~erimetcrcolumns at level 26 sub-
sequent to construction of the entire building was caiculated. Consvuclion history, ma-
terial propenies, and in-service loads were used in this calculation.
TOWER AND P L A Z A
E A S T WEST SECTION
. .
- -_ - _A *
.
Fig. 4.78 Tower nnd plnm wt-wstserlian: Waterfront Place.
+L-LrL
FIG. 4.79 Level 26 noor plun-r,,reer trnnrmlttcd througtlnnorLanungc";
Wnlcrrronl Plncc.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 179
The wind beams are extremely stiff. Design load deflection was calculated to be only
2 mm (0.08 in.). Unless some means of allowing movement between wind beam and
columns was found, the wind beams would have attempted to support the 15 stories
above level 26 and several stories below. This it could not do, and s w c t u n l failure
would have resulted. A sliding friction joint between wind beams and the column trans-
fer beams was developed. This is shown in Fig. 4.82. The joint is in effect a multiple
clutch with the slip load determined by the clamping force provided by the through bolts.
Tests were canied out at the Queensland University of Technology to determine the
co-efficient of friction between the brake-pad material and the stainless-steel plates.
Size, clamping force. and loading rate effects were investigated. Typical load-slip
graphs are shown in Fig. 4.83. Eoch joint is fitted with four strain gauges to monitor
stresses in the plates and hence the load being transferred through thePclutch." This al-
lows the clamping force to be adjusted to slip at the required design load. When the
clamping force is finally adjusted, it will not require any fudher adjustment in its life.
A typicnl plot ofstress versus time for one of the joints is shown in Fig. 4.84.
Fig. 4.80 Str~Ulietmrr-rt~rce up; \Vulcrrronl Ploec.
Fig. 4.81 SlruUtic truss-rorec dcmn: Il'ulurlronl t'larc.

180 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 ! Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems I81
I
75% of maximum
Slip (mm)
Section 9
Slip (rnrn)
Fig. 1.83 Friction ! e r e Wolerfrunt Place.
Elevation on slip joint
T I M E (WEEKS1
Plan detail of slip ioint
Fig. 4.81 Typicnl rlruin-gouge rcudingr on vind-beam juinl: \!'nlerfrunl Pincc.
rig.4.82 Slip joint; \\'alcrfmnt Plituc.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap.
Two Prudential Plaza

Architect Loebe Schlossman and Hackl

Structural engineer CBM Engineers. Inc.
Building use Office
Frame material Concrete to level 59, steel above
Typical floor live load 4 kPa (80 psf)
Basic wind velocity 31 d s c c (70 mph)
Maximum lateral deflection 488 and 419 mm (19.2 and 16.5 in.). 50-yl
return
Design fundamental period 7.2.5.8. 4.4 sec
Design ncceleration 19 mg peak. IO-yr return
Type of structure Shear core with outrigger beams and
perimeter frame
Foundation conditions 14-m (45-ft) fill over 11-m (35-ft) hard-
pan over rock
Footing type 15-m (50-ft) hardpan caissons and 24-m
(80-fl) rock caissons
Typical floor
Slab
One-way 150-mm (6-in.) slabs, typically
28-MPa (4000-psi) concrete
Columns
Size at ground noor 890 by 1140 mm (35 by 45 in.) at 6.1-m
. ~
(20-ft) centers
Material Concrete, 84 MPa (12.000 psi).
Core
~
Shear walls 840,610. 460 mm (33. 24. 18

in.) thick at ground floor
Material
.
Concrete, 84 MPa 112.nnn ,,;r
,--- r-.,
Two Prudential Plaza, a 64-story office building, is located in downtown Chicago, Illi- Fig. 4.85 Tno Prudcnlinl Plaza. Clxicngu. Illinois. ICoirnen ojCBAl E , r ~ t n ~ . ~i,,c
rr )
n01"Fig. 4.85). At the time of completion it was the second tallest concrete building in
the world. The building has a gross area of about 130.000 m' (1.4 million ft'). It has five
levels of basement, which are primarily used as a parking garage for 325 cars. The low-
184 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Core and Outrigger Systems
cst bxcment is locatrd nt elev3lion -6.477 m (-21 fi 3 in.) CCD (Chicago Cily dntom). +1!22'-6'+
The lobb) ofthe building is locatrd at elevation T 10.668 m ( 7 3 5 ft 0 in.) CCD. Lev-
els 4.5.38, nnd 39 are used for mecltmical equipment, and level59 for siorace of uin-
dow-washing equipment Level 58 is the last office floor. Levels above 59 are mcchnn-
ical floors.
- .
The building- is rectannular at lhe lower levels. 37.4 bv 40.4 m (122 ft 6 in. bv 132 ft
8 in.), but becomes square at the fifty-ninth floor due lo a series of rcrb3ck on the nonh
:and south faces. Above lhr. fifty-ninth floor. lhr building sti\nq tapering to form a "cone
held." which is torrrred bv a 25-m (82-11)architectural soirc. The 10" rlcvniion of the
spire is 304.8 m ( i i 0 0 f t j c c (~~ i g1.86).
.
The lateral stiffness in each direction is mainly provided by the four shear walls lo-
cated in lhe core of the buildine. Their deoth is 13.8 m (45 ft 4 in.). The flanees are 838
rnm (33 in.) thick a d the wzb; are 610 aid 380 mm ( i 4 and 15 /n.) thick Tor the inte-
nor and extcrinr ualls. rcspeclively. The south shear wall drops off nt level 27 where&$
the nonlt w11l drorrs off at leiel 40. Tile middle ualls conlinue 111 !he wav lo floor 59.
The flanges of wails arc connected together in the north-south direction by k86-mm (27-
in.)-deep link beams.
.
The columns at the east and west faces are soaced at 6.1-m (20-ft) . centers.. whereas
~
on the north and south laces they arc spaced at 9.15 m (30 11). The typical extrnor col-
umn sire vJries from 8'10 by 1140 mnl (35 hy 35 in.) at the lo\ver floors to 600 h\ 600
-
mm (24 bv 24 in.) e the ton floor;. A maximum concrete streneth of 84 MPe 11$.000 . -
psi) u'as used for columns and shear walls at the lower floors. The concrete strength was
reduced to 42 MPa (6000 psi) at the upper floors.
a ..
The floor beams have clear snan 3 aooroximarelv I 2 m (40 . ft). from the oerimetcr
columns to the shear r\,311 cure. Typical floor bcam size is 965 mm (38 in.) by 610 lrlm
(24 in.) deep. Floor framing consists of a 150-mm (6-in)-thick norrn>l-weightconcrelc
sllb u,ith o clear span of 5 13 in (16 f l I0 in.) be1ncr.n rhc noor beams. spaced st 6 I m
-.
(20 ft) centcr5. In addillon tu carrying the gmvity load. rbe floor beams carry some 01
the wind shear frum the shear ivalls to the outside columns. At the fortieth and 111cfilly-
:%
C X
nineth floors the core is tied to the outside columns at two locations with the helo, of oil- m:
at
LON
rigger ivnlls to control the wnd drift and reduce Ihe overturning monlent in thu core \
shear walls The beams are 5.03 m (16 f16 in.) deep (in other words. a full nory high)
butwcci~floors 39 and 10 ind 1.68 m (5 11 5 in.). deep. ar floor 59.
The foundation system consists of straight shaft caissons up to 3 m (10 ft) in diame-
ter. These caissons rest on the bedrock, which is about 30 m (100 fr) below the existing
ground level. The allowable bearing capacity of this rock is 19 MPa (200 tonlft'). To
fully utilize this capacity, 56-MPa (8000-psi) concrete was used in caissons. In the park-
inggange adjacent to the main tower, belled caissons were used. These caissons extend
to hardpan about 21 m (70 ft) below existing grade. The allowable bearing capacity for Fig. 4.86 Typlcnl floor plnru: Two Prudenlinl Plnm.
this hardpan is about 3.4 MPa (36 todft').
186 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 S e c t 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems .-.
7999 Broadway formed core. The perimeter frames act with the core to resist lateral loads and effects
Denver, Colorado, USA due to the eccentric form of the building.
Footings comprise cast-in-place caissons founded in claystone and sandstone some
Architect C.W. Fentrcss and Associates P.C. I5 m (50 ft) below grade. A single caisson supports each column, and caissons at a min-
Structural engineer Sevemd Associates imum spacing of three caisson diametem are distributed around the core. The design end
Year of completion 1985 bearing pressure was 3350 kPa (70,000 psO, and skin friction in the rock was 335 W a
Height from street to roof 198 m (650 it) (7000 psf).
Building use Office
Frame material Concrete corc, srcel frame
Typical floor live load 2.5 W a (50 psi)
Maximum lateral dctlcction HI400
Earthquake loading USA zone 1
Type of structure Concrete corc with outriggers to perimeter
stccl fmme
Footing type Caissons
Typicnl floor
Story height 3.81 m ( I 2 ft 6 in.)
Beam span 9.14m (30 it)
Beam spacing 3.43 m (I l ft 3 in.)
Slab 83-mm (3.25-in.) lightweight concrete on
50-mm (2411.) metal deck
Columns
Size at ground level W350 by 1088 kglm (W14 by 730)
Core Shear walls 610 mm (24 in.) thick at
ground floor
Material Concrete, 42 to 28 MPa (6000 to 4000 psi)
1999 Broadway is an unusual 43-story office building built on a triangular site. The
presence of an historic church on pan of the site resulted in the plan of the office build-
ing having the shape of an arrowhead which wraps around the church, creating from it
a piece of sculpture on the plaza (Fig. 4.87).
The facade comprises alternating bands of limestone and green reflective glass and
a concave cunain wall having seven angled facets around and above the church. The
building has been raised 15 m (50 ft) above ground on 22 limestone-clad columns to cre- Fig. 4.87 Typicnl noor plnn; 1999 Broadway, Denver, Colorado.
ate views ofthe church from within.
The slroclurc cunsists of^ rr.inforccd concrde curvicc core. stccl perimeter columns.
and stcci flnor b s m s and g~rdcrsco~nposilewith tile rlah. At Ic\r.lr 3 10 5 and 29 lo 31.
two-story-high outrigger trusses between core and perimeter columns reduce thc lateral
deflection. Girders are connected to plates field-welded to cast-in plates in the slip-
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Core and Outrigger Systems
Citibank Plaza
Hong Kong
Architect Rocco Design Partners

Structural engineer Ove Amp and Partners
Height from street to roof 220 m (722 it)
Building use Office
Frame material Reinforced and posttensioned concrete
Basic wind velocity 64 mlsec (144 mph). 50-yr return, 3-scc
gust
Maximum laleral deflection 370 mm (14.5 in.). for50-yrrcturn period
wind
Type of structure Concrete core with outriggers
Foundation conditions Dccomposed granite over granite bedrock
Footing type Hand-dug caissons to rock
Typical floor
Story heighr 3.9 m (12.8 it)
Beam depth 500-mm (20-in.)-deep ribbed slab
Beam spacing Reinforced concrete ribbed slab
Columns
Size at ground floor 3000 by 1900 mm (120 by 75 in.) mnr
Spacing 9.4 rn (3 1 ft)
Material Concrete with 40-MPa (5800-psi) cube
strength
Core Shear walls 1.0 and I.?, m (3.3 and 4 it)
thick at base
Material Concrete with 1 0 MPa (5800-psi) cube
strength
The four-level basement of Citibank Plma (Fig. 4.88) was formed using top-down con-
struction techniques. Stability \vas achieved with the internal cores acting in combina-
tion with the perimeter columns, using outriggers at two levels (Fig. 4.89). Part o f t h e
building is seated above a major entryway to a neighboring development. To achieve
this, the perimeter columns rake outrvnrd along one face of the building over a one-story
height (Fig. 4.90). The resulting lateral forces were resistcd by a prestressed beam sys-
tem tied back to the internal cores. prestressing being applied in stages as construction hg. 4.88 Cllibank Plnzo. Hung Kong. (Cac,ncrr o f o l e A n q orxdporinrrr]
progressed.
190 Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.31 Core and Outrigger Systems 191
7B.&
Fig. 4.89 Fioorplnn; Citibnnk Plnrs.
Pig. 4.90 Section through mking columns; Cilibnnk Plorn.

192 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect 4.41 Tubular Systems 193
4.4 TUBULAR SYSTEMS
7 Historical Perspective
The development of the initial generation o f tubular systems for tall buildings can be
t..
. r...
n r ~ dto
.- the concurrent evolution o f reinforced concrete construction followine World
~~~~ ~
War 11. Prior to the early 1960s. reinforced concrete was utilized primarily for low-rise
-
construction of only a few stories i n height. Ti~esrbuildin~swere chancterized by pla-
nar Viercndeel beak and column arraneemcnts with wid;soacines . - between membcrs.
The basic ~ncfficieacyof the frame wcleln for rsioforc:d concrete buildings or more
t1r~11 ahnut I5 slnrlcs rusulttd in m:,ober proportinns or prohthit~te.ire and rlruclur;~l
material cost or~miums.and thus such svitcms were economicallv inviable. Concrete
shear uall systems arr;lnged i \ ~ t b i111s
~ t huilding int~.riurc o ~ l bed utilirud. b.11 lhcy uerr.
oftc~tof insul'licicnt sire for aliifne,~and rcsil;,ncs ;lgain%torcrturnlng. Thi, Icd tu lhr.
- -
dcvclonment ofstructur~lsvstems with a hirhcrdcrrcc orcfficicncv toward lateral load
rci\t.lncs lor 1311~.rh~ildings.The nntlon n i i fully t h r ~ u ~ d i m c n ~ i oiruclur;~l
naI sjrlum
utiliz~ncth~.cnlir~.build:nc inertin lo rcrirl l s l ~ . r loads
~i b:wn lo cmcrec ;I[ lhls time.
Thc main ,orooonent
~ ~
, -
o f thi;desien trcnd was Fszlur Khan. who svstem~icallv
a logical evolution of tali building structural systems. The pervssivc international-style
.
,oursucd
approach 10 archilecture a1 the lime included lergcr open spaces with longer spans, a
;~rui~iteclur:tl
,. .
well-oraanized core. and a clcarlv ocrceotiblc interior-exterior column grid. Wilhin this
2nd ecnnnmic clinl:!lc. Ihc fr-1111cdIuhi. h).\tcin i n rd IIIOICL.~ c~lncrct: i : t l l
hi. \c:n ;lr bull) ;I n;~ttlr-l2nJ 3,) innur:.l!\u ~ : ~ ~ I O ~ inI I tidl
I S Ib.tilcling
II <yhtL.nl,
2 The Framed Tube
- -
The orcnniration ofthe framed tubc svstcm is acncrallv one ofciosclv <
soaccd
columns and deep spandrel bcama rigidly connected together. with the enlire assem-
.
exterior
blaee continuous aionr each facade and around the building corners. The system is a
-
loekal cxansion o f the moment resirline frame. whcrebv the beam and coiumn s t i r -
ussses are 1 1 1 c r r 3 dram;!ric:ill!
~d hg ruducirlg ltle clear sp;tn dirnensionr and incrr3stng
thl: rnclnbcr d c ~ ~ l tThd
s . monoiilllic oaturr. u f rcinfurccd corlcrcte runrlructinn is ide311y
suited for sucha svstem. in\,olvinr- fully. continuous interconnections of the frame mem-
bers. Depending on the heighl and dimensions of the building, exterior column spacings
should be on the order o f 1.5 to 4.5 m (4.9 lo 14.8 ft) on center maximum. Spandrel
beam de~thsfor normal office or residentinl occupancy applications are t v ~ i c a l l v600 to
1200 m k 124 to 47 in.). The resuitine arranremcnt a o ~ r ~ x i m a t eastub; cantilcvcrcd
svsiem costs. Exterior columns mav eliminate the need for intermediate vcrtical mullion
elcntunls of ti>cuur1;lin \$:dl 133~11311) ur 1.)1311g. A iIrUClUr.lli51 ?Xpr~:isinnfur tile e \ l ~ -
ridr envelope msy hc lull? rc;~liz~.J b! <\pnslng IIIC~.xldrinrtuhul;,r mernb~.~;,IIIUS
dclinong >hexil1,>r.~!-r31Jen~.str:,li~~~>. TI,< ~ L i l l d n !!L~i l l l i).st?rn 15 1hc.n infilled i,etre~.n
the coi&~ and spandrel beams. with II resultino reduction i n claddine cost. An eariv * ex-
ampie o f such a iubuiar b u i l d i n in rcinforccd~oncreteis shown i n Fig. 4.91.
The behavior ofrrarnrd tubes under Interel load is indicated in Fig. 4.92, which shows Fig. 4.91 Brunrwiek Building, Cl~icugo.lllinoir.
the distribution o f axial forces i n the exterior columns. The more the distribution is sim-
ilar to that o f a fully rigid box cantilevered at the base, the more efficient the system will
be. For the case o f a solid-\$,all tube. [he distribution of axial forces would be expected to
bc uniform over the windn.nrd and Iccivard \tSsllsand linear over the sidcrvnlls. As the
tubular walls are punched, creating the beam-column frame, shear frame deformations
~ d ~ r ~r o n e s ~ s r ~ nhysrems
a a~ o g [Chap. 4 Sect 4.41 Tubular Systems 195
ore introduced duc lo sltear;lnd flcxurc i n the tubular mumbcrs as u u l l as routtons 01thc
ntcmber loin&. This rcdtlccs the eilecti\e stlffnrss Of lbe systeln as a cantilever. The ex-
~.
tent to which h e actual axial load distribution i n the tube columns dcoartr;- from the
~ ~. idesl
is rcnndd the ",hear lag effect." I n behavioral terms. the forces i n the colurnns toaard lltu
lniddls u i t h e flange frnmus lq behind those nearer the conter and are tltua less than fully
ulllized. Limiting the shear lag ellect is essential fnr oplimal de\.elopmen~o f the :ubulnr
system. A rc3son;1blr. objcctit,e is l o strivc toward a1 least 7% effiricncy sucll [hat the
cantilever component in llte oterall rystcln deflection ondsr u i n d load dnminatus.
Thc 1r;tmed tubu i n structural slsel rsquirus wcldinp oftlte heam-column join1 tu du-
!clop rigidity and continuily. Tllc ~ o n n 3 t i o n ofahric~tcd
f 1rr.u elemenlr, rrltcre all weld-
ing is p:rformcd i n llte shop i n a horizonwl position, has made the alrsl-frame tuhe s ~ $ .
tem more practical and efficienl, as shown i n Fie. 4.93. The trees are then erected-bv ~,
bolting the ipandrcl bcotn* togelher ak Inidspan near thc pnint o f innrxion.
The column spacing i n steel-fmntrd tubular buildings lnust be ~.ralualcdto b~l;tnce
llte nerds for higher cantilever dfiicicauy throuph clorcr anactnkr rvitll increased F ~ h r i -
cation costs. The use ordeeper, built-up sectioni versus roiled G m b c r s is also a matter
o f cost-effectiveness. A survey o f steel quantities for completed tubular buildings is
s l ~ o w nin Fig. 4.94. The buildings range from 40 to 110 stories. and column spacings
generally range from 3 to 4.5 m (10 to 15 ft) on center, with spacings as close as I m
(3.28 ft) i n the case of the 110-slory World Tradc Center twin towers. New York (fig.
4.95). These towers are examples whereby the structuralist notion o f a punched wall
tube with extremely close exterior columns is architeclurally exploited to express visu-
ally the inherent venicality o f the high-rise building.
Fig. 4.93 Typical tree crcction uniL
Cantilever
componenl
I Shear frame
component
I
Elevation Sway
Dlslribullon w l h w
shear lag
Actual axial stress
shear lag
Wind lorce t HEIGHT (in)

Fg.4.92 Frulncd tulle i~clv~rior. Vlg. 4.94 Conlilcv~rsystems, stccl qunntity versus hciglxt
196 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Tubular Systems
3 The Trussed Tube systemefficiency can only be realized by relatively small perforations in the tubular
walls. The problem becomes particularly acute at the base of the building, where archi-
,\, ihc tubular concept; were being dcreloprd in ihr 19605, il became Jppdrent that 1 @$ teclural plannine lypically. demands open access to the bulldine interio; from ihe sur-
thcrr was a cenain building height n n g e for which the framed tube could be elficlenll)
adaoled. For rrry 1311 buildings. lhe dense grid of beam and column members has a d t -
=id;d impact onihe facade aGhitecture. The need lo control shear lag and improve the
I., rounding infrastruaurd will1 as lilrlc encumhr;mre 2s possible {om the sxlerior fr;~me-
k.; n,orI;. A number ofulcgant solutians inrolving Ole transfer and rcmovnl oftlle e~turi,,r
columns at the base of the building have been iomulated (Figs. 4.91.4.95, and 4.96).
'".~~t~pcharnc~eristically include an associated material premium.
The trussed tube system represents a classic solution for a tube uniquely suited to thc
qualities and c h m c l e r of structural steel. The ideal tubularsyslem is one which intercon-
I 9 \Ysrld Trndc Center, New Y n k . lCo,mrry rfLrrlii. Robcrrrnr, n ~ i ~ l . i r m r 1

~. , .
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
The bundled tubc concept allows for wider column spacings in the lubulu walls lhan
d oossible with unlv lhc eatrrior framed lube form. 11 is his sp3cine uhicll
w o ~ ~ ibr
rnnkes it possible to place inierior frame lines withoul setiousiy c ~ m ~ r o ~ i s i n g ~ i n l e r i o r
space planning. In principle, any closed-form shapemay be used to create the bundled
form (see Fig. 4.102). The ability to modulate the cells vertically can create a powerful
*.?;s.::!:s
.,2
vocabulary for a variety of dynnmic shapes. The bundled lube principle therefore offers ,
great latitude in the architecturnl plnnning of a very la11 building.
ENDCHANNEL
TRUSSEDTUQE
MOMENT RESISTING
FRAME OR
FRAMED TUBE
Fig. 4.99 Pnrtiul Lubulnr ryslcrn.
-COLUMN AXIAL LOADS

DUE TO WIND
CASE (A1
::: s..
0 0
114
PLANS
TYPE EXT. TUBE EXT. TUBE EXT. TUBE BUNOLEO TUBE

SIZE 69m x 69m 46m r 4 8 m 23m x 23m 69m x 6 9 m
ttttttt
Fig. 4.98 Trurrcd tubc, grurity loud rrdlrlribstion.
HIW
0c0101
6.65
0.61
9.60
0.75
19.00
0.66
Fig. 4.100 Sludy of tul~ulorcllicicnry.
6.65
0.78
Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
,03 1
l
PROJECT DESCR~PT~ONS,FRAMED TUBES
r COMPRESSIVE
STRESS
Amoco Building
Chicago, Nlinois, USA
Architect Edward Durrell Stone with The Perkins
and Will Partnership
Swctural engineer The Perkins and Will Partnership I
Yenr of completion 1973
Height from street to roof 342 m (1123 A)
Number of stories 82.
MASTER GRID Number of levels below ground 5
STRESS OF COLUMNS
AT BASE Building use Office
Frnme material Structural steel
(a1 FRAIAING PLAN Ibl SHEAR LAG BEHAVIOR
Typical floor live load 4 Wa (80 psO
1:ig. 4.101 Uundlrd tube bchuriur: Sears Tower, Clnicugn, lilineir. Basic wind velocity 1.4 X Chicago code
Design wind load deflection HI400
Type of svucture Perimeter fnmcd tube
Foundation conditions Silty clay, sand, and gravel over massive
dolomitic limestone
Footing type Concrete caissons. 1.5 to 3.8 m (5 fl to 10
ft 3 in.) in diameter. approximarely 24 m
(79 ft) long
Typical floor
Truss span 13.7 m (45 fr)
Truss depth 965 mm (38 in.)
Truss spacing 3.05 m (10 ft)
Material Swctural steel
slab; 35 MPa (5000 psi) on 38-mm (1.5-
Fig. 4.102 hlndular tuher. in.) steel deck
Columns Folded plate, size not available
Spacing 3.05 m (10 ft) center lo center
Material Stcel, grade 250 MPa (36 ksi)
Core Structural steel frames carrying gravity
loads only
/, ,!j
i
The innovative structural concept applied to this 342-m (1 123-ft)-high building resulted
from the desire to achieve an efficient, simple to erect structure utilizing a perimeter
. .. -
tube whose behavior would closelv anoroximate that o i a oure cantilever (Fie.
. 4.103). I
I
The lubc compriaca uolulnns uf V-rhaped kcel plaw 3nd du:p ubxnnul.shapud bcnl-
plat: spandrel bcams shop-fabncalcd Inlo 3-stor) Irccs. Tb:r< arc 64 sucll columns ;,t 3-
f&'
204 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems 205
i:
:i.
m (10-11) centers around the perimeter, plus solid steel plate walls to the reentrant cor- :: ate a concentric load in the vlane of the wall. At the buildine corners the shorter-soan
ners. The free inner edges of the columns are stiffened by heavy angle sections. Connec- diagonal girder and attached'beams are wide-flange sections. ?he 4000 essentially iden-
tions between spandrel beams comprise simple high-strength bolted joinL5, whereas col- tical lrusses and the comer beams were mass-produced in an assembly line.
umn splices are welded at lower stories and bolted or welded at upper stories.
The floors are generally supported by 13.7-111 (45-11)-span trusses at 3-m ( 10-ft) cen-
- .
Economv was achieved bv creatine a ~ e r i m e l c frame
r . -.
irom thin steel olate .;oread
!,.,.i,over as much of the facade as was architecturally acceptable and by maximizing the
' .
ters. Trusses at successive floors attach to alternate sides of a column to effectively cre- ;?:?'number of geometrically identical elements. The arraneement- also negated the need for
sublramine - for the exterior curtain wall.
The space within the V-shaped columns was used Tor air s h a h and hot and chilled
water pipes for the perimeter zone. The interior zones were s u e ~ l i e dfrom vertical shafts
in the bore
The building contains45.900 lonnes (50.506 tons) ofsteel,ofwhich 37% is in beams
and trusses and 63% in columns and reentrant corner wnlls.The r\reieht ofsteel amounts
Fig. 4.103 Amoco Uutldtng, Chtcugo, lllinuis. (Pl>ninh? Jrrr BairB.)

Sect. 4 41
181 West Madison Street

Archilcct Cesar Pelli and Associates with Shaw and
Associates
Structural engineer Cohen-Barreto-Mareherlas Inc.
Height from streel to roof 207 m (680 ft)
Building use omce
Frame malcrial Concrete corc, steel perimeter frame
Bnsic wind selocily -13 mlsec (97 mph). IOO-yr rclum period
Maximum lateral deflection 400 mm (16 in.). IOO-yr return period
Design fundemenla1 pcriod 8.3. 6.7 see horizontal: 6.3 sec lorsion
Design acceleration 18.4 mg peak
Design damping I .5% senaiceability
Type of slructure Concrete core lube with stccl perimeter
tuhc
Foundation condiiions Hardpan. 1.7-MPa ( 2 0 . ~ ~capacity
0
Footing type Caissons. 24 m (80 ft) long. 1370 mm (4 fl
6 in.) in diameter, belled to 3-m (IO-ft) di-
ameter
Typical floor
Benm span 10.36 m (34 ft)
Benm spacing 3.05 m (10 fr)
Benm depth 530 mm (21 in.)
Slab 140-mm (5.5-in.) composite metal deck
Columns W350 by 745 kglm (14 in. by 500 Iblft)
blalcrial Steel, grade A572. 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Core Central concrete corc. 62 lo 28 MPa (9000
to 4000 psi)
Thickness a1 ground floor 400. 500, 660 mm (16, 20.26 in.)
The I 81 West Madison Sbcet lowe r is a 50-story office building located at Madison and
Wells Streets in [he Chicago Loog1 (Fig. 4.104). It is a point lower, with multiple set-
Fig. 4.104 181 \Veal hlidiron Slrccl, Chicngn, illlnoi~
backs and a distinctive cro\r8nthat recalls the sculpturally expressive skyscrapers of the
1920s. This is also n tower for the 1990s. It is clearly organized as a square floor plen
with n center square concrelc core and column-free office space (Fig. 4.105).
208 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 , sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
181 West Madison is the tallest combination core building in Chicago. The central
@? loading dock at ground level are also transferred to increase clearance for trucks. E
concrete core is surrounded bv a sWctuml steel frame and a com~ositefloor svstem. stcel is less than 59 kg/m2 (12 psO.
The squa~ccore is 50 stories tA11. for a totnl height of 207 m (680 fi).
rile core and columns a the base of ihc building are rupponed by cnissons and gradc lobby. Clad in warm white, grey, and green marble, the lobby's
heams. Of the cnissons in the uroiecC 25% existed. Transfer-crade beams between new
and existing cnissons were uskd io take the tower's wind an; gravity loads. The foun-
dation wall on the east side of 181 West Madison required underpinning as it is a com- ;.?&$
mon wall with its neighbor, 10 South LaSalle StreeL
Interior spans of 13.1 m (13 ft) ailowa column-free interior space for maximum user
flexibility. The many setbacks at the top of the building require all the perimeter
columns to be fransferred several times. In addition, the columns on either side of the
I I I I I I
- -
- -
I
-
I I
-
I I I I
-+
I
Fig. 4.105 8th to 14118 noor rramine pian; 181 \Vest hlndirun S t r c c ~
210 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
AT&T Corporate Center

Architect Skidmore Owings and Mcrrill

Structural engineer Skidmore Owings and Merrill
Height from street to roof 270 m (886 R)
Number o f stories 61
Number o f levels belo\%,ground 2
Building use Oflicc
Frame material Conlpositr slccl-concrete perimeter liarlie.
steel interior columns. stccl floor beams
Typical floor live load 4 kPa (80 psr) lct,cls 3 to 30: 2.5 kPa (.iO
psi) Ic\,c~s
31 to 59
Basic wind \,elocity 35 mlsec (78 rnplt). IOU-yr return
Maximunt lateral deflection HI700
Design fundantcntal period 6.5 sec
Design acceleration 20 rng. IO-yr return
Dcsign damping I to l.5<> aurrice;lhility
Earthquake looding Not applicable
Type o f structure Exterior concrcte-fromcd tubc with ilite-
rior frfieity-luad culunins. t m r r s . :lnd
bei~o~s
Foundation conditions 18 m (60 i t ) o f clay over liardpan
Footing type Belled caissons on 1iardp;ln
Typical floor
Story lheigltt 4.0111 (13 ft 2 in.)
Truss span 14.6 m (48 i t )
Truss depth 914 rnm (36 in.)
Truss spacing 4 . 6 m ( l 5 It)
Illaterial Steel. grade 230 and 350 h,IP;1(36 and 50
ksi)
Slah 63-nun (1.5-in.) light\\,cight cuncrctc on
76-mm (3-in.) o~etaldeck
Columns
Size at ground lloor I422 by 813 oim (56 by 32 in.)
Spacing 4.6 ~n( 1 I 5 111
ivlnterial Nornt;il-\\,cigltt concrstc, 56 tu 35 MP;t
(5000 to SUOU psi)
Cure Steel he;~msand columns for gravity load
only
. .
Tlte ATSlT Cnrporatc Center (Fig. 4.106) consists o f a 61-story uflicu to\i,cr \\,it11
rentable areas o f fluor plates ranging front 3250 m2 (35.000 1'1') on the lowest floors to
Fig. 4.1116 ATST Corpunltc Ccntcr, C ~ I E I ~Illtnots.
~ C ~ . (Pimr<l?,I. Hrdriri~-l(lcirbi~.~
I
I# Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
TYPICAL HIGH-.RISE M O R
TYPICAL LOW.RISE. F L W R
Fig. 4.lllY Typirni flours; Gcorgio Pocific.
Fig. 4.108 Gctwgio P I I E ~A~ tCl l .m l ~ ,Gcorgiu.

222'-0"
Fig. 4.illl Pruming piun; Gcargiu Pacific.
Fig. 4.111 Snalooth locnde; Georgia Pneilic

Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Tubular Systems
450 Lexington Avenue terference wilh train clearances. The key to the structural solution was the use of a
N e w York, N. Y., USA egacolumn syslem. The megacolumn system lonns the "legs of a table," which carries
e tower's gravity and wind loads within the existing building's shell (Fig. 4.113).
Architect Skidmore Owings and Mcrrill Tlte megacolu~il~~s are placed 24.4 m (80 11) apart in the north-south direction and
Olfice of Irwin G. Cantor 1.8 m (170 11) apart in the east-west direction. Two are 6.1 by 7.6 m (20 by 25 ft) in
Structural engineer
p an. and two are 6.1 by 2.6 m (20 by 8.5 11). The plan sizes were governed by the avail-
Year 01completion 1992
Heighl from street to roof 168 m (550 h)
Number 01stories 40
Number 01lc\pelsbelow ground 0
Building use Olfice
Framc malerial Steel
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psfl
Basic wind velocity 36 mhec (80 mpit)
hlaximum lateral dencclion HljOO, 50-yr rcturn
Design lundnmental period 5.5 sec
Design acceleration Less than 20 m S peak
Design damping 1Su
Earthquake loading No1 opplicablc
Typc of structure Perimeter tube with broced core
Foundation conditions Rock. 4- to 6-hlPn (40- to 60-lon/lt')
capacity
Footing type Piers socketed into rock
Typical noor
SIOVheight 3.81 m(12116in.)
Bcnm span 13.4 m (44 fi)
Beam spacing 3.05 m (10 11)
Malerial Stccl. grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Slab 64-mm (2.5-in.) concrete over 76-mm (3-
in.) metal deck
Columns
Spacing 6.1 m (20 11)
Material Steel. grade 350 hlPa (50 ksi)
Core Braced steel. grade 350 hlPa (50 ksi)
Placing n high-rise tower abo\'e a landmark post olfice structure which sits dirrclly
above a mnjor urban rail line is a highly formidable task, which requires an unusual and
innovalive engineering concept. The 450 Lexington Avenue building (Fig. 4.112) is
such o project and posed many challenges to lhe designers and conlractors.
Thc existing landmark post ollice sits directly over the railroad tracks leading into
New York City's Grand CcnIr.nl Station. The congested system of tracks made it im-
possible to bring t l ~ e54 totr'er columns down to the loundation. In addition, the track
layouts ~otellyprecluded the placcnlenl of a conventional a,ind resisting system due lo Fig. 1.1 13 450 Lcringlon ,\venue. New York.
Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems 223
I
able space bcrween tracks. The megacolumns arc solid reinforced concrete as they rise
from tltc foundation through tlie train area. At the first floor. theu are comnosed of a I
steel-fr3mud iruhs stru:tdre t01:111) enc3scd in cu,!crets. ~ . i t t Jioicrtrinn\
-
R ' i ~ n rtu the third-flour - u ~ c c t. h ~ m -
. e e : t ~ ~ I ~ conne:t
) :i. ~UIL.U.
~ n t ~ s to rnas\trc 76-11] 25.11,-
tall trusses. The trusses estcnd in both the nonh-south and east-rvcsl directions and con-
1
nect all four megacolumns. Tlie resulting megaframe systcm was referred to as the
"table ton."
I t wa; the table top which picked up all the tower's columns and transferred their
load to the mcgacolumns and to 13 strategically located con\'entional steel columns.
The 12 intermediate columns reduce the truss spans bet\\,een llte megacolumns and aid
i n thc sunnon,, o f zrauitv loads. Ultimatclv it was this frame which transferred all the
L .
nind I t v ~ Jillid
r gr3$it! Iu~JI to llle f o ~ n d ~ l i u n s .
I l r e tlu\~hilityn l \IL.L.Imxdc i t the choice m3teri~1for 111~'luaer illttl lhc hdlk u f the
merasustem. However. the concrete encasement added the needed mass and stiffness.
tween the adiucent train tracks iormcd concrcle wall columns. Composed o f 55-MPa
(6000-psi) concrete.
these walls supported the intcrmcdiate columns o f thc mega truss
system above. Utilizing concrctc meant that the construction could proceed while the
existing building above !\,as still in plnce.
Tlie towcr.5 structural svstcm is cornnosed o f a oerimetcr tube of columns naced at
6.1-m (20-it) ccntcrs. The colunins arc W36s and W30s for maximum efficiency. The
four corners of the pcrimotcr tube arc reiniorccd wilh a vertical Vierendeel truss. \tshich
stirfens the tube sienificuntlv. Inside the corc t\\,o vertical trusses are locrttcd. \\,hich rise
-
Tltc to\ve;'s lrasc suacc beeins at the sixth floor. ~ e l o $the i sixth floor. a11 the tow-
cr's columns slope through tlic fiftli-floor mechanical area to positions upon the top
chord ofthe megutrussea. Figure 4.1 I 4 illustrates thc thirteenth through thirty-fin1 odd
floor framing plan.
Rccagnition that the existing past office facility is a national landmark mcont that the
facade had to be maintained in its current form, whereas the central area of the existing
structure was demolislied lo make way for the new mcenstructurc. Consequently Lhe fa-
cade and one adjacent bay of the structure were left inplace, thereby providinf the sla-
bility to the facade while demolition and construction proceeded. The remaining bay of
-
the existing structure \\,as known as the "douohnut" area. which \\.as uperaded . - struc-
turalty ;lnd ulum;ltcl! \<as ~nct~rpur;!tsd ialln lhc fin;ll ,Iruclure.
Tllc p l i ! s ~ c ~ctlniple~itg
I : ~ n dltttric;tlc compnsIt~.bcliaviur U t lI
l ~n l c g ~ ~ ) s t IcU~- ~ i
qtlirud ihc use .>ia n u ~ ~ t loi~ cthree-dimtnsiond
r cump.ller models for 3n3lysi. L;ilr.r:ll
a.nd vertical movement bad to be determined accuratciv due to tlic imnact u&n the [and-
ihe 90-year-old bunts and limcstonc perimeter.
I
226 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Tubular Systems 227
As tall buildings become more slender, the dynamic behavior of thc building bccomes perimeter column system coupled with s composite steel pnd concrete supertruss wrrs
. utilized. Figure 4.1 I6 shows the resultin% floor plan.
more critical. The results of the wind tunnel tests showed that the Mellon Bank lower
(Fig. 4.1 15) had a vortex shedding problem with the cross-wind structural response be- , The concrete encasemenl of the steel structure provided the needed damping, stiff-
ing 50% larger than the response due to the code wind forces. { ness, and additional strength. The cost analysis performed by the construction manager
.
- and damninr" the svucmrc rvas stud- proved that the composite system resulted in a more economicnl structure lhan an all-
A comoarison of various ootions for sliffeninr
led and tl~ecusts ofuach method were estimolcd. I t ass C O I I C I U ~ L . ~11101111s
posits struclural systsm would bc most eco~tomicnl.Conwqucntly a concrr.lc.uncared
L ~ S of:!
S corn- 1.%',
?:'
stccl building. Thc inter3ction of stcul nnd concrclc and their bchwior under the dcslgil
loads were studied utilizing a detailed finite.elemunt nnalysis.
The building's lateral system is formed by the comoosite nerimeter columns soaccd
7.95 m (9 11 B h.)on ccnlfr, forming a pcri&eler l u b C [ ~ i gi.117).
. Typical composite
column xhemes ulili7.c the slecl columns sol:ly fnr erection purposes, uith the bulk of
thc v~.rticaIload carried by the concrete. In this slruclure, restrictions in the overall sire
of the columns required the use of a truly shared composite system, with the concrete
encasement and the steel columns each c a w i n g significant portions of the vertical load.
,
Fig.. hl~llnnDunk. Philodrlphin, Penns?.lvaniu. ...
:::., Fig.4.116 Framing plan for noors 14 l o 23; hlcilon Dank.
,.,
.
.
.*,
.,>A. - ,
.. .
.,i?..
.,.
- ..
Comolicatine the nroiect was that none of the 52 columns in the tower continued di-
rectly to the ground. Instead, all of the perimeter columns are either sloped o r picked up
bv msses. The sloped column system enabled the transfer of columns into new posi-
tions, allowing for the enlargement of the lower floor plates while still maintaining col-
,:.u.mn-free
2. . lease space.
.*..
- I , Depending on the architectural constraints, groups of columns slope at different
floors. The sloped columns always form a symmevical system, whereby sloped
columns on opposite sides of the floor balance out the overturning forces resulting from
the slope. In numerous cases, columns are terminated upon pick-up tmsses, which are
also sloped to link up with their repositioned supporting columns.
A unique sloped column system occurs between the tenth and thirteenth floors,
where the four inside comer columns are supported by an A-frame. Each A-frame gen-
erates significant lateral forces, which are all balanced out by again balancing one cor-
ner against the opposite corner. The floor diaphragm, being the link between all
columns, plays a kcy role in transferring these balancing forces across the floor. The
mosi critical diaphragms arc the fifth- and sixth-floor diaphragms where, in addition to
supporting most of the sloped columns, the lateral wind forces are transferred from the
nerimctcr
r
to the core vertical w s s .
With some slopcd columns generating 7000 liN (450.000 lb) in lateral force, the de-
-
signer chosc lo place a 13.4-111 (a-ft)-deep steel horizontal truss within the floor di-
an-hraam. ~hese'trusses helo transfer the bind forces to the core while passing the
~~r~~~~
sloped column forccs around the core to the opposite sloped column.
At the core a vertical supertruss extends from the foundation up to the sixth floor.
The supertruss is constructch of steel wide-flange shapes, with the four comer columns
encased in 3000- by 3000- by 600-mm (10- by IO- by 7-ft)-thick L-shaped concrete
shear walls, thereby forming a composite steel nnd concrete supenruss. The supenruss
is divided into two parts, a large 13.7-111 (45-ft)-high truss between.levcls 6 and 3, and
a single X truss on each face of the core, extending from the third level down to the
foundation.
The transfer of latcral loads out of the oerimeter and into the core at the sixth floor
forntr an optimum conibin3tinn 01 the core and perimdtcr 1stur:il system,. Triinjfcmng
the wind lateral force\ to the core ;it ilie r i ~ i hflour results in zero uplilt forccs upon the
foundations.
I-+&&+..
Fig. 4.117 Eurl and west lncrr of pcrirnelcr tui,c: i\lcllnn Dunk.
!
230 Lateral Load Resisting Systems {Chap. 4 . S a d . 4.41 Tubular Systems
Sumitorno Life Insurance Building

Okayama. Japan
Architect Nikken Sekkei Ltd.

Structural engineer Nikken Sekkci Ltd.
Height from strcet to roof 75.3 m (247 ft)
Building use Office
Frame material Structural steel from 4th noor up: con-
crete-encased structural steel and shear
walls below i t h noor
Maximum lateral dcnection Not available
Design fundamental period 2.08 sec transverse: 2.01 sec longitudinal
Design acceleration Level 1 EQ, 20 mg; level 2 EQ, 25 mg
Design damping 2%
Type of structure Structural steel perimeter tube from 4th
floor up: arched conciete-enca5ed steel
fnrncs and shear u-alls from ground to
first noor
Foundation conditions Gravel
Footing type Raft
Typical floor
Story height 3.5 m (1 I ft 6 in.)
Beam span 9.9 m (32 ft 6 in.)
Beam spacing 2.5 m (8 f t 2 in.)
Slab 150-mm (6-in.) concrete on metal deck
Columns
Size at 2d floor 400 by 300 mm (16 by 12 in.)
Moterial Steel, grade 190 MPa (70 ksi)
Core Steel frame
The main structural system of this building is a nearly square tube structure, which em- Fig. 4.118 Sumito~noLife Imurnncr Building, Okoynmo, Japan,
ploys a peripheral frame in an integrated fashion (Fig. 4.1 IS). In appearance, tile tube
structure has no directionality. The peripheral hearing walls of the l'irst and second
floors support the upper structure a ~ i dhave a large arcli-shaped opening. The axial
forces of the external columns of the upper tube structure are transferred by the nrcli-
Tubular Systems
shaped bearing walls of the first and second floors to the L-shaped wall columns at the
four comers and thence to the foundations via bearing walls below grade.
The arch-shaped bearing walls of the first and second floors are of reinforced con-
crete construction with internal steel msses (Fig. 4.119). The embedded steel structure
is designed to remain elastic for long-term vertical loads and for short-term horizontal
loads. The bearing walls were modeled as flat plates and analyzed by finite-element
analysis. (The steel msses were taken into consideration.) Analysis of the earthquake
response was performed using a rnultimass model, which combined the upper tube
struchlre with the arch-shaped bearing walls of the fust and second floors. For acceler-
ations of 3500 mmlsec2 (1 1.5 ftlsec2) during a large ennhquake. the arch-shaped bear-
ing walls remain within the allowable elastic stress range. The primary natural period in
the vertical direction (considering vertical rigidity of the arch-shaped bearing walls) is
0.179 sec, so there was almost no response from the arch-shaped bearing walls due to
venical earthquake motions.
The typical floors (Fig. 4.120) are supported by 700-mm (27.5-in.)-deep trusses at
2.5-m (8-ft 2-in.) centers spanning 9.9 m (32 R 6 in.). The spnces between the truss web
members allow for the passage of ducts and pipes. The truss top chord is connected via
stud shear connectors to the concrete slab. The increase in stiffness results in a fre-
quency of vibration of h e floor in excess of 9 Hz.
Fig. 4.119 Fmmcnork; Sumitomo Life Inruruncc Building.

Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
Dewey Square Tower

Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Architect Pietro Belluschi Inc. and lung Branncn

Associates Inc.
Structural engineer Weidlinger Associates
Building use Office
Typical noor live load 2.5 Wn (50 psf)
Maximum lateral deflection 450 mm (I8 in.). 100-yr return
Design fundamental period 5.5.4.3 sec
Design damping I % serviceability: 2% ultimate
Type of structure Perimeter tube
Foundation conditions Stiff silty clay over compact glacial till
Footing type Mat. 1800 lo 2600 mm (6 to 8 ft 6 in.)
thick
Typicnl floor
Material Steel
an metal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor W350 by 1088 kglm (W14 by 730 Iblft)
Spacing 4.57 rn (15 ft)
Core Braced steel frame, grade 350 MPa (50
ksi)
. .. ......
After having examined many alternative systems, project designers at Weidlinger As-
Fig. 4.1ZU Txpicul structurui flour pins; Sunnitunls Lilc lniurdnru Uuilding. sociates concluded that a steel structure with a rigid frame around the perimeter was
most economical for this 46-story building and would resolve the requirements for in-
tegrating the structure with the curtain wall (Fig. 4.121). Ressstance to wind and seis-
mic forces is provided by the framed tubc forming the tower's penmeter. To economize
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Tubular Systsms
on field work, particularly field welding, spandrel units consist of trees with columns arranged to provide open comers, that is, the ladder section always ends with a beam
and welded eirder stubs. Field connections of the girders at the centerlinc between stub at the comer. This scheme avoided the complication of three-dimensional corner
cnlumnr are golted shear connections. columns with welded stubs eoina in two directions as well as the hiaxial bending prob-
lem of a comer column. since ail of the structure's lateral stiifness is proridednr~ound
~
Spandrel girders on lyptcal floors arc gcncrally 1143 mm (-15 in.) deep. \.:lr).ing irom
a minimum or900 mm (39 in.) at the lop oiihe building lo 1245 mnl (49 in.) a! lllc bol- the penmcter. nil interior bean-lo-beam connccliuns arc o i l h e simple sllcar type.
tom. Columns are built-up members 760 mm (30 in.) deep along the building face. ex- - the struclure. Exterior columns and inlerior
A varietv of steels is used throuehout
cept where rollcd sections are used above the thirty-third floor. Perimeter columns arc ~:&floor framing are of A-36 steel, girders and interior columns are A-572 grade 50, and
built-up interior columns are g n d e 42. High-strength steels were chosen where the de-
- - -
sien w& eovemed bv streneth considerations. Where the desien - is .primarily. .
aovemcd
b) dcfor~nalioncriteria. as for drturiur columns, lower-strength l e e i s ware oscd.
The lower has o slructural dcpth u i 36.57 m (120 it) ulth a height-lo-depth ratio of
. . --
almost5:I. This.. couoled with its unusual shaoe.. sueeested the useof a windtunnel test
!o verify both the magnitude and the local variations of wind forces. The wind tunnel
test results very closely matched the overall forces required under the Massachusetts
code. Local hoi soots here found to exist oarticularlv a t the intersection between the
tower and the atrium.
The analysis of the suucture for lateral forces yielded information useful for future
.
oroiects.
a -
It is well known that the effect oishear deformation becomes mnenified with an
increase in the depth-to-span ratio of the beam. Since in a frame such as this, the depth-
to-span ratio is on the order of 15. shear delormations contribute a large part of the total
lateral deformation of the swcture. Soecificallv. in this case it was found that the lateral
deflection due to drift of the buildingLan be aGibuted in roughly equal parts to:
Overall deformations of the frame (shear deflections)

Column shortening (bending defleclion)
Shear deformation of beams and columns
Since the girder webs are relatively thin compared to the column webs, the major por-
tion of the shear deformation is attributable to the beam web.
Wherever possible in the eslablishcd program, the steel fabricator elected to substi-
tute fillct weldine- for this connection between the spandrel -eirder flanees and the
.
penmuter columns. This was cltoscn w c r the specified full-pcnclmlion weld.
\VBcnevcr the ercction equipment uouid nllo!, the iabricnlor uscd 1-0-stor). tiers for
!hi. e~teriorcolumns. There cunsisted of the lull 7.62-m (25.11) columo. ~ i l htuo sp;in-
drel girder stubs oo each side. The spandrel girders were then bolted togcthcr nl mldsp~n
This method kept field \$,elding to 2 m~nimumas well ns expediting the erc:tlon
In erectine- the steel tower, three self-climbine - tower cranes were used in lieu O F the
more conventional two. This ensured maximum erection speed and facilitated the ercc-
tion of the precnst concrete panels, also p a n of the steel contractor's work. Dewey
Square Tower is granite-clad on the lower two floors, with precast rain-screen panels
- .
reachine from the third floor to the s l o ~ e d-class crown of the fanv-sixth starv. Contin-
uous bands of tinted reflective glass alternate with bands of exposed granite aggregate
set in white cement. S l ~ c t u r a connections
l for the panels were dcvclopcd wilh input
from both the panel fabricator and the steel contractor. The typical panel is attached by
two load-bearkg connections and two lateral connections shop-welded to the perimeter
columns. Floor construction consists of a 50-mm (2-in.) composite deck with an 83-mm
(3.25-in.) lightweight concrete topping.
The torvcr starts on a concrete mat two stories below . erade and rises 180 m (590 it).
f l ~ sI t - ru 2-m (6- to 8-frl-(hickconcrete m:ti reris on hardpan, nhi:h protrdcr ; ~ neco-
nnnli;;ii i b ~ n r l ~ t i uTilt
n are;, uf lhr. building surro~ndingthc i.>\\cr 113s cnlumns rdsting
Fig. 4.121 D e w y Squure Tower, Boston, hlnrsnchusctb. (Phoin lir S a w Rorrrirbn1.l on spread footings and incorporates an undcrdrain system below the subbasement slab.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect 4.41 Tubular Systems 239
Morton International
The 36-story structure has typical floor spans of 12.6 m (41 ft 6 in.). but spans vary-
Chicago. Illinois, USA ing from 19.8 lo 21.3 m (65 to 70 it) were required to span the railroad tracks. This was
Architect Perkins and Will achieved with n series of 6-story-deep Vierendeel frames consisting of two 3.05-m (10-
ft)-deep plate girders, one at level 2 and one at level 8, connected by fully welded ver-
Structural engineer Perkins and Will tical and horizontal members. For a building of this height, a braced core would have
Year of completion 1990 been the obvious means of resisting wind loads. However, in lhis case the railroad tracks
Height from street to roof 170 m (560 ft) lo top of clocktower
Number of stories 36 plus clocktower
Building use Office, parking, and retail
Frame material S l ~ ~ t ~steel
ral
Typical floor live load 2.5 W a (50 psfl
Design wind load deflection 330 mm (13 in.). 50-yr return
Design fundamental period 4 sec
Design acccleration Estimated 15 mg peak, 10-yr return
Design damping I lo serviceability
Type of structure Perimeter framed tube with transfer truss
at low level
Foundation conditions Stiff clay
Footing type Belled caissons bearing on hardpan
Typical floor
Beam span 12.6 m (41 f t 6 in.)
steel deck
Columns
Size at ground floor Built-up 1640 kglm (1100 Iblft) max
Spacing 4.57 m (15 ft) exterior; 9.1 by 12.6 m (30
ft by 41 f t 6 in.) interior
Core Steel frames supporting gravity loads only
The Morton International building comprises a 13-story base containing commercial
floors and parking for 450 cars, topped by a 23-story ofice tower (Fig. 4.122). The site
fronts the Chicago River and contains existing railroad tracks, which had to remain fully
operational during consmction. Almost a quarter of the site was unable to accommodate
any footings and the remainder rcquircd large spans across the tmcks. Several interesting
transfer systems were designed lo overcome the site restraints.
Pig. 4.122 Morton lntcrnnlionol. Chicago, lliinoir. (Plzoro I,? Hrdrich-Blerring)
240 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Tubular Systems
made this impossible and instead, a perimeter framed tube with columns at 4.57 m (15
ft) was adopted. The columns and spnndrel beams were shop-fabricated into 2-story-
high "ladders" with site-bolted web plate connections at midspan of the beams. This de-
sign saved 1360 tonnes (1500 tons) of steel compared to an original design with perime- Cesnr Pelli Associates
ter columns at 9-m (30-fl) centen. Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc
The 13-storv structure presented major challenges, which were overcome by three 1992
separate transfer structures and unusual construction rrquirrmcnts. Street-level concrete
transfer beams 2.3 m (7 ft 6 in.) deep nt 9-m (30-it) centers span the mcks lo allow a . ' Height from street to roof 256 m (840 ft)
regular and efficient column setout above. Number of stories 62
T h e recond transfer
~~~~~~-~ svstem occurs above the roof to the southern end of the build- Number of levels below ground 2
ing, where no footings were able to be provided in the tnck zone. Trusses with major
members built uo from six 100- by 600-mm (4- by 24-in.) plates suspend one side of the Building use Oftice, corporate headquarters, retail
--..-...-. Frame material Concrete
n l e third transfer system occurs between levels 2 and 4 and serves to redirect two
rows of upper columns into one row located to avoid the tracks. The entire vrnical struc-
Typical floor live load +
2.5 kPa (50 psf) 1.0-kPa (20-pst) parti-
tions
ture above these transfer frames u a s erected to the roof lcvel, and the roof top trusses
Basic wind velocity 35 mlsec (80 mph) at 10-m (3341) heighl
were erected cantilevering bcyond the floors belon. This section of thc bullding was
erected 90 rnm (3.5 in.) out of plumb to dlow for the sway induced when the can- Maximum lateral deflection HnOO, 50-yr wind
tilewred section was erected and partially loaded. Design fundnmental period 5.3 sec
With the roof top trusscs erected, perimeter columns wrre suspended ham the free Design acceleration 12 mg peak, 10-yr wind
ends of the trusses.and the floors were erected in a conventional manner from the bol-
tom up. To equalize dcfl:ctions and minimize difrcrentinl movement, a load-distribut- Design damping 1.5% serviceability; 2.5% ultimate
ing longiludinal truss mas installed at level 8 between the suspcndcd columns.'lhis truss Eanhqualie loading C = 0.53, Z = 0.15. Ru, = 7.0 intermedi-
served 3 dual purpose in that it was also designed lo redistribute the column load to ad- ate moment resisling frame (IMRF)
jacrnt columns should aroof-top truss fail. The roof-top trusrrs were providcd u,ith suf- Type of structure Perimeter tube
ficicnt capacity to allow them to cnrry t h ~ additional
s load.
Foundation conditions Clay of variable thickness, 4.6 to 7.6 m
- -.
This challeneine - received an nwnrd for Most Innovative Design of 1990 from
proicct
(15 lo 25 it) over weathered bedrock
the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois
Footing type 2.4-m (8-ft)-thick core mat on weathered
rock: 9- to 30-m (30- to 100-it)-deep cais-
sons (150 ksO. 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 it) in
diameter
Typical floor
Story height 3.86 m (I2 ft 8 in.)
Beam depth 457 mm (18 in.) posttensioned
Beam spacing 3.05 m ( I 0 it)
Slab 117-mm (4.625411.) lightweight concrete
one-way. 35 MPa (5000 psi)
Columns 1370 mm (54 in.) in diameter
Material 55 MPa (8000-psi) concrete
The Nations Bank Corporate Center is a 60-story. 256-m (840-fl) tall building in the
central business district of Charlotte. North Carolina (Fig. 4.123). The building is the
tallest in the southeastern United States and will dominate Charlotte's skyline into the
2151 century. From a heavy stone base, the building rises with curved sides and pro-
gressive setbacks culminating in a crown of silver rods symbolizing Charlotte's nick-
name, "The Queen City." The exterior surface materials arc rcddish and beige granite
and mirrored reflective glass; the granite piers narrowing at each setback. The building The smctural system selection followed an intensive four-phase scheme develop-
will serve as the corporate headquarters for Nations Bank. ment process. This process has been used successfully in swctural system selection for
A number of different feasible structural schemes were analyzed before Nations many other high-rise projects. The purpose of the structural scheme selection process is
not only limited to finding the most economical structural system. but to finding the sys-
Bank and the developer. together
- selected an economical concrete frame. A reinforced
concrd~cframe U 3 S ssl~ctcdbec3use it met both thc intricate geumetric rcquiremsnt, 01
thr. arcl~~tucr
;~ndthe d-munds of the detcloper for economy Sh3llow posttensioricd
-
tem that best resoonds to the overall buildine eoals. Nonswctural oorameters such as
u
impact on lc~sing,column sizes and locations, shcar wall drop-offs, construction dura-
concrete floors were used to span the 14.6-m (48-ft) lease depths and to achieve the de- tion, floor-to-floor heights, fire nling and intcgrntion wilh mechanical systems arc also
sired 3.9-m (12.5-ft) floor-lo-floor heights. considered. The entire-team oaiicio&d in theselection orocess
Thr. srleclcd all.concrcte scheme consists of a reit~forcudconcrele perimclrr lube
struculre witl~calum~is spaced on6.1 rn (20 ft)centers.Thc perimeter lrwnr utilizes nor-
mal weleht concrele with slrenclhs rancinc from 41.300 lo 55,000 Wa (6000 lo 8000
psi). ~h;external tube was selected because it was the most efficient late& load resist-
ing system. The tube also proved to be an economical method of dealing with the many
setbacks and column transfers imposed by the building architecture. The floor system
consists of a 117-mm 14.5-in.)-thicklichtweieht concrete slab soannine to 457-mm (18-
on
in.)-deep post-lension;d beams. The pasttenzoned beams are spaced 3 m (10 ft) =en-
ters and span as much as 14.6 m (48 it). The 14.6-111 span provides column-free lease
soacc from the core to lheperimeter.The shallow structural devth allowed the low floor-
to-floor height resulting in additional savings in skin cost. ~ i ~ h t w e i gfloor
h t concrete
was selected to minimize the building weight and to achieve Charlotte's unusual re-
ouirements for 3-hr fire separation. A normal weirht - concrete slab would have needed
lo be I50 mm (6 in.) tltick in order lo proiidc tlie Err. separation, substantially incrcas-
ing not only the b~ildlngwcighl but also ths floor-lo-floor hcight.
All lateral loads are resisted hv the external frame. The floor framinn- and core
columns 3re sized for gravity loads. Lateral load niumcnls imposed by compatibility uf
deformation uilh the cxtcrior frame were found lo bc ~nsignificanl.The corc columns
were shaped to be wall-like Column sires ranecd from 0.6 by 5.5 m (2 by 18 it) at the
lower le&l to 600 by 900 mm (24 R by 35 in.i at the top of the building;~hewalllike
colunm shapes integrated very well with the building core.
Fig. 4.123 Nutions Bunk Corporule Ccntcr, Ci~orlstle.North Cilrollnu.

Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems
Bank One Center The engineering for the 148,000 m' (1.6 million ft') project is as complex as the ar-
Dallas, Texas, USA chitecture. Extensive value engineering studies were done during design development to
Architect John Burgee Architects with Philip Johnson
.' analyze six floor framing systems and four wind framing systems. Design information for
each was provided to the general conuactor, who in turn smdied scheduling and prices.
Stmctural engineer The DatumIMoore Pafinership All four wind schemes were variations of the perimeter tube. For the early compar-
Year of completion 1987 :alive design studies, Dallas building code wind forces were used. The selected scheme
Height from skeet to roof 240 m (787 ft)
Building use Office, parking
Frame material Concrete-composite perimeter frame,
steel core
Typical noor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psO + 1.0-kPa (20-psO pnrti-
tions
Basic wind velocity 31 mlsec (70 mph) at 10-m (33-11) height
Maximum lateral deflection Hl500, second order. 50-yr wind
Design fundamental period 6.8, 6.5. 3.5 sec
Design damping 2.0% serviceability; 1.5% ultimate
Eanhquake loading None
Type of structure Perimeter tube
Foundation conditions 6.1-m (20-ft) shnie and weathered limc-
stone over unweathered limestone
Footing type
design allowable
Typical noor
Beam span 14.69 m (48 R 2 in.)
Beam depth 457-mm (18-in.)
Material Steel. A572 grade 50.50-mm (?-in.) com-
posite metal deck + 89-mm (3.5-in.)
1i:httveight concrete
Columns 610-mm (2-it)-square 100-mm (4-in.).
thick box column
Spocing 7.6 m I25 ft)
Material Steel. A572 grade 50
Bank Onc Ccnlcr is a postmodern to!\'er compictc rvith a monumental arched entry and
curved roo[ line (Fig. 4.12-1). The 60-story oflice tower also Ins an atrium banking hail
in its 6-story podium, semicircular arched roofs at the t\\,ent)'-sixth floor and quarter-
circle i,aulted skylights at the fiftieth, where the shope changes from rectangular to cru-
ciform. On top is a cross vaulted arch clad in copper and pmnite.
1 :!. Fig.J.124 Dunk Onc Ccnlcr, Dallus, Tcsar
has punched concrete walls at the building corners with infills of composite columns Central Plaza
and steel spandrels; floors have a composite steel heam framing system. Hong Kong
The building's nrchitecture requires a number of geometric changes as the stmctural
Architect Nu Chun Man and Associales
frame rises above the below-grade levels. The cruciform shape above level 50 created
two major structural problems. First, the perimeter tube had to be broken, leaving only Smctural engineer Ove Amp and Partners
two-dimensional rigid frames on each building facade. To control frame distortions un- Year of completion 1992
der wind loading, two-story X-braced frames were added in the core. This required Height from sweet to8 roof 314 m (1030 ft)
strenathened
- diaphragm
. - floors to allow the transfer of wind shear forces from the
irames to the pcrimetsr lube system btlou. Second, comer columns at the rccnuant cor- Number of stories 78
ncrs of the cruciform hod lo be transferred lo provide culumn-free lease space bclow Number of levels below ground 3
Icvel 50. Story-deep Vicrendccl trusses spanning 13.7 m (45 it) move these gravity col- Building use Oifice
umn loads 10tltc perinieter wind frame and to the cure. Because of the relationship be-
t!\e:n corc and perimeter columns. lhr trusses ltad lo be supponed nt the corc by two- Frame material Reinforced concrete
slury Vicrcndecl lrusscs spanning 8.5 m (28 it) to the building corc columns. Typical floor live load 3 P a (63 psfJ
Basic wind velocity 64 mlsec (144 mph). 50-yr rcturn, 3-sec
gust
Maximum lateral deflection 400 mm (15.8 in.), 50-yr return period
wind
Design acceleration Less than 10 mg. 10-yr rcturn period (ty-
phoon wind)
Type of structure Perimeter tube and corc
Foundation conditions Fill over clay over granite bedrock; gran-
ite bedrock. 25 to 40 m (80 to 130 it) be-
low ground
Footing type Machine- and hand-dug caissons to rock
Typical floor
Story height 3.6 m (11.8 ft)
Benm span 12 m (39 ft)
Beam depth 700-mm (27.5-in.) reinforced concrete
Slab 1 6 a m (6.3-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 2-m (6.5-A) diameter
Material Concrete, cube strength 60 Nlmm' (8500
P")
Core Shear walls 1.3 m (4 f t 3 in.) thick at base
Material Concrete, cube strength 60 to 40 Nlmm'
(8500 to 5800 psi)
When completed in 1992, Central Plaza was the tallest reinforced concrete building in
the \vorld (Fig. 4.125). The site is typical of a recently reclaimed area with sound
bedrock lying between 25 and 40 m (80 and 130 ft) below ground level. This is overlain
by decomposed rock and marine deposits, with the lop 10 to 15 m (33 to 1 9 ft) being of
fill material. A permitted bearing pressure of 5.0 MPa (56 ton/ft2) is allowed on sound
rock. The maximum water table rises to about 2 m (6.5 fl) below ground level.
Wind loading is the major design criterion in Hong Kong, which is situated in an -&
fluenccd by typhoons. TheHong Kong code of practice for wind effects is bared on amend:,
hourly wind speed nf 44.3 d s e c (99 mph). 3-sec gusls of 70.5 m/Sec (158 mph), and give$r,
,.
:!$!id,
rise to a l a t e d design pressure of 4.1 kPa (82 psO at 200 m (656 h),above pound level.
11 was clear from the outset that a multilevel basement of mnxlmum noor area
be required. The design of a diaphragm wall. extending around the whole slte perimeter,
i:f<z?md consmcted down to and grouted to rock, was completed in the firs1 week aher the site
waz acquired. This enabled construction to commence 3 months later (Fig. 4.1260 to c).
1
7 STRUCTURE
Fig. 4.125 Ccnlrol Plnzu. Hung Kong. (Cotarrery of O w Anlp und Pnrrncrs.)
Fig. 4.126n Ccnlrnl Plnm. Eicvnlion of building.
..,'
, ,.
...
~ % .
'.
-.:
,~.,..
~..
An initial planning assessmcnl had indicated that up to four levels ofbasement could
be required and the design produced catered for this. By the lime construction com-
menced, it had been decided that only three levels would be necessary, and the con-
struction drawings were amended accordingly.
The diaphragm wall design allowed for the basement to be constructed by the lop-
down method. This provided three fundamcnlai advantages:
TRANSFER PLATE
Elg. 4 . 1 2 6 ~ Ccntrnl Plnm. Derign wind prrsrurc concrcte scheme
A- A B-B KEY PLAN

Fig. 4.126b Centrnl Piuro. Slruclurui rterl rehcmc.
1 254 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4
materials commonly used for normal buildings in Hong Kong. In ordcr to reduce the
255
I
I
(1 11 ft 10 in.). The core hns an arrangement similar to that of the steel scheme and, just
above the lower base, it carries a .~.~ r o x i m a t e 10%
l v of the total wind shear.
size of the vertical structure it was decided to use high-strength concrete 128-day cube
strength of 60 MPa (8500 psi)]. This is the first private-sector development in Hong
Thc tnwcr b.asr slrtlcturc edge transfcr beam is 5.5 m ( I 8 it) deep by 2.8 m ( 9 i t ? in.)
Kong for which approval has been granted by the Hong Kong building authority forthe
u,ids around the pc"nletcr. This allnws 3llernatc 2olumnr to be dropped from the fac;!dc.
thereby upunirlg up ihc public srca at ground lcvel. The incrmsed column rpacinc, to- -
use of such a material. Considerable research took olace into materials and mix design.
and man) t r i i s were ~3rrir.dOJI, includtng mock-ups of the large-diamcler columns to
gether with the elimination ofspandrei beams in thc tower base, results in tl;e external
check on icmperaturc uffccls. As n result ofthis, cooling was introduced into the major
frame no longer being able to carry the wind loads acting on the building. Over the
pours.
height of the lower base. the core transfers all of the wind shears to the foundations. A
I-m (39-in.)-thick slab at the underside of the transfer beam transfers the total wind - - - it since it was
The use of hirher strcnrths was considered. but it was decided against
conidtrcd by the dt\,r.lopment team thlt the material chosen could bc produced with-
shcar from the cxternal fmme at the inner core below.
out difficult) front matcri=ls readily wailsblc in llong Kong.
The uind s h c x is taken out from lhc core ot the louert bosctncnt leucl, whcre it is
transftrrcd lo thc punmetcr diaphragm u,nlls. In ordcr to rcducr large s h c a rc\.ersals in
the core !rails in lhc bnsumcnt and nl the top of the tower basc lu,cl. thc floor slobs 2nd
beams arc separated horizontally from the core wnlls at the ground floor, basement lev-
.
els 1 and 2. and the fifth and sixth floors. To comolete the dramatic imoact ofthir
~ - ~
ing, the tower top incorporntcs a mast, which will be constructed of S l ~ c t u r a steel
l
build-
~
tubes
with diameters of up to 2 m (6 ft 6 in.).
The performance of tnll building structures in the strong typhoon wind climate is of
particular importance. Not only must the structure be able ;isis1 the loads in general.
and the cladding system and ic; fixings resist higher local loads, but the building must
also perform dynamically in an acceptable manner such that predicted movements lie
within acceptable standards of occupant comfort criteria. T o ensure that all aspects of
the building's performance in strong winds will be acceptable, a detailed wind tunnel
study was carried out by Professor Alan Davenpon in the Boundary-Layer WindTun-
ncl at the University of Western Ontario.
When complelcd, this project became the tallest reinforced concrete building struc-
ture in the world. For such a tall building it is not appropriate to adopt the strength of
tbl
J4
Fig. 4.127 Central Pinm. (n) Typlcol oficc noor plum. ( b ) Foundnllom. (Continued)
Hopewell Centre
Hong Kong
Architect Gordon Wu and Associates
Structural engineer Ovc Amp and Partners
Yevr of completion 1980
Height from street to I O O ~ 216 m (708 ft)
Building use Offices above parking and commercial
podium
Frame material Rcinrorced concrete
Typical noor live load 3 kPa (63 psfl
Maximum lateral deflection 150 mm (5.9 in.). 50-yrrctum period wind
Design acceleration 16 mg peak. 2-yr return period
Type of structure Pcrimctcr tube and inlcrnul core
Foundation conditions Srrund granitc very close to cround level
Footing type Pad footings an rock
Typical floor
Story height 3.35 m ( l l . 0 f t )
Bcam span 12.3 m (40 It)
Bcam dcpth 686-mm (27-in.) reinrorccd concrete
Slab 100-mm (5.9-in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 1A5 by 1.22 m (4.75 by 40 fi)
Spacing 3m(10ft)
Material Concrete, cube strength 40 Nlmm' (5800
.psi)
Shear walls. 762 mm (30 in.) thick at basc;
circular in plan
Material Concrete, cube strcngth 40 Nlmm' (5800
psi)
The I-lopervell Centre is situated on a steeply sloping site, one entrance being at ground
floor and asecond main entrance to the rear of the building at the seventeenth floor (Fig.
1.128). The tower itself is rounded on pad footings at levels varying between the un-
derside o r the basement and the third noor. Stability is principally providcd by thc
perimeter tube structure rormcd by 48 columns at a spacing o r 3 m (10 ft), linked by
1670-mm (66-in.)-deep spandrel beams at each floor levcl. Some assistance is also pro-
vided by the internal corc. Shears nre transferred to the foundations at the third-noor
level through a 157-mm (19-in.)-thick noor slab (Fig. 4.129). The entire verdcal struc-
ture was constructed using slip-formin€ techniques. The main office floors use a radial
h u m and slab system and were formed using fiberglass molds (Fig. 4.130). Uring these >. Fig. 4.128 Hoperell Ccntrc, Hong Kong. (Colmcry o/Ol,e Antp nnd Porrnrrrl
techniques, construction progressed at a rate of 4 days a floor.
(.
i
.~,:.
!.+
24.
xi
2 2 4 m rndiul
r 1
i
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS. TRUSSED TUBES
First International Building

Dallas, Texas, USA
Architect Hcllmurh Obata and Kassabaum. Inc.
Slructural engineer Ellisor and Tanner. Inc.
Height from street to roof 2 1 7 m (714 ft)
Numbcr of stories 56
Building use office
Frame material Struclural steel
Typical floor load 2.5 kPa (50 psn
M a i m u m lateral deflection Hl500.50-yr rcturn period
Type of structure Trussed tube
Foundalion conditions Limestone. 4.3-hlPa (-IO-ton/ft2) capacity
Typical noor
Story heigbt 3.81 m (12 ft 6 in.)
Beam span 12.27 m (40 f t 3 in.)
Bcnm depth 460.530 mm (18, 21 in.)
Beam spocing 3.81. 10.97 m ( I ? It 6 in.. 36 ft)
Slab 83-mm (3.25-in.) lightweight concrerc on
76-mm (3411.) metal deck
Columns
Size 31 ground noor 533 by 584 mm (21 by 23 in.)
Spacing -7.62 rn (25 it)
hlatcrial Steel. gmdc 350 hlPa (50 hi)
The 56-story First Internnlionnl Building with a Ihcighl of 2 17 m (71-1 i t ) lhas 176.500 m'
(1.9 million TI') of space (Fig. 4.131). There are an adjacent 13-story scli-perk gerngr
and a 10-station drive-up banking facility. Tendcm clcv;~torsllandle the venical move-
ment of building occupants during peak traffic pcriods. Each of the 2-1 passenger cleva-
tor shafts has two elcvalar cabs, mountcd one on top of the other and moving on a sin-
gle set of cables.
Thc exicriar dimensions of the onice tou.er arc 5 5 by 55 m ( 1 8 1 by 181 it). The sx-
terior column spacing is 7.62 rn (25 ft). Thcrc is n column-free span irom the core to the
exterior columns of 1 2 2 7 nt (10 ii 3 in.).
The design incorporalcs the trussed lube struclural syslcni in the exterior frame, uti-
lizing large X braces, each covering 28 floors. two lo a side. Because nftlte usc of large
X-bracing clcmcnts on the four exterior \valls to resist lateral wind forces plus some Fig. 4.131 Firs1 lnternolionni Uuilding. Dullas, Tcxor,
i
E
-
eravitv. loads. wind fmmes or m s s e s in the interior core are eliminated. The two X
breccs on each side consist of diagonal steel wide-flange mcrnhrrs whose ouuide di- _I
o 7 spaces at
mensions arc approximalcly 610 by GI0 mm (24 by 24 in.). The gusset plates art ap-
proximately 3 m (10 ft) wide and 3 6 m (12 it) tall (Fig 3.132).
7 25'4" = 175'4'' -3
.
Comer box columns 610 mm (24 in.]. sauare are used in the basement and are fabri-
cated from 152-mm (6-in)-thick stucl plates. These Inkc the henvieit loods accumulat-
ing from the diagonal bracing of two ridrwnlis. Tlts comer gusset asscmblics a r t L-
shaped in section and were welded by the electroslag process.
Another structural design concept is the stub-girder system. This minimizes struc-
-
tural costs lhroueh a reduction in the amount of steel reauired far floor framing
~~~ and a
~=~~
lessening of the building's floor-to,floor hcight. The built-up girder system consins of
stubs that arc fabricated onto ruucturnl beams (Fig. 4.133). nts \ride-flange beam acts
as a bouorn chord whcrcas lhc rhorl slubs act ;is u e b mumbcrr.'Ths 159-tnm (6.3.in.)
liehtweiaht concrete slab functions in c o m ~ o s i t eaction with h e steel or the too chord.
The overall effect is that the slab and beam'function as flanees.- ~whereas
~~ . the stubs func-
~~ ~~~ ~
lion as wch struts in a Vicrcnducl truss. Ills stub girders p~.rmitunubrrrucrud runs o f m c -
chanical ducts without web openings
~ - in llic beams. n ~ e also
y suppun
.. the scmicontinu-'
our floor beams.
An electrified floor svslem was used for the first time with the stub-eirder~~-
L
conceot.
Alro, a longer girder is uacd than in prcwous applications o f t h e s)slr.m. In addition to
-.
I! detailed cumputer anslysis of the stub.girder design for this project. actual load tests
were made to funher verify the desien concept
- .. - -
The buildine was tonoid out i n 6 6 weef;; from rroundbreakine and in 10 months ~
from the erection ofthe first piece ofsuuctural steel. Tlti; projcct recui\ed ~ l i cfirst Con-
suiting Eng~nccrrCouncil of Texas "Emincnt Conccplor Award for the h l o n Outsv,md-
ing Engineering Project" in 1974.
Wlnd oracing in exter or frames

t,p ca ai 10-r s oes
264 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 S e c t 4.41 Tubular Systems 265
Onterie Center
.I Chicago, Illinois, USA
0 .!,?i!:
3'4''
-k 7 spaces at 2 5 ' 4 = 1754'"-4 Ic A'&hitect Skidmore Owings and Merrill
Structural engineer Skidmorc Owings and Menill
Height from w e e l to roof 174 m (570 it)
Number of slories 57
Number oflevcls below ground I
Building use Commercial, parking, offices, apartments
Frnme material Reinforced concrete
Maximum lateral deflection Hl500, 100-yr return period
Design fundamental period Not available
Design acceleration Not available
Design damping I to 1.5% serviceability
Emhquake loading Not applicable
Typc of structure Perimeter diagonally braced frames, flat-
plate floors
Foundation conditions 27 m (90 it) of clay over hardpan
Fooling type 1.5-m (5-ft)-diameter caissons, belled to
3.6 m (12 ft)
Typical floor
Story height Apartments 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in.)
Slab 178-mm (7-in.) flat plate, spanning 6.1 by
6.7 m (20 by 22 ft)
Columns
9
'n
Tvoicai low rise floor lrarnino oian
Spacing 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in.) at perimeter
Mechanical duct Material 49-MPa (7000-psi) reinforced concrete
Core Not applicable
Onterie Center is n mixed-use 58-slory building near the Lake Michigan shoreline in
76114"
downtown Chicago (Fig. 4.134). The building has a total area of 85.000 m' (920.000
it'), which is divided into five distinct areas by function. On the ground floor is lhc main
public lobby and 1860 m' (20.000 ft') of commercial space. The single-level basement
W14 girder (ASTM A572 GR.50)
and the four floors above the lobby are a parking garage. Floors 6 to 10, at the tapering
base, provide ofiice space grouped around two interior atriums. The sky lobby at level
Seclion-builluo oirder 2 includcr a health club, swimming pool, hospitality room, and mechanical equipment
Fig. 4.133 Tspirnl fmming pian and built-up girders; First lnlcrnntionnl Building. space. The remaining floors 12 to 58 consist of593 one-, two., and thrcc-bedroom aparl-
ments (Fig. 4.135).
Because mixed-usc buildings need flexibility of core layout and column spacing, it
was desiiable lo utilize only the exterior frame for thc resisiancc of lateral loads. In ihe
t,
y
266 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 , Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems 267
3
' Onterie Center tower all of the lateral forces are resisted by closely spaced reinforced
i-
concrete exterior columns and spandrel beams. Additional lateral stiffness and struc-
), tural efficiency were achieved by infilling window spaces with concrete in a diagonal
j pattern. These panels act not only as diagonal braces but a shear panels as well.
The diagonal effect of the shear panels tends to even out the gravity load on the
;' columns and also to reduce shear lag in the tube frame under wind loading. The entire
; lateral load is thus resisted by two diagonally braced channels, located one at each end
of the tower structure. Interior columns carry gravity loads only. The absence of a lat-
eral load resisting core wall system allows a maximum of flexibility in planning interior
space and eliminates the problem ofdiifercndal axial shortening.
Threc-dimensional computer modcling was used to analyze both gravity and wind
load cases.
Pcrimctcr columns arc 480 by 510 mm (19 by 20 in.) at 1.68-m (5-ft 6-in.) centers.
The510-mm (20-in.)-thick infill panels contain diagonal reinforcing bars as well as hor-
izontal and vcrtical bars. The concrete strength for the exarior frames and interior
columns varies from 5 2 to 28 MPa (7500 to 4000 psi). The floors me flat slabs with
thicknesses of 178 mm (7 in.) for apanmcnts and 216 mm (8.5 in.) for commercial
floors, using 35-MPa (5000-psi) concrete. Interior columns are spaced at 6.71-111 (22-it)
centers. The external structural mcmhcrs are insulated lo minimize differential-temper-
alurc indurud dcfonnations bctu,cen purimctrr and inlcrnsl culumns.
The d~3gon;llshear panels used in the Otllcnc Center pruducc 2 high I c \ d ofstrac-
tural efficiincv and create a distinctive architectural appearance. A similar systcm has
been used on 780 Third Avenue. New York (see Fig. i . i 3 7 ) .
Fig. 4.134 Onterie C~ntcr,Chicago, lilinuis.

Fig. 4.135 Typieol pion, 13th to 57111noor: Ontcrie Center.
floor (the first of the residential floors) and the larcest . office floor at the bottom. The tn- 780 Third Avenue
p:r ir.:,, c\tendcd u p r ;,rd until JII ofthr. dc\clupcr's requircrn:ntr u.L.rc mL.1. The ~spcrcd New York, N.Y.. USA
fnrni .~lloa?dit c o r i l i ~ ~ u SoI~N Cs ~ U T L . In bc U I U ~nn lhe iilc:~dcI11 create 3 tapcrcd I U ~ C .
'Tllr. ,lnr~.turnl r!ilcrn consi~lsu i cnlumnb and spandrel bu:,ms ;tad diacal~nlcross Architect Skidmore Owings and Merrill
bracing, all acting together to form an exterior tube. The requirements of th; diagonals Roben Rosenwnsser Associates
Swctural engineer
imposed a very rigid geometric discipline on the building. The diagonals from each face
had to intersect at a common point on the comers so that wind shear, carried as axial Year of completion 1983
loads in the web side diagonals, could be trnnsfcrred directly to the flange side diago- Height from street to roof 174 m (570 ft)
nnls. The diagonal X bracing is continuous from face to face and is connected to the Number of stories 50
columns, allowing load lo be transferred from bmcing to columns and vice versa. The
beams are provided at the levels where diagonals intersect corner columns so that the Number of levels below ground L
diagonals could redistribute the gravity load among the columns. The gravity load in the Building use office
diogonals causes them to always be in compression under wind loud, leading to much Fromc material Concrete
simplified connections. The redirtribution of gravity load also allowed all columns on 2.5 kPa (50 psfl
each face to be made equal in size. Typical floor live load
A typical tier of the tube consists of a primary systcm comprising columns, diago- Wind lood New York City code. 1 to 1.5 kPa (70 LO
nals, and spandrel beam ties at levels whcrc the diagonals intersect columns at a noor 30 psO
level, and a secondary ~.syslem comprisin~ .
m:ir!' ctruclurc \ \ a 1 r ~ . q u ~ r c10d dc\,~.lnp
~
conunuity 3nd to tmos,nit ari:,l l o ~ d sThc

.
.
- the spandrel beams at other levels. The- nri-~~
131-
Maximum lnleml deflection
Design fundamental period
180 mm (7 in.) at design load
4.8 sec E-W: 2 sec N-S
t r h l load is rcsislcJ ROC> hy c:~ntil~.iur aslion ano ?OF b) f r ~ r n cxlion. 'fl~isis duc 10
111sdiayol~'llsc~calit)E:In almu\t onifur~ncolutnn lo;d dirtribu~iun:lurus5 tllc flancc
face: thcre is \,cry little shcar lag. Thc struclural cfficicncy is demonstrated by a steel
- Design accelenlion
Dceign damping
12 mg peak. IO-yr return period
I 4a serviceability; 2% ultimate
weight of only 1-15 kglm' (29.7 ps0. Earthquake loading Not applicable
The floors are a composite systcm of stcel bcams and a 127-mm (5-in.) semilight- Diagonally braced cxterior tube
weight slab. On aportmcnt levels the bcams arc arranged in such a way that lhey align Type of structure
with partitions and thcsoiiil oftlieslab is plastered and used as the finished ceiling. The Foundation conditions ~ o c k4. - ~ (40-ton/ft2)
~ a capacity
geometric discipline of the extcrior diagonal module is maintained by three typical of- Foodng type Spread iootings
fice story heights equaling four typical apartment story heights.
T o achieve simple joints, the columns, diagonals, and ties are all fabricated I sec- Typical floor
lions. The thickest plate is 152 mm (6 in.) and the largest column is 915 by 915 mm (36 Story height 3.5 m (I1 ft 6 in.)
by 36 in.). Interior columns were designed for gnvity load only, using rolled and built- Spandrel benms 380 mm (15 in.) deep
up sections. A36 steel was used for nearly all members. 380-mm (15-in.)-deep one-way joist and
Slab
Joints consist of double gusset plates to which diagonal members are connected by two-way waffle slab
grade A490 bolts. Spandrel ties are field-welded to columns above and below, similar
Material Concrete. 31 and 28 MPa (4500 and 4000
to typical column splices with bolted webs and partial-penetration flange rvclds. All
gusset plate assemblies were shop-welded with comer gusset plate assemblies requiring psi)
stress relief. Columns 1220 by 610 mm (48 by 24 in.) at ground
The simple derailing resulted in an crection rate of thrce floors per ureck. noor
Concrete, 41. 34. 28 MPa (6000. 5000,
4000 psi)
Core Concrete walls and columns: concrete
strength ns columns
The trend toward very high-rise construction in concrete has received a big boost due to
the adaptation of the first diagonally braced tube system to concrete swclures. The fifst
of its kind is the 50-story office building located at 780 Third Avenue,fiew York ( F I ~
4,137). which was completed in March, 1983. Its very slender aspect ratto of over 8:l IS
what suited it to this design approach.
The building contains ~ l 0 s to
e 46,500 m2 (500,000 it') of office space. Its struclural
system is a hybrid, utilizing thrce varied systems-a truss, a tube, and, to a minor ex-
tent, frame and sheor wall interaction of its remaining structural componenls. All SYS-
[ems interact to provide gravity and latenl load-carrying capacity at an efficiency not The building is 38 by 21 m (125 by 70 ft) in plan, with an overall height of 174 m
previously available. This hybrid system appears to rcmove any practical heigllt limit (570 ft), consist~ngofa4.4-m (14.5-ft)-high first story and48 3.5-m (11.5-ft)-high stan-
from design in reinforced concrete (Fig. 4.138). dard stories. Perimeter columns are 1.2 m (4 ft) wide, with window openings 1.6 m (5.3
The "concrete tube" consists of closely spaced perimeter columns which are con- ft) wide. The column h i c h e s s reduces From 610 to 457 to 406 to 356 mm (24 to 18 lo
nected at each floor level by spandrel beams. In addition, thc tube is braccd by a diago- i d t i 14 in.) a floors 2.20. and 32.
nal pattern of rectangular panels, in place of window openings, betwecn adjacent The spandrel beams, which arc the solid edges of the floor construction and are flush
columns and girders. bottom with the one-way and two-way joists. are 380 mm (15 in.) deep by 1 m (39 in.)
wide, except for those at the second floor. which are 762 mm (30 in.) deep by 610 mm
.-
174. in I wide
----, -~
'The concrete bracing panels arc of the same thicl;ness nr the ndjncent columns 2nd
are placsd integr~llyuith thc~ti.The purpose of adding bracing to the lube is lo reduce
illear log cffccts. and hence improvc the pcrfurmnncc of the struclurc for bnth gravity
and wind loading. Thc wide iscer o f t h c huilding h a w double diagonol bmcinp. w h c r e ~ s
thu nmoa iaccs hnvc only singlc diqonal bncinz in a rlgz;iy p;lltcrn.
'lhc concrsts rtrcngth of the columns and p:tncls varies 310110 IIIC huilding hcight.
Thc
- ~ maximum
~ - slrenath of 41 hlPa (6000 mi) is rcduccd lo 35 hlPa (5000 psi) in the
middle third and to 1 8 MPa (4000 psi) in'& top third of the swcturc. ~ h concrete e
strength of the floor members matched 31 MPa (4500 psi) with 41-MPa (6000-psi)
columns and 28 MPa (4000 psi) with the lesser-strength columns.
Another structural element in the building is thc set of elevator core walls. Because
oithcir small size and central location they are considered to be of secondary impar-
lance in their influence on the braced tube's behavior.
The wind pressure applied to the building is in accordance with the New York City
building code, increasing with lmight in steps up to a maximum of 1.44 Wa (30 psO at
thc 91.4-111 (300-ft) levcl and above. The results o f a wind tunnel aeroelastic test veri-
fied that thc code's wind-pressure requirements for the design of the structure frame
--
Fig. 4.137 780 Tllird Avcnuc, Kwr Tsrli. (Coi8rtc.r~r?rRnbm Rorm,>mrrer~s.~.roc) Fig. 4.138 Typicul l r n m i n ~pin": 780 Third Arcnur.
were not exceeded. The cladding design requirements were, however, upgraded on the spandrels was, lherefore, reduced significantly by the bracing. This is further supported
basis of the wind tunnel test results. The projected 10-yew return maximum accclera- bv the small increasein the overall deflection when the spandrel stiffncsses are asigned
.
lions of 12 mg registered well within the occepled industry limits for office structurcs. t i e large (50%) reduction to account for cracking.
Results from B e analyses performed for 780 Third Avenue that are of particular in- The deflection curve for the braced suucture with cracked bcams shows an increase
terest are those that indicate increased cracking and reduction in the effects of shear lag in drift of 4% at the top, and a minimum increase of approximately 7% at about mid-
by the bracing on the column forces of an unbrnced tube structure. height. The maximum drift per story, however, which occurs in the middle region of the
Results of sensitivity studies and the influence of the panels on lateral sdffness are building, was hardly affected.
illusmated by the deflection curves in Fig. 4.139. Evidently cmcking in floor members The small influence on the overall lateral stiffness of the braced structure of a 50%
is very detrimental to the stiffness of unbraced tube structures (curvcs I and 11). but of va~iationin the moment of inenia of ihc spandrel beams indicates that their flexural
only secondary importance in braced tubes (curves 111 and IV). The stiffening effect of stiffness, and therefore their depth, in the braced tube strucmre are of secondary impor-
the brncing is demonsvnted both in the reduced sway and in the modified-mode shape tance. Their primary rolc is to nct as ties or struts in developing the axial forces in the
of the deflection curve (curve I versus curve Ill). The unbmced lube deflccts in a wall- intermediate columns.
frame configuration, with concnvity downwind in the lower pan, concavity upwind in Figure 4.140 indicates ihc placement of the panel reinforcing. The column and span-
the upper part, and a point of contraflexure at about two-thirds of the height. The braced drel bcam reinforcing was extended through the panel, which was also reinforced with
tube deflects in a more strongly flexural shape with a much higher point of contraflex- lieht orthoronal reinforcements to minimize ihc size of accidental cracks. Collector re-
L
ure. The component of Lhe mbe's deflection due to racking shear of the columns and inforcing. suppicmunliog litc rpandrcl rcinforccmcnts, war added to i i ~ clop and buttom
of the panel tu ;lugmcnt the lcnrile ruquiir.munts at the intcr,uctions Splicer an the m ~ i n
rw~odrelrcinforu:mcsts aerc slaggurtd -- tu providc for lcnsilc forccr in the .p:!n~lrcl
beams.
The construction of the concrete structure, from first footing to roof level, took 13
months to complctc. Thc building required 16.000 m' (21.000 yd') of concrete and 21 SO
tonncs (2400 tons) of reinforcing bars. A 3-day construction cycle was easily main-
taincd for the typical floors (a Z d a y cycle would have been possiblc with ovcrtimc).
Direction ol
force in
diagonals
Spandrel
reinfc.
Collector
reinfc.
Column
reinfc.
Diagonal
reinfc.
Collector
reinfc.
HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION (fl)

Spandrel
IV BRACED TUBE-UNCRACKED RFAMS
- -- -- - reinfc.
111 -- -
- - BRACED TUBE--CRACKED BEAMS
II TUBE ONLY-UNCRACKED BEAMS (1.1
Fig. 4.139 Dclleclionr olrlructurc. Fig. 4.140 Urucing punel rcinfureirlg luseul.
Tubular Systems 277
276 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 S e c t 4.41
Hotel de las Artes

Barcelona. Spain
Architect Skidmore Owingr and Merrill
Structural engineer Skidmore Owings and Merrill
Year of complclion 1992
Height from street lo roof 137 m (450 fi)
Building use Hotel
Typical noor live load 2.87 kPa (60 psD
Basic wind vclocily 40 m/sec (90 mph) at 30 m (98 St)
Maximum lateral dcflcction H/50O, 50-yr return period
Design fundemcntal period 5.2 scc
Design acceleration Not applicnblc
Design dantping I % sensiccobility
Earthquake l o ~ d i n g No1 applicable
Type of structure Diagonally braced lube in tllc form of
mefa portal frames
Foundation condilions Dense sand
Footing type Aufcred straighl sltnft piles construc~ed
undcr bcntonitc slurry
Typical noor
Story height 3.00 m (9 it I 0 in.)
Bcam span Office 9.2 m (30 St)
Bcom depth Orlice 157 mm ( I 8 in.)
Beam spocing Office 4.6 m (15 ft)
hlateri;~l Sleel. A572, grade 50
Slab 75-mm composite metal deck 60-mm +
12.4-in.) concrete + 55-mm (2.1 in.) scc-
and-pour concrctc
Colun~ns
Sizc st ground floor W350 by500 1bIf1inlerior: \\TA4 21 e h l e k r
Spacing 9.2. 13.8 m (30. 45 St)
hlolcriol A572 grddc 50
Corc Braced lo p a n belr.cen mega brncing
pencl points; rlcel-braced rrilrnes in or-
thogonal directions
The Motel dc las ilrtcs tower is the ,must prominent par1 of n multiusc cornplcx in
Barcelona. Spain. consislinf o i 5-slur luxury huteliapartment units. commercial oiiics
space. retail. porkin.. and beallll club f:~cililics(Figs. 4.141 and 4.142). Thc project is
luc3tcd along Barcelona harbor, overlooking the hlcditcrranetln Sea, and u a s colnpielcd Continuing a long tradition at Skidmore Owings and Memll. thc uchiteclural form.
in time for the 1992 So~ltmerOlgmpic G m e r The Hole1 d r 13s Ancr- i.;- o:tn ..- .-.
-. - n,.p,.
-..of:$"
all plan to provide new infrastructure and private development of individual building
crnression. and aniculalion of the tower a 2 all bascd on thc beauty and esrccnce of the
expused, pninled stmclurol stecl fume. The archi~ecturnllyexposed X-braced framer lo-
parcels in the Olympic Village area. The lower is envisioned as one of the focal points cated on the building periphery nrr organized on a Cslory [I?-m (39-R)] module. These
in the reawakening of Barcelona as a major European capital. frames form a fully three-dimenrianol iystern resisling nll wind and seismic 1atcr.xl
. ~ .nr--well
forces ~ ~ siavitv.load. o st he Full building inertia is uti-
as abortion o f t h e tower -
lized, n very eifici'ent lalcnl load resisting system is obmincd, with very lillle stecl
ueight abort that requircd lo resist the toucr gravity load.
From thr: archileclural point of view. a clear articulationof the cxtcrior slmclurc was
desired. which is charactcnzed by the crisr, aro~ortionsof steel I b e a m , columns, and
hilf-an .,. members. -.
~-~ . as well as the honest exbressfon of thc connectins ioints. both bolted
2nd ucldr.d.The cxtenor cunnin wail is set back 1.5 m (5 It) from the pcrimrler. thereby
nrovidins n c l e u architsctural expression of the exposed X-braced slcrl frame. An open.
; e b l i k e ; ~ c ~ r e allowing the play of daylight through the frame, much desired by the
architcctural design team; was-bainncedbythe need for robusmess and slructurnl in-
tegrity, particularly at the memberjoinls. Exterior frame members were chosen on the
basis of erectabilily, connection detailing, nccessibility for slcel painting and future
maintenance, and visual considerations related to the architectural aesthetic.
The issues of corrosion and fire protection were addressed in engineering the exte-
rior exposed steel fmme. Corrosion protection for the exposed steel members is pro-
vidcd by a durable fluorocarbon paint system designed for long life under the coastal
marine environment, consisting of a shop-applied primer, undercoat, and finish coat.
with a sccond finish cont applied in the field after erection of the stecl frame. The non-
fireproofed exterior structure was anolyzed using the latest slate-of-the-art fire engi-
neering mcthods developed in Europe and the United States. Analytical methods to de-
termine the steel lempcrnturcs as well as the charncler and nature of n number of
hypothetical design fire events were stndied. High-tempernNre structural analysis of the
entire huildine frame comaleted the fire eneineerins
~ - - desipn.
-
A simple, straightforu,nrd architcctural cornpoiition expressing thc inhercnt function
of the Slruclural frame, thl: Hole1 de Ins Ancs loner represents n prominent !\or),com-
hinine architccmre and ,uuctur~lrngincuring, marking a major intcm3Uonnl cclubra-
tion in Barcelona during the summerbf 1992.
Fig. 4.142 Frurnvsurli: Holcl dc lur Art-.

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, BUNDLED TUBES
Sears Tower
Architect Skidmorc Owings and Merrill
Structural engineer Skidmorc Owings and Mcrrill
Year of complelion 1974
Height from street lo roof 443 m (1451 it)
Number of stories l I0
Building use Omce
Typical floor live load 2.5 Wa (50 p s 0
Maximum lateral deflection H1550. 100-yr relurn period
Design fundamcnlal period 7.8 scc
Design accclcration 20 mg peak. 10-yr relurn pcriod
Design damping 1.25% scrviceabilily
Earthquokc loading Not applicsble
Type of structure Bundled framed lubes
Foundation conditions 18-m (20-it)-deep steel-lined concrcie
caissons
Footing type Roft
Typical floor
Story height 3.92 m (12 fl 10.5 in.)
Truss span 22.9 m (75 fi)
Truss dcplh 1016 m n ~(10 in.)
Truss spacing 4.6 m (15 ft)
76-mm (3-in.) metal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor 990 by 610 mm (39 by 24 in.) built up
Spacing 4.6 m (15 it)
Core Not applicable
The Sears Torvcr is the world's lellcsl office building with a height o f 4 4 3 m (1454 it)
above ground (Fig. 4.143). It conloins 362,000 m' (3.9 million it') of oflice space in 109
slorics.
The setbacks in tile facade result from reducing floor areas required by tenancy con-
siderations. Sears. Roebuck and Company required large floors for their opcrotions,
whereas smaller floors were best for rcnlal purposes. The adopted bundled tube concepl
282 ' Latsral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 .
Sect 4.41 Tubular Systems 283
provided nn organization of modular areas which could hc terminated at various levels
r
to create floors of different shapes and sizes (Fig. 4.144). Each tube is 22.9 m (75 ft)
square, and nine such tuhes make up n typical lower floor for an overall floor dimension ..
of 68.6 m (225 ft). This square plan shape extends to the fiftieth floor, where the first
tube terminnlions occur. Other terminations occur a1 floors 66 and 90, creating floor ar-
eas of 3800 to 1100 m'(41.000 to 12.000 ft21.
The structurr: acts as; venicni canlilc\,er Lxcd at the hase lo resist wind loads. Nind
square rubes of varying heights ;Ire bundled together lo crcale ihr larger ovcnll tube.
Ench tubr comprises columns at 4.58-m (15-11) centers connected by stiif bcnms. Two b
"7
adjacent tuhes share one sel of columns and henms. All column-to-he& connections are
.
fullv welded. At three levels. the lubes incornorate trusses.. orovided to
column loads more uniform where tuhe.drop-offs occur. Thesc trusser occur hclow
~- m&e the
~~~~~~~~ axial
~~~-
N
N 3' cellular deck
floors 66 and 90 and between floors 29 and 31. I1
21/2" It. wt. cond
D
The two inarior frames connect opposing facade frames at two intermediate points, 'ul
therehv reducing the shear Ian effect in the flanee frames. This reduces the oremium for r-
hcigbt~onsidcr;~bly as shoun by the relnli\ely-lou unit stmctur;il rtccl qu;oli~g of 161
Lglrn' (33 pro. The uind-induced sway is nbout 7.6 mm (0.3 in.) per atory, and tltc fun-
z
damental period is 7.8 sec.
The 22.9-m (75-ftl-square floor arcos of each tube are framed hv one-wav trusses
m
spanning 22.9 (75 ft) i t 4.58-m (15-ft) ccntcrs. Each truss conneci dircctly'to a col-
umn with a high-strength friction-grip bolted shear connection. The span direction o r
these 1NSScs was alternated every six stories to equalize gravity loading on the columns.
The tmsscs are I020 mm (40 in.) deep and utilize all of the available depth in the space
between the ceiling and the floor slab above. The spaces between the diagonal truss wch Typical lraming plan (levels 1 lo 50)
members allow the passage of up to 530-mm (21-in.)-diameter air-conditioning ducts. (a)
Benms and columns are built-up I sections of 1070- and 990-mm ( 4 2 and 39-in.)
depth, respectively. Column flanges vnry from 609 by 102 mm (24 by 4 in.) at the hot-
tom to 305 hv 19 mm (12 hv 2.75 in.) at the too. and henm flanres from 406 bv 70 mm
(16 by 2.75 k.)to 254 by Li5
mm (10 by 1 in.j. A total of 69.000 tdnnes (76.ion tons)
of structural steel was used in the project, consisting of grades A588, A572, and A36.
The steel-tube structure was shop-fabricated into units of two-story-high columns
.. . -
and half-span heams each side. tvoicallv weiehine 14 lonnes 115 tons). The shoo fahri-
cation climinatrd95560f field uelding. ~ u t o m a t r d r l r c l r o s l aweldini
~ was usedior thc
hull aulds of hcnms to columns. The continuity plates ocrors columns at the joints ~ c r c
fillet-welded by the innershield process.
Because site storaee sonce wns unavailable. the frame units were delivered exnctlv
when needed and lift&! oif the truck into place. Except for column splices, all field con'-
neclions were grnde A490 high-slrength friction-grip bolts in shear connections. Exte-
rior columns were insulated to limit the average temperature differential between these
columns nnd interior columns.
Modular lloor conliguralion

(bl
Etg. 4.144 ScorJ Tower.
Rialto Building
Mdbourne, Australia
>,.'.,
Architect ~ e m r dde PrcuPenott Lyon Mathieson
.. . ,
..... Pty. Ltd.
. .
Structural engineer Meinhardt Australia Ply. Ltd.
Ycar of compiction 1985
Hcight from sUcel to roof 243 m (797 fi)
Number of storles 63
Number of levels below €101 2
Building use Office
Frame nlatcrial Concrete
~ y ~ i cfloor
a l live load 4 W a (80 psfl
Basic wind velocity 39 mlsec (87 mph). 50-yr return
Shear lag behavior
Design fundamental pcriod 6.1 scc
Design damping 3% serviceability: 510 ultimate
F ~ R4.144
. Srnrs l'cmrr. ~ C ~ ~ n r i r , , , ~ d ] Earthquake loading Not applicable
Type of strucmrc concrete core with concrete perimeter
frames
Foundalion conditions ~ a s a l tover sands and clays over mud-
stone
Fooling type Caissons 1500 or 1800 mm (5 or 6 ft) in
diameter. 18 m (59 ft) long, socketed inlo
rock
Typical floor
Story height 3.9 m (12 f 9 . 5 in.)
Bcam spdcjng 5 m (16 ft 5 in.)
Slab 120.mm (4.75-in.) lightweight concrete
:-,, .
g;
?t:
Columns
,?I; Size at ground floor 1.2 m (4 ft) octagonal
,.*a
2.
..?. Spacing
5 m (16 f t 5 in.)
rt Concrete. 60 MPa (8500 psi)
:,z
s!. htaterial
.<
,.,:
L. Core Shcar walls. 750 mm (30 in.) maximum
.-
"~:
thick at ground floor
hlatcrial Concrete. 60 MPa (8500 psi)
A number of structural systems for the Rialto Building (Fig. 4.145) were initially in-
vestigatcd and a reinforced concrete swctural system was finally adopted, with speed
of construction being a prime consideration in the dcvclopment of formu,ark and rein-
I
:>,
.2,:
;.
forcement dctails
Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.41 Tubular Systems 287
The external frame or coluntns and beams, urhile being designed for the direct dead
.. -
and live loads aoolicable. acts as an external tube i n resirtine lateral load. Althoueh the
plan shap: i r uns)t~t~aetricaI 3ad tltc colutons arc 5 m (16.4 i t ) apart. ;lnaly$is 01 lhu i n ~ d
tmnsfer ardund the uurners indicated re>runxblc thrce-din1:nsiunal action. l h l : corner
beams connecting the end columns are most oecessary for Lhis action. The tube effect
also provides forsome latcrnl distribution of load from thc more heavily loadcd columns
(Fig. 4.146).
Thc service cores, being the major elements i n the structure, were the subject o f a
number o f detailed considerationr. No sizable penerrations or rebates were permitted i n
the main walls. Sizine ofthe walls was not oolv for Iondine considerations. but !v\'as the
suhjcct ofrhrinkngc 2nd 2rr.r.p usti~natiun~ 2nd r~.fiocmcntfor buildlng pcrfornlsncr.. F i -
n d checking afthc intcrnctillc corcl rind r.\tr.rn;jl frames u.2~cxried out using n tl>r~.i..
dimcnrionxl l i n i t u - ~ I ~ . , l ~on:~l)sis.
snt
Design u i n J 102ds i n th? b.ulding wcrc calculated ~ ~ i mctcorological n g d313 3s13il-
z~hlc.Thc huil~lingi r of S L C ~3 beigttt, rile. 2nd s l e e d ~ r ~ ~ that
~ aths
s diifr.rcnt : ~ p p r u ~ c h
tclocitiu* 2nd wind dcrcctiurl, nurr qignilicant ~n the dciig~t.\ \ ' i d tunncl tsats dutr.r-
mlncd design prcssurds 10, hoth the iruilding ;and the facade. Frntn thc north, elst. and
rvrrt. terrain category 4 (1.36 applicable. ~ l t i l c[ram th~.south, with Port Phillip R3g be-
in^ 3 k m (?,. mi) distnnt. tcrrain~cnteeorv
~
- . I was considered above level 30
Tlic i;,icr>l projcctirm of thc h ~ ~ l d i n beingg, s.ynmctric31. inducer 3 $rind fnrcc un
thc s t r ~ c l t ! rt~h ~ t n.ll >luj!s cnnfc,rrn a1111lhs c ~ n l e ruf J t i f i n ~ s rTi16
. pr,r1111dlr.r
bcnms and cores have bccn modilied to align thc ta,o centroids as closely as possible at
all lcvels: homevcr, a section of tllc building between levels 24 and 40 is subject to a
twisting force. Thc calculnted drift at the top of the tower undcr maximum design wind
forces and incorporatina this twisting i s 230 m m (9 in.).
A major consideration addressed and rcrolved early i n the design phase was the as-
pect o f shrinksge and creep o f lhc concrete structure. Most buildings of [his size r\,orld-
u,ide are steel framed and not subicct to these tvocs ,, of mo\~emeots.
.An nsaussmeol i,i111~1C I :xnd ~ shritlkagl: U VL.~ICII
I ulemcnls in llic prujecl $$asc:lr-
r i ~ out
d i ~ r ~ h i usen g uf rurcar:lt dht3 i l v ~ i l btcurnlhe
l~ United Srille~.USL~~LLI?~~:C \;$I-
ucs derived for material properties and predictions wilh regard to weather and building
.
orouram. a comouter .oroeram = .
was deselooed taking = into account member size. concrete
str~.ttgth,r:inforcr.m~.nt ratio, age ;I 1o:iding. I~umidtty,loldittg condit~uns.and cre:p and
sIirink3g~.d~velopm~.nt. I t N ~ anticip:~tr.d
S th;it thc total nonelartic .~hon~.nisg oithe 65-
storv to& would be on order of 1% to 200 mm (6 to 8 in.). Provided allowances are
~itsdei n tlte atlachntest of non-ln~d-bu3rinb ciements such its l ~ frt~ i l atid
s the faode, the
magnitude u f l h i r nnnvlastic dsform;~tiottis ttot i i g n ~ i l c i n t .HU\I~\L.I, cliff~r~.nccs i n tltc
msnilude uf ihnnkage ;md crsup inirltirt :1 1x11 concrete structure 15 3 ntajur .ulljcct n f
concern, and this is p&ticularly rclc~,anti n the case o f the Rialto towers.
- -
Lone-term differential shortenine bcr~veenthe central core and nerimelcr columns at
the top of a typical tower building can be readily catered for as the distances between
thcsc elements are usually large. Thc combined shrinkage and creep lo be expected af-
ter construclion of the upper levels o f the Rialto lO\\.er5 indicntcd differential rnlucs of
10mm (% . .. in.). i n thecase o f towerB and 1 1 m m (% . . in.). i n thecascofto\verA.Thc min-
i m ~ nsp:~ns
l d ( 3 2 11) 2nd 7.0 i n (23 it), r-sp:cli\ely. I-lot\c\r.r. o * tun -
i n ~ n l l ~r c~9.7~ 01
d r i \ 2nd B furm a n intugr~tr.ditruclurc. 3 differr.nti:~l\i~lul:un the urdcr of 38 inn1 (1.5
in.) could he -.\PL.CIC~ bct~ee11 >di;lc~.nlc ~ l u t ~ l ill
n r I~.!el -41 (IoNL.~ B rnnfj ~ U L . 10 ef-
fects o f the addiiional I 7 levels o f k w e r A. The distance between these columns is only
.I111 (13 ft). ;~ndclcnrlg ru;h inotcntcnt, u:tn~tut hu tolr.r3tsd in a ~ o n s t c ~ ~ cu ti ti t~l inr !la-
lore. Jointing oflltc t u ~ c r se l r not 3ccepli~hlc.2nd tlte ~rovisiortnfi!.'h:lt"xt this l e \ ~ 1
was unsuitnblc to Lhe architecture, as !,,ell as inducing a long-term out-of-plumb ofthe
Fig. 1.115 Riulto Building, hlrlbuurnc, Austmliu, top o f tower A.
The solulion arriied at uas to "play a cunfidcnce lnck" on lo!rer 5,nlabng lhe
structure '.bcliwc" it is 17 slorics Inllur. Prcrtrcrsing cohles are provided from lcvel I
to level 38 and stage stressed as tower A conslrucdonproceeds. Thereby nll columns be-
low level 38 are subject to the same loadings at the same time, and therefore elastic and
nonelnstic shortening values are relatively consistent for the lifetime of Ule building
(Fig. 4.147).
Fig. 4.147 SLnged slresring; Rlnlla Building.
Fig. 4.146 Fluor pions; Riallo Uuilding

290 Lateral Load Resisting Systems Tubular Systems
N6E Building
Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, Japan
Architect Nihnn Sekkei Inc.
Strucmnl engineer Nihon Sekkci Inc.
Height from street to roof 189.6 m (622 it)
Number o r stories 46
Building use Offices and retail
Frame material Stccl
Typical floor live load 5 kPa (100 p s n
Basic wind velocily 35 mlsec (78 mph)
hlavimum lateral deflection HtZOO. IOO-yr rctum
Design fundamental period 4.56.4.75 scc
Design acceleration 35 mg pcak. 100-yr rcturn
Design damping 1% rcrviceability; ?% uldrnate
Eanhrluakc lr~ading c = 0.0533
Type or structure Dundlcd tube
Foundation conditions Clay and rand o\,eigravrl
Typical floor
Story height 3.95 n~ 113 ft)
Beam span 19.6. 16.4 m (6-1 f t 1 in.. 53 it 10 in.)
Beam depth 800. 600 mm 131.5.23.5 in.)
Beam spacing 3.2. 3.6 m (10 fi 6 in.. I I it I0 in.)
Slab 135-mm (5.15-in.) reinforced concrcte
Columns
Size at ground level 600 by 600 mm (24 by 24 in.)
Spacing 3.z.3.6 m ( I 0 Cl 6 in.. I I It 10 in.)
Core Fremcd tube
The plan dimensions of the N6E Building ore 92 by 39.2 m (302 by 128 it), which is
quite large (Fig. 4.148). The core location caused eccentricities that could not be rc- Fig. 4.148 NGE Building, Tekyo, Jupnn.
duced using shcar \raallsor bracing systems, so the bundled tube r).stcm was adopted to
ochicve a symmetric structure and lo avoid torsional problems (Fig. 4.1491. This mas
done at the expense of reduced span lengths and incicased numbers ofcolumns.
The building response was estimated using ail available data as well as the along-
wind and cross-wind power spectra end cospectra, which vary with the building heighL
Ail cslculetions were donc forl: J. and lorsional directions.
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.41
Carnegie Hall Tower

New York, N.Y., USA
Tubular Systems 293
I
C e s u Pelli and Associates (desim)
. :.. Brennan. Beer, G o m a n Associates
. 2,: L
Structural engineer Robert Rosenwnsser Associntes
Height of street to roof 230.7 m (757 ft)
Building use Office
Basic wind velocity 47 mlsec (105 mph). 100-yr rcmm period
Maximum lateral deflection Approx Hl500. 100-yr return
Fig. 4.149 Typical structural plnn; N6E Building. Design fundamental period 4.8 sec E-W; 3 scc N-S: 2 sec torsion
Design acceleration 20 mg peak. IO-yr remm period
Design damping 1% serviceability: 2x7'0 ultimate
Type of structure Side-by-side concrete tubes
Foundalion conditions Rock. 4-MPa (40-tonlft') capacity
Footing type Spread roolings
Typical floor
Story height
Beam span and spacing
Beam depth
3.66111 (12 ft)
Vnrying
457 mm (18 in.) interior; 762-mm (30-in.)
I
Slab
Columns
spandrels
One- and two-way, 230 mm (9 in.) thick
Size and spacing vary
i!
Material Concrete. 58 MPn (8400 psi)
Core S h e u walls ( p u t of tubes); thickness
varies; concrete as for columns
At 230.7 m (757 11) in h?iphr. Camepie IJall Tosser ia the iccond 1:~llestconcrcle rlruc-
lure in N r u York Cily and thssighth tollssl in the wnrld ludly (Fig. 1.150). With a 15.2-
nl (50-TI)-ulde~nnnllTdce and 1 2?.9-m (75-r1)-wide south race. which olfsc.1~lu a 15.2-
m (50-it) face above the forty-second floor, this 62-story SlNClUrc is the most slender
habitable building of this height ever constructed (Fig. 4.151). The structure occupies the
narrow site bctween the five-story Russian Ten Room and the 100-yeor-old Cornegie
Music Hull. The structure's nrchitect. Cesar Pelli Associates, dictated the structural
scheme by "sculpting" the structure to complement the existing music hall. The double
(side-by-side) tube structural system that resulted rvss actually defined by filling in all
the available spaces bctmeen the desired windows with concrete. This resulted in nonuni-
formity in column size and spacing.
Fig. 4.i5U Curneglc Holi Tower, KEIVYolk.

The nonuniformity in the size o f the columns at a level was also extended venicolly Allied Bank Plaza
-~offseu
-~~~~- and larecr or
Houston, Texas, USA
as -~ smaller window sizes dictated relocation or alteredcolumn sizes.
Often Viercndcel nction u,as nerdcd to terrninntc venical eletncnls at vlrious locations Skidmore Owings and M c r r i l l
Architect
.Y.*::.:,h
without the benefit of trnnlfer girders. This occurred on the nonh and south walls and
above the fortv-second floorrif the south half of the west wall, which spans over the Stru=tuml engineer Skidmore Owings and M e m l l
-~-
enlareed haze: Vicrendcel action was also reauired direcllv above lhe ihroueh-block
~~ ~
plrjags at the ground floor and at sevcral othcr localions.

Year o f completion
Height from sueet to roof
1983
296 m (972 it)
A center u r b (perforated by lobby egress requirements), common to ihc1u.o side-by-
side tubes. w m needed to heln Ule north- and soulh-wall columns to efficienllv connect Number of stories 71
the C ~ S I nDngc. wall to l c w&t flange wall with minimum shmr lag. A ~ l e r c n d e ecol- l Number o f levels below ground 4
umn (skipping alternate floors to minimize the lobby obstructions) u,as introduced to rc- Building use OlEce
ducc the clear span u f ihc center wcb. This Vicrcnducl column i s the only intcrior cul-
uolutttns and t h ~~. . I e v a l n r c o rwi!lls.

~
- -
umn i n the stru;ture. which othewisc s u. .o o o ~dl rrnvitv loads b v thhexterior tube
The large c l x r spms o f 9.1 m (31 it) and more bc-
Frame material
Typical floor live load
Stmctural steel
2.5 W a (50 psO
1,vccn the elevator core and tlic u c r t wall wcrc spanned wllh 230-mm (9-in.) slabs nnd Basic wind velocity Unavailable [force = 196 k N l m (13,400
shnlluu beams ,157 mm (18 in.) deep. This f r a n l i n ~for gravity loads proved to be [nore Iblft) for 100-yr rclurnl
economical than one-way ioisu; o r w a f f l e slab coislruction bccausi i t orovided more
Maximum lateral deflection H/500. 100-yr return
mdss to rcsist uplift forct~s?rolnwtnd loads and to reduce bullding acccl~rations.I t also
pro\idcd c x t n height to accommodate mcchanic:,l systems so that with 3 lutal slog. Design fundamental period Not available
height 013.66 m ( I ? it). 3 ceiltng height o f 2.7 m (9 i t ) uas maintained. Design acceleration Not available
TIISdouhlc tuhc design relics hcavily on 760-mm (30-in)-deep spandrel beams to Design damping I% serviccnbility
tnpage 211 tltc vcntcnl suppuns to rcsist thc rxind actio~iand to equalize the SI~L.SSCS due
to gravity l o ~ d si n all suppons rugardlcss ofthcir smr. The tube's venical rttcmhers var- Earthquake loading Not applicable
i t d bstr\,cen l R O and 2590 mm (19 and 102 in.) i n length (parallel lo tltc cxtcrior) and Type o i structure Pcrimeter framed tube; diagonally braced
included a solid concrete wall behind the service core &a to the cast. The structural de- core with outrigger trusses
sign cnnsidcrcd hoth the relasation duc to long-tcrm crccp and 5hrinkagc ofthe concrew Foundation conditions Stiff clay
mumbur, dnd the instnntaneous demands ofthe wind iurcer.
Ennugh gmvity loads % v ~ . r:lassmbled
r. to clitninatc the possibility of tension duc to Footing type Mat 2.9 m (9 f t 6 in.) thick
wind in the vertical supporn and to ict the gravitational loads anchor the structure. A Typical noor
few rock anchors at the west end o f t h c center web were added to enhance the vbilitv of
< -~ Story height 4.0 m (13 i t 1 in.)
the web l o cngspc llie flanges cv6.n under larger lateral loods than dicvatcd by the Nerr
York City cndc or the wind tunnul ru,ults.
'lllc prelintinary design considered both steel and concrete. Conuol ofthe ourceotion
of motion w i t h o u i a u x i l ~ mmeans such as damoers was found to be nttainableonlv
. . Bcam depth 530 mm (21 in.)
~ ~ -- - - ,with
~~
--.. Beam spacing 4.6 m (15 it)
tit: concrete allerrtalivc because of ihs larger damping 2nd weight of a concrete stmc- Steel, grade 250 MPn (36 ksi)
Material
lure. H u ~ c v L . ~1S. a prt~iluliun.because o f its extreme slendcmcss. the stlucturc was ds-
signed to accommodate a pendulum-type damper. Field meaurements, after the struc- Slab 83-mm (3.25-in.) concrete on 76-mm (3-
ture was topped out, indicated that dcsign predictions were accurate and n damper was in.) metal deck
not needed. The anticipated accelerations, projected from these load mcnsurcments. Columns Built-up. 1016- b y 610-mm (40- by 2 6
should not exceed 20 m g for the 10-year return pcriod. in.) pcrimctcr: 610- by 610-mm (24- by
Concrete was pumped i n to the full height o f the structure. Concrete strength i n the 24-in.) interior
columns did not exceed 58 MPa (8400 psi) because the use of silica fume i n New York Spacing 4.6-m (15-ft) perimeter: 9.15- b y 6.1-m
City was still questionable at the time the structure was designed. For this and other (30- by 20-it) intcrior
slender structures, stiffness, weight. and damping are the important parameters diclat-
ing the slructurc's behavior. The design for acceptable perception o f motion oRen ovcr- Material Steel, grade 250 and 350 MPa (36 nnd 50
ksi)
rides othcr more mundane design requirements such 3s strength and stability.This aruc-
lure together with its earlier slender siblings (Metropolitan Tower. Cityspire, and the
Concordia Hotel) ore prototypes of the future mcgastructures of the neat generation o f
1:~.
'
~-:
i.
%..
core Braced steel frame, gradc350 MPa (50 h i )
I d 1 SLIUCLUres. 3.22
h
Allied Bank Plazn was designed to relate strongly to the buildinps around it. Situated on
:I<
?!:
a site which is essentially the center oldowntown Houston, the building has a major tm-
,:2.
pact on the western iacadc ofthe city; which is the most dominant view of its skylinc.
:$ In form and mnterials, a design was sought which would be distinctive but would Scr\pC
.*.,
4:
;?2
~:&:
&?.
*P~
to complement and tie together its surroundings. A form that tnovcd and flowed was felt Givine" the buildine a human scale was another imoonant asoect or the desianer's in-
b
to be nppropriatc, one that wns sort and sheer rather tltan 1t;lrd and opaque like the gran- tcnlions. Unlike many recent buildings, which are sheathed in reflective glass and appear
- - -
ite and steel rectnnnulnr buildines around it (Fie. 4.1521.
The resulting semicurved lower was uchievcd by juxtaposing two quarter-cylindcr
only as a huge mass. the swcture of the Allied Bank Plaza is subtly cxprcssed with veni-
-.
cal&d horizonml mullions. A formal o o m l on theeastsideoflhe b$ldi"eorovides asense
shafis (Fig. 4.153). The 71-story tower is sheathed in dttrk green rcflccdve glass, cho- of cnlr).. Slncc h5rc or the public u n e r r the tun~~el-cotittccted
dounloun buildings st the
sen for its sheer quality and rcsponsivencss to light. Tite combination o r p l a n s and underground lcrel. Allied Bank PICA o l r ~ r st l i ~olily entnnce directly from the SU~L.Iand
curves in the building's design will allow a cconrtant intcrplay of sunlight un its surface. combines the tunnel with M open-air plaza, including landscaping and a fountain.
A bundled tube frame is the ~ r i m a r vlnrcral svstem for the 71-storv 296-111 1972-ftl-
1211 186.OUU.m' I? mtliton 11') .iilisd 63nk lorie;. The shape is forme> by luo'quanr;-
circlcs placcd ~nus)mmctricall! bout thc m ~ d d l ctuhulir line. Tiis colun~nsp~cing5brc
1.57 m ( l j it) \kith the usuil tres-l)pe construction. Thc systcm ilso uses irvo v~micll
trusses in the core, which are connccied to the exterior tube by outrigger and belt wsses.
-
Sienificant imorovemenl in tubular behavior is obtained bccause o r the oarticioation of
the INSSeS. This sysrcm, thcrcrorc, embodies elements from the framed tube, bundlcd
tube, and truss rystcme with bcit and ouvigger trusses. The truss system provides another
transverse frame linkage in the curvilinear part to improw its shear lngchnrnctciisticn.
The structurai system for the Allied Bank Plaza towcr was sclcctcd after study of
both steel and composite systems. Tite system permitted a substontially reduced con-
s w c t i o n time. The tower's form and slcndcrness arc a radical departure from past rcc-
tnngularbuildings of this height. yet the inherent rigidity or the bundled tube system dc-
veiooed for the tower limited stccl w c i ~ h to t 128 ke/m2 126.2 nsn.
cant reductions in design wind pressure belorr' that experienced by square or rectangu-
lar rorms. The tower is founded on a 2.9-m 19-ft 6-in.)-thick mat roundation aooroxi-
malely 20 m (65 ft) below grade, which pc;mits utilization of four lowcr lcdels for
necessary retail, mechanical, and parking lunctions.
Fig. 4.151 hliird Unnli I'inzn. Hoartun, Tcsits. tPbrlio I?HedN'rS-Blcrriag.1

300 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 301
4 ~ 5 HYBRID SYSTEMS The Intcrtirst Plaza in Dallas (not described in this Monograph) uses supercoiumns
in conjuncrion with an almost conventionai steel frame, and the Columbia Seafirsl Ccn-
ler in Scatllc incorporates very large supercolumns connected by slecl diagonal mem-
Tall buildings hdve been lraditionllly designed lo n l o k use of 3 rlnglc type uf Inlcr~l bers.~?a braced steel core. Another example, although never built, is the Bank oTt11c
In3d resisting system-inttially s ~ m p l cmoment resisting frames 2nd then shcar wall Sou*\t.est tower in Houston. Hcrc eight giant concrete columns form the chords of four
s\,rtcms and frimed rubes. Until ~ h radvent . of economical, c3sy-lo-use. high-capacit) vcrtiFi\ steel megawsses.
cbmouter hardware and software. structural svstems had to be amenable to hand calcu-
I;ttioc or cumpuler a n ; ~ l y s ~usit~g
s limitcd-c:tpacity nlach~nts.Notvnda).~computcr ca-
..
The orcvious cxamnles sueaest that hvbrid slructures are likelv to bc the rule rather
I I I ; ~the exccplion for'luture r e g 1x11 buildings, a hsther lo crest; scccplahle dynaloic
pacil) l s nu1 ;an issue, and decisions on slructural syilcms art made on 1h~'basisof1h:ir ~ l ~ i ~ r ~ c I ~ ~orr i10
s t ilccun~~nodatc
ics thc cu,npie\ .Il:tp~.s dtm3ndvd by modern ;!rchilcc-
r.ficcts on the xppcdrance and funclioning of the building and on its cnnaln~ctahil~ty. ture. Hybrid structures are not somcthlng be tackled by the novice cnginccr armed
& & . " is nc&otable-lhe e&ineer
This is not to sieeest that on,*l/~i,in~ - musl still be aware of with a oarveriul microcornouter and a structural nnalvsis software 'oackaee. as a sound
u
111,: pi1p~II5 ofcrc3ting ;~bruptdiscnntimriticr in building sliffncrs. the Ions-tcrm cffecls knowicdgc and undcrstanding of material behavior (such as ductility, damping, creep.
nf dilf:rcntial ixi31 siloncninp. and other side effccl, of using mired systems and mul- and shrinkage), which is not included in analysis and design packages and mostly no1
tiple materials. codified. is essential and construclabilitv must bc a oarallel consideradon. However.
An excellent examnle of a hvbrid svslcm is the O ~ ~ e r s eUnion as Bank Center in Sin- \vithour hybrid structural systems many of our modern tall buildings may n e w 1 have
gdporc. Here :.b r x t d stcvl fr:,n:c rvas used b:causc ofils lightnos. lnng sp:inniog ihd. heen bull1 in their presenl form.
)I!, small metnbcr aizss, absence of crccp shancning. and. combined with ioncrcle
a h e ~ tralla.
r for iL\ r c r \ cost.r.fficicnt contribution to l>ltral stiffn~ss.
.
Another tvoe, of hibrid svslem " -. .
eaininr! oooulsritv is the concrete-filled steel lube
column, u.berc lhe r.rcct3bility of n str.ci framr: is 111iinlaincd.but the c o s l . ~ f f c c l i ~3 ,~- c
i;! In-d uapacily ufhiglt-rlrcnpth concrete is u ~ e dThe stecl tube pruvidcs cunfincmcnt
lo the concrelc much more eificiently than normal reinforcement does, and it is on the
extreme outside. where il is most effective. Of course fire orolcction must bc consid-
ered. If the slecl tube is considered ns sacrificinl in a fire, then inlernal reinforcement
sufficient for the reduced loading normnlly prescribed for the fire limit state must be
provided. If external fire protection is provided, lhcn internal reinforcemcnt may not be
. .
needed. If concrete can be oumocd into the column from ihc base of each Dour. then a
number ofstorics can be concreted at one time and vibration of the concrele is not nec-
.
essary. Examples of such a system are Cnsscidcn Place. Melbourne, and Two Union
Square. Seattle.
The rrends of modem architecture sometimes force the structural engineer away
from convention in a search for a struclure that will nccommodale ocsthctic and func-
tional demands while meeting struclurnl requiremen*. The result may be a structure
which on one face of the building is of a different type than the other faces, as in Geor-
eia Pacific. Atlanta. or a S I N C ~ U ~ ;with a number of quite different clemenls formine i s
Lateral load resisling frame, an exccllenl example being First Bank Place. ~ i n n e a ~ o l i s .
Here the engineer has provided a braced steci core connected via outilggcr beams to
large high-strength concrete perimeter columns, incorporating cast-in fieelwork lo aid
erection and connection. Although this systcm provides in-plane stiffness. its lack of
torsional stiffness required that additional measures be lakcn. which rcsultcd in one buv
oi tr.ruu.ll cxterior hr:lcinp 2nd ;i iturnher ui l:vcl. of pcriln~.lr.r\'lerc,dr.cl 'b..o-
J.iges."-pr.rl~aps unc of lhr h~.rtcaamplcs of the an uf$~ructuralcngin~'rring.
Wilh t l r adtctll of high-r~renglhcottcrcle [uuncrclc ;1buv~'50>!PAor (70UU psi,] 113,
come ihe era of the "sipcrcolumn." where the stiflncss and damping cnpabjlities of
larre concrete elements are combined with the liehiness and conslructabilitv of stecl
li:unus. I-l~gI~-r~rungtlt uortcmte. \$hen 11 irlclrrdu, silicz fumc ;mi 3 high-rarrge ivu:<r r d -
du:x ~sopr.rpl;~*lic~rer). exhihits signifir;tntlg lnsrer c r q and shrinh~ge;!nd l a ihcr~.-
iurc ~nursreadily accu,nntndnl~.din 3 1h)bri~lfrsme. 'Thc rel:itivc clic:!pncss of hi$-
strength concrete together with the facl that large members do not require large cranes
(or any cranngc at all ifpumped) mcans that thc columns can be economically designed
lor stifiness rather than for strength.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Overseas Union Bank Center

Singapore
Architect Kenzo Tange and Unec/SAA Poflncrship
Structural engineer Meinhardt Asia Pty. Ltd.
Building usc Commercial. rctuil, office
Frame material Stccl with concrae walls to sL-~irsand core
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 pso
Basic \\find velocity 37.7 mlsec (84 mph). 1000-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection 448 mm (17.5 in.)
Design fundamentnl period 7.3 scc
Design damping 1% ser\'iceability; 3% ultimate
Earthquakc loading Not applicable
Type ofstructure Hybrid system of steel frames rvith con-
crctc ~ i ~ stol incrcasc
l~ rigidity
Foundation conditions Silty sand. sandstone. siltstone, claystonc
Footing type 7 caissons 5 lo 6 m (17 to 20 it) in disme-
ler. 100 m (328 i t ) deep. belled to 9-m (30-
f i ) diameter
Typical floor
Story height 4 m (13 it 1.5 in.)
Benm depth 950 mm (37.5 in.)
Beam spacing 4.32 m ( I 4 it 2 in.)
h'lalerial Steel, grade 5 0 and 43
Slnh 150-mm (6-in.) concrcte on metal deck
Columns
Sire at ground floor 800 by 600 mm (31.5 by 31.5 in.)
Spacing Varies
htoterinl Steel, g n d c 55 and 50
Core Hybrid stecl frame with concretc wall
zoncs
Thickness at ground floot 600 mm (24 in.)
htalerinl Slccl. g n d e 55 and 50; concrete. 45 MPa
(6400 p i )
The Oversear Union Bank Ccnler (Fig. 4.154) is a prestige state-of-the-art dei,elopmcnt
designed to house the bonk's lleed oflicc and provide renval office, commciciul, and
Sect 4.51 Hybrid Systems
parking space in Raffles Plnce. Singapore. The high-rise section is conceived as two vi-
sually scumate triangle towers (although structumlly~. integral) facinp. each other on the
.
hvooienure.
, - ..
A service core and a w i a n i ~ ecolumn in one comer oroAde suooort for the
higher tuwcr. The loner tower is supponcd on n smaller triangular colutnn and no L-
shaped column. The slructurc has hei~ht-to.widthratios of 10:l on the south cluvxion
and 8:l on the north elevntion. he hirh-rise structure ~rovidescolumn-free soace
-
throuehout its full heieht above nround 6. i r . 4.155).
The high-nsr slruclurc is framed using high-jicld structural steel. The princip,l
rolumnr we fabricated box columns framing the cieratur ,hafts and flanged T si12pea IU
conform to the wall lines and minimize encroachment into the elevator shaft arca:
Simply supponed stt.el w s r r s 950 mm (37.5 in.) dccp spaced at4.32-01(14-it) ceo-
ters in an cast-west direc1i.w support the large column-free areas. These trusser xrc dc-
signed to act compositely with the concrete floor system.
The floor system consists of areinforced concrete slab composite with a 63-mm (2.5-
in.)-deep ribbed steel deck. The concrete slab is a total of 150 mm (6 in.) thick in order
to maintain a sufficient concrete thickness, after reticulation of services. for the rcquircd
fire separation between levcls. Fire protection of the s s e l frame is provided by lipht-
weirht mineral fiber (Firs. 4.156 and 4.157). LEVEL FLOOR
The high-rise structu& is supported on h total of seven caissons ranging in depth
from 96 to I10 m (315 to 360 ft) and in diameter from 5 to 6 m (16.4 to 19.7 ft). Thc
caissons are belled at their bxse and carny Lheir load in end bearine on solid rack
Development of the most efficient siucmrai system is the essintial prerequisite to
optimization of the design. The choice of ryslcm drsmatically affects the quality of the
material required in the design.
The family ofstructural systems based on the tubular concept has provided the types
most widely used to date for high-rise and ultra-high-rise structures. However, it has be-
come necessary to seek new structural systems lo respond to changes which have taken
place over the last decade, including the very strong influence on high-rise buildings of
evolving architectural forms with many large open arens which extend through m;ltiple
floor heiehts. RISE
'The d'ecision to use structural strcl in lieu oiru~niorccdcuncrelc for thc?SO-m (91%
(1)-hlph O U B tou'cr e a s dicta1c.d by ruuctural consideralions rxhcr t h ~ necnnunlics
(Fig. 4.158). The following are the principal f3ctors that dcturmincd the ndoptiun o i
structural steel in lieu of concrete.
I. T h e asymmetrical geometry of the.structure resulted in higher stresses in the

columns supporting the higher triangle thnn in those supporting the lowcr trion-
gle. This caused unequal column shortening from creep and a consequent lateral
movcmem of the slruclure.
2. Differential movement (creep) occurred between the reinforced concrete supcr-
columns in the primary megasystem and the swctural steel secondary system
within the portal frames of the megastrcturc.
LOW RlSE FLOO"
3. The dimensions of the vertical structur~almembers had become gross. resulting in
loss of floor space and presenting substanrial planning difficulties, both archircc-
turally and in the distribution of building services.
ELEVATION
4 . Tile sujl conditions were poor. jnd :! sp:cihl and cos~l'yfnusdatinn wr.3~nccus5:lry.
Structural hIcrl kccpr \he weight down cu~npsrcdlu v cuncrct: stmcturc, rsdu:.
Ink buth the difficulty and the cost of footingr.
5. 'The use uf high-yield steel restllted in light:r, snlaller, and leas cnstly structural
nlembcri nhich svuuld sa~isf>the system stiifncas crilsria. ~ 1 64.155
. ~ ~ ~ r npiln~ gnnod
r elcmlion; Ovcrscns Union Bunk Ccnlcr.
I
306 Lateral Load Resisting Systems Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 307
[Chap. 4
The composition of the structure is one where lhe stcel frame provides the skelcton
ofthe structural system, with the bracing and reinforced concrete walled zones acting to
increase the rigidity of the building (Fig. 4.159).
The individual elemena (steel frnme and concrele walls) nre both capnblc of func-
tioning independently in the trnnsfer of vertical loads from the top lo the foundations.
However, as elements used in conjunction. h e concrete provides restrain1 to the slecl.
allowing the steel frame to be fully stressed as an isolaed component.
Control of dilferential creep between concrete and smctural steel was investigated
extensively, taking into considcrntion axial shonening of the 5 t ~ ~ l u rslcel
a l columns.
the construction program, and the bracing of the steel smcrure during erection. The
likely stresses in the concrete elements and thc steelwork were considered in both the
short term and the long term. The analysis indicated that the oplimum was for the con-
crete clemcnls lo follow behind the steelwork by approximately four lo five lcvels. The
maximum allowable differential was the concrctc elemcnls lagging 24 levels behind the
steelwork. The final optimized solution for the OUB structure is a mixed-frame hybrid
structure, providing an effective SlNClUrc utilizing the hest properties of slccl and con-
crete to achieve the minimum cost.
SERVICES ACCESS
1
/
LIGHTWEIGHT FIREPROOFING
Fig. J.156 Flctor plan: Olcrrcns Union Dunk Ccnlcr. Fig. 4.157 Piun of reinrorccd concrcle wollr: Orerreus Union Bunk Centur.
Sect 4.51 Hybrid Systems
Hhbrid .,truclurs in n u n h g n f cottaidsra~iunas 3 cnttsciot>rdesign ilppr03cl1. 7.111: US?

01 reittfurccd coucrstc ulsmcne l o contrul thc dcflcclion and dynamics o f loll steel 51mc-
turcs provides an effeclive altcrnadvc smclural svstcrn that bill ailow the dcsiener " to-
malrerull use o f the higher allowable stresses o f 'high-yield steels when other bracing
systems are inefficient or unacceptable architecturally.
TYPICAL BRACED
FRAME
PLANT F:LOOR TYPICAL

TRUSS -R.C. SHEAR
WALL
Fig. 4.l5Y I'rinlurysl,cur $ ~ usyslcrn;

ll 01.errcus Uniun nonh Cunlrr.
fig. 4.158 Slrutturirl r l c c l ryslunl; O ~ u r l r i ~Usian

r Bunk Ccster.
Citicorp Center
Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 I Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems
daring appearance, with all four of its corners jutling 0 ~ 1 2 m

3 (76 it) unsupportc~Crom
New York, N.Y., USA only four exterior columns, one centered on each side, which free-stand for a he~ghtof
34.7 m (1 14 it) at the base (Fig. 4.160). The central core also suppons the tower. This
Architect Hugh Stubbins and Associates with unique structure was not designed this way arbitrarily just lo achieve a dramatic effect.
Emery Roth nnd Sons Thc site. a city block in Manhattan, was purchased fully except for St. Peter's Lutheran
Slructuml engineer Church on one comer of the block. The church agreed to sell its air rights, but would
LeMessurier Consultants with office of
James Rudeman
Building use Office, retail
Fmmc material Steel
Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psf~
Basic wind velocity 41 d s e c (92 mph). 100-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection HI600 at I-Wo ( 2 0 . ~ ~seniceability
0 load
Design fundamental period 6.9. 7.2 scc
Design acceleration Less than 20 mg peak. 10-yr return
Design damping Measured 1.1 and 0.9% serviceability in-
creased by TMD to 4% each direction
Type of structure Braced perimeter tube with braced core
below 9th floor; TMD at top
Foundation conditions Manhnnnn schist
Footing type Steel bore plates on grout on rock
Typical floor
Beam span 10.3, 12.8 m (33.9.42.1 ft)
Beam spacing 3.81 lo 3.91 m (12.5 to 12.84 ft)
Slabs 63-mm (2.5-in.) lightweight concrete on
76-mm (3411.) steel deck
Columns Pairs of 965 by 762 mm (38 by 30 in.) max
by 3421 kg/m (2294 Iblft) at 5.74-111
(18.83-ft) centers at center of each side of
building
Material Steel, grade 350 MPn (50 ksi)
Core Moment frame above 10th floor, braced
frame below
Materiol Steel, grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
This 60-story tower contains an area of 102,200 m' (1.1 million it') of the project total
of 167.200 m' (1.8 million ft'). The 47.8-m (157-ft) square lower has a dramatic and
312 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 S e c t 4.51 Hybrid Systems 313
allow no columns of the office tower to pass through its facilities, and it required that a half of the tower gravity load down to the four base "legs," one centered on eoch side.
new church building be designed and constructed in that comer with its own distinct ..- svslem.
The
~ - ,~ . because it rcoeals a n each face o f t h c tower. is also very cflicienl in resist-
identity. This last requirement led the architect to place the first office floor more than iug wind lorcus, hoth shcar and ovcrlurning, slnce il forms a cumpieke brncsd lubc. A
46 m (150 fl) above the streeL ncal rtructural touch rvar the omission of the corncr columns at Ihc floor just bduw lllc
The most direct and economical way lo achieve the 23-m (76-it) comer cantilevers main a i a ~ o n a inlcrsection
l uith thr corner cvrry. cichl
- storics. This was to avoid accu-
on each face of the typical tower floor was to provide a steel-hmed braced tube with a mulating gravity load in the corncr columns and gives unobstructed corncr views as a
system of columns and dingonnls in compression, channeling the building's gravity bonus.
An 8.8-m (29-it)-deep perimeter truss on top of each of the legs carries the gravity
loads into a 1.5-m (5-ft)-wide "mast" column in the center of each tower face [Fie.
4.161). The main dingonnls repeal in eight-story modules. The compression diagonals
. u
lnadr ofthe
- lowest seven floors to the center lees. The wind shear is transferred through
are restrained by horizontal tcnsion ties at four-story intervals. This system brings one- the tenth-floor diaphragm at the top chord level of this truss over lo the diagonally
bnced elevator core, which carries it down to the foundation. Wind overturning forces
continue from the superstructure mast columns through the legs to the foundation.
.. - tvoical
The ,, office floors arc framed with convendonal steel beams, with a light-
weight concrete slab on clcctrificd undcrfloor slcei deck (Fig. 4 162). Thc core has mo-
rns~~~-cunncctcd lr3mus in nrdcr lo provide a syrtsm to delivcr floor-by-noor wind
lorccs lo the h r ~ c c dtube .pancl .
poine occurrin~-cvcry.lounh story. and lo allow $honer
unbraced lengths ofthc main compression members.
~ ~ ~ ~ ; ,
, , .
Fig. 4.161 Eic~.utiun;Cilicorp Ccntcr.
315
314 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems
The wind tunnel study for the tower, conducted by the University of Western On- CenTrust Tower
tario. Canada, indicated rhat persons on upper floors ofthe tower t ~ ~ o u experience
ld un- Miami, Florida, USA
comfortably high lateral sway accelcrations in wind storms. In order to reduce nccclcr-
Architect I. M. Pci and Partners
ations to acceptable levels there were only t\vo possible approaches: add a great den1 of
mass and latcral stiffness withour increasing the natural vibralion period, or add to thc Structural engineer CBM Engineers. Inc.
building's natural damping. The first approoch would lrave cost about 55 million. Year of completion 1985
whcrsas the second approach \vould lhavc required increasing the building's damping
Heighr from rtreel to roo1 178 m (585 it)
from about 1 to 4% and designing and constructing the \r,orld's firs! tuned mass da~npcr
(TbID) of anywhere near lhis size. Tllc second approach was adopled at a final cost of Number of stories 48
less than one-third of the first approach. The inilial step was to convince thc arcl~itect Number of levels below ground None
and owner; then the slruc1ur;ll cngincer hod to find a \\,a). to actually do it. Fortunately. Office
LeMcssurier Associalcs u r r c able lo cnlisl the technical assislance of Prof. Alan Dav- Building use
enport of the University of Westcrn Ontario. Prof. David \Vnrnmley of M.I.T., and tllc Frame material Concrete
firm of MTS Systems Corporation of Minncilpnlis. The lauer firm provided the detnilcd Typical floor live load 2.5 kPa (50 psf)
mechnnicsl. clectricnl. and cuntrol system design and also constructed the TMD systcm. Basic wind velocity 5 4 mlsec (120 mph)
with the assistance of HRH Conslruclion or New York. the general contractor. The
Maximum lateral deflection 508 mm (20 in.)
TblD is located an a dcdicalcd floor at 242 m (793 it) above grade, near the top of the
towcr. for maximum cff~crivcncss.The Citicarp tower was dcsigned from the beginning Design fundamental period 3.50,4.50 rec
to have the ThlD system. The system used includes a moving 373-tonne (4 In-ion) con- Design acccleralion Not calculated
crete-mass block tl~atslider binxially in the norlh-south and cast-wcst directions nn
Design damping 2% serviceability: 5% ultimatc
pressurized oil hearings on polished stecl plates. Tlic m a r is conneclcd to the building
structure ria long t c c l boom struts, prcssurircd oitmgcn springs, and hydraulic scrvrl Earthquakc loading Not applicable
aclualors. The lateral atiffncss of the spring elements makes thc systcln inlo 21 clasrical Type of stmclurc perimercr partial tube with interior shear
passive spring-mass rystcsi. \\'hich basically is tuned to the same frcqucncy as thc tower walls
and acts as a vibration absorbcr lo effectively incre:~scthe building's energy absorption. 2.1- to 2.4-m (7- to 8-ft)-thick mat on pre-
or damping. The TAlD reduced accelcrations lrom wind-induced motion by 40 to 505b. Footing type
cast piles
11 is designed solely to increase occupant comfort. The building is dcsigncd for
and strength as if the ThlD were not there. The TMD syslcm has pcrformcd very well Typical floor
since its installation and has weathered many wind storms and cvcn a hurricane. Story height 3.81 m (12.5 ft)
Beam span 14.6 m (48 ft) max
Beam depth 508 mm (20 in.) with 813-mm (32-in.)
haunching
Slab Concrete joists at 1.8-m (6-ft) centers and
114-mm (4.5-in.) slab
Columns
Size at ground floot 1600- to 1220-mm (63- to 48-in.) diame-
ter at 3.57-m (15-ft) centers
Material 48-MPa (7000-psi) concrete
Core Shear wall, 610 mm (24 in.) thick maa
Material 48-MPa (7000-psi) concrete
Ovedooking Biscayne Bay. the 48-story CenTmsl Tower adds a unique shape to the
skyline of downtown Miami (Fig. 4.163). Thc building consists of a 37-story-tall office
tower set on lop of a block square 11-story ~ a r l t i n ggaroge. A quarter-circle in plan, the
office tower's arc steps back three times as it rises up.The 90° comer of the quarter-cir-
cle is chamfered to create an additional 25.9-111 (85-it)-wide face of the building. The
garage also serves Miami's convention center and has a people mover station on its
fourth floor. On top of the garage, the building carries a large landscaped area, includ-
ing a refleclion pool
The building is conslructcd in reinforced concrete. Floor framing consists of 520- in a loss of lease space at both of thcse floors. The location of transfer columns and
mm (20.5-in.)-deep pan j0iSls. spanning up lo 10.7 m (35 11) and supporied on 11.6-m brackets at the twentieth floor is indicaled in Fig. 4.165, and a typical one-stded brackel
(48-it)-long haunchcd girders. Ocplh ofthc haunched girdcrs varies from 520 mm (20.5 from the perimeter column is shown in Fig. 4.166.The gravity column loads at the twen-
in.) in the middle to 813 mm (32 in.] at tllc ends. tieth floor range between 13.300 and 17.800 irN (1550 and 2000 tons).
Thc three 4.6-m (15-11) Slcp backs at the circular face of the building are locolcd at UidSr column load the bracket requires lateral bracing, which is provided in the form
floors 20.31. and 46, as shown in Fig. 4.161. Con\,entional girders are used to transfer
of wall sltear panels between floors 1 9 and 20. Where a wall shear panel aligns with the
the columns at floor46, but at floors 20 and 31 an unusual one-floor-dccp brackcl is em- bracket, compression and tension chord forccs are directly anchored in tllese wall pnn-
ployed to transfer each column. A normal marc of transfer girders would have rcsulled
els. Such tension chords at floors 19 and 3 0 are prestressed with an effective force of
Tower axis is 45 degrees o f f garage axis. Because the

columns of the curved wall describe an arc in the
garage, their spacing is wider than those on the straight
walls to accommodate the parking bays.
Fig. 4.164 Pcrin!clcr column 1n)uuL; CcnTrurt Tsacr.

t,
318 Lateral Load Resisting Systems IChap. 4 [ Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 319
1.
11.136 IiN (1250 tons). For the other brackets. these chord forces are transferred to the tu culun~ns11 the lcnth fluor 01 the fsr;ige lo iacilit3tc tr.lilic flos\,. 'The p~r~i;~l lr:!mud
wall panels via floor plates acting as in-plane diaphragms. ~ u h cir c ~ r r l e dthrough thc giir~gci~nddesigncd lo resist the cntire 131~131loads in th~.
The floor slab over pan joislj is increased from 114-mm (4.5-in.) normal thickness
to 190 mm (7.5 in.) at floors 19. 20.30. and 31 to provide required strength and stiff-
b -
carnac ;IS rrcll. The nnrual fran>:d t ~ h cconsirts of 1%" ~ I ~ ~ n n ~ I - rsrB
rnlt~mn.;st . .~
. 4 6 - n 115'-ft)
~~~ ~ ~ , centers linked bv frames alone
i t l~np~(~lith
- lhe circular arc and the cham-
.~~d
ness for the in-plane diaphragm forces. fered face. with the columns spaced at 8.6 m (28 f t 3 in.).
A partial framed tube at the perimeter of the tower and minimal shear walls in the Columns in thc garage are 1067 by 1880 mm (42 by 74 in.) rectangular and 1372 to
core are provided for the lateral load resistance, causing least interruption in the flow of 1067 mm (54 to 42 in.) in diamctcr round. Columns in the totver vary from 1067-mm
traffic in the garage and a minimum loss of parking spaces. Shear walls are transferred (42-in.) diamctcr at lower floors to 761-mm (30-in.) diameter at the top. Spandrel bcams
nv. -.
016, ......
rnm 176 ,--in ....,1 decn in the
---r .~~ ~~~-
~~
tower., but varv in dcoth at the -carace
- floors from 1372
mm (54 in.) at the three stmight sides to 813 k m (3- in.) along the circular arc due to
headroom requirements. Concrete strength in columns and spandrel bcams rnngcs from
49 lo 28 MPa (7000 lo 4000 p i ) , but is keptat 28 MPa(4000 psi) for the remaining floor
framing.
The lower is supponcd on a 2.1- to 2.44-111 (7- to 8-ft)-thick mat foundation bearing on
350-mm (14-in.) squore precast piles. G a n g c columns are founded on spread footings.
shear panel between

liwrs 19-20 and 30-31 I Elevation
u
Unusual eccentric transfer brackets at the 19th and
30th floors transfer wind and gravity loads directly to the floors act as diaphragms
the perimeter columns. Plan of 19th floor is shown here; restrained between vertical shear
30th floor is similar. elements.
-
Fig.4.165 Trunrrcr flour phn; CenTrurl To\rer. Ftg.4.166 Column trnnrrcr dclnil; CcnTrurt Toncr
320 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 321
Columbia Seafirst Center framing for the p l a n , arcade, and parking levels is a 114-mm (4.5-in.) concrcle slab
Seattle, Washington, USA o\,er 76-mm (3-in.) metal deck. Abot,e the plaza letel, the floor framing is 50-mm (2-
in.) concrete slab over 50-~nrn(?-in.) dcck. All stecl floor bcnms arccomposite with the
Architect Chester Lindsey and Associates concrete slabs.
Structural engineer Skilling \Yard Magnusson Barkshire. Inc. Th'e'skyscraper conlains 135,415 m2 (1,457.561 ft2) of office space and six below-
Year ofcomplction 1985 p d e levels of parking for 536 cars with an area of 29,670 m' (319.368 fs). Public
Building use Retail, commercial, parking, offices
Framc material Structursl steel with composite stecl-con-
C ~ C I Ccolumns
Maximum lateral deflection 483 rnm (19 in.). 100-yr rclurn
Dcsign acceleration 20 m g peak. 10-yr rcturn
Dcsign damping 2.510 including dampers lor 10-yr rcturn;
2.0% ignoring dampcrs for 100-yr rcturn
Earthquake loading Z = 0.75. C = 0.03, K = 0.80
Type of slruclurs Braced steel corc incorpornting viscoclas-
-
tic dumners: trianculnr corc is linked bv
diagonal steel members at its corners to 3
lerge steel and high-strength concrete
Typical floor
Story height 3.5 m (I l ft 6 in.)
Slab 50-mm P i n . ) concrete on 50-mm (2-in.)
steel deck
Columns 3 major columns. 2.44 by 3.66 m (8 by 12
it) at ground floor
Concrete, 66 MPa (9500 psi)
Braced-stcel rigid fmme with arches up to
I I stories tall transferring load to compos-
ite columns
This innovative skyscraper has just 73.24 kplm' (14.97 psO of structural stccl and three
c o m ~ o s i t ecolumns o l ultra-high-streneth concrete. It uses both materials in their most
efficir.nl manner. TILL.btulding is cumplelelg 1r:lm:d i n strurlur~lrlucl. \\'lnd and ~.nrtIl-
qllak~.loi!d* arc r~..i(t:d h! it ~ t r t ~ c t u~rI ~C Cl I innnlcnt r~.slstinghnc~.di r ~ m c a, l u c l ~I.,
triangular in shape and locatcd in the interior core.
Exterior windows are unobstructed. Compositestructural steel and concrete columns
are located at the vcrticcs of the triangular core to carry a large portion of the vertical
loads. reduce wind swny, and resist seismic forces. At thc base of the structure, tllcse
composite concrete columns are 2.44 by 3.66 m (8 by 12 it) in dimension. The concrete
strength is 66 MPa (9500 psi). The sway of the building is limited to Hl600. The floor ~ i g .4.167 Columbtn scufirrt Ccnler. seutfl~,~ a ~ l ~ i ~(Courier).
~ t o n olSkilliag.
. IVord Afosnurron
Bnrlrbire. Incl
.:
:
I
! S e c t 4.51 Hybrid Systems 323
arcas consist of a lobby levcl containing an area of 1825 m' (19,641 it2); four
,
shopping levels with a total area of 13.948 m' (150.135 ft'). featuring retail and c o i - First Bank Place
mercial space; n multilevel shopping arcade which is open 24 hours a day; a multilevel Minneapolis. Minnesota, USA
landscaped plaza surrounding the entire office tower; as well as an underground pedes.
trian tunnel connecting the building to another office building across the street. $ Architect Pei Cobb Freed and Partners. lnc.
Columbia Center's excavation was the deepest ever undcrtakcn in Seattle. It reached : Smctunl engineer CBM Engineers. Inc.
37 m (121 ft) below Fifth Avenue and 21 m (70 ft) below Fourth Avenue. Complicating : Year of completion 1992
the task was the requirement to protect an existing five-story office building at the
i Height from street to roof 236.5 m (776 ft)
Fourth and Columbia comer of the building. The shoring wall was constructed by
drilling 12-11?(4-it) holcs at 4 m (13 ft) on ccnter to at leas14.3 m 114
,~ ft)
..,hplnw
-- --.-
the hn?-
tom ofthe excavation. These holes were fillcd with lean concrete and n pair of 350-mm
,:
,'
Number of stories
56
3
(14-in.) wide-flange steel soldier pilcs. Tiebacks wcrc placed in the normal manner be- Office
: Building use
tween the pair of vertical soldier piles. 150- and 200-mm (6- and 8-in.1 wood lanvinn
was used lo support the earth bcrween the pair of soldiers piles spaced 4 h (13 it) a p a n : F m e material Steel with concrete supercolumns
The building structure design underwent thc scrutiny ofextcnsivc testing i n n wind tun- Typical floor live load 2.5 W a (50 psQ
nel at lhc University of Wcstern Ontario, Canada, for both static and aeroclostic load- Basic wind velocity 36 d s e c (80 mph)
ing. The acroelastic tests mcasured the twist, sway, base shear, and acceleration of the
Maximum lateral deflection 533 mm (21 in.)
building. They showed that thc building performed very well in the wind. but revealed
that the accelerndon o f t h c building in a major windstorm might bc felt by a portion of Design fundamental period 6.48, 5.26 sec
the occupants. Viscoelvstic dampers to absorb wind energy were added to thc moment Design acccleration 24 mg peak. 10-yr return
resisting braced frame to eliminate this possibility of uncomfortable acccleration. 1.25% serviceability; 1.5% ultimate
Design damping
Ennhqualie loading Not applicable
Type of structure Spine structure, supercolumns, and braced
frames with Vierendeel "bandages"
Foundation conditions Rock, 7.5- to 10-MPa (75- to 100-lon/ft2)
capacity
Footing type Unreinforccd rock footings
Typical floor
Story height 3.96 m (13 fl)
Benm span 10.97 to 18.28 m (36 to 60 ft)
Beam depth 406 to 838 mm (16 to 33 in.)
Beam spacing 3.05 m ( I 0 ft)
on 50-mm (2-in.) metnl deck
Columns 2160 mm (84 in.) square at 23.24-m (76-
R) centers
Material Concrete. 68 MPa (10,000 psi)
Core Braced spine. A572 steel [350 MPa (50
ksi)]; column size 1067 by 914 mm (42 by
36 in.) to 914 by 610 mm (36 by 24 in.)
A 236-m (776-it)-tall 56-story chiseled rosrcr i, the t;illcst of il~rci.distinct-looking hul
intcgral buildings which form First Bonk P1:lcc (Fig. J I 6 8 ) . The laver is crowned w t h
a 13.7-1" (45-ft)-lti~h
ctrculnr grid of stscl uhich c~ntiluwra6 m (?U fl) out rrom a \.<I-
tical plane nnd cokcals coolkg towers and antennas. At the second floor (the Min-
neapolis shyway level) the tower connects to buildings on adjacent blocks via two
bridges. One of Ulese bridges is a classic tied arch, which is braced from buckling by an
inverted pony w s s . Adjacent and connected to the tower is the 68-m (224-it)-tall 14-
story atrium building so called because of the six-story 27-m (89-8)-diameter atrium at
Z!?
i.
$7
...
a::,
i.' sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems
!:.
its base. One-fourth of the pcrimetcr of this atrium is a glass wall supported by Vieren-
dcel pipe trusses. Some 12 m (40 R ) above the atrium flooris centered an 18.6-m (61-it)-
diameter ring beam which supports the columns of the l c n e space Floors above the
atrium. Filling up the remainder of the L-shaped site is an 18-story 84-m (776-ft)-la11
"park; building, which overlooks Hennepin County Government Center Park. Under-
neith"i~lkeperk building, atrium. and tower is a three-level 450-car basement parking
garage. The First Bank Place complcx has 130.000 m' (1.4 million f$) of floor space
. (Fig. 1.1691.
: Thc backbone ofthc First Bank Place tower is n cruciform-shapcd spine anchored by
? steel and concrete composite supercolumns, which are linked to one another with a vcr-
1' tical shear membrane formed by steel bracing in the core of the building and o!tr!gger
bcams beyond the core moment-connected into the supercolumns. Charactcr~stlcof
: spine structures. Ihcse supercolumns extend unintcrmpled the full height of the build-
,
ing. They vary in cross-sectional area along their length from 7 m' (75 ft') at thc base lo
4.6 m' (50 11') at the top.
Torsional s~abilitylor the tower is provided at the perimeter ofthe building by a dun1
system 01unsymmetrical diagonal bracing and Viercndeel bandages. The single dingo-
nal pcrimetcr braces extend from the third floor to the forty-fifth floor in six-stoq-high
(c) 27th lo 45th (d) 45th lo 54th 56th

TIC. 4.169 Fluor [,Inn: First 1l;lnli I'lucc.
Fig. 1.168 Firrl Bunk I'luee. >linnropuiin, hlinnanln.

326 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 I BRACE I
sections. Spandrel beams moment-connected through these diagonals, along with the
supercolumns, restrain the tendency of these unsymmetrical bmcings lo deflect hori- CRUClFORM SPINE
zontally under gravity loads. The three-story-deep Vierendeel girder bandages, which
are provided at floors 1215.24-27. and 4215. restrain the wamine. . -. which would oth- ~ ~ ~
c w k e occur in the open scc;ion composed of the cruciform spine and pcrimcter bmccs. BRACE
n t u i e bandagss t r i p l ~lbc lower's tori~onalstiffnuss and incrense i b lateral stiffness by CIRCULAR VIERENDEEL
36%. In addition, the bnndaees are used to Vansfer gravity loads to supercolumns and ABOVE 45TH FLOOR
comer columns. thus increasine - -
- the efiiciencv of thebuildine's o v e m m i n e resistance.
Other Vicrrndeslr u e lared in llrc building to cllminalc transfer girders and increisc
12 STORIES
VIERENDEEL FRAME
the building's loreral stiffi~ess.A 12-story Vicrendccl spms along 3n crtcnor h c e of lhe
building between a supercolumn and n comer column. transferring a column which sup-
ports 28 floors of load. Above the fortv-fifth floor of the tower there is a nine-slorv-tall
circular Vlurendccl girder which frames inta supcrcolutnns. lhu curved ~ i c r s n d c c noi l
only incrcxus the 1;ltcral and lorsionitl stiffness uf ihe lap of the building, bul olso ;!I-
lotvs l l circular-shaped
~ ~ ponion o r the buildlng to sir alup rlte squsrc s h p c below \ri\b-
out extending additional columns down through the leas; space.
The structural system was chosen over a ~ G m e t ebracid r fmme or a moment fmme
to achicve a column-free exterior facade f& thc building. The presence of composite
concrete columns cnhanced the ovenurning resistance of the building and achieved
overall economy for the structure.
A572 grade 5 0 steel was used for columns and beams that were controllcd bv
5trcngrh crllerii. 2nd A 3 6 3td:I s.;ts used for inlemller, c~lntrnllcdby .Itfincrs uritr.ri:t.
Thc sl~pr.rcolumi~s ultl17.r.d69- and 55.XlPa (IU.UOO- :tnd hO(lU-PSI)iuncrclc 'The rlc:l
col~lllnh3s~.pl%lesb u r on the lop of ihe concrctr. hassment girapc columns. !\l!~ch SUP.
port the posttensioned flat-plate garage floors. Special analGis was performed to as=&-
lain the effects of restraint on the posttensioned slabs due lo the presence of large con-
crete columns supporting the lower loads and perimeter basement walls. All building
columns sit on individual footings which bear on rock.
Three-story-tall Vierendeel bandages were provided along line CC' and also along
E'D' (Fig. 4.170). The strategically placed bandages not only provided essentially col-
umn-Free exterior spans along face CC, but also improved the torsional resistance of the
building dramatically, with optimum use of the S ~ N C ~ U ~steel. I I ~ The perimeter circular
Vicrcndeel above the forty-fifth floor provided both lateral and torsional resistance to
the entire frame.
T l ~ uloa.cr b>sclnr.nt floors a r r c Jcs~&ncd as poitisnrioncd cuncrute flst-plate floorr.
The pu>ticnsimcd conslnc~iun\gas csrunti31 lu control cracking in nuur sli~bsbecause
of the cold, snowy winters af Minneapolis.
The building was analyzed in a three-dimensional finite-element computcr model lor
tlic following loading condirions:
1. Sequenlially applied dead load consistent with the consuuction sequence of ihc
building
2. Live load
3. Three-directional (.T,,: and 0) wind loads dynamically determined from wind tun-
nel study with appropriate combinations
4. Creep and shrinkage of concrete columns
5. Temperature gradients and differential temperature on concrete columns
During the design, the members were checked for 99 load combinations.
In Ille ;onrlrllcuon I C ~ L C I I C ? . t h ~~. n t i l ~ ~ ~concr?le
i i t e colu!~ln 1\15 xlLd\v~d10 (3g 12
(4 (c)
lloorr hr.hinJ cr;clr.d rirl:tor~l rlcel ind six flours bshinJ 111~.concrtt~.dsl;!bs no nts13l Fis. 4.170 Fir9 Itunk Ptuce. ( a )Structural rystcm. ( b l Estcrnul hmcing. (c) \\'firping-rcstrui~~lrle
perimutcr bundi~gcr.
deck. Because of h e presence of unsymmelrical exterior bracing, localized bandages, produced internory in-plane diaphragm stresscs. The associated floor diaphragms were
and the free-spanning Vierendeel above noor 45. the SlNclUre was analyzed to cstablish nnolyzed lor in-plane shear and reinforced accordingly.
its performance during the erection process. Both lateral and vertical displncements building wns dso analyzed for the reduction in column and diaphragm stiff-
along with strength were checked. nesses due to cncliing of the concrete and the uncenainty of the effective modulus of
The strategically placed perimeter warping-restraining bandages improved the tor- elasticity.
sional performance of the structure dramatically. This is evidenced by the comparison
of the torsional rotation (Fig. 4.171) and the lateral displacement (Fig. 4.172) of the
stracture due to wind in the x direction, with and without the bandages.
The presence of the three-story-deep perimeter bandages created a localized hori-
zontal shift in h e center of rigidity of the lateral resistance of the structure and thereby
6x displacement (inch)
wind in X-direclion
Fig. 4,172 Lnternl dtrplncemcnt; Firrl Bunk Plncc.
Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 331
points, an extension of an important urban park, and a nciv network of pathways for [he
Two Union Square adjoining neighborhoods. I& cxccplional design has won widespread architectural
Seattle, Washington, USA
praise and public popularity and received the Grand Award Tor Engineering Exccllcnce
Architect NBBl from the American Consulting Engineers Council in 1990.
Structural engineer Skilling Ward hl;~enussonBarkshire. Inc.
Year o r completion 1990
Height rrom street to roor 220 m (720 11)
Number orslories 56
Number of le\,cls bclor\, ground 4
Building use Office. rct;~il
Frante malcrial Steel a,itlt uumpositc c u l u n ~ n s
Typical floor livc load 2.5 kPa (50 p s n
Basic wind vclocity 34 mlscc ( 7 5 mph)
hlaximum laleral deilcction 312 mrn (12.3 in.). IOU-yr ruturn
Design fundamental pcriod 6 scc
Design ncccleralion ?U lnlg p ~ i l k .10-yr return
Design damping ?.l"rllO-yr return including damping dc-
viccs: 2 . 0 ~ ~ 1 1 0 0 - yrcturn
r ignoring dnrnp-
ing dc\iccs
Earthquakc loading Z = 0.75. C = 0.03. K = 0.8
Two Union Square building proridrd the construction industry wilb many new con-
cepts, materials, and techniques (Fig. 4.173). By locoling the c;!rthqu:~ke and wind re-
-
sistinr elements in thc interior core walls. tllc architect lrad Trcedom that cuntributcd lu
its design. Two Union Souarc rcorcscnts n union oT busincss and communitv. I[ corn-
level plaza with large opcn spaces, relail shops, and restaurants.
The desirn team was raced with a number o r uniaue challenres bv this comnlca
lic s ~ a c e ill
s the base of rhc tower. Particularly challenoinp was tlte constrnint-filled site.
which included existinr structures on two sides. an aciiviinterstale rrccwav. adiacent. a .
cily ;I,C?I oter I I ~ Ub;~se.ind UIIJ~.~
the tusicr. :,nd r c q . ~ i r u n ~ ~lor
. n ~2 rconlp.c\ u ~ c irc -
lure !tit11 c ~ c L .~<:~tdri!ll.
~. 2nd 13rp~.h~111Jcrs 513ir .tupping thr.3u.h lhc pl:,,:~.
Among thc many technical nccomplisltments that incrcascd pcrTorm:!ncc. shortened
construction time. and reduced ~tructuralcosts from $28 to SIE million arc the most ad-
vanced application of a composite system, the lirst to utilize stccl pipes filled with a
n,orld-record-brcaking lhigh-slrcngth 131-hlPe (19.000-psi) concrctc, the most efficient
~,iscoelasticdampers-to control building movcmcnt, and unequaled crtcrior column
eoecinrs o r u o to I 4 m 146 Trl. niavidine s\\'eenino vic!vs o r the citv and Puret Sound.
and sited in a seismicufi\~a c t i w area (arismic zone 3), thc d e s i ~ n~ r o r i d c dnc\v tech-
Fig. 4.173 Two Union Squnre. Sculllc, \\'arPingtun. lCor8nr.r~ofSkillirrg Il'nrd Alo~nirrrrrn~ ~ r l -
needed parking Tor downtown shoppers. a respite i n n busy do\\,ntori,n nrca, scenic viem- ,hire, i,,~.)
First Interstate World Center The structural system lor the toueeris an a11 steel dual system comprising an intcrac-
Los Angeles, California, USA five braced core and a perimeter ductile moment frame. Thc braced core. ancllorcd at its
..Architect I. M. Pei and Parmcrs
corners by stccl box columns, is 23.5 m (73.8 11) square. Tllc box colurnns weighing U
m : ~ r i m > nf
~ m6308 kalm (-1320 lblftl at !he base carry a maximum design gravity laed a f
Structural engineer CBM Engineers. Inc. 6-
:.- , 100,QQP.kN ( I 1.000ionsl. TWO-st& chevron bracis free span each of four sides of the
Year of complclion 1990 corc.ln'order to achieve an efficient lateral load resisting structural ireme. flours frcc
~ n : mun to 16.76 m (55 it). looding the interior corc and the perimeter framc columns.
Height from street to roof 310.3 m(1018 rt)
Number of levels below ground 2 ...~~ ~ . .
resisting fremc.
Building use Office
The slructure is dcsigncd to remain csscntially elastic lor an snticipnled masimsm
Frame material Swclural steel crcdiblc cunhquakc of magnitude 8.3 on thc Richter scalc at the nearby Sari Andrcas
Typical floor live load 2.5 LPo (50 p r o
Design fundamental period 7.46. 6.91 sec
Design acceleration 23 rng pcok, IO-yr remrn
Design damping 1.25% serviceability; 1.5% ultimatc
Earthquake loading C = 0.03. K = 0.8
Type of structure Perimeter ductile tube with chevron
braced core
Foundation conditions Shale
Typical floor
Story height 4.04 m 0 3 it 3 in.)
Beam span 16.76 m (55 it)
Beam spacing 4 m ( 1 3 it)
Slab 133- or 159-mm (5.25- or 6.25-in.) light-
weight concrete on metal deck
Columns 1067- by 610-mm (42- by Win.) W F sec-
tion. g a d c 350 MPa (50 h i )
Spacing 6.1 lo 7.6 m (20 to 25 ft)
Bnced steel; column size at ground floor
1230 mm (48 in.) square. 6308 kglm
(4230 Iblft)
Called a signature building for the city of Lor Angeles, the granite clad, 75-story build-
ing with its scrrotcdfacadc(Fig.4.174)riscs 310.3 m(1018 it) above street level. It con-
tains about 130.000 m') (1.4 million 11') of office space. At present. it is thc tallest build-
ing in seismic zone 4 or its equivalent in the \vorld.
The base of the rower is embellished by Spanish steps \rpithwater runnels, fountains
and landscaped areas. These steps arc seismically isolated from the tower structure and
bridge ihe elevational difference of approximately I5 m (50 fi) in the surrounding nrea CORE BRhCI:IG ISOMETRIC
along the north to south axis ofthe taa,cr.
i
334 Lateral Load Resisting Systems [Chap. 4 ! Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems 335
i
f a ~ l t.?.p;!rt from ;inal!.ling the struct.lre for a con!'?ntion31 5 pur;unt d ~ t n p c dr e h ~ n n > e Hongkong Bank Headquarters
spcctnml fur the n~sxinttlrncrcdihlc earthquake, 111s f ~ ~ l l o w i nspscial
g analysis otld dr.. Hong Kong
sign features usereintroduced.
Architect Foster Associates
1. Since two-story chevron bracing was used for the lirst time i n the seismic region,
redundancy i n the gravity structural load path was examined for an accidenrsl Structural engineer Ove A m p and Panners
buckling
.of n diaeonal. Year o f completion 1985
?. The atructtlral rncmbtrh, buth hr.s!nr and columrl~.n u r c ttc>tonly designed for the Height from street to roof I 8 0 m (590 ft)
grnund ,110ticu1i!lun: t h ~ttgn
. ortltugunal principal 3,es u f t l v strucutrs, but ; ~ l r u Number o f stories 45
ncre chccked lur the dtrcctinnal m:trima due to umnidiruution31 s ~ . i s m ~ motion
c
Number o f levels below ground 4
3. Time history analysis was conducted primarily to detcmine maximum interslory
Building use Office, banking
drift and the absolute maxima for the horizontal acceleration at floors. The max-
imum intcrstory drift was used i n the design ofthe curtain wall, whereas the ac- Frame material Svuclural steel frame; composite stcel
celeration data wns used for the dcsign of floor-mounted equipment such as clc- and concrete floors
vator machincs and \\,aler Lanks. Timc history anal\ssis wns nlso conducted for Typical floor live load 5 kPa (104 psfJ with some local increases
vsruc31 3 c c c I ~ . r ~ t i ~B?sidcs
n. cr~.:lting o\~.r~urrlin"UII?ct~~
:!I 111st ~ i l n ~fl,,,,~..
r~.~ Basic wind velocity 64 mlsec (144 mph). 50-yr return. 3-scc
an :~ntplifiuatinno l ~ ~ . r t ~nccclcr:,tiur~
ull uuuld lund tu ;L plunying hilure in t h ~ . gust
tr;lnsfer gird^.^;. ThC 2llalylib $135 ~<5ellli31 IUpcccl~dc\uch 3 ilil.~,~.mode.
4. I n order to establish a load deflection curve and global ductility limit.., a mono-
tonically increasing symmctric nonlinear lateral load analysis !\,as conducted. Design acceleration 20 mg peak. IO-yr return period (typhoon
cucnO
5. 1hc critcriun fur !61ttd t~tutiuns.25 set :!I:trunnd 2 3 r i i fur~ pc:~klhori,.0nt:11 :I;;cI.
eralloo during 3 otlce i n IU )cdrs N ind aturm. Tnc I:~tcr:ll n~o.lc<01 s thr:ltiun u ere Design damping I% serviceability
~ d j ~ a t ci nda ~ i ? not
, unly to :tcltie\r. tI1c c~ccup.~lt uomlr,rt :I[ tllc t ~ l n,lc;unlud Earthquakc loading Not applicable
noor for the 10 year wind storm. but which r\;ould not incrcasc thc'latcrai rc- Typc of structure Steel mast joined by suspension trusses
sponse lo seismic motion. acting i n p o n d frame action
Foundation conditions Loose fill over marine deposits and dc-
Sixtccn critical ioints i n the braced frame were mcchanicallv stre.; rclie\,cd ~
L c u n ~ r dT110,npsun !ihratiag method o f rtrsrs cclief. Spe:iiil nclding L~ICI

hv
- - .~
. . itl;inn ttw
t~.stirlg
- composed granite bedrock: granite
cudurs, n c r c ust;lbl~jhr.dfor ;tll sruldcd connsctionr. bedrock up to 40 m (131 ft) below ground
The structure is ioullded on shale rock u,itlt :ln ;1llnn3blu load btxrisg rapJclt! o l Footing type Machine- and hand-dug caissons to rock
7?0 ~ P(7J5 tonslft?). Thc corr. u l the structure i s sopported on a 3.1 m (1 1 5 i t ) th,ck
Typical floor
COIIUIL.IL. mat. and i! p~.riiiIcterrung fuoling is used fur th~.~ U Crr311te.
~IIU
Story height 3.9 m (12.8 ft)
Beam depth 900.406 m m (35.5. 16 in.) steel
Slab 100-mm (4 in.) reinforced concrete
Columns
Size at ground floor 1.2-m (4-ft)-diameter i n groups o f four
Spacing 8 groups i n total on grid of 38.4 by 16.2 m
(126 by 53 A)
Material Steel, grade 50
Core None
The 20-m (65-ft)-deep basement o f the Hongkong Bank (Fig. 4.175) was constructed
using a perimeter diaphragm wall and top-down construction techniques. The super-
structure is constructed using structural steel and composite steel floors. Stability is pro-
vided by masts, linked at five levels by trusses, the complete system acting as a fi\'e-
level unbraced sway frame. Each mast comprises four tubular steel columns linked by
horizontnl bos-section beams to create a Vierendeel system (Figs. 4.176 and 4.177).
Lateral Load Resisting Sysferns [Chap. 4 Sect. 4.51 Hybrid Systems
180m
Two
n o r y deep
Vierendeel mast suspension
Hangers -dl!#EHla 1
BANK
3
Fig.4.176 Sccli<lntllrougln building; Hungliung D18nliilcixdguurtcrr

338 Lateral Load Resisting S y s t e m s i. Sect. 4.61 Condensed ReferencesIBibliography 339
[Chap. 4
1.
16.8m .4.6mL 10.8m 4.6 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 1
AlSC 1983. Modern Sfeel Corisrnlcrion
5 AlSC 1987. One Liberty Place-EBicirncy and Elegor!ce in file Cradle oJHirrary
2 Architeclun: 1988. Exploring Colnposhe Stnicrzdrer
Archilecture 1988. Tlso Union Squore
Architeaurc 1990. High Sfrerrgfh
Architccrure and Urbanism 1991. Two Union Squore
. ASCE 1986. Corrzplrrer 011s Tower Srecl
ASCE 1990,Alrrrie Steel
Aurtnlia Port Publ. 1988, Cltflej Sprrore on rhe Alo\,e Stnrclurer
Building 1990. Do,,ble Srrcnpth
Uuildisg Dctign 3nJ Cunrthction 1184. Outi,l8ng fkr,gr>anrl Cc,#.~ir..cr,'~.n
Civil Encinccr
. 1187. Co,flcre,e Slrc,,~plbHerord Jurapr 3 V r
Concrclc Toddy 1989. A h ~ ~ Sorr8erhing
o ~ ~ s Ne$u in Concrcle
Conrtrnclion Specifier 1988. Innovative Comporire Conrrr~~rion
Canrlruction Steel 1990, The A h y Facer of fhe Bond B,,ilding
Drew 1990. Riulro Towers Prqiecz Seirniic Rcrpn,riu A,mlysir and E>,nlr,oriorl
Engineering Ncwr Rccord 1988. S.vdncy Slycrnpcr Serr Soil
Engineering News Record 1989. 19.000pri
Enginecring Ncwa Record 1990, btnoi,ori!,cTecbm'qlte>
Engineering Ncwr Rccord 1991. Sydnry Toa,er Tertr A~lrfrolior~r
Gcorgc 1990. Ii'ullirrgron'r IYiiid~Slirrpedthe C~~pirol', Tollert Bm,ilding
Gillcrpie 1990. Derign and Co,zsrncrion oJSrn.1 Fronted High-Rire Blriidirrgs
Grorrmnn 1985, 780 Third Atrenae, Tile Fin, High-Rirc Diagortolly Broccd Corrcrelc Sln,cf!8rc
Fig. 4.177 Typlcnl noor plnn, Hongkong Dank Heodquorterr
Grorsmnn 1986. Beliovior. Analysir orrd Corzrrr#ccriar~ ",fa Braced-Tube Conrrele Slrrrclt,ru
Giosrmon 1989. Slender Smacnwes-Tlze Nc!v Edgc (10
Grorrman 1990. Sloider Carrcrere Sm,cfr,rrr-T18r New Edge
Howillcur 1992, Dedgn oJrbeNorionr Bonk Corporufe Crnfcr
Horc 1990. Srnrcrrrrol Design for rlre Riolro Towerr
lloh 1991. 1Vind Rerisranr Derign oJo Toll Bl,ildi#tg ivi~irm N l i p ~ ~ i d Crorr
o l Seclion
Journol o f Wind Engineering and lndurtriol Aerodynamics 1990. Oprinii.~afionoJToll Bltilding*
Jor lVittd Loading
Kunemc 1985. Deep Coirron Fo~~ndofianrJor OUB Cerrlre. Singnpore
Kuneme 1990. The OUB Centre Tower Folfndoria,rr. Sirtgopore
Meinhvrdt 1981. S~8perrrrucrureDc~ignJarllzc O\,rrreor U#iiorzBonk B,,iiditcg. Si,,gll~lore
Mcinhurdt 1990. Tire 008 Cmrre-Qnolig Deil>,eqs
Melbourne 1985. Aerorlostic hlodel Tenr ovld Tl~eirAppiicorion jor rile OUB Ccrifre.Si8tgnporc
Plnllcn 1986. Porrrtiodurn Engineering
Plotten 1988. h f o ~ r ~ r ~Plocr:
~ r ! ~ ~Sleel
t l Solvcr Co#!!plr.cGeon!vfricr
Tnrnnth 1988. Sfrircf8~rnl Anolyrir orld Dcrigr! qfToll Baildir~gs
-7...*
-
Special Topics
5
5.1 DESIGNING TO REDUCE PERCEPTIBLE

WIND-INDUCED MOTIONS
'She 3 ~ r ~ ~ c ~>!stem\
u r ! l Sor la11 h.~il,Ii~~;,3rd murc d l c n cun~r~>llcd I>> 11,c need 10 r:.lri<l
l ~ t y 111:,n the nsu.1 tn pr,nidr. r<\ial.lo:? :,I ..I-
rcspon.>ein sr ind nction ;)I ~ c r ~ i r u ~ h iIc>cI\
linulc lirnil-~1311:condilionr. This <eclioo-~~~~~ .
$rill d?.ll \n?cific~Il\ulllt illc c r , l c c ~ ;r:1312d
to human occupancy comfort and tbc design procedures uscd to eslnblislt the rcsponsc
~
of a building to wind action and tlte sensitivity lo acrodynsmic shapc, damping, stirs-
ness. moss, and mode shapc. Some mcntion will bc mademf implicalions to ullimale
limit-stole design as snmcthing which tends to bc dealt rvilh niter the system has been
designed to cope with the serviceability requirements.
1 Response and Excitation Mechanisms

T h e rcspnnsc of tall buildings ln.-winrl :tclinn can be cnnvenirntlv
~~~~~ ~
.
, seoaretcd inlo alona-
~~~
wind and cross-wind motion in relation to the two distincdy separale excitation mccha-
-
nisms. The total response is, otcourse. a response lo both lhcsc motions superimposcd
on each other, which results in a random. and somelimes r o u-~ h.l velliptic. motion o f the
top of the building.
T h e along-wind responsc is made up oS a mean component and a fluctuating compo-
nenl. The addition of these two c o ~ n e n l ~ o r t p o " lo " nthe
t detcrminntion ofulliml?lf
limit-state loads, but it is o n l y component s+~l~ich ~ i v c srise lo accclcra-
lions that affect occupancy comfort. For the cross-wind response, lhc meen componenl
iEiZiXJy very small, with the fluctuating componenl dominaling the response. The fluc-
tuating component of thc along-wind response is primarily driven by iluclualing prcs-
surcs on the upstream Pace. which are caused by the fluctuating wind speeds in the inci-
dent turbulent flow. Thesc pressure fluctuations are conrreried to along-wind response of
lhc building through a combination o r quasi-steady response to low-rrcqucncy compo-
nents and narrow-band resonant responsc, primarily in the first mode. The cross-wind
fluctuating rcsponsc is primarily a narrow-band resonant response lo lllc fluctualin$ prcs-
sures on the streemwisc s u r f ~ ~ cc:iused
cs by the fluctuating vortices shed Into the a,akc. 11
is rcrerred to as \\sal;c crcilation where buildings sie conccrscd in order lo distinguisli il
from the narrou.-band vortex excitation o f slender slructurcs such as cl~imneys.The
343
342 Special Topics IChap. 5 Sect. 5.11 . Designing to Reducs Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions
mechanisms really are thc same. hut the broad-band nature of the cross-wind oressure height of 26 and 45 mlsec (85.3 and 147.6 fdsec), respectively, which gives, for Ser-
fluctuations normilly associated with buildings is due to both the effects of fuibulence viceabilily.
nnd the intermittent reattachment of the separated shear layers onto the streamwise faccs
of the building. Typical along-wind and cross'wind response m c c s and spectra are given
in Fir. 5.1. which illustnter the resmnsc characteristics described.
L:ttr.r in rhts ;r.ctiun ;~n;~l)ticill
mcthuds will be gi\cn to pcrmlt prediction o i the and for the ultimate limit state,
along-wind and cross-wind r~spnnscs.HouL.\.L.~. 10 permil soms further duscriptiun of
titc fluctu:~tingcon~poncntsthat are in~portnntto ~un.~ceabili[y and olumnte limit-atatc
considerations, it is helpful to refer to a diagrammatic reprcscntation of the along-wind
-.
and cross-wind forcinr soectra. as is nrcsented in Fie. 5.2.
b
With reference to Fig. 5.2 it can be seen that buildings operating in the low reduced-
T2I1 huildtngs typically b3vc serr1ce3bility 2nd ullimate I1m1t.st3teoperating value,
o1r;ducr.d r.~.louit)in ihc range o f ? to 10 Fnr ea3lnple. a 3UU-m (98.1-it)-high hullding velocity range arc not likely to have occupancy comfort problems. At higher operattng
. u e n.c s!I ui0.15 Hz tnicl~thave scr-
with a u,idth b of 50 m (164 II) 2nd fir.[-mode f r c ~
vicenbility and ultimotc limit-slate design mean wind speeds a1 the top o i t h e building
along-wind
-
Fig.5.1 Dirploccmcnt IrurcsulUwlop ulnnncruclnsticmodcl olorquorc toner: hm = 7. Fig. 5.2 Along-wind and crurr-wind force rp~ctrnlor model squurc inner: I d = 7: I'h/nlr = 10.
346 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Designing to Reduce Perceptible Wind-induced Motions 347
Sect 5.11
Plots of the acceleration criterion are given ns a function of frequency in Fig. 5.3 for section, a dcscriplion of ihc snalyticsi approaches will be givcn, aibcit heavily cmpiri-
a period of 10 min of maximum wind in a return period of R years. The period of I 0 min
cally supported in places.
has been used both to fit in with the original curves of lrwin and of I S 0 6897, and be-
cause it is typical of n period of maximum response in areas dominated by thunderstorm r ta p p m ~ c ~l ~~O I I L . : I L0)
;llnnp-IIT,,d R r p o n r c . 'I.he ~ ~laclur . ~ D ~ V S I I ~(19611
O T I and
activity and where mean design wind speeds tend to be worked backward artificially
Vickcr). (1966. 1969) prosides tlle simpl~.slmc:tns of esiintalin: tllc llunf-wind re-
from peak wind-speed data. For regions where the maximum response may occur
soonrc o i $: buildins sod the tqoivalcni riatic i o ~ dlo pruducd illc pe3k rslponrc. V?r-
through longer periods, such as I hour, the maximum hourly mean wind speed will he
sions of this approach have been developed in a number of the \vorld's wind-loading
less than the maximum 10-min mean wind speed, and the value of T i n Eqs. 5.5 and 5.8
codes. In particular, the Australian code AS1 170.2-1989 has a version in which nll tile
would increase to 3600 sec.
parameters arc given in equation form.
As ihe gust factor approach is in such gcncral use, there is no need to develop it here.
3 Determination of Response
~~ ~-
nnrticuiarlv as it rcleies io the determination of ullimate limit-state design data. How-
ever. so that comparisons may be m a d ~bmwcen along-wind and cross-wind servicc-
ability acccleralions, it will bc of help lo develop the along-wind equations here. The
At the design stage estimates of the response of a building are required to determine ser- evaluation of i i ~ ealong-wind response is divided into background and resonant response
viceability nccelcration levels, equivalent static uitimale limil-slate base moments, and components. The background, or qunsi-stcady, response is at random and rclaiivciy low
momcnt and shear force distributions. These estimales may be obtained analytically, frcqnencics. It is !he narrow-band rcsonanl response component. which generates the
from wind tunnel measurements, or from a combination oflhe two. The wind tunnel de- majority of the ulo?g-wind acceleration at thc lop of s building. Using ihe gust factor
rivation of lhesc design data will be givcn elsewhere in this Monograph series. For this npproach, ihc peak acceleraiion at the top o f a building for rcsonnncc in a fundamental
beading modcmay be obtained from
wherc GtC,= gusl laclor for resonanl component; = g?(u,j@,,

-
M = mean base orsertu_ming momcnt: for a square building, it can be approxi-
mated by 0.6'11 p?z
bh2
forO.06cncl.O O.~<R~IO
ill, = inenial base bending moment for unii displacement at top of building: for
-_..
01
constant density and linear mode shape. = '4 p bdlt' (2lIr1,)'
ix - ...-.
....-...-
. g = peak factor; for normally distributed process, =
rt." = first-bendine-mode natural frequency; can be approximated by 46lh,
.--
... .. ..
-.
C
return period
0
-rn lo
0,
-
.
-. -
.
-
.
1
10 year
5 -
where 11 is hCighl in meters
(u,/iil,, = longitudinal lurbulence intensity at height h
T = oeriod under consideration, scc; usually 600 scc for accelcrniion criteria
....
(U
D
0
m Ir = 'height of building
.-N
I S 0 6897 (1984) Curve 1,
- standard deviation
. 0.5 .
b = width of building
d = depth of building
I:, - It
= hourly mean wind spced at height
r .horizontal acceleration S = size factor; = i1[(1 + 3.5rr,ltll'h)(l + -1,1~bl?,)1
criteria lor 1 0 minutes 5 year
E = longitudinal turbulence spcczum; = 0.47Nl(2iN')"'
in 5 year return period N = reduced frequency; = I~L,/V,
- for a building (1.e. a,. exp (-3.65- 0 . 4 1 Ln n) L. = measure of turbulence length scnlc; = 1000 (hliO)"lr
approximately normally p= air density
distributed response). 0 , 2 p, = building density
0.5
1 I I ,,*,I 5 = critical damping ratio
0.05 0.1 1.0
frequency n , Hz Cmss-IVi,ld Response. One of the simplcsi ways of evaluating the cross-wind re-
sponse, involving all ihe important parametcis in the process of resonant response lo
Fig. 5.3 Horizonlol ucrulcrntion criiorin for occu~oncycomfort in buildings. wake excitation, is to use a mode-generalized force spectrum approach proposed by
Sect. 5.11 Designing t o Reduce Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions 349
348 Special Topics [Chap. 5
Suunders and Melbourne (1975). Tltc mclhod makes usc nf mcasurcd cross-wind dir- Holmes (1987). where k is lhe mode-sltape posver crponent from Lllc rcprescntalion o r
placement spectra to g i v e n mode-gcnemlizcd forcc rpcctrum (for the firs1 mode) n l the lundamcnlal modc shape by $,!, = ( ~ l h ) ~ .
, .,
't:
*:
4 Parameter Sensitivity
where $(,I) = spectrum of cross-wind displaccmcnt a1 lop o i building Tlicre arc sevcrnl steps lo csn~niningparamcler sensitivity. First it is important to
I!,, = first-mode frequency demonstntc that along-svind response is n relatively ntinor problem compared lo cross-
nr = mod;il mass wind response. Second it has to be shown that mode shape is important and that it is here
H'(ri) = mechanical admiliancc: = 111I I - (rll,,,,)']'+4<'(riIr,,,)?] that tlte slructural systcm can piny a significant part. Third !he real problem of cross-
i = critical damping ratio wind rcsponsc lias to be demonstrated along with its attendant parameter sensitivity.
For n lincar mode. and if crcit:~tion by low ircquencic is sntall and ihc structural
damping low so lhat tlteescitation bandwidth is large compared wilh the rcsonanl hand-
amidth. thc stondz~rddeviation o i displeccment at the top 01thc building m;,y bc s p p r u -
irnated by
and the t a n d : ~ r ddc\,iation oioccclcr:~lionis g i w n by
square seclion, -
The lorce spectrum may be espiciscd in coclficicnt lorm by chamlered or
ll,,S,.~ll) rounded corners
'r.~= (k4pT;61,)2 15.13)
where b = building beieht rough circular section,

6 = buiiding width normal to wind direction octagonal, hexagonal.
?r, = mcon wind speed al top 01building
Then in terms 01this forcc spectrum coefficient the standard devintion of acceleration
becomes
p7$7/z
Ti=-
.I,,,
- (5.14)
For an w e r a g e building densily p, and a lincvr modc. &hemodal mass is
and thc pcak acceleration at the top o f t h e building due to cross-wind rcsponsc is given by
-
Typical values of mode-ecncmlized cross-wind force socclmm cncffirirntr

- ~~~.. fmr -
n
lundnmental mode 01vibrntion that hns a linear modc are gjven in Fig. 5.4. Extension
.. - .
of llicsc data tu nonlineer modc slinpcs may be made conservativclv. bv. multi~ivinr!bv
a nlode-shape correciion factor Tor accelcmtion of (0.76 i0.24k). as discussed in
350 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Sect. 5.11 Designing to Reduce Perceptible Wind-Induced Motions 351
Il'orI.cdExo,nplc. The simplest way lo introduce a study or the relative significance 2. Cmsr-~vindl.e.rl?ol!se. From Fig. 5.4.
of the response t)'pe and the \'arious parameters is by means o f a worked example. For
this purpose considcr a lall building for a rclurn pcrind of I year lor rvhicl~ C,, = 0.00 15
Ir = 300 m Peak accelcrntion at the top of the building due to cross-wind resonant response for
a cantilever mode shape. u,ltcre I. = 1.5,
b=rl=50m
- Y = --
l',=
, 26 mlscc (0.76 i0.25I.)
4 pf'
p, = 200 kglm' = 0.14 mlsec'
-
l'),,
(r,/ = 0.I? = 14.3 m g
i= 0.01 (at scrviccability lcr,els) and for a linear mode. I. = 1.0,

and frctlucnuy st the lirrt mndu.
46
rr,, = -
I,
= 0.15 Hz
rcduccd velocity. -
1'" = 6I'
= 3.47
It is noted h a t the acceleration criterion for occupancy comfort for the l-ycar rculrn
period and iirst-mode frequency o f 0 . 1 5 l - 1 ~for I 0 min is ublained from
pcc~hfactor ( I 0 oiin).
-
s = V'l In 60Uu,, = 3.0
I. 1 1 iI Gust ~ J C ~ Ofor
I resonant co~iiponcnt. Forthis worked example tltc along-wind acceleration is \$-ell inside this criterion, but
the cross-wind accclcration, even with a lincnr mode, is abo\,c this criterion.
I. Along ivind i,erst,r cro.ss wind. In Fig. 5.2 it $$,asshown diagrammalically why the
klean bnse-o\,crturning moment. cross-wind
~ ~ ~ nccelcrations
~- - - .
dominate the oroblem or occuoancv. comfort, but thc
- I - \\,orked example sho\vs tltot even for a reduced velocity of 3.17 the along-wind ac-
4 = 0.6 - plf,:bh' c c l e n d o n is about 3 0 % of the cross-wind acceleration (3.9 versus 11.8 ms).
2 2. ,+lode shnpe. Adjustments of the mode shape in order to get nearer a linear mode
= 1.095 X 10'' N-m shape, by using structural systems such as k bracing at Zome levels to gel facade
columns to contribute morc to resisting motion, can make n signilicant difference.
Inertial basr-hending moment lor a linear mode for unit displacement at the top, In the worked example, going from a cantilever mode shnpe. I. = 1.5, to a linear
mods shnpe, I. = 1.0, redrrccd the peak accelerntion by 10% (from 14.3 to 12.8 mg).
I
dl, = - p$rll!'
3
(?nrr,,)' For
~
-
- a buildine on a reducina core or tube svstem. onlv with I. = 2.0, for example,
tlx p?n:!lty rslat!vc to ii I i n c ; ~~ ~ m d\II:L~LO

c i 3 ;trutu~J5'i.
= 13.32 X lo9 N-m 3. Duntpi,ty. Thr. urors-bind a:cclur~tion !s apprd\lm3tcl! III\L.~\L.I! JC~L.II.IIIII c)n
Peak nccclcrotion at the top of the building due to along-wind resonant response for the snu;lrc roul u l thc d ~ n .t l l -i n I~t .is 3ppruxiut31~.
.. ~U;:IU,C th~.rl:is 2 d ~ n ~ p i uc- ~. n l r i -
a linear rnodc. bution from nerodvnamic damoinc. . ..
- which is normallv ~ o s i l i v eand which then rc-
Juzc, the r ~ r u r i ~d;lnlpinn
r~l Jcp~'aduo;c In this nurLr.d ? \ ~ m p l e .if tllu huild~ng
Ih;id <; rutninrcr.d rullircw ,truut.~r;il *!rtim :lnd d:lml>inpii~*~.~riceahiltl: I-.!.r.ls 111
= 0.015. the urtlrr-wind pcak : . C C C ~ C ~ ~ I L Uf .I1I ~2 1111::.r fnllldc 1s~111l.l~ L . L . U I I I - .
352 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Sect 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 353
which would bring the acceleration lo willtin the occupancy comfort criterion of b. Accrlcration is proporlional to lltc square root 01the lorcc spectrum coellicicnt
11.8 mg. C,, and this is where paramclcr dependence bccomcs cnmplicaled. With reler-
4. Frcqeency,
. .
. 6ttildirrx de!>sirv, beizhr and esidrb, and .olrrrtfonr~rlmne. The dcocn-
dr.ncc u l cm.s-wind .1ccclur3lic1nun p;lramstcrh a h ~ c bdlr.cl ircqucr~cy:~tldmodal
cnce to Fig. 5.1 it can bc noted lllat CFS,l o r a_fii.cn building gcamclry, is cx-
, ;pressed as a lunction nrreduccd velncily 1'" = V,lr,,b and that C ,, increases wilh
y>
m x s is quit: c n m p l c ~and has bcen ~liacusredand er3luatr.d in somu dutail h) \!el- V, up to a peak tltis range covers most applications. This implies an additional
b n ~ r n c2nd Ch~.ung(19881 Thc cun~pliu:lliunis mxinlv c n u c d hv !he i3c1 thxt C..
is very sensitive to planlorm shape and reduced velociiy, as shown i n Fig. 5.4, anla
direct .
-~~ dcoendcnce on wind soeed. which makes thc accclcralion dcpendcnl on
somethink approaclling 10 over this region. Also thc increased size dcscribcd by
anything which impacts on frequency similarly allecls rcduccd velocity on C,, Ex- building width 6 reduces V.. nnd llence C,:,, which also works to reduce acceler-
amples orthc sensitivity 01cross-wind acceleration lo building height, sspcct ratio, ation in nddilinn to the n;bssivcncss clfict. Howcvcr, this size increase also
and planform shapc wcrc given i n Melbourne and Cheung (1988) and arc rcpro- moves to reduce frequency and hence increases V", and also C, and accelcration.
duced here as Fig. 5.5. From this study the overall conclusions with respect to param- c. hlodest rounding or chnmlcring orcurners (10% 01widdt) docs no1significantly rc-
eter sensitivity errccts on cross-wind nccclcrations wcre as lollows: ducc serviceability accclcralion lcvels, although a significant reduction in ultimate
o. The accelcr;llion is not, ss onc might inluilivcly think, dcpcndcn~dircclly on lirnil-state momcnls cun be achicvcd. More significant comer roundinc or chamlcr-
-
height or aspect ratio hld, but rather on buildinc- .platform size. lndirecllv, hciaht
is imnlscd hecausc the wind rl>:?d is 3 (UIICI~OII 111It~.igbt.HCIIUCrcI;t!\~.Iy .IL.~-
dcr lhuildings will h3vc Itifher 3cculerslirnr III~I SC,U>I hllilcl:ny\, h u tllu
~ impor-
tan1 p.ranlr.l:rr bcrc 51Lt2plilr"rm >iruand 3 r c r ~ gd-n\it).-ill
~. olller srurdr, ms*- relative to that Tor a square, sharp-corncred building is rcasonsbly ochicvnble.
O v c n l l the eliccts o r irequcncy, building density. l t c i g l ~and

l \vidth, and planlorm
shape are so inrerrclalcd that it is nnly by the typc arcvaluation shown i n Fig. 5.5 that
an appreciation or lhese aspects can bc uhtaincd.
5 Conclusions
1- square building, sharp corners I
t
The excitation mechanisms \\,lliclt csusc the most pcrccplible motions i n tall buildings
square building, chamfered havc bccn dcscribcd. nnd il has bcen shown tIt;i~ thc cross-wind rcsponsc i s (he domi-
corners (-0.1 b) n:mt cnusc o f motion ocrccotion nroblclns
a -----
-- rough circular, oclagonal
or tapered building a pirameler scnsiliaity discussion, wilh worked examples, has been presented to give a
desiener some indication 01how lo avoid lhinh
b -
" acccleration levels i n loll buildings, and
so avoid the need for auxiliary dnmping systems. In particular il was shown that very
tall buildings arc not necessarily the most sensiliue i n terms of occupancy comfort, but
+=recommended
- .
that souareTsham-cornered. hieh-aspccl-ratio tall buildincs are likely to have accclera-
tion p;oblems an.d that thcsc can be avoidcd by using p l a k r m shapes with cul corners
criterion
I approaching n circular shape. tapering with height. increased mass, and structural sys-
tems which straighten up the first-mode shapc.
5.2 FIRE PROTECTION OF STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS
The slruclunl system adopted for a building. including lhc choice of construction ma-
terials, is ohcn strongly influenced by ihc fire resislencc requircmenls o f building rc€-
ulations and codes. Although building code requirements with respect to lire vary be-
tween countries, it is gcncrally accepted that buildings should bc designed for the limit
svatc 01fire to achieve tllc follor\,ing objectives:
building height, m
1. Providc an nccepl.able level o f safety l o r ihc building occupants and limfighters.
Fig.55 hlasimum shndord dcriulion urcclcmllll_nfar I0 lnin In 5-scar rtlurn period for nrrluu
rsnogumtiunr; 5 = 11.111; ps = I60 kg/m'; V,,= 12 (hNOOl"J'; n = 4611,. 2. The adjvccnt propcrty is not dnmugcd.
354 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 355
The level of safety offered to the occupants of a building in the cvent of a fire is a cilcrior ollhc hulldings ior lntcral lo3d reriatoncc. Utrlqus $1slcnrr rurh nr ihc brncrd lube
complex function of numerous factors, including: of the John Hanmck Center. Chirqo. the framed tube o i the \\'orld Tnde Ccnlcr. New
York, nnd ihc bundled l ~ b ryslrmuf
r the S c ~ r rTowur.Chic3go. hmceval\ud. Y c l ~ n111 df
I. The likely chnmctcristics of the fire there clrcr ihc c r l r r n ~ membcrr
l hld lo he fircpmoied nud clld cvcn iho~glnromc stnlr-
turd reprrren!urion on iltc focsdcr hlr been ochicvcd.
2. Thc likely behavior o f t h e occupants (whcthcr they are alert or asleep, their reac-
tions)
3. T h e likely pcrformnnce ofcompartmcntation with respect to rcsvicting the movc- In the following, det,elop,nsnts nri5ing from the n w d to design buildings for firc
mcnt of smoke and flames wlety cconumically and ihc cffcct n i t h i s on the chuice oistructurnl aystsm and iortn o i
member consuuclion are reviewed. These developments vnry from innovative ways for
4. The likely pcrformonce of early \\wning systems (if any) in notifying the occu-
pants - -
desienine steel members to achieve the snecified levels of standard fire resistance as
given in the building regulations, to designing mcmbcrs Tor "real" fire rcennrios, t o a n-
5. The performance o f t h e sprinkler system ond smokc control systems (if any) tional engineering approach to designing for fire safely which lakes into account all
6. The response of thc firc brigade components of the firc safety system
All o i thcsc factors arc probabilistic by naturc and functions of time. Time is of the
utmost imporlancc in designing buildings for firc safcty-it being important thnt suc- 1 Design of Building Structures to Satisfy Building Code Requirements
ccssful egress be achic\,cd bciorc conditions become untcneble in the fire compartment.
A systematic approach to dcsigning buildings for fire mfety needs lo take into account Over the years various innovative approaches have been developed in an nttempt to re-
all ofthcse factors from a probabilistic approach and lo recognize the importance oftime. duce o r eliminate the need for conventional fire-protective coatings for steel members,
In contmst to such an approach, tllc regulatory rcquircmcnts with respect to fire while at the same time satisfying the (usually high) lcvcls of standard fire resistance re-
safcty that have evol\~edin many countries gcncrnlly represent an ad hoc and unsys- quired by the rclcvant building code.
lcmatic approach to designing buildings for fire safcty. Buildings arc rcquircd to be dc-
signed such that the structural mcmbrrs possess a ccrlain fire rcsistancc as dctcrmincd ll'oter-Filled Alember~. Around 4 0 buildings (IISI. 1993) have been constructed with
in accordance with the standard fire test-a test that generally bcnrs littlc relationship to tubular columns filled with walcr and with an appropriately designed circulation system
real fires and takes no account o f t h e time for fire dc\,elopmcnt :!nd sprcnd. But it is a to ensure that local overheating of the column does not occur and thnt there is a suffi-
useful tcst in that it allows the fire rcsistancc of clcmcnts of construction to be n t c d on cient supply of water to absorb the energy nssociatcd with the required level of fire re-
n relative basis. Littlc account is taken of the types ofacti\,itics taking place within the sismncc. A detailed design method has been available for many years (Bond. 19751. The
building, and generally little provision is made for the reduction of fire resistance re- 64-storv U.S. Steel Cornomtion headauarters in Pittsbureh incornorales watcr-filled ex-
quircmcnts due to the presence of other components of the fire safety system such as tcnorcolumos and is onc of thc tollcst buildings in rhc world uhcrc this ryitum lhns been
sprinklers, smokc detectors, and more cflicicnt egress provisions. oscd fur providing the requircd fire rcslstancc for the columns. \\';it<r cooling is inosl
However, it is likely that in msny silustions the application of a systematic approach suitable for columns, although with the addition of water pumps to provide adequate cir-
to assessing the fire saiety of buildings will allow a substantial reduction in the level of - the columns must
culation. the melhod can be used for tubular beams. F o r tall buildinss
the fire resistance required for membcrs-without resulting in any decrease in fire b e divided into zones to limit the buildup of pressure within the column. In general, it
saiety. T h e purpose of this section is lo consider how the structural form of buildings is true to say that the use of water filling to achieve the required standard of fire resis-
may be influenced by the need to design for fire safety. For a thorough consideration of tance for members has potential when exposed tubular steelwork is rcquircd from an ar-
-
fire snictv in tall buildinrs. scc Fire Sofen, , . irr Trill Btrildin~s ,. (CTBUH.
.
r11 the outist i t nr.r.d. to hc $l:,ted t l ~ ct o ~ i c r ? I ~ - i r ; t ~buildings
ll~d
19921.
src. rc13tiv~Iy111121-
chitectural viewpoinl
d r:qt#irr.m~.nlsfor <trucl~.r;llnl:nlbi.rr lo lr~\r.

f ? c t ~ . by ;! l c \ s l of fire rurist3nce. This is Columns of &fired Concrete ond Steel. The range of composite steel and concrete
because the fire rcsistancc ofconcrcte members is usually relatively easily achieved by columns shown in Fig. 5.6 has also been used widely to provide an allcrnative t o steel
.. .
selectinn an aooronriatc levcl of cover La the reinforcement and a minimum size of
mr.nlhr.r. I'or alcel rtruct.,r:,. oo the alhsr lh2nd, rcr~siremcntsfor rttembcrs to h a w
-
columns coated with fire-nrotective coatines. Both the encased I sections and the con-
cri.1s.fillr.d tubular sr.ctiunr offer significant ad\antazus nit11 resptut to rapid cnnrtruc-
~ prutc;tc I o,ith fire-
hi:h?r lc\r.ls ol'fir: re\ist:ln;r. guncr;ill! I I ~ c ;~! l~i i I~It ~ C , ~ ~I SI II~ *I , be (ton. Tubulnr columns o f l l r g ~cross s:ctiun h i \ < hr.~.nused ior t.1i1 buildings (hlcFJmn.
protective coverings such as sprayed insulation materials or board protection. and this 1990; \Vsr.tt 2nd Bcnnrus. 1987: Watson and 0'Brir.n. 1990) ( r t e Fig. 5 7 ) The locn.
can result in substnntiallv increased costs for thc stccl frame. It follows therefore that it lion of r~inforcementin these members sometimes "resents difficulties. and the use o l
3s unl! in the c ; uf ~.,~ecl-fr:.mr.d h u i l J i n p ti1:11 thcrr. ;!r: rc;.l henelits tu be p i n e d by t~nrcinlorceduuncrcte is nftdn porsiblr., dcpcnding nn thr. ~ t o c L ~ n ~uf. s tilt
r cnlu!nn. llir
rr.11.luing o r diimin~tingl l x nedd for firi. prol<clioo ur 1I1crlruuu1r;rl fr:rnle. As Ibcngar l e w l o f lu;tJ ;,pplicd lo t h ~cnlumn.
' 2nd the ccccntnclly ol' load. Tlw J e s i g l of ntl\ud
(1992) has smtcd. concrete and steel members for firc resistance is the subject of numerous publications
(O'Mengheretal.. 1993: British Steel. 1992; Kruppa et al.. 1990; ECCS. 1988: CTBUH.
It ii the requircnrcn~iTor r~rucluiislfire prolcction (and corrosion protection) that ha\,c 1992).
inhibited !he usc of crprcsscd or visible cxlcrnrl rteclu,ork with lvll buildings. Cladding and
curlrin \\,all ryslcmr llrvc evoivcd and h1iv.e been urcd la camoullvgc (he fire-protected Firc-Resistant Steels. Alternative "fire-resislant" stccls hove been developed
steel. As the need for taller buildings 1 ~ 1grown,
s i t hidr became more important lo utilirc thc (Maruoka c t a]., 1992: Assefpour-Derfuly e l al.. 1990; CTBUH. 1992) and promoted by
356 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 357
various steel companies, particularly rrom Japan. These slecls give somewhat superior
mechanical properties under elevsred ternpenlure conditions compared with convcn-
tional steels, although use of these steels w i l l not rcmorc the necessity Tor a firc-pro-
tective coating-a lesser thiclkness or fire protection w i l l need lo bc applied and ihc
steels are generally more cxpcnsivc than conventional steels.
2 D e s i g n o f Building S t r u c t u r e s for "Real" F i r e Scenarios

"Reol" Fires ~,crrrrsSlnndord Fires. The previous section has dealt with the design
of buildings where the members are required to have levels of fire rcsismncc as deter-
mined i n accordance with the standard fire test (ISO, 1985). The time-temperature curve
associntcd with lhc stnnd;~rdlire test varies markedly compared with those associntcd
with real fires (Fig. 5.8). Thir ntatter -'ill not be considered in detail hcrc exccpl to notc
that this has bccn demonstrated by firc tests that hare bccn conductcd i n various-size
compartments having dirierent surrace linings, various qunnlitics o i rucl (nonnelly rcp-
resented by timber and plastic cribs), and varying degrccs or \.cnlilation (Pcucrsson el
al.. 19761. Othcr fire tests have been conducted with real furniture i n small and, more
recently. i n large firc comporlmcnts (Thomas el nl.. 1992a). Based on compnrtmcnt tests
conducted in room-size enclosures \vith thc firc load rcprcscnted by cribs. various cngi-
neering models haw bccn dcvclopcd to prcdicl the temperature (and timc-tempcralure)
reinforcement
(8) Square Sleel Tubs wilh (b) Circular Slssl Tube with
Concrete Filling Concrele Fillhg
Fig. 5.7 Furrst Ccntrc. Pcrllr, Aurlruli:~
(c) I-Section with Concrele (d) I-Section Encased in Concrsts

Bstween Fiangss
(Arbed Column)
358 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements
condttions given n certain lr\,el of \'entilation and fire load (Pcttcrsson el al.. 1976).
Through .uch testing it has been recognized that under cenain conditions, it is pos~ible
lo reducc (or cvcn cli~ninnte)tile lcvrl of firc protsction rcquirud for slructural members.
o~ tviflt External Steelwork

Blriidinrs
~~~
It has been shown C a w and O'Brien. 1981:
Kr.~pp;l, 1981) thdt the locntion of sleelwork beyond or at the facode of the building. or
such that it is p m l y bhiuldcd from flames which ma). come frnm thc uindows i l l tltc
event of a fire. will under certain ventilation conditions result in temperatures that are
. -
not sufficientlv hieh to reouire fire ~rotectionof the steelwork. ~em~oeratures
~.nucd31 (or hcyond) the facade are generally considerably lower than those within the
cxncri-
fire cotnpanmrnt. This fact has bccn dcmonstr~tcdby muanr of fire tcsu in compnn-
menu where h e fire load has been generally represented by wood cribs and thc fire
compartments have various degrees of vcntilntion.
..
This aooroach has rcSulted in the use of unorotected external steelwork in numcrous
bu!ldings such 3s Bush Lunc Houac. Lundun (lZig.5.9) (Brorzstti r.1 nl.. 1983). uhurc
thc S I L . L . I ~ O forming
~~ the external lit tic^. is of relat!vcly s r n ~ lcross
l sr.ctiun 2nd cuulud
by water.
The Hotel de Ins Anes tower in Bnrcclona. Spain (Fig. 5.101, is a very recent exam-
ple of the use of unprotected external stcelwok (lycngar, 1992). In this cnse the outer
columns and the lateral bracing system arc located outside the building facade. Calcu-
lations were perlormed using the mcthod given by Law and O'Bricn (1981). assuming
n git~cnlire load in a hotel compartment and a reprcscntalivc Icvcl of ventilation. The
calculated temperatures for the external steelwork wcre confirmed by mcnns of a lire
Fig. 5.9 Exompic of use o f rratcr-fillcd tuba; nusln 1.usc 14eu.c. Landan. U.li.
I
I 4 I I
0 20 40 60 80
Time (min)
Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 361
Special Topics
lesL 11 is clear that In this case the regulatory authorities were prcparcd to acccpt t l ~ i sap.
proach in licu of all members having to achieve the higher level o f l i r c rcsislancc re.
q u k d by [he regulations.
Similar calculalions havc bccn uscd in Japan (Sakumoto e t al., 1992) lor high-rise
buildings to permit the use of unprolecled "fire-resistnnt" steel al lhc lacsde.
Pnrki11i,,6 Gnrnges. The firc load and vcntilalion conditions associated with parking
garages are well known. Opcn-deck parking garages ore generally dclined a s buildings
that havc at least two onnosite sides onen lo nt least 50%. Firc lesls involvinc cars in
nrovidcd the structurul members are at least o l a ccrtein size-snd this size is n ~ c wilh
l
prlctical scctions uscd in parking gers~ger-lhc temperatures achieved will not lead to
off-loading of lhc ~ l ~ c l u r members.
ol Thus mullislory st~.ul parking gacrges wilhuut
firc protccliun cladding arc pcrmiltcd in muny countries o r ihc world.
Tcsts have bccn conduclcd on closcd ourkin:- -rarancs - nnd thnsc ryhich arc waniallv
open but do not comply \t*ith thc prcccding delinition ol' opcn dc~.k(Bennclts ct al..
1989). Thc lcsts sho~vcdt l ~ a lhe
t fire tcmpcrelurcs in partially open parking geragcs can
bc equivalent to those lhst would be expcricnccd in a clrrscd gsiregc. which in turn arc
l ~ i e l ~th;m
e r those lhar a,ill he acliiet,ed in onen-deck romars. In Auslralia. Ibr r;lr:trcs
- -
ing g : ~ r u g ~ w ~ i usprolcctcd
tlh slruclurai slecl.
dfixircd-Occrrpnng. flrrildi~~gs. The n l a t l o

~ l~mircd-ncuupuncy hsildings i h no\$,con-
sidcrcd. hlullislory buildings oltcn incorporate stories \ahich under ihu huilding rcgol;~.
l i o n arc rer~uiredto 11:lvc a more fire-resistanl l\,nc of utlnstructiun or il hichcr lcvui of
stories. For eramplc, in many countries where isolalcd open-deck parking psrnge!, are
nermittcd to hc constructed in unnrotected slecl. Ibis \vould not be ncrmittcd i f t h e onen-
where numerous buildings havc now bccn permitted Lo hc constructed with unproteclrd
steel parking levels below srlorics ofofficcr and shops. Figures 5.11 and 5. I? shogr, osc
such crumple, where {our le\,els of open-deck parking garage constructed from nnn-
tireprooled stcclr\.ork sre locatcd below I?, stories of office accon~rnudation.
E.s.vcnlir?l nrrd A'or~csso~liol~llcmbers. Buildin. codes usunllv rcuuirc :ill members
been succrsfully argued in o number of situations. For csample. the building shnwn in
Fig. 5.13 is a high-rise building incorporating large-dian~cler cuncrctc-lillcd l u h e .
conlpositc concrete floors. and a reinforced concrclc scrricc s113f1. Exlcrn:tl trusrcr
spanning hctwccn thc calumns \\,ere provided to ensure adcrluntc lalcral load rchist:lnc~
under design ultimnlc wind forccs and adrquate lelcral stiffness endcr scrvicc wind
loads. The architecl required the estcrnztl b r ; ~ c i nlo~ hc o f c r n o s e d stcclivork. yet u~rdcr
argued on thc basis that in thc cslrcmc cvcnt ol' fire. thc prc*cncc ol'thc br;wing \vus not
Fig. 5.10 Hnlul dc Ins Artcs. Uorcelunn.Sguin.
364 Special Topics IChap. 5 Sect. 5.21 Fire Protection of Structural Elements 365
n illustration of the benefits that mav be achiewd by the approach described is if-
A...
. ~ ~ ~ ~
lu$trated try a relsarch program undcrt3ken to in\.esIip;llc nplior~sar5o:i;lted N 11h111~'rc-

iurbi*t!!nc6tt uf n . I i - $ l u ~building.
. Thc building. shown in Fig. 5.14. incorpural+ :r
braced str.ci cors and ciosuly r l ~ x c dcxterior s1:r.l column* uhich cnmbinl: tvith stecl
spandrel beams to form an cirekor tube structure. The K-braced core is connected to the
exleribr tube by means of transfer trusses at the lop and midheight of the building. Bell
rrusscs extending around the perimeter of the building are located at the top, midhcighl.
and bottom of thc building. All of these steel members are fire protected by means of
concrete encasement, which in the case of the exterior columns, is further encapsulaled
Fig. 5.13 I'n,poarll llmcc building, Sydncg, Austruliix.

366 Special Topics [Chap. 5 Sect. 5.31 Condensed Referencee/Bibliography 367
by 51ur.l plxe. In addition. thr. corc is sep~r:tt~.dfrom tile re51 of thc ares ofr.;ich $lor?. b! Brolctti 1983. Fire Prolerrio,~rfSlcci S!n,cnirer-ErornpIcr of Applicorionr
mjsunry <rallr.Thc floor b c ~ m ;r~ n dcumpusill: noor sl3bs ore protecttd \rich a s b s s t ~ 5 . Chen 1973, Hurnon Purccptio,~Tltrtrhoidr lo Horizonral hlorioll
hascd fire prateclion mntcri;il ;rs is the inside s u r i ~ c eof the fitcndc lbe3n1s. CTBUH Group CL 1980. Toil Building Cn'rerio ond Looding
The sprinkler system in the buildine- does notcomnlv . .wilh currenl code renuiremcnts CTBUH Cornmillee 8A 1992. Fire Sofsi). in Tnii Bzriidirrgs
for sprinkler hczd spacing or ua1r.r deliwry rdtcr. hlorcovcr. !to sprinklers arc lucnlcd
Ducnport 1967. Gtrir Looding Focrorr
in thr ceiltng .,pact, as is required for cununt construction.
lllc pr0pohr.d rclurbishmcn~of the huilding required lhc rsmoeal uf;irbestnr-bared ECCS 1988. Coicuiarion of rhe Fire Rcrirrosce of Curtrrolly Loodcd Corr!posire Srrei-Cancrere
Col~mirzrfiposcd ro rite S~orrdardFire
.
fire prolectiod material from the beams w h i c h s u. n ~ o nthe floor slabs and from the sof-
fit u? lhc c o n l p ~ s i l cnnor slabs. For the refurbished bullding tu mr.r.1 1h2 dcctncd-tu- Holrnei 1987. Mode Sltope Carrecrior~rfor Dyeo,riic Rerpor!rc lo tl'in~d
co!oplg requirtmc-nts of lhc regul:!lions, il rvould [squire respraying of (he bu:lms and llSl 1993. Fire Errgincerir~gDesign forsteel Srrucnrrer: Store ofrhe Arr
floor sl:tb suffit, alteration of the sprinkler syslcm lo c l ~ a n g ~it .frum nn c ~ l r j l i c l ~h~,.-
t Irwin 1986, Aloriorz in Toll Buildirlgr
- .
ard system Lo an ordinary hazard ivslem. i n d the fittineof snrinklcrs in the-ccilins
spacer. In contr:tst. the bullding nwner prupuscd Ikll the refurhished bu~ldlngretain tlie
IS0 1985. Firc-Rcrirloncc Test$-Eiemrnrr of Br#ilding Corolnrcliol?
lyengvr 1992. Holei de lor Ancr To$l.rr. Borceiona, Sl~airl
c r ~ s t i n gaprinklcr llcnds snd that thc slabs and floor I,i.-ms rcmnin unprutcctcd. Thc rs- Kruppv 1981. Fire-Rrrizroece oJExien~oiSreei Coit,asls
Ii3b1lit! of thr. sprinkler s)ste,n a a s further improved by 111sinclusion of 8dJiteun:.l
monitored vslvcs and a system lo cnablc weekly checking of the presence of water in
..
Krunnv 1990. Srriccrt~ralFire Design
Law 1981. Fire SaJcry of Errenrol Srerin'ork
the sprinkler .pipes . at every noor. Mnmoku 1992. De$,eion,nrnr orxd Terr Rertritr ofSAl51OB-NFR Fire Rcsirnl,>rSleul for Procrer rG
.
A! 111~.rc.quesl oltlau bulldlng uwncr, a series o f fire t?sts and ii risk ilssessn~en~ wcrt
~~~~
Gorrllle For ~ o r r 18,;. Jopon Heodq?mnerr Baiidirig

undenakr.n. The risk assessmr.nt sr;!r conduct~.d by sgslemalic~llymodcling tlts events
McBcan 1990. Tize AIYER Cunrre. Adcioidc-A Core Snady
thnl mi:ht fullun the nccJrrcn.'i. ur ;1 fire i n the bullding. 2nd by usinp 3 hlonte C;~rlu
simulntion lo cvaluntc the probobilitv of outcomes which would lead to dcaths arnane the hlelbournc 1977. Probubilir). Dirrribtrrior~rArrocio~cdwirh rhc I\'i,'i,ld Loodiug of Slrilclsres
uc:up3nts o f l h c hullding. 'Thr: r i ~ ks~.,r.ssmunlrr.-r carried itut fur lwo (con:-ptu;!lj \ i ~ - hklboume I 980, hrorernr,dReco,z~rne,~dorionran Accrlerolio,l Crileria for Occ~lpuncyCarrforl in
Toll Slntcl,,r.ur
ost~ons-tlli. bdllding dcaignud lu s311s1y 311 of the rnitlitnt~ll~ IL.qUIremctll5 0111~1:C J T ~ U I I I
budding rr.gulalions: 3nd 1111. p r o p u s ~ dr ~ . f u r h ~ ~ hbuildinp
r.d Ir du<crabcd. E;!clt uf the
hlclboumc 1988. Designing forScn~icc~1hIe Acederorio,zr in Toll Buiidirtgr
modcls of the buildinc a c c u r n ~ e l ~ a c c o u n t efor
d the lavout of the buildinr and thc sub- hlelbournc 1991. Acccieroziortr and Carrfirl Crircriolor Dtriidi#igr
a)rlerns 3nd compnnsnts u i t l ~ cfire silfcly syste~n.\litn! uf IIIL. d:13 011 fir^. E I U N I ~2nd O'Mcaehcr 1993. Bc1,osiosr of Co,,zporilc Colurr!nrin Firc
1ltvr.lnpmunt. 5rnuk~.mnv?ntcnl. ;!nd :~lnrrncues rr.quirr.,l fur Ilk: risk 35vrwl:nt camu Petlenson 1976. Fire E,lginrrring Design of Sled Slnncrllrer
frum 3n urtenairr. lest p r o g r ~ n t(lhulnas ct 11.. 19923) iit which four fire le,l* sssru cun- Rccd 1971. I\'i!'i,ld htdr,ced Alolion mid Heaiatt Coaforl
ducted in a test building specially constructed lo simulate part of the protolype building. Sakumolo 1992. ilppiicorion offire-Resirronr Stcrl to o High-Rirc Building
The results o r t h e risk assessment showed that the risk to life safety in both buildings Saunderr 1975, Toil Rccro,8puiar Building Rmponre ro Crorr-ll'ind Gcilorion
is low, but that the refurbished building is substantially safer than that salisfying the Thornus 1989, Fire in Mircd Occztponc). B~ildirlgs
minimum requircmcnts of the regulntions. On the basis of these findings the building
Thomas 1992n. Fire Tesrx of ritc 1.10 IViiiio,n Srreel Oflcc Buildblg
has been refurbished such that the existing sprinklers remain and no fire protection is
Thomnr 1992b. T l ~ eEfccr ofFire on 140 IVilliom Srrcrr-A Risk Asrcrrrrlenr
. . to the steel beams or floor slabs.
applied
Vickcry 1966. 011rlie Arsesrmenr of Wind Efecrr on Elonic Slri,crllrer
Further testing and r~.rc=rcltis hcing unden;lkcn to provide thc b ~ r i slor ;i more g a t -
eralirud n p p r n x h to dulcrminitlg thc lcvsl oifirr. r3fcty offcrcd bv a huildinc b ~ w ntl d Vickery 1969. Or, rhe Reliobiliq ofG,,rr LLIadi,zg Focrors
a rational consideration of the factors described earlier. Clearlv ruch an anoroach has
the potential to oficr subal~ntinlf l e \ ~ b i l ~ tnilh
..
y reipdct I" slmclural lorn,. ;l\ ~ h influ-
c
Watson 1990, Tt,br,lar Contporhe C a l u m , ~ortd~ Tircir Deurloprnrnr in Atrsrroiio
Wyctt 1987. Sirilcrrrroi Fire Etrginccrittg in Building Design-A Core S r ~ d y
:ncr ol;,ll campnncnts u i t h e tire snfctg s!stem cart be t;lhcn into account.
5.3 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arrcfpour-Drrfuly 1990. Fire Rcsirrottl High Srrcngri, LLIII,Alloy Slrcls

Beck 1991, Fire Sufeir S?rrerr?s Drrign Urittg Risk Arsrr.vrsenr A I o r i ~ l r - D e ~ ~ c l o p ~in~AIII-
~e~~i~
I~ii"
Benneru 1985. Open-Deck Carpork Fire Turrr
Benncus 1989. Firc 6, Carpork.,
Bond 1975. Fire artd Sic.el Co,~rm,crion:Il'nrcr Coolcd Holloa Colrrrrnis
British Stcrl 1992. Derigr~Alo~l,rolfor Conrrcre Fiilcd Coiirrruir
5-c
Systems for the Future
A look at the future not only concludes this study of slate-of-the-an sWctures but also
-.
ooens the door for another monoeranh in this series. The subiect of unbuilt ~ . r o.i c c t sand
futurs syslcms. a rich mix of \isiunary project* from around lhc norld, hls fascinsung
poluntl=l for furthcr chplorallon and prcscntation in 2 rcpir;tle volume.
Thls fi1131 chapt~.rsill semc as 3 brief summap o f u hcrl: !;!I1 build~ng,)slcms sccm
. .
to bc headed in the near. rather than distant. futurk. Several oroicct dcs&intions are ap-
pendud 10 chis sccuon, which illuilr=tc aamc nf thcrc principd icndcoc~si.The projculs
dcmonslralc lhc rich divcrrity ol ayalcms now an\ail:,hlc lo d:signcrs. They irL. ;!I1 re-
cently designed unbuilt projects, utilizing systems discussed in earlier chapters,
Core and ostriggers)~srems: Miglin-Bcitler Tower. Chicago and Dearborn Ccntcr.

Chicago
Trussed rube q 1 s r e m : Shimizu Super High Rise, Tokyo
Hybrid qsrems: Bank of the Southwest Tower, Houston
The rcasuns ll1111these building> rtnl;iin unhuilt range from chxnglng cconnmic con-
dition,. as in thc c;tss ofthe Hank of ihc SoutBu,esi, lo pro~cctsihdt au,ail h m c i n y in a
slow m;lrkcl. such as the Sllimizu Suncr Hiah Rise. In addition lo lhcir unbuilt ht3tUs.
~ ~~
- -
the", also share some features that i~lubuatcl&dencics in tall buildioc desien. These in-
cludr ;~rchilectur;tl,slrucluml. as ucll 3s othur lcodcncies lhai point to ihc fulure.
Before discussing lhe fcatures nflhcsl: tutvsrs. 11 is uorlh munlioning une \isionnry
projccl, of ihe type that might appear in a future monograph, as suggested. It has some
feamres common la the other schemes presented in this chapter, extrapolated to a height
significantly taller. Willinm LeMessurier has proposed a half-mile-high tower [850 m
(2789 R)]. the Erewhon Center (Fig. 6.1) (Architectural Record, 1985). With a floor
plan approximately the size of the Sears Tower or the World Trade Center it has usable
floorarcas proven in existing tall buildings. The structunl systems for this tall building
have more in common with the unbuilt projects of this chapter than the current record
holders. The use of massive high-strength concrete columns on the exterior, cast com-
posite with the structural steel frame, utilize the cost-effective strength and stiffness of
concrete in compression. Bracing is employed both as a lateral resistance system and 3s
a rravitv load transfer system to allow all load-bcarjne columns to pnrticipalc in the lat-
eml rcs(s11ncL. f o r n p l i i u m cfIiciency.Thc result Is a;ury rigid 1oir.r nil11 3 10-acc P C -
riod uf\lhr.~lion,ulilizing convcn~ion;tluonrtructlun i:chniq.te~.
ki Sect. 6.21 Structural Tendencies 37 1
6.1 ARCHITECTURAL TENDENCIES

ii
And so what nre some of the current tendenc~esin tall buildine dcsien that can be ex-
~ ~
pcctcd to continuc in the lite twcntirth ccntury and inlo thc n e u ? n l & u is no sinflc ar-
chitectural trend, as in the 1960s and 1970s. char damirlarrs the design of 1311 bujldings.
There are, of course, buildings that utilize structure as part of the architectural expres-
. . -
sion. in the tmdition oioroiecls such as Chicaeo's John Hancock Tower. whereas other
building slructurcs, primmly f r o r rhc 1980s. defer to the architcctur.4 massing choscn
mare in con,idcrntion of urb3n design issucs. Grcatcr use of mixcd s)slr.ms, alung with
architectural wends toward utilizing the structural syslems as a form generator (along
- - -.
with urban desien). are blurrinr these earlier distinctions and creatine mnnv outions for
the 1990s and beyond.
The Bank of the Southwest Tower exhibits the potential for the massing and nrchi-
tectural expression to accent and reveal the structural rystcm. The massive composite
columns rcduce in size with height, and the architect lakes advantage of the column lo-
cations and dimensions to shane the tower in n more dvnamic and soarine,
~
- exuression
.
thdn n aimplc prismatic form. The hliglin-Buitler Touer :!nd the De3rborn Ccntcr, uti-
lizing a core 2nd outriggcr system. x h i s v e similar form;, but with difiercnt slenderness
proportions and tops.
Thc Shimizu Suoer Hieh Rise is a tmsscd tube with some other similarities with
Chicago's Hancock. They are both mixcd-use buildings, with officesbelow and residcn-
tin1 floors ahove.This requires smaller flour plates in upper floors.The Hancock achic\.es
this with a constantly slouine exterior truss~tube.whereas Sllimiru rotates the tube, re-
wltina in smaller flo~rol&;with each rotation. These two nroiects
~
. , . .
illustrate the oonor-
~unltyprcsr.ntcd hy ;tn exterior truss guomctry 3, the print3ry 5ourrr: of ;trchitsctur;~lca-
prcssion, uhilc 31 tltc s3me time adhering to an clficlcnt and rigid slructur;~li!rtcm.
6.2 STRUCTURAL TENDENCIES
The systems for the tall buildings presented here all take full advantage of the mass.
widih. and uotential efficiencies of the towers. The similarities among.these building
system, illustntr., by rxxmplc, d o i g n idcas that work in nt;ln! dilfcrcnt cuild~tiuns.Thc
follu~ringlid sumrnnrtacs the\e common features:
Composite elements
Use of high-strength concrcte for supercolumns
Bracing or core walls for lnteral stiffness
Use of active and passive damping systems
Use of better analytical 1001s and testing facilities
' h e r s is a grsaler lsndency to mix systeslr 2nd mattrials t o d ~ y purti;ularly

. uanci2le
3nd steel Cnmpnsllc ncel 2nd cuncretc floor ryitem, =re utili2uJ i n sll of tlw projcclr
~h;!tlullon. in additinn to elficir.nt urr. uf mxcri31*, tht scltlshuril~p":!turd .,I th2 r!i-
a m lends itself to the reouiremcnts for fast construction. The improvement of high-
extcnsibn, bending stiffness

372 Systems forthe Future [Chap. 6 Project Descriptions 373
The use of braced frames or shear walls, in lieu of moment resistant frames, is also PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
evident. Thcsc systems are inherently more stiff, and therefore more economical in
achieving drift and acceleration limits. Bracing and walls sre locally more limiting than
framed tubes, particularly when bracinapcnemtes .. -
the insrior volume. But bracinn and
core ivallc also upun up other opportunities for flexibility An e ~ a m p l uof this is the e r .
Miglin-Beitler Tower
Chicago,
:?. Illinois, USA
tsrior wall oihraccd lor\r.rs. $rhcrc column* nn). be njuch sn~allr.rb a n llte massive sec- Architect Cesar Pclli Associates Inc. with HKS Inc.
tions required for framed tubes
Svuctural engineer Thornlon-Tomasetti Engineers
;\nuther 3d\,anccmunt in the pcrlormsncc nltnll buildings is thc usc ofdamping ,),-
Itmi. Activc dilmping r)alums u,er: lir.4 uscd in llte rulrolil of Boston's klancock build- Year of completion Future
ing. 35 llcll :IS i l l orifinil design fc3lure in Sen York'r Cilicom Ccnlcr. Thc World Height from strcct to rool 610 m (2000 ft)
Trade Center was one ofthe first to use pnssi\,e damping systems..~heuse of these sys- 141
Number of storics
tems is becoming more common now, and indeed the Shimizu tower proposes an active
damping system (HMD). The improvement in analyticsl tools, namely, more powerful Number of levels below ground I
computers at affordable prices, has made some of these aduancements possible. And Building use Orlice
i m p r ~ \ ~ c m e nint stesting facilities, both shaking tables and wind tunnels, have also aided Frame material Concrete core, major columns, outrigger
the undcrslanding and usefulness of these systcms. Base isolation systems for earth- walls, steel floor beams, Vicrcndcel
quake motion, as well as tuned mass dalnpcrs for the control of wind nloucmcnts, arc trusses
now common dcsign consideretions. Other systems, such as active control of building
structures with advanced microprocessors, are also being tested, and increasing use Typical floor liuc load 2.5 kPa (50 psf)
could be anticipated in the future. Basic wind velocity 33 mlsec (73 mph) at 10 m (33 ft); 1 6
mlscc (I03 mph) at 610 m (2000 ft), 50-yr
return
6.3 OTHER TENDENCIES Maximum lateral deflection 71 1 mm (28 in.) at l loth floor, 50-yr
return
Finally therc is mo\,cmcnt toward greater inlegration in thc design and construction Design fundamental period 9 scc
process through information systems. Consideration of construction methods and syr- Design acceleration 23 mg peak. 10-yr return
terns, including prefabrication, modulnr construction. and robotics. is cllanging the tra- Design damping 1.5 to 2% serviceability
ditional project delivery systems. Information systems for monitoring quality assurance
Earthquake loading ZC = 0.0012: horizontal force factor 1.33
during construction as well ns monitoring the long-term performance of buildings are
also on the horizon, with the integration of mechanical. wnical lransportation and Type of structure Consrctc cur< linked hy concrete b-am5 to
maintenance systems. cight major perimcler concrcte columns
Foundation conditions 30-m (100-ft) silty and sand clay over
dolomitic limestone bedrock
Footing type 17.4-m (90-ft) deep. 2.1-to 3-m (6- 1010-
h)-diametcr caissons sockeled into rock
Typical floor
Beam spacing 3.05 m (10 rt)
Material Steel
Slab 69-mm (3.5-in.) normal-weight concrctc
on 76-mm (3-in.) melal deck
Columns
Size at ground floor I I by 2 m (36 by 6.5 ft)
Material 100-MPa (14.000-psi) concrete
374 Systems for the Future [Chap. 6
Core Concrca. 100 lo 7 0 MPa (14.000 to

10.000 psi)
Thickness at ground floor 914.460 mm (36. 18 in.)
The ~tructuralsystem for the proposed 141-story 610-m (2000-Ft)-high Miglin-Beitler
office building has been designed by the structural engineering firm Thornton-
Tomasetti Engineers of New York City (Fig. 6.2). A simple and elegant integration of
building form and function has emerged from close cooperation of architectural, stmc-
mml, and development team mcmbers. The resulting cruciform tube scheme offers
structural effieiency, superior dynamic behavior, ease of construction, and minimal in-
trusion at leased office floors (Fie.
. - 6.31. .
hlnjor objucti\cs ofthc structural design were to ~ c h i e v cspeed and cconnmy uf con-
slruclion 2nd arold inlerior colutit~isin urdcr to intaximizc net rentable nrcl. This \ras
achieved through a structuml concept bared on a C ~ c i f o r m(crosslike) tube which, in
..
ulun, is similnrin anocarance . . ofthis structurel erid
to a ticLtac-toe board. The simulidtv
allous 5 t r u c l ~ r tlcmcnts
~l for the rlendcr t<lncr to costisuc onintermpled frdm lhc but-
ton1 ufti\d building 10 the inp.
'TBL. cn~clforrntuhu structural syst:m consists oftlic iullo%ringS ~ Amajor compuncnt5:
I. A 19- by 19-m (62.5- by 62.5-11) concrete core with walls of varying thickness.
Theintcriorcross walls of the corc arc gencmlly not penetrated with openings. This con-
tributes significantly to the lateral stiffness.
2. Eight cascin-place concrctc fin columns located on the faces of the building, which
extend up to 6 m (20 it) beyond the42.6- by 42.6-m (110- by 140-it) lonar footprint.
3. Eielit link beams canncctinc the four corners of the core lo the eieht u
fin columns
31 e\c.ry llonr. 'These reinforced concrclc b:nm< arc hxunchud at both ends for incrcn,ed
s t i f f r l : ~:~nd
~ rr..l.l;r.d in dcpth 31 m i d r p ~ nto allow fctr p35b3fc 01 mcchnnacill ~ L I C I S .
Linking.the fin columns and cure cnoblur thc full uidtli uf thc h ~ l l d i -n etu act i n r e r w -
.
ine lsteral forces. In addition to link benms at each floor. sets of two-stam-dcco outrie-
gcr walls 3rc lucntud at Ievcls Ib, 56. m d 91. Thtac outrigger aallr <nlvauce the invr-
. b
actiorl betrracn ertcrlor fin culumns and the corc.

4. A conventional structural steel composite floor system with 460-mm (18-in.).
..
deep rolled steel beams suaced at approrimatelv 3 m I10
. ft). on center. A slab of 76-mm
( 3 - ~ n . ) - d r .l-mm
s ~ (20-g;;uge) c o n u g l u d mctni deck 2nd 89 mm (3.5 in ) ofslnne cun-
ir:le tupplne ipJtli betrvecn 111sbcarns. Tne ile:l floor syr1L.mia rupporttd h> the m>t-
in-place concrete elements.
5 . Exterior steel Vierendeel trusses consisting of the horizontal spandrels and two
vertical columns at each of the 18.6-m (61-it)-wide faces on the four sides of the build-
ing between the fin columns. To eliminate stresses produced by creep and shrinkage
hlrains in the concrete fin columns, theverticals in 1heVirrendeel arc provided with ver-
tical slip connections. This has the added benefit of channeling all of the gravity loads
on each of thc building faces out lo the fin columns to help eliminate uplift forces on the
foundations.
Exterior steel Vicrendecl trusses are used to pick up each of thc four cantilevered
corners of thc buildinn. Corner columns are eliminated. n r o v i d i n ~for comer offices
\%itllondisturh:d tisa,s. Coone:tlon* herncen the stc:l Visrendeel iru*.us 2nd 1111: r u n -
;r:w fin c o l ~ , n n \:!re typi:311! itmple shr.:~rc<lnncclionl ahich minimirc co\ts 2nd ex-
~~ ~
pedilc erection.
6. A 183-nt (600-it)-lall steel-framed lo\r'er st the top of the building. This braced
frame is to house observation levels, window washing, mechanical equipment rooms,
and an ossortmcnt of broadcasting equipment.
376 Systems for the Future [Chap. 6 Project Descriptions
A cruciform tube structure provides a safe, elegant, efficient, and consmctible solu- Dearborn Center
tion to h e challenge of designing the world's tallest building, the Miglin-Beitler Tower. Chicago, Illinois, USA
The proposed s w c t u n l solution combines the erection speed of concrete construction,
the flexibility for future change and the efficiency for horizontal spans of a steel floor Ar$$ilect Skidmore Owings and Memll
'
system, and the superior dynamic acceleration response of a composite latenl load re- Stnicturul engineer Skidmore Owings and Merrill
sisting slluctunl system.
Year of completion Proposal only
Height from smeel to roof 346 m (1 135 ft)
Building use Office
Frame material Concrete core, steel perimeter frame, steel
outrigger trusses
Maximum lnternl deflection H/500, 100-yr return period
Design fundamenlnl period 7.9 sec
Design nccelenlion 22 mg, 10.~1return period
Design damping 1.75% serviceability
Type of smcture Concrete core, steel perimeter frames,
steel outrigger and bell trusses
Foundation conditions 24.4 m (80 ft) of clay over bedrock
Fooling type Concrete caissons with steel liner
Typical floor
Story height 3.96 m (13 fl)
Beam span 13.7 m (45 fl)
Material Steel, gnde 250 MPa (36 ksi)
76-mm (3-in.) metal deck
Columns
Material Steel. grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Core Concrete shear walls. 760 mm (30 in.) thick
at ground floor: slrenglh 49 MPa (7000 psi)
The project will consist of an equivalent 85-story oflicc tower with a total overall gross
enclosed area of approximately 246,000 m' (2.6 million ftz) of which approximately
227,000 mz (2.4 million ft') is above gnde (Fig. 6.4).
Fig. 6 3 Ploor Iruming plnn; hliglin-BeitlcrToner. The first five floors will cover an area approximately equivalent lo the site and will
contain approximately 9270 mz (98,000 ft') of retail syucc on the ground floor. con-
Project Descriptions 379
378 Systems for the Future [Chap. 6
course level, and second floor (Fig. 6.5). The omce lower will be located at the west end
of the site. Figure 6.6 shows the outrigger tmss system used.
There will be three below-grade levels. The concourse level contains relail rcntnl
space plus mecbanicnl, clcctrical, and building services arcas. The second and third
lower lcvels will bc devoted primarily lo parking for 237 cars. but will also contain the
main incoming electric and telephone services, employee facilities, and tenant areas.
A multilevel relail galleria will extend from thc concourse lcvcl up through the sec-
ond floor and will interconnect with the Dearbom Street and State Street subway sla-
lions at the concourse level. The retail levels will be linked by cscalalors within a slcy-
lighted, stepped atrium space. Two additional pairs of escalators will connect the first.
second, and fourth floors at the clcvalor core. Offices spaces on the third, founh, and
fifih floors !+-ill open into the atrium.
Fig. 6.4 Dcnrl~ornCcnlcr, CBicugo, Illinsis. (Pliorn il).Hcdriclz-Blcrring.)

380 Systems for the Future [Chap. 6 Project Descriptions 381
Bank of the Southwest Tower

Houston, Texas, USA
Architect MurphyIJahn with Lloyd Jones Brewer
..;- Associates
Structurdl engineer LcMessurier Consultan& with Walter P.
iagonal lo bottom chord connections shall Moore and Associates
lev loose for approximately 360 days
Year of completion Never built
Hcighl from street lo roof 372 m (1222 ft)
Number of slories 82
Number 01levels below ground 4
Building use Office and retail.
Frame rnalerinl Steel with concrete supercolumns
Shear wall
Basic wind velocity 47 mlscc (105 mph). 100-yr return
Maximum lateral deflection 1167 mm (3.83 it). 100-yrrelurn
Design fundamcnral period 7. 6.75 scc horizontal: 7 scc torsion
Design ncceleration 22 mg pcak wilh T M D 40 mg without
Design damping 1 to 1.2% scrviceebility: 3.5% with TMD:
1.5% ultimate
Type of structure 9-sloq-high A-frame trusses spanning
building between concrcle supercolumns
Foundation condilions At lenst 76 m (250 ft) of very skirr clay
Fooling type 75-m (245-it)-wide octagonal mat. 4 to
1.8m (13 to 6 ft) thick. 17 m (56 11) below
gnde
++ Typical floor
S l o q height 3.96 m (13 ft)
Fig. 6.6 Outrigger truss; Dcnrborn Ccnler.
Beam span 14.2, 13.4, 11.6 m (46.75.43.92, 37.92 ft)
Beam depth 530.460.410 mm (21, 18. 16 in.)
Beam spacing 3.05 rn ( I 0 11)
hlatcrial S a e l . grade 350 MPa (50 ksi)
Slab 63-mm (2.5-in.) lightweight concretc on
50-mm (?-in.) metal deck
Columns 8 columns. 2.9 by 6 m (9.5 by 19.7 11). m-
pered to 1.37 by 1.6 m (1.5 by 5.27 it) al
roof: 70-MPa (10.000-psi) concrete at
base
Stccl. grsdc 250 nnd 350 MPn (36 and 50
ksi) supported on A-frame trusses
The tapered form of titis mixed-construction 372-m (1222-11)-high towcr. its pcakcd
sculptured crown, and the slender spire to top it of1 recall the dramatic upward-reaching
382 Systems forthe Future [Chap. 6 Project Descriptions
skyscrapers of rhc 1930s (Fig. 6.7). The architects were chosen as a rcsull of a design
competilion l ~ r l dby the dcvclopcr. Unforlunately the Texas oil-based recession made it
necessary to cancel the project after completion of the design developmenL Thc towcr
contained an area of over 204.400 m' (2.2 million ft').At ground level and below there
-.-.retail soace
were -
~~~ ~
-
and oarkine in addition lo a -
agonally an its downtown Houston site.
erand lobby. mace.
. The towcr was set di-
The tower was square wit11 sllnped corners to provide more officcs with comer win-
dows. and tapered from 5 5 to 46 m (180 to 150 ft) square at lhc cighliclh noor. It rcsled
on only cigh; large concrete columns, which diminished in cross &ion from the lop of
the
~..-hmmdatinn
... . -
mat to floor 80 (Fin. 6.8). .
The overall slruclural slenderness mlio oftllc tower was 8.0. based on 390 ml48.7 m
(1279 ftl160 ft), the ratio of t l ~ clo\ver ltcigllt above the lop of the mat to the horizontal
dimension center to center of the columns at that level.
The severe Houston wind climotc. the liieh slenderness ratio orlhc tou,cr. and its nar-
and stiffness, with the lenst cost premium over that rcquircd for gravity loads nnd min-
imal interference with architectural lavoul. Thc main structural frames were four stccl
s u p c r ~ r ~ s ta.n
c ~ . in c3cil ilir~ction.ahicll a m ? (tic c n t h~ilding
~ luxd n ~ tot tbc con-
cr?I~.coIun~n\.The ,.lp:rlruuc\ h:,d Ji:lcon;!ls III :. cl,c\ron P : I I I ~ T I I 21 n i l t ~ - * ~ oi,>tcr-
ry
tnls, uith 11~r;ront;lltlr., n t 1 l 1 ~lo.trtll ~ n rliuth
d >tory ufe3ch. TIIL.d i : ~ n o n ~~l sn l y;I"-
pcnred outsidc the central service corc fur four stories out of each nine-story modu.lc
(Fig. 6.9).
The entire nonrspncc outside the corc was olher\r,ise column-free, with conventional
composite stcel beates spanning from the corc to a pcrin~ctcrstccl girder. The 24.4-m
(SO-ill-wide core w a s bridccd bv a eair of Vierendcel trusses. Thc cieht high-strennth
cause of vortex shedding, thc tower would have excessive wind forces nnd lateral ac-
celerations unless its vibration ncriod \r,as limited lo above 7 sec. a lour value for so kill
3 i1ru;tJrc Esun .d tltot pcrtod. ths tuner nccup:~ntsaoulJ L'\p?rlcnc: t n l~r s q ~ c n dir. t
conlfurl ir.m uin,l-iod~ur.dnl.,tlun .A sp~'c!alsh#d\ N : I ~ madr: to assera the :.ntount u l
ndditiunnl d;lmpinfi 1h3t illr. i . ~ o ~ ~ d : ~ t ~ o n - m i~nt~- e~rn: i~It l oSIOUIJ
n provld? (i,pproxi.
..
matelv 0.3%). In order LO reduce accelcralions to acceotable levels. a tuned mass damner
$!,tern. of 3 lype vmil:lr lo t11a1iltrt311<d in .Us$\ York'\ Citicnrp Center. wns to be In-
c:.tud III lllc craiun o f t l ~ torvcr
c :I[ 352 6 111 ( I 157 it) ; ~ b n s egraund. The mass block s n s
lo have o weight of about 386 tonnes (425tons) and was designed to increase the towcr
effective damping to at lenst 3.5%.
Fig. 1.7 U:lnk sr the Soutliwust Tosrcr. llourton. Tcus.

Composite col (typ) ' (Side vierendeel truss
(4 per floor)
Corner vierendeel truss
(8 per floor)
1
Fig. 6.9 Elrvntion; Bnnk orthe Southwest Towcr.

[Chap. 6 Project Descriptions 367
386 Systems for the Future
Shimizu Super High Rise lSSHl The SSH building is 550 rn (1801 it) tall with 121 stories above ground and six stories
Tokyo, Japan underground (Fig. 6.10). This design project was intended to confirm the feasibility of
consmcting such a tall building in the earthquake- and typhoon-prone counvy of Japan
Architect Sllimizu Corporation by the end of this century based on the technologies available today ot Shimizu.
Structural engineer Shimizu Corporation The SSH building rvns designed as a complex consisting of hotels, offices, and
shops. The building areais 44.000 m ' (474,000 f?) for a plot area of 90.000 m' (969.000
Year or carnplclion Proposal ft2). The total space of the SSH building is 754,000 m' (8.1 16,800 it2) and is divided into
Height from street to roof 550 rn (1804 11) three zones along the height. A zone was designed to be squeezed through the top and
Numbcr of stories 121
Numbcr of levels bclow fruund 6
Building use Hotel, officcs, retail shops. balls. parking
Frame ~natcrial Stccl reinforced cnncrctc
Typical floor lit'c load 1.8. 3 kPu (36. 60 psf)
Basic wind velocity 45.5 mlscc (I02 mph)
Maximum lateral dcflcction Hi300 (Ievcl I loading; Hi200 (Icvcl 2
loading)
Design fundamental period 6.0 scc
Dcsifn accslrration 5 rng peak. I-yr return
Design datnping 0.6% ser\,iccability: 2% ultimolc
E;irthquake loslding Sciscnic rcrpansc rztctor (1.05
Typ? of rtructurc Trussud tube nlegastructurc
Fuundation conditions 160 m (525 rt) a f send
Footing type Combination ofcontinuous \r,:!lls and pre-
tensioned high-strength concrctr (PHC)
piles
Typical floor
Stury height 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in.) hotel; 4.3 m (14 ft I
in.) office
Bcnm span 27.4, 15.8 m (73 f t 6 in.. 51 it 10 in.)
Bcom depth 1.2, 0.9 m (-17, 35 in.)
Beam spacing 12.8.10.0 m (42 rt, 65 f t 7 in.)
hlatcrial Steel
Slab U-type steel deck ilightweight concrete,
155 mm (6 in.) thick
Columns
Size ot ground floot 4.0 by 2.4 m (13 by 8 ft)
Spacing 26.0. 12.8 m (85. 4 1 Ti)
hlatcrinl Stcel and concrete; HT60. F = 60 hlPa
(8500 psi)
Braced frame
Sleel, NT6O
I.? m (17 in.)
Fig. 6.10 Sitlmizu Supcr High Rise ISSII), T o k ~ oJnpnn
,
388 Systems for the Future [Chap. 6 Project Descriptions 389
rotated by 45' against the lower zone. The bottom zone, zone 1, consisls of 43 stories D e s i ~ nCrirerio. The design criteria for the SSH building against enrthquake and wind
with an average floor space of about 6200 m' (66,700 ft'). The middle zone. zone 2. con- loads are as follows:
sists of 37 stories with an average floor space o f 4 8 0 0 rn' (51.700 it2). The top zone.
zone 3. consists of 36 stories with an nveroee floor space of 2000 m'(21.500 it2). Zones 1. Under leilel I loods. The stresses of the slructural main frames should be smaller
2 2nd 3 h a w qky lobb~esat thetr lowesl levcls. n t e sky lobbies are tlte lohhirs for shut- than the allowable stress. In principle, no uplift is allowed Tor the foundation.
9
tle clesnmrr. They arc also dc\ignrd tin mucl the rcqlliremunt for cvacu~lionarea, in thc 2. Under level 2 loads. The stresses of the smctural main frames should be below
evcnt of fire. the level thnt can be considered to be elastic as a wholc. In addition, no harmful
-
The critical desien loads for the SSH buildine were the seismic and wind loads. The
rdsponsc apectra lor far-field eanhqitakes u.it11 largc magniludes sxpscltd in tlic Tokyu
residual deformation due to the foundation movement should be allowed.
area appenr lo hare clsar p s x k around 8 a c c Considering !hew spcctrsl peaks. 3 m q a - Level 1 loads are those that are likely to be experienced by the building during the
structke svstem with a truss-tube mechanism was employcd lo i c e p the SSH buildinr service pcriod. Level 2 loads are those that can be considered to be the maximum cred-
stiff
-~~~~ enoudh to have a fundamental natural oeriod o f a b o u i 6 sec. Thi; s h o r t ~ e r i o dhelor ible loads at the building site.
avoid a lock-in vibrall?n resulting from the \'onex shedding in serer* uindr.
The sltore o f T o k ) o Bay co~nprisessort suil srmlo. To ovcrcolne the roft soil condi-
tions, special attention hasbccn paid to the foundation ryslem. The proposed foundvtion
svstem consists of a circular cvlindrical wall of a diameter of 162 m 1531 it) with oiler
ind diaphragm rvalls inside. T'he thickness of the cylindrical outer will is 4.'0 m (1'3 ft)
in the upper portion. It reaches e depth of74.5 m (244 ft). This unique foundation sys-
tem a ~ ~ dthisi s supcrtall building t o be built on such soft soil
Srnrctttrol Sjrron. A! tile sliu on the shore o l tht Tok)n Rny nrea. apeutral compo-
ocnls of ohnut8 scc m3) hc pronouni~dill ths rcsponsL. spcctrn f o r i ~ r - f i e l ?2nltq~:ihci
d 3rd Zone (hotel) typical-floor plan
uilh large n~agnitudcs.Thcrciorc IIIC n;itural period o i 8 iec shduld bc a\oldsd for the
SSH lhuildir~g.Hosrever. B ~ I I I :ft~ndilmtntnln:lturnl psrind is hct lo be lnngur than R w c .
;I lock-in tihriltion due lo strong wind may bccoms a big issuc.
Two strategies werc eslablished to overcome these problems. The first strategy was
-
to achieve a fundamental natural ~ e r i o dofsienificantlv -
less than 8 sec. The tareet nat-
ural period was set at 6 sec. The second strategy was to select the configurntion of the
building to minimize the wind loads, especially for the purpose of avoiding a lock-in
vibration.
For the first strategy. the structural system selected is a megastructure with a truss
- -
tube with steel columns filled with hieh-sueneth concrete. This svsrem achieves enoueh
sliffn~.s, for tile SSH hullding to have n first n;itural period olappro.\i~nately6 scc.
=
For the second str3tcgy. the optimum configurntion for the SSH building was suught
u a i n ~wind lunnul c\ocri~nr.nts.Tllrce rvsolutioos r\.ers a.p.~ l ~ lo
u dthe bulldinc. Th: first 2nd Zone (oMce) typical-floor plan
resoiution was to cui the corners off the building so that the floor plan wouid become
closer lo a round shape. The second was to reduce the plan wea in the upper zones. The
third was to rotate each building zone by 15" with respect to the zone below. This com-
bination effectively broadened the power spectra of wind loads so that lock-in vibration
should bc unlikely to occur (Fig. 6.1 1). A perspective of the strnclural frame is shown
~ - 6.12.
in Fie. -
Thc soil 21 tile hullding silt i, urpdci3lly suft. To 3rsurs muugh c3pxity undsr Illis
snil uundition. ;I spcci:ll ioendation syatum has hcen ~~mplo)cd.'I'lic unique asp<ct ~ . i t l l ~ .
foundation is a continuous circular cylindrical wall system which cresies animproved
bearing stress distribution and reduces construction cost compared to a conucntional
system. The continuous ouler \\,all reaches 74.5 m (221 ft) deep. The foundation has a
mat slab 5.0 m (16 i t 4 in.) thick bctwecn -23.5 and -28.5 m (-77 and -93.5 it). From
the mat slab to the end of the continuous rr.all, piles and diaphragm walls mere used to
strengthen the soil contained in the continuous wall. This foundation of a circular cylin-
drical shape is considered lo be rigid enough as a whole. "
1st Zone (olflce) typical-lloor plan
The lhickness o f t l ~ econtinuous wall is 4.0 m (13 ft) down to -28.5 m (-93.5 it).
Beyond that depth, the lhickness of the !rsall is kepl at 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in.) to tllc bottom. Fig. 6.11 Tgplcul nsnr plunr; SSH buildint!.
Sect. 6.41 Condensed References/Bibliography 391
I n addition to these design criteria, the discomfort of the tiuilding's occupants due lo
the vibration was assessed for wind and earihauake loads ex~ecledl o occur once evew
w a r . F n ~ r11)hrid mnss dampers , l i h l D ~ )$<ill be installed ;,I the lop of lo2 SSH build-
ing. Tnc weight ofeoch H 5 i D i s abuut?00 1onne5 (??.I Ions). T u o HhlDs n f 100 tonncs
( II ? Inns) h:nu :~lr~.ady been inrl;lllcd ill ;I j 0 - s l 0 0 bu~ldlngin 0s3L=. J a p ~ n .
6.4 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BISLIOGRAPHY
AlSC 1991. Tljr ll'nrld's To11r~tDeilding-Tlre hliglbzdcirlrr Tower

Architculurdl Record 1985. Il'illio,n LcAlern,rirr'r Super-Tall Srrircrurcr
ASCE 1991. Bz,ildi,~gAbnr to Dr ll'orld's Tollert ot 1.999f1
Engineered Concrclc StrucLurer 1990. TI,< lVorldZ 7bllcrr Bui;di,rg-Cl,icogn's Afiglin-Dcirlcr
)irt~.cr
Mia" 1993. Soil-Sintottre lrrrrracriou Eljrc!.~on rkc 121-Siog. SSH Blrilrlbig
\Vmabc 1993u. Sln,cn,ral Dcrigrt atldA8?ol?.~i:rir
ofrlrr 121-Slory SSH Duildirrg
\Vvtebc 1993b. Onurgbzg Needsfor Dnr,,ping ,lnga!orri,zg Sj.rlun,r Applicable lo Super Toll Btnildingr
Fig. 6.12 Eluvutlss: SSH I~uildlng.

Current Questions,
Problems, and
Research Needs
I . What are the structural systems and building data Tor other significant high-rise
buildings in Europe. South America, and Africa?
2. What is the appropriate way to classify tall building laternl load resisting sys-
tems? How are innovative and evolvine- systems . laced within the classification
schun,s stlch lhnl cataloging and data cullcctiott oTstructur3l syslcnls can be con-
tinuously upd3tcd ;lnd oT urc to the pr~crlcinrcnginctr!
3. How are structural schemes tailorcd to local geographic condilions to produce
economical desirns?
I. Should lhcrc be a proiu.wun;~lc o n s e t ~ s rufardii~g
~s the auccpt;~h~l~t)
df lall huild-
ing structures wit11 rcspcct to wniccnbilit) iswe? such as later:ll drllt. nnru vi-
bration, occupant cornfori, and noor levelness?
-
5. What oossible structural forms for extra buildine suauorl . . such as .auvcd
. towcrs
arc possible for ultra-1211 high-rise buildings'! Whnt arc tllc sociulugical, pl;ln-
ning. and inlnintcnmcc implicatinnr lor soch buildings'! Whal h)slellls are unvi-
sioned for the nert gcncmtion of tall buildings over 600 m (2000 TI) i n hcigllt'!
6. What unique problems are enconnlered when exposing lall building slructural
Trnmes on the building perimeter? What are the solutions?
7. What are the structural systems Tor the future in arcas of high seismicity?
Nomenclature
GLOSSARY
A36. Structurul rleel with yield strength of 250 MPP (36.000 pri). per ASTM svmdrrd.
A572 grade 50. Strucarol steel with yield rtrength of 350 hlPo (50.000 psi). per ASTM stun-
dard.
Acceleration. Rate of chongc i n vclocity us u building su%~ys
due to wind or crnhquakr foiccs.
Allowable stress design or w o r k i n g stress design. hfcthod o f proportioning stiuclurcs such
that the computed elastic rtrerr does no1 cncecd Ispccificd limiting strcrr.
Band beams. Widc, shullow bcrmr used to achirrc minimum rtructur8l floor dcpth. A typical
size would be 350 mm (13.8 in.) deep by 1500 m m (59 in.) wide.
Basic w i n d velocity. Wind rpced uicd for design before adjusting for rhiclding. height, ctc.
(urually the vrlocily 10 m (32.8 11) above ground i n smooth. lcrel terrain withoul significanl ah-
rtruclionr).
Bay window. Window projecting from the wall between columns or buuierrcr.
Beam link. Bcam scgmcnl bctwccn bmccs. or bclu'een a brace ond u column.
Bent. Plant frnmcworli of bcnm or truss members that support a floor or roof ilnd llle columns
that support there members.
Braced frame. Usually u fnme which derives is rtnbilily primarily from 1NSS raian. h l o i t el-
crncnu hove pinned ends and do no^ dcvelop bcnding resistance. (Thcsc f n m e i usually develop
minor bcnding farces.)
Building standard. Documcnt defining minimum standards for design.
Bundled lube. Slruclural s)slem in nhicn rira;hlr.l irlnwd luhcs "re >n;o?r.d or lrt.:~.tled lo-
~ e ~ l l rn
u r t h sorilmnn
~ ~ u.all$ U I
-IIIIII~LIO.IT i C U I I I O : ~ C ~ $!!to 18ngle \\:II1. IIICTC~!
! ~ h ?:re f~ri8ng
cnmnr~zbll#!r
- - r~~ ~~ 2
tube elemenlr may be ierminutcd a1 any nppropriste lcvcl

-
. ~ ~ tnf rtrc\\es 31 ihc inleridsc uf \a:h c o n l i n ~ ~ utuhc,. . I n :t h,nJI;.I I.,h:. ~ndi\~J~:rl
Castellated beam. Bcvm fubricoted by culling Lhrough the web a f the hcsm with a profile burn-
ing machine, reporating (he two halves, moving one half along the other until the "tceth" o f the
cu.tellationr
- ~ - ~coincide.
~
urcd to wcld both sidcs o f the \s,eb.
..
and lack weldinr'the two hal$,cstoecthcr. Deeo "enelration Wcldinr is then -
Center length. Distance along one member bctx,ecn intersections of ccnlcrlinrs o f perpendicu-
lar members.
Central business district. Key commcrciol iarso inridc most modem U.S. cilics.
Central-services core. Zone o f a high-rise building. often located cenlriilly in plan. where elc-
mtars. svairs, toilets, and ien.iccs shofts arc loc~lcd.Core may be cnclascd by co,lcrcle m r l l i or
eiecl framer with lightwcighl cladding.
396 Nomenclature Glossary 397
Chevron. In!,cned V i n appearance. ir urunlly rcluted to there typcs of limit slntc), and (2) rrn~iceobilir).
l i m i t slotcr, related to the cri-
teria governing normal use of h e structure.
Code. Building code, o legal document providing design crilerin far buildings in a paniculvr
jurisdiction. Limit-state derign. Design process thal involver identification of all potential modes olfailure
(limit rtnter) and mainlnining an nccepxable level of safety ogvinst their occurrence. Thc safely
coefficient of variation. Rolio o f the rtvndard drvindon to the meno of n n n d o m variable. ..level is usually erlubiished on n probabilistic bnsir.
.* ,
Concentrically braced frame. Frome i n which rcsislvnce l o lilteral load or frame instability ia i o a d end resistance factor design. Design method i n which, a1 n chosen l i m i t swte, loo* ef-
provided by diagonal K o r other auxiliary system ofbncing.
feels and resistances are sepnntcly multipiicd by factors ihal uccount for h c inherent uncenainlies
Core. Ponion o i n building lhvl includes elevaton, sloin, mrchvnical rhafl, and toilets, oflcn i n the determinudon o f these quuntilier.
centmlly located.
Load combinations. Loads likely to nct rimuiwneourly.
Creep. Slow limc-depcndcnl change in dimcnrionr of concrete undcr il sustained loiid, primarily Load effects. Momcntr, shcuis, and vxiul forcer i n u membcr dce l o loads or other actions.
i n thc dirccdon i n whicl> !he load iicL5: u dimcnsionlesr qurntity having u n i u o f strain.
Load factors. Fuctors applied to o load to cxpresr probability of no1being excccded; safety factors.
Damping. Dirsiporion o f energy for dynamic lauding.
Longitudinal. Direction of the longer plan dimension.
Dapped girders. Girders (or bcbms) h w i n g u notch ul one or both ends in the underside to ac-
commodate u corbel support within the girder depth or to crcrle additional rpnce for air ducts m d M a x i m u m l o a d lultimate load). Plvsric limit load 'or rlability limit load. ur defincd: also man-
h e like. imum load-currying capocity of u rmcture under test.
Dead load. A c ~ u i i weight
l o f rlrucluml clumcna. (This is a gmrity lodd.1 M e a n recurrence interval IMRII. A v c n g r time betu,rcn occurrences o f n random rvriablc thnt
exceed its M R I value. The probability ihat h e MRI value w i l l be exceeded i n any occurrence is
Differential. Difiercnce or change between two vulucs.
l/MRI.
Doubler. l a web or nilngc to add strength.
Plate welded to or p i l r ~ l l eto
Meandering shear wall. Shear wall following m i r r r g u l x line i n plan. (No1 u rectilinear as-
Drift. L i l t r n l displaccmcnt due to laterill force. semblage o f wnlli.)
Ductility. Ahility o f il mnterb~lto ahsorb energy through defornlidtion without hilurc. Medium-rise building. Multistory building ncithcr punicularly high nor low: usuillly i n the
Eccentrically braced frame. Fiiamc i n which the ccntcriinc\ o f bracer air offset lrom !he paints mngc of 10 to ZO stories.
ofintrrscctinn o f l h r crnturlinrs of bcami and columns. Modulartubas. Condguoua framed tubular struaurnl aysremr which % togcthcr to form u com-
Environmental loads. Lozids on a i t r u c u r r due to wind, mow, canhquakr, or tcnlpcraturc. plete bundlcd tube structure.
Facade. Puce, espcciillly thc piincipul elrvdtion. o f u building. M o m e n t resisting frame. lnlcgivted syslcm o f r m c t u m l elemcnu porrrrring cantinuily and
hence capable o f resisting bending forcer. (Thcse fnmcr uruuily develop minor u i o l forcer.)
Factor o f safety. Rulio o f ,Ire u l ~ i m a l rrrrrngxh (or yield point) a i 3 malcriol to ihc working
alrers i l i u m e d i n derign (stress foctor orrarcty): or ratio ofthc ultimntc loud, momcnl. or slrcvr o f Mullion. Horizontill or vcnicul membcr of n window-wall orcunnin-wall system hrl is normally
a structur;,l mrmbcr to thc ss'orking loild. moment, or shcar, respectively, assumed in design (load attached l o h e floor slab or benmr nnd ruppons
.. thc glusr and/or elements o f a window widll.
fuccor o f rarely). Neoprene. Synthetic rubber boring physical prapenier closely resembling those o f n a r u n l rub-
Failure. Condition where o limit itute is reached. This mzy or may not i n ~ o i r ecollupsc ar other bcr bur not requiring sulfur for vulcmizution. I t is made by polymerizing chloroprcncs. and the Int-
cvtvrtraphic occurrences. ter is produced f i o m vcctylene and hydrogen chloride.
Fin. Plate projecting from u member. Node. Point a1 which subsidiary puns originate or cenler.
Flange m o m e n t connection. hlonlent connection in which the bcdm is connected to thc flange N o m i n a l l o a d effect. Calculated using a nominal load. The nominnl load frequently is defined
o f the column. with rcierence to u probability level; for cxnmplc, 50-gmr mean rccunence intcwal wind speed
ured i n cnlculuting wind load.
Floor area ratio IFARI. Spccilicd ratio o f permissible floor space l o lot arc*. in which the in-
Nominal resistance. Calculated using nominal material and crass-iectionul propcnies nnd u m-
ducemenl l o reduce lot coverage is sn impoiiant componml. Thc bidsic ratio is frequently inodilicd
by providing "bonus" or "prcn~ium" floor npiacc for rucl, aspects as ilrcadcs. \rlb;icks. und plrziiq. tionnlly developed f o m u l n b a e d an on unalydc~landlor expcrimcntnl model o f limit-swte behavior.
Also called ldor mr;,~. Outrigger. Stifirtructurul m r r work extending from core to perimeter or any point to distribute
Framed tube. column loads betwccn them.
Pciimetcr ccluiwlent tube consisling o f closcly rpacrd columns ilnd rpiindrclr.
Fundamental period. i ' r r m . l i > i i l ~ ufir\t 111c,.lu8ll%#hr:ll#.ln .i.l tl~l8l.ln;. .Tlw 1111,: lbli.18 iw 1111.
Outstanding. Projecting fiom main plunc.
s <.<. ..! l i u i ~.i\
n ~ . ~ l d ~l.) l PCIIII:~~~I I III:~\IIIII.~II
~ J C I ~ L ' C ~on
~ Uoilr
~ - 8 1 1 ~ 111 ihc \:111;.11 111 11* - P-delta effect. Secondary effect o f column arid loads and latcral deflection on momenu i n
,,Id#" "cfl~:,,~~,, *##, ,112 .%,,,CC .,\I< ..,,.I Ih.8.L 1.8 11,: fir., ;,g:,,n members.
H a t truss. Stiff structural irusswork exlending from cure to pcrirnelei a top o i building. Probabilistic design. Design m c h o d that explicitly utilizer probability theory i n thc safety
Hybrid building frame. F u m e conslruction uomposcd ofdificrent structural building matrriitlr. checking procrrr.
such us concrete and itccl. Probability distribution. Marhematical law UIm describes the prohubility that a random vrri-
L i m i t states. Condition in which i! structure or a part ll%creofcelrcs l o fullill one o f i o funcriunr able w i l l vssumeccmin valuer: either ilcumulotivedistribudon function (cdfl or aprobability dcn-
or to satisfy the cc~ndilionrfur a.lticl~it 1v;s dcsigncd. Limit stales uiln br clasrilicd in t a n cate- rity iuncdon ir used.
gaiics: iI ) ttliirr~rrirlimit sttt~es,ur,rrcsponding to the inad-c:lrrying c ~ p l c i l )oflhc rtructurc (safely Probability o f failure. Probability h a t thc limit slate is exceeded or violated.
398 Nomenclature Abbreviations 399
Probability of survival. One minus the probability of failure. b = width of building normal to wind direction
Rack. To deform o rrclangle in shcvrby dispiilcingonc sidc latcmlly relalive to theopposite ride. C, = force spectrum coemcient
Rmistance. Maximum loud-c~nyingcapacity ns defined by a limit nille. d = depth of building
Resistance factor. Panial safety factor ro nccount far the probability ofunderrtrength of mule- E = longitudinal turbulence spectrum; = 0.47Nl(2+fl)"6
rials or arucruml mrmbcrs. = peak factor; for normally disvibuted process. =
6
Seismic. Penvining to cunhquukes. = gust factor for resonant component. = g 2 ( r r ~ f i ~ e
G
Shearstud. Short mild-steel rod with flattened head, wcldcd to a steel mcmbcr. to tmnsfcrsheor h = height of building
force brtu,cen steel and runounding concrete.
I
Skewed. Not parallel or perpcndiculur. H2(n) = mechnnical admittance; =
[ I - (nln,)']' + 4(2(nln,)'
Slab-typs high-rise building. Building in theshvpc ofo vcnicvl slnbsrvnding on the ground on
i u ahon dimcniion. Lh = measure of turbulence length scale; = 1000 (hll0)'"
Spandrel. Bcnm spanning between columns on the erlerior of u building. nt = modal mass
-
Spandrel beam. Floor-lcucl berm in thc face of a building, urunlly iupponing the edges of the M = mean base overturning moment; for a square building, can be upproxi-
floor slabs. mated by 0.6 (112)~T'bh'
Staggered truss system. S l n c l ~ i a lr)rlecr, for .l b~ildingn ~ l hu!tbrir:d fr3mcr in "nu ulrcc.
lion and fr.ui8cr bnced ill the other direr!inu hy s\c u i stor).-duep in,...:, rucgcrco in lar3tinn 31 M, = inertial bnse bending moment for unit displacement nt top of building; for
lltcrnjtc fnrnrr on C\L.TY ~ l h ~nnor
. r of 1 1 8 ~b.!ilding. constant density and linear mode shape. = (l/3)pbdlt'(2irn0)'
Stocky. Hcuvy and thick, compored of clemcnls u'ith low width-lo-thickncrs ratios.
n = frequency of oscilladon with an approximately nnrmnl disvibution
Stressed skin. Masriul used for strength and stiifnerr in its own dune, as in u membnnc -
N =, reduced frequency: = nLhlV,
Stub girder. Vicrendcel floor girder comprising the concrete floor as thc top chord, u wide-
flange beam or column section os lhe bottom chord, with the chords connected by the floor bevmr "0
= first-bending-mode natural frequency; can b e approximated by 46/b,
end shon lengxhs of the floor beam (stubs1 fired in line with the bottom chord. where h is height in meters
Table forms. Prefubricated beam and slab fonwork complete with venical props. R = return period, years
1
Tiebacks. Mechanical devices for rupponing sheeting, consisting of porttenrioncd rods ertmd- = size factor; =
ing to anchor points in the soil surrounding the cxcnvution or to rack. (1 + 3.5n,hlVh)(l + 4n,bl&)
Transverse. Direction of b e rhoncr plan dimenrion. = specmmm of cross-wind displacement at t a p of building
Trussed tube system. Tubular system for tall buildings in which larernl iorces are resirled by = longitudinal turbulence intensity at height h
tmBs uclion.
= period under consideration, seconds: usually 600 sec for acceleration cri-
Tubs. Struclure with continuous perimeter fmme designed to act in a manner similar lo lhut of o teria
hollow cylinder.
= hourly mean wind speed a t height h
Tune. Adjurtcorefully.
Unclad. Not covered by facade.
Vierendeel action. Using n planar rccmngulnr giid of members working in flcrurc to act ui a ABBREVIATIONS
lrurs for longer spans far loads in lhnt plonc.
W14. Nominally 356-mm (I-l-in.)-deep steel scction n'irh wide nungc or wide I shapc.
American Concrete Institute
ACI
Web moment connection. Moment connection in which beam is connected to web of column. American Institute of Steel Construction
AISC
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
SYMBOLS
CBF Concentric braced frame
L = critical damping ralio CCD Chicago City datum
CTBUH Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
P = air density
p, = building density EBF Eccentric braced frame
= standard deviation of ncceleration in horizontal plane ECCS European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
uL
Nomenclature
Abbreviations for Units

Bm British thcmnl unil kW kilowan
-C degree Celsiur (ccntigmds) Ib pound
cm' cubic centimeten Ibf pound force
cm centimeter I pound mars
"F degrec F~hrenhelr MI meg&jojoule
h foal MPn megnpurcvl
S ~"m m mcler
gal gallon mi mile
hp horrepowcr ml milliliter AISC. 1983
hr hour mm millimelcr MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION. Americidn lnrtilurc of Stccl Conslmclion. Chicago. Ill..
Imp British lmpsriol MN meganewton 2d Q u o n ~ r
8". inch N ncwlon AISC. 1987
1 joule OL ounce ONE LIBERTY PLACE-EFFICIENCY AND ELEGANCE IN THE CRADLE OF HISTORY.
K kelvin Po pnscvl blodent Slecl Co!8rrrucrion, no. 2. pp. 9-14.
kg liilogrvm psf pounds per square foot AISC. 1991
kgf kilogmm-force psi pounds per squnrc inch THE WORLD'S TALLEST BUILDING-THE MIGLIN-BEITLER TOWER, blodern Steel
kip 1000 pound force 'R degree Rankine -
Cnnrrrncrion.. Aururr.
km kilometer rcc second Archiiecarul Record. 1985
kN kilonewlo" slug 14.594 kg WILLIAM LEMESSURIER'S SUPER-TALL STRUCTURES. Arcl~irecrr,rrtl Rcrord. Junu-
a kilopascal \V WBll urylFcbruary.
k kips per square inch yd yard Archltec1ure. 1988
EXPLORING COMPOSITE STRUCTURES. Arcbiruclirre, March
Archilcclure. 1988
TWO UNION SQUARE, ilrcl~ilccivrc,hlsrch
Architeclurr, 1990
HlGH STRENGTH. Arcltirrcn,rc. October,
Architec~ureand Urbanirm. 1991
TWO UNION SOUARE. Arcbiiecn,re and Urbanirnr. Fcbruarv,
ASCE, 1986
COMPUTER CUTS TOWER STEEL. Ciuil Engbzreriag, March
ASCE. 1990
AUSSIE STEEL. Civil Enri,rcerinr. ". Dcccmber.
ASCE. 1991
BUILDING AIMS TO BE WORLD'S TALLEST AT 1.999 FT..Ci!,il Er~ginrering,March.
Asrefpour-Dezfuly, M.. Huguor, 8. A.. and Browrigg. A.. 1990
FIRE RESISTANT HlGH STRENGTH LOW ALLOY STEELS, bloreriolr Sciertcr o,rd Teclt-
".
n o l o ~ svol.
, 6. December.
AurlrnlioPorl Publ.. 1988
CHIFLEY SQUARE ON THE MOVE STRUCTURES. no. VBP 88 I0
Beck. V.. 1991
FIRE SAFETY SYSTEMS DESIGN USING RISK ASSESShlENT MODELS-DEVELOP-
MENTS lh'AUSTRALIA. Fire Sojrr). Scinice, Proceedings of ihc 3d lnternnlionul Sym-
posium. Elsevier.
Bennclu.1. D.. Almand. K. H..TBomas. 1. R.. Pioe. 0.1.. and Lewins. R. R.. 1989
FIRE IN CARPARKS. BHP Melbourne Rcscarch Labomtorier. Auslralia. Repun
MRLIPS691851005. Aueurr. *
Bcnnelts, I. D.. Proe. D. I.. Lewlns. R. R.. andThomas, I. R.. 1985
OPEN-DECK CARPARK FIRETESTS. BHPMelbournc Rcscarrh Luboratarier. Australi:l. Re-
pon hIRUPS691851001.
Bond. G. V. L.. 1975
FIRE AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION: WATER COOLED HOLLO\V COLUMNS. Cortrrroilo.
British Steel. 1992 George. S. F.. 1990
DESIGN MANUAL FOR CONCRETE FILLED COLUMNS-PART 1: STRUCTURAL DE- WELLINGTON'S WINDS SHAPED THE CAPITAL'S TALLEST BUILDING. NCII'Zeuiond
SlGNlPART 1:FIRE-RESISTANT DESIGN. Engincerlng. Sepkmbcr.
Brorcui. I., Law. M.. Petlmron. 0..nnd Willeveen. 1.. 1983 Gillerpic. B. I.. Nuirn. S.. and St. Claire Johnson. C.. 1990
FIRE PROTECTION O F STEEL STRUCTURES-EXAMPLES OF APPLICATIONS. 1ABSE :'"DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STEEL FRAMED HiGHRISE BUILDINGS. Prncced-
Periodical 1.May. ingr of Seminnr on Steel Slructurer. Singopore.
Building. 1990 Grossman. J. S.. 1985
DOUBLE STRENGTH. B~ildirtg,July.
780 THIRD AVENUE. THE FIRST HIGH-RISE DIAGONALLY BRACED CONCRETE
Building Derign nnd Conitruction. 1984 STRUCTURE. Concrete inlernarlonoi, Derign and Consmtcrlon, vol. 7. no. 2. February.
BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. Cnhncrr Publirhine. -. Junc. pp. 53-56.
Chen. P. W.. and Robenran. ti. E.. 1973 Gmsrmnn. J. S.. 1989
HUMAN PERCEPTION THRESHOLDS TO HORIZONTAL MOTION. Journoi of ri8e Sintc- SLENDER STRUCTURES-THE NEW EDGE (n).Proceedings of the lntemvlionnl Confer-
nlrol Divirion. ASCE. vol. 98, .pp.
. 1681-1695, ence on Toll Buildings nnd Cily Development. Brisbanc. Aurtmlia. October, pp. 93-99,
Civil Enpincer. 1987 Grossman. J. S.. 1990
CONCRETE STRENGTH RECORD JUhiPS 36%. Ci~,iiEtlgineer. Oclabcr. SLENDER CONCRETE STRUCTURES-THE NEW EDGE. ACi Slntcr!tral Jounral, vol. 87,
Concrete Today. 1989 no. I. Jonuury-February. pp. 39-52.
ALWAYS SOMETHING NEW IN CONCRETE. Concrcrc Todqv. Spring.
Grosrman. J. S.. Cruvellier. M. R.. and Stnffard-Smith. 8.. 1986
Conswclion Specifier. 1988 BEHAVIOR. ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTlON O F A BRACED-TUBE CONCRETE
INNOVATIVE COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION. Canrrr,~crionSpecifier. April. STRUCTURE. Concrete it8rernoriono1, Derign or~dConstrunion, vol. 8, no. 9. Scptcmber.
Conrtruclion Strcl. 1990 pp. 3 2 1 2 .
THE MANY FACES OFTHE BOND BUILDING. Consrn!ciio,i Srcul, February. Holmcr. J. D.. 1987
CTBUH. Group CL. 1980 h4ODESHAPECORRECTlONS FOR DYNAMIC RESPONSETO WIND. Etlgblccring Slntc-
FIRE, cllilpter CL-4, Toll Bl#ildb,g Critcrio orld Loodirrg. 1.01. CL of hIo,!ogr,,pi~ (11: PIo,rt~inp rurer. vol. 9. pp. 210-212.
und Dcrigri ofToll Bi,ildi,~gs.ASCE. New Yark.
Horviiieur. J.F.. 1992
CTBUH. Group SC. 1980 DESIGN O F THE NATIONS BANK CORPORATE CENTER, The Stn,crlrroi Design of Tali
TALL BUILDING SYSTEMS AND CONCEPTS. vol. SC of hto,~ogropicu,r Plon,,ing and De- Buildings. Vol. 1. pp. 75-1 19.
sign of Tali B,,ildings. ASCE. New York.
CTBUH, Committee 8.4. 1991 Hare. R. M.. 1990
FIRE SAFETY IN TALL BUILDINGS. hlc0nw-Hill. New York. STRUCNRAL DESIGN FOR THE RIALTO TOWERS. Melbourne.
Dirmpon, A. 0.. 1967 IISI. 1993
GUST LOADWG FACTORS. Jozrnial of l h Srn,cr!nrai~ Divirion, ASCE, vol. 93. no. ST3. FIRE ENGINEEIlING DESIGN FOR STEEL STI<L'CTURES: STATE OF THE ,\RT. Inli.rnd.
!$an21Iron znd Steel Inhl$rulc. Rrursclr. Rcl~ium.1131.
Drew. R. I.. and SL Claire Johnson. C.. 1990
RIALTO TO\VERS PROJECT SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS A N 0 EVALUATION. vols. Invin. A.. 1988
I . 1.3, ond4. Junc. MOTION IN TALL BUILDINGS. Proceedings of the 3d lntemadonal Conference on Tall
E r.
- r.
. s . 19RR
... . Buildings, Second Century of h e Sliyscruper. Chicago. 111.. Council on Tall Buildings ilnd
CALCULATION OF THE FIKE IlESISTAh'CE OF CESTRALLY LOADED COSii'OSI'lE Urhon Hubitol Bethlehem. Pn.
STEEL-CONCRETECOLtihlNSTOTHEST:\NUARD IlRE.Tcchsic~lNutcno. 5 5 . Eu. ISO. 1985
rdprln Commllnn ior Cunxruaion~lSlccluoil. Bru5relr. B~lpjunl. FIRE-RESISTANCETESTS-ELEMENTSOF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AS 1530. Pan
Engineered Concrete Structures. 1990 4. lntcrnadonnl Standards Organiration. Geneva.
THE WORLD'S TALLEST BUILDING-CHICAGO'S MIGLIN-BEITLER TO\VER, rol. 3, Ituh. 51.. 1991
no. 3. December. \\'IND RESISTANT DESIGN 01; ,\ TALL BLIILUlSG \\'ITH AN ELLII'SOIDAL CllOSS
Engineering Ncwr Record. 1988 SECTlOh'. Prorcedlngr of inc 2d Cnnfcrenru on l ~ l Ballding$
l ln Srl$!nlc K?glon.. Lus
SYDNEY SKYSCRAPER SETS SAIL. Engineeri,8g Are~~.rReccrrd. August I I . ,\nvclrr T ~ l Rtuldinrr
l Slrurlur-l D c w n Cn~nclliind Council un Tall UuilJinc< ;!nd L'r-
Engineering Ncu's Record. 1989
19.000 PSI. E,wincerit8c NcwsRecnrd. Frbmurv. lyengnr. H.. 1992
Engineering Ncws Record. 1990 HOTEL UE LAS ARTES TO\VER, BARCELONA. SPAIN. Stntcnrrol Engineering birrno-
INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES. Errg8nrering News Record. April rioaoi, vol. 2. no. 3. August.
Enpinccring News Record. 1991 J u u m ~uf
l \Vtsd Esg~sc:nng and l$nla<tn.~l .Acru.l)~r:nric.. 19JU
SYDNEY TOWER TESTS AUSTRALIANS.. Errcinceri,~~ " Arc\w Record. Junc ...17 OPl'lhllZhTlON 0FTAI.L IIUILDINGS FOR \Vlh'D LOADISG. El$csicr
Falconer. D.. and Beedlr. L. S.. 1984 Khnn. F. R.. 1966
CLASSiRCATION OF TALL BUILDING SYSTEMS. Council Repon no. 142.3.Councii on OPTlhliZATlON OFBUILDING STRUCTURES, Proceedings of Structural Engineering Con-
Tall Buildings nnd Urban Habitat. Brthlrhrm. Pa. fcrcnce held at University of Illinois. May.
Ki1mirter.M. 8.. 1983 Melbourns. W. H.. nnd Palmer. T. R.. 1992
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OFTHE LUTH HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. KUALA ACCELERATIONS AND COMFORT CRITERIA FOR BLIILDINOS UNDERGOIN0 COM-
LUMPUR. Proceedings ofthe Biennial Confrrrnce of the Concrerc lniritutr of Aurtnliu. PLEX MOTIONS, Journnl of lVind Engineering and lndustriol Arrodynamics, vol. 41, pp.
June. 105-1 16.
Kruppn. J.. 1981 Mitn. A,. and Fuchimoro. M.. 1993
FIRE-RESISTANCE OF EXTERNAL STEEL COLUMNS. Find Rcpon. Technicul Stccl Re- SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON THE 121-STORY SSH BUILDING. Pro-
search. Commirrion of the European Communilier. ceedings of lhc Inlernntionnl Conference on Tail Buildings. Rio dc Jnneiro. Brazil. May
17-19.
Kruppo.J.. Schaumann. P..Schieich. J. 8:. and Twilt. L.. 1990
STRUCTURAL FIRE DESIGN. Pun 10, draft Euiocode 4. Commirrion of thc European Cam- O'Mcaghrr. A I.. Bmnelts. I. D.. Stmcnr. L. K.. 2nd llulchinron. G. L . 1993
munitier. April. BEHAVIOR OFCO'VIPOSITE COLU\INS IN FIRE. BHP Mclbuumc Research Lahorolunes.
Aunrdllo. Rcpon BllPNPPAiW93.001lSG3C.
Kurrrme.M.. Hose. R. M.. and Ndsis~.5.. 1990
THE OUB CENTRETO\VER FOUNDATIONS. SINGAI'DRE. Proceedings ofthc Conference Plntten. D. A.. 1986
-.
on Deeo Foundalion Piuctice. Sinrunorc.
K~rzeme,XI., "8% Ku51b, 31 C., 19&5
POSTMODERN ENGINEERING. Civil Engineering. June
Plauen. D. A.. 1988
DEEP Cr\lSSOS FOUSD,\TiOSS FOR OCU CLVTRI:. SlSG.\POIlE. l'rll;ccJin-\ oillli. d l o MOMENTUM PLACE: STEEL SOLVES COMPLEX GEOMETRIES, hiadern Sfeel Connruc-
Sn.th E..l A v : ~C c . ~ ~ u c o nCnni:cr.srr.,
~c~I Kudl. L..nrpur. lion. Fcb.. No. 2.
Law, hl.. and 0'Bricn.T.. 1981 Pcuerrron. 0..Mngnurron. S. E.. nnd Thor. 1.. 1976
FlRE SAFETY OF EXTERNAL STEEL\VORK. Co,,rrmdn. FIRE ENGINEERING DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES. Publicndon no. 50. Swedish Inrti-
lute of Steel Consmction.
L'lndlistrio ltnlihna dcl CemCnto. 1987
THE LUTH BUlLDlNO IN KUALA LUhlPUR 1hIALAYSIAI. L'lnriri.v!rin lrrrli2,m 0 ~ 4 Reed. 1. W.. 1971
Ce,rlhi!n. no. 613.luly-August, pp. 472185. WIND INDUCED MOTION AND HUMAN COh<FORT. Research Repon 71-42. Marsochu-
scur Institute of Technology. Cnmbridgc. Morr.
Marlin. 0.. und Puyton. J.. 1989
WIND DESIGN OF FOUR BUILDINGS UP TO 3UO nl TALL. Kc~iri/lrrrrrlC ~ a r r c r cDiscr!, Sukumoto. Y.. Keirn. K..Tnkngi, M.. Ksminngn. K.. and Goknn. S.. 1992
lilimh. APPLICATION OFFIRE-RESISTANTSTEELTO A HIGH-RISE BUILDING. Proceedings of
the Pacific S m c l u n l Steel Conference. Tokyo.
Muruoliu, Y., Tsubaki. H.. and Hisa~aku.T.. 1992
DEVELOPMENT AND TEST RESULTS O F SM520B-NFR FlRE RESIST.4NT STEEL FOR
PROCTER G; GAMBLE FAR EAST. INC. JAPAN HEADQUARTERS BUILDING. Pro-
ceedings of the Pacific Stiuctur;xl Steel Confcrrncc. Tokyo. ceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wind Effecl
London. Cambridge University Prcrr. pp. 369-380.
McBern. P. C.. 1990
THE MYER CENTRE. ADELAIDE-A CASE STUDY. Proceedings of the Struclural Engi- Tnmnnth. B. S.. 1988
neering Conference. Adelaide. The Institution of Engineen. Austr;llia. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESiON OFTALL BUILDINGS. McGmw-Hill. Ncw York.
Meinhardt. W. L..und Narim. S.. 1990 Thomor. I. R.. Almnnd. K. H.. Bsnnetu. I. D., Proc. D. 1.. and Lewinr. R. R.. 1989
THE OUB CENTRE-QUALITY DELIVERY. Prorccdings af Zero Delcets Construction FIRE IN MIXED OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS. BHP Melbourne R e r e w h Labomlorier. Aur-
tralio. Rcpon MRUPS69/89/W4. August.
.~ Ouoiilv Deliver\,.
lael90
~ ~
-.
. Sineuoorc. Thomnr. 1. R.. Benncle. I. D., Proe. D. I.. nnd Lcwinr. R R.. 1992n
Mcinl~ardt.W.L.. andNisbet. R. D.. 1984
SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR THE OVERSEAS UNiON BANK BUILDING. SINGA- FIRE TESTS O F THE 140 WILLIAM STREET OFFICE BUILDINGS. BHP Mclbourns Re-
search Lnborntorier. Aurmlin. Repon BHPWENG/W92!043/SO2C. Jonuury.
PORE. Proceedings af the lntemadonal Cunfcrrncr on Tali Buildines. Sinmoore.
-. - Thomnr. I. R.. Bennetu. I. D., Proe. 0.1.. and Lewinr, R. R.. 1992b
Mclbourne. W. H.. 1977
PROBABlLiTY DISTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE \\'IN0 LOADING O F THE EFFECT OF FIRE ON 140 WILLIAM STREET-A RISK ASSESSMENT. BHP Mel-
STRUCTURES. Civil Ertginerrir~pTrtrarnninrzr The institution of Engineers. Austnlia. bourne Research Laborntories. Aurtrnlin, Repon BHPRENGiN9?10MiSG2C. January.
uol. CE19, no. I . pp. 58-67. Vickcry. 8.1.. 1966
ON THE ASSESSMENT O F WIND EFFECTS ON ELASTIC STRUCTURES. Civil Engineer-
Mclhnurnc. \V. H 19R0
ing 7ianrocrionr. The Inrdlution of Engineers. Auslmlio, pp. 183-192.
Vickery. B. 1.. 1969
ON THE RELiABILlTY OF GUST LOADING FACTORS. U.S. Depvnment of Commerce.
Nvtionnl Bureau of Standards Building Science rer. 30.
5l~lbourn:. \\' II. ~ n Cr,:l.rlg.
d J C. K , l5Sh
IIESIGKISC FOR SEIl\'ICE,\BLI! :\CCI!I.I:RI\TIOSS IS T.1I.I. IlCILu1sGS. I'~.~:!cJIII$. \Vnlobe. M.. and Mila, A,. 19938
~ ~ r # . i l .#I> T L I BJ IJcnil. IIIIII! Kim: .lnJ SI~:.nph~l,
.lf 1 1 r -111, I ~ ~ ~ ~ . r n . l lCJIII:ICI):L. ~pl~. STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OFTHE 121-STORY SSH BUILDINO, Proceed-
14S-Ij5. iner of the lnlernotionnl Conference on Toll Buildings, Rio deluneiro. Brazil. May 17-19.
hlrlbouinc. \V. H.. and Niabet. R. D.. 1985 Wntnbc. M.. and Mitu. A.. 1993h
AEROPLASTICMODEL TESTS AND THEIR AI'PLICATION FOR THE OUB CENTRE. EMERGING NEEDS FOR DAMPING AUGMENTING SYSTEMS APPLICABLE TO SUPER
SINGAPORE. Piocecdingr ufthc lnlcrnntiunvl Confrrrncc an Testinz and lnstrun~enrillion TALL BUILDINGS, Proceedings of the intemndonol Wokrhop on Structurvl Control.
in Building nnd Conrtructioo. Singupore. Honolulu. Hownii. Augurt 5-7,
Wnuon. K B.. nnd O'Brien. L. 1.. 1990
TUBULAR COMPOSITE COLUMNS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA. Pro-
ceedings of lhc SVvcturnl Engineering Conference. Adclnide. The Institution ofEnginecrs.
Contributors
Aucmtin.
- -
Wystt. G. W., and Bcnnclu. L D.. 1987 .1~, ,

STRUCTURALFIRE ENGINEERING IN BUILDING DESIGN-A CASE STUDY. Pmceed-
ings of the First Notional Smcturnl Engineering Conference. The lnrtitution of Engineers,
Auslmlia.
The following is n lisl of those who have contributed their time and effort to mnke this
volume possible. The names, affiliations, cities, and countries of each contributor are
given.
Inn D. Bennelts, BHP Melbourne Laboratories, hlelhournc. Ausrralia

Joseph Burns, LeMessuncr Consultants. Inc., Chicago. Ili!nois. USA
Brian Cnvill. VSL Prcstrcssin~(Aust) Pt). Ltd.. Sydncy, Austmlia
Joseuh
- - - - = - ~P. ~- o l a c o CBM
~ ~
. ~ n e i i e e r s .~ o u i t o n~. e n n sUSA
.
Henry J. ~ o w a n , ' ~ n i v e r s i i osydney,
f syd"ey. ~ " s t r a l i n
P. H. Dnyawansa BHP Melbourne Laboratories. Melbourne, Australia
James G. Forbes, Irwin Johnston and Partners. Sydney. Ausmiia
Eiji Fukuzawa, Kajima Design. Tokyo, Japan
Max B. Kilmister, Connell Wagner Consulting Engineers. Brisbane. Australia
R y s n r d M. Kownlczyk, Department of Civil Engineering. University of Beira Interior.
Covilha. Porngal (former: Bialyslok University of Technology, Biaiyslak, Poland)
Owen Martin, Connell Wagner Rnnkine and Hill. Sydney. Australin
William Melbourne, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Monash University.
Seiichi Murnmatsu, Kajima Design, Tokyo, Japan
T. Okoshi, Nihon Sekkei, Tokyo. Jnpnn
Ahmad Rahimian, The Office of hwin G. Cantor, New York, New York, USA
Thomas Scarangello, Thomton-Tomasetti Engineers, New York, New York. USA
Robert Sinn, Skidmore Owings and Menill, Chicago. Illinois. USA
Richard Tomasetti, Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. New York. New York. USA
A. Ynmaki, Nihon Sekkei, Tokyo, Jnpnn
Buildina Index
Pictures of the buildings uppevr on the itnlicized pilges.
Atlantn. Georciu. United Stater: -

Chicuco. Illinois, United Stotcr (Conr):
Gcoria
-~~ ~ 214.215.216.217-219.3W
-. Pacific. . . . .. 10 South LoSdle Sweet. 208
~ ~
Allnnlic City. New lesey. Uniled Shtes: Three R n t National PI-. II

Tnj Mnhnl Hotel. 17.94.95. g6,97.98 3 11 South Wncker Tower. 213
31 1 Wcrt Wuckcr Drive. 15.213
Two Prudential Plucc. 182.183. 184. 185
B8rcelonn. Spain: Water Tower Plocc. 113
Hatcl de 13s Aner. 276.277. 278. 279. 358.
360
Boston. Mnrachurenr. United States: Dullu$. Texas. United Swtrs:
Dewey SquvreTower. 3 5 , 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 Bank Onc Centcr. 24-1.1-15.246
lohn Huncock Building. 372 Fint lntcmational Building. 260.261.
Brirbane. Auruulia: 262-261
Ccnuvl One P l m . 47.48.19.50 Intefint Plaza. 301
Charlotte. Nonh Cumlino. Uniled Slates: Hvmamulsu City, Japan:

Nations Bank Corporate Center, 241.242.243 ACT Towcr. 68.69.70-72
Chicogo, Illinois. United Smtes: Hong Kong:
Amoco Buildine. 203,204,205 Bank of Chino Towcr. 199
John HuncockCenter. 268.Z69.270.355.370 337.338
NBCTowcr. 3 Bcnkofthe SoulhwestTower.369.371.381.

I81 \Vest hlvdison Streel. 206.207.208.209 382,383,384,385
OneNonh Franklin. 15 Four Allen Cunter. 166,167.168. 169
Onterir Ccnter, 265.266.267 Two Shell Plau. 197
Quukcr Onls Tower. 2
Sears Tower. 202,280,181,182-284,355,
369 Kamogawa, lapan:
77 West Wacker Drive, 124,125, 126 Kvmogvwt GnndTowcr. 104,105. 106. 107
ng Index
Kobe. Jupm: New Yok. New York. United Stuter (Cotzr.1:

Kobe Commerce, Industry 8. Tnde Center.
85.86.87-89
World Tnde Ceacr. 194.196.355.369.372 Name lndex
Kobe Ponopiu Hotel. 73. 71.75.76
Kunlu Lumpur. Malaysia: 06aynma. lupun:
Luth Building. 17.32.33.34-37 Sumitomo L ~ r eInrumcc Building. 230, 231.
232-234
Osaka. Japan:
London. Englmd: Lcvin21. 130.131. 132
Bush h e House. 358.359 Nunkoi Soulh Tower Hotel. 77. 78.79. 80
Lor Angeles. California United Stoles: Tokyo Mnnne Building. 99.100, 101-103
Figucroa nt Wilrhire. 162. !63. 16-4. 165 World Trddc Center. 81.82.83.81
First Interrule World Center. 313,333,334
American Concrete Inrtimle. 147 Consulting Engtnccja Cn~nciloiTeh'rrur. 169.262
Perth. Auruulia:
Americnn Conrulting Engineers' Council. 169. Council [on Tall Bu~ldinps].5. 6
Mclhournc. Aurtmlin: Fonert Ccmc.357
Council on Tall B.lildingr (19ROJ. 363
Bourkc Place. 19.23.24.U. 45.46. 109 Philadelphia. Pennrylvmio. United Slates:
Council onToll Building;. Gmup SC (19801. 1.6
Cassulden Place. 117.128. 129.300 hlcllon Bunk. 225.226.217-229
Asrclpour-Derfuly ct ul. 119901, 355 Council on Toll Buildings (195'2). 354.355
Mclboume Ccnlnl. 27.28.29-31. 109 One Libeny Place. 140. 154.155. 5.56, 157
ASTM. I I
140 William Succt. 365 1650 Market Street. 143
Auslnlim code AS1 170.2 (19891.347
Rialto Building. 285.286. 287-289
Aurlnlivn Consuuction Senicea. I27 DnemIhloore Panncnhip. The. 244
624 Bouike Slrect. 362, 363
Dilvenpon (1967). 347
Telecom Coiporute Building. 137.138. 139
D~r,mpon.Alan. 254.314
Miami, Florida. United Stotei:
Butc. Smun & McCuchean. 27 de Prru. Grmrd. 285
CenTruslTomer.315.316.317-319
Bcllurchi. Piew. Inc.. 235 DcSimone. Cbnplin. and Dobiyn. 116.158
hlinneopolir.Minncsoto. United Stutes: -. Bcnnetu et nl. (1985). 361 DeStelono nnd Goctuch. 124
First Bank Place. 3W. 323.321.325-329 Ovenear Union Bunk Ccnier. 300,302,303.
Bennets a ol. (1989). 361 DeSafano and Ponncrs. 126
3M-309
Bofill. Ricnrdo. 124. 126 Dumont. Francis Xovier. 94
Rvrncs Place. 30.1
Bond (1975). 355
New York. New YoiL United Sutcs: SingopareTm?ury Building. 119.120, 121-123
Bomhont and Ward Pry. Ltd.. 173
Camegie Hvll Tower. 293.2%. 295,296 Sydney. Au~uuIrd:
Boundary Lvyer Wind Tunnel. 254 ECCS (1988). 355
CamegieMusic Hull. 293 Bond Building. 142
Bnnncn. June. Associates inc.. 235 Ellisor and Tanner Inc.. 166.260
Citicaip Center. 310.311.312-314.372 Chiflcy Tower. 150.151, 152. 153
Brennm..Becr.. Goman Associates. 293
City Spire Building. 109. 145.146. 147-149, proposed office building. 361
296 British Steel (1992). 355
Brouctti et al. (1983). 358 Falconer and Beedle (19841.6.7
Concordis Hotel. 296
Embassy Suites Hotel. 116.117, 118 Tokyo. lapw: -
Buildinr Center Firc Snlew and Protection Fenucsr. C. W.. and Arrocivter P. C.. 186
Committee. 103 Flnck nnd K u m Auslnlio. 150
450 Lexington Avenue. 220. 221-22.1 N6E Building. 290,291. 292
Gmnd Central Station. 220 Burgee. John. ArchitecE with Philip Johnson. Faster Associnter. 335
244 Fox and Fowle Arshitecu. I1 6
Mvrriott hlvquis Ha~el.17.90.91.92.93 Shimizu Super High Rise. 369,371,386,387,
Metiapolitan Towcr, I1 1.112. 113-1 15. 145. 388-390
296
PvliiceTheatie. 116, 118 Comeran Chisholm and Nicol (Qld.) Ply. Ltd..
Russian Tea Room. 793 \Vellington, New Zealand:
. .-
m
Cantor. Irwin G..Office o t 170.220. 225
780Third Avenue. 267.271.272.273-275 hlnjestic Building. 133. 134. 135. 136
CBM Engineers. Inc.. 162, 163. 182. 183.315.
17 Stale SmcL 158, 139.160. 161 (undetermined):
Trump Tower. 170-172 316.323.332 Horrell Archiacrs. 127
Ereahon Center (proposed). 369.370
CrrmuMPetcrka. 157 Hedrich-Blcrsing. 21 1.239.298.378
Chen and Robcmon (1973). 341-346 Hellmuth Obatr m d Korsabuum. inc.. 260
City Center Theatre. 147 HI(S Inc.. 373
Cohcn-Burreto-Mmhcnrr. Inc.. 124.206 Holmes (1987). 349
Connell \\'ngncr. 27.43. 127. 129. 137 HRH Construction. 314
Name lndex Name Index 415
National Society of Prohrrionnl Enginccrr. 169 Stone. Edward Durrell. 203 U.S. Slcsl. 95.355
Notions Bonk, 242 Svuctunl Engineen Associalion of Illinois, 240 University of Western Ontario. 254,314,322.
NBBJ. 330 Srubbinr. Hugh and Associates. 119. I20.310. 382
Nihon Sekkei Inc.. 68.290 311 UneclSAA Pmnenhip. 302
Nikken Sekkei Ltd.. M). 73.77.81.85. 130.?30 Swnnkc Hnyden Conncll. 170
Vickery (1966. 1969). 347

O'Msaghcr ct ol. (1993). 355 Tmge. Kenzo. 302
Jucoby. Edward. 31 1 O'Neill. 135 Thomas ct ol. (1989). 361
Thornor ct nl. (1992n). 356.358.366 Wmr Buller and Arrociom. 133.135
Thornor a o1. (1992b). 363 Watson nnd O'Bn'en (19901.355
Kujimo Corpontion. 104 Thompson. Leonard. 334 Wcidlinger Asrocinter. 90.214.215.235
Kajimn Dcrign. 99. IM Thornton-Tomare6 Engineen. 150,154,373,374 Womlcy. David. 314
Kasturi, liijjas. As~ociales.32 Paulur Sokolowrki and Sonar. Inc.. 94 Tokyo Marine. 99 Wu. Gordon, and Asrocinter. 256
Khan (1966). 5 Pel. I. M.. ond P m e n . 315.332 Travis Pmncn. 150 Wyctt and Bennctu (1987). 355
Khan. Fuzlur. 192 Pel Cobb Freed and Pamen. lnc.. 323
Kohn. Pedenm. Fox. 150.225 Prlli. Ccror, and Associates, 206.209.241.293,
Kruppv(1981),358 373
Kfuppa et nl. (1990). 355 Perbnr and Will Pnmecrhip. The. 203.238
Kurokau'a, Kiiho. 27.47 Perrort Lyan Malhirron Pty. Ltd.. 137.285
Petlcrsson et ol. (1976). 356
Ponman. John. ArrociaBs. 90
Law ilnd O'Bricn (1981). 358 Panopin Hotel Daign Office. 73
Lchlersuricr. William. 369
LeMesrurier Canrultunu. 119.310
Levy. Jcnnifcr. 91 Ranhill Bcrsckutu. 32
Lindsey. Cbcrter. and Arrociatcr. 320 Reed 119711.341-346
L l q J Joser Br:rr.r A~~ucistcr. 166. 381 Roarn$on. Lellle E.. ondArrucijlc$, 196. 199
I.r,ehc Schla<$n,xo2nd I l ~ c l l .I82 Ko:co Design P0nr.n. I h8
Rorenthnl. Steve. 236
Roienwusser. RobeR Asrocintes P. C.. I 11.
McBcan (1990). 355 112.145.116.271.272.293
Mackboii~eiDenrnaflVcdigcr, I I I Roth. Emery. nod Sons. 158,310
Man. Nu Chun. and Arsociater. 247 Rudeman. J m r r . Office of, 310
Mvncini Duffy Asrocintea. 81
M'lnning and Associates. 133
Mmin. Albcn C.. 162 Sukumoto etnl. (1992). 361
M~ruokael 21. (1992). 355 Snunders and Melbourne (1975). 348
Massachusctu Institute ofTechnology. 95. Schumun. Lichtenstrin. Clnrnnn and Efron, I I I
Maunsell Prv. Lld.. 47 Sean. Rocbuck and Compnny. 280
Seidler. H w . and Asrociaer. 39
Sevrud Arrociler, 186
Shidw and Asrociuter, 206. 209
Melbourne (1988). 345.316 Shimiru Carpontian. 386.387
Melbourne nnd Chcung (1988). 352 Skidmore. Owingr &Memill. 2.3. 197.210,214.
Melbourne ilnd Palmer (1992). 344 220.265.268,271.276.279-281.297.377
Milsubishi Estate. 68 Skillins Ward Mngnurion Barkshirr, Inc., 320,
Moore. Widllcr P.. and Arraciuter. lnc.. 241 321,330,331
MTS Syslemr Corporation. 311 Smith. Jcsr. 204
Murphy J h n . 145. 151.381 Squire Pholognphicr. 44. 138
Subject Index
' 8
A-fmmc rmsrer. 381 building mponw. 346

accelrntian. 353 build in^ awnv. 95
cn'lcrie 311-346.351.353 hundicd bm;d cart tuber. 158
ncmlastic tesls. 322 bundled lmmed tuber. 280
oirn'ghh.311 h~ndlcdtube. 198. 2W. 290.299
ollsoncrele scheme. 243 behavior, 202
along-wind force rpecug 343
along-wind response. 49.341.342.345.347.
350.351 cnntilever efficiency. 198
mchonges. 19 canlilcverryswms. 195
arch. tied. 323 cmtilevcd bny windows. 175
mbitecturnl exprcrrion. 279 cnntile"cdC0~.49
architecruml tendencia. 371 cmtilevcd noor. 126122
nrmwhcod desicn. 186.187 cmtilcvcred ring barn. 139
cnntilcvcred rhcnr wall. I09
cnntilcved tube. 192.194
cmtilevered venicnl rmrrcr. 51
cmtilevering wind benm system. 177
cast on rilecanmete. 104
bnlcony weight, 79 chevmn bracing. 332,334
b u d beams, 138 chevmn portem, 382
h m s o l u m n join4 194 chord memben. 14
beam joint. 37 circulnr concrete core. 92
benmz.eomporile. 9 sirculnr face. 152.316
belled Enissons. 212.213 circular shaped buildings. 32.256259
bolted joints. high-strength. 2M cladding. 61. 147.209, 212,237,298,354
..
hx-1vm SVUEIUR.109 clasrilicntion of systems. 2.5-7
boredrhenr wall rynemr. llO column nonunifomity. 296
braced core spine. 162 column m r f e n , 243.317.319
braced fnme. 4.51.52.68. 73. 87.89.90.372 cohm:
connections. 52 composite concnc-filled steel-lube. 127
braced oerimeter tube..310
~
gravity-designed. 58
bncedrteel core. 154.3W. 320 high-strength conmele. 320
wilh ouuiggcs. 150. 166 pilotis. 101
brnced steel frame. 3W d i n g . 191
braced rleel SlrucNrC. 94 combined fnme. 77
building code. 245. 353 comporlte action. 9
building density. 352.353 composite benmr. I2
building drib 157 design. I I
418 Subject I n d e x Subject Index 419
composite column sections. 356 crou,n. 34. 162.206.241.381 excitation mechanirmr. 341 fnmes (Con!.):
composite floor, 13.208 crucifow-rhnped spine. 32.5 cxteriortube: deformolion. 55
comporite me~oldeck. 212 cruciform tube. 374.376 concrete-fnmed. 210 diagonally bmced. 1
computer molysir. 3 W cunain wall. 27. 120.354 diagonally bnced. 271 ductile moment, 333
computer flooring. 150 curvilinmr-rhapcd building. 330 cccenuic bmccd. 51.53
computer modeling. lhree-dimensionul. 267 cylindrical tower. 119 elevntion. 71.72
concenuic hnccd frdmc;. 51 facade: perimeter diagonally bmced. 265
cancenuicnlly bnced core. 164 onhitecture. 196 perimeter moment. 158. 160
concme: dnmped rtructurcs. 1. 115,3W dingonulimdon. 198 perimeter rigid moment, 130
choiceof, 113 damper plater. 106 geomelrier;. 152 perimeter steel. 124. I 8 6
core. 373.377 dnmperr. viscoclarlic. 330 snwtoolh. 219 rigid. 60.61.74.77.81.90
with outriggers. 186. I88 damping. 1l5.227.296.314.322.341.351.382 fin walk. 90 rigid perimeter. 94
care tube. 206 capabilities. 3 W finite elcmen, nndyrir. 50 X-bnccd. 279
encaTcments. 227 ryrtcm. 69.372 fire. 353.354 fnmcu,ork. M. 76.80.84.87.98. 233.278
stcel fnmes. 230 drpprd girdrrr. I 2 fire compmments. 356.358.361 rnming plan. 123.218.224.227.264.273.283.
high-smngh. 44,285.330.371 dead loud. 157 fire pmtmtion. 4. 103.279.353-367 305.379
high-suenglh columns. 320 i v i ~ tI
d e ~ o n ~ u u ~ lstyle. pmteclivc coatings. 355 frequency. 352.353
perimeter fnmcs. 285 dcflrctionr 274.275 fire mgulnlory requirements. 354 rriction tests, I81
porttenrioned. 19 design: fire rcsirwnce. 354.355 furniture. 356
precast pretensioncd. 17 onowhead. 186. I87 fire safety design, 362 luture systems. 369-372
schcmc. 251 competition, 382 fire tests. 358.366
ahcvrcorc. 124. 170 criteria. 389 firepmafed rtructunl rtecl. 212
slab. 10 laad deflection. 179 firer. time-tempcnture curve. 358 gallcriu. 379
rpvndrcl beams. 97 problcmr. 147 noor diaphngmr. 329 geotcchnicnl conrultanl. 34
tube. 272.293 diagonal bncing: floor fnminr. 7. 1l gnrity-designed columns. 58
(See also reinforced concrete) core. 85.297 plan. 168.208.299.376 g n r i t y load. 5.56. 122, 200.270.312. 333
connections. 57.110.282 exterior tube. 271 floor plans (drawings), ?9.36.41,45.63.73. gust factor. 347
dewilr. 54.55 fnmcr. I 75.79.83.88.107.121.132.148. 149.
typcr. 58 tube. 276
conrtruction: displnccment tnccs, 342
hnnging gwdenr. 92
cycle. 275 double tube design. 296
high-ruenglh concrete. 1.44. 110. 127. 172.
time. 137.256.330 ductile moment f m c . 333 quarter-circle. 158
Z55.3W. 330.371
continuous walls. 386 dynumicstiffnesr, 103 floor plae. I ?
high-suenglh bolted joints. 204
core: floar wction. 36
hollow corr plank;. 134
diagonally bnced. 85.297 floor slab. 9.318
honeycomb dnmper plate. 108
fnmc. 95.98 eunhquohe. 131. 165.330.333.388 floorryrlems, 2. 304 honeycomb dnmper wall. 104.106.107
K-bnccd. 365 londr. 109 composite, 9
hurricane. 314
m d outrigger systems. 14G144.369 resistonce. 104 p m m r e d and porttenrioned, 15-26
hybrid perimeter tube.214
and perimeter fnmr. 133 resisting cnpocity. 85 ~OOE:
hybrid steel. I
umsverscly bnced. 81 rerpanre. 107 circulx. 32
hybrid immure. 116.271.272.307.308
trinngulw. 320 wares. 69 long-spm. 16
hybrid systems. 4.3W302.369
(Sce olro shcw care) eccentric braced fnmc. 51.53 open-web. 13
core-alone system, 143 ccccnuic K bncing swaure. 60.65 plank 93
carmrion pmtection. 279,351 economy. 369.374 footing plan.35
costs. 330 electrified floor system. 262 infarmodon systems. 372
formwockrynemr. 1 10
coupled shear walls. III elecwrlvg u,eldine. 282 inlemntionnl style. 1
foundation. 82.304.319.388
c m h wollr. 223 ulc%lt$un.IUh. 249, 305. 312. 385. 390 rynem. 141
creep. 147.287.304 cnc~wd-<!eel tnnrfcr trur,cs. 116 f m e - t m r r intcncling syrtems. 57.59
crosr-wind force specuu. 313,348,349 cnd framc. 95. 96.98 f m c d tubesystem. 192 jerk. 344
crosi-wind responic. 49.311.342.345.347. fnmcr: joist girdcrr. 13. 14
319.351 conccnuic bnced. 51 jump-form system. 137
420 Subject Index Subject Index
ourriggen (Canr.):
rupenlingonds. 156-157
pmject descriptions, 27-50.66108
302-338
. 111-139. sloped colu4n ryrtem. 229
slopingsiIe. 256
systems. 1.4. 146144. 186.188. 369 fnmed lubes. 203-259 spandrel beam dcmil. 97
loleml deflection. 237 mires, 297.380 lrusscd Nber 266299 spandrel uniu. 216
lotcrdl load momcnu, 243 wollr. 374 specin1moment misting h e s , 57
lateral load resistunce. 5-7.355 ovenuming moment, 140. 142 spine suncurer. I.1M. 165.323
resirdngsystem. 101.215 nilmod b a c k . 220.238 ' spire. 381
lateral loads, 4 nilwoyrmtion. 78 s p r i d e n . 366
lnteml stiffness. 314 p m e t e r w n s i t i v i t y . 349 nliingcalumnr. 191 aquare be. 198
lvteml n,ind-resisting system. 168 parking ganger. fire conditions. 361 reclnimcd nren. 82.247 IWCNre. 230
live-laad deflection. 122 ponial fnmed lube. 319 reinforced concrete: staggered uuer ryrtem. 95
long-span floan. 16 peak occelcntion. 345,348,350,351 comtruction. 192 st*]:
pedmrrian bridge, I 6 6 cam. I41 cantilevered floor bcnmr. 119
pcdesrrion tunnel. 166 fmmc;. 57 dcck 3 M
massing. 371 perceived motion. 113 rmctuml system. 285 fire-reriiwnf 355
mart. 335 pcmrptible motions. 353 reinforcement dewilr. 31 framed mrr rmcture. 223
marlcolumn. 312 perimeter h d a g c r . 327 residentid buildings. 17. I W haming. 156
materinlr. 5 pcrimetcr column loyout, 317 rigid box. 192. 198. f m i n g r y r t e m . 129
meandering shear wall. 113. 1I 4 pcrimeler concrete columnr. 373 rigid fnme. 60.61.74.77.81.90 higb-yield rwctuml. 301.308
mcchvnical ducu. I 2 ~crimeterdiveonullv bmced frame. 265 rigid perimeter fmme, 94 mast. 335
mega ponvl fnmcs. 276 ring bcom. 139 open webjoirn. 13.14
mc~xolumn Eyslcm. 221.222 risk ;rrscssmenl. 363.366 perimeter fmmcd tubc. 166
mcgustructurc. 223.296 perimeter frdmes. 150, 377
megumrres. 301 perimelerrube. 206,210
mctul deck. 9. 10 perimeler moment frame. 158. I6U suwloolh facade. 219 rteclwoik, crtemal. 358
mixed conswction. 119 pcrimear punid lube. 315 scismicmn. 69 alep buck. 162
mixed-use. 265.268 pcrimcler rigid momenl framer. 130 seismic load. 333,388,389 stepped beam soffit. 24
made-generalized forcc sprcwm. 348.349 perimeterring mrr. I 2 1 reirmic zone. 134.330. 332 stiffness. 12.109,296.3W, 341
mode shape. 349.351 perimcterrleel fmmcr. 124. 186 ienritivity studies. 274 ~tresling.42
modemist style. I perimesrrube. 170.223.225.235.241.244 servicwbility requiremenu. 6.341 rvucrunl andyris, high-temperature. 279
modes o f vibration. 103 wilh b n m d core. 220 setback. 215 r m c t u d plan. 70.292
moment frame. 73 nnd core. 247 shenr core: r m d v r a l ~ k efll ~ r f n m i n e .122
moment-resisting frame. 4,5.51.53.55-58.99. and inlemvl core. 256 with ouoigg~rbenmr. I 8 2 structural stecl scheme. 250
I01 piles. hi&-strenglh concrete. 386 with o u r r i ~ e n 173
. s W F Ntendencies.
~ ~ 371
moving farmwork ryrlemr. lI 0 pilotir column$. 101 (See o l ~ core)
o rmIItie mr. 178
mulliure complex. 276 planform rhapc. 352.353 sheor f m e deformations. 192 rtubgirdersyatem. 12. 262
p l a l k f l w n . 93 shcnrlng. 196. 198 stud rhcorconnecton. 95
p l m . 43. 102.173.299.321 cfiecf I94 subsystems. 7
neohistoricvl style. I pony w r r . 323
porunodem style. I
.
shear ounels.. 267
s h r u wall rystemr.4. 109. 110,309
rupeicolumns. 116.3W.323.325. 326.371
supilrurr. 229
posttensionedbeam. 22 open tube. 147 suspension mrres. 335
occupancy comfon. 95.341.341-346.351.353. porttensioned cancme. 326 shear wallr. 77. 110. 116.230.318.1 172 sway o f building. 82. 113
391 n 0 0 ~15 . with ourriggcn, 145
open views. 152 pornensioned flot deb. 20 shrinkage. 109. 147.287
open-wch noor. 13 pornensioned systems. common. 17 skeleton. 307 tall building, definition. 5
optimiution. 56. 140. 157 possenrioninp, rconomicr of. 2&25 sky lobbies. 388 Wllc5t building. 280.376
ourriggcrs: Pnn uurr. I 4 slender aspect rdtio. 271 wndem elevntan. 260
beams. 172.300 precost concrete ponel. 66.67 slender buildings. 352 tapered girders. 12
and belt w n c s . 377 precart pretenrioncd concrete. 17 slenderswcture. 113. 145.296 tcndons. 21. 139
benefiu. 141-143 prerhoring method. 115 slendrmerr mdo. 53.382 thin-wnlled concrete-filled tubes. 129
drawbuck. 143. 144 preruerred floors. 15 slip-formed concrete core. 43.92 three-dimeniionol ncxion. 287
hutmsr. 158. 160 presmessed tendons, cultinp, 2+26 slipjoint. I80 three-dimrruionul computer model. 153
. .
- 422 Subject I n d e x
time h k ~ r unolysis,
y 334. .1 vnlue engineering. 245
. top-down canrtruction. 188.335 ; vmicill conliirver. 192, 194,282
torsional louding. 109 ; vcnicsl trurrm. 52
loaionol mhlti?n. 328 : vibrations. 13
toniond stability. 3253 modcr of, 103
m r f c r f l b o r p i n h 318- Vierendeel bandages. 313,325
m r h r rwmu&. 240, girder bundogrr. 326
m r v e n e l y bmced corc. 81 Vicrendeel benm. 192
me elemenu. 194 ., Vierendeel fnmer. 93.239
me-type construction. 299 Vierendeel mort. 337
w r . 203 .. . Vierendeel panel. 14.95
vinngulvrcom. 320 Vierendeel system. 335
vinnguiar rhupc. 39 Vierendeel truss. 223.2-16.262.374
triongulnr rile. 186 pipe trusrcs. 325
Irinngulnr lower, 111.30-1 vircoelvrtic dnmpen. 330
vinngulur lube. 198 voncx shedding. 113. 119.226.382
m r r e d abe. 196.260.371
' . systems. 197.369
~ l l c s215.30-1.313
, wuming syrterns. 354
comporilefloor. 14. 15. 16 warping-restmining bandugcr. 328
pony. 323 Warren Irurr. 14
P m t ~14 wcb diagonals. I 4
lube: wclded girder srubr. 236
concrete. 293 welding. tillel. 237
concrete-filled rlcel. 300 wind. 6. 109
divgannnly brdced. 171.276 wind beam joinl. 181
double lube design. 296 wind heumr. 179
exterior. 210 wind bracing. 263
pnniul rmmed. 319 wind engineering. 330
perimeter fmmed. 47.85,203.238.268,297 wind forces, 313
perimeter pnniul. 315 wind induced motions. 4,311,382
side-by-ride. 293 windload.49.82.121.131.249.273.287.388.
ruucture. 168 389
surpenrion. 335 wind motion. 334
triangular. 198 wind ovenuming forces. 313
venicol. 52 wind reairloncc. 29
Vierendeel pipe, 3% eiemenu. 330
Warren. 14 syrlem. 157
water-filled. 355,359 wind response. 349
obr-in-tube. 27.32,39.-13.85. 137 wind rhenr. 254.313
tubulorconcepr. 304 wind-shedding farm 299
lubularefticiency. ?0i wind sway. 57
hlbulursyslemr. 1.4.5.143, 192-202 wind tunnel less. 49.68.75, 103. 113. 131,
tuned morr dompcr. 153.314 133.146. 157.160. 166. 175,?26,217.
tunnels. 129 . 254.273.274.287.314.322. 388
typhoon wind ciimae. 254 :
r X-bmccd frumer. 279

@bmced lube, 274 X-bmcing. 51,260,270

Structural System For Tall Buildings

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

Structural System For Tall Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

. ,.

Casf-in-Place Concrete in Tall Building Design and Constructio~t

Chapter 1: Editorial Group Section 4.3: Thomu Scmngello

4.. Lateral Load Resisting S y s t e m s

4.3. Core nnd Outrigger Systems 6. Systems for the Future

developments in posttensioned concrete floor systems for high-rise construction in

1.1 CONDENSED REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

TYPE I I TYPE 11 I I TYPE Ill 1) TYPE IV I

This Monograph therefore divides the discuss~onof tall bu~ldtngsmctural Systems

3.1 COMPOSITE STEEL FLOOR SYSTEMS

1 Composite Beams and Girders

....... ....?..........-....................... .*.,

.......... ........ .,,.,, . . . . ., . . . . ."

Ruill-up labricatcd compo\ilu nonr trusses cumbinc m ~ t u r ~ ciilcicncy

PPR = .--! &-

CHOilOB hubl~lnglem Ree?.TUk R L U b . . -

. Shallower structural depth, resulting in rcduced story height (Fig. 3.17)

. since reinforcement in the perimeter can be a significant percentage of the lolal.

Fig. 3.15 Bourkc Ploce. Melbourne, Aurlmlin: 53 levels.

3 Cutting Prestressed Tendons I Floor being poured7

of lhcse penetrations is typically from 50 to 250 mm (2 lo 10 in.) in~dinmeter.As a

Fig. 3.18 Typlcnl noor propping.

Average tendon length, rn

In a typical posttensioned floor it is possible.to locate penetrations of up to 1000 by

gig.3.11 LOW-rircfloor LE-L14 hl~lbourneCcnlml.

I0 floors J x a d ofconcrc.le cnc3semcn1 ( R E 3 22). This conccpl, in comb!nolion wilh

PRCFLOR~UTED C~GE-' -t~n,io L ~ G A r~ lU~~ o

FLMR STEEL BEAN

Rg.3.22 noor-lo-floor dimcnri~nrand typical torer column reinrorccmcnt details; hlclbournc

Luth Headquarters Building

8601 4W SPANDREL BEAM XII SLAB

Fig. 3.29 Riverride Center, Brirbnnc, Auslrnlin.

Fig. 330 Floor plnn; Riverride Cenler.

Fig. 3.32 Typical tower floor plon; Bourke Place.

Fig. 333 Typicill noor profile, ~ o u r k e~ i u c c .

Fig. 3.31 Bourke Piore, hlelbourne, Autrniin. (Plioro by Srjl~ircPlio!ogropi!ic.r.)

Number of levels below ground

The ground-floor slab was designed in reinforced concrete, incorpomting an exten-

minlmum passive reinforcement, another feature to assist thc builder.

RIGID CONNECTION RIGID CONNECTION

Fig. 4.8 Snnwil Bank. Tokyo, Jnpun.

COLUMN PANEL FASTENING

M i c a 1 Structural Plan (Hotel)

>pica1 Structuroi Plnn (OCrice)

Fig. 4.18 Typicul slructurul noor plnn; Kobe Purlopin Hotel

Fig. 4.17 Kobc Porlnpiu Holcl. Robe, Japan.

<- Beam depth 850 mm (33.5 in.)

Fig. 4.21 Typlcnl noor plan; Nankui South Toscr Hotel.

Fig. 4.20 N ~ n k o South

World Trade Center

Fig. 4.24 Typical noor plnn; World Trndc Ccnlcr, Oruku.

Fig. 4.13 World Trode Ccnlcr, Omkn, h p u n .

Kobe Commerce, Industry and Trade Center

This building is structurally characterized by its "tube-in-lube structure." which consists

Perimeter frame Braced frame

Fig. 4.26 Kobc Cemnlcrre, Industry nnd Trndc center, J,,~~,,.

Marriott Marquis Hotel

Fig. 433 Typical noor plnn; Tnj Mnhnl Hotcl.

Typical building exterior column

Tokyo Marine Building

Fig. 4.36 Tuk).u Rlurlnc building. Oaaku,Japun.

Fig. 4.38 Framing pcrspcclivc; T n k ~ ohlurinc building.

Kamogawa Grand Tower