1BI21CSE05

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
JNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI-590018
TECHNICAL SEMINAR REPORT (21CSE27)

ON
TALL STRUCTURES-KINGDOM TOWERS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the award of degree of
Master of Technology
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
DARSHAN D GOWDA
1BI21CSE05
Under the guidance of

Prof.KIRAN.K.M
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Bangalore Institute of Technology

K R Road, V V Puram,
Bangalore-560004
BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
K.R.Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore – 560004
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Technical Seminar (20CSE27) on topic “TALL STRUCTURE -

KINGDOM TOWERS” has been successfully presented at Bangalore Institute of
Technology by Mr.DARSHAN D GOWDA bearing USN: 1BI21CSE05 in fulfillment of
the requirements for the II Semester degree of Masters of Technology in Structural
Engineering of Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum during academic year
2020-2021. It is certified that all corrections/suggestions indicated for Internal Assessment
have been incorporated in the report deposited in the Departmental library. The seminar report
has been approved as it satisfies the academic requirements in respect of work prescribed for the II
Semester, Mtech.
Signature of the Guide Signature of Principal Signature of HOD

Prof.KIRAN.K.M Dr.Aswath M.U Dr. H.B Balakrishna
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The satisfaction and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of any task would
be incomplete without the mention of people who made it possible and under whose
constant guidance and encouragement the task was completed.
We are indebted to Dr.Aswath M.U, Principal, Bangalore Institute of Technology,

Bangalore for his support, cooperation and encouraging remarks.
We are grateful to Dr. H.B Balakrishna, HOD of the Civil Engineering Department, BIT
Bangalore for his support and encouragement.
We extend our sincere appreciation to our guide Prof.KIRAN.K.M, Assistant Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering, Bangalore Institute of Technology who provided his
valuable suggestions and precious time in accomplishing my technical seminar work. His
guidance gave us the environment to enhance our knowledge, skills and to reach the
pinnacle with sheer determination, dedication and hard work.
Last but not the least, we express our heartfelt gratitude to Almighty and our friends who
gave lot of suggestions to complete this work successfully.
ABSTRACT
The technical seminar report in board spectrum contains six chapters in which we tried to
give an overview about the Structural System of Tall Buildings and their analysis. The
content of all section is broadly explained and it is made from the exhaustive study of
journals, research papers and other authentic source.
In first chapter, I have discussed briefly about introduction and history of tall buildings
and also about needs and limitations of tall buildings.
In the second chapter, I have discussed about the papers, journals and notes that have been
studied for this topic.
In the third chapter I have discussed about the general requirements of high rise buildings
as per code.
Fourth chapter of this report has information about the structural systems of tall building
and also about their suitability for different heights.
Fifth chapter deals with brief analysis for the tall buildings using P-delta analysis, and
seismic analysis like Equivalent Static Method, Response spectrum analysis, Push over
analysis, Time history analysis.
I have written the conclusion of my study on Structural systems and stability of tall
buildings and what I learned during this period.
Last part contains the references what is used for making this report.
CONTENTS
Sl.No Description Page No

1 CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 History of High Rise Buildings 1
1.3 Needs and Scope of High Rise Buildings 5
1.4 Limitations of High Rise Buildings 5
2 CHAPTER-2: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Elevation 6
2.1.1 Height Limit for the Structural Systems 6
2.1.2 Slenderness Ratio 6
2.1.3 Aerodynamic Effects 7
2.2 Plan 7
2.2.1 Plan Geometry 7
2.2.2 Plan Aspect Ratio 7
2.3 Storey stiffness and strength 7
2.4 Deformation 7
2.4.1 Lateral Drift 7
2.5 Floor System 8
2.5.1 Materials for floor systems 8
2.5.2 Openings 8
2.6 Materials 8
2.6.1 Concrete 8
2.6.2 Reinforcement Steel 8
2.7 Loads acting on High rise buildings 8
2.7.1 Vertical Loads 10
2.7.2 Lateral Loads 11
3 CHAPTER-3: KINGDOM TOWERS-JEEDAH TOWER 14
3.1 Introduction 14
3.1.1 Background of the structure 14
3.2 Objective 14
3.3 Scope and methodology 14
4 CHAPTER-4: STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF THE JEDDAH TOWER 16
4.1 Selection of shape and structural form 16
4.1.1 Background of available technologies 16
4.1.2 Reasons for selection of the shape of the structure 16
4.1.3 Advancement over the design of Burj Khalifa with regards to wind engineering 16
and the use of outriggers and belt transfer
4.1.4 The lateral wind load on the tall building 18
4.2 Details of the structural system 20
4.2.1 Reinforced buttress core 20
4.2.1.1 Basic concept of the buttress core 20
4.2.1.2 History of development of the buttress core 20
4.2.1.3 The reinforced buttress core of the Jeddah tower 21
4.2.1.4 Structural requirements of the materials used in construction 23
4.3 Properties of the concrete used in the construction 24
4.3.1 High strength concrete testing program 24
4.3.2 Concrete material models 25
4.4 Vertical shortening finite element analysis model 25
[Type text]
4.5 Soil properties and the foundation details 27
4.5.1 Subsurface condition 28
4.5.2 Full scale pile load test program 28
4.5.3 Finite element analysis approach 29
4.5.3.1 Model assumptions 30
4.5.3.2 Results 30
CONCLUSION 32
REFERENCES 33
LIST OF TABLES
Sl.No Description of Table Page No
Table 1 Height Limit for the Structural Systems 6
Table 2 Slenderness Ratio 6
Table 3 Impact allowance for different types of structure 10
Table 4 The elevations range of the varying bedrock layers encountered during 28
the subsurface investigation
Table 5 Summary of Full Scale Test Program 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Sl.No Description of Figures Page No
Fig.1 Shanghai tower 3
Fig.2 commerce center, Hong kong 3
Fig.3 Woolworth Building 3
Fig.4 Petronas Tower 3
Fig.5 Empire State Building 4
Fig.6 Taipei 101 4
Fig.7 Burj Khalifa 4
Fig.8 World One Tower 4
Fig.9 Cost of height diagram 9
Fig.10 Scenarios due to lateral loads 11
Fig.11 Vortex shedding 12
Fig.12 Jeddah tower 15
Fig.13 Sky Terrace 15
Fig.14 Floor division of Jeddah tower 17
Fig.15 Wind diversion on the structure 18
Fig.16 Comparison with the other structure 20
Fig.17 Buttress core 21
Fig.18 Structural system components 22
Fig.19 Wall construction 23
Fig.20 Shear wall and structural components 23
Fig.21 CTL group creep and shrinkage test samples 24
Fig.22 Wing and Core Wall Groups 25
Fig.23 Midas Gen Vertical Shortening FEA Model 26
Fig.24 End Wall Axial Load vs. Time 27
Fig.25 Foundation Configuration 27
Fig.26 Raft design using finite element method 29
Fig.27 Best Estimate Raft Settlement Contours (mm) 31
[Type text]
TALL BUILDINGS-KINGDOM TOWERS 2022
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Emporis standards define a high rise building as “A multi-storey structure between 35-
100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12-39 floors” whereas, from a
structural engineer’s perspective, a building is considered tall when, due to its height the
lateral forces suffered by the structure play a significant role in the design. It can used as
a residential, office building, or other functions including hotel, retail, or with multiple
purposes combined. A very tall high-rise building is referred to as a skyscraper.
There is no clear definition of what a tall building is, but according to the council of tall
buildings and urban habitat it should have one of the following elements to be considered
a tall building.
 Height relative to context: when a building is distinctly taller than an urban norm
 Proportion: a building that is slender enough to give an appearance of a tall
building
 Tall building technologies: the building contains technologies that are a product of
the buildings height, such as specific vertical transportation technologies and
structural wind bracing.
The increase in demand for tall structures requires that a structural engineer is familiar
with the buckling phenomena that can occur in a building. The engineer must have an
understanding of working calculation methods for designing this type of structure and
must having confident in using them. From the past earthquake it has been observed that a
building with discontinuity in the stiffness and mass subjected to concentration of forces
and deformations at the point of discontinuity which may leads to the failure of members
at the junction and collapse of building. Most economical way to eliminate the failure of
soft storey is by adding shear walls to the tall buildings.
1.2 HISTORY OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

After the Great Chicago Fire in 1871 that left a big part of downtown Chicago empty,
higher buildings started to emerge. There was a big demand for office space and land was
expensive, investors expected maximum usage. With limited space around buildings the
only way to go was vertical.
MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 7

The biggest contribution for the structure itself came perhaps from Gustave Eiffel who
had demonstrated iron as a useful building material. Soon after, the iron skeleton concept
was born. As seen in one of the first high-rise buildings, the Monadnock in Chicago from
1891, the use of masonry in such a building is not very effective in terms of the floor
space it inhabits with the masonry being six feet thick. The change actually came earlier
when constructing the Home Insurance Building five years earlier, also in Chicago. The
Home insurance building used an iron skeleton in collaboration with masonry walls to
create the world’s first skyscraper. The Home Insurance building was never the tallest
building in the world but considered the first skyscraper because of its iron skeleton. The
Iron frame was something that people didn’t think was possible and the building had to
shut down for a while during its construction. In this building the iron was used to handle
the gravitational loads but today it’s well-used for horizontal loads as well. Intentional or
not, the masonry was the construction material handling horizontal loads in the Home
Insurance Building.
It was perhaps the Monadnock that was the first tall building recognizing the effects of
wind loads with its iron portal frame between the east and west side of the house. Iron,
then steel, and its development led to new heights in construction possibilities. New York
soon took over as the capital for high-rise buildings in the early 20th century with
buildings like the Singer tower, Woolworth building and later Empire State Building.
Even though steel was the material of choice in the beginning of the 20th century
concrete was evolving to become a viable candidate because of its cheaper construction
cost, better fire resistance and better mass dampening. In 1903 the first reinforced
concrete high-rise building was built as the Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Concrete was not often used as part of the structural system in high-rise buildings because
of its weakness in tension along with non-developed calculations for reinforcement. It
was not until the second half of the 20th century that it was being used as the primary part
of a buildings structural system. This was because of earlier high-rise structures used the
steel frame for stability until Fazlur Rahman Khan invented the tubular design.
Later developed structural systems like the outrigger and the buttress core has allowed for
even higher buildings such as the Petronas Towers(438m), Taipei101 (508m) and current
tallest on earth is Burj Khalifa (830m)
As the structural systems and materials in high-rise buildings have evolved so has the
usage. From being almost always used as office buildings in the nineteen-hundreds to

more and more residential usage in the 21st century. Since the beginning, high-rise
buildings have been the architectural expression of dreams, power and economic wealth.
The race for taller, slender and more efficient high-rises continues however, with the need
for even better elevators, construction materials and structural systems to reach new
heights.
Fig 1. Shanghai tower Fig 2.commerce center, Hong kong
Fig 3.Woolworth Building, New York Fig 4. Petronas Tower, Malaysia

Fig 5.Empire State building, New York Fig 6.Taipei 101, Taiwan
Fig7.Burj Khalifa, Dubai Fig 8.World One Tower, Mumbai

1.3 NEEDS AND SCOPE OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
Apartment buildings have technical and economic advantages in areas of high population
density, and have become a distinctive feature of housing accommodation in virtually all
densely populated urban areas around the world. In contrast with low-rise and single-
family houses, apartment blocks accommodate more inhabitants per unit of area of land
and decrease the cost of municipal infrastructure. Apart from these, they also add to
innovations in the structural systems and plays an important role in the economic growth.
1.4 LIMITATIONS OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
High-rise structures pose particular design challenges for structural and

geotechnical engineers, particularly if situated in a seismically active region or if the
underlying soils have geotechnical risk factors such as high compressibility or bay mud.
They also pose serious challenges to firefighters during emergencies in high-rise
structures. New and old building design, building systems like the
building standpipe system, HVAC systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning), fire
sprinkler system and other things like stairwell and elevator evacuations pose significant
problems.

CHAPTER 2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
2.1. ELEVATION
2.1.1 Height Limit for the Structural Systems
The maximum building height (in m) shall not exceed values given in the below Table 1
of IS 16700:2017 for the buildings with different structural systems.
2.1.2 Slenderness Ratio
The maximum values of the ratio of height to minimum base width B shall not exceed the
values given in Table 2

2.1.3 Aerodynamic Effects
Elevation profile, facade features of the building, and plan shape of the building shall be
such as to attract minimum wind drag effects. Effects of features such as sharp corners,
projected balconies, etc. shall be considered in design
2.2. PLAN
2.2.1 Plan Geometry
The plan shall preferably be rectangular(including square) or elliptical(including

circular).In buildings with said plan geometries, structural members participate efficiently
in resisting lateral loads without causing additional effects arising out of re-entrant
corners and others.
2.2.2 Plan Aspect Ratio
The maximum plan aspect ratio (Lt/Bt) of the overall building shall not exceed 5.0. In
case of an L shaped building, Lt and Bt shall refer to the respective length and width of
each leg of the building.
2.3STOREY STIFFNESS AND STRENGTH

Parameters influencing stiffness and strength of the building should be so proportioned,
that the following are maintained:
a) Lateral translational stiffness of any storey shall not be less than 70 percent of
that of the storey above.
b) Lateral translational strength of any storey shall not be less than that of
the storey above.
2.4 DEFORMATIONS
Lateral Drift
When design lateral forces are applied on the building, the maximum inter-storey elastic
lateral drift ratio (Δmax /hi) under working loads (un factored wind load combinations
with return period of 50 years), which is estimated based on realistic section
properties, shall be limited to H/500. For a single storey the drift limit may be relaxedto
hi/400. For earthquake load (factored) combinations the drift shall be limited to hi/250.

2.5 FLOOR SYSTEMS

2.5.1 Material
All floor slabs shall be cast in-situ. For precast floor systems a minimum screed of 75
mm concrete with reinforcing mesh shall be used in Seismic Zones III, IV and V, which
can be reduced to 50 mm in Seismic Zone II.
2.5.2 Openings
 Openings in floor diaphragm shall not be permitted along any floor diaphragm
edge, unless perimeter members are shown to have stability and adequate
strength.
 The maximum area of openings in any floor diaphragm shall not exceed 30
percent of the plan area of diaphragm. Transfer of lateral forces from diaphragm to
lateral load resisting vertical elements shall be ensured using collector elements,
if required.
 At any storey, the minimum width of floor slab along any section after deduction of
openings shall not be less than 5 m and the minimum width of the slab beyond an
opening to edge of slab shall not be less than 2 m. Further, the cumulative width of
the slab at any location shall not be less than 50 percent of the floor width.
2.6 MATERIALS
2.6.1 Concrete
 The minimum grade of concrete shall be M 30. The maximum grade of concrete
shall be M 70. When higher grades are required, the designer shall ensure through
experimentation that such concretes shall have at least a minimum crushing strain
in compression of 0.002. See Annex B for detailed specifications of higher grades
of concrete
2.6.2 Reinforcing Steel

 The characteristic yield strength/0.2 percent proof stress of the steel reinforcement
bars used in construction shall not exceed 1.2 times the value used in design.
 The ultimate strength of reinforcement bars shall not exceed 1.25 times the
characteristic yield strength/0.2 percent proof stress.
 No lapping of bars shall be allowed in RC columns and walls, when
diameter of bars is 16 mm or higher; mechanical couplers as per IS 16172

shall be used to extend bars. If lapping of bars is required in exceptional

case, relevant clauses of IS 13920 shall apply.
2.7 LOADS ACTING ON THE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS
A building is exposed to a large number of different loads. They can be static or dynamic,
come from outside or inside of the building. Simple categorization of them may be based
on its direction vertically or horizontally. Vertical loads, also known as gravity loads,
generally consist of self-weight, live load and snow loads. Horizontal, or lateral loads,
may occur in the form of wind load, tilt and seismic responses. Generally, the size of all
these loads increases somewhat linearly with number of stories. The growth of the wind
load on the other hand evolves differently and its effect intensifies rapidly with an
increase in height. It is also the one which in most cases will be essential in the design of
tall buildings - wind load as the main load.
A noticeable effect of the horizontal towards the vertical loads is illustrated in Figure. The
need for material used in stabilizing the acting horizontal load increases dramatically as
the number of floors reaches above 40-70. The amount of material for stabilization of the
gravity loads, however, is proportional to the number of floors.
Fig 9. Cost of height diagram. The material used to resist

Gravity loads increases proportionally with the number of stories
while the materials used for stabilization has an exponential increase

2.7.1 Vertical Loads
1. Dead Load: Dead loads on the structure comprise the self-weight of the member,
weight of finishes and partition walls. These are usually dependent upon the
constructional features and have to be assumed in order to design various structural
elements. The unit weight of some of the commonly used building materials are compiled
in Table 1, IS: 875(Part 1)-1987.
2. Imposed Load: The load assumed to be produced by intended use or occupancy of a

building, including the weight of movable partitions, distributed, concentrated loads, but
excluding wind, seismic, snow and other loads due to temperature changes, creep, and
shrinkage .The imposed loads for different types of floors and roofs are given in Table 1
of IS: 875(Part 2)-1987.
3. Snow Load: IS: 875(Part 4)-1987 deals with the snow loads on the roof of the
building. This load is to be considered for the building to be located in the regions where
snow is likely to fall. The snow load acts vertically downwards.
4. Impact Load: For structures supporting moving loads suitable additional allowance of
load should be made by increasing the imposed load. For example
Table 3 Impact allowance for different types of structure
Structures Impact allowance(min)
For frames supporting lifts and hoists 100%
For foundation, footings and piers supporting 40%

lifts and hoisting apparatus
For supporting structures and foundation for 20%

light machinery shaft or motor units
For supporting structures and foundation for 50%

reciprocating machinery or power

2.7.2 .Lateral Loads

While action of lateral loads is orthogonal to the building, which effect negatively on the
building's stability as lateral displacement, overturning and twisting, gravity loads appear
in the building's own direction and in that way to some extent, have a positive effect on
the stability.
In all cases, regardless of the direction of the loads the building's main job is to transfer
these loads to the ground. On the way down, different scenarios in the form of instability
or breakage can occur in parts. Where exactly these instabilities occur depends a lot on
the selected stabilization system.
Possible scenarios of instability due to static lateral loads are lifting and sliding. Figure a
is displaying what may happen when a building has sufficient or non-sufficient resistance
towards these scenarios i.e. Insufficient shear resistance means that there will be
horizontal movement of the floors, known as sliding, shown in Figure d. Lifting of the
stories, shown in Figure b, happens because of insufficient bending resistance.
The same fate may affect the entire building if modular or shear resistance is weak in the
foundation, the building's connection with the ground. The building will then be
deformed even though it has sufficient resistance against breakage, Figure a and c.
The size of the deformation will depend on the buildings stiffness.
Fig 10. Scenarios due to Lateral loads

1. Wind Load
The interaction between wind and a structure creates many different flow situations
because of the winds complexity. Wind is composed of eddies that gives wind its
gustiness, its turbulent character. The gustiness decreases with height but the wind
speed over a longer time period increases. Due to that wind behavior is varies in time, i.e.
dynamic, it will result in the magnitude of the static wind load on the building will vary.
Pressure that is created from acting wind is dependent on the geometry of the building
and the nearby structures as well as the winds characteristics. Wind pressure is highly
fluctuating with unevenly distribution over a structures surface. Fluctuating pressure can
result in fatigue damages.
A structure that is affected by wind deforms. Since wind is dynamic the building will
sway as the force from wind shifts, which in turn is dependent on its mass and stiffness. If
the wind hits the structure at the same frequency as its natural frequency its sway will
increase drastically, possibly leading to collapse of the structure.
In addition to the effects that occur in the wind direction the wind can affect a structure in
its perpendicular direction. This can particularly happen to high and slender buildings.
The reason for the effect is that wind at high speed spread first on one side of the structure
and then on the other, instead of spread to both simultaneously, forming forces in the
winds transverse direction as eddies and vertices. The phenomenon when a wind creates
oscillations both in the winds along direction as well as in its transverse direction is called
vortex shedding. Vortex shedding is shown in figure.
Fig11 .Vortex Shedding.
Another negative effect of the building´s dynamic response, when it is swinging, is that
the horizontal acceleration at the top of high-rise buildings can reach very high levels. As

a human is more sensitive to horizontal acceleration than vertical, preventing the

acceleration in high-rise buildings may be of greater importance than decreasing the
deformations. This also correlates to the mass and stiffness of the structure as well as
its natural frequency.
Designing for wind load is done either by using coefficients in the wind loading code or
by doing a wind tunnel test. Wind tunnel tests are often used when a structure has an
uncommon shape or very flexible. Every tall building today undergoes a tunnel test
during its design. Testing structures can get a more realistic load and perhaps reduce cost
in design.
2. Seismic Load
Plate movement in the earth’s crust causes earthquakes that occur as vibrations. These
vibrations move as waves with force components in every direction, the ones that are
most dangerous for buildings are the horizontal components. Vertical components from
earthquakes are often small enough to be taken care of by a structures vertical load
resisting elements. Horizontal waves can be either P-waves, also known as compression
waves, or S-waves, shear waves. Since these shake along different axis’s ground motions
can occur along any horizontal direction.
Inertial forces try to prevent a building from moving when hit by seismic forces. Ground
movement causes the structure to move at the base, creating a lateral force in the form of
shear. The inertial forces respond with a force being equal to Newton’s second law as
mass time’s acceleration. The shear force is distributed from top to bottom of the
structure with its maximum at the structures highest point. Equivalent base shear can be
calculated by equation using the coefficient Cs which is based on soil profile, ground
motions, fundamental time period, stiffness and the structures distribution of mass. This is
done for regular and low structures or structures with a low seismic risk. When it comes
to tall buildings a more complex analysis is required.
V=Cs x W
V=Equivalent shear
Cs=Seismic design coefficient
W=Total dead load of structure

CHAPTER 3
KINGDOM TOWERS – JEDDAH TOWER
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Background of the Structure
Jeddah Tower previously known as the Kingdom Tower and Mile-High Tower is
a skyscraper under construction in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It will be the centrepiece and
first phase of aUS$20 billion proposed development known as Jeddah Economic City that
will be located along the Red Sea on the north side of Jeddah. When completed, the
Jeddah Tower (Kingdom Tower) will reach unprecedented heights, becoming the tallest
building in the world, as well as the first structure to reach the one-kilometre-high mark
(Initially planned to be 1.6 kilometres (1 mi) high but the geology of the area proved
unsuitable for a tower of that height).The building has been scaled down from its initial
1.6 km proposal, which was never fully designed, to a height of at least 1,000 metres
(3,281 ft.) (The exact height is being kept private while in development).
Planned in 2009, the architectural firm Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architectures (AS +
GG) along with nine other internationally recognized firms were invited to submit their
proposal of the proposed structure of at least 1 km high. Mr. Smith of AS +GG, along
with the key members of his team had designed the 828m high Burj Khalifa
Dubai,U.A.E. were accustomed to the challenges in the design of such a supertall
structure. The challenge thus was to advance the innovations in the Burj Khalifa and
discover what could be better. The design team of AS +GG which included structural
engineers form Thornton Tomasetti and the building services engineers form
Environmental Systems Design, Were awarded the project in February 2010.
The tower was to serve multiple purposes including five-star hotel, serviced apartments,
offices, and residential units. The selected design was a tapered Y- shaped plan was result
of both primary requirements of the structure, world’s tallest building (1km+) and narrow
lease spans, with a relatively low gross floor area.
3.2 Objectives
In view of the current development in high rise structures and the ever changing limits of
the mega tall structures, the primary objectives of this report are
1. To study the structural system adopted in the Jeddah Tower and the reasons
behind its adoption.
2. To investigate further possibilities in the structural system for mega tall buildings.
3.3 Scope and Methodology
The scope of this paper is to discuss the various structural design methods and innovative
technological concepts that were used in the design of the tower.
The structural system of the Jeddah Tower will be studied in following aspects

1. The reasons behind the adoption of the design and shape of the structure from
point of view of wind engineering and various loads.
2. Reasons behind using the buttress core system as the structural system of the
Jeddah tower with regards to the requirement of torsional and shear rigidity to
counter the effects of the lateral loads which are highly predominant in a building
of this scale.
3. Type of the foundation system used with regards to the condition present at the
site, loads and availability of technology and materials. Challenges and details of
subsurface condition, site explorations, load test carried out and the foundation
model prepared will be described.
4. General details of the wind study carried out by the wind engineers at RWDI and
the basics of the seismic considerations will be described.
5. Other challenges like the time dependent analysis for creep and shrinkage
deformations, resistance to disproportionate collapse will be discussed in short.
Fig 12. JEDDAH TOWER Fig 13. Sky Terrace

CHAPTER 4
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF THE JEDDAH TOWER
4.1 Selection of Shape and Structural Form:
4.1.1Background of available technologies:
Jeddah Tower will be the first ever manmade structure that will touch the height of 1+km.
Also the requirement of the client of 1000m height with a total constructed area 258000
sq.m in hand makes the structure very tall and slender. Added to this, the conditions like
the available expertise of local contractors, prevalent construction method and materials
available further imposed limitations on the structural systems that could be used. Taking
these considerations in account it was decided that the fundamental structural system
should be similar to that of the Burj Khalifa to lower the risks in design and construction.
Refining and improving over the design was to be achived to eliminate the problems
faced in the construction of the Burj Khalifa.
4.1.2 Resons for slection of the shape of the structure:
Figure shows how the original square extruded plan would not reach the significant
height required by the client. The following diagrams show how the change in the shape
and tapering along the height extended the potential height. X and Y shapes were
contemplated to provide the required lease spans. Finally a tapered Y shaped plan was
chosen which allowed the spreading of the base of the tower without increasing the depth
of the lease span. This allowed the structure to maintain a reasonable 10:1 height to width
ratio. Further carving and notching were applied to balcony areas in order to remove floor
area form typical floors and further allowing the increase in the height of the structure.
In the “Y” shape every element is able to participate in resisting both gravity and lateral
loads. The shape can be considered similar to a wide flanged beam where mass of the
structural material are the end of the flanges where it is more optimally used, which are in
turn connected by the shear walls of the corridor and the core. Thus the efficiency is
maximized by placing the materials at locations where it would optimally help in
resisting the lateral loads induced by wind. The triangular core of shear walls at the center
of the “Y” connected to the shear walls of the corridors also form an optimal shape very
good at resisting the wind induced torsion. Three staircases, placed one in each of the
wings introduce additional redundancy.
4.1.3 Advancement over the design of Burj Khalifa with regards to wind engineering
and the use of outriggers and belt transfer:
The tapering of the tower helps in reducing the wind vortices. It is due to the tapered
shape that the wind vortices do not remain organised and thus the amplified effect they
could have caused is avoided. In the absence of the tapering the amplified vortices cause
lateral accelerations in the structure. In the Burj Khalifa similar reduction in the vortices
was achieved by reducing the plan size as the height of the structure increased by
introducing setbacks at various levels. However in the Jeddah tower the plan size reduces
gradually and thus as a result of the tapering the structure is able to “confuse the wind”

and thus lateral accelerations are reduced. This was studied in the wind engineering
consultants at RWDI, Toranto.
Contrary to the Burj Khlifa, as the setbacks are eliminated and a continuous taper is used
the outrigger transfers and belt trusses are obviated which helps in reducing the
concentration of structural loads at certain location. Continuous tapering also makes the
construction process more efficient and uninterrupted. The end walls of the three wings
have different rates of taper resulting in each wing being terminated at different height,
creating a distinct three part spire.
Fig 14. Floor division on Jeddah tower

4.1.4 THE LATERAL WIND LOAD ON SUPERTALL BUILDING

The Y-shaped plan forming the base of the design offered several advantages. A 120-
degree separation between wings allows for views to be expansive but not directed
toward adjacent units, which would have created privacy issues. It would provide a
higher ratio of exterior wall to internal area, which would maximize the residential units’
views and exposure to light. The "Y" shape also allowed the spreading of the base of the
tower without increasing the depth of the lease-span. This means that the building can
still maintain a reasonable 10:1 height to width ratio without having a large amount of
unusable deep internal space
The "Y" shape also helps develop a clean and simple structural diagram in which every
element participates in both gravity and lateral support. If one considers the shape as
being similar to a wide flange beam with its mass of structural material at the end of each
wing (the "flanges") where it is most optimally placed, connected by shear walls (the
"webs") forming the corridor walls and core, the structural efficiency is maximized by
placing the material where it will do the best in resisting wind induced bending loads. The
triangular core thus formed by the shear walls is also an optimized shape, very good at
resisting wind induced torsion. Lastly, the unique nature of the Y-shaped plan and
structure allows for certain serendipitous results. Having three legs, the plan naturally has
at least three stairs, creating an immediate redundancy. With its continuous, reinforced
concrete shear walls, those stairs are completely enclosed within a very robust and secure
environment, again enhancing that aspect of the life safety system of the tower
Furthermore, these very thick shear walls provide more than the minimum required fire
separation and are a very effective sound control mechanism between public corridors
and private residential spaces
Fig 15 wind diversion on the structure

Early on, it was also decided that the tower could not just be vertically extruded Had that
approach been pursued, wind vortices would have become organized on the sides of the
tower and amplified the effect, inducing accelerations of lateral movement well above
advisable levels as these amplified vortices approach the resonant frequency of the tower.
To counter this natural magnification, one very typical approach is to reduce the plan size
of the Tower as it rises in height. On Burj Khalifa, the tower has 27 tiers with
setbacks/plan shape reductions at each Similar to Burj Khalifa, Kingdom Tower
"confuses the wind by reducing the cross-sectional size of the tower as it rises. However
unlike Bur Khalifa, Kingdom Tower does it by means of a continuous taper to each wing
This was a result of one of the primary lessons learned in the construction of Burj Khalifa
Eliminating the stepped setbacks as on the Burj obviated the need for outrigger transfers
and belt trusses at certain locations, which in turn will reduce the concentration of
structural loads as well as permit a more efficient, continuous and uninterrupted
construction process Furthermore, having different rates of taper to each wing results in
different termination heights for each, thereby creating the dramatically distinct three part
spire of Kingdom Tower. This intuitive concept was confirmed by wind studies
performed by RWDI at its facility in Toronto.
The structure for the Kingdom Tower is comprised entirely of cast-in-place reinforced
concrete walls, coupling beams, and conventionally reinforced flat plate concrete floor
framing The structure contains no outriggers or wall/column transfers. Due to the
continuous and uninterrupted vertical nature of the walls for the tower, a highly efficient
jump form system can be utilized Formwork for the floor slabs can also be reused due to
the highly repetitive geometry of the tower. The faces of the shear walls are all vertical,
with the exception of the ends of each wing which taper to follow the form of the Tower.
This can be accomplished by a simple shift of between 200 and 300 millimeters for each
4 meters vertical lift or internal blackouts in formwork that is lifted vertically Because the
ends of the shear walls slope, the taper at the end of each wing is created by a consistent
3.5 meter cantilever extension of the slab edge. All building envelope notching is
achieved by simply dropping off slab edge cantilevers
Through this concept of dropping off structural components to create the architectural
expression, and allowing formwork to easily jump up on each level of the tower, a highly
efficient and constructible system is realized while creating a very distinctive form.
Concrete compressive cube strengths required to realize the tower structure are not
expected to exceed 115 MPa, and 60 to 80 MPa at significant heights. Advances in
concrete mix designs and concrete pumping technology will be brought to bear in order to
place high strength concrete in the upper portions of the tower
The foundations for the tower are a raft supported on bored circular piles located
approximately 2.5 meters below existing grade due to site modifications raising the base
of the tower. This modification minimizes the

4.2 Details of the structural system:

The structural system of the Jeddah Tower basically comprises of cast-in-place reinforced
concrete bearing wall systems interconnected by link beams. The bearing walls are in
shape of triangular core and three wings joined to the corners of the triangle (The
Reinforced Buttress Core). The basic three wing concept can be traced back to the CN
Tower in Toronto, Canada (1976). Fig below gives comparison between the CN Tower,
Burj Kalifa and Jeddah Tower.
Fig 16 comparison with the other structure
4.2.1 Reinforced Buttress Core:

4.2.1.1 Basics concept of the Buttress core
Reinforced Buttress core is essentially a tripod shaped structure which has a strong
central core and three wings attached to the core, making the system inherently stable. In
this type of system the torsional resistance is achieved because of the central core
whereas the wings provide the shear resistance. Overall the moment of inertia of the
system is increased similar to that of a wide flanged I section. “The development of the
buttressed core structural system led to the paradigm shift in tall building design that
brought a dynamic increase in the height of the buildings.” , (Baker, Pawlikowski). Prior
to the buttressed core system there was very less development in the overall height of the
buildings. The Burj Khalifa which was designed as a buttress cored system eclipsed the
height of the then tallest building the Taipei 101 by more than 60 percent. With this new
structural system new limits have been set to the maximum height to which a structure
may be taken. This system is new and its evolution with every structure being constructed
is improving continuously. The Jeddah tower being more than a 1000 m tall is thus
designed as buttress core concept.
4.2.1.2 History of development of the Buttress core:
Reinforced Buttress Core is a relatively new structural system evolved during the design
and construction of the Tower Palace III, located in Seoul, South Korea. The project
completed in 2004, was designed by Chicago based Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP
(SOM). The Architectural plan of the 90 storey building was originally in Y shape. As
per the plan the elevators were to be kept in the oval floor plate of each of the wings.

SOM engineers decided to connect the elevators to a central cluster core Fig below. The
central core (or Hub) thus became the primary lateral load resisting system. The structural
behaviour and the wind study analysis of the building throughout the design process of
the building displayed more than satisfactory results. From the structural efficiency of the
Tower Palace III SOM engineers inferred that the structure could go much higher to
exceptional heights.
SOM was selected to design Burj Khalifa which was to be the tallest building in the
world. SOM engineers made critical changes to the design of the structural system of the
Tower Palace III which resulted in the Buttress core system of the Burj Khalifa. Studies
also revealed that the central core of the system had sufficient strength and stiffness to
serve as the torsional hub. It was also observed that cantilever beams form the core wall
could eliminate the perimeter columns. Rigorous testing and “tuning” of the tower’s
geometry was done to minimize the base moments and lateral movements. Dynamic
properties of the structure were manipulated to achieve minimum harmonics with the
wind force. Gravity loads were moved to locations where they would be more assisting in
resisting the lateral forces. This was done by strategically moving the setbacks in the plan
clockwise in such a way that the nose of the tier above was directly on the cross wall of
the tier below.
4.2.1.3 The Reinforced Buttress core of the Jeddah Tower:

The Jedah tower in the planning stage had two earlier models one with perimeter columns
at the end of the wings and the other model had these columns completely eliminated.
The Engineers decided to completely eliminate the columns and create the next
generation of the buttress core. This concept of column-less design help in eliminating the
outriggers completely, resulting in system that had an increased efficiency of
construction. Various configurations of the wall geometry were studied to create an
optimum geometry having sufficient stiffness ( Figure ). The system created had a
triangular core with short traverse walls that continue in each of the three wings
supporting cantilevered floors and a column free perimeter. Stairs with surrounding walls
are located at the end of each wing and scale back by a nominal amount at each level to
establish the taper of the building without any setbacks.
Fig 17 Buttress core

The system of shear walls which resists all the lateral as well as gravity loads is
interconnected by coupling beams. The coupling beams of the Jeddah tower are typically
1.5 or 1.6m deep allowing doors and passages. The walls placed at the end of the three
wings adjacent to the staircase are the ones that are predominantly more stressed. These
three walls are inclined each at different vertical angles (3.0, 3.3, 3.6 degrees to the
vertical) , therefore reach the tower apex at different elevations creating the required
distinctive look at the uppermost spire component. All the other walls are kept vertical
along the height and are terminated as the end walls move closer to the centre. A pair of
“Fin “walls placed perpendicular to the corridor wall in each direction, are helpful in
providing the stiffening and stability to the system. The central core which provides the
torsional rigidity also houses the elevator shafts. The wall thickness range from 1200mm
(at the base of structure) to 600mm (at the spire).
Fig 18 Structural system components

The tower‘s spire is made of a closed concrete silo which is supported on a 4m thick
concrete plate “skyraft”. This skyraft forms a transition between the closed spire wall and
the system of wall-coupling beams of the tower. The inclined end walls continue
uninterrupted from the lower portion to the spire of tower. Fig. Typical floor system of
the tower is 250mm thick flat-plate, reinforced concrete two-way slabs, without any floor
beams (Figure). This not just forms a structurally efficient wall floor system but also
helps in speed and repetition of construction.
At some locations in at the end of the wings the fin walls drop off at certain locations.
This makes the span between certain walls significantly greater than 9m making it
mandatory to provide thicker slab panels for deflection control. Cantilevered concrete
beams are used at the edges of the end walls to limit the deflections.

Fig 19 Wall construction

4.2.1.4 Structural requirements of the materials used in construction:
The vertical height of the structure required the use of high strength concrete, but it was
subjected to the limitation of the strengths commonly available in the Middle East and
used in other tall structures. For the lower half of the structure the concrete used is of
strength 85 MPa( minimum 90 day cylinder strength). For the upper floors and the spire
the concrete strength of 75 MPa and 65 MPa respectively was used. The stiffness and the
performance of the tower has been controlled by specifying the average Modulus of
Elasticity (MOE) for the three grades based on the recommendations for MOE in the ACI
318. The high strength concrete mix designs of the tower include multiple cementitious
materials like Portland cement, fly- ash, microsilica along with next generation super-
plasitcizers and also ice to control the heat gain during the hydration of the thick concrete
elements. Reinforcing bars used have 420MPa and 520MPa yield strength.
Multi-stage pumping of the concrete will be required for the upper 300m of the tower.
Concrete will be pumped to 700m in first stage and second stage will lift the concrete to
the spire.
Fig 20 Shear wall and structural components

4.3 PROPERTIES OF THE CONCRETE USED IN THE

CONSTRUCTION
The highest strength concrete available in the region, with locally available coarse
aggregate, was utilized for Jeddah Tower both to minimize the self-weight and maximize
the overall modulus of elasticity (stiffness) of the concrete superstructure. Concrete
cylinder compressive strength of the vertical elements ranged from 85 MPa (at 90 days) to
65 MPa (at 56 days) over the tower height, and flatwork utilized 40 MPa compressive
strength (at 28 days). Fig. 4.0.1 provides an overview of the high- strength concrete and
reinforcing materials utilized on the superstructure.
4.3.1 High-strength Concrete Testing Program:
A detailed High Strength Concrete Testing Program was developed by Thornton
Tomasetti to evaluate high- strength concrete mix designs prior to and during cons-
traction. This testing program focused on the following critical properties of a proposed
high strength concrete mix design.
• Concrete cylinder compressive strength maturity

• Average static modulus of elasticity
• Predicted creep and shrinkage strains
• Heat of hydration
• Flowability and Pumpability
Concrete testing was performed both off site in Skokie, Illinois, USA at the CTL Group,
and in Jeddah, KSA at Material Testing Laboratory (MTL), and on site by the contractor
Saudi Binladen Group (SBG). Concrete testing conducted by CTL Group was of
particular interest, as CTL Group conducted the controlled experiments to evaluate the
predicted creep and shrinkage strains of the tower wall concrete mix designs. The CTL
Group conducted creep and shrinkage cylinder tests in accordance ASTM C512 (2010) for
both sealed and unsealed samples, reinforced and unreinforced, at different ages of initial
loading, and at different levels of loading to fully characterize creep and shrinkage
behavior of a particular mix design. These tests have been conducted for 2+ years in
CTL Group’s laboratory (see Fig. 4.1.1).
Concrete material testing by MTL and SBG on site is ongoing and being continuously
utilized to verify that installed concrete has the appropriate design strength and average
static modulus of elasticity specified by TT.
Fig 21 CTL group creep and shrinkage test samples

4.3.2 Concrete Material Models:

During the design phase of the project, prior to the engagement of CTL Group, TT
utilized both the GL2000 (Gardner, 2001) and B3 (Bažant, 2000) models for the
preliminary estimation of creep and shrinkage concrete properties. Until a preliminary
mix design was provided, the GL2000 model was solely utilized. Both of these methods
are recommended state-of-the-art concrete models in ACI 209.2R (2008). However, as
these material models were developed for unreinforced concrete, corrections to the
predicted creep and shrinkage curves were made through modifying the predicted creep
and shrinkage strains proportional to the area of concrete and steel rebar.
4.4 VERTICAL SHORTENING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

MODEL
In order to analyze the three dimensional time dependent behavior of the highly-linked
Jeddah Tower superstructure, the Midas Gen and Strand7 software plat forms were
employed to conduct a vertical shortening analysis. Midas Gen served as the main finite
element analysis (FEA) platform, due to its ability to input user defined creep and
shrinkage time-dependent material curves directly. Strand7 was utilized initially as a
verifica tion software platform due to its much greater complexity in assigning time-
dependent material properties to a stage construction analysis model.
Rebar-adjusted creep, shrinkage, and modulus curves were input and assigned to
appropriate wall segments in the FEA models. For creep and shrinkage curves, these were
further subdivided into model material types with different volume-to-surface ratios and
different age at loading for creep provides an illustration of the Midas Gen FEA model.
Fig 22. Wing and Core Wall Groups.

In addition to the time-dependent material properties, structural members are grouped and
assembled in the FEA model into stages that match the assumed construction sequence of
the tower. These groups are then organized into construction staged analysis load cases
that correspond to the assumed construction schedule. provides an illustration of the
different construction stages present in the FEA model. The comprehensive 3-
dimensional vertical shortening FEA model has the capability to provide predictions for
member force development or deformation extent at any point in the structure and at any
point in time. Fig. 6.0.3 provides as illustration of coupling beam shear and moment over
time. It can be observed from this plot that creep and shrinkage effects, in conjunction
with the construction sequence, can cause coupling beam loads to either increase in a
standard fashion or can reduce over time due to gradual load distribution. Similarly, near
the base of the tower critical End Wall elements of the structure directly above the raft
experience a strain relaxation (load reduction) over time due to the effects of creep and
shrinkage. provides an illustration of this end wall load reduction.
Figure 23 Midas Gen Vertical Shortening FEA Model.
In addition to load evaluation of wall and coupling beams, the FEA model is utilized to
predict the vertical and horizontal movements of the tower over time. The following are
the critical movements extracted from the analyses over time.
• Vertical shortening of the Triangular Core Walls

• Vertical shortening of each Wing Wall
• Horizontal movement of tower "plan centre"
These vertical movements over time are utilized to determine the vertical camber of the
core walls to ensure that at the time the wing walls are formed and poured, the core walls
are elevational at or very near theoretical elevation of the connecting wing wall. The
horizontal movements of the tower are also utilized to inform the contractor of the

predicted lateral movements anticipated during construction in order to plan for formwork
re centring as the triangular core walls are being poured. Fig. 6.0.5 provides the vertical
shortening of the tower wing and core walls at the end of construction. Fig. 6.0.6 provides
the horizontal movements of the tower at the end of construction assuming plan re-
centring of the triangular core throughout construction.
Figure 24 End Wall Axial Load vs. Time.
4.5 SOIL PROPERTIES AND THE FOUNDATION DETAILS

The footprint of the tower foundation raft is approximately 3,720 square meters, and
can be divided into four zones of roughly equal size: the three wings and the
center core area. The gravity load takedowns resulted in a uniform loading on the
raft for the four zones plus or minus 15 percent.
Figure 25 Foundation Configuration

The foundation system for the Kingdom Tower is a system of 226 1.5-m-diameter and 44
1.8-m- diameter cast-in-place piles connected to a continuous concrete raft covering the

entire pile field. The raft has a thickness of 4.5 m at the center area and increases to 5 m at
the ends of the wings.The pile depths range from 45 m at the wings to 105 m at the center
of the tower. There is no below grade construction with the exception of a 6-m-deep
depression for the elevator core. A three-dimensional view depicting the configuration of
the foundation elements
4.5.1 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions across the tower footprint generally consist of a thin layer of silty
sand overlying coralline limestone rock, and then underlain by successive layers of gravel
and weak conglomerate, and poorly consolidated sandstone with conglomerate and gravel
inclusions to a depth around 90 to 110 meters. Beneath the poorly
consolidated/decomposed sandstone is a lower gravel/conglomerate layer to about 120
meters. Beneath a depth of about 120 meters, more competent sandstone was encountered,
to the maximum explored depth of 200 meters. Groundwater was measured to be about
level with the Red Sea Level.
Table 4 summarizes the elevations range of the varying bedrock layers

encountered during the subsurface investigation:
Approx. Range in Typical
Range in Typical
Stratum Bottom Elevation Bottom
Thickness (m) Thickness (m)
(m) Elevation (m)
Surficial Sand 3 to 1.5 2.2 1.5 to 2 1.7
Coralline Limestone -43 to -50 -48 49 to 51 50
Interbedded Siltstone -40 to -48 -46 0.5 to 4 2.5
Upper Gravel /
-47 to -52 -52.5 3.0 to 10 5
Conglomerate
Decomposed Sandstone -90.0 to -105.0 -92 36 to 48 40
Lower Gravel -95 to -110 -98 2.8 to 9 5.5
Sandstone Encountered from about el -110 to
maximum explored depth of 200 m
4.5.2 Full Scale Pile Load Test Program

A total of six full scale pile load tests and one full-scale footing block test were performed as
part ofthe design development of the tower. The loads for the axial pile load tests were
applied using Osterberg cells (O-Cell) by Fugro-LoadTest. A two-tier O-cell assembly
was used to isolated a finite segment of the pile or barrette. The test measurements
included measuring the ultimate concrete-shaft skin friction and the load-settlement
behavior of the pile tip. A summary of the fullscale test results are provided in Table 3.
Representative unit skin friction plots for a pile drilledwith natural slurry pile are presented
in Figure 4. The load-settlement plot for the footing load testis presented in Fig

Dimension Depth Drilling Mobilized Mobilized

(m) (m) Fluid Test Load unit side
Load Test
(MN) shear
(KPa)
Bored Pile Test 1 1.5m dia 45 Water 200 –
78
2,600
Bored Pile Test 2 1.5m dia 75 Mineral 100 –
68
1,600
Bored Pile Test 3 1.5m dia 45 Polymer 88 50 – 625
Bored Pile Test 4 1.5m dia 75 Polymer 66 200 – 700
Barrette Test 1 1.2m x 2.8m 45 Mineral 90 75 – 800
Barrette Test 2 1.2m x 2.8m 75 Mineral 67 50 – 1,100
Footing Block 1.7 N/A
8 3.3 MPa
Test 1
Table 5 – Summary of Full Scale Test Program
4.5.3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS-APPROACH

Initial foundation-flexibility analyses resulted in high stress concentrations in the
structure's shear walls. The overall analysis of the Kingdom Tower foundation system
required a much more detailed evaluation of the integrated piled-raft system. A three-
dimensional finite-element analysis was performed to estimate the settlement response of
the foundation raft, taking into account the foundation geometry, the engineering
properties of the rock materials, and the loading conditions. The finite-element analysis
was performed using the commercially available software package Midas GTS. The
following sections present a brief summary of our evaluation approach, our modeling
assumptions, and the results of our analysis. A section of the FEM model through the
center of the raft and the strength and compressibility parameters used in the design are
presented in Figure
Fig 26 Raft design using finite element method

4.5.3.1 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

1. The foundation system consisted of a combined pile-raft foundation with 270 bord
piles connected with a 45-meter-thick structural raft The raft had an approximately 6-
meter deep depression at the center and was 5 meters thick of the edges.
2 The raft was modeled using solid tetrahedral volume elements, with an equivalent
elastic modulus of 38,700 MPa, and an elastic constitutive model. No other structural
elements were incorporated into the Midas GTS model. The inherent stiffness of the
concrete superstructure was captured in the structural ETABS model.
3 The Mohr-Coulombs soil model was used for the coralline limestone layer and the
decomposed sandstone layer. The elastic model was used for the remaining layers A non-
linear soil-hardening model was also considered for the gravel/conglomerate layer but a
review of the triaxial test stress-strain curves indicated a Mohr Coulomb model more
appropriate.
4. All soil, rock, and gravel layers were modeled in three dimensions assuming horizontal
stratification. We evaluated the variation of the subsurface parameters spatially and
judged that a uniform horizontal stratification is appropriate.
5. The piles were modeled using the "embedded pile" option, which employs beam
elements to model the structural characteristics of the piles and non-linear springs at the
pile-rook interface. The beam elements took into account the pile geometry deformation
modulus, and Poisson's ratio. The pile/rock interface springs employed an ultimate shear
stress at the rock interface, a pile-rock shear stiffness modulus, and very small tip bearing
capacity and tip spring stiffness. We assumed the piles extending to elevation -45 will be
drilled with natural slurry, and the remainder of the piles will be drilled with polymer
slurry, accordingly we used the corresponding pile-rock interface properties.
6. The box-model boundaries were restrained in all three directions. The box model
dimensions were 300 meters by 300 meters in plan, and extended to a depth of 200
meters. The boundary conditions used did not influence the results under the raff.
7. Total gravity loads (dead plus live) were about 8,800 MN, including the weight of the
raft. The loads were applied in the finite element model as pressure strips at the top of the
raft. The pressures were calculated using the actual wall loads divided by the shear wall
footprint area.
8. A simplified construction stage process consisting of three stages was followed for the
modeling in Stage 1, the model (sol/rock layers) was allowed to settle due to down
gravity weight, and then settlements were reset to zero in Stage 2, the piles and sat
foundation were installed In Stage 3, the wall gravity service loading was applied.
4.5.3.2 RESULTS
 Raft Settlements
Using the “best estimate” design parameters for the geomaterials, analysis shows
settlements ofabout 110 mm at the center of Wing A, 100 mm at the center of the raft
foundation, and decreasing to about 90 mm at the edges of the tower wings. The differential
settlement from center to edge of raft is less than 20 mm, as shown in Figure.

Figure 27 Best Estimate Raft Settlement Contours (mm)

 Bearing Pressures on Rock Subgrade
For the design parameters, the vertical stresses on the Coralline Limestone under the raft
are shown in Figure 9. The maximum bearing pressure was about 625 kiloPascals (kPa)
below the raftwings and at the center of the raft. This provides a margin of safety of at least
5 on the mobilizedbearing capacity.
 Pile Loads
Our best estimate analysis shows pile head loads for the 1.5-mater-diameter piles varying
from about 18 MN to about 29 MN, accordingly, for the 18-meter diameter piles loads
varied from about 24 MN to 38 MN Figure 10 shows the distribution of the pile loads
within the raft. Note that although the gravity-load takedown predicted uniform pile
loading, the final converged model yielded greater pile loads at the tips of the wings.
 Load Sharing
We reviewed the results of our finite element analysis to determine the load sharing ratio
between the piles and the rock subgrade Our analysis showed that about 70 to 76 percent
of the superstructure load is transferred to the piles and about 25 to 30 percent is taken by
the rock in bearing below the raft subgrade.

CONCLUSION
This topic has presented a general review of structural systems and analysis of the
KINGDOM TOWERS-JEDDAH TOWERS
 Throughout the world, the population of the major cities are increasing at fast rate
and a where land for building is not available; there is a pressure to build upward
rather than sideways.
 The kingdom Tower will be one of the unique tallest building in the world.
 For rising such a city in the sky several new techniques have been used.
 The buttressed core structural system has made a great change in the structural
system of skyscrapers.
 The construction of the kingdom tower proves that height doesn't matter any civil
engineering construction.
 Projects of the Kingdom Tower will create jobs and opportunities, and will
become the central piece of a new urban center.
 The structures offer some major advantages but also pose serious challenges to
designers and engineers.
 Its developer, the Jeddah Economic Company, wants the tower and city
to enhance Jeddah’s global status as a business, commercial, educational,
medical and entertainment hub.
 Jeddah Tower and its accompanying city are meant to be models of sustainable
innovation, employing cutting-edge technology and leaving a minimal carbon
footprint in proportion to the volume of people they will serve.
 Jeddah tower has not been completed yet. Different problems like Covid
Pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, etc are leading to the delay in the construction.
This delay is directly resulting in an increase in construction costs.

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 209, "Guide for Modeling and Calculating Shrinkage and Creep
in Hardened Concrete (209.2R 08)," American Concrete Institute. Farmington
Hills, MI,
2. 2008, 45 pp ASTM C512/C512M, Standard Test Method for Creep of Concrete.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards (American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, 2010).
3. Soil-Foundation-Superstructure Interaction for the Tallest Tower in the World:
The Kingdom Tower, Konstantinos Syngros ,Langan Engineering/ City College of
New York ,2014
4. Case Study: Kingdom Tower, Jeddah, Peter Weismantle, Director of Supertall
Building Technology, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture , Alejandro
Stochetti, Director, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, 2015
5. From Supertall to Megatall: Analysis and Design of the Kingdom Tower Piled
Raft , George Leventis, Managing Director, Langan Alan Poeppel, Senior
Principal, Langan Konstantinos Syngros, Project Manager, Langan , 2015
6. Case Study: Kingdom Tower, Jeddah THE NEW TALL STRUCTURE , Peter
Weismantle, Director of Supertall Building Technology, Adrian Smith + Gordon
Gill Architecture , Alejandro Stochetti, Director, Adrian Smith + Gordon
Gill Architecture, 2013

1BI21CSE05

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

1BI21CSE05

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

JNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI-590018

TECHNICAL SEMINAR REPORT (21CSE27)

TALL STRUCTURES-KINGDOM TOWERS

Under the guidance of

Bangalore Institute of Technology

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Certified that the Technical Seminar (20CSE27) on topic “TALL STRUCTURE -

Signature of the Guide Signature of Principal Signature of HOD

We are indebted to Dr.Aswath M.U, Principal, Bangalore Institute of Technology,

We extend our sincere appreciation to our guide Prof.KIRAN.K.M, Assistant Professor,

Sl.No Description Page No

1.2 HISTORY OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 7

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 8

Fig 1. Shanghai tower Fig 2.commerce center, Hong kong

Fig 3.Woolworth Building, New York Fig 4. Petronas Tower, Malaysia

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 9

Fig7.Burj Khalifa, Dubai Fig 8.World One Tower, Mumbai

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 10

1.3 NEEDS AND SCOPE OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

1.4 LIMITATIONS OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

High-rise structures pose particular design challenges for structural and

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 11

2.1.1 Height Limit for the Structural Systems

2.1.2 Slenderness Ratio

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 12

2.1.3 Aerodynamic Effects

2.2.1 Plan Geometry

The plan shall preferably be rectangular(including square) or elliptical(including

2.2.2 Plan Aspect Ratio

2.3STOREY STIFFNESS AND STRENGTH

that of the storey above.

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 13

2.5 FLOOR SYSTEMS

2.6.2 Reinforcing Steel

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 14

shall be used to extend bars. If lapping of bars is required in exceptional

2.7 LOADS ACTING ON THE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

Fig 9. Cost of height diagram. The material used to resist

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 15

2.7.1 Vertical Loads

2. Imposed Load: The load assumed to be produced by intended use or occupancy of a

Table 3 Impact allowance for different types of structure

Structures Impact allowance(min)

For frames supporting lifts and hoists 100%

For foundation, footings and piers supporting 40%

For supporting structures and foundation for 20%

For supporting structures and foundation for 50%

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 16

2.7.2 .Lateral Loads

Fig 10. Scenarios due to Lateral loads

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 17

Fig11 .Vortex Shedding.

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 18

a human is more sensitive to horizontal acceleration than vertical, preventing the

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 19

3.3 Scope and Methodology

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 20

Fig 12. JEDDAH TOWER Fig 13. Sky Terrace

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 21

MTech CSE, Dept. of Civil Engineering, BIT, Bangalore Page 22

Fig 14. Floor division on Jeddah tower