http://www.yellowkorner.com/en/p/hong-kong-victoria-harbour/9519.

html

CSE513 Tall Building Structures:

Tubular Structures
Subject lecturer: Dr. Botong Zheng
Research Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, PolyU
Office: Z220 (CEE)
Email: btzheng@polyu.edu.hk
 Lecture Contents

• Introduction
• Structural analysis of framed-tube
structures
– General three-dimensional analysis
– Equivalent plane frame method for horizontal
loading
• Example

2
 Introduction

A variety of forms of tubular structures for very tall buildings are available,
including framed-tubes, braced-tubes, and composite tubes. They have
all evolved from the traditional rigidly jointed frame. The basic design
philosophy in all of these forms is to place as much as possible of the
load-carrying material around the external periphery of the building to
maximize the flexural rigidity of the cross section.

Closely spaced
columns
Short deep
Spandrel beams Columns

3
Rectangular tube formed by orthogonal rigidly jointed frame panels
 Introduction

The closely spaced column configuration makes access difficult to the

public lobby area at the base. In many buildings, larger openings at
ground floor level have been achieved by using a large transfer girder to
collect the vertical loads from the closely spaced columns and distribute
them to a smaller number of larger more widely spaced columns at the
base. Alternatively, several columns may be merged through an inclined
column arrangement to allow fewer larger columns in the lowest stories.

Transfer
Girder

Transfer girder at base Column collection at base

4
 Introduction

Frame-Tube Structures (Shear lag phenomenon)

5
 Introduction

Frame-Tube Structures (Shear lag phenomenon)

Compression
Axial stresses in Compression
flange columns

(b)
Web frame Axial Stresses
D x C in web columns
y Neutral axis y
(c)

A x B
Wind load Flange frame Column stresses-no shear lag

(a) Column stresses-with shear lag

6
 Introduction

• When column C suffers a

compressive deformation Δ, it will Bending of spandrel beams
tend to compress the adjacent
column C1 since the two are C2 C1 C
connected by the spandrel
beams. 
• The compressive deformations
will not be identical since the Exterior
flexible connecting spandrel column
beam will bend, and the axial
deformation of the adjacent
column will be less.
• The deformation of column C1
will in turn induce compressive
deformations of the next inner Shear lag mechanism
column C2, but the deformation
will again be less.
7
 Introduction

As the column stresses are distributed less effectively than in a

proper tube, the moment of resistance and the flexural rigidity are
both reduced. Furthermore, the shear lag effect produces bending of
the floor slabs. Consequently, deformations of interior partitions and
secondary structural components occur, which accumulate over the
height of the building. The shear lag experienced by conventional
framed-tubes may be greatly reduced by the addition of interior
framed ‘web’ panels across the entire width of the building to form a
bundled-tube structure. Willis Tower, Chicago

8
Shear lag in bundled-tube structure
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

• General Three-Dimensional Analysis of Framed-

Tube Structures
The analysis of three-dimensional
framed-tube structures may be
carried out by the matrix stiffness
method, using a general purpose
frame analysis computer program.
If possible, the size of the model
should be reduced by using
conditions of symmetry and anti-
symmetry. The high in-plane
stiffness of the floor slabs has an
important influence on the
structural behavior; thus the rigid
diaphragm assumption should be
used in analysis.

9
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

• Equivalent Plane Frame Method for Horizontal Loading

Flange frame Web frame
G G P/4
F W
A y B

F x

G
W C

(a)

Shear bar
(b)
10
A symmetric framed-tube and its calculation sketch
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

Characteristics:
• The lateral load is resisted primarily by the shearing actions in the
web panels AB and CWG parallel to the applied load, and the axial
deformations of the normal panels AFG and BC, acting effectively
as flanges to the web panels.

• The interaction between the flanges and the webs consists mainly
of vertical interactive forces through the common corner columns
A, B, C and G. Under the applied lateral loading, the shear forces
will thus be resisted mainly by the web frames, while the bending
moments will be resisted by the moment and axial forces in the
columns of the web frames, and the axial forces in the columns of
the flange frames.

• Fundamental compatibility condition: equal vertical displacements

at the corners where the orthogonal panels meet.

• The method is intuitively appealing to the engineer by recognizing

the dominant mode of the behavior of the structure. 11
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

• The axial stiffness of the corner

columns in the frame bents of the
planar model should be taken as
half of the real axial stiffness of
that column. The bending stiffness
(or the moment of inertia) of these
columns should be those
calculated about the principal axis
perpendicular to the plane of the
corresponding frame.
• If the section of the corner
columns is irregular (e.g., L
shape), simplification needs to be
carried out to calculate the Corner column
bending stiffness of these
columns.

12
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

• Equivalent Plane Frame Method for Horizontal Loading

 Using the above simplified model, F.R. Khan calculated the internal
forces for some typical rectangular framed-tube structures. The results
are presented as the curves in the following slides. These results can
be used in the preliminary design to estimate the internal forces of the
structure. In order to use these charts, a number of control parameters
need to be defined:
L
R (Aspect Ratio) ;
B
2
N S 12 EI b EA
Sf   b ; Sb  ; Sc  ;
 10  S c a3 h
K Ic Ib
Kf  c ; Kc  ; Kb 
Kb h a

where L = width of the flange frame; B = width of the web frame; N =

number of storeys; Ib, Ic= moments of inertia of beams and columns
respectively; A = cross-sectional area of columns; h = height of columns;
a = span of beams. The curves were obtained by assuming that Kf
varies from 0.75 (top story) to 0.5 (bottom story). However, when Kf= 1 13
everywhere, the results are almost the same.
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

The axial forces of the bottom columns Ni and shear forces Vi of

the web-frame beams can be obtained as

Ni=CciNoi Vi=CbiVoi
where Noi=MpxiA/Iy Voi=VpSh/Iy

Here, Noi and Voi can be obtained from formulas of simple beam
theory; Cci and Cbi are column axial force coefficients and shear
force coefficients in web-frame beams (interpolated from the
curves); S is the moment of area of the tubular section; h is the
storey height.

14
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

Column axial force coefficients Column axial force coefficients

--- level 1, aspect ratio =1.0 --- level 1, aspect ratio =1.5

15
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

Column axial force coefficients --- level 1, aspect ratio = 2.0

16
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

Shear force coefficients in Shear force coefficients in

web-frame beams, aspect web-frame beams, aspect
ratio=0.5 ratio=0.666

17
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

Shear force coefficients in Shear force coefficients in

web-frame beams, aspect web-frame beams, aspect ratio
ratio=1.0 = 1.5 & 2.0

18
 Structural analysis of framed-tube structures

The above curves show that:

(a) A smaller Sf leads to a larger shear lag effect.
Therefore closely spaced columns and deep beams
are usually used in framed-tube structures to reduce
the shear lag effect.
(b) A larger L/B leads to a larger shear lag effect.
In general, L/B should be less than 2 for framed-tube
structures.

It should be pointed out that when H/B is small, the loads are
mainly resisted by the web frames, while the axial forces in the
flange frames are very small. In general, only when H/B  3, the
spatial effect of the tube structure can be mobilized.

19
 Example

Find the column axial forces and the web-frame beam shear forces in
the lowest storey of the framed-tube structure shown below.

Story height: h = 3 m
Number of storeys: N = 20
Corner column size: 0.9 x 0.9 m2
Inner column size: 0.5 x 0.9 m2
Column spacing: 3 m
Beam section size: 0.35 x 0.8 m2
P = 2000 kN, E = 3 x 107 kN/m2 (concrete)

20
 Example

1. Rigidities of columns and beams

Column flexural rigidity: 1
 0 . 9  0 . 9 3

Corner column K c  I c  12  0.01823 m 3

h 3
1
 0 .5  0 .9 3
I
Inner column K c  c  12  0.01013 m 3
h 3

Average value K c  0.01823  2  0.01013  20  0.01087 m3

2  20
(here, only half the structure is considered due to symmetry)

21
 Example

1 3
I  0. 35  0 .8
Beam flexural rigidity: Kb  b  12  0.00498m3
a 3
Beam shear rigidity:
1
12 EI b 12  3  107   0.35  0.83
Sb   12  0 .01991  107
kN / m
3 3
a 3
Column axial rigidity:
EA 0.9  0.9  3  107
Corner column Sc    0.81  107 kN / m
h 3
Inner column EA 0.5  0.9  3  107
Sc    0.45  107 kN / m
h 3
Average value
EA 0.81  2  0.45  20
Sc    107  0.48273  107 kN / m
h 2  20 22
 Example

2. Controlling parameters of the framed-tube structure

Rigidity ratio: K c 0.01087

Kf    2.1827
K b 0.00498

2
S N 0.01991 20 2
Sf  b    ( )  0.165
Sc  10  0.48273 10

L 36
Aspect ratio: R   1.2
B 30

23
 Example

3. Column axial forces according to simple beam theory

Average section area of columns:

0.81  2  0.45  20
A  0.4827 m2
2  20
Second moment of area of cross section:
I y  2[0.4827  (6.5  152  122  92  62  32 )]  1672.56 m 4

The axial forces of the columns of the lowest storey are

given by: Mxi A
Ni 
Iy
The results are listed in Table 1
24
 Example

4. Actual column axial forces by internal force coefficients

From curves on Slides 15, the axial force coefficients can be

found for Sf = 0.165 corresponding to aspect ratios R of 1.0
and 1.5 respectively. The axial force coefficients for R=1.2 are
then determined by interpolation. The axial forces of the
columns are obtained by multiplying the column axial forces
from the simple beam theory by the coefficients. The final
results are given in Table 1, where they are compared with
those from a three dimensional computer model.

25
 Example

Table 1
Coefficients of column axial forces Axial forces of column
(Sf=0.165)
Column
Number Simple Internal force 3-D
R=1.0 R=1.5 R=1.2 beam theory coefficient Computer
method Analysis

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

f

2 0.10 0.25 0.16 51.9 8.3 30.9

3 0.20 0.30 0.24 103.9 24.9 69.7

4 0.35 0.50 0.41 155.8 63.9 126.4

5 0.60 0.90 0.72 207.8 149.6 214.2

6 3.70 4.90 4.18 259.7 1085.5 964.2

7 1.90 2.40 2.02 259.7 524.6 282.0

8 0.70 0.90 0.78 259.7 202.6 160.9

9 0.25 0.40 0.31 259.7 80.5

10 0.10 0.2 0.14 259.7 36.4

11 0.00 0.0 0.0 259.7 0.0

12 0.00 0.0 0.0 259.7 0.0

26
 Example

5. Beam shear forces

From the simple beam theory, shear forces of the
web-frame beams can be written as:
Vp S
V h
Iy
The maximum value of S occurs in the middle of the
web-frame, the value of Smax is

Smax  0.9  0.9 15 0.5  0.9  (5.5 15 12  9  6  3)  62.78m3

The value of S for the edge beam is

S  0.9  0.9  15  0.5  0.9  5.5  15  49 .28 m 3

27
 Example

The shear forces of the web-frame in the middle and the

edge beam are respectively
100062.78  3
VM   112.61 kN
1672.56
1000  49.28  3
VF   88.39 kN
1672.56
From curves on Slides 17 and 18, the shear force coefficients
of the middle and edge beams are 0.9, when R=1.2 and
Sf=0.165. Therefore, the beam shear forces are
VM  0.9  112.61  101.35 kN (85.4 kN )
VE  0.9  88.39  79.55 kN
The value in the parenthesis is from 3-D computer analysis.
28
END

29