Optimum Structural Modelling For Tall Buildings

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1173–1185 (2013)

Published online 19 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1004
Optimum structural modelling for tall buildings
Mohammed Jameel1*, A.B.M. Saiful Islam1, Raja Rizwan Hussain2, M. Khaleel1

and M. M. Zaheer3
1
Department of Civil Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
CoE-CRT, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3
Civil Engineering Section, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, India
SUMMARY
It is a common practice to model multi-storey tall buildings as frame structures where the loads for structural
design are supported by beams and columns. Intrinsically, the structural strength provided by the walls and
slabs are neglected. As the building height increases, the effect of lateral loads on multi-storey structures
increases considerably. The consideration of walls and slabs in addition to the frame structure modelling
shall theoretically lead to improved lateral stiffness. Thus, a more economic structural design of multi-storey
buildings can be achieved. In this research, modelling and structural analysis of a 61-storey building have
been performed to investigate the effect of considering the walls, slabs and wall openings in addition to
frame structure modelling. Sophisticated finite element approach has been adopted to configure the models,
and various analyses have been performed. Parameters, such as maximum roof displacement and natural
frequencies, are chosen to evaluate the structural performance. It has been observed that the consideration
of slabs alone with the frame modelling may have negligible improvement on structural performance.
However, when the slabs are combined with walls in addition to frame modelling, significant improvement
in structural performance can be achieved. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 28 July 2011; Revised 24 December 2011; Accepted 29 December 2011
KEYWORDS: optimum structural modelling; tall buildings; frame–slab model; frame–slab–wall model; wall opening;
shear wall
1. INTRODUCTION
Multi-storey building structures commonly have walls and slab components integrated with each other.
Shear walls is placed in the form of elevator cores, enclosed stairways, shear boxes or facade walls
(Toutanji, 1997). These walls are capable of providing considerable lateral stiffness to the structure to
enable it to resist horizontal loadings such as earthquakes and wind (Madsen et al., 2003). In addition,
slabs contribute to the lateral stiffness of a structure. An analytical model disregarding the flexural
stiffness of floor slabs and beam effect tends to underestimate the lateral stiffness of a structure to some
degree (Lee et al., 2005). Studies associated to shear wall and/or slabs have been carried out by several
researchers such as Al-Mosawi and Saka (1999), Kuang and Chau (1999), Kim and Foutch (2007),
Sabouri-Ghomi and Payandehjoo (2011) and Islam et al. (2011a, 2011b). Kose (2009) proved that the
presence of shear walls reduces the fundamental period of a structure. Dual-system modelling combining
frame and shear wall is appropriate for multi-storey buildings having shear walls around the lift shafts and
staircase wells (Nollet and Smith, 1998; Wang et al., 2001). Moreover, a flat slab system consisting only
of flat slabs is more flexible than conventional frames because of the absence of deep beams and/or
shear walls (Erberik and Elnashai, 2004). Compared with conventional frames, it is advantageous for
providing a lower storey height, better lighting and ventilation, more clear spaces/unobstructed space,
*Correspondence to: Mohammed Jameel, Department of Civil Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
E-mail: jameelum@gmail.com
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1174 M. JAMEEL ET AL.
easy arrangement of pipes and wires under slabs, architectural flexibility and easier formwork, which
consequently makes the construction period shorter (Kim and Lee, 2005; Hueste and Bai, 2007a,
2007b; Islam et al., 2011c, 2011d). A box system consists only of reinforced concrete (RC) walls and
slabs as the structural system (Kim et al., 2005). This structural system has been explored by Lee et al.
(2002) and Balkaya and Kalkan (2003, 2004). Because there are no beams and columns in a box system
structure, the gravity loads and lateral loads are supported by the walls and slabs.
Modelling of an RC frame with different combinations of structural components have been well
evaluated in a few more studies (Borzi et al., 2008; Gent et al., 2008; Islam et al. 2010; Mortezaei
et al., 2010; Barghi and Azadbakht, 2011). Paknahad et al. (2007) presented optimization of computa-
tional efficiency with the accuracy for analysing shear walls, with and without opening. Consideration
of wall openings in structural analysis is also important because it is common to have openings in
multi-storey buildings for functional reasons (such as doors, windows, air ducts, etc.) as well as to accom-
modate staircases and lift shaft. Experimental tests indicated that slender walls containing openings are
susceptible to unpredictable failure characteristics due to buckling and excessive cracking around the
openings (Guan et al., 2010). Kim and Lee (2003) stated that the number, location and size of openings
affect the behaviour of a structure as well as stresses in the shear wall. The effect of wall openings on
the behaviour of a multi-storey structure has been investigated by Yi et al. (2011). Kose (2009) revealed
that under lateral in-plane loading, lateral stiffness of the frame with openings, i.e. door and window,
depends on the size of the opening and the position of the opening with respect to the equivalent diagonal
compression strut.
From these existing researches, it is revealed that both gravity loads and lateral loads play important
roles in the structural analysis and design of a multi-storey building. It is also shown that walls and
slabs do provide some structural strength and thus contribute to the lateral stiffness of the structure,
which might lead to an economical design and material savings. Simultaneously, wall openings need
to be taken into consideration in structural analysis to avoid overestimating the structural stiffness of a
designed building. Thorough studies are required to investigate the effect of considering walls, slabs
and wall openings in modelling and analysis as compared with the conventional frame structure
concept. Therefore, the objectives of this research are as follows:
1. Investigation of the effect of shear wall and slabs on the response of a multi-storied framed
structure.
2. Investigation of the effect of shear wall opening on the response of a multi-storey frame–wall
system structure.
2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
In this study, finite element analysis is used to investigate the behaviour of the structure. A total number of
61 building models having the same plan view have been analysed to study the effects of shear walls,
slabs and wall openings. The common plan view is shown in Figure 1. The thin line indicates the concrete
beams, whereas the thicker one indicates the walls. The smallest square in the plan at the intersection of
the gridlines indicates columns. The lift core is placed at the centre. For each evaluation, several multi-
storey structures with the same plan view configuration have been modelled and analysed in ETABS
(CSI, 1995). However, these modelling might be different in terms of number of storeys and/or type of
modelling concept applied. All the modelling are carried out in 3-D to obtain accurate analytical results.
The material and sectional properties for structural elements are standardized/made consistent in this
research. Relevant analytical results are then presented in figures and tables.
The modelled structure is symmetrical about both the axes, with a total plan area of 42 m 42 m.
The dimension of each panel is 6 m 6 m. Each storey is 3 m high. The sectional properties of the
structural elements are presented in Table 1. A shell element is used to simulate the wall and slab,
in order to take into consideration both the in-plane membrane stiffness and the out-of-plane plate
bending stiffness of the section. The walls and slabs in the modelling are appropriately meshed in order
to improve the accuracy of the simulation results.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1173–1185 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
OPTIMAL MODELLING 1175
Figure 1. Common plan view for modelling of buildings.
Table 1. Modelling and design parameters.

Parameter Rating
Plan area 42 m 42 m
Storey height 3m
Beams Concrete C40; 400 mm 600 mm
Columns Concrete C40; 800 mm 800 mm
Slab Concrete C40; 120 mm thick
Exterior wall Concrete C40; 200 mm thick
Brick masonry wall; 200 mm thick
Lift core wall Concrete C60; 250 mm thick
The equilibrium equation of motion governing the deformation u(t) of the idealized multi-degree-of-
freedom (MDF) system is derived as in Equation (1). The structure is assumed to be linearly elastic and
subjected to an external dynamic force, p(t).
m€u þ cu_ þ ku ¼ pðt Þ; (1)
where m is the mass matrix of the structure, c is the damping matrix, k is the stiffness matrix, u is the
displacement matrix, u_ is the velocity matrix and ü is the acceleration matrix. With p(t) = 0 (free vibra-
tion event) and c = 0 (no damping case) substituted into Equation (1), the matrix equation governing
the free vibration of linear MDF systems becomes
m€u þ ku ¼ 0: (2)
For free vibration of an undamped system, one of its natural vibration modes for an MDF system
can be described mathematically by Equation (3). The term qn(t) is the time variation of the displace-
ments, and ’n is the deflected shape.
uðt Þ ¼ qn ðt Þ ’n (3)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
3. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
The 61 models have been configured as per the materials and load assignment discussed in subsequent
sections. Equivalent static analysis has been performed for all configurations. The maximum roof
displacement induced by wind loading has been determined. The natural periods for every model of
the structure are determined from the eigenvector analysis. Obtained results are then analysed for
optimal structural modelling.
3.1. Material properties

All structures in this research have been modelled as RC buildings. The general concrete properties
applied in modelling include density (r) of 2447 kg/m3 or self-weight of 24 kN/m3 and Poisson’s ratio
(υ) of 0.2. Two types of concrete have been used in the modelling, viz. concrete C40 and concrete C60.
For reference, the material properties are summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Loading data

In all the modelling, self-weight of the structure has been taken into consideration. At the same time, the
occupancy of the modelled building is assumed to be a general office, with a live load of 2.5 kN/m2, which
is in accordance with Table 1 in British Standards 6399: Part1 (BSI, 1996)
3.3. Equivalent static analysis

From the provision in design standards, equivalent static analysis is used for applying the wind load.
The major advantage of this analysis is its simplicity, with modification factors used to account for the
dynamic effects. Wind load parameters are determined with reference to BS6399:Part 2 (BSI, 1997).
The maximum roof displacement induced by wind loading can thus be determined. The effective wind
speed (Ve, m/s) depends on several factors, such as basic wind speed (Vb), altitude factor (Sa), direction
factor (Sd), seasonal factor (Ss), probability factor (Sp) and terrain and building factor (Sb) as given in
the following equations (BSI, 1997):
Site wind speed; Vs ¼ Vb Sa Sd Ss Sp ; (4)
Effective wind speed; Ve ¼ Vs Sb : (5)
In practical design, these factors are site dependent, and the actual values need to be determined with
reasonable accuracy. In this study, basic wind speed (Vb) of 33 m/s has been assumed. The altitude of
the site is assumed to be the mean sea level; thus, the altitude factor (Sa) is 1.0. Assuming that the
orientation of the building is ignored, the direction factor (Sd) is 1.0. The multi-storey building is
Table 2. Material properties.

Materials Properties
Concrete C40 fcu = 40 N/mm2
E = 28 GPa
r = 2447 kg/m3
SW = 24 kN/m3
Poisson’s ratio, υ = 0.2
Concrete C60 fcu = 60 N/mm2
E = 32 GPa
r = 2447 kg/m3
SW = 24 kN/m3
Poisson’s ratio, υ = 0.2
Steel reinforcement fy = 460 N/mm2
DOI: 10.1002/tal
assumed to be permanent and is exposed to the wind for a continuous period of more than 6 months;
therefore, the seasonal factor (Ss) is 1.0.
Because the modelled building is for normal design application, the probability factor (Sp) is 1.0. The
terrain and building factor (Sb) is determined from the assumptions that the location of the building is in
the town area and that the closest distance to sea is greater than 100 km. Just as additional information, it
will be shown how the effective wind speed (Ve) is related to the dynamic wind pressure. The dynamic
pressure, qs (Pa), and the effective wind speed, Ve (m/s), are related as follows:
Dynamic pressure; qs ¼ 0:613 Ve2 : (6)
This dynamic pressure acts on the surface of the multi-storey building. The overall wind load exerted
on the multi-storey building is given by
The overall horizontal loads; P ¼ 0:85 ðPfront Prear Þ ð1 þ Cr Þ: (7)
The factor 0.85 accounts for the non-simultaneous action between the front and rear faces. Pfront is the
horizontal component of surface load summed over the windward-facing walls and roofs. Prear is the
horizontal component of surface load summed over the leeward-facing walls and roofs. Besides effective
wind speed, the main parameters included in the programme are dynamic augmentation factor Cr and size
effect factor Ca.
3.4. Eigenvector analysis

In addition to the equivalent static analysis, eigenvector analysis has been performed. This analysis
is used to determine the undamped free vibration mode shapes and natural frequencies, which
provide an excellent insight into the behaviour of the structure. Each structural member contri-
butes to the inertial (mass) property, elastic (stiffness) property and energy dissipation (damping)
property of the structure. However, in the idealized system, each of these properties is categorized
into three separate pure components, i.e. mass component, stiffness component and damping
component.
Free vibration is initiated by disturbing the structure from its equilibrium position by some initial
displacement and/or by imparting some initial velocities. The natural period (Tn) of a building depends
on the distribution of stiffness and mass along its height (Kose, 2009). Moreover, the fundamental
frequencies are considered more important than the higher frequencies (Kuang and Chau, 1999). Thus,
the stiffness of the structure model is evaluated on the basis of its correlation of fundamental frequency
and maximum roof displacement.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Typically, a stiffer structure has a higher natural frequency (fn) (or shorter natural period, Tn), while
having lower lateral deformation as compared with more flexible structures. Natural frequency and
lateral deformation are important parameters in calculating the base shear and base overturning
moment for structural designs. Thus, maximum roof displacement and natural frequency are used in
evaluating the structural performance under dynamic loadings. In order to compare the effect of differ-
ent modelling concepts of the same multi-storey structure, the analytical results are presented in terms
of maximum roof displacement (Droof, mm), ΔDroof (%), natural frequency (fn, Hz) and Δfn (%), where
(i) ΔDroof (%) indicates the percentage reduction of maximum roof displacement based on that of the
frame structure modelling.
(ii) Δfn (%) indicates the percentage increment of natural frequency based on that of the frame
structure modelling.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
In most structural design under lateral loadings, it is desirable to limit the lateral deformation, within
optimum construction cost. Thus, the percentage reduction of maximum roof displacement (ΔDroof)
and the percentage increment of natural frequency (Δfn) are used to assess the improvement on
structural performance of other types of modelling in comparison with that of the frame structure
modelling. As such, the effect of considering particular structural elements or details (e.g. walls, slabs,
wall openings, etc.) in modelling can be studied by the comparison of figures.
4.1. Effect of walls and slabs

Four types of modelling concepts, i.e. ‘frame’ modelling, ‘frame + wall’ modelling, ‘frame + slab’ model-
ling and ‘frame + wall + slab’ modelling, have been performed and analysed. Walls and slabs are meshed
into finite elements. The effect of considering walls and/or slabs in addition to conventional frame
structure modelling has been shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows that the maximum roof displace-
ment for all configurations increases as the number of storeys increases. This correlates well to the fact that
a low-rise building has higher stiffness as compared with a high-rise building. It is observed that the
maximum roof displacement ranges from 0.7 mm (five-storey building) to 116.0 mm (40-storey building),
for frame modelling. The corresponding maximum roof displacement for frame + wall modelling ranges
from 0.5 mm to 19.5 mm, whereas for frame + slab modelling, it ranges from 0.6 mm to 108.0 mm. In case
of frame + wall + slab modelling, the maximum roof displacement ranges from 0.1 mm to 8.8 mm, from a
five-storey to 40-storey building.
Furthermore, the maximum roof displacements for frame + wall modelling and frame + wall + slab
modelling are found significantly lower than that of the conventional frame modelling, especially in the
case of a taller building. The displacement pattern for the frame + slab modelling is very close to that of
the frame modelling. Therefore, considerations of slabs alone in addition to the frame modelling do not
provide much improvement on the structural performance. For frame + wall modelling, the percentage
reduction on maximum roof displacement increases as the number of storeys increases, although it is
Figure 2. Roof displacement (Droof) against number of storeys (effect of walls and slabs).
Figure 3. Natural frequency (fn) against number of storeys (effect of walls and slabs).
DOI: 10.1002/tal
not a perfect linear relationship. With the exception of the five-storey building (28.6%), the frame + wall
modelling has at least 61.4% reduction in maximum roof displacement. Up to 83.2% reduction in max-
imum roof displacement can be achieved for the 40-storey building.
For frame + slab modelling, the percentage reduction in maximum roof displacement is less than
15% (from 6.9% to 14.3%), indicating that the effect of considering slab in frame modelling is not sig-
nificant. However, when the slab is combined with wall in addition to conventional frame structure
modelling, the reduction in maximum roof displacement is significant, as shown in the frame + wall +
slab modelling outcome. About 85.7% (five-storey building) to 95.8% (15-storey building) reduction
in maximum roof displacement over that of frame structure modelling can be achieved.
The natural frequencies in the highest mode for different models are plotted against the number of
storeys in Figure 3. One general trend shown is that the fundamental frequency for all types of
modelling decreases as the number of storeys increases. The fundamental frequency for the frame
modelling and the frame + slab modelling almost merges into a single curved line, indicating that
the fundamental frequency of frame structure modelling, with or without considering the effect of slab,
is almost same. Therefore, the effect of slab in addition to frame modelling has negligible improvement
on structural performance.
For frame + wall modelling, the trend of fundamental frequency increment is similar to that of the
maximum roof displacement reduction, i.e. the significance of considering wall in frame structure
modelling increases as the number of storeys increases. In the case of frame + slab modelling, the
figure for fundamental frequency increment over the frame modelling is less than 4%, regardless of
the number of storeys of the structure. This, again, indicates that the effect of considering slabs alone
is negligible and is unaffected by the number of storeys, unlike the case for frame + wall modelling.
However, when walls are considered together with the slabs, as in the case of frame + wall + slab
modelling, the fundamental frequency increment is 280%. The maximum fundamental frequency
increment for this modelling is around 383% in the case of 10-storey to 15-storey buildings. With
the exception of the five-storey structure in frame + wall modelling, the natural frequency for the
fundamental mode and the second higher mode are identical. The significance of considering wall
elements in addition to frame structure modelling increases as the number of storeys increases; the
effect of considering the slabs alone has negligible effect on the lateral stiffness of the structure; when
the slabs and walls are considered together, the structural performance improves significantly.
By observation, the pattern of percentage increment in natural frequency for frame + wall modelling
over frame modelling is no longer the same as that for lower modes, i.e. for higher modes, the effect of
considering walls no longer increases with increasing the number of storeys of a building. Another
interesting trend that is observed is that, although frame + slab modelling has negligible structural
improvement (less than 4%) over frame modelling for lower modes, the effect of considering slab is
more significant in higher modes, especially in the cases for lower buildings. For a 10-storey or lower
building, the structure have even higher natural frequencies in frame + slab modelling, as compared
with the corresponding frame + wall modelling. In terms of percentage increment in natural frequency
based on that of the frame modelling, frame + wall + slab modelling is performing much better than
considering walls or slabs alone, throughout all the modes.
4.2. Effect of wall openings

Along with the modelling and analysis in the previous section, frame + wall modelling with 20% wall
opening and frame + wall + slab modelling with 20% wall opening have been performed and analysed.
The “20% O” shown in the figures indicates 20% wall opening. Figure 4 gives a general view of the
maximum roof displacement for those five modelling concepts. It is observed that the maximum roof
displacement increases as the number of storeys increases. For a higher multi-storey structure, the
frame + wall modelling and frame + wall + slab modelling, with and without openings, have less
maximum roof displacement, as compared with that of the frame modelling. The percentage reduction
in maximum roof displacement (over that of conventional frame structure modelling) for frame + wall
modelling and frame + wall + slab modelling is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
Through Figure 5 for frame + wall configuration, the higher percentage reduction of maximum roof
displacement indicates higher lateral stiffness of the structure. From observation, the effect of wall
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 4. Roof displacement (Droof) against number of storeys (effect of wall openings).
Figure 5. Increment of roof displacement (ΔDroof) against number of storeys (effect of wall openings).
Figure 6. Increment of roof displacement (ΔDroof) against number of storeys (effect of wall openings;
slabs).
opening becomes increasingly important for structures higher than 15 storeys. This is shown by the
‘gap’ between the figures of ‘with openings’ and ‘without openings’. The gap becomes increasingly
larger as the number of storeys increases. The values for with openings are generally lower than that
of without openings, indicating that all openings in the frame + wall structure resulted in lower lateral
stiffness of the structure, as compared with their counterpart. However, even with the presence of wall
openings, the significance of considering walls in addition to frame structure modelling increases as
the number of storeys increases.
From Figure 6, the effect of wall opening on the lateral stiffness of a multi-storey building is signifi-
cant in all cases, with the exception of the five-storey building. This is most probably due to round-up
error because the maximum roof displacement value for the five-storey frame + wall + slab modelling is
DOI: 10.1002/tal
very small. Similar to the cases for frame + wall modelling, the wall openings tend to reduce the lateral
stiffness of the structure, thus allowing greater maximum roof displacement. However, the effect of
wall openings is more pronounced in the cases of frame + wall + slab modelling. By observing the
general trend in Figure 7, we can see that the mode 1 natural frequency for the frame + wall + slab mod-
elling without opening is the highest, followed by the frame + wall + slab modelling with 20% opening,
then the frame + wall modelling without opening, the frame + wall modelling with 20% opening and,
lastly, the frame modelling. This indirectly implies that frame modelling has the lowest lateral stiffness
whereas the frame + wall + slab modelling without opening has the highest lateral stiffness. The differ-
ence between figures for frame + wall modelling, with and without openings, is quite close together as
compared with that for the frame + wall + slab modelling, with and without opening. This indicates that
the effect of wall opening is more pronounced in the cases of frame + wall + slab modelling. In
addition, it can be observed that fundamental frequencies for all types of modelling concepts decrease
as the number of storeys increases. In other words, higher buildings have lower fundamental frequen-
cies and vice versa.
Figure 8 shows the percentage increment of fundamental frequency for frame + wall modelling. The
percentage increment in fundamental frequency for the modelling with 20% opening ranges from
36.8% to 134.9% (for the five-storey building to the 40-storey building), whereas that for the model-
ling without wall opening ranges from 36.7% to 178.6% (for the five-storey building to the 40-storey
building). The maximum difference in the percentage is 43.7%, in the case of 40-storey buildings. For
15-storey and lower buildings, the difference in the percentage is less than 3.0%. The effect of wall
openings becomes increasingly significant, especially for structures higher than 15 storeys. In other
words, the significance of considering wall openings increases as the number of storeys increases. This
matches well with the result for percentage reduction of maximum roof displacement in Figure 5.
From Figure 9, the effect of wall opening is significant for frame + wall + slab modelling, regardless
of the number of storeys of the building. The percentage increment in fundamental frequency for the
Figure 7. Natural frequency (fn) against number of storeys (effect of wall openings).
Figure 8. Increment of natural frequency (Δfn) against number of storeys (effect of wall openings).
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Figure 9. Increment of natural frequency (Δfn) against number of storeys (effect of wall openings).
modelling with 20% opening ranges from 173.4% to 229.5%, whereas that for the modelling without
opening ranges from 280.5% to 383.8%. The minimum difference in the percentage is 107.1%, in the
case of 40-storey buildings, whereas the maximum difference in the percentage is 159.1%, in the case
of 15-storey buildings. Again, it is shown that the effect of wall opening is more pronounced in the
cases of frame + wall + slab modelling as compared with frame + wall modelling. The significance of
considering wall opening in frame + wall modelling increases as the number of storeys increases. Also,
the effect of wall opening in frame + wall + slab modelling is significant, regardless of the building
height or the number of storeys of the structure.
The frequency for frame + wall modelling, with and without openings, is quite close together. As for
the frame + wall + slab modelling, with and without opening, there is a noticeable gap between these
pattern of frequency changes. Thus, it can be deduced that the effect of wall opening is more significant
in the cases of frame + wall + slab modelling than in the case of frame + wall modelling. For a 10-storey or
lower building in frame + wall modelling, the effect of wall opening is negligible. The pattern of the
percentage increment in higher natural frequency in frame + wall modelling shows that the significance
of the wall openings no longer exists for higher-mode natural frequencies. In these cases, the effect of wall
openings in frame + wall modelling is independent of the building height. The percentage increment in
fundamental frequency for the modelling with 20% opening ranges from 27.4% to 70.7%, whereas that
for the modelling without opening ranges from 27.2% to 80.2%. The difference in the percentage
increment of higher natural frequency between frame + wall modelling, with and without wall opening,
is most pronounced for 30-storey to 35-storey buildings (23.8% and 23.6%, respectively). However,
for a 10-storey or lower building, the difference is not significant, i.e. less than 1.5%.
4.3. Critical evaluation of results

Analytical results show that, in general, as the number of storeys increases, the maximum roof
displacement for all types of modelling concept increases, whereas fundamental frequency decreases.
Thus, it can be concluded that low-rise buildings have higher stiffness and thus less deformation, as
compared with high-rise buildings. For the frame + wall modelling, the trend of fundamental frequency
increment is similar to that of the maximum roof displacement reduction, i.e. the significance of
considering wall in addition to frame structure modelling increases as the number of storeys increases.
This is not the case for the frame + slab modelling and frame + wall + slab modelling.
It has also been observed that the consideration of slabs alone in addition to the frame modelling
may have negligible improvement on structural performance. However, when slabs are combined with
walls in addition to frame structure modelling, the reduction in maximum roof displacement and the
increment in fundamental frequency are significant. However, the effect of considering slab is more
significant in higher modes, especially in the cases of lower-storey buildings. Also, for higher-mode
natural frequency in frame + wall modelling, the significance of the wall is no longer dependent on
the building height. In terms of percentage increment in natural frequency based on that of the frame
DOI: 10.1002/tal
modelling, frame + wall + slab modelling is generally performing much better than considering walls or
slabs alone, throughout all modes.
It is common to have wall openings on multi-storey buildings. From the maximum roof displace-
ment and fundamental frequency figures for frame + wall modelling, it is observed that the effect of
wall opening becomes increasingly important for structures higher than 15 storeys. However, even
with the presence of wall openings, the significance of considering walls in addition to frame structure
modelling increases as the number of storeys increases. For frame + wall + slab modelling, the effect of
wall opening on the lateral stiffness of a multi-storey building is, in general, significant regardless of
the building height. Also, the effect of wall openings is more pronounced in the cases of frame + wall +
slab modelling, as compared with frame + wall modelling. From all observations, it is indicated that
wall openings reduce the lateral stiffness of a multi-storey building.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The different combinations of structural components of multi-storey buildings have been modelled to
investigate the optimum design solution. Static as well as free vibration analyses have been carried out
aimed at evaluating the structural performance and responses. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this research:
1. Among the applied modelling concepts, frame + wall + slab is recommended for economical design.
2. Frame + wall + slab modelling provides higher lateral stiffness and lower shear and moment as
compared with conventional frame and frame + slab modelling, which is an expected trend.
3. The size of the structural member or the steel reinforcement in frame + wall + slab modelling can be
reduced, while satisfying the safety and serviceability requirement.
4. Wall openings, which would reduce lateral stiffness of a structure, should be taken into consideration
in structural analysis, especially in the case of high-rise buildings, to prevent unsafe design.
5. To fully understand the significance of walls and slabs in modelling and analysis of multi-storey
buildings, more modelling with a different plan view arrangement (such as anti-symmetrical,
non-symmetrical or more complex building shapes) are recommended. The effect of considering
wall under different shear wall configurations can be studied as well.
6. Further extensive study can be performed to generalize the effect of wall openings, by modelling
with different percentages of wall openings.
7. In this research, besides eigenvector analysis, only equivalent static analysis has been performed.
Static pushover analysis and response spectrum analysis could also be performed to further
investigate the response of multi-storey buildings under seismic loading conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the University of Malaya (UM) for supporting this
work through research grant RG093-10AET.
NOTATIONS
on Natural circular frequency of vibration

’n Deflected shape
c Damping matrix of the structure
Ca Size effect factor
Cr Dynamic augmentation factor
Droof Maximum roof displacement
ΔDroof The percentage reduction of maximum roof displacement based on that of the frame
structure modelling
fn Natural frequency of the structure
Δfn The percentage increment of natural frequency based on that of the frame structure modelling
k Stiffness matrix of the structure
Kb Building type factor
DOI: 10.1002/tal
m Mass matrix of the structure

MDF Multi-degree of freedom
p(t) External dynamic force
qn(t) Time variation of the displacements
qs Dynamic pressure
RC Reinforced concrete
Sa Altitude factor
Sb Terrain and building factor
Sd Direction factor
Sp Probability factor
Ss Seasonal factor
Tn Natural period
t Time
u Displacement matrix of the structure
u_ Velocity matrix of the structure
ü Acceleration matrix of the structure
Vb Basic wind speed
Ve Effective wind speed
Vs Site wind speed
REFERENCES
Al-Mosawi SS, Saka MP. 1999. Optimum design of single core shear walls. Computers and Structures 71: 143–162.
Balkaya C, Kalkan E. 2003. Nonlinear seismic response evaluation of tunnel form structures. Computers and Structures 81: 153–165.
Balkaya C, Kalkan E. 2004. Seismic vulnerability, behaviour and design of tunnel form structures. Engineering Structures 26:
2081–2099.
Barghi M, Azadbakht M. 2011. Evaluating the effect of masonry infill on natural period of buildings with moment-resisting
frame. Part 1: steel buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 20(6): 649–660.
Borzi B, Pinho R, Crowley H. 2008. Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings.
Engineering Structures 30: 804–820.
British Standards Institution. 1996. BS 6399-1:1996 Code of Practice for Dead and Imposed Loads. BSI: London.
British Standards Institution. 1997. BS 6399-2:1997 Code of Practice for Wind Loads. BSI: London.
Computers and Structures Inc. 1995. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley (CA).
Erberik MA, Elnashai AS. 2004. Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures. Engineering Structures 26: 937–948.
Gent K, Giuliano M, Astroza M, Gori R. 2008. A seismic vulnerability index for confined masonry shear wall buildings and a
relationship with the damage. Engineering Structures 30: 2605–2612.
Guan H, Cooper C, Lee DJ. 2010. Ultimate strength analysis of normal and high strength concrete wall panels with varying
opening configurations. Engineering Structures 32(5): 1341–1355.
Hueste MBD, Bai JW. 2007a. Seismic retrofit of a reinforced concrete flat-slab structure: part I—seismic performance
evaluation. Engineering Structures 29: 1165–1177.
Hueste MBD, Bai JW. 2007b. Seismic retrofit of a reinforced concrete flat-slab structure: part II—seismic fragility analysis.
Islam ABMS, Ahmad SI, Jameel M, Jumaat MZ. 2010. Seismic base isolation for buildings in regions of low to moderate
seismicity: a practical alternative design. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000093.
Islam ABMS, Jameel M, Jumaat MZ (2011a). Study on optimal isolation system and dynamic structural responses in multi-story
buildings. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 6(9): 2219–2228.
Islam ABMS, Jameel M, Ahmad SI, Jumaat MZ. 2011b. Study on corollary of seismic base isolation system on buildings with
soft story. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 6(11): 2654–2661.
Islam ABMS, Hussain RR, Jameel M, Jumaat MZ. 2011c. Non-linear time domain analysis of base isolated multi-storey building
under site specific bidirectional seismic loading. Automation in Construction, DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.11.017
Islam ABMS, Jameel M, Uddin MA, Ahmad SI. 2011d. Simplified design guidelines for seismic base isolation in multi-
storey buildings for Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC). International Journal of the Physical Sciences
6(23): 5467–5486.
Kim HS, Lee DG. 2003. Analysis of shear wall with openings using super elements. Engineering Structures 25: 981–991.
Kim HS, Lee DG. 2005. Efficient analysis of flat slab structures subjected to lateral loads. Engineering Structures 27: 251–263.
Kim HS, Lee DG, Kim CK. 2005. Efficient three-dimensional seismic analysis of a high-rise structure with shear walls.
Kim T-W, Foutch DA. 2007. Application of FEMA methodology to RC shear wall buildings governed by flexure. Engineering
Structures 29: 2514–2522.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Kose MM. 2009. Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls. Engineering Structures
31: 93–102.
Kuang JS, Chau CK. 1999. Dynamic behaviour of stiffened coupled shear walls with flexible bases. Computers and Structures
73: 327–339.
Lee DG, Ahn SK, Kim DK. 2005. Efficient seismic analysis of structure including floor slab. Engineering Structures
27: 675–684.
Lee DG, Kim HS, Chun MH. 2002. Efficient seismic analysis of high-rise structures with the effects of floor slabs. Engineering
Madsen LPB, Thambiratnam DP, Perera NJ. 2003. Seismic response of structures with dampers in shear walls. Computers and
Mortezaei A, Kheyroddin A, Ronagh HR. 2010. Finite element analysis and seismic rehabilitation of a 1000-year-old heritage
listed tall masonry mosque. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Article first published online: 1 June
2010, DOI: 10.1002/tal.599.
Nollet MJ, Smith BS. 1998. Stiffened-story wall-frame tall structure. Computers and Structures 66: 225–240.
Paknahad M, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Thanoon WA. 2007. Analysis of shear wall structure using optimal membrane triangle
element. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43: 861–869.
Sabouri-Ghomi S, Payandehjoo B. 2011. Investigating the effect of stiffness and strength of each component on overall stiffness
and strength of yielding damped braced core (YDBC). The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 20 (7): 747–756.
Toutanji HA. 1997. The effect of foundation flexibility on the interaction between shear walls and frames. Engineering
Wang Q, Wang L, Liu Q. 2001. Effect of shear wall height on earthquake response. Engineering Structures 23: 376–384.
Yi T-H, Li H-N, Gu M. 2011. Optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring based on multiple optimization
strategies. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 20(7): 881–900.
AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
Dr Mohammed Jameel did his PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi), India.
He has successfully completed various sponsored projects involving non-linear analysis of tension leg
platforms; Spar; floating, production, storage and takeoff platforms; and deep-water and shallow-water
mooring lines and risers. The projects were supported by several government and private funding
agencies. His research area includes non-linear dynamics, earthquake engineering, reliability engineering,
offshore structures, artificial neural network and non-linear finite element analysis. Presently, he is associated
with the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia.
A.B.M. Saiful Islam is a PhD candidate and graduate research assistant at the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia. He is a member of the Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh,
and the American Society of Civil Engineers. His research interests include offshore structures, non-linear
dynamics, seismic protection, base isolation, pounding and special tall buildings.
Dr Raja Rizwan Hussain is an assistant professor in the Centre of Excellence for Concrete Research and
Testing, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. He received his PhD and MSc in Civil Engineering from the University of Tokyo, Japan, for
which he was ranked outstanding and was awarded the best research thesis award from the University
of Tokyo. He received his PhD in a record short period of just 2 years. He has authored more than 75
publications in less than 5 years of his post-PhD tenure and has received several awards, prizes and
distinctions throughout his research and academic career.
Mohammed Khaleel did his masters in Structural Engineering from the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
University, India. He is currently pursuing a doctorate from the University of Malaya, Malaysia. His re-
search interests include non-linear finite element analysis, reliability analysis, tall structures, offshore
structures and pre-cast concrete structures.
Dr Mohd. Moonis Zaheer is an associate professor at the Civil Engineering Section, Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, India. He completed his PhD from the Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia
Islamia, New Delhi, India. His research interests include structural dynamics, reliability engineering,
offshore structures, non-linear finite element analysis and building structures.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

Optimum Structural Modelling For Tall Buildings

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Optimum Structural Modelling For Tall Buildings

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1173–1185 (2013)

Optimum structural modelling for tall buildings

Mohammed Jameel1*, A.B.M. Saiful Islam1, Raja Rizwan Hussain2, M. Khaleel1

Received 28 July 2011; Revised 24 December 2011; Accepted 29 December 2011

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 1. Common plan view for modelling of buildings.

Table 1. Modelling and design parameters.

m€u þ cu_ þ ku ¼ pðt Þ; (1)

3.1. Material properties

3.2. Loading data

3.3. Equivalent static analysis

Site wind speed; Vs ¼ Vb Sa Sd Ss Sp ; (4)

Effective wind speed; Ve ¼ Vs Sb : (5)

Table 2. Material properties.

Dynamic pressure; qs ¼ 0:613 Ve2 : (6)

The overall horizontal loads; P ¼ 0:85 ðPfront Prear Þ ð1 þ Cr Þ: (7)

3.4. Eigenvector analysis

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Effect of walls and slabs

4.2. Effect of wall openings

4.3. Critical evaluation of results

on Natural circular frequency of vibration

m Mass matrix of the structure

Potrebbero piacerti anche