0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

6 visualizzazioni28 pagineAug 09, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

6 visualizzazioni28 pagine© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 28

DESIGN OF HIGH RISE STRUCTURES.

School Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350

normanadriko@gmail.com

Abstract

The application of codes in design of structures is limited to low and medium height structures .The design of High

rise structures becomes more complex with ever increasing height and this study was conducted to discuss current

design methods and their input in the design process of tall structures .Analytical theories, numerical methods and

experimental tests that have been studied indicated that a great deal of uncertainty in design may continue to exist as

long as the two key actions of wind and seismic loading are designed against independently by the methods. It was

therefore found out that for better prediction of models of high rise structure, the methods of analysis have to be

combined at design stage to ensure good performance, serviceability of the high rise structure and comfort of

occupants at elevated heights

INTROODUCTION

Every step that tall building design takes toward the sky, today’s architects and engineers

encounter new difficulties. As the height of modern building rises with developments in the field

of structural system design and the use of high-strength materials, their weight and rigidity

decrease, and their slenderness and flexibility and thus their sensitivity to wind loads increase.

Wind loads, which cause large lateral drift and ground movement due to earthquakes play a

decisive role in the design of tall buildings. However Wind loads can be even more critical than

earthquake loads (Günel & Ilgin, 2014)

Today’s major tall buildings considerably have higher strength to weight ratios due to advocacy

for lighter, stronger and durable structural members ,thus leading to slender, irregular and more

complicated structures with lower weight that are easily prone to a greater effect of lateral drift

with low damping and wind induced sway.

To build a tall building, one should think of a construction project whose design depends totally

on analytical analysis and scaled modelling (Longarini, Cabras, Zucca, Chapain and Mousaid,

2017)

The two major actions that are analysed against failure are wind actions and seismic actions.

Wind speed and wind pressure increase according to the building height, so wind loads become

important as the building height increases and wind induced motion can be in the form along wind,

across-wind or torsional motion as illustrated in Figure 1 In tall buildings, usually the across-wind

motion and torsional motion are more critical than the along-wind motion. However, because of

the complexity of the across-wind and torsional responses of a building, many existing building

codes only suggest procedures to determine the along-wind response of the building.

Figure 1.Wind induced motion on Tall Building (Günel & Ilgin, 2014)

The use of Aerodynamic forms such as conical, elliptical and twisted forms of structures helps

reduce on the wind load and reducing the lateral drift induced by it.

To improve the aerodynamic design of buildings, tapering is done by progressively reducing the

plan area of building as it rises and providing wind openings at the top areas while paying attention

to the dynamic effects like sway has ensured building response is improved at great heights.

Setbacks are also improvised to reduce on the across- wind effects.

Figure 2 shows how some of the world’s tallest structures have improvised aerodynamic forms.

These forms were adopted after carrying out dynamic calculations and wind tunnel tests as these

cater for the additional across wind and torsional effects propagated by the wind load that are

beyond the codes.

Figure 2.Aerodynaic forms of world tallest structure (Günel & Ilgin, 2014)

Modifications to corner geometry by means of recessed/notched, cut, slotted and rounded corners

reduce the across-wind building response, as compared with an original building shape with sharp

corners.

Two International finance centre, saw tooth corners

Figure 3.Shapes that reduce wind effect on structure (Günel & Ilgin, 2014)

Although both wind and seismic forces are essentially dynamic, there is a fundamental difference

in the manner in which they are induced in a structure. Wind loads, applied as external loads, are

characteristically proportional to the exposed surface of structure, while the earthquake forces are

principally internal forces resulting from the distortion produced by the inertial resistance of the

structure to earthquake motions. Fig .4 shows behaviour of structure during earthquake. The

magnitude of earthquake forces is a function of the mass of the structure rather than its exposed

surface

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Wind Excitation

The aerodynamic design of tall buildings is based on methods aimed at reducing the wind induced

load effects .This may be architectural, structural or mechanical.

Architectural design considers the building orientation, aerodynamic form, plan variation,

aerodynamic top as part of the design. The whole intention is to improve on buildings performance

against wind loads and increase its sensitivity.

Under structural based design, Buildings with symmetrical plans especially rectangular ones

exhibit improved structural efficiency and greater sensitivity to wind load due to their geometry.

More importantly construction costs are reduced (Günel & Ilgin, 2014). The control of the dynamic

response of a tall and flexible building can be achieved by increasing stiffness by the use of shear-

frame systems, mega column systems, mega core systems, outrigger frame systems and tube

systems.

The purpose of structural control in civil engineering structures is to reduce vibrations produced

by external stressors such as earthquake and wind loads, by different techniques such as modifying

stiffness, mass, damping, or shape. Structural control methods are typically classified as active,

passive, and semi active techniques. (Longarani et al, 2017)

Under mechanical design, a certain level of damping that is inherent in the serviceability life of

structure is estimated. The inherent damping capacity is much affected by the structural system,

material used, non-structural elements like cladding and the soil-structure interaction

(Günel & Ilgin, 2014)

The use of auxiliary damping systems known as dampers are mechanisms to slow the lateral

movement in buildings and reduce its magnitude and dampen the building sway by influencing

the phases of force and displacement. They can be active, passive, semi-active or hybrid dampers.

The visco-elastic dampers (VEDs) figure .5(a) are passive type that absorb the energy that is

transmitted by structural system due to dynamic motion and storing due to its viscosity ensuring

building position returns to earlier or initial state by elastic tendency. Tuned mass dampers (TMDs)

figure 5(b) are passive auxiliary types founded on the principle of creating drift in the opposite

direction to the lateral drift of the building by creating a counteracting inertia force. These dampers

basically consist of mechanisms that control the function of a mass producing a counteracting

inertia force and a mechanism to ensure the desired performance. The mass, which oscillates

against wind-induced vibration, creates the counteracting inertia force. Generally it is located near

the building top to obtain the best performance.

Tuned Liquid dampers (TLD) figure 5. (c) are also another form of passive auxiliary dampers

which use the liquid mass to produce the counter acting inertia to the dynamic induced loadings.

So far they are extensively used to overcome wind vibration to ensure structural stability

(a) VED (b) TMD

(c) TLD

Figure 5.Damping systems (a) VED (b) TMD (c) TLD

Active systems, which aim to dampen wind-induced vibration, need an external energy source and

are controlled by feedback from the structural responses. Active mass dampers (AMDs) are an

example of this kind of system. These dampers resemble TMDs in their appearance, but while

TMDs’ ability to cope with a range of load is limited, AMDs can handle a much wider range of

loads. Wind-induced vibration is monitored by a computer, which turns on the active mass

dampers as necessary, damping the unwanted vibrations. Although active systems are more

efficient than passive systems, the possibility cannot be ignored that in extreme conditions they

may be insufficient or impossible to activate because they require an external power source. For

this reason, passive systems are preferable to active systems. (Günel & Ilgin, 2014)

All buildings are affected to some degree by their dynamic response. The total response may be

considered as a summation of the mean component without any structural dynamic magniﬁcation,

and a resonant component due to building vibrations close to its natural frequency. For the majority

of buildings less than 120 m (394 ft.) tall, and with height-to-width ratio less than 4, the resonant

component is small. The only added loading is due to gusts that can be dealt with in a simple static

manner. Across and along wind load are evaluated as follows

Static wind force is generally determined by applying factors to the peak wind velocity

(1)

cs is the force coeﬃcient according to Equation

Aref is the reference area for each ﬂoor

When the Force FW is known the static overturning moment is determined.

When obtaining overturning moment from dynamic wind-load extra factor Cd is placed in to cater

for the dynamic loading.

(2)

cd is the dynamic factor according to Equation

According to EC 2,

(3)

where:

kp is the peak factor

v(z) is the wind turbulence

B2 is the background factor

R2 is the resonance response factor

Peak factor Kp is obtained from the average time of mean wind velocity T and fundamental

frequency η1,X of the structure.

For buildings higher than 50 stories the fundamental frequency can be estimated

with Equation 3

46

η1 = (3)

ℎ

In equation 5, the along wind response of structure is a modal shape due to along wind acceleration

(4)

σa,x(z) is the standard deviation of the characteristic along-wind acceleration

z is the height of the structure.

(5)

Where h is height of the structure, Ϛ is the exponent of the model shape set to 1 for is set to 1 for

buildings with a central core with peripheral columns or larger columns with shear bracing.

Earthquake Excitation

The behaviour of a building during an earthquake is a vibration problem. The seismic motions of

the ground damage a building by internally generated inertial forces caused by vibration of the

building mass. This results in an increase in the inertial force that can cause buckling or crushing

of columns and walls when the mass pushes down on a member bent or moved out of plumb by

the lateral forces. This effect is known as the p∆ effect and the greater the vertical forces, the

greater the movement due to p∆ (Turaneth, 2004)

The effect of seismic loads can result to resistance demands in some parts of an RC structure that

can be significantly larger than the lateral forces from wind action with substantial displacement

since the spectrums normally peak at 3-6s periods which corresponds to the modes of many high

rise RC structures. (Jun Ji, Elanasshai & Kuchma, 2007).

Nazari and Siatcoglu(2017) noted there has been a limited number of previous efforts on nonlinear

modelling and dynamic analysis of shear wall buildings. Shear walls were modelled either at the

element level by introducing an elastic beam element and plastic hinges or at the sectional level

by discretizing sections into strips and assigning material constitutive models to each strip

Damage control during excitation by ground movement depends largely on the stiffness of

structure and its ability to absorb and ultimately dissipate the energy. The complexity of predicting

the deformations under seismic actions necessitates that provisions have to be made in design for

structural movement, special detailing and clearances without affecting overall stability. A

desirable characteristic in earth quake design is the structures ductility.

Ductility is measured by the hysteretic behaviour of critical components of assembly of structure

s obtained by cyclic testing of moment rotation (or force-deﬂection) behaviour.

The slope of the curves shown in figure 6 represents the stiffness of the structure, and the enclosed

areas the dissipated energy. Structural assemblies with curves enclosing a large area representing

large dissipated energy are regarded as superior systems for resisting seismic loading

Figure 6.Hysteretic behaviour (a) Large energy dissipation (b) Low energy dissipation (Turaneth, 2004)

There are two important design criteria that should be considered while designing high-rise

building, the first one is Ultimate Limit State (ULS) which deals with strength requirements of

structure and the second is Serviceability Limit State (SLS) that deals with comfort of occupants

in the building. The ULS criteria are employed to guarantee that the building will not fail under

maximum design loads. Similarly, the SLS criteria are used to ascertain that the building will

remain operational and functional by satisfying serviceability (usually comfort) conditions.

Purpose of SLS requirements is to address the response of people and objects to the behaviour of

the structure under the load. These criteria have to be fulfilled, to yield adequate structural

robustness, as well as to provide required comfort satisfaction to occupants.

The comfort criterion can be fulfilled by limiting peak floor acceleration to predefined values

provided in standard code. Moreover, considering the SLS design criterion, it is fundamental to

investigate the serviceability behaviour (in terms of inter-storey displacements) of the secondary

building elements like finishes and system elements (Longarine et al, 2017)

On a general note, structural response in form of stress effects such as shear, bending and torsional

stresses are evaluated against resistance capacity in addition to the displacement and acceleration

of members. These are easily evaluated by FEM. elements. All stress effects can be evaluated by

an appropriate FEM

Human Discomfort

Aerodynamic studies are also carried out to evaluate the effect of building motions on the comfort

of its occupants. Quantitative prediction of human discomfort is difﬁcult to absolutely because

perception of motion and associated discomfort are subjective. In practice certain thresholds of

comfort have been established by relating acceleration due to building motion at top ﬂoors to the

frequency of windstorms. One such criterion is to limit accelerations of top ﬂoors to 20-milli-g (2%

of acceleration due to gravity. (Taranatha, 2004)

In wind-tunnel tests, accelerations are measured directly by accelerometers which are

typically used to measure components in the x, y directions and torsional component. Peak

acceleration is evaluated from the expression

(6)

Where

a = peak acceleration

Gp=a peak factor for acceleration, usually in the range of 3.0 to 3.5

ax2 and ay2 =accelerations due to the sway components in the x and y directions

az2 = acceleration due to torsional component

The peak accelerations measured for a series of wind directions and speeds are combined with the

meteorological data to predict frequency of occurrence of human discomfort, for various levels of

accelerations. A commonly accepted criterion is that for human comfort, the maximum

acceleration in upper ﬂoors should not exceed 2.0% of gravitational acceleration for a 10-year

return period storm. (Taranatha, 2004)

Pedestrian Discomfort

A tall building is a large obstacle that stands in the way of passing wind. While wind tries to pass

around this obstacle it can cause severe discomfort to pedestrians. The down draught (down-wash)

of wind that causes this issue is shown below in Figure 7. Since lower levels of high rise buildings

and their surrounding structures are designed with retail and recreational areas to attract large

crowds, pedestrian comfort has become an important and essential design criterion (Gurarwerda

et al, 2017)

The wake regions that could be created around a tall building can cause significant discomfort to

the pedestrians walking in the vicinity. The shielding effect from neighbouring tall buildings can

create low pressure regions around the building. The tunnelling effect created by the presence of

two or more nearby tall buildings, can also ultimately result in creating high velocity regions at

ground level. Therefore, better understanding of wind flow and influence of proposed building on

the existing wind pattern are important at the design stage of any tall building.

Figure 7.Wind draw down creating tunnel effect (Gunarwerda et al, 2017)

METHODS

Theoretical Methods Adopted

Global critical load - Vianello method

To determine the global critical load for a structure diﬀerent methods exists. One method to obtain

is the Vianello method.

The Vianello method is used to calculate the global critical load for a structure with varying

stiﬀness. It only considers in-plane buckling. In comparison with the Euler method, where a

cantilever is ﬁxed in one end and a single concentrated load is applied in the other, the Vianello

method is available when there are several stories with diﬀerent forces acting on each one of them.

To calculate the critical load, N, the following equation 8 is used

𝐸𝐼

𝑁𝑐𝑟 = 𝐾𝑣 𝐿2 (8)

ℎ

where:

E is the Young’s modulus

I is the moment of inertia

Lh is the total height of the building

kv is a factor for the amount of stories

For a case with constant stiﬀness, EI, along the height of the building and with the same value on

the force acting on each storey the value of k can be taken directly from Figure 8 or has to be

calculated. This is made by using an iteration process which converges towards a true value. The

method is based on the equation 9 for an elastic line

EIxv’’+ Mx =0 (9)

where:

E is the Youngs modulus, I is the moment of inertia, v’’ is the curvature, Mx is the moment

Figure 8.Factor KV for buildings with constant stiffness and safe force on each storey (Hallebrand & Jakobsson,

2016)

In order to carry out approximate analysis for a large scale complicated structure such as a high-

rise building in the preliminary design stages, the use of equivalent rod theory is very effective.

Takabatake et al., (as cited in Takabatake 2012) developed a simple but accurate one-dimensional

extended rod theory which takes account of longitudinal, bending, and transverse shear

deformation, as well as shear-lag. The effectiveness of this theory has been demonstrated by

comparison with the numerical results obtained from a frame analysis on the basis of FEM code

NASTRAN for various high-rise buildings, tube structures and mega structures.

The equivalent one-dimensional extended rod theory replaces the original structure by a model of

one-dimensional rod with an equivalent stiffness distribution, appropriate with regard to the global

behaviour. Difficulty arises in this modeling due to the restricted number of freedom of the

equivalent rod; local properties of each structural member cannot always be properly represented,

which leads to significant discrepancy in some cases. The one-dimensional idealization is able to

deal only with the distribution of stiffness and mass in the longitudinal direction, possibly with an

account of the averaged effects of transverse stiffness variation. In common practice, however,

structures are composed of a variety of members or structural parts, often including distinct

constituents such as a frame-wall or coupled wall with opening. Overall behaviour of such a

structure is significantly affected by the local distribution of stiffness. In addition, the individual

behaviour of each structural member plays an important role from the standpoint of structural

design. So, Takabatake (2012) proposed two-dimensional extended rod theory as an extension of

the one-dimensional extended rod theory to take into account of the effect of transverse variations

in individual member stiffness.

Figure 9 illustrates the difference between the one- and two-dimensional extended rod

theories in evaluating the local stiffness distribution of structural components. In the two

dimensional approximation, structural components with different stiffness and mass distribution

are continuously connected. On the basis of linear elasticity, governing equations are derived from

Hamilton’s principle. Use is made of a displacement function which satisfies continuity conditions

across the boundary surfaces between the structural components

.

Figure 9. One and two dimensional Rod Theory

Numerical Methods

The modelling of tall building structure for analysis is dependent on the extent on the analysis

approach. Preliminary, intermediate and final analysis approaches ensure structural model is

developed to ensure proportionate response. Due to the complexity of these structures, hybrid

approaches using principles of super positioning of elements to simple cantilever models are

incorporated in analysis (Smith & Coull, 1991)

Use of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has made great change in analysis of High rise structure.

Traditionally design is against the lateral loading i.e wind and earth quake. To describe various

physical problems, the use of partial diﬀerential equations (PDEs) is a good option. These PDEs

can be solved with numerical methods when the system is too complicated for an analytical

solution. To solve this numerically, the FE method can be used. Using FE modelling, the structure

is subdivided, discretised, into a ﬁnite number of individual elements. The behaviour of these

elements, the relation between their nodal displacements and reactions, can be speciﬁed by shape

functions. By means of the shape functions and their corresponding derivatives, all displacements,

strains and stresses within an element can be calculated. The individual elements are only

interconnected by their nodes and to get the complete solution for the entire structure all elements

are assembled. The amount of elements aﬀects the result as more elements give a more accurate

result. However, the more complex and larger the structure is, the more the computation time

increases. Initially modelling entire 3D models of a complex building was not possible due to

insuﬃcient processing power and software. The building had to be disassembled into its diﬀerent

structural parts, beams, columns, plates, walls etc. and designed separately making complex

architectural forms diﬃcult to design. Nowadays, with improved computational power and

software, it is possible to calculate more complex and bigger structures. However, trusting the FE

analysis blindly can have large complications and it is up to the user to verify the result to prevent

a collapse of the structure. The more complicated the numerical model is, the more diﬃcult it is

to interpret the accuracy of the result and maintain a global overview of the structure.

Use of Pressure Integration Method (PIM) to Analyse Dynamic Response

The design of buildings with a slenderness ratio (aspect ratio = height/width) greater than five is

usually governed by serviceability more than safety. The serviceability of tall buildings under wind

is typically measured by the amount of lateral displacements and acceleration. Excessive lateral

displacements can cause structural and non-structural damage, while excessive acceleration can

lead to unpleasantness to the building occupants. The PIM method greatly estimates the wind loads

because it addresses the limitations of the conventional force balance technique in estimating wind

loads while putting it to full use in analysing.

In his work, Longerani et al (2017) applied the PIM on a FEM model by placing 400 pressure

meters (TAPS) in simulating a wind tunnel test. The TAPs were fixed to the outer surface of

structure with their number increasing with height of structure as indicated in figure 10. In order

to estimate the forces F and moment M at floor levels the pressure fTAP for every flow is obtained.

For every k-floor the generic area (between the floors and surfaces) Ak are identified

(10)

where (11)

Therefore for particular wind direction α, the FK and MK are

(12)

Where 𝑙𝑘𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,..., 𝑛) represents the eccentricity between centre of gravity and the centroid of the

area 𝐴.The corresponding 𝐹𝑘 and 𝑀k were applied in the barycentre each FEM 𝑘-floor.

By the linear time history analysis (Figure 11), considering first 10 mode shapes and different

coefficients of structural damping (𝜉 = 1%-C4%), the acceleration at the top of the building (𝑎Sd)

was obtained. All acceleration is calculated by combining the two translational values (𝑥-and𝑦-

directions) and the torsional value (around 𝑧-axis). For 𝜉=1% the value of 𝑎Sd at top of building is

0.45 m/s2 (Figure 6) which is higher than the comfort limit value Rd=0.20m/s2 .

However, when the damping in the building is increased to 4%, the maximum acceleration is about

0.25 m/s2 which is still higher than the comfort limit value. It implies damping should be increased

beyond 4% to get the desired value of acceleration (i.e., below0.20 m/s2). This value damping in

the structure can be achieved by installing damping device

Figure 10.pressure meters fixed at building floors (Longerani et al, 2017)

Figure 11.Time History Analysis (Longerani et al, 2017)

Use of High Frequency Force Balance Method (HFFB) to Analyse Dynamic Response

This technique is used to replicate wind tunnel test and measure the wind loads on the structure.

High accuracy sensors are placed at the base to measure wind induced loads Under HFFB the

Global wind stresses are summed from the static and dynamic contribution indicated by equation

13.

(13)

Where

Mtot is the total stress.moment (Static and dynamic contributions)

M is the static contribution

Mdyn is the dynamic moment of the stress distribution

gB .σMB is the background part of the dynamic contribution

gB .σMR is the resonance part of the Dynamic contribution ,these values obtained depending on

the period T=600s considered for maximum stress action, building natural frequency fi and

spectral power density of the base moments SM (f) as shown in equation 14

(14)

The resonant part of the dynamic contribution helps evaluate the force Feq (z) and resonant moment

Meq (z) equations 15

(15)

where (𝑧) is the distributed mass of the tower and 𝐼(𝑧) refers to the second moment of area, 𝜙(𝑧)

refers to the first eigenvector associated with the direction in which the force is valued. From 𝐹eq(𝑧)

and 𝑀eq(𝑧).the translational and rotational acceleration are calculated (Equation 16)

(16)

With the HFFB procedure, it is possible to point out the dynamic effects. Base shear, bending

moment, and the acceleration response are calculated as function of the direction angle 𝛼, for

several damping ratios𝜉 (1.0%; 2.0%; and 4.0%)

Longarine et al (2017) analysed the slender structure and found out results for the damping ratios

𝜉 (1.0%; 2.0%; and 4.0%) (Figures 12 and 13).

Figure 12.Base loads (a) Base moment in x-direction (b) Base shear in y direction (Longarine et al, 2017)

Figure 13.Acceleration responses for different damping ratios (a)x-direction (b)y-direction(torsional

considered) (Longarine et al, 2017)

From the figures 12 and 13.the maximum static and dynamic contribution is realised at 292◦ angle .

Acceleration at the corner can be found by combining accelerations ax ,ay and torsional

contribution az .in line with distance from the centre.

The Stage Lumped Modelling Method

The behaviour of structural members in High rise RC structures can be seen by fibre (steel and

reinforcement) response in the frames and walls. The need for an improved understanding of the

inelastic non-linear dynamic response of RC high-rise structures subjected to realistic seismic

records representative of near and far field earthquake to ensure damage control has made many

researchers propose solutions, among them is the stage lumped modelling approach to address

fragility.

Ji et al (2007) used this method to develop a staged parameter model that can capture key aspects

of the dynamic behaviour of RC high-rise structures including RC material inelasticity, second-

order geometrical non-linearity, and frame- wall interactions. The selection of appropriate

parameters was made possible using genetic algorithms. The computer model conducted a

Dynamic Response History Analysis (DRHA) from which fragility relationships were developed.

In Stage I, the outer frame was modelled as equivalent non-linear springs at the wall, while in

Stage II the wall was modelled using lumped elements.

The use of generic algorithm is due to the fact that although lumped-modelling approaches are

conceptually simple, the selection of a suitable replacement structure that properly considers the

influence of the dominant parameters on the non-linear response is trivial and implicit .Generic

algorithm therefore aids lead to convergence of structural response through effective reruns to

produce adequate data of optimum solutions via FEA analysis. The two-stage structural

optimization procedure using GA is illustrated in Figure 14 . in which the left column shows the

overall two-stage process, the middle column presents the structure of the two lumped modelling

steps, and in the right column is given a flow chart of the generic algorithm toolbox used in this

parametric study.

Figure 14.2 Stage Lumped Derivations (Ji et al, 2007)

The ZEUS-NL analysis environment was used to carryout pushover analysis on the structure with

details in fig.

Through the implementation of the above two-stage model optimization procedure, a

comparatively simple lumped-parameter model is created that consists of beam elements, rigid

bars and non-linear springs. The simplified model is sufficiently accurate for evaluating nodal

displacements, global internal forces and at the same time accounting for shear deformations

within the structural walls. The required computational time for completing a DRHA is reduced

to a small fraction of what it would have been for an analysis of the original model.

This simplified model is capable of representing the interactions between core wall and external

frame members by providing sets of non-linear interface springs at X, Y and Rz directions at each

storey over the height of the wall. The use of the simplified model resulted in very significant

reductions in analysis times that render it practical to develop probabilistic fragility curves for

complex high-rise structures and demonstrate functionality of the frame work.

The Hybrid Coupled Wall

Coupled wall systems are often used in high-rise buildings due to their superior lateral strength

and stiffness. In such a system, coupling beams are designed to undergo inelastic deformation and

dissipate seismic energy, as shown in figure 15 but when damaged proves costly and time-

consuming to repair. Developments have been made to get alternatives of which Hybrid coupled

wall is proposed.

Figure 17.skecth of coupled walls (a) RC Coupled (b) Hybrid coupled (Ji, Liu & Hutt, 2018)

Ji, Liu and Hutt(2018) proposed a novel type of hybrid coupled wall (HCW), which consists of

re-inforced concrete (RC) wall piers and replaceable steel coupling beams (RSCBs), was proposed

for enhancing the seismic resilience of high-rise buildings. The seismic performance of a HCW

building under high intensity levels of ground motion shaking as de-fined in the Chinese code:

maximum considered earthquakes (MCE) and very rare earthquakes (VRE). The performance of

the HCW building is compared against an equivalent RCW building with RC coupled walls

(RCW).

In order to estimate damage of walls, the harmful interstorey drift ratio is used with the calculation

illustrated in figure 18

Figure 18.Calculation for harmful interstory drift ratios for wall piers ((Ji, Liu &Hutt, 2018)

Nonlinear numerical models were developed in Open Sees for a representative 11-story building

located in Beijing and designed per modern Chinese standards. The nonlinear dynamic analysis

indicates that use of novel HCWs instead of conventional RCWs leads to maximum interstory

drifts 24.5% lower at MCE and 32.7% lower at VRE. However, the use of novel HCWs has limited

influence on the maximum floor accelerations. A seismic performance assessment of the buildings

is carried out to estimate repair cost and repair time based on the FEMA P-58 method.

Under MCE and VRE, in the RCW building, RC coupling beams and frames greatly contributes

to the repair cost, while the HCW building efficiently controls damage in coupling beams and

frames. The resulting repair cost of the HCW building is 50.8% lower at MCE and 41.9% lower

at VRE than that of the RCW building. Due to the easy replacement of damaged shear links in

RSCBs, the HCW building showed enhanced performance, particularly in terms of reduced repair

time. The repair time of the HCW building is 60.5% lower at MCE and 50.4% lower at VRE than

that of the RCW building.

The Out Rigger System and Hybrid Structure

Moment resisting frames and shear walls are efficient and economical structural systems for low-

and medium-rise buildings. But when the height of a building goes up, these systems may not be

sufficient enough to resist load induced by the wind and earthquakes. Belt truss systems are

effectively used to control excessive drift due to lateral loads and also to enhance the stiffness of

tall buildings. The outrigger and belt truss systems are dynamic load resisting systems in tall

buildings where external columns control core walls with very stiff structural/mechanical elements,

at one or more levels. (Longarine et al, 2017)

The outrigger system is an eﬃcient structural form that consists of a central core with outriggers,

connecting the core to the outer columns. The central core contains of either braced frames or shear

walls. When the building is loaded laterally the vertical plane rotations are resisted by the

outriggers through tension in the windward columns and compression in the leeward columns, see

figure 19

Figure 19.The outrigger system under lateral loading ( (Longarine et al, 2017)

The functional difference between belt trusses and outriggers is that belt trusses tie the peripheral

columns of a building, while the later engages them with the central core. Externally induced

moments are resisted by the core and axial internal loads developed in outer columns that are

connected to an outrigger.

Pushover analysis procedure based on the application of different invariant lateral load patterns is

used in estimating seismic demands of high rise buildings is used by researchers. It is highly

approximate and differing loading patterns that affect response these patterns can be categorised

into the following

a) The codal lateral pattern

Vb=AhW (17)

𝑊𝐼 ℎ𝑖2

𝑄𝐼 = ∑𝑛 2 (18)

𝑖=1 𝑊𝐼 ℎ𝑖

h i = height of the floor i measured from the base,

Q i = Lateral force at floor i,

W i = seismic weight of floor i and.

n = number of storeys in the building.

b) Elastic first modal lateral push

Fi = mi Φi=∑mi Φi (19)

Where Φi = amplitude of the elastic first mode of the storey.

FI = Lateral force at the ith floor

MI = Mass of at the ith floor of the building

c) Multi Modal load pattern

Storey force at each level calculated by

(20)

.

where ךj =modal participation factor for the jth mode

Øij = amplitude of jth mode at ith storey

mi = Mass of at the ith floor of ith storey

Saj = spectral acceleration to the jth mode

d) Uniform Lateral load pattern: lateral force at storey proportional to mass of storey

Fi = mi /∑mi (21)

Where

FI = Lateral force at the ith floor, mi = Mass of at the ith floor of ith storey

Patil and Sangle (2016) carried out non-linear static pushover analysis where gravity loads are first

applied and then lateral seismic loads are applied simultaneously up to failure under force or

displacement controlled methods. Investigation were carried out on the out rigger braced high rise

structure model to compare seismic behaviour of buildings with outrigger at different locations of

building model using SAP2000 software. The seismic performance of the Outrigger Braced frames

(OBF) showed that compared to Multi Rigger frame structures (MRF), they performed with lower

storey displacement and inter-storey drift ratios depicting controlled flexibility. The outrigger

increased the base shear and decreased the roof displacement significantly with optimum locations

of 0.3H to 0.6H resisting the highest lateral loads during excitation.

Experimental Analysis

Wind Tunnel Test

Exposure conditions for tall buildings had made it inherent to depend on design codes and

meteorological data. The aerodynamics of tall buildings can have a huge impact on their cost. The

main structural system is a large part of the cost and for super-tall buildings wind is the governing

lateral load. Wind affects not only the structural integrity of the tall building but also its

serviceability. Keeping the motions of the tower with in comfortable limits is often a bigger

challenge than meeting structural strength requirements.

Therefore, the aerodynamics of the building shape needs to be considered as a critical design

parameter from the very outset. Wind tunnelling test has altered the design method for tall

structures. The Burj Khalifa was basically designed in the wind tunnel (Irwin, 2009)

Since shape is so critical for these buildings, one of the trends has been for the wind tunnel to be

used more proactively to optimize the aerodynamic shape in an iterative process starting early on

in the design process. This is in contrast to the more conventional and passive approach of simply

testing at a point near the end of design and then presenting results when the shape is already fixed

with little or no consideration of aero-dynamics. Through this approach a building shape is

developed that is extremely efficient from a wind loading point of view to the point where the

tower has little or no need for a supplementary damping system. This is extended for different

shapes at top pinnacle and other structural forms like bridges and tapering and aerodynamic fins

was developed to suppress vortex shedding.

The models commonly used in wind tunnelling are:

1. Rigid pressure model (PM)

2. Rigid high-frequency base balance model (H-FBBM)

3. Aeroelastic model (AM)

The measurement methods applied to the models can be the more direct High frequency Force

Balance Method (HFFB) which is good for analysing preliminary design loads or the High

Frequency Pressure Integral method (HFFI) which is not constrained by modal frequency

problems and the Aeroelastic model testing which is used to obtain response for higher order

modes in order to incorporate damping effects.( (Irwin, 2009).

The sizes of the building and of the wind tunnel determine the scale of the model. In structural

design, the wind load is determined by the results obtained from wind tunnel tests.

In studies done to determine aerodynamic forces formed as a result of the interaction of the wind

with tall buildings, the models used in wind tunnel tests are most commonly on scales of 1:300

and 1:500(Mehmet et al,2014)..

Some recent examples are the Taipei Model 101(a) and the Burj Khalifa (b) in the figure 20.

Shaking table test-analysis on several multi-layer test considering the effect of flexible load

transfer floor. The shaking table provides the seismic simulation that makes analysis of complex

structure response easier.

Lu and Lu, 2000 conducted shaking table tests on multi tower high rise structures to determine the

dynamic response and safety reliability under different earthquake intensity.

During test, the exciting intensities of each earthquake waves varied from the frequently occurred

earthquake to the seldom occurred earthquake step by step, and the exciting inputs can be one

dimension or three dimensions. Sensors such as strain gauges, displacement transducers and

acceleration transducers were placed at critical and interesting

Places of the model. It was found that the responses of multi-tower buildings have very complex

behaviour during earthquake action. The dynamic properties and the damage area are different if

the position and the stiffness of the connection floor between towers are located at different levels.

The results of theoretical analysis were done by considering the structure in form of (i)Multitower

with rigid structure (ii) Multitier with Spring element Podium (iii)

Values of theoretical analysis and shaking table test were compared and they found that the error

between the results of testing and the results of calculation and site testing are within

10%~30%. They also concluded the couple action between transfer floors of multi-tower building

with large podium is significant, which will cause the damages near the transfer floors, and each

tower works separately if cracks appear after higher intensity earthquake. The flexible connections

between towers can significantly reduce the drift of multi-tower high-rise buildings, and they will

be destroyed and act as energy dissipation members during a moderate earthquake. The more

irregular the structure, the more complex the response. They are prone to severe damage if

subjected to stronger earthquakes and so proper design is recommended.

CONCLUSION

The application of a combination of analytical methods to evaluate the dynamic response of tall

structures has ensured continued rise in the construction of tall structures by giving in depth

demonstrations of cause-effects on structures under wind and earthquake loadings which are the

main action parameters. This is demonstrated by step by step analysis beginning with the

theoretical, Numerical and then experimental tests.

The works of researchers studied in this report outline the complex nature of analysing high rise

buildings due to the uncertainties with increasing height. Therefore the following can be

concluded

1. Analytical analysis and modelling are key in design of high rise structures. More analytical

methods and modelling processes need to be developed and existing ones fine-tuned to

reduce damage and improve comfort especially at elevated heights.

2. Theoretical design proposals are still important to further guide numerical analysis and

modelling.

3. The application of physical models such as the shaking table test and wind tunnel tests

need to be improved to simulate real boundary conditions as the design of tall structures

keeps increasing with desire to build high rise structures in the world. The building industry

has already started making use of the available technology Such applications on real

construction projects will largely benefit the wider validation process of future projects

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the expert guidance of Prof. Haitao Zhu , instructor for the

Masters course module “Design of High Rise Building” that the author undertook at the

Department of Civil engineering, Tianjin University.

REFERENCES

Gunarwerdana, K., Fernando, S., Mendis, P., Waduge, B., and Hettiarachchi, D. ( 2017) Wind

analysis and Design of tall structures,State of the art. Proceedings. 8th International Conference

on Structural Engineering and Construction Management, 2017;

Günel, M.H and Ilgin H.E. (2014). Tall Buildings: Structural Systems and Aerodynamic Form.1st

Edition. Rutledge (Tailor and Francis Group) 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon,

OX14 4RN and 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017;

Hallerband, E. and Jakobsson, W. (2016). Structural Design of High Rise Structures. Master’s

Thesis Faculty of Engineering Division of structural mechanics, Lund University,

Irwin, P.A. (2009). Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of super-tall buildings.

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 97 328-334.Retrieved from

www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2009.05.001;

Ji, X. Liu, D. and Hutt, C.M. (2018). Seismic performance evaluation of a high-rise building with

novel hybrid coupled walls. Journal of Engineering structures

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.011;

Longarini, N. Cabras, L. Zucca, M. Chapain, S. and Aly, A.M. (2017). Structural Improvements

for Tall Buildings under Wind Loads: Comparative Study. Hindawi Shock and Vibration. Vol 27,

ID 2031248, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2031248;

Lu, W. and Lu, X. (2000). Seismic model test of analysis of Multi Tower High Rise Buildings.

Research Institute of Engineering Structures, Tongji University, Shanghai, P. R. China;

Nazari, Y.R and Saatcioglu M. (2017). Seismic vulnerability assessment of concrete shear wall

buildings through fragility analysis. Journal of Building Engineering. 12 202-209.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.06.006;

Patil, D.M and Sangle, K.K. (2016). Seismic Behaviour of Outrigger Braced Systems in High

Rise 2-D Steel Buildings. Institution of Structural Engineers. Retrieved from

www.elsevier.com/locate/structures;

Takabateke, H. A Simplified Analytical Method for High-Rise Buildings. Open access

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51158;

Taranath B.S. (2005). Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings: Structural Analysis and Design

John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. Los Angeles, California.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.