STUDY ON COMBINE APPLICATION OF THEOROTICAL,

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS IN

DESIGN OF HIGH RISE STRUCTURES.

Adriko Norman Burua, ID No. 6217000140

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

Keywords: Wind, Earthquake, Theoretical, Numerical, Experimental tests

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.

Taipei 101, Saw tooth 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

Figure 4.Behavior of structure during earthquake (Turaneth, 2004)

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)

Evaluation of The Wind Load

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)

where qp(Zc) is the size factor according to Equation

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)

Where Kp is the peak factor

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)

Conventional Design Background/ Performance Based Design

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)

The Rod Theory

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.

Figure 15. Structure building(Ji et al,2007)

Figure 16.Structural model IN ZEUS-NL(Ji et al,2007)

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

Where Vb is the design base shear

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.

Figure 20. Tapei 101(a) Burj Khalifa (2) scale 1:500

Shaking Table Test

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)

Figure 21.Calculation model (Lu and Lu, 2000)

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.