MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2016

Buildings with Tubed Mega

Frame Structures
AREZO PARTOVI
JENNY SVÄRD

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
 Global Analysis of Tall Buildings
with Tubed Mega Frame Structures

By

Arezo Partovi and Jenny Svärd

TRITA-BKN, Examensarbete 489, Betongbyggnad 2016

ISSN 1103-4297
ISRN KTH/BKN/EX--489--SE
Master thesis in Concrete Structures
Abstract

Today, tall buildings are generally built with a central core that transfers the loads
down to the ground. The central core takes up a large part of the floor space and
there is less room for the actual purpose of the building, such as offices and
apartments. The consequence of this is also less rental profit. At a certain height
of the building, the central core will not alone manage to keep the building stable.
Therefore it needs to be connected with outriggers to withstand the horizontal
forces.
The Tubed Mega Frame system developed by Tyréns is designed without the
central core and the purpose is to transfer all the loads to the ground via the
perimeter of building, making the structure more stable since the lever arm
between the loads is maximized. The system has not yet been used in reality. This
thesis aimed at testing the efficiency of the Tubed Mega Frame system against
conventional systems for tall buildings. Two different types of the Tubed Mega
Frame system were evaluated; TMF Perimeter frame and TMF Mega columns.
To begin with, a pre-study was carried out with the purpose of comparing wind
deflections and eigenmodes of several conventional systems and Tubed Mega
Frame systems. The buildings were modeled in the finite element software ETABS.
The Core, outrigger and perimeter frame system performed best compared to the
other conventional systems and was therefore chosen as the conventional system
to be tested in the main study.
A comparison of the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame system and eight different
configurations of Tubed Mega Frame systems was carried out for several different
building heights as a main study, based on the tall building 432 Park Avenue, New
York. The deformations due to wind and seismic loading and eigenmodes were
compared. Furthermore, the models were controlled for tension at the base and P-
delta convergence.
Overall the TMF Perimeter frame systems had the smallest deflections as the
building height was increased and could be increased the most without reaching
tension at the base. As the top story height of the buildings was increased, the
Tubed Mega Frame systems outperformed the conventional system. For the TMF
Perimeter frame system it could be seen that belt walls were more efficient than
cross walls, and for the TMF Mega columns the smaller the distance between the
belt or cross wall levels was, the less deflection was achieved. The Core, outrigger
and perimeter frame system could be increased to 859 m in height before collapse
and the Tubed Mega Frame system that performed best – TMF: Perimeter frame
single story belt walls – was increased to 1024 m in height until divergence was
achieved.

i
ii
Sammanfattning

Dagens skyskrapor är i allmänhet byggda med en central kärna som fördelar

lasterna ner till marken. Den centrala kärnan tar upp en stor del av golvytan och
utrymmet för kontor, bostäder och dylikt i byggnaden minskas. Konsekvensen av
detta är också lägre hyresintäkter. Vid en viss byggnadshöjd kan den centrala
kärnan inte ensam hålla byggnaden stabil. Den måste anslutas med kraftiga balkar
till pelare i fasaden, så kallade utriggare, för att kunna motstå de horisontella
krafterna.
Tubed Mega Frame är ett nytt koncept utvecklat av Tyréns som är utformat utan
den centrala kärnan och syftet med systemet är att fördela alla laster ned till
marken via bärverk i periferin av byggnaden, vilket gör strukturen mer stabil
eftersom den inre hävarmen mellan lasterna maximeras. Systemet har ännu inte
använts i verkligheten. Detta examensarbete syftar till att testa effektiviteten av
Tubed Mega Frame jämfört med konventionella system för höghus. Två olika typer
av Tubed-Mega-Frame-systemet utvärderades; TMF Perimeter frame och TMF
Mega Columns.
Till att börja med genomfördes en förstudie i syfte att jämföra utböjningar
orsakade av vindlaster och egenmoder för ett flertal konventionella system och
Tubed Mega Frame system. Byggnaderna modellerades i programmet ETABS,
baserat på finita elementmetoden. Systemet med kärna, utriggare och momentram
i perimetern uppnådde bäst resultat jämfört med de övriga konventionella
systemen och därför valdes detta system till att provas och jämföras med Tubed-
Mega-Frame-systemen i huvudstudien.
En jämförelse av systemet med kärna, utriggare och momentram i perimetern och
åtta olika konfigurationer av Tubed-Mega-Frame-systemet utfördes sedan för
flertalet olika byggnadshöjder som huvudstudie, baserat på skyskrapan 432 Park
Avenue, New York. Deformationerna på grund av vind- och jordbävningslaster och
egenmoder jämfördes. Dessutom kontrollerades om dragspänningar uppnåddes i
upplagen för de olika modellerna och huruvida P-delta-konvergens uppnåddes.
Det kan konstateras att TMF-Perimeter-frame-systemen hade lägst utböjningar
när byggnadshöjden ökades, och höjden kunde ökas mest utan att dragspänningar
uppkom i upplagen. När byggnadernas höjd ökades uppnådde TMF: Perimeter
Frame Single Story Belt Walls bättre resultat än det konventionella systemet. För
TMF-Perimeter-Frame-systemen kunde det ses att de omslutande tvärväggarna
var mer effektiva än de korsande väggarna, och för TMF-Mega-Columns-systemen
gällde att ju mindre det vertikala avståndet mellan de omslutande tvärväggarna
alternativt korsande väggarna var, desto lägre utböjning uppnåddes. Systemet med
kärna, utriggare och momentram i perimetern kunde ökas till 859 m höjd före
kollaps och det Tubed-Mega-Frame-systemet som gav bäst resultat - TMF:
Perimeter Frame Single Story Belt Walls – kunde ökas till 1024 m höjd innan
divergens uppnåddes.

iii
iv
Preface

This master thesis has been written at the division of concrete structures,
department of the Civil and Architectural Engineering, at the Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH). The report concludes five tough but rewarding years as
students at KTH.
We thank Tyréns that made it possible for us to write this work. A special thanks
also to our supervisor at Tyréns, Fritz King, who provided us with great knowledge
about tall buildings and for all the help and guidance. We also thank our
supervisor, Adjunct Professor Mikael Hallgren, for his helpful support and feedback
throughout the process.
Last but not least, we thank our examiner Anders Ansell for his support and all
that he has learned us about concrete during our years at KTH.

v
vi
Notations

Latin capital letters

𝐴 = Cross-section area of the beam

𝐶𝑝 = External pressure coefficient
𝐷 = Diameter of the building
𝐸 = Young’s modulus
𝐹 = Force
𝐹𝑎 = Short period site coefficient

𝐹𝑣 = 1-s period site coefficient

𝐺 = Shear modulus
𝐺𝐶𝑝𝑖 = Internal pressure coefficient
𝐺𝑓 = Gust-effect factor for flexible buildings
𝐼 = Second moment of inertia
𝐿 = Length of the beam
𝑆1 = Mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period
𝑆𝑎 = Design spectral response acceleration
𝑆𝐷1 = Design spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period
𝑆𝐷𝑆 = Design spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
𝑆𝑀1 = MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period adjusted for
site class effects
𝑆𝑀𝑆 = MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods adjusted
for site class effects
𝑆𝑠 = Mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
𝑆𝑡 = Dimensionless parameter called Strouhal number for the shape
𝑇 = Period of the structure
𝑉 = Mean wind speed at the top of the building

vii
Latin lower case letters

𝑐𝑝𝑒 = the pressure coefficient for external pressure

𝑐𝑝𝑖 = the pressure coefficient for internal pressure

[𝑑]= Displacement vector

[𝑓]= Force vector
𝑓𝑣 = Vortex shedding frequency
[𝑘]= Stiffness matrix
𝑘 = Spring constant
p = Design wind pressures for the main wind-force resisting system of flexible
enclosed buildings
𝑞 = 𝑞ℎ for leeward walls, side walls and roofs, evaluated at height h
𝑞 = 𝑞𝑧 for windward walls evaluated at height z above the ground
𝑞𝑖 = 𝑞ℎ for windward walls, side walls, leeward walls and roofs of enclosed
buildings and for negative internal pressure evaluation in partially enclosed
buildings
𝑞𝑝 (𝑧𝑒 ) = the external peak velocity pressure

𝑞𝑝 (𝑧𝑖 ) = the internal peak velocity pressure

𝑢 = Displacement
𝑧𝑒 = the reference height for external pressure
𝑧𝑖 = the reference height for internal pressure

Greek letters

𝛾 = Shear strain
𝜀 = Strain
𝜈 = Poisson’s ratio
𝜎= Stress
𝜏 = Shear stress

viii
Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ i
Sammanfattning ......................................................................................................................... iii
Preface .......................................................................................................................................... v
Notations .....................................................................................................................................vii
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem description .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Aim and scope ............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 3
2 Tall buildings ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Definition of tall building ........................................................................................... 5
2.2 Structural systems in tall buildings .......................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Moment frames without braces ......................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Tubes .................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Core systems ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2.4 Tubed moment frame ......................................................................................... 9
2.2.5 Trussed tube ...................................................................................................... 11
2.2.6 Tube in a tube ................................................................................................... 13
2.2.7 Outrigger system ............................................................................................... 14
2.3 432 Park Avenue ....................................................................................................... 16
2.4 High-strength concrete ............................................................................................. 18
3 Finite Element Method .................................................................................................... 19
3.1 ETABS ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.1.1 Frame elements in ETABS .............................................................................. 20
3.1.2 Shell elements in ETABS ................................................................................. 21
4 Structural mechanics and lateral loads .......................................................................... 23
4.1 P-delta effect .............................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Stiffness theory .......................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Lateral loads .............................................................................................................. 25
4.3.1 Wind load ........................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2 Seismic action .................................................................................................... 28
5 Pre-study of structural systems in ETABS.................................................................... 33

ix
 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 33
5.2 Properties ................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1 Current structural systems .............................................................................. 33
5.2.2 Tubed Mega Frame systems ............................................................................ 38
5.3 Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 41
5.3.1 Deformations and modes .................................................................................. 41
5.3.2 Comparison of mesh sizes ................................................................................. 43
5.3.3 Dead loads .......................................................................................................... 44
5.4 Discussion and conclusions from the pre-study ..................................................... 44
6 Comparison of Tubed Mega Frame systems against conventional structural system
for tall buildings ........................................................................................................................ 47
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 47
6.1.1 Deformations and periods ................................................................................ 47
6.1.2 Forces at the base.............................................................................................. 47
6.1.3 Convergence test ............................................................................................... 48
6.1.4 Model verification ............................................................................................. 48
6.2 Description of models ............................................................................................... 48
6.2.1 Core, outrigger and perimeter frame .............................................................. 49
6.2.2 TMF: Perimeter frame ..................................................................................... 50
6.2.3 TMF: Mega columns ......................................................................................... 55
6.3 Mesh............................................................................................................................ 59
6.4 Assumptions and limitations ................................................................................... 59
6.5 Loads .......................................................................................................................... 59
6.5.1 Wind load ........................................................................................................... 60
6.5.2 Seismic action .................................................................................................... 61
6.6 Results ........................................................................................................................ 61
6.6.1 Deformations and periods ................................................................................ 61
6.6.2 Forces at the base.............................................................................................. 69
6.6.3 Convergence test ............................................................................................... 74
6.6.4 Model verification ............................................................................................. 75
7 Discussion, conclusions and proposed further research ................................................ 77
7.1 Discussion and conclusions ...................................................................................... 77
7.2 Proposed further research ........................................................................................ 79
References .................................................................................................................................. 81
Appendix A – Pre-study........................................................................................................... 85

x
Appendix B - 3D pictures......................................................................................................... 89
Appendix C - Displacements and periods .............................................................................. 99
Appendix D – Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects.. 105
Appendix E – Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects ..................... 111
Appendix F – Forces at the base ........................................................................................... 121
Appendix G – Dead loads and overturning moments ......................................................... 129
Appendix H – Hand calculation of dead loads..................................................................... 131

xi
xii
1 Introduction

1.1 Background

With a vast population growth in many cities in the western world, it has in a lot
of cases also led to an increase in land usage. This phenomenon is known as urban
sprawl. There are several disadvantages that come with this development, for
example social issues like segregation. Above all, it has a negative impact on the
environment in terms of, among other things, air pollution and energy consumption
(Bernhardt, 2007).
An alternative solution to meet the growing population without letting it lead to
drawbacks when it comes to social and environmental sustainability could be to
build tall buildings.
The development of tall buildings began during the 19th century. The structural
system used in the beginning was based on the outer masonry walls which would
carry the building’s weight. It resulted in that the walls at the base needed to be
thicker for each story added in order to bear the overlying stories, which in turn
required large base space. Thus, it was quite impractical and also expensive to build
more than five stories. The lack of a transport system in these buildings also
contributed to that the buildings were not built higher than four or five stories.
With the invention of the elevator and a new structural system, the iron skeleton
frame hidden behind masonry walls, so began the establishment of skyscrapers.
(Haven, 2006)
With tall buildings the cityscape becomes more compact which is more favorable
from a social and environmental perspective (CNN, 2008). In addition, tall
buildings is an effective way to provide residential and commercial space.
Apart from the practical and functional advantages, tall buildings are also often
constructed in hope of becoming a landmark to signify the city to the world.

1.2 Problem description

Today’s conventional way to build tall buildings is to build it with a central core,
usually combined with another structural system. The central core will then act as
the main load carrying structure in these buildings. One problem with this

1
structural system is that a relatively huge amount of each floor area must be
assigned to the central core in order for the structure to withstand the vertical and
horizontal loads the building is being exposed to. The problem arises when the
perimeter of the building must decrease as the height increases in order for the
building to maintain its stability. After a certain height, the required floor space
for the core is larger than the available floor area. Consequently, this type of
structural system with a central core prevents the possibility to transport people
to the top.
Tyréns has developed a new structural system for super tall buildings called the
Tubed Mega Frame (TMF). The main purpose of this system is to transfer all loads
to the perimeter of the building and thereby achieve higher stability since the lever
arm between the load bearing components will be longer than in a core system.
With this structural system there will be no central core.
In this thesis, two different types of the Tubed Mega Frame system will be tested;
TMF Perimeter frame and TMF Mega columns. Figure 1.1 illustrates the plan
views of each system. The TMF Perimeter frame system consists of a tubed
moment frame in the perimeter of the building and in addition to that belt walls
or cross walls on certain heights. The TMF Mega columns system will contain huge
vertical tubes placed at the perimeter of the building connected together by belt
walls or cross walls at certain stories. These tubes will be the main load carrying
elements in this structural system. With the Tubed Mega Frame system, no floor
space has to be assigned for a central core and the building can therefore be made
more slender. This will in turn lead to increased rentable space and function
flexibility at each floor level. Less land-usage will also be needed when building this
kind of tall building. There is also, unlike the conventional core, outrigger and
perimeter frame system, a possibility to develop units at the stories were the belt
walls or cross walls are installed. Hence, these stories do not have to be limited to
use solely for placement of installations.

2
 (a) (b)
Figure 1.1: (a) Plan view of the TMF Mega columns with belt walls. (b) Plan view of the
TMF Perimeter frame with cross walls.

1.3 Aim and scope

The aim of the thesis is to study the efficiency of the Tubed Mega Frame system
compared to other structural systems for tall buildings.
Firstly, a literature study will be carried out containing descriptions of present
structural systems used in tall buildings. The literature study will also include,
inter alia, how to calculate wind loads and seismic actions according to the ASCE
Standard (American code) and some basic finite element method theory.
Secondly, a pre-study of structural systems will be made. The finite element
software ETABS will be used for modelling and analyzing these structural systems.
The different models will be based on present structural systems but also on the
Tubed Mega Frame concept. These models will be checked for periods and
displacements due to wind load and compared to each other.
Thirdly, based on the results from the pre-study, nine types of systems will be
modeled in ETABS. In addition to wind load, seismic loading will also be checked
for. The dimensions and configurations of the models will be inspired by the 426 m
tall concrete building 432 Park Avenue in New York, USA.

1.4 Limitations

Live loads, installation loads and façade loads are neglected. The reason is that the
main issue for this study is only to compare the structural systems against each
other on a basic level, and provided that they are subjected to the same loads the

3
comparison can be made. The load cases are only controlled for in the ultimate
limit state.
The study is limited to structural systems of concrete, but the buildings can of
course be built by another material such as steel. It would be somewhat
problematic to make a valid comparison between structural systems of different
materials in the sense that the members might not be equally stiff or of equal size.
To reduce calculation time, the lateral loads are only applied in one direction, the
x-direction. Vortex shedding effects are excluded. Material non-linearity are not
accounted for in this study. The results are only applicable to the models used in
this study and may thereby not be valid for the general case.

4
2 Tall buildings

2.1 Definition of tall building

There is no clear definition of "tall building". However, to be classified as a "tall

building" it shall provide itself as a "tall building" on the basis of one or more
aspects. For instance, the height of the building in terms of its environment is one
aspect that can be taken into account in the determination of tall buildings.
Another is its proportion. A building that is not particularly high can thus be
classified as a tall building if it has enough slenderness. The final aspect that can
be considered in the determination is whether the technical solutions which are
typical for "tall buildings" have been used. For example, if a special transport
system for vertical movement in the building is installed or the building has braces
to withstand wind loads, it can be seen as a tall building. A supertall building is
defined as a building over 300 m and a megatall building is defined as a building
over 600 m (CTBUH, 2016).

2.2 Structural systems in tall buildings

2.2.1 Moment frames without braces

A moment frame is built by columns and beams which are connected to each other
with rigid joints that thus resist moments. The vertical load is transferred via the
beams to the columns and down to the foundation. Frames with moment resisting
joints behave mainly in a shear mode when subjected to lateral loads. Figure 2.1
depicts the behavior of a moment resisting frame with a horizontal load at the top.

5
Figure 2.1: Moment resisting frame system subjected to lateral load (Merza & Zangana,
2014)

One advantage with the moment frame system is the reduction of the bending
moment due to that the joints are rigid and that thanks to the joints the buckling
length of the columns decreases. This leads to reduced sizes of the columns and
beams, in comparison with a simply supported system. Though, this is only correct
up to a certain height since the system is not economically defensible above that
limit. Merza & Zangana (2014) claim that this system is effective up to circa 25
stories. If the building is higher, cost due to construction issues may increase to a
large extent.
If a moment frame is subjected to an asymmetric vertical load, it can suffer from
side-sway. The consequence of the asymmetric vertical load on the frame is that
one corner of the frame will have a larger moment. Due to that, the base restraint
will be larger at this corner than the opposite corner which leads to an unfulfilled
horizontal equilibrium. For the frame to be in equilibrium it sways a bit to the side,
to make the moments at the corner joints equal. One has to be careful when
defining loads to be aware of the effect of asymmetric loads, even if the case is
simplified to symmetric loads (Merza & Zangana, 2014).
Moment frames can be made of for instance concrete or steel. The steel moment
frame consists of steel columns and steel beams. The concrete moment frame is
built up by cast-in-place columns and beams (American Society of Civil Engineers,
2000).

2.2.2 Tubes

A tube is working as a vertical cantilever beam that is rigid at the foundation. A

tube can consist of for instance a steel moment frame or concrete shear walls.
Considering a concrete square tubular form, there would be four walls connected
to each other similar to the form of a box. The optimal structure of a tube for
achieving the highest lateral stability would consist of walls that are completely
solid, i.e. without openings in form of doors and windows as in Figure 2.2. However,
the lateral stability can be sufficient even though there are openings since it still

6
acts like box and is much better than if the four wall parts were not connected to
each other.

Figure 2.2: Quadratic tubular system (Sandelin & Budajev, 2013)

If the structural elements are placed in the perimeter, the load is transferred down
to the ground at the perimeter as well. This leads to a longer lever arm between
the reaction forces which increases the overturning stability (Sandelin & Budajev,
2013).
When lateral load is acting on a tube made of four connected walls, the box
structure acts as a beam with webs and flanges. The wall that takes the load in the
transverse direction is acting like the flanges by resisting the bending moment due
to overturning, and the walls parallel to the load direction are acting as the webs
and resist the shear forces (Merza & Zangana, 2014).

2.2.3 Core systems

The core system functions as a tube that resists both horizontal and vertical loads.
The core is usually made of concrete shear walls, but can also be made of braced
steel frames. The ultimate design would be to have a completely closed core, but
for practical reasons the core is almost always open in some sense, since people
should be able to use the space inside the core for elevators and other service areas
(Sandelin & Budajev, 2013). Figure 2.3 below shows a structural system made of a
reinforced concrete core with an outer steel frame.

7
Figure 2.3: Reinforced concrete core with steel frame (Inc., 2013)

When placing the shear walls around elevators and service risers, more
consideration needs to be taken for the critical stresses at the ground level since the
elevator system will require a concentration of openings there. The number and
sizes of these openings throughout the height of the building also has a great impact
on the torsional and flexural rigidity and needs to be considered (The Constructor,
2016).
The core is usually combined with another structural system for tall buildings. For
cases when it works as a structural system of its own, the floors are cantilevered off
of the core and produce a column free interior. However, it is a very inefficient kind
of structural system (Sandelin & Budajev, 2013).
One example of a building using this type of structural system is the Turning Torso
built in 2005 in Malmö, Sweden, shown in Figure 2.4. The building is 190 m high
and uses a reinforced concrete core as the main load-bearing structure. It also has
an external steel spine that acts as a strengthening and stiffening to the core
(Lomholt, 2014).

8
Figure 2.4: Turning Torso, Malmö, Sweden (Malmö Stad, 2016)

2.2.4 Tubed moment frame

Moment frames can be used in a tube construction. The perimeter frame consists
of a tubed moment frame at the building perimeter. One problem with the framed
tube is that it suffers from shear lag. Shear lag is when the axial stresses in the
columns are not evenly distributed, and instead the corner columns take much
more load then the inner columns do, which is illustrated in Figure 2.5. The beams
in the frame system are not fully able to distribute the load evenly to all of the
columns (Sandelin & Budajev, 2013).

9
 (a) (b)

Figure 2.5: Axial stress distribution in a tube structure. (a) Without shear lag. (b) With
shear lag (Patil & Kalwane, 2015)

One example of a tall building that was using the perimeter frame system is the old
World Trade Center in New York. The two towers were built in 1968-1973 and
destroyed in terrorist attacks in 2011 (Silverstein Properties, 2016). The towers
were 415 m and 417 m high respectively, and the lateral load bearing system was a
tubed moment frame at the perimeter of the building. The columns were made of
steel (Sadek, 2004). The vertical load was resisted by columns located both at the
perimeter and in the core of the building, and it was distributed about evenly on
these columns. The closely spaced perimeter columns were also assigned to
withstand lateral forces due to wind (Gutierrez, et al., 2005). A picture of the old
World Trade Center can be seen in Figure 2.6.

10
Figure 2.6: The old World Trade Center, New York, USA (Daily Mail, 2013)

2.2.5 Trussed tube

A trussed tube is a system with diagonals extending from side to side at the
perimeter of the building, as shown in Figure 2.7. The diagonals are attached to
each other at the point where they meet in the corners of the building, assuming
the case of a rectangular building. A trussed tube is more efficient than a regular
tubed moment frame since the diagonals have a large effect on the lateral stability
of the building. As the diagonal trusses are attached to the columns in the
perimeter, the shear lag effects decrease significantly. That is due to that the
diagonals assist in distributing the gravitational forces that are transferred to the
columns. The forces are then to a larger extent evened out on the columns. The
diagonals take the load in their axial direction which results in a greater resistance
against the load since the truss members are stronger axially then in bending and
shear. Another advantage is that the number of columns can be reduced and the
spacing between them can be increased, which improves the possibilities of window
location (Merza & Zangana, 2014).

11
Figure 2.7: Trussed tube (Kumar & Kumar, 2016)

One example of an existing building using this type of structural system is the John
Hancock Center, built 1969 in Chicago, USA, shown in Figure 2.8 below. The steel
building is 344 m high and uses X-shaped braces at the perimeter of the building
(Princeton University, 2011).

Figure 2.8: John Hancock Center, Chicago, USA (The man on five, 2016)

12
2.2.6 Tube in a tube

If a core system is combined with a perimeter moment frame, the system can be
called a “tube in a tube”, since the outer tubed frame contains an inner tubed core.
Figure 2.9 below illustrates a “tube in a tube” system. The combination resists
lateral load much better than if only one of the systems were used alone. As the
moment frame is weak in shear, the contribution of a core will assist in reducing
the shear deformations, and in the same manner the frame will help reducing the
bending deformation of the core. The final deflection form of this combination of
systems will appear as an S-shaped deformation. The location of the maximum
bending moment will move from the bottom to somewhere in the middle of the
building (Sandelin & Budajev, 2013).

Figure 2.9: ”Tube in a tube” system (Kumar & Kumar, 2016)

One example of a building using this type of structural system is the Petronas Twin
Towers, built 1998 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, shown in Figure 2.10. The building
is 452 m high and is made of a core and a perimeter frame of high-strength concrete
(Charles, et al., 1997).

13
Figure 2.10: Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Malaysia Truly Asia,
2016)

2.2.7 Outrigger system

Outriggers are rigid horizontal structures that link the core to the columns at the
façade at one or more levels so that these structural elements work as one unit. The
main advantage with this structural system is that it reduces the core’s overturning
moment by inducing a tension-compression couple at the outrigger levels that act
in opposition to the core’s rotation. Figure 2.11 below illustrates a core and
outrigger system.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.11: (a) Core and outrigger system. (b) Moment with and without outrigger
bracing. (Choi, et al., 2012)

14
There are two types of outrigger systems; direct outrigger system and virtual
outrigger system. A direct outrigger system implies a system with a core and
outriggers extending to the columns along the façade of the building. The
outriggers then involve the columns, forming them to a tension-compression couple
that acts in opposition to the core’s rotation and hence it reduces the core’s internal
overturning moment. Contrariwise, the shear forces at the outrigger levels increase
and can even change direction.
A virtual outrigger system implies a system with floor diaphragms and belt trusses
that connects the columns together through a belt that encircle around the
building. The forces then initiated by the tilting of the core makes the floor
diaphragms move in altered directions at different levels. Since the belt trusses are
attached to both the floors and the columns, it transfers the movements initiated
by the floors to the columns. This results in a tension-compression couple in the
columns that through the belt trusses push back the floor diaphragms and thus
stabilizes the core (Sandelin & Budajev, 2013).
One example of a building using this type of structural system is the Lotte World
Tower in Seoul seen in Figure 2.12. The building is 555 m high and is built with a
reinforced concrete core and outrigger belt steel truss. It is now under construction
and will be completed in 2016 (Chung & Sunu, 2015) (Council on Tall Buildings
and Urban Habitat, 2016).

Figure 2.12: Lotte World Tower, Seoul, South Korea (Council of Tall Buildings and
Urban Habitat, 2014)

15
2.3 432 Park Avenue

432 Park Avenue, shown in Figure 2.14, is a super tall and super slim residential
building in Manhattan, New York City. It is designed by the architect Rafael
Viñoly and developed by CIM Group. The construction of the building began in
2011 and was finished at 2015. It is the third tallest building in the United States.
It is also the tallest residential building in the world (The Skyscraper Center, 2016).
The building is 426 m tall and is 28.5 m wide, giving it a slenderness of 1:15 (Durst,
et al., 2015). The structural system is made of a core, outriggers and a perimeter
frame of reinforced concrete. The core is placed in the center of the building and is
9 m long at each side and 76.2 cm thick. The core is housing the elevator shafts,
the stairs and all the mechanical services (Alberts, 2014). A plan view of the
building is shown in Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13: Plan view of the 432 Park Avenue (Willis, 2015)

The columns in the perimeter frame are 112 cm wide and range in the depth from
163 cm at the bottom to 51 cm at the top of the building. The beams are also 112
cm wide, creating together with the columns the basket grid frame (Seward, 2014).

16
The perimeter frame and core are connected to each other by outriggers five times
throughout the height of the building. The outrigger levels are two story high
(Marcus, 2015).
The building has 88 stories with a floor to floor height of approximately 4.72 m and
with a floor thickness of approximately 254 mm. The thickness at the upper floors
are however approximately 457 mm in order to add more mass to the building and
damp the acceleration from wind loads. To ease the effects of wind vortex acting
on the building, the basket grid modules are left empty at the outrigger levels in
order to let the wind simply pass through. At the top of the building, a double
tuned mass damper is installed in order to control the acceleration of the building
(Seward, 2014).
A simplified model of the 432 Park Avenue will be made and used in the main study
for comparison with different Tubed Mega Frame models.

Figure 2.14: 432 Park Avenue, New York, USA (Cityrealty, 2016)

17
2.4 High-strength concrete

The use of high-strength concrete has been important when constructing tall
buildings. If the columns of a tall building were to be built using normal concrete
with a lower compressive strength, the dimensions of the columns would need to
be very large resulting in less usable floor space. Even if high-strength concrete is
more expensive than normal concrete, money can also be saved due to the fact that
it is cheaper than using more reinforcement.
The term “high-strength concrete” applies to concrete with a compressive strength
higher than conventional concrete strengths at a certain limit. The limit strength
is somewhat arbitrary and has developed over the years. In the 1970’s the limit
strength for when concrete should be called high-strength concrete was 40 MPa,
which was the 28-days strength. Then high-strength concrete named concrete
strengths as high as 60-100 MPa, which became common to use in for instance
bridges with large spans and tall buildings (Monteiro, 2002).
While normal concrete has a water-cement ratio between 0.40 and 0.60, high-
strength concrete needs to have a lower water-cement ratio to achieve greater
strength. It can be about 0.25 but also lower than that. Other necessary admixtures
may be superplasticizers, water-reducing additives, silica fume and fly ash (Nilson,
et al., 2003).
Along with the compressive strength a sufficiently high elastic modulus is also
essential for the concrete in tall buildings. The concrete becomes stiffer when the
elastic modulus is higher. The components that affects the elastic modulus is
particularly the elasticity of the cement paste and the aggregates (Dahlin &
Yngvesson, 2014).
It is important to consider the configuration of the cement and that it works well
with the additives brought into the mixture. The size and sort of aggregate in the
concrete mixture has a large effect on the concrete strength and also the volume
stability. Since the water-cement ratio is lower in high-strength concrete, the
mixture becomes denser and could cause casting to be a problem when the concrete
is in its fresh state, if not carefully proportioned. When mixing concrete, one uses
different levels of fineness in the aggregate and it could be a good idea to use larger
fine aggregates – the smallest parts – due to several reasons. Firstly, the mixture
contains small parts in form of cement and fly ash which makes it superfluous to
add super fine aggregate for the improvement of workability. Secondly, there will
be higher shear stresses due to larger fine aggregates which assist in preventing that
the cement paste flocculates, i.e. forms into clumps. Thirdly, the amount of water
needed can be reduced when the fine aggregate is coarser. Furthermore, the size of
the coarse aggregate should be smaller if a higher strength is desired (Monteiro,
2002).

18
3 Finite Element Method

Finite element method is a way of numerically solving field problems which are
described by differential equations. There are many different areas where this
method can be useful besides structural systems; heat transfer and magnetic fields
among others. When using this method the structure is divided into small elements
which are assigned chosen geometry and material properties. The division of a
model into elements is called discretization. These elements are, as the name of the
method implies, not infinitesimal but finitely small. The elements are connected to
each other at nodes. The nodes are assigned boundary values and restraints. It is
at these nodes the analysis yields the results, and the values are then interpolated
between the nodes to get results there as well. The network of elements attached
to each other is called mesh. (Cook, et al., 2002)
Equation (3-1) describes the mathematical expression that the finite element
method bases the calculation of the displacements at the nodes on.
[𝑑] = [𝑘]−1 [𝑓] (3-1)

[𝑑]= Displacement vector

[𝑘]= Stiffness matrix
[𝑓]= Force vector
The procedure starts with the built-up of the local stiffness matrix for each element
which then are assembled to the global stiffness matrix [𝑘]. The force vector [𝑓] is
determined and the system is then reduced due to boundary conditions. The
displacements [𝑑] can then be solved, and the stresses and reaction forces can be
calculated (Andersson, 2015).
The results of the analysis are only approximate since the elements are finitely
small. It is important to choose the right element type and size for the analysis to
be able to get a result with the desired accuracy. To achieve a more accurate result
and thus get as near the real solution as possible, more elements can be used. One
of the advantages with the finite element method is that every structure is possible
to build regardless of the complexity of the geometry.
One has to be careful when performing a finite element analysis since there are
different kinds of errors that can be introduced that can affect the accuracy of the
results. First of all, modelling error can arise if the model is wrongly computed or
too many or too incorrect simplifications are made. Another problem can be

19
discretization error which can occur if the elements are too large and can yield in a
less accurate result since the distance between the nodes becomes greater. This can
be improved by dividing the structure into more elements. Furthermore, numerical
error is introduced when the computer makes calculations with finite number of
decimals. These are just a few possible errors that can occur, there are others
besides from these that one has to be aware of (Cook, et al., 2002).
3.1 ETABS

ETABS is software developed by Computers and Structures, Inc. that is based on

the finite element method. ETABS is specially designed for buildings and is suitable
for tall buildings thanks to the predefined wind loads and seismic loadings
according to several different building codes; Eurocode and American code ASCE
among others (Tönseth & Welchermill, 2014).

3.1.1 Frame elements in ETABS

Frame elements are used when modeling for instance columns, beams and trusses.
The element is described as a combined beam and bar element with twelve degrees
of freedom in three dimensions, illustrated in Figure 3.1. The frame element can be
subjected to axial stress, shear stress and bending. The shape of the element is a
straight line with nodes at the ends. The elements have individual local coordinate
systems. The interpolation from the nodes of the element can be linear, quadratic
or cubic (Computers and Structures, Inc., 2013).

Figure 3.1: Frame element (Princeton, 2016)

20
3.1.2 Shell elements in ETABS

A shell element is similar to a plate but with curved surfaces. The thickness of the
shell is small in comparison to the length and width of the shell (Cook, et al., 2002).
The shell element uses a combination of plate-bending and membrane behavior. It
can be three-noded or four-noded. Floors, walls and decks are examples of
structures that are modeled with shell elements. The stresses of a shell element are
evaluated using four integration points (Gauss points). Similar to the frame
elements, the shell elements also have individual local coordinate systems. Figure
3.2 below shows a quadrilateral shell element.

Figure 3.2: Four-node shell element (Computers and Structures, Inc., 2013)

One can decide to use Kirchhoff or Mindlin elements as shell elements. The
Kirchhoff elements are thin-plate elements where the shear stresses are ignored.
The other choice is Mindlin which are thick-plate elements that take account for
the shear stresses (Computers and Structures, Inc., 2013). According to Figure 3.3,
the straight normal to the mid-surface remains straight in both cases. In the
Kirchhoff element the normal remains normal to the mid-surface but in the Mindlin
element the normal has an angle to the mid-surface which cause shear stresses
(Pacoste, 2015).

21
Figure 3.3: Basic assumptions for Mindlin and Kirchhoff theory, respectively (Pacoste,
2015)

The stresses in Kirchhoff elements can be evaluated according to Equation (3-2).

In a Mindlin element there will in addition also be shear stresses calculated as in
Equation (3-3).

 x   1  0    
 x
  E   1 0   
 y     y 
2  1  (3-2)
  1
 0 0 
2   xy

 xy

  zx  G 0    zx

  yz   
   0 G   yz (3-3)

22
4 Structural mechanics and lateral loads

4.1 P-delta effect

P-delta effect is a nonlinear effect for when the geometry of a structure changes due
to loading. These second order effects occur when a member is exposed to both
axial load and lateral load. The axial force can be either a compressive force or a
tensile force, causing the member to either be more flexible respectively be more
stiffened concerning bending or shear in the transverse direction (Computers and
Structures, Inc., 2013).
As lateral forces cause side-way deflection, the axial forces will act eccentrically.
The foundation of e.g. a tall building will then be affected by an additional moment
which in turn increases the deflection. These effects becomes very important when
designing tall buildings since the deflections will be larger the higher the building
is.
There are two different kinds of P-delta effects considered in ETABS; the P-δ effect
accounts for local deflections between the ends of a structural member while the
P-Δ effect handles the deflection in member ends (CSI Knowledge Base, 2013).
Figure 4.1 shows the P-delta effect for a column subjected to axial and transverse
loads.

Figure 4.1: P-delta effect for the bending moment of a column subjected to axial and
transverse loading (CSI Knowledge Base, 2013)

23
4.2 Stiffness theory

The stiffness of a beam can be determined by the elementary cases for end-forces
caused by end-displacements. A number of them are shown below in Figure 4.2.

𝐸𝐴
𝐹1 = −𝐹2 = (4-1)
𝐿

6𝐸𝐼
𝐹1 = 𝐹2 = (4-2)
𝐿2

12𝐸𝐼
𝐹3 = −𝐹4 = (4-3)
𝐿3

4𝐸𝐼
𝐹1 = (4-4)
𝐿

2𝐸𝐼
𝐹1 = 𝐿
(4-4)
6𝐸𝐼
𝐹3 = −𝐹4 = (4-5)
𝐿2

Figure 4.2: Elementary cases for end-forces

caused by end-displacements (Leander, 2014)

Based on the formulas above, it appears that the beam length is the parameter that
gives the greatest effect on the beam stiffness since the beam length’s exponent is
greater than one, except for the first elementary case. The shorter the beam is, the
greater the beam’s stiffness becomes. From the equation below, it is understood
that the stiffer a beam is, the less the beam’s deflection becomes due to external
load (Leander, 2014).
𝐹 = 𝑘×𝑢 (4-6)

In the elementary cases above, u is applied as one unit length, and therefore F
equals k in the end-forces formulas in the figure above.

24
4.3 Lateral loads

4.3.1 Wind load

Wind arises from pressure differences in the atmosphere. The air moves from areas
with high pressure towards areas with low pressure. The greater the difference
there is in air pressure, the stronger the wind becomes (SMHI, 2016).
Wind load is a vital part when designing a tall building since the effect of it will
become significantly greater with an increase in height of the building. The wind
rarely blows with the same speed all the time. Instead it changes in an
intermittently, irregular way in both its intensity and direction. This sudden
variation in wind intensity is called gustiness and is important to consider in
dynamic design of tall buildings (SMHI, 2015).
The wind speed is affected by season, terrain and surface roughness and so on,
which in turn results in a wide-ranging wind speed through changing time of the
year and locations. To be able to consider the effects of wind in the design, a mean
speed velocity is used. The mean speed velocity is in turn based on a mass of
observations.
Whether the wind gust is seen as a dynamic or static effect depends on how quickly
the wind gust reaches its maximum value and disappears relatively to the
structures period. If it reaches its maximum value and disappears in a time shorter
than the structures period it will cause a dynamic effect. Contrariwise, if the wind
gust switches between maximum value and disappearing in a time much longer
than the structures period, it is considered as a static effect.
When it comes to dynamic design of the structures, it is important to consider the
gust wind load above the steady mean wind flow. This is because the gusty wind
usually exceeds the mean velocity and has a greater impact on the structures due
to their rapid changes.
In design within the civil engineering field, the wind flow can be considered as two-
dimensional since the wind effects along the vertical axis often can be neglected.
The wind flow can thus be seen as operating at the along wind direction and across
wind direction as shown in Figure 4.3.

25
Figure 4.3: Simplified wind flow (Zhang, 2014)

Two major phenomena occurs when the wind is acting on the surface of a building
and that needs to be considered. The first one is the fluctuation on the along-wind
side and the second one is vortex shedding on the across-wind side.
Resonance may occur on the along-wind side when the gust period is the same as
or close to the structure’s natural period, resulting in much higher damage on the
structure in proportion to the magnitude of the wind load (Zhang, 2014).
As mentioned, there are also wind effects acting on the structure at the across-wind
direction. These effects are especially common for tall and slender buildings. The
cause for these effects comes from that wind at high speed stops spreading to both
sides of the body simultaneously and instead it spreads first to one side of the body
and then to the other, creating eddies and vertices as forces in the winds transverse
direction. The phenomenon for when wind creates oscillations in both the along-
wind and across-wind direction is called vortex shedding (Sandelin & Budajev,
2013). If the frequency of the vortex shedding is the same as or close to the
structures natural frequency, it will cause resonance.
The frequency due to vortex shedding can be determined by using the following
formula:
𝑉×𝑆𝑡
𝑓𝑣 = 𝐷
(4-8)

Where,
𝑓𝑣 is the vortex shedding frequency [Hz]
𝑉 is the mean wind speed at the top of the building [m/s]

26
𝑆𝑡 is the dimensionless parameter called Strouhal number for the shape
𝐷 is the diameter of the building [m]

For tall buildings, the across-wind effects are usually more critical than the along-
wind effects. To determine if the vortex-shedding effects are at a critical level for
a certain structure, a wind tunnel test is usually required (Zhang, 2014).
Below is a figure showing the vortex shedding phenomenon.

Figure 4.4: Vortex Shedding (Sandelin & Budajev, 2013)

Wind speed variation with distance above the ground

The roughness of the ground has a great impact on the wind speed. The smaller
distance to the ground the more obstacles there is, causing friction and drag on the
wind flow, thus the wind speed becomes lower closer to the surface. The frictional
drag will however decrease as the height increases, leading to a higher wind speed
at increasing distance from ground level. At a certain distance above ground, the
wind speed will predominantly depend on the current local and seasonal wind
effects at the same time as the frictional drag effects are considered to be negligible.
The height where the frictional drag effects are considered to be negligible on the
wind speed is called gradient height. The corresponding velocity at that height is
called gradient velocity (Zhang, 2014).

Wind load provisions according to ASCE

According to the ASCE 7-10 code, the design wind pressure for the main wind-
force resisting system of flexible enclosed buildings shall be calculated with the
following formula:
𝑝 = 𝑞𝐺𝑓 𝐶𝑝 − 𝑞𝑖 (𝐺𝐶𝑝𝑖 ) (𝑁/𝑚2 ) (4-9)

Where,

27
𝑞 = 𝑞𝑧 for windward walls evaluated at height z above the ground.
𝑞 = 𝑞ℎ for leeward walls, side walls and roofs, evaluated at height h.
𝑞𝑖 = 𝑞ℎ for windward walls, side walls, leeward walls and roofs of enclosed buildings and
for negative internal pressure evaluation in partially enclosed buildings.
𝐺𝑓 = gust-effect factor for flexible buildings.

𝐶𝑝 = external pressure coefficient.

𝐺𝐶𝑝𝑖 = internal pressure coefficient.

Wind load provisions according to Eurocode

According to the Eurocode En 1991-1-4:2005, the net pressure acting on the

surfaces is obtained from Equation (4-10).
𝑤 = 𝑤𝑒 − 𝑤𝑖 = 𝑞𝑝 (𝑧𝑒 ) ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝑒 − 𝑞𝑝 (𝑧𝑖 ) ∗ 𝑐𝑝𝑖 (𝑁/𝑚2 ) (4-10)

Where,
𝑞𝑝 (𝑧𝑒 ) is the external peak velocity pressure

𝑞𝑝 (𝑧𝑖 ) is the internal peak velocity pressure

𝑧𝑒 is the reference height for external pressure

𝑧𝑖 is the reference height for internal pressure
𝑐𝑝𝑒 is the pressure coefficient for external pressure

𝑐𝑝𝑖 is the pressure coefficient for internal pressure

4.3.2 Seismic action

The crust of the Earth is divided into several plates which are floating on magma
in the mantle part of the Earth. When these plates are interacting with each other
in form of collision, sliding or subduction, stresses arise. As the stresses are released,
earthquakes are initiated. The effect of an earthquake can be measured through
different entities such as acceleration, velocity, displacement, duration and
magnitude (Lorant, 2012).
As an earthquake takes place, the ground moves back and forth causing the bottom
of a building to move with it. The top of the building will however not react at the
same time. Instead there will be a short delay of the movement of the top due to
inertial stiffness of the building (Zhang, 2014).

28
When an earthquake is taking place inertial forces are induced in buildings. The
magnitude of these inertial forces are given by the mass of the building times the
acceleration. This implies that with increasing mass the inertial forces increase as
well. Therefore by building lightweight constructions at least one factor for the risk
of damage can be reduced (Lorant, 2012).
When designing a building considering seismic action in the American code ASCE
7-10, design response spectrum for acceleration is used, shown in Figure 4.5. It
consists of four different parts described by the four different functions below.
𝑇
𝑆𝑎 = 𝑆𝐷𝑆 (0.4 + 0.6 𝑇 ) 0 < 𝑇 < 𝑇0 (4-11)
0

𝑆𝑎 = 𝑆𝐷𝑆 𝑇0 < 𝑇 < 𝑇𝑠 (4-12)

𝑆𝐷1
𝑆𝑎 = 𝑇
𝑇𝑠 < 𝑇 < 𝑇𝐿 (4-13)

𝑆𝐷1∙𝑇𝐿
𝑆𝑎 = 𝑇2
𝑇𝐿 < 𝑇 (4-14)

Where
2 2
𝑆𝐷𝑆 = 𝑆
3 𝑀𝑆
= 3 𝐹𝑎 𝑆𝑠 (4-15)

2 2
𝑆𝐷1 = 𝑆
3 𝑀1
= 3 𝐹𝑣 𝑆1 (4-16)

𝑇 = Period of the structure [s]

𝑆𝑎 = Design spectral response acceleration
𝑆𝑠 = Mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
𝑆1 = Mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period
𝑆𝐷𝑆 = Design spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods
𝑆𝐷1 = Design spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period
𝑆𝑀𝑆 = MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods adjusted for site
class effects
𝑆𝑀1 = MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period adjusted for site class
effects
𝐹𝑎 = Short period site coefficient
𝐹𝑣 = 1-s period site coefficient

There are different site classes according to the American code ASCE 7-10 - A, B,
C, D, E and F – which are determined depending on the properties of the soil on
the building site. Values for Fa and Fv are found in Table 4-1 respectively Table
4-2. The parameters Ss and S1 can be taken from chapter 22 in ASCE 7-10 where
the Seismic Ground Motion Long-Period Transition And Risk Coefficient Maps are
shown.

29
Figure 4.5: Design Response Spectrum (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013)

30
Table 4-1: Site coefficient, Fa (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013)

Table 4-2: Site coefficient, Fv (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013)

31
32
5 Pre-study of structural systems in ETABS

5.1 Introduction

To gain knowledge about the behavior of structural systems used in tall buildings,
a pre-study is performed. Ten models of different structural systems for tall
buildings are modeled in ETABS and compared to each other. There will be six
models built with structural systems that are used in buildings built today.
Furthermore there will also be four models based on the Tubed Mega Frame
system. The lateral displacements on the top story due to design wind load in the
ultimate limit state according to the Eurocode and also the periods of the first three
modes are evaluated; movement in the two diagonal directions and torsional
movement.
5.2 Properties

The buildings are quadratic with the dimensions 51x51 m2 and are 271.5 m high.
There are 60 stories and the height of each story is 4.5 m, except for the base
story which is 6 m high. In all the different structural systems the floor is
modelled by a 250 mm thick concrete slab with the concrete strength class
C30/37. The concrete walls are 400 mm thick, and concrete strength class of the
walls is C40/50, the concrete strength class of the concrete columns is C45/55
and the steel strength is S355 in all structural steel members.

5.2.1 Current structural systems

Core

This system consists of a quadratic core built by concrete walls. At the perimeter
there are VKR400×400×16 steel columns. The core is the only thing resisting the
wind loads since the steel columns are pinned and their only purpose is to support
the dead load from the floors. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure 5.1.

33
Figure 5.1: 3D view of the Core

Perimeter frame

In this system the perimeter frame is the system resisting the wind load. The core
is removed and replaced by pinned VKR400×400×16 steel columns to resist the
dead load. At the perimeter of the building there is a moment frame consisting of
continuous concrete columns with the size 1200×800 mm2 except at the corners
where there are 1000×1000 mm2 concrete columns. The concrete beams connecting
to the columns are 400×1200 mm2. All the concrete members are solid. A 3D picture
of the model can be seen in Figure 5.2.

34
Figure 5.2: 3D view of the Perimeter frame

Core and perimeter frame

This system is often called a tube in a tube and consists of both a concrete core and
a concrete perimeter frame with the same properties as described in the two
previous models. This means that both these parts assist in resisting the wind load.
A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3: 3D view of the Core and perimeter frame

35
Core and outriggers

In this model the concrete core is placed similar to the Concrete core model, but it
is now also connected via outrigger walls to concrete outrigger columns with the
dimensions 800×2000 mm. The outrigger walls are 9 m high walls with the upper
side located at story 20, 40 and 60. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure
5.4.

Figure 5.4: 3D view of the Core and outriggers

Core, outriggers and perimeter frame

This system is a combination of three systems and consists of a concrete core, a

concrete perimeter frame and concrete outriggers with the same properties as in
the Core model, the Perimeter frame model and the Core and outriggers model,
respectively. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure 5.5.

36
Figure 5.5: 3D view of the Core, outriggers and perimeter frame

Core and diagonal braces

The system has a concrete core as in the Core model, but also has pinned concrete
diagonal braces at the perimeter that start from the bottom and changes direction
at story 20 and 40, i. e. extends 20 stories in height, and ends at the top story. The
braces have the dimensions 1200×800 mm2. A 3D picture of the model can be seen
in Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.6: 3D view of the Core and diagonal braces

37
5.2.2 Tubed Mega Frame systems

In the Tubed Mega Frame systems the core is removed and there are instead
pinned VKR400×400×16 steel columns placed where the core walls would have
been placed.
TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three levels

The system consists of a perimeter frame with the same properties as in the
Perimeter Frame model. In addition to that there are belt walls encircling the
building on three levels; 20, 40 and 60 m. The upper side of the walls starts at the
mentioned story. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure 5.7.

Figure 5.7: 3D view of the TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three levels

TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on three levels

This system is basically the same as the previous model with one exception and
that is a change in the location of the walls. The walls are now crossing from one
perimeter side to the opposite of the building, but still on the same story heights
as before, namely 20, 40 and 60 stories. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in
Figure 5.8.

38
Figure 5.8: 3D view of the TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on three levels

TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three levels

Eight large hollow concrete columns are placed at the perimeter of the building.
The columns are made by concrete walls. At three heights - story 20, 40 and 60 –
there are belt walls connecting the hollow concrete columns to each other. The belt
walls are 9 m high, i.e. two stories. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure
5.9.

39
Figure 5.9: 3D view of the TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three levels

TMF: Mega columns with cross walls on three levels

This model is the based on the previous model with three belt wall levels but
instead of belt walls it uses cross walls from one mega column to another one on
the opposite side. A 3D picture of the model can be seen in Figure 5.10.

Figure 5.10: 3D view of the TMF: Mega columns with cross walls on three levels

40
5.3 Analysis

The models will be run both with and without P-delta effects to see if and how
much the difference is for the different cases.
A study of the element size contribution to the results will be made on the Core,
outrigger and perimeter frame model. This is the model with the largest amount of
walls, which is why it is chosen for this test. The meshing of the walls will be varied
and compared to each other for being able to see how small elements that are
needed for the accuracy to be sufficient.
In the pre-study, there is no other load than dead load and wind load acting on the
structure. Furthermore, cracking of concrete is not considered.

5.3.1 Deformations and modes

As can be seen in
Table 5-1 below where the P-delta effects are excluded, the largest horizontal
displacement at the top story was achieved in the TMF: Mega columns with cross
walls on three levels and was 1291.90 mm. The lowest displacement was achieved
in the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model and was 159.30 mm. If comparing
only the conventional structural systems, i. e. excluding the Tubed Mega Frame
models, it was the Perimeter frame model that had the largest displacement which
was 611.60 mm. The deformed elevation views of the models can be found in
Appendix A.

Table 5-1: Results without P-delta effects. Mode 1 and 2 are the periods in the diagonal
directions and Mode 3 is the torsional movement.

System Displacement Mode Mode Mode

top story 1 [s] 2 [s] 3 [s]
[mm]
Core 502.20 7.07 7.07 1.57
Perimeter frame 611.60 8.67 8.67 5.17
Core and perimeter frame 247.50 5.77 5.77 1.86
Core and outriggers 244.40 5.26 5.26 1.70
Core, outriggers and perimeter frame 159.30 4.73 4.73 1.90
Core and diagonal braces 400.50 6.53 6.31 1.49

TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three 526.5 8.34 8.34 5.12
levels
TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on three 549.80 8.49 8.49 5.05
levels
TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three levels 1265.6 12.56 12.56 8.43
TMF: Mega columns with cross walls on three levels 1291.90 12.79 12.79 8.88

41
When including the P-delta effects the displacements and periods were larger than
when P-delta was excluded as the values indicates in Table 5-2 below.

Table 5-2: Results with P-delta effects. Mode 1 and 2 are the periods in the diagonal
directions and Mode 3 is the torsional movement.

System Displacement Mode Mode Mode

top story 1 [s] 2 [s] 3 [s]
[mm]
Core 543.80 7.35 7.35 1.58
Perimeter frame 682.50 9.17 9.17 5.31
Core and perimeter frame 260.20 5.91 5.91 1.88
Core and outriggers 255.00 5.38 5.38 1.71
Core, outriggers and perimeter frame 164.70 4.81 4.81 1.92
Core and diagonal braces 427.70 6.74 6.52 1.50

TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three 586.20 8.82 8.82 5.29
levels
TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on three 614.40 9.00 9.00 5.21
levels
TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three levels 1775.40 15.05 15.05 10.65
TMF: Mega columns with cross walls on three levels 1836.30 15.42 15.42 11.84

Figure 5.11 shows an example of the three first eigenmodes for the Core model.

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Figure 5.11: Elevation views of the first three eigenmodes

42
Table 5-3 shows the displacements and the percentage difference between the
analyses with the P-delta effect excluded respectively included. In the comparison
it can be seen that P-delta effects had the greatest effect on the TMF: Mega
columns with cross walls on three levels and the difference was as high as 42 %.

Table 5-3: Percentage difference between when P-delta effects are excluded and included

System Displacement top story [mm]

Without P- With P- %
delta delta
Core 502.20 543.80 8.28
Perimeter frame 611.60 682.50 11.59
Core and perimeter frame 247.50 260.20 5.13
Core and outriggers 244.40 255.00 4.34
Core, outriggers and perimeter frame 159.30 164.70 3.39
Core and diagonal braces 400.50 427.70 6.79

TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three 526.5 586.20

levels 11.34
TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on three 549.80 614.40
levels 11.75
TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three levels 1265.6 1775.40 40.28
TMF: Mega columns with cross walls on three levels 1291.90 1836.30 42.14

5.3.2 Comparison of mesh sizes

Table 5-4 shows the difference in the results depending on which element size that
was used for the analysis. “No mesh” means that the structure is not divided into
an element mesh. The difference is rather small between the different element sizes,
and it can be seen that when using smaller elements the displacements and periods
are marginally increased.
Table 5-4: Comparison of different mesh sizes on the Core and outrigger model without P-
delta

Element size [m] Displacement Mode 1 [s] Mode 2 [s] Mode 3 [s]
top story [mm]
Core 1×4, Outrigger 1×2 244.40 5.26 5.26 1.70
2×2 247.40 5.30 5.30 1.71
1×1 247.70 5.30 5.30 1.71
0.5×0.5 247.90 5.30 5.30 1.71
No mesh 239.30 5.21 5.21 1.76

43
5.3.3 Dead loads

Table 5-5 shows the total dead loads of the different systems.

Table 5-5: Total dead loads of the different models

System Fz [kN]
Core 973928
Perimeter frame 1012805
Core and perimeter frame 1264612
Core and outriggers 1078211
Core, perimeter frame and outriggers 1298548
Core and diagonal braces 1002122

TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three levels 1065820

TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on three levels 1064108
TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three levels 987544
TMF: Mega columns with cross walls on three levels 999206

5.4 Discussion and conclusions from the pre-study

As Table 5-4 indicates, the size of the elements did not have any major influence
on the result and thus does not need to be further concerned in this pre-study or
the main study. From Table 5-3 it can be stated that the P-delta effect is important
to consider in the analysis since the displacements become significantly higher
when the P-delta effect is included.
From the tables above, considering the conventional systems, one can clearly see
that the more main load bearing systems that are combined into one structural
system, the more stable the system becomes.
The dead load differs some between the models, as can be seen in
Table 5-5, which indicates the difference in amount of concrete between them.
Although the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model clearly outperforms the
other models concerning the wind displacement and modes, it is important to keep
in mind that this model also is the heaviest model. Thus it is the model with the
highest amount of concrete, which increases the stability of the model. It is however
not a completely fair comparison between the different structural systems since
they do not only differ in the structural system design but also in amount of
concrete which affects the stabilization of the structure. The amount of concrete
will be considered in the main study so that the comparison will be a pure structural
comparison.
In this test, the models with outrigger levels or equivalent have these horizontal
members only on three levels and are placed at the same stories for all of them.
This may however not be the optimal stories to place the outriggers or equivalent.

44
For a fair comparison the location of them should be tailored to what is optimal for
each individual model.
The results for wind displacement may not be correct since the wind load is
designed according to Eurocode and the Eurocode is not appropriate to use for
buildings higher than 200 m and the buildings in these models are 271.5 m high.
However, this should not affect how the models relate to each other in terms of
wind displacement.
As can be seen in the elevation view in Figure A.1 and Figure A.2 in Appendix A,
the Core model and the Perimeter frame model bends in different ways. The core
model bends like a cantilever beam while the Perimeter frame bends back at the
top due to sliding in shear. When the two systems are combined the sideway
deformation is S-shaped as a result of both bending of the core and shear of the
perimeter frame.

45
46
6 Comparison of Tubed Mega Frame systems against
conventional structural system for tall buildings

6.1 Introduction

The main study will contain an evaluation of nine different types of models of tall
buildings made in the finite element software ETABS. Each type will also be built
in several different heights. As the pre-study in Chapter 5 implied, the Core,
outrigger and perimeter frame model had the lowest deformations due to wind load
compared to the other conventional systems, and is therefore the structural system
that will be compared against Tubed Mega Frame systems in this study. The
buildings will be based on the quadratic 432 Park Avenue building in New York,
USA, described in Section 2.3, which has a system consisting of a core, outriggers
and a perimeter frame. One of the model types will be a simplified version of the
432 Park Avenue building according to its original structural system, while the
other eight model types will be based on Tubed Mega Frame systems.

6.1.1 Deformations and periods

The models will be compared against each other to see how well they can resist the
lateral loads, in this case wind load and seismic load. A comparison of the
deformation in the ultimate limit state at the top story due to design wind load
and design seismic action, individually, will be made. The periods of the three first
eigenmodes will also be noted, which are movement in the two diagonal directions
and torsional movement. All of the nine structural systems will be built with four
different heights; 264 m, 396 m, 529 m and 661 m, since they are increased with
two outrigger levels or equivalent, i. e. 28 stories. The deformations and periods of
the systems that has not reached tension according to Section 6.1.2 below will also
be registered.

6.1.2 Forces at the base

Tension at the base will be checked for, when the building is subjected to load
combinations of dead load and wind load added together, and also dead load and
seismic load. For every model, the reaction forces of the columns on the side of the

47
perimeter that the wind and seismic loads hit will be added together, i. e. one out
of four sides since the buildings will be quadratic. The models that have not reached
tension at the base when the building is 661 m high will be increased with outrigger
levels or equivalent – 28 stories or 132 m – iteratively until tension is attained at
the base.

6.1.3 Convergence test

The Tubed Mega Frame model that performed best considering reaching tension
with a top story height as high as possible will be increased in height until the P-
delta diverges and the structure collapses. For comparison, the Core, outrigger and
perimeter frame model will also be increased in height until divergence is obtained.
The models will be increased in height in such a way that the outrigger level or
equivalent for the Tubed Mega Frame model always will be located at the top story.
Whether a model has converged or not can be checked for in the analysis log in
ETABS. Even if the program states convergence it has to be further controlled for
numerical calculation failure, for instance if the lateral deformation is larger than
the building height.

6.1.4 Model verification

To be able to verify the results, model verifications will be made. The values of the
dead loads and overturning moments due to wind and seismic loading according to
the results in ETABS of the various models will be compared. If the values are close
enough to each other, it shows that the loads and structural elements probably are
applied equivalent on all models.
A hand calculation will be carried out on one of the model types, namely the TMF:
Perimeter frame two story cross walls. The weight of the dead loads for all the
different heights will be calculated and compared to the dead loads generated in
ETABS.

6.2 Description of models

There will be one model with the original structural system inspired by the 432
Park Avenue and two types of the Tubed Mega Frame system with four subtypes
respectively, thus a total of nine types of building models, and each type will be
built with a number of different heights. All of the models will have the same cross-
sectional area of concrete for obtaining validity in the comparison, i. e. the amount
of concrete from the core in the model with the original system will be added to the
load bearing systems in the other models that do not have a core. The space in the
center will be left empty for all of the models for obtaining the same dead weight

48
of the floors. The reason for the empty space is that the original structural system
has a core in the center which leaves an empty space inside it.
The story height is 4.72 m in all models. The floors are 250 mm thick and have the
concrete strength class C30/37, with the compressive strength 30 MPa and the
modulus of elasticity 27 GPa. The models will be run both including and excluding
P-delta effects. The buildings will be subjected to design wind load and design
seismic load in the ultimate limit state according to the American code ASCE/SEI
7-10 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013). A more complete collection of 3D
pictures of the models described for all heights can be found in Appendix B.

6.2.1 Core, outrigger and perimeter frame

The Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model will be based on the 432 Park
Avenue building described in Section 2.3. The structural system will be composed
of a concrete perimeter frame, a concrete central core and concrete outriggers.
The core will have the dimensions 9.5 x 9.5 m with a wall thickness of 750 mm and
concrete strength class of C100 with a compressive strength of 100 MPa. The
modulus of elasticity in C100 will be 50 GPa.
The columns in the perimeter frame will be 1120 mm wide and 1630 mm deep and
have a concrete strength class of C100. The corner columns will however differ in
the dimensions. It will instead be formed as a square with each side being 1350 mm
wide.
The beams in the perimeter frame will be 1120 mm in width and depth and have
the same concrete strength as the columns. The beams and columns will be
continuous and the columns will be rigidly restrained to the ground.
The outrigger walls will go from the core and connect to the perimeter frame. It
will be made of the same concrete strength as the core wall. The outriggers will be
two story high and placed at every 14th floor. Thus there will be twelve floors
between each outrigger level.
A plan view and a 3D picture of the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame can be
found in Figure 6.1.

49
 (a) (b)
Figure 6.1: Core, outrigger and perimeter frame system. (a) Plan view. (b) 3D picture.

6.2.2 TMF: Perimeter frame

The Tubed Mega Frame with a perimeter frame will be made of a moment frame
of concrete. There will be seven columns per each side of the building. The columns
in the moment frame will have a width of 1421 mm and 2068 mm in depth. The
corner columns will however have the dimensions 1713x1713 mm. The beams will
have the dimensions 1120x1120 mm. The beams and columns will be continuous
and the columns will be rigidly connected to the ground.
The beams and columns will both have the concrete strength class C100 with a
compressive strength of 100 MPa, and the modulus of elasticity will be 50 GPa.
At certain levels there will be belt or cross walls installed for increased stability of
the building. There will be two different distances between the walls for testing
how the column length affects the stiffness. The walls will be 750 mm thick and
have the concrete strength class of C100 and 50 GPa as the modulus of elasticity.
The different wall designs will be described further below.
The core will be replaced with VKR 400x400x16 steel columns to support the dead
load of the floors. The steel columns will be pinned. There will however not be steel
columns at the same stories as the belt or cross walls and the floor below since their
only purpose is to transfer the dead load of the floors down to a steel truss or cross
wall level. Otherwise the VKR steel columns would contribute to the lateral
stability, which is unwanted in these models. The yield strength of the steel
columns is 355 MPa and the modulus of elasticity is 199.9 GPa.

50
Plan views of the TMF Perimeter frame systems with belt walls and cross walls
can be seen in Figure 6.2.

(a) (b)
Figure 6.2: (a) Plan view of the TMF: perimeter frame system with belt walls. (b) Plan view
of the TMF: perimeter frame system with cross walls.

TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls

In this model, the walls will encircle the building at regularly spaced levels. The
walls in this model will be two story high and placed at every 14th floor. There will
also be an interior steel truss installed at the same stories as the belt walls are
placed, connecting to the belt walls. The steel truss will be made of W14x500 steel
columns with pinned end conditions. This is to transfer all the loads to the belt
walls at the perimeter without increasing the weight of the building significantly.
The steel truss will have a yield strength of 355 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of
199.9 GPa. The steel truss will also be two story high. A 3D picture of the TMF:
Perimeter frame two story belt walls can be found in Figure 6.3.

51
Figure 6.3: 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls

TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls

In this model, the walls will again encircle the building and there will be an interior
steel truss connecting to it at the same floor, but in this model the belt wall and
steel truss will only be one story high. Thus the belt wall levels will be installed at
every 7th floor. The steel truss, shown in Figure 6.5 will have the same dimensions
and material properties as in the TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls model.
A 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls can be found in
Figure 6.4.

52
Figure 6.4: 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls

Figure 6.5: 3D view of the one story high steel truss.

TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls

In this model, the walls will be installed as interior cross walls, connecting from one
side of the building to the opposite side. The crossing walls will be placed at every
14th floor and will be two floors high. A 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame
two story cross walls can be found in Figure 6.6.

53
Figure 6.6: 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls

TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls

The walls will here be installed in the same way as in TMF: Perimeter frame two
story cross walls, but the walls will here only be one story high. Therefore the walls
will instead be placed at every 7th floor. A 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame
single story cross walls can be found in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: 3D picture of the TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls

54
6.2.3 TMF: Mega columns

The lateral load bearing system of the mega columns systems consists of eight
concrete mega hollow columns standing in the periphery of the building. There are
two mega columns per side and each one is placed at the center of one respective
half of the side. The mega columns are squared with the outer dimensions 3.7×3.7
m and the wall thickness 0.93 m and built up of concrete walls. The concrete will
have the strength class C100 with a compressive strength of 100 MPa, and the
modulus of elasticity will be 50 GPa.
There are four different versions of the TMF Mega columns which are described
below. The difference between the models is the arrangement of belt or cross walls,
but the mega columns remains the same. These belt or cross walls made of concrete
will be located at regularly spaced stories and have the same material properties as
the mega columns, and will be 0.75 m thick. As for the TMF Perimeter frame
models, there will be two different distances between the walls for testing how the
column length affects the stiffness.
In the same place as the core was standing there will be VKR 400×400×16 steel
columns instead to support the dead load of the floors. The yield strength of the
columns is 355 MPa and the modulus of elasticity is 199.9 GPa. These columns will
land on either the steel truss that are connected to the belt walls, or on the cross
walls depending on which model it is. The same stories that contain the belt walls
or the cross walls and the one story below will not have any VKR steel columns.
Plan views of the TMF: Mega columns system with belt walls and cross walls can
be seen in Figure 6.8.

(a) (b)
Figure 6.8: (a) Plan view of the TMF: mega columns system with belt walls. (b) Plan view
of the TMF: mega columns system with cross walls.

55
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls

The belt walls are connected to the corners of the mega columns and extend around
the building. In addition to the belt walls, this system also has steel trusses at the
same levels, with the purpose of transferring all of the loads to the outer limits of
the building. The steel truss is built up of W14×500 steel columns with pinned end
conditions. The steel strength is 355 MPa and the modulus of elasticity is 199.9
GPa.
In this model the height of the belt walls are two stories high, or 9.44 m high. The
belt walls are placed at every 14th floor. Thus there are twelve stories, 56.6 m,
between the belt wall levels. A 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns two story
belt walls can be found in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9: 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls

TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls

The height of the belt walls in this model is one story, or 4.72 m. The belt walls are
placed at every 7th floor. Thus there are six stories, 28.3 m, between the belt wall
levels. A 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls can be found
in Figure 6.10.

56
Figure 6.10: 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls

TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

The cross walls connect the mega columns on the opposite sides to each other.
There are four cross walls per plan view that extend from one side, along the line
where one side of the core would stand in the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
model, and to the other side.
In this model the height of the cross walls are two stories, or 9.44 m. The cross walls
are placed at every 14th floor. Thus there are twelve stories, 56.6 m, between the
cross wall levels. A 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls
can be found in Figure 6.11.

57
Figure 6.11: 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls

The height of the cross walls in this model is one story high, or 4.72 m high. The
cross wall are placed at every 7th floor. Thus there are six stories, 28.3 m, between
the cross wall levels. A 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns single story cross
walls can be found in Figure 6.12.

Figure 6.12: 3D picture of the TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls

58
6.3 Mesh

The floors slabs in all of the models are chosen to be automatically meshed with
maximum element size of 1 m. The element type will be four-node quadrilateral
thin-shell elements. The walls are meshed by using an auto rectangular mesh option
with the maximum element size of 1.25 m. The wall mesh also uses thin-shell
elements.

6.4 Assumptions and limitations

The amount of concrete per cross section area will remain the same along the
height, except for the different arrangement of belt walls or cross walls in the
models which is described in Section 6.2, even though the dimensions of the
columns in the 432 Park Avenue varies with the height. The only loads considered
are wind and seismic loads. The floors are modeled as rigid diaphragms. Cracking
of concrete is not considered.

6.5 Loads

The wind and seismic loads are defined according to the American code ASCE 7-
10 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013) and based on input values from a
previous study of the Tubed Mega Frame system.

59
6.5.1 Wind load

The input values for wind load are shown in Figure 6.13.

Figure 6.13: Input values for wind load (Zhang, 2014)

60
6.5.2 Seismic action

The input values for seismic loading can be seen in Figure 6.14.

Figure 6.14: Input values for seismic loading (Zhang, 2014)

6.6 Results

6.6.1 Deformations and periods

Including P-delta effects

The displacements at the top story are shown in Figure 6.15 and Figure 6.16 for all
the different types of models with the heights: 264 m, 396 m, 529 m, 661 m and for
the TMF Perimeter frame models also 793 m. The P-delta effects are included. The
displacements and periods of the three first eigenmodes for all the different types
of models can be found in tables in Appendix C.
As can be seen in Figure 6.15 the TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls
model had the lowest deformation due to wind load at all heights. At 264 m and
396 m the TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls had the highest top story
displacement, while the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model had the largest
deformation from 529 m and 661 m. As the top story height increased, the

61
deformation of the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model increased faster
compared to the other models, while the others behaved rather similar to each
other. However, for the TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls and the TMF:
Mega columns single story cross walls at 661 m, the P-delta does not converge
which implies that the values might be incorrect.
The TMF Perimeter frame models deformed relatively equally to each other
through all of the different heights. The models with belt walls performed slightly
better than the models with cross walls as the buildings became higher. The TMF
Mega columns with single story belt or cross walls approximately had the same
deflections and it was slightly better than the TMF Mega columns with two story
belt or cross walls.

Figure 6.15: Deflection at the top story caused by wind load. P-delta effects are included.
Note that the values for the TMF Mega columns models with cross walls at 661 m may be
incorrect due to P-delta divergence.

62
Figure 6.16 shows the deformation at the top story due to seismic loading. The
lowest deformation was obtained in the TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
at all heights. The TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls had the highest
deformation at 264 m, and at 396 m and higher the Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame model had the highest deformation. The models that acted similarly to each
other due to wind load still acted about the same.

Figure 6.16: Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading. P-delta effects are
included. Note that the values for the TMF Mega columns models with cross at 661 m
walls may be incorrect due to P-delta divergence.

The lowest period of the first eigenmodes was obtained in the TMF: Mega columns
single story belt walls, while the highest was obtained in the TMF: Mega columns

63
two story cross walls at 264 m and 396 m and in the Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame model for 529 m and 661 m. The second mode was the same as the first since
the buildings had a quadratic footprint. The periods of the first and second modes
are shown in Figure 6.17.

Mode 1 and Mode 2

45

40

35

30

25

20
Period [s]

15

10

0
Core, TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF:
outrigger perimeter perimeter perimeter perimeter Mega Mega Mega Mega
and frame two frame frame two frame columns columns columns columns
perimeter story belt single story cross single two story single two story single
frame walls story belt walls story cross belt walls story belt cross walls story cross
walls walls walls walls

264.32 m 396.48 m 528.64 m 660.80 m 792.96 m

Figure 6.17: Periods of the first and second mode. P-delta effects are included. Note that
the values for the TMF Mega columns models with cross walls at 661 m may be incorrect
due to P-delta divergence.

The third mode, torsional movement, was highest in the TMF: Mega columns two
story cross walls at all heights except for 661 m where the TMF: Mega columns
two story belt walls had the highest period. The lowest period regarding the third
mode was obtained in the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model at all heights.
The periods of the third mode are shown in Figure 6.18.

64
 Mode 3
25

20

15

10
Period [s]

0
Core, TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF:
-5 outrigger perimeter perimeter perimeter perimeter Mega Mega Mega Mega
and frame two frame frame two frame columns columns columns columns
-10 perimeter story belt single story cross single two story single two story single
frame walls story belt walls story cross belt walls story belt cross walls story cross
-15 walls walls walls walls

-20

264.32 m 396.48 m 528.64 m 660.80 m 792.96 m

Figure 6.18: Periods of the third mode. P-delta effects are included. Note that the values
for the TMF Mega columns models with cross walls at 661 m may be incorrect due to P-
delta divergence.

For the TMF Perimeter frame models at 793 m, the TMF: Perimeter frame single
story belt walls had the lowest displacements and periods while the TMF:
Perimeter frame two story cross walls had the highest, except for the third mode
where the TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls had the highest
displacements and modes.

Excluding P-delta effects

Figure 6.19 and Figure 6.20 shows the displacements caused by wind load and
seismic loading respectively when the P-delta effects are excluded. The
deformations and periods – as can be seen in Appendix C – were lower when
running the models without P-delta effects than with P-delta effects. The difference
became greater the higher the models were.
The relation of the wind deformations between the different models are the same
as for the models including P-delta effects, i. e. the model that had the highest
deformation when including P-delta also had the highest deformation excluding P-
delta and vice versa. Considering the seismic loading, the relation of the
deformations are almost the same except for at 793 m where the TMF: Perimeter
frame two story belt walls had the lowest displacement. Overall the relation

65
between which models had the lowest respectively highest deflection was almost
the same with and without P-delta effects.

Deflection at the top story

caused by wind load
900

800

700
Top story height [m]

600

500

400

300

200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top story deflection [m]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Figure 6.19: Deflection at the top story caused by wind load. P-delta effects are excluded.

66
 Deflection at the top story
caused by seismic loading
900

800

700
Top story height [m]

600

500

400

300

200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Top story deflection [m]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Figure 6.20: Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading. P-delta effects are
excluded.

Considering the periods of the first and the second mode, the same models had the
highest respectively lowest periods both when including and excluding P-delta
effects. For the third mode, the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model had the
lowest periods at all heights, as when P-delta was included, and the TMF: Mega
columns two story cross walls had the highest periods at all heights, even at 661 m
this time compared to when P-delta was included. The periods of the first and
second mode are shown in Figure 6.21 and the periods of the third mode are shown
in Figure 6.22.

67
 Mode 1 and Mode 2
35
30
25
Period [s]

20
15
10
5
0
Core, TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: Mega TMF: Mega TMF: Mega TMF: Mega
outrigger perimeter perimeter perimeter perimeter columns columns columns columns
and frame two frame frame two frame two story single story two story single story
perimeter story belt single story story cross single story belt walls belt walls cross walls cross walls
frame walls belt walls walls cross walls

264.32 m 396.48 m 528.64 m 660.80 m 792.96 m

Figure 6.21: Periods of the first and second mode. P-delta effects are excluded.

Mode 3
9
8
7
6
5
Period [s]

4
3
2
1
0
Core, TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: TMF: Mega TMF: Mega TMF: Mega TMF: Mega
outrigger perimeter perimeter perimeter perimeter columns columns columns columns
and frame two frame frame two frame two story single story two story single story
perimeter story belt single story story cross single story belt walls belt walls cross walls cross walls
frame walls belt walls walls cross walls

264.32 m 396.48 m 528.64 m 660.80 m 792.96 m

Figure 6.22: Periods of the third mode. P-delta effects are excluded.

The percentage difference of the displacements when including respectively

excluding the P-delta effects are presented in Appendix D. The difference for all

68
the model types is also shown in graphs in Appendix E. The model that was affected
the most by difference in P-delta effects was the Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame model.
6.6.2 Forces at the base

Figure 6.23 below shows the total force of the side of the building that withstand
the wind force for all models, and where each point on the graph represents the
height of the top story for the certain model. The P-delta effects are included in
the graphs below. The forces at the base can also be found in tables in
Appendix F.
As can be seen in Figure 6.23, the TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
model was the system that could be increased the most in height before it reached
tension at the base story. The other models that were raised in height after 661 m
were: TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls, TMF: perimeter frame single
story cross walls, TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls. All the four TMF:
perimeter frame models do however go over to tension at around 675 m with
slightly small differences between them. The model that performed the worst under
the action of dead and wind load combination was the Core, outrigger and
perimeter frame model.

69
 Base forces due to dead load and
wind load in x-direction
900

800

700
Top story height [m]

600

500

400

300

200
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Compression (-) /Tension (+) [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Figure 6.23: Top story height as a function of the total force at the base when the building
is subjected to dead load and wind load in the x-direction. P-delta is included.

Figure 6.24 below shows the total force of the side of the building that withstand
the seismic force for all models, and where each point on the graph represents the
height of the top story for the certain model. The P-delta effects are included in
the graphs below.
As can be seen in Figure 6.24, all the TMF: perimeter frame models went over to
tension at the base story at almost the same height, 590 m. All the TMF: Mega
columns models also went over to tension at the base story at almost the same
height, but at a significantly lower height than the TMF: perimeter frame models.
They went over to tension at around 520 m instead. The model that performed the
worst under the action of dead and seismic load combination is the Core, outrigger
and perimeter frame model.

70
 Base forces due to dead load and
seismic loading in x-direction
900

800

700
Top story height [m]

600

500

400

300

200
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Compression (-) /Tension (+) [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Figure 6.24: Top story height as a function of the total force at the base when the building
is subjected to dead load and seismic load in the x-direction. P-delta is included.

Figure 6.25 below shows the total force of the side of the building that withstand
the wind force for all models, and where each point on the graph represents the
height of the top story for the certain model. The P-delta effects are not included
in the graphs below.
As can be shown in Figure 6.25, P-delta had a big influence for however the systems
went over to tension under the action of wind load and for which height in that
case. None of the models went over to tension when the P-delta effects were not
included. The model that performed the worst under the action of dead and wind
load combination, where the P-delta effects were not included, was the Core,
outrigger and perimeter frame model.

71
 Base forces due to dead load
and wind load in x-direction
900

800

700

Top story height [m]

600

500

400

300

200
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
Compression (-) /Tension (+) [MN]
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls

Figure 6.25: Top story height as a function of the total force at the base when the building
is subjected to dead load and wind load in the x-direction. P-delta is not included.

Figure 6.26 below shows the total force of the side of the building that withstand
the seismic force for all models, and where each point on the graph represents the
height of the top story for the certain model. The P-delta effects are not included
in the graphs below.
As can be shown in Figure 6.26, P-delta had a big influence for when the different
models went over to tension. When compared with Figure 6.24 it can be seen that
all models could be increased with almost 100 m for the top story height before the
building went over to tension, in comparison with when the P-delta effects are
included. The model that however performed the worst under the action of dead
and seismic load combination, where the P-delta effects were not included, was the
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame system.

72
 Base forces due to dead load and seismic
loading in x-direction
900

800

700
Top story height [m]

600

500

400

300

200
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Compression (-) /Tension (+) [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Figure 6.26: Top story height as a function of the total force at the base when the building
is subjected to dead load and seismic load in the x-direction. P-delta is not included.

73
6.6.3 Convergence test

According to Figure 6.23, the TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls could
be increased the most in height before reaching tension at the base. The TMF:
perimeter frame model could later be increased to 1024 m before it diverged, in
comparison with the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model that could only be
increased to 859 m before it diverged, as can be seen in Figure 6.27.

Deflection at the top story caused by wind load

1200

1000

800
Top story height [m]

600

400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Top story deflection [m]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls
Collapse Collapse

Figure 6.27: Convergence test, height of the top story for when the buildings collapse.

74
6.6.4 Model verification

The dead loads and overturning moments due to wind and seismic loading can be
found in Appendix G. The values show that the dead loads and overturning
moments are almost the same for the different model types of the same height.
Table 6-1 shows a comparison of the weight of the dead loads of the TMF:
Perimeter frame two story cross walls model for all heights, obtained in ETABS
versus from a hand calculation. The values of the dead loads correspond fairly well.
The hand calculation can be found in Appendix H.

Table 6-1: Verification of dead loads for the TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls
model

Height Fz [kN] %
[m]
ETABS Hand calculation
264.32 826108 812211 1.7
396.48 1237477 1218316 1.6
528.64 1648846 1624421 1.5
660.80 2060215 2030527 1.5
792.96 2471583 2436632 1.4

75
76
7 Discussion, conclusions and proposed further research

7.1 Discussion and conclusions

The results showed that the Tubed Mega Frame systems performed significantly
better than the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame system as the buildings got
higher. The reason could be that the lateral load bearing system is placed in the
periphery of the building rather than in the center as in a core system. The model
that performed best when subjected to wind load was the TMF: Perimeter frame
single story belt walls. When subjected to seismic loading, the TMF: Mega Column
single story belt walls had the lowest deformations.
From the result above, it can be stated that the difference in result when P-delta
is included and excluded becomes bigger the higher the building is. The reason is
probably that the higher the building is the larger deflection it has and the dead
load is increased as well, which affects the P-delta iterations.
It should be taken into consideration that the hollow concrete columns in the TMF
Mega columns models do not have the optimal design. They may have performed
better if they were designed in a rectangular shape instead of quadratic shape since
the second moment of inertia will be bigger for a rectangular section than for a
quadratic section, if placed in the desired direction due to the loading. The optimal
location for the mega columns should also have been studied. Optimal design check
in general should have been done regarding dimensions for the TMF Mega columns
models and TMF Perimeter frame models for a more fair and accurate comparison
regarding structural efficiency.
As mentioned before, the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame system is a
replication of the 432 Park Avenue. It is however a simplified model. In the existing
432 Park Avenue building, the sizes of the columns changes throughout the height.
Thus stating from the comparison above that the TMF structural systems
outperform the structural system that 432 Park Avenue use would not be correct.
To be able to state that, the changes in column sizes should have been taken into
consideration in the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame model instead of
simplifying it.
The columns in the perimeter frames in the models have been placed for obtaining
the highest resistance against lateral loads, but it is noteworthy that in reality they
may have to be rotated for the purpose of larger window areas, which would lead
to less resistance.

77
Since the only loads considered are dead load, wind load and seismic loading, a
large portion of loads are missing, for instance façade load. It is important to add
all the possible loads when designing the buildings in reality.
Material nonlinearity such as cracking of concrete is neglected in this study, which
may have a great impact on the results by enlarging the deformations and worsen
the stability of the buildings.
The result for the TMF Mega columns showed that the distance between the belt
or cross walls had a large impact on the deformations and periods. It could be
explained by help of the stiffness theory, which implies that the column length has
a major influence on the column stiffness.
The Tubed Mega Frame models are built with the same footprint area – and the
same amount of concrete per cross section area – as the Core, outrigger and
perimeter frame system. This makes the comparison a pure structural comparison,
but if the focus would have been to make a fair comparison regarding the floor area
efficiency of the models, the Tubed Mega Frame models should probably have been
reduced since the core is removed. The point of the Tubed Mega Frame is among
other things to be able to make the building more slender, and if efficiency should
be compared that must be taken into consideration.
In this report, a convergence test has been done for one of the models, i.e. the model
has been increased in height as high as possible before it diverged due to P-delta or
numerical calculation failure. It is however important to examine whether all of the
models converge due to P-delta even if they were not increased in height, which
also have been done in this study. Even though the structural systems perform well
considering displacement at the top story and forces at the base relatively to the
other models, there is still a possibility that the structures diverge, making them
impossible to construct from a stabilization point of view. At 661 m the TMF Mega
columns models with cross walls did not converge, which means that the
displacements and periods shown for these models may be incorrect. The periods
of the third mode are showing negative values which implies that the divergence
probably has affected the results.
The decision to do a convergence test on the TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls was taken since it outperformed the other models based in the Forces at
the base test. However, if the possibility of anchoring the structure to the ground
is given there is a possibility that another model can be increased more in height
than the TMF Perimeter frame single story belt walls system before it diverges. In
this test however, it is assumed that anchoring will not be used and therefore
increasing the height of the models and doing a convergence test has not been
performed on all models.
Since this study is limited to an ultimate limit state study, the accelerations due to
eigenmodes of the building become less important than the deformations of the
building. However, when studying the serviceability limit state the values for
modes becomes more important since they control the feeling of motion for humans.

78
When these values are too high, people get uncomfortable. It is therefore possible
to state from the result above that TMF Mega columns single story belt walls is
preferred in view of serviceability limit state since it has the lowest periods for mode
1 and mode 2. Although considering mode 3, the Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame caused the lowest period, meaning that in the torsional movement this
system is the most stable. The reason is probably that this system had more mass
closer to the center than Tubed Mega Frame models. Furthermore, the core in the
model was closed while the outer structures in the other models were open to a
larger extent which can affect the torsional stiffness.

7.2 Proposed further research

Further research within this subject could be to perform a serviceability limit state
study on Tubed Mega Frame buildings. Material nonlinearity could be an
important issue to investigate when designing concrete structures due to creep and
shrinkage. Another suggestion is optimization design of the Tubed Mega frame
systems.

79
80
References

Alberts, H. R., 2014. Watch 432 Park's Engineer Explain How The Tower Stays Up. [Online]
Available at: http://ny.curbed.com/2014/2/4/10147410/watch-432-parks-engineer-explain-
how-the-tower-stays-up
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000. FEMA 365 Prestandard. Washington, D. C.: Federal
Emergency Management Agency.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimun Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures. 3th ed. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Andersson, A., 2015. Finite Element Methods in Analysis and Design. [Online]
Available at:
https://bilda.kth.se/courseId/12379/node.do?id=23376640&ts=1427268379911&u=-
966154400
[Accessed 17 May 2016].

Bernhardt, J., 2007. Urban Sprawl - Origins and Environmental Consequences, s.l.: Blekinge
Tekniska Högskola.

Charles, T. H., Hungspruke, U. & Joseph, L. M., 1997. Design of the world's tallest buildings -
Petronas Twin Towers at Kuala Lumpur City Centre, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..

Choi, H. S., Ho, G., Joseph, L. & Mathias, N., 2012. Outrigger Design for High-Rise Buildings.
Chicago: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

Chung, K. R. & Sunu, W., 2015. Outrigger Systems for Tall Buildings in Korea. [Online]
Available at: http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2531-outrigger-systems-for-
tall-buildings-in-korea.pdf
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Cityrealty, 2016. 432 Park Avenue. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/midtown-east/432-park-avenue/54898
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

CNN, 2008. Urban densification: Creating space to live. [Online]

Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/03/eco.denseliving/
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Computers and Structures, Inc., 2013. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Berkeley: Computers
and Structures, Inc.

Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S., Plesha, M. E. & Witt, R. J., 2002. Concepts and applications of finite
element analysis. 4th ed. United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2014. Small Sinkholes Near Lotte World Tower in
Seoul Draw Concern. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/tabid/4810/Article/1866/language/en-

81
US/view.aspx
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2016. Lotte World Tower. [Online]
Available at: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/lotte-world-tower/88
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

CSI Knowledge Base, 2012. Shell. [Online]

Available at: https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/kb/Shell
[Accessed 16 May 2016].

CSI Knowledge Base, 2013. CSI Knowledge Base. [Online]

Available at: https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/kb/P-Delta+effect
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

CTBUH, 2016. CTBUH Height Criteria. [Online]

Available at:
http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-
GB/Default.aspx
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Dahlin, T. & Yngvesson, M., 2014. Construction Methodology of Tubed Mega Frame Structures
in Hig-rise Buildings, Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

Daily Mail, 2013. Owner of World Trade Center is trying to sue airlines for BILLIONS for 9/11
attacks... even though he was already paid $5billion in insurance. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2365931/Larry-Silverstein-World-Trade-
Center-owner-trying-sue-airlines-billions-9-11-attacks.html
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Durst, A. et al., 2015. Perspectives on the Skyscraper City. [Online]

Available at: http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2548-perspectives-on-the-
skyscraper-city.pdf
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Gutierrez, C. M., O'Neill, M. & Jeffrey, W., 2005. Final Report on the Collapse of the World
Trade Center Towers, Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Haven, K., 2006. 100 greatest Science Inventions of All Time. s.l.:LIBRARIES UNLIMITED.

Inc., K. K. E., 2013. KOZO KEIKAKU ENGINEERING Inc.. [Online]

Available at: http://www4.kke.co.jp/kaiseki/en/service/architecture/arc_03.html#page

King, F., Hallgren, M., Partovi, A. & Svärd, J., 2016. Tubed Mega Frame Structural Systems for
Tall Buildings, Stockholm: IABSE Congress.

Kumar, S. S. R. & Kumar, S. A. R., 2016. Advanced structural forms. [Online]

Available at: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105106113/3_multi_storey/6_structural_forms.pdf
[Accessed 16 May 2016].

Leander, J., 2014. AF2003 Structural Engineering, advanced course HT14. [Online]
Available at: https://bilda.kth.se/courseId/11520/courseDocsAndFiles.do

82
Lomholt, I., 2014. Turning Torso: Malmö Skyscraper. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-architect.co.uk/sweden/turning-torso-malmo
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Lorant, G., 2012. Seismic Design Principles. [Online]

Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php
[Accessed 31 March 2016].

Malaysia Truly Asia, 2016. Petronas Twin Towers (KLCC). [Online]

Available at: http://www.malaysia.travel/en/us/places/states-of-malaysia/kuala-
lumpur/petronas-twin-towers
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Malmö Stad, 2016. Turning Torse. [Online]

Available at: http://malmo.se/Stadsplanering--trafik/Stadsplanering--visioner/Malmos-
stadsmiljo/Arkitekturguide-till-Malmo/Alla-byggnader/Turning-Torso.html
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Marcus, S., 2015. The New Supers: Super-Slender Towers of New York. [Online]
Available at: http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2439-the-new-supers-super-
slender-towers-of-new-york.pdf
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Merza, N. & Zangana, A., 2014. Sizing Optimisation of Structural Systems of Tall Buildings,
Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology.

Monteiro, P. J., 2002. High-Strength and HighPerformance Concrete. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~paulmont/241/HSCtext.pdf
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D. & Dolan, C. W., 2003. Design of concrete structures. 13th ed.
Singapore: The Mc Graw-Hill Companies.

Pacoste, C., 2015. Plate bending and shell elements. [Online]

Available at:
https://bilda.kth.se/courseId/12379/node.do?id=23447187&ts=1429378299263&u=-
966154400
[Accessed 17 May 2016].

Patil, S. & Kalwane, U., 2015. Shear Lag in Tube Structures. International Journal of Innovative
Science, Engineering & Technology, 2(3), p. 509.

Princeton University, D. o. C. a. E. E., 2011. The John Hancock Center. [Online]

Available at: http://khan.princeton.edu/khanHancock.html
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Princeton, 2016. Beam element. [Online]

Available at: https://www.princeton.edu/~dynaflow/chap0903.htm
[Accessed 17 May 2016].

83
Sadek, F., 2004. WTC Tower: Innovative Design Features and Structural Modeling. [Online]
Available at: http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/1720-wtc-towers-
innovative-design-features-and-structural-modeling.pdf
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

Sandelin, C. & Budajev, E., 2013. The Stabilization og High-rise Buildings - An Evalutation of the
Tubed Mega Frame Concept , Uppsala: Uppsala universitetet.

Seward, A., 2014. 432 Park Avenue. [Online]

Available at: http://archpaper.com/2014/04/432-park-avenue/#.Vq6SKzYrI6h
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Silverstein Properties, I., 2016. World Trade Center Timeline of History. [Online]
Available at: http://www.wtc.com/about/history#first-1958
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

SMHI, 2015. Turbulens - byig vind. [Online]

Available at: http://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/turbulens-byig-vind-1.6067
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

SMHI, 2016. Vind - Varför blåser det?. [Online]

Available at: http://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/vind-varfor-blaser-det-1.362
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

The Constructor, 2016. High Rise Structures. [Online]

Available at: http://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/high-rise-structures/5/
[Accessed 30 March 2016].

The man on five, 2016. John Hancock Center and Palmolive Building c. 1969. [Online]
Available at: http://themanonfive.com/post/93015393612/john-hancock-center-and-
palmolive-building-c-1969
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

The Skyscraper Center, 2016. 432 Park Avenue. [Online]

Available at: http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/432-park-avenue/13227
[Accessed 24 April 2016].

Tönseth, D. & Welchermill, K., 2014. Design of Hollow Reinforced Concrete Columns in the
Tubed Mega Frame, Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

Willis, C., 2015. The Skyscraper Museum. [Online]

Available at: http://skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/SKY_HIGH/sky_high.htm

Zhang, H., 2014. Global Analysis and Structural Performance of the Tubed Mega Frame,
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

84
Appendix A – Pre-study

Figure A.1: Deformed elevation view of the Core Figure A.2: Deformed elevation view of
the Perimeter frame

Figure A.3: Deformed elevation view of the Core Figure A.4: Deformed elevation view of
and perimeter frame the Core and outriggers

85
Figure A.5: Deformed elevation view of the Figure A.6: Deformed elevation view of
Core, outriggers and perimeter frame the Core and diagonal braces

Figure A.7: Deformed elevation view of the Figure A.8: Deformed elevation view of the
TMF: Perimeter frame with belt walls on three TMF: Perimeter frame with cross walls on
levels three levels

86
Figure A.9: Deformed elevation view of the Figure A.10: Deformed elevation view of
TMF: Mega columns with belt walls on three the TMF: Mega columns with cross
levels walls on three levels

87
88
 Appendix B - 3D pictures

56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.1: 3D pictures of the Core, outrigger and perimeter frame

89
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.2: 3D pictures of the TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls

90
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.3: 3D pictures of the TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls

91
56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.4: 3D pictures of the TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls

92
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.5: 3D pictures of the TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls

93
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.6: 3D pictures of the TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls

94
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.7: 3D pictures of the TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls

95
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.8: 3D pictures of the TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

96
 56 stories, 264 m 84 stories, 396 m

112 stories, 529 m 140 stories, 661 m

Figure B.9: 3D pictures of the TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls

97
98
Appendix C - Displacements and periods
P-delta effects included
Table C-1: Displacements and periods for the 264.32 m models with P-delta

264.32 m (P-delta effects included) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame 0.126 0.231 4.534 4.534 1.600
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 0.113 0.208 4.507 4.507 2.309
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls 0.104 0.193 4.274 4.274 2.118
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 0.117 0.210 4.515 4.515 2.321
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
cross walls 0.108 0.194 4.275 4.275 2.262
TMF: Mega columns two story belt
walls 0.162 0.267 5.189 5.189 2.638
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 0.106 0.179 4.074 4.074 2.000
TMF: Mega columns two story
cross walls 0.167 0.279 5.314 5.314 3.204
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 0.111 0.188 4.192 4.192 3.085

Table C-2: Displacements and periods for the 396.48 m models with P-delta

396.48 m (P-delta effects included) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame 0.681 1.118 9.800 9.799 2.449
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 0.511 0.851 8.797 8.797 3.458
TMF: Perimeter frame single
story belt walls 0.487 0.818 8.540 8.540 3.175
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 0.532 0.867 8.859 8.859 3.498
TMF: Perimeter frame single
story cross walls 0.508 0.827 8.571 8.571 3.420
TMF: Mega columns two story
belt walls 0.668 0.997 9.672 9.672 4.263
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 0.511 0.783 8.293 8.293 3.140
TMF: Mega columns two story
cross walls 0.686 1.037 9.884 9.884 5.522
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 0.526 0.810 8.459 8.459 5.288

99
Table C-3: Displacements and periods for the 528.64 m models with P-delta

528.64 m (P-delta effects included) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 2.542 3.851 18.040 18.040 3.413
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 1.694 2.617 15.156 15.156 4.651
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls 1.645 2.565 14.894 14.894 4.251
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 1.775 2.687 15.326 15.325 4.700
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
cross walls 1.721 2.603 14.985 14.985 4.601
TMF: Mega columns two story belt
walls 2.105 2.930 16.221 16.221 6.866
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 1.749 2.487 14.593 14.593 4.589
TMF: Mega columns two story
cross walls 2.160 3.043 16.560 16.560 11.046
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 1.791 2.557 14.826 14.826 10.073

Table C-4: Displacements and periods for the 660.80 m models with P-delta

660.80 m (P-delta effects included) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame 8.335 11.841 31.485 31.485 4.641
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 4.813 7.001 24.541 24.540 5.926
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls 4.724 6.934 24.286 24.285 5.369
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 5.084 7.247 24.923 24.923 5.943
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
cross walls 4.966 7.070 24.496 24.496 5.822
TMF: Mega columns two story belt
walls 5.857 7.699 25.942 25.942 18.466
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 5.070 6.782 23.930 23.930 7.020
TMF: Mega columns two story -
cross walls 6.026 8.018 26.511 26.511 13.065*
TMF: Mega columns single story -
cross walls 5.185 6.964 24.283 24.283 14.638*

100
Table C-5: Displacements and periods for the 792.96 m models with P-delta

792.96 m (P-delta effects included) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
TMF: perimeter frame two story 13.260 18.331 39.454 39.452 7.346
belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story 13.106 18.279 39.225 39.224 6.562
belt walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story 14.198 19.230 40.349 40.348 7.249
cross walls
TMF: perimeter frame single story 13.883 18.779 39.721 39.720 7.104
cross walls

P-delta effects excluded

Table C-6: Displacements and periods for the 264.32 m models without P-delta

264.32 m (P-delta effects Wind Seismic Period Period Period

excluded) dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame 0.122 0.224 4.468 4.468 1.583
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 0.110 0.203 4.444 4.444 2.293
TMF: Perimeter frame single
story belt walls 0.101 0.188 4.220 4.220 2.111
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 0.114 0.205 4.451 4.451 2.306
TMF: Perimeter frame single
story cross walls 0.105 0.189 4.220 4.220 2.248
TMF: Mega columns two story
belt walls 0.156 0.257 5.081 5.081 2.552
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 0.108 0.184 4.138 4.138 2.957
TMF: Mega columns two story
cross walls 0.160 0.268 5.199 5.199 3.059
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 0.103 0.175 4.025 4.025 1.965

101
Table C-7: Displacements and periods for the 396.48 m models without P-delta

396.48 m (P-delta effects excluded) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter
frame 0.621 1.021 9.368 9.368 2.370
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 0.476 0.794 8.496 8.496 3.409
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls 0.455 0.766 8.262 8.262 3.154
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 0.495 0.808 8.551 8.551 3.457
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
cross walls 0.474 0.774 8.289 8.289 3.382
TMF: Mega columns two story belt
walls 0.611 0.914 9.250 9.250 3.826
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 0.478 0.734 8.027 8.027 2.965
TMF: Mega columns two story
cross walls 0.625 0.948 9.435 9.435 4.672
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 0.492 0.757 8.177 8.177 4.539

Table C-8: Displacements and periods for the 528.64 m models without P-delta

528.64 m (P-delta effects excluded) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 2.041 3.096 16.184 16.184 3.157
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
belt walls 1.455 2.251 14.058 14.058 4.524
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls 1.418 2.214 13.842 13.842 4.197
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 1.519 2.304 14.191 14.191 4.608
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
cross walls 1.481 2.243 13.912 13.912 4.515
TMF: Mega columns two story belt
walls 1.761 2.458 14.844 14.844 5.100
TMF: Mega columns single story
belt walls 1.508 2.146 13.559 13.559 3.965
TMF: Mega columns two story
cross walls 1.794 2.536 15.104 15.104 6.287
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 1.538 2.197 13.747 13.747 6.121

102
Table C-9: Displacements and periods for the 660.80 m models without P-delta

660.80 m (P-delta effects excluded) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 5.200 7.408 24.926 24.926 4.456
TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt
walls 3.568 5.201 21.164 21.163 5.640
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
belt walls 3.515 5.171 20.985 20.984 5.240
TMF: Perimeter frame two story
cross walls 3.737 5.339 21.405 21.405 5.759
TMF: Perimeter frame single story
cross walls 3.678 5.247 21.115 21.115 5.648
TMF: Mega columns two story belt
walls 4.176 5.508 21.941 21.941 6.375
TMF: Mega columns single story belt
walls 3.762 5.043 20.646 20.646 4.965
TMF: Mega columns two story cross
walls 4.244 5.668 22.286 22.286 7.901
TMF: Mega columns single story
cross walls 3.819 5.141 20.876 20.875 7.704

Table C-10: Displacements and periods for the 792.96 m models without P-delta

792.96 m (P-delta effects excluded) Wind Seismic Period Period Period

dislp. displ. Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
[m] [m] [s] [s] [s]
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt
walls 7.535 10.453 29.825 29.825 6.756
TMF: perimeter frame single story
belt walls 7.471 10.456 29.698 29.697 6.283
TMF: perimeter frame two story
cross walls 7.910 10.752 30.205 30.205 6.910
TMF: perimeter frame single story
cross walls 7.825 10.621 29.905 29.905 6.782

103
104
Appendix D – Percentage difference between including and
excluding P-delta effects

Wind load
Table D-1: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to wind load for the 264.32 m models

264.32 m Displacement top story due to wind load

With P- Without P-delta %
delta
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 0.126 0.122 2.95
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 0.113 0.110 2.91
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt 0.104 0.101 2.57
walls
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 0.117 0.114 2.90
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross 0.108 0.105 2.57
walls
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 0.162 0.156 4.17
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 0.106 0.103 2.52
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 0.167 0.160 4.43
TMF: Mega columns single story cross 0.111 0.108 2.60
walls

Table D-2: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to wind load for the 396.48 m models

396.48 m Displacement top story due to wind load

With P- Without P-delta %
delta
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 0.681 0.621 9.55
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 0.511 0.476 7.28
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 0.487 0.455 6.92
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 0.532 0.495 7.41
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 0.508 0.474 6.98
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 0.668 0.611 9.33
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 0.511 0.478 6.82
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 0.686 0.625 9.73
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 0.526 0.492 7.08

105
Table D-3: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to wind load for the 528.64 m models

528.64 m Displacement top story due to wind load

With P-delta Without P-delta %
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 2.542 2.041 24.56
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 1.694 1.455 16.43
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 1.645 1.418 15.97
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 1.775 1.519 16.83
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 1.721 1.481 16.21
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 2.105 1.761 19.56
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 1.749 1.508 16.02
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 2.160 1.794 20.36
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 1.791 1.538 16.51

Table D-4: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to wind load for the 660.80 m models

660.80 m Displacement top story due to wind load

With P- Without P-delta %
delta
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 8.3354 5.200 60.31
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 4.8129 3.568 34.91
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 4.724 3.515 34.38
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 5.084 3.737 36.04
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 4.966 3.678 35.03
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 5.857 4.176 40.26
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 5.070 3.762 34.78
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 6.026 4.244 41.99
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 5.185 3.819 35.76

Table D-5: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to wind load for the 792.96 m models

792.96 m Displacement top story due to wind load

With P- Without P-delta %
delta
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 13.260 7.535 75.99
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 13.106 7.471 75.43
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 14.198 7.910 79.49
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 13.883 7.825 77.43

106
Seismic loading
Table D-6: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to seismic loading for the 264.32 m models

264.32 m Displacement top story due to seismic

loading
With P-delta Without P-delta %
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 0.231 0.224 2.99
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 0.208 0.203 2.77
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 0.193 0.188 2.50
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 0.210 0.205 2.84
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 0.194 0.189 2.54
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 0.267 0.257 4.01
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 0.179 0.175 2.40
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 0.279 0.268 4.18
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 0.188 0.184 2.50

Table D-7: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to seismic loading for the 396.48 m models

396.48 m Displacement top story due to seismic

loading
With P-delta Without P-delta %
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 1.118 1.021 9.47
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 0.851 0.794 7.16
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 0.818 0.766 6.82
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 0.867 0.808 7.29
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 0.827 0.774 6.89
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 0.997 0.914 9.07
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 0.783 0.734 6.75
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 1.037 0.948 9.45
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 0.810 0.757 7.00

107
Table D-8: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to seismic loading for the 528.64 m models

528.64 m Displacement top story due to seismic

loading
With P-delta Without P-delta %
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 3.851 3.096 24.36
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 2.617 2.251 16.25
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 2.565 2.214 15.82
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 2.687 2.304 16.65
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 2.603 2.243 16.06
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 2.930 2.458 19.22
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 2.487 2.146 15.87
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 3.043 2.536 20.00
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 2.557 2.197 16.36

Table D-9: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to seismic loading for the 660.80 m models

660.80 m Displacement top story due to seismic

loading
With P-delta Without P-delta %
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 11.841 7.408 59.83
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 7.001 5.201 34.60
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 6.934 5.171 34.09
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 7.247 5.339 35.73
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 7.070 5.247 34.75
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 7.699 5.508 39.76
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 6.782 5.043 34.49
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 8.018 5.668 41.46
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 6.964 5.141 35.47

108
Table D-10: Percentage difference between including and excluding P-delta effects
considering top story deflection due to seismic loading for the 792.96 m models

792.96 m Displacement top story due to seismic

loading
With P-delta Without P-delta %
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 18.331 10.453 75.36
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 18.279 10.456 74.82
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 19.230 10.752 78.84
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross 18.779 10.621 76.81
walls

109
110
Appendix E – Difference between including and excluding P-
delta effects

Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
700

600

500
Top Story Height [m]

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top Story Deflection [m]

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-1: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for Core, outrigger and perimeter frame

111
 Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;
TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-2: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls

Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;

TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-3: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Perimeter frame sinlge story belt walls

112
 Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;
TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Top Story Deflection [m]

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-4: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls

Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;

TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-5: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls

113
 Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
700

600

500
Top Story Height [m]

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 Top Story
3 Deflection
4 [m] 5 6 7

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-6: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls

Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;

TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
700

600
Top Story Height [m]

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Top Story Deflection [m]

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-7: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls

114
 Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls
700

600

500
Top Story Height [m]

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-8: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Deflection at the top story caused by wind load;

TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
700

600
Top Story Height [m]

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Top Story Deflection [m]

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-9: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to wind load for TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls

115
 Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;
Core, outrigger and perimeter frame
700

600

500
Top Story Height [m]

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Top Story Deflection [m]

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-10: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for Core, outrigger and perimeter frame

116
 Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;
TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-11: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Perimeter frame two story belt walls

Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;

TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls
900
800
700
Top Story Height [m]

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-12: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Perimeter frame single story belt walls

117
 Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;
TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-13: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls

Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;

TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls
900

800

700
Top Story Height [m]

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-14: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Perimeter frame single story cross walls

118
 Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls
700

600
Top Story Height [m]

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-15: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls

Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;

TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls
700

600

500
Top Story Height [m]

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-16: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls

119
 Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls
700

600
Top Story Height [m]

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top Story Deflection [m]
With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-17: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls

Deflection at the top story caused by seismic loading;

TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls
700

600
Top Story Height [m]

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Top Story Deflection [m]

With P-delta Without P-delta

Figure E-18: Difference between including and excluding P-delta effects considering top
story deflection due to seismic loading for TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls

120
Appendix F – Forces at the base

Table F-1: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 264.32 m models. P-delta is
included.

264.32 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -140
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -163
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -166
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -159
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -159
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -143
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -141
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -145
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -142

Table F-2: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 396.48 m models. P-delta is
included.

396.48 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -143
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -193
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -197
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -187
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -187
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -153
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -150
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -156
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -152

121
Table F-3: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 528.64 m models. P-delta is
included.

528.64 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -72
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -166
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -172
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -158
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -157
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -95
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -94
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -97
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -95

Table F-4: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 660.80 m models. P-delta is
included.

660.80 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 174
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -43
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -51
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -30
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -31
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 85
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 74
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 86
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 76

Table F-5: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 792.96 m models. P-delta is
included.

792.96 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 294
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 284
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 322
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 314

122
Table F-6: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 264.32 m models. P-delta is
included.

264.32 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -102
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -130
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -133
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -128
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -129
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -113
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 110
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 115
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 111

Table F-7: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 396.48 m models. P-delta is
included.

396.48 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -72
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -129
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -132
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -127
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -127
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -97
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -93
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -97
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -94

Table F-8: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 528.64 m models. P-delta is
included.

528.64 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 47
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -62
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -65
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -60
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -61
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -7
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -7
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -4
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -5

123
Table F-9: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 660.80 m models. P-delta is
included.

660.80 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 369
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 119
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 115
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 120
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 116
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 214
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 201
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 226
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 207

Table F-10: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 792.96 m models. P-delta is
included.

792.96 m (P-delta effects included) Forces at the base story [MN]

TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 560
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 557
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 568
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 554

124
Table F-11: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 264.32 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

264.32 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -142
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -164
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -167
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -160
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -160
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -145
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -143
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -147
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -142

Table F-12: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 396.48 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

396.48 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -155
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -201
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -204
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -195
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -194
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -164
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -158
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -168
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -160

Table F-13: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 528.64 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

528.64 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -122
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -199
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -203
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -190
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -189
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -139
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -129
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -144
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -132

125
Table F-14: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 660.80 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

660.80 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -41
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -155
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -159
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -144
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -142
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -66
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -53
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -72
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -56

Table F-15: Forces at the base due to wind load for the 792.96 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

792.96 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -66
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -71
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -54
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -48

126
Table F-16: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 264.32 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

264.32 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -104
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -133
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -135
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -130
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -131
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -116
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -113
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -118
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -112

Table F-17: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 396.48 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

396.48 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -90
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -141
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -143
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -139
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -138
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -112
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -105
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -113
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -106

Table F-18: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 528.64 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

528.64 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame -32
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -110
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -112
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -108
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -107
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls -66
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls -56
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls -67
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls -57

127
Table F-19: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 660.80 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

660.8 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 70
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls -39
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls -40
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls -39
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls -37
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 22
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 35
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 22
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 35

Table F-20: Forces at the base due to seismic loading for the 792.96 m models. P-delta is
excluded.

792.96 m (P-delta effects excluded) Forces at the base story [MN]

TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 72
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 71
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 70
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 71

128
Appendix G – Dead loads and overturning moments

Table G-1: Dead loads and overturning moments for the 264.32 m models. P-delta is
included.

264.32 m (P-delta effects included) Fz [kN] Myw [kNm] Mys [kNm]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 818827.3 -1860785 -3067518
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 843080.4 -1862853 -3171708
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 851185.4 -1857186 -3173393
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 826107.8 -1862910 -3101161
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 825825.8 -1857230 -3073832
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 770384.8 -1883344 -2913927
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 775722.6 -1853746 -2880971
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 779754.6 -1886651 -2958306
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 779473.5 -1856393 -2899511

Table G-2: Dead loads and overturning moments for the 396.48 m models. P-delta is
included.

396.48 m (P-delta effects included) Fz [kN] Myw [kNm] Mys [kNm]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 1226556 -4946994 -7279290
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 1262936 -4885549 -7397376
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 1275093 -4864051 -7408718
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 1237477 -4888786 -7243476
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 1237054 -4866059 -7183335
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 1154051 -4975392 -6853846
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 1162058 -4854147 -6730795
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 1168106 -4992792 -6967420
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 1167684 -4866854 -6781617

Table G-3: Dead loads and overturning moments for the 528.64 m models. P-delta is
included.

528.64 m (P-delta effects included) Fz [kN] Myw [kNm] Mys [kNm]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 1634285 -10614979 -14511182
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 1682791 -10113036 -14158422
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 1699001 -10055957 -14179090
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 1648846 -10135887 -13893736
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 1648282 -10069383 -13765577
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 1537718 -10393706 -13243818
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 1548393 -10039165 -12892862
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 1556457 -10459281 -13499508
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 1555895 -10082865 -13012622

129
Table G-4: Dead loads and overturning moments for the 660.80 m models. P-delta is
included.

660.80 m(P-delta effects included) Fz [kN] Myw [kNm] Mys [kNm]

Core, outrigger and perimeter frame 2042013 -21856072 -28511891
TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 2102646 -19078954 -25295997
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 2122909 -18952153 -25326055
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 2060215 -19195260 -24932853
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 2059510 -19018982 -24650301
TMF: Mega columns two story belt walls 1921384 -19873370 -23988519
TMF: Mega columns single story belt walls 2122909 -18952153 -25326055
TMF: Mega columns two story cross walls 1944809 -20100461 -24579166
TMF: Mega columns single story cross walls 2059510 -19018982 -24650301

Table G-5: Dead loads and overturning moments for the 792.96 m models. P-delta is
included.

792.96 m (P-delta effects included) Fz [kN] Myw [kNm] Mys [kNm]

TMF: perimeter frame two story belt walls 2522501 -36358419 -46526308
TMF: perimeter frame single story belt walls 2546816 -36100585 -46585761
TMF: perimeter frame two story cross walls 2471583 -36932786 -46338619
TMF: perimeter frame single story cross walls 2470738 -36424346 -45610311

130
Appendix H – Hand calculation of dead loads

TMF: Perimeter frame two story cross walls

Geometry
hstory  4.72m The height of one story

The width of the building

Lside  28.5m

Lcore  9.5m The width of the core

 56 
 84 
  Number of stories
n stories   112
 140
 
 168

 264.32
 396.48
  The height of the building
h c  h story  n stories   528.64 m
 660.8 
 
 792.96

 8
 12
  Number of stories with cross walls
n cross.walls   16
 20
 
 24

m Gravitational acceleration
g  9.807
2
s

Material properties
kg
C100 2402.451 The density for concrete with strength class C100
3
m

kg
C3037 1902.6 The density for concrete with strength class C30/37
3
m
kg
s  7827 The density for steel
3
m

131
Mass of cross walls
The thickness of the cross walls
tw  0.75m

 
Lw.tot  4 Lside  tw  111m
The total length of the cross walls for each
cross walls story

2 The total area of the cross walls for each

A w.tot  Lw.tot t w  83.25m
cross walls story

 3.144 10
3

 3
 4.715 10 
Vw.tot  A w.tot h story  n cross.walls   6.287 3 3
The total volume of cross walls
 10   m for the whole building
 7.859 10
3
 
 9.431 3
10 

 7.552 106 
 7
 1.133 10  The total mass of cross walls
mw.tot  Vw.tot C100   1.51  107  kg for the whole building
 
 1.888 107 
 
 2.266 107 

 7.406 104 
 5
 1.111 10 
W w.tot  mw.tot g   1.481 105   kN
The total force of cross walls
  for the whole building
 1.852 105 
 
 2.222 105 

132
Mass of perimeter frame
Rectangular columns

wc.rect  1.421m The width of the rectangular columns

dc.rect  2.068m The depth of the rectangular columns

 776.738 
 
 1.165 103 
 3 3
Vc.rect  wc.rect  d c.rect  h c   1.553 10   m The volume of one rectangular column
 3
 1.942 10 
 3
 2.33 10 

 3.732 107 
 7
 5.598 10 
mc.rect.tot  20 C100 Vc.rect   7.464 107  kg
The total mass of the rectangular
  columns for the whole building
 9.33  107 
 
 1.12  108 

 3.66  105 
 5
 5.49  10  The total force of the rectangular
W c.rect.tot  mc.rect.tot  g   7.32  105   kN columns for the whole building
 
 9.15  105 
 
 1.098 106 

133
Corner columns

wc.square  1.713m The width of the square columns

dc.square  wc.square  1.713m The depth of the square columns

 775.612 
 
 1.163 103 
 3 3 The volume of one square
Vc.square  wc.square  d c.square  h c   1.551 10   m column
 3
 1.939 10 
 3
 2.327 10 

 7.453 106 
 7
 1.118 10 
mc.square.tot  4 C100 Vc.square   1.491 107  kg
The total mass of the square
  columns for the whole building
 1.863 107 
 
 2.236 107 

 7.309 104 
 5
 1.096 10 
W c.square.tot  mc.square.tot  g   1.462 105   kN
The total force of the square
  columns for the whole building
 1.827 105 
 
 2.193 105 

Beams
The width of the beams
wb  1.120m
The depth of the beams
hb  1.120m

 
Lb.tot  4 Lside  wc.square  5dc.rect  65.788m
The total length of the beams for one story

3 The total volume of the beams for one story

Vb  wb  h b  Lb.tot  82.524m


134
  1.11  107 
 7
 1.665 10 
mb.tot  C100 Vb  n stories   2.221 107  kg
The total mass of the beams for the whole
  building
 2.776 107 
 
 3.331 107 

 1.089 10
5

 5
 1.633 10 
W b  mb.tot  g   2.178 5
10   kN
The total force of the beams for the whole
 building
 2.722 10
5
 
 3.266 5
10 

Mass of floor slabs

The thickness of the floors
tf  0.25m

2 2 2
A f  Lside  Lcore  722m The area of the floors for each story

 4.01 104 
 4  4
 6  6.015 10 
 
A f.tot  n stories  A f   8  A w.tot   8.02  104  m
2

 10   The total area of the floors for

   5 the whole building
 12  1.002 10 
 1.203 105 

135
  1.002 104 
 4
 1.504 10 
Vf.tot  A f.tot  tf   2.005 104   m
3 The total volume of the floors
  for the whole building
 2.506 104 
 
 3.007 104 

 1.907 10
7

 7
 2.861 10 
mf  C3037 Vf.tot   3.815 7
10  kg
The total mass of the floors
 for the whole building
 4.768 10
7
 
 5.722 7
10 

 1.87  105 
 5
 2.806 10 
W f  mf  g   3.741 105   kN
The total force of the floors
  for the whole building
 4.676 105 
 
 5.611 105 

136
Mass of VKR
The depth of the VKR columns
dVKR  0.4m

The width of the VKR columns

wVKR  dVKR  0.4m

The thickness of the VKR columns

tVKR  0.016m

2
 
A VKR  4 t VKR  4 d VKR  2t VKR  tVKR  0.025m
2
The area of one VKR column

3
VVKR  A VKR h story  0.116m
 The volume of one VKR column

  12  40.832
  18  61.247
     3
VVKR.tot  8n stories   24  VVKR   81.663  m The total volume of the VKR columns for
  30  102.079 the whole building
    
  36  122.495

 3.196 105 
 5
 4.794 10 
mVKR  s  VVKR.tot   6.392 105  kg
The total mass of the VKR columns for
  the whole building
 7.99 105 
 
 9.588 105 

 3.134 10
3

 3
 4.701 10  The total force of the VKR columns for the
W VKR  mVKR g   6.268 3
whole building
 10   kN
 7.835 10
3
 
 9.402 3
10 

137
Total dead load
 8.282 107 
 8
 1.242 10  The total
mtot  mw.tot  mc.rect.tot  mc.square.tot  mb.tot  mf  mVKR   1.656 108  kg
mass of the
  whole
 2.071 108  building
 
 2.485 108 

 8.1221064544 105 
 6
 1.2183159682 10 
The total force of
Fdead  mtot  g   1.6244212909 106   kN the whole building
 
 2.0305266136 106 
 
 2.4366319363 106 

 826107.7727
 1237477 
  The total force of the
Fdead.ETABS   1648846  kN whole building given by
 2060215  ETABS
 
 2471583 

 1.017
 1.016
The ratio between the dead
Fdead.ETABS  
  1.015 loads given by hand calculation
and ETABS
Fdead
 1.015
 
 1.014

138