An innovative tall building conception: the sphere

Nicola LONGARINI Mauro NICOLETTI Pietro CRESPI

Engineer Adjunct Professor Engineer Adjunct Professor Assistant Professor
Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
Milano, IT Milano, IT Milano, IT
longarini@stru.polimi.it nicoletti@stru.polimi.it crespi@stru.polimi.it

Nicolaos SPILIOTOPOULOS Giuseppe SILVESTRO Flavio PIZZAMIGLIO

MS Civil Engineer MS Civil Engineer MS Civil Engineer
EXPO 2015 S.p.A. CIS-E Consortium CIS-E Consortium
Milano, IT Milano, IT Milano, IT
nicospilio@stru.polimi.it giuseppe.silvestro@aol.it pizzamiglio@stru.polimi.it

Summary
In this paper an innovative spherical tall building is presented in its structural and energetic aspects.
Particularly, the building structure (with a resisting frame made of meridians and parallels beams)
and its behavior under static and dynamic loads in two different configurations, having different
geometry at the lower levels, are analyzed. At the same time, the energy analysis shows the
spherical building advantages in comparison to other typical tall buildings having different
geometry.
Keywords: Sphere, tall buildings dynamic, energy saving, sustainability facilities.

1. Introduction
In this paper, the conceptual design of a particular spherical tall building, supported by a basement
platform, is presented in terms of its structural and energetic aspects. This tall building solution is
based on the architect Guglielmo Mozzoni’s idea (the “Città Ideale”).
The layout of this new kind of tall building is based on the idea that the spherical volume represents
a sort of a container for some smaller multifunctional buildings, built inside the “sphere” on the
intermediate slabs which represent the storeys of the “sphere”. Several inter-storey heights of the
intermediate slabs have been considered, assuming these parameters equal to 24 m in the “sphere”
final configuration. In fact, discarding the traditional inter-storey height solution of 4÷4,5 m and
assuming about 19 m inter-storey net height, the deck floors work as a foundation mat for the
buildings built inside the “sphere”.
In the following it is assumed that the buildings are uniformly
distributed over the deck floors, the day-lighting analysis will
identify the best positioning for the buildings inside the sphere.
Some mixed steel-concrete structural solutions (with high
performance concrete) are considered in this paper. Furthermore,
some advantages of this structural scheme related to its efficiency
in carrying the vertical and horizontal loads are highlighted. In fact,
the vertical loads path from the deck floors to the foundation is
made easier by the system of meridians belted by parallels, which
characterize the structural frame of the sphere.It is also remarkable
that the spherical structure presents a more appropriate and natural
Fig. 1: 3D sketch of the “sphere” anti-seismic behaviour due to its symmetrical mass distribution.
Furthermore, the wind loading effects on the structure are
investigated in this paper, showing the better wind resistant behaviour of spherical shape related to
the traditional tall buildings geometry, especially regarding the independency from wind direction.
Regarding the sustainability and energy saving aspects, some benefits are briefly reported. For
example, the ratio (S/V) between the external surface (S) of the sphere and its gross heated volume
(V) shows the important sphere advantages in terms of heat flows, in comparison to other tall
buildings. In addition, some facilities solutions based on renewable sources are remarked: a
geothermic system for the conditioning, a solar panels plant to produce the hot sanitary water and a
photovoltaic plant for the electric energy (maybe integrated in a particular shading system). In
conclusion, all of discussed structural and energy solutions (Conceptual Design) makes the sphere
an extending life building.

2. Structural Analysis
The spherical tall building presented is studies are characterized by a 80 m radius and about 24 m
inter-storey height. A circular hole in the floor decks called oculus (about 20 m radius) is placed
close to the vertical revolution axis of the sphere with the aim of natural light source and for the
airflow.
The sphere frame is a mixed structure: meridians and parallels (circumferential beams) are made of
pre-stressed high performance concrete (C90/105). The floor deck structure is made of a concrete
slab (C70/85) having a thickness of 80 cm, supported by a girder of radial steel trusses and
circumferential concrete beams. The external and the internal meridians have a 2,50×2,50 m square
section, and the circumferential beams have a 3,50×2,00 m rectangular section. The radial trusses
have an overall 3,50 m height and are made of steel circular hollow sections having the external
diameter of 60 cm and thickness of 8÷10 cm.
For meshing operation simplicity, in the first analysis the radial trusses are modelled as beam
elements with a fictitious rectangular cross section having the same area and inertia moment of the
real trusses. Then, for the local checks, the trusses are completely modelled with all the steel
elements.
First of all, the deck structure is studied according to the
circular hollow plate theory in order to identify the best
position of the circumferential beams and the best oculus
radius.
The buildings built on the deck floors inside the sphere
can be realized in reinforced concrete or, better, in steel,
Fig. 2: FEM - Typical floor structure to decrease the total load in foundation. In the finite
element models (FEM) the buildings inside the sphere are considered as distributed loads on the
plates elements representing the slabs. In fact, the plates and beams elements of the deck are loaded
by: their self-weight, dead loads of 10 kN/m2 (finishing weight of the deck) and 60 kN/m2 as live
loads (comprising: self-weight, dead load and live load of the building inside the sphere). In the
FEM analysis, the wind and seismic loads are considered too. Wind loads have been modelled
according to Eurocode 1 (EC) with a basic velocity vb,0 of 26 m/s, the seismic loads are obtained
assuming the sphere located in one of the strongest seismic Italian regions, considering a maximum
ground acceleration ag of 0,3 g ( where g is gravity acceleration).
Actually, the sphere basement is modelled on fixed supports; in this preliminary analysis it is
possible to consider a concrete slab foundation or a concrete slab on piles because the foundation
solution closely depends on the characteristics of the ground site. Without a complete description of
the ground properties of the construction site, the foundation analysis is postponed to the next stage
when it will be possible to study and compare some structural solutions for some different ground
typologies (sands, clay, etc.); only in this second stage it will be possible to introduce in the FE
model the real stiffness of the ground or implement a specific geotechnical model. For these reasons,
in the considered FE models the basement plate has been omitted; a series of fixed supports have
been introduced directly at the base of the sphere structure. In the architectural layout, the basement
plate could have a 110 m radius and about 20 m height in order to realize almost four underground
floors.
In the first structural analysis the FEM shows high bending stresses and vertical displacements
about 20 m from the ground level. In order to find a solution to this problem, two different
structural configurations are analyzed. The first configuration (A) is characterized by the
introduction of a series of columns close to the mentioned zone, creating a sort of a structural
bifurcation of the first meridian. In so doing, the loads path can follow both directions (meridians
and columns). In the second configuration (B) the sphere is trimmed at an higher level than the A
configuration, substantially just before the maximum bending stresses zone. In the B solution the
sphere height (about 137 m) is less than A configuration (about 149 m).

Fig. 3: Configuration A: overall structure FEM, Fig. 4: Configuration B: overall structure FEM,
meridians and parallels frame meridians and parallels frame

3. Structural results
The structural analysis shows satisfactory results in both configurations in terms of stresses and
displacements. In particular, the radial trusses analysis of the equatorial floor has been made by the
implementation of some different FE models. For example, in terms of displacements, the truss
shows about 0,045 m under live loads and about 0,06 m under dead plus live loads.

Fig. 5: Radial trusses bending moment Fig. 6: Structural models of radials truss

For the vertical displacements dz, considering the maximum distance between two adjacent
circumferential beams (l=49 m), the floor shows a maximum dz about l/1000 under live loads and
about l/500 under dead plus live loads. For the horizontal displacements dx and dy, the structure
shows about 0,025 m in the most significant seismic loads combination and about 0,045 m in the
most significant wind loads combination.

Fig. 7: dz displacements under live loads Fig. 8: dz displacements under dead plus live loads

Fig. 9: Lateral displacements Fig. 10: Lateral displacements

(worst wind combination) (worst seismic combination)

4. Dynamic Behaviour
The sphere has a better structural behaviour under the dynamic loads (wind and earthquake) in
comparison with other tall buildings having some different shapes and heights. Dynamic effects of
wind loading are one of the principal causes of an uncomfortable performance, at the top floors, of
the most important skyscrapers in the world (shown in the following picture). This is even more
important in the tall buildings having high geometrical slenderness (λ) or in the skyscrapers having
the higher parts very slender.
The sphere doesn’t suffer
maximum height:
1- Burj Khalifa, 829 m
these dynamic problems,
2- Willis Tower, 527 m being a symmetrical
3- Taipei 101, 508 m
4- Shangai WTC, 494 m building, with no edges
5- Hancock Center, 457 m
6/7- Petronas Tower, 452 m
that promote the vortex
8-Empire State B., 443 m shedding and much less
9- Trump Chicago, 423m
10- Jim Mao, 421m characterized by a
geometrical slenderness
top occupied floor:
1- Burj Khalifa, 829 m that induces dangerous
2- Shangai WTC, 494 m
3- Taipei 101, 508 m
structural dynamic
4- Willis Tower, 527 m responses like flutter or
5- Two IFC Hong Kong, 388 mm
6/7- Petronas Tower, 452 m divergence.
8-Empire State B., 443 m
9- Jim Mao, 421 m The vortex shedding
10- Trump Chicago, 423 m
analysis conducted on the
sphere according to EC
Fig. 11: Height comparison for the most important skyscrapers and CNR gives
successfully results. About
the vortex shedding is important to note that, in some small scale wind tunnel tests executed on tall
buildings, it was observed a vortex separation close to the angle, although an evaluation of this
phenomenon was positive using the EC rules. For example, in the Isozaki tower (designed for
CityLife in Milano, Italy), the vortex shedding doesn’t afflict the structure using the European
design Code. For the EC1 it is necessary that vcr<1,25 vm while for the CNR it is necessary that
vcr<vm (where: vcr is the critical velocity required to induce the vortex shedding frequency which
equals the natural frequency of the tower, and vm is the reference velocity). For the Isozaki tower,
either EC1 and CNR relation are satisfied because (for a return period TR =10 years) vcr is about 50
m/s, much greater than vm = 31,75 m/s calculated by EC1 and vm=31,9 m/s calculated by CNR.
Therefore, for very slender buildings or for not adequately stiff structures, it is necessary to
introduce additional dampers. Also for this aspect the sphere is better than the others tall buildings,
it doesn’t require additional active or passive dampers, in so respecting the original architectural
layout and without increasing the construction costs. Usually, in the high-rise buildings (height
h>250 m) active dampers are used (sometimes with a passive mass damper system positioned at the
top, i.e. Taipei 101) while in the tall buildings (h<250 m) the passive dampers (tuned mass damper
TMD or liquid mass dampers LTMD) are preferred. The kind of dampers choice is crucial to not
affect the internal layout because, especially in the case of TMD or LTMD, at least two floors are
dedicated to accommodate the required mechanical systems.
In the case of the sphere, assuming it located in Milano and applying the EC1, the vcr (depending on
the first vibration period T1 = 5,2 s, on the b=160 m diameter of the sphere and on the Strouhal
number St=0,2) is greater than the vm, at least five times, and the vortex shedding frequency ns =
(St·vm)/b (where vm = 36 m/s - for z = 100 m - is the reference site velocity) is much greater than the
sphere transversal motion frequencies. This results reveals that the sphere is not afflicted by
galloping and aeroelastic phenomenon.

Fig. 12: First vibration mode Fig. 13: Second vibration mode
All these considerations suggest that to have the same spherical surface/volume (S/V) it’s necessary
a tall building with a square base of about 64×64 m and 515 m height, without exceeding the
maximum geometric slenderness value (λmax=8) required to satisfy the needful building comfort for
the occupants.
If a rectangular base tall building is considered, instead of a square
base building, with sides ratio between 2 and 3 (as usually
happens), the Strouhal number would decrease to 0,05÷0,12 with
negative effects on the vortex shedding frequency ns (considering
the reference speed vref constant).
Moreover, comparing the spherical shape to the cylindrical one in
terms of drag coefficient cD (with the same Reynolds number Re),
which defines the drag wind load FD on the structure (FD =
Fig. 14: Sphere and cylinder cD 0.5·cD·ρ·vref2·A, where cD is the drag coefficient, ρ is the air density,
comparison vref is the wind velocity and A is the impact flow area), the sphere
is better than the cylinder. In fact the diagram in Fig. 14shows the
less spherical cD in comparison to the cylinder cD one: considering a cylinder tall building with
34,94 m radius and 559 m height, in order to obtain the same S/V spherical building with 80 m
radius, the sphere impact flow area is about the 49% of the cylinder impact flow area.

5. Parameters describing the shape

The building shape represents an important element in the architectural appearance of the building,
but also in the control of its energy performance. Recently, in the preliminary design stage of the
building, the S/V ratio (where S is the surface that bounds out the gross heated volume V) has
assumed an increasing role in the building shape selection.
Usually a conscious design combined with the local building tradition has identified building shapes
depending on different climatic contexts in which they were built; in cold climates compact forms
of architecture are more frequent while in hot climates buildings having a more elongated shape are
preferred in order to allow passive cooling of the building through natural convection. The
compactness characterizes the volumetric composition of the building and expresses concisely the
degree of concentration in the volume. Furthermore, there is an inverse proportion between the
compactness and the surface casing in terms of less chance of heat exchange with the external
environment.
In traditional rectangular shape buildings, the polyhedra characterized by the lowest ratio S/V is the
cube, with S/V=6/d where d is the cube side. Considering the solid of revolution, however, it
immediately appears how these kind of solids are characterised by a higher compactness and,
particularly, the sphere has the best ratio S/V among these (S/V = 3/r where r is the radius of the
sphere). Moreover, this remark clearly show that to maximise the compactness the radius r of the
sphere must be increased; this follows in the conclusion that the giant structures represents the best
solutions from the energy saving point of view. Of course, other aspects such as visual impact or
social implications of these structures must be considered
too.
In order to understand how the shape factor of a building
can affect its energy performance, a comparison among five
types of building shapes (having the same gross volume of
2˙144˙660 m3) has been made. The five shape considered
are:
1. Spherical building
2. Rectangular building
3. Cylindrical building
4. Pyramidal building
5. Conical building
The results of this comparison are summarized in Table 1.
For the different shapes of buildings the surface S, the Fig. 15: Building shapes for energetic
volume V, the slenderness ratio between height and radius performance comparison
or height and side, and the S/V ratio are listed.

Type of Building Surface [m2] Volume Slenderness ratio S/V [m-1] Δ S/V
[m3] (height/side or
height/radius)
Sphere 80424,77 2144660 1 0,038
Parallelepiped 137201,75 2144660 8 0,064 + 71%
Cylinder 130423,12 2144660 16 0,061 + 62%
Pyramid 165127,61 2144660 12 0,077 + 105%
 Cone 146268,31 2144660 24 0,068 + 82%
Table 1: S/V ratio
The table shows how the sphere is the geometric solid characterized by the best aspect ratio (S/V)
followed by the cylinder, the parallelepiped, the cone and finally the pyramid.

6. Ground Heating and Cooling

Different ground-cooling technologies are available; they can be applied to very different building
and in various climates. Since ground cooling utilized environmental energy, an accurate analysis of
the microclimatic condition and the soil around the building is indispensable in order to estimate the
ground-cooling potential and to decide which ground-cooling technique should be applied to the
building.
In the case of the sphere building in object, a solution based on the use of an earth to air heat
exchangers (EAHXs) that run horizontally at a ground depth of approximately 16 meter has been
chosen. The reasons of the EAHXs choice are:
- they can (pre)heat the supply air in winter and (pre)cool in summer;
- they are simple;
- they provide a high cooling and pre-heating potential;
- they have low operational and maintenance cost;
- they reduce fossil fuel use and related emissions.
The heat and cooling energy gain by an EAHX should meet the actual energy demand of the
building’ ventilation system. If the heating or cooling energy gain is lower than the corrisponding
energy consumption, the supply air has to be heated or cooled, while if the energy gain is higher
than the corresponding energy consumption, the supply air has to be cooled (in winter) or heated (in
summer). This unwanted energy dissipation could be avoided by an optimized control strategy.
The design hypothesis is to maintain a temperature inside the volume of the sphere ranging from
15°C in winter to 28°C in summer, while inside the building built on the sphere will be maintained
temperature and humidity conditions according to their intended use.
To make a preliminary assessment of the efficiency of EAHX a thermal simulation software of a
geothermal system (GAEA), which allows the calculation of the heat flux exchanged between air
and ground, has been used. With soil and climate characteristics typical of northern Italy, this type
of device can reduce cooling and heating loads by about 46% within a year.
The rest of the heat load is generated by an absorption heat pump which will be complemented by a
system of thermodynamic solar concentration so that they can combined electricity and heat for
domestic use.

7. Conclusions
The paper has shown the important structural and energy benefits of a particular spherical tall
building in comparison to others tall building having different shape. In particular for the structural
behavior, it’s studied the dynamic response under the wind and seismic loads, and for the energy
aspects it’s examined the ratio S/V to demonstrate the sphere is the best shape such as to ensure
minimum energy consumption for heating and cooling.

8. References
[1] Eurocode 1 – Eurocode 2
[2] D.M. 14/01/2008 – Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.
[3] Circolare n.°617 – Attuazione delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.
[4] CNR DT 206/2007 - Istruzioni per la valutazione delle azioni del vento sulle costruzioni.
[5] VONA M., “Piastre circolari ed anulari con anelli irrigidenti”, corso di Progetto di
Strutture presso l’Università della Basilicata
[6] EISELE J., KLOFT E., “High-Rise manual - Typology and Design, Construction and
Technology” Edited by Johann Eisele, Ellen Kloft, Birkhauser, 2002.
[7] SIMIU E., SCANLAN R.H., “Wind Effects on Structures - Foundamentals and Applications
to Design”, John Wiley & Sons, 1996
[8] BORRI C., PASTO’ S., “Lezioni di ingegneria del vento”, Firenze University Press, 2006.
[9] KWOK K.C.S., HITCHCOCK P.A., BURTON M.D., “Perception of vibration and occupant
comfort in wind-excited tall buildings”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 97 (2009), 368-380.
[10] CRIACIV “Garibaldi-Repubblica complex in Milan: wind tunnel test assessment of
pressures and forces in dynamic field – Final report”, Firenze, 10/07/2006.
[11] KAPERSKI M., “Design wind loads for a low rise building taking into account directional
effects”, ITAM AS CR, Prague, 11-15 July,2005, paper #278.
[12] GALLERIA DEL VENTIO POLITECNICO DI MILANO, Dynamic response of the Isozaki
Tower under Wind Loads – New FEM-Draft”,19/12/2008.
[13] BELLUZZI O., “Scienza delle Costruzioni”, voll.1-4.
[14] SMITH L., “Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity”, Prentice Hall, New York, 2003, p. 360.
[15] GROSSO M., “Il Raffrescamento Passivo degli Edifici in zone a clima temperato”,
Maggioli Editore, pp. 425-448.
[16] SANTAMOURIS M., ASIMAKOPOLOUS D., “Passive Cooling of Building”, James and
James, pp. 193-211.