Structural calculations of

High Rise Structures

Version: 26-4-2017

Authors:
ir. P.H. Ham
dr. ir. K.C. Terwel
Contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Rigid frame ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Simplified calculation .............................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Portal method................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 Cantilever method ......................................................................................................... 15
2.3 MatrixFrame .......................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1 Input .............................................................................................................................. 21
2.3.2 Output: internal forces MatrixFrame ............................................................................ 22
2.3.3 Comparison internal forces various methods ............................................................... 24
2.3.4 Output deformations MatrixFrame ............................................................................... 24
3 Core ............................................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Simplified calculation ............................................................................................................ 26
3.3 Extended calculation ............................................................................................................. 29
3.3.1 (in)direct normal load .................................................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Distributed wind load (w) and normal force (q)............................................................ 30
3.3.3 Worked example ........................................................................................................... 33
3.4 MatrixFrame .......................................................................................................................... 35
3.4.1 Simplified calculation .................................................................................................... 35
4 Tube systems ................................................................................................................................. 37
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 37
4.2 Simplified schematization ..................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1 First schematized calculation: core with reduction for EI ............................................. 38
4.2.2 Schematizing 2 – tube as thin walled pipe .................................................................... 39
4.3 MatrixFrame .......................................................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 Input MatrixFrame ........................................................................................................ 42
4.3.2 Output MatrixFrame ..................................................................................................... 42
5 Outriggers ...................................................................................................................................... 43
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 43
5.2 Simplified calculation ............................................................................................................ 44
5.2.1 Worked example ........................................................................................................... 44
5.2.2 Optimal location outriggers........................................................................................... 46

1
 5.3 Extended calculation ............................................................................................................. 51
5.3.1 Theory............................................................................................................................ 51
5.3.2 Worked example ........................................................................................................... 53
5.4 MatrixFrame .......................................................................................................................... 57
5.4.1 Simplified model ............................................................................................................ 57
5.4.2 Extended calculation MatrixFrame ............................................................................... 59
5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 62
6 Mega frame ................................................................................................................................... 63
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 63
6.2 Simplified calculation ............................................................................................................ 63
6.2.1 Deflection ...................................................................................................................... 64
6.3 MatrixFrame .......................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix Calculation rotation stiffness c of core ................................................................................. 66
Shallow foundation ....................................................................................................................... 66
Pile foundation .............................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix Karamba 3d ........................................................................................................................... 69
Core structure................................................................................................................................ 69
Multiple high-rise structures ......................................................................................................... 71

2
1 Introduction

During the design of high-rise structures, the structure develops from premature sketches to a final
design. To calculate if the structure fulfils requirements regarding strength, stiffness and stability
various calculation methods are possible (see table 1).

Table 1: overview various calculation methods

speed accuracy Needed effort for Use for

design changes
Hand calculation with Very fast Poor Low Quick impression of
rules of thumb feasibility of straight forward
structures
Hand calculation Moderate-Fast Good (although Moderate Determining deformations,
including load assumptions are distribution of forces and
distribution and needed) dimensions of straight
dimensions forward structures (that can
be modelled 2D)
2D calculation Moderate-fast Good (although Low-High (depends Determining deformations,
With computer (e.g. assumptions are on the complexity distribution of forces and
Technosoft, GSA, needed) of the project and dimensions of straight
MatrixFrame) use of parametric forward structures
modelling)
3D calculation with Time Very good High Determining deformations,
computer (ESA, GSA) consuming distribution of forces and
dimensions of complex
structures with load bearing
in multiple directions
3D calculation with Very time Excellent Very high Use with very complex
complex consuming structures, or when walking
material/geometric on the edge (trouble
properties shooting)

This reader aims to providing guidance for calculating structures in the earliest design phases ranging
from applying rules of thumb until performing 2D computer calculations. In the appendix a basic
example of preliminary parametric modelling will be provided.

In the earliest phase usually the first dimensioning is based on experience with reference projects
and rules of thumb. When first calculations are made focus will be on stability (requirement: limit
tensile stresses in the foundation) and stiffness (requirement: limit deflection at top of the building
to 1/500 when foundations are included, or to 1/750 when foundations are left out of the
calculation). In this phase modelling will be done with as low number of variables as reasonable, to
make calculations simple but with realistic outcomes (adequate accuracy). Figure 1 provides some
starting points for these initial checks. Initial hand calculations will be quickly followed by basic
computer modelling of 2D structures.

3
 Concrete building
structures

(0,1m)

Figure 1: Initial checks high-rise calculations

At the start of a project the loads are usually not known yet. Therefore some first assumptions need
to be made.

As presented in figure 1, the total weight of the building will range from 5-8 kN/m3 dependent on the
mass of the structure (dead load) and the use of the building (live load). Usually a light weight floor
will weigh approximately 4 kN/m2 (e.g. composite floor slab) and a solid concrete floor slab can
weigh approximately 8kN/m2. For live loads one can assume 4 kN/m2 for offices (take more than
minimum of 2,5 kN/m2 to include some flexibility) and 1,75 kN/m2 for residential buildings.

As a first assumption for the wind load, one can assume:

• a factor 1,2 for second order and dynamic factor

4
 • a factor 1,5 for pressure and suction (both sides of building)
• values for wind pressure according to table 2

Table 2: Wind pressures for height over 150m in the Netherlands (source: Convenant Hoogbouw)

Height (m) Coastal area Area I Area II Area III

150 2,54 2,15 1,80 1,48
160 2,56 2,18 1,83 1,50
170 2,59 2,21 1,85 1,52
180 2,62 2,24 1,88 1,54
190 2,63 2,27 1,90 1,56
200 2,65 2,29 1,92 1,58
225 2,70 2,35 1,97 1,62
250 2,74 2,40 2,01 1,66
275 2,78 2,45 2,05 1,69
300 2,82 2,50 2,09 1,72

A general point of attention is that high-rise structures are usually assumed as Consequence Class 3
structures, resulting in a factor kfi=1,1 for load combinations.

For high-rise structures various stability systems are available:

A. Rigid frames
B. Cores
C. Walls
D. Tube systems
E. Tube in tube systems
F. Outriggers
G. Megastructures
H. Hybrid structures (bundled tubes)

For buildings of over 100m normally A to C will not be sufficient. As a rule of thumb normally the
ratio between the height and the width of the stability elements is 1:8. This ratio based on
experience. Usually when building more slender than this ratio, problems with tension in the
foundation piles and/or stability elements, dynamic problems and problems to limit deformations
can occur. When building are more slender, the various requirements can only be met at a
considerable increase of cost per m2.

In this reader we will focus on rigid frames, cores, tube systems, outriggers and mega structures. The
other systems are variants of these basic stability systems.

As this reader is developed in 2017, we would welcome any suggestions for clarification or
improvement.

Pieter Ham and Karel Terwel

5
2 Rigid frame

2.1 Introduction
A rigid frame comprises beams and columns that are joined together with fully moment resistant
connections. The main reason for using a rigid frame is because that the systems allows big open
floor spaces and the possibility to easily redesign the interior floor space, since stabilizing walls are
not necessary. It is not the most effective in transferring horizontal loads to the foundation structure,
since all beams and columns are subjected to bending. (Hoenderkamp, 2007) The application of steel
or concrete rigid frames in tall buildings is therefore limited. Rigid frames are usually not applied for
structures over 5-10 storeys in the Netherlands for economic reasons. However, in earthquake prone
areas application in higher buildings can be considered, because their behaviour under seismic loads
can be favourable (absorption of energy within moment resisting joints).

Horizontal deformations

The horizontal deformations of the main axis up the height of these rigid frame structure consist of
two components: global shear deformation due to local bending in beams and columns, and a global
bending moment deformation resulting from axial strains in the columns (figure 2a-2d).

Figure 2a: rigid Figure 2b: Figure 2c: global Figure 2d: total
frame global shear bending moment horizontal
deformation resulting from displacement
due to local axial strains in
bending in the columns
beams and
columns

Global shear deformation due to local bending in beams and columns:

Figure 3

Figure 3 provides more insight in this behaviour by showing a single bay of one storey of a rigid frame
under a horizontal loading F. In Figure 3b the lateral deflection is due to double curvature in columns

6
only. In this situation beams have an infinite bending stiffness. In figure 3 b lateral deflection is due
to double curvature in beams only. Now only columns have an infinite bending stiffness. Since beams
and columns do not have infinite bending stiffness, both members of a rigid frame will deform as
shown in figure 3d which is a combination of figure 3b and figure 3c. The resulting bending moments
in the beams and columns due to horizontal load are given in Figure 4.

Figure 3a – 3d: Single bay of one storey of a rigid frame

Figure 4: Single bay, one storey - bending moments

Bending mode

A bending mode is a result of axial strains in columns as shown in figure 4.

Figure 5: Bending mode due axial strains in columns

When calculating the deformations of a high-rise frame structure, both of these phenomena need to
be taken into account.

7
2.2 Simplified calculation
Internal forces and deformations will be calculated with two types of analyses: portal method and
cantilever method. These results will be compared with a MatrixFrame calculation in the next
section.

For these analyses the following situation has to be considered:

For a 15-story rigid frame building, with the frame bents spaced 8,0 m apart in the long direction and
6,0 m in the short direction, a typical inferior 3-bay rigid frame in cross –direction is investigated.
The height of each storey is 3,6m.

The floor framing spans from cross-frame to cross-frame. The floor and roof dead loads are 3,5
kN/m2, the floor live load is Q=3,0 kN/m2 and the roof live load (due to snow) is Q=0,7 kN/m2, and
the curtain load is 0,8 kN/m2. The weight of the columns is assumed to be 0,70 kN/m2.

For this preliminary investigation, we assume a uniform wind pressure of 1,25 kN/m2 (in this example
no safety factors are taken into account, so no distinction is made between SLS and ULS, because
focus is on load bearing behaviour).

Elements:

All columns and girders are assumed to be HEM400 profiles.

Figure 6: situation building for analyses

8
9
2.2.1 Portal method
With the portal method, an approximate hand analysis for rigid frames can be made. An advantage
of this method is that it is not needed to specify member sizes. Only the geometry of the frame
structure needs to be known. Therefore it can be very useful to use this analysis in preliminary
designs. The method is suitable for rigid frames that deflect predominantly by racking. Therefore
structure of moderate slenderness and height up to 25 stories with a height to width ratio not
greater than 4:1 can be analysed with this method (Smith, 1991).

In this section we use the earlier described building structure. For this method the building is
schematized as a set of single bay portal frames. When each of the separate portals caries a share of
the horizontal shear, tension occurs in the windward columns and compression in the leeward
columns (figure 7) (Smith, 1991).

These three single bay portal frames are supposed to simulate the multi-bay frame, so the axial
forces of the interior columns are eliminated, leaving axial forces only in the extreme windward and
leeward columns. Mind that in practice the axial forces in the interior columns will usually higher
than 0, so this assumption is made for this specific type of modelling.

Figure 7: schematization portal method

This portal method can only be used by taking into account the following assumptions:

- All points of contra flexure in the beams and columns are assumed to be located at mid span.
Clearly, bending moments are assumed to be zero in these locations.

- The storey shear force is determined at mid height and distributed to the individual bays in
proportion to their width.

- This method gives a good result for structures with a regular geometry up the height.

For the multi-storey structure as shown in figure 8a the portal method is explained in 6 steps. Based
on: (Hoenderkamp, 2007).

Since this example contains a symmetric structure only one half of the structure is analysed.

10
1. The horizontal storey force on the central frame at mid height of the storey number three is
calculated at 9 m above ground level. This is not the maximum force, but this position will be
used to make a comparison with the cantilever method and MatrixFrame calculation.

; = ∙ ∙
The shear force caused by the wind at this level is calculated as follows:

; = 45 ∙ 1,25 ∙ 8 = 450

Figure 8 a, b, c: shear force caused by wind

11
 Figure 9: portal method, member forces

2. Since the structure consists of three bays, the shear force in the exterior bays and the interior

450
bay:

= = = 150
; ; ; ;
3

12
3. The shear force in each bay is equality distributed to two columns:

150
The shear force in the exterior columns.

= = 75,0
; ;
2

150 + 150
The shear force in the interior columns.

= = 150
; ;
2

4. The bending moment in the column caused by the shear force is the shear force multiplied by
half the storey height:

! ; ; = 75 ∙ 1,8 = 135 "

The bending moment in the exterior columns:

! ; ; = 150 ∙ 1,8 = 270 "

The bending moment in the interior columns:

5. The bending moments in the beams are in equilibrium with the bending moments in the
columns. First the column moments in one storey lower (storey 2 in this case) must be calculated
in order to calculate beam moments.
So in similar ways the shear force, and bending moments are calculated:

;# = 48,6 ∙ 1,25 ∙ 8 = 486

486
= = = 162
;#; ;#;
3

162
= = 81,0
;#;
2
162 + 162
= = 162
;#;
2

! ;#; = 81 ∙ 1,8 = 145,8 "

! ;#; = 162 ∙ 1,8 = 291,6 "

Equilibrium at the exterior connections of level three then gives:

! ; ; = 135 + 145,8 = 280,8 "

Since the points of contra flexure are at mid span of the beams, the bending moments at the end of
the beams are equal and opposite.
Equilibrium at the interior connections of level three then gives:

! ; ; = 270 + 291,6 − 280,8 = 280,8 "

13
6. The axial force in an external column Fc;0,ext is the applied bending moment M0 at ground level
divided by the total width of the frame. As previously mentioned the axial forces in the internal

54#
columns are neglected in this approach.

!' = 10 ∙ = 14580 "

2
1480
( ;'; = = 810
3∙6

A problem might occur at the bottom storey where points of contra flexure in the columns may not
be assumed to be located at mid storey height. If columns are fixed the points of contra flexure may
be taken to be at two third up the height of the column. The story shear force should then be
obtained at that level.

For pinned connections, the storey shear force should be obtained at ground level. These steps are
described in the reader of (Hoenderkamp, 2007).

14
2.2.2 Cantilever method
The cantilever method is based on the concept that a tall rigid frame subjected to horizontal loading
deflects as a flexural cantilever.

Figure 10: Forces and deformations caused by external moments (Smith, 1991)
The validity of this concept increases for taller, more slender frames and for frames with relative stiff
girders. The cantilever method is suitable for buildings up to 35 stories with a height to width ratio of
5:1 (Smith, 1991).

In comparison with the portal method, the cantilever method considers the equilibrium of joint
modules in sequence too. However, it differs by assuming values for axial forces, rather than shear
forces in the columns. Additionally, in this method, axial forces in the interior columns are taken into
account as well (Smith, 1991).

For the cantilever method the following assumptions have to be taken into account:

- Due to horizontal loading on the frame, double curvature in both the columns and the
girders occurs. Again the points of contra flexure are considered to be located in the mid-
heights of the columns and at mid-span of the girders (Smith, 1991).

- The axial stress in column is proportional to its distance from the centroid of the column
areas (Smith, 1991).

15
For the multi-storey structure as shown in figure 8a the cantilever method is explained in 6 steps
(Hoenderkamp, 2007).

1. Determine the location of the neural axis of the rigid frame.

In this situation the neutral axis is in the center of the frame:

Figure 11: cantilever method; dimensions

With: c1 = c4 = 9 m and c2 = c3 = 3m
All columns are HEM400 profiles, so Aci = 3,26 ∙ 10-2 m2.

2. The moment of inertia of the rigid frame structure:

) = *+ ; ∙ , # = -3,26 ∙ 10 .# ∙ 3,0# + 3,26 ∙ 10 .# ∙ 9,0# / ∙ 2 = 5,868 "0

!, ∙+
3. The axial force in a column:

( =
)
with ci is the distance from the neutral axis of the frame to the neutral axis of the column and
Ai the sectional area of the column.

16
 Figure 12: building structure (figure right shows wind load at mid height of storey 3)

1 1
The bending movement at mid height of storey number 3:

! = ∙ 1 ∙ # = ∙ 10 ∙ 45# = 10125 "

2 2

23 3 ∙43
( =
5
exterior columns:
10125 ∙ 9 ∙ 3,26 ∙ 10.#
( ; = = 506,3
;
5,868

10125 ∙ 3 ∙ 3,26 ∙ 10.#

interior columns:

(; = = 168,8
;
5,868
The same procedure is followed for axial forces in the columns at story level two:

1
The bending moment at mid height of storey number 2:

!# = ∙ 10 ∙ 48,6# = 11810 "

2

11810 ∙ 9 ∙ 3,26 ∙ 10.#

exterior columns:

( ;#; = = 590,5
5,868

11810 ∙ 9 ∙ 3,26 ∙ 10.#

interior columns:

( ;#; = = 196,8
5,868

17
4. The shear force at level 3 is the difference between axial columns forces above and below
the floor beam, and work from left to right:
These values are shown in figure 13.

= 590,5 − 506,3 = 84,2

Exterior beam left:
; ;

= 84,2 − 168,8 + 196,8 = 112,2

interior beam:
; ;

= 112,2 + 168,8 − 196,8 = 84,2

Exterior beam right
; ;

Figure 13: Cantilever method, member forces

5. The bending moment in the beam is the shear force multiplied by half the span length
(presented in figure 14):

6
Exterior beams

! = 84,2 ∙ = 252,6 "

; ;
2

6
Interior beams

! = 112,2 ∙ = 336,6 "

; ;
2

18
 Figure 14: Cantilever method, member forces

The bending moments in columns can be obtained from equilibrium in the beam-column connection.
For this calculation the method requires that the analysis be started at the top of the structure.
However, for a direct calculation of bending moments in the columns it can be assumed that the
values of the upper and lower column moments are linearly related to the distances between point-
of-contra flexure and top-of-structure for the upper and lower columns (see fig. 15, 16).

! =! ∙
6
6+
; ;
#

45,0
exterior columns

! = 252,6 ∙ 7 8 = 121,4 "

; ;
45,0 + 48,6
48,6
! = 252,6 ∙ 7 8 = 131,2 "
;#;
45,0 + 48,6

45,0
Interior columns

! = -252,6 + 336,6/ ∙ 7 8
; ;
45,0 + 48,6
= 283,3 "

48,6
! = -242,1 + 322,8/ ∙ 7 8
;#;
45,0 + 48,6
= 305,9 "

Figure 15: building structure: bending

moments
19
 Figure 16: cantilever method; member forces

6. Shear force in the column can be calculated by dividing the bending moment by half the
column height:

121,4
Exterior columns:

= = 67,4
; ;
1,8
131,2
= = 72,9
;#;
1,8

283,3
Interior columns:

= = 157,4
; ;
1,8
305,9
= = 169,9
;#;
1,8

In the cantilever method it assumed that shear lag across the frame does not occur. This
shear lag behaviour will be introduced in chapter 4.

20
2.3 MatrixFrame

Member forces, reaction forces and deflection can as well be calculated by means of FEM software.
In this section an example is shown how to execute this by using MatrixFrame. For this example we
use the same building situation as described in the previous sections.

At first input parameters are described. Hereinafter it is shown how to get results useful results.
These MatrixFrame results are compared with the results gained with the portal and cantilever
method.

2.3.1 Input
Modelling a rigid frame high rise building in MatrixFrame is relatively easy. In this example this
building type is modelled as a 2d framework. Figure 10a shows the section of the building which is
modelled.

Figure 17a,b: modelled building

The geometry is quite straight forward. So again a 3-bay building with a grid size of 6,0 m with 15
stories with a story height of 3,6m is modelled as shown in figure 17b.

As shown in figure 17 clamped supports are modelled in this example. All connections between
beams and columns are modelled as rigid connections.

All elements are modelled as HEM400 profiles.

21
In this example only horizontal loads are included, because we are interested in horizontal
deformations at the top, and will not focus on second order effects yet.

Loadcase 1: In this situation only wind force has been taken into account. A distributed load of
1,25*8=10,0 kN/m acts horizontally on the building. Mind that the building consists of 3 frames in the
considered direction. If every frame has equal stiffness, it will get 16/3=5,3m of wind load. However,
we assume that the middle frame is stiffer (larger vertical loads, will result in larger profiles) and will
take 8,0m of wind loads.

Figure 18: windload on building

2.3.2 Output: internal forces MatrixFrame

All calculated outputs for axial forces, shear forces and bending moments are shown in the following
figures.

22
 Figure 19: axial forces

Figure 20: shear forces

Figure 21: bending moments

23
2.3.3 Comparison internal forces various methods
Table 2 shows a comparison between the calculated values with the portal method, the cantilever
method and the MatrixFrame model.

Table 2: Output internal forces

Nc;ext;2 608 591 635

Portal method Cantilever method MatrixFrame

Nc;int;2 0 197 60
Nc;ext;3 518 506 542
Nc;int;3 0 169 65
;#; 81 73 87
;#; 162 170 156
; ; 75 67 80
; ; 150 157 145
! ;#; 149 131 140
! ;#; 192 306 272
!; ; 135 121 152
!; ; 270 283 259
; ; Not calculated 84 93
; ; Not calculated 112 88
!; ; 281 253 292-268
!; ; 281 337 264

This table shows that values calculated with the portal and cantilever method, are relatively close to
the values calculated with the MatrixFrame model. It can be stated that all methods can be an useful
tool for indicating a first insight in the behaviour of the structure.

2.3.4 Output deformations MatrixFrame

Two modes of lateral deformation will be present at a rigid frame building under horizontal loading.
Those two modes are due to bending and racking shear. For a rigid frame shear is caused by double
curvature in the beams and columns. Bending is a result of axial strains in the columns.

In (Hoenderkamp, 2007) both modes are calculated by using an analytical approach. For the bending
mode must be known in order to determine the deflection of each floor.

For the shear mode, by knowing the GA of the frame the deflection due to shear can be calculated
per floor.

Since for each floor separately the deflection must be calculated in order to calculate the total
displacement in the top, this might be a very time-consuming approach. For this reason mostly only
the MatrixFrame or the Karamba model is used for a preliminary design. However in the appendix I
this analytical approach is executed for the previous example. The Karamba model is described in the
appendix.

Figure 22 presents the deformations as calculated by MatrixFrame, which includes both modes of
lateral deformation.

24
Figure 22: maximum deflection

25
3 Core

3.1 Introduction

A high rise structure in which a relatively stiff core ensures its stability is a commonly used structural
system. Usually the width of the cores doesn’t exceed 15m (to attain a satisfactory gross-netto ratio),
so with a height over 100-120m other solutions have to be considered.

The calculation of bending moments and shear forces in a simple stabilizing core under wind load
seems a pretty straightforward process at first sight. However it becomes more complex when the
second-order deformations are incorporated in the calculation. In this chapter first a simple
calculation has been made in order to check internal forces and deflection of an high rise structure.
Hereinafter, second order effects are taken into account, in order to calculate deflections more
precise.

3.2 Simplified calculation

For this calculation a similar building shape as in the previous chapter is used. Now, instead of a rigid
beam-column connections, a concrete core provides its stability (figure 23).

Figure 23: concrete core structure

26
 Figure 24a, 24b: concrete core
The height of this building is 15*3,6= 54 m. The width is 16 m and the length 18m. The width and the
length of the core are 6m. Mind that the slenderness of the stability core is 1/9, so we might expect
problems with tension on the foundation or with displacements at the top.

In this calculation it is assumed that only the core provides the structure its stability. As a first start,
the core is assumed to be without openings.

The value for the windload is simplified to 1,25 kN/m2, distributed equally. The floor load (permanent
and live load has been set to 0 kN/m2 in order to focus the influence of wind.

In this situation the following values can be calculated:

1 1
)= ∙6∙6 − ∙ 5,4 ∙ 5,4 = 37,14 "0
12 12
1 1
F= ∙ 6 ∙ 6# − ∙ 5,4 ∙ 5,4# = 9,76 "
6 6

+ = 6 ∙ 6 − 5,4 ∙ 5,4 = 6,84 "#

Self-weight core:

1 = 6,84 ∗ 24 = 164,2
"

HIJK LM N M = 164,2 ∙ 54 = 8865

1 1
!= ∙ 1 ∙ O # = ∙ 20 ∙ 54# = 29160 "
2 2

27
To see if there is tension in the SLS we check the stresses.

! 29160 8865
P=+ − = − = +2987,7 − 1299,9 = 1687,8 # = 1,67 /""# -RSTUVWT/
F + 9,76 6,82 "

! 29160 8865
P=− − = − = 2987,7 − 1299,9 = −4287,6 #
F + 9,76 6,82 "
= −4,29 /"" -,W" XSUUVWT/
#

As expected with this slender core, tensile stresses already occur in SLS. These stresses might be
somewhat smaller, because we ignored the axial forces because of floor loads. On the other hand,
the stresses can be larger, because openings in the core were not included.

This means that in ULS, with safety factors, a considerable amount of reinforcement is needed,
because we are not allowed to include tensile capacity of concrete for the resistance. In SLS we have
to take a reduced Young’s modulus into account, of for instance 15000 N/mm2 (dependent on
amount of reinforcement, often 1/3 * E is assumed).

EI = 37,14 * 1,5 * 106 = 5,57 * 108 kNm2

Deflection:

1O 0 20 ∙ 540
^= = = 38,1 ""
8_) 8 ∙ 5,57 ∗ 10`

"abV"c" dSeOS,RVWT = = 72 ""

750
38
fg = = 0,5
72

This means that deflection is already fulfilling the requirements, although tension is present in the
core, and Young’s modulus might be smaller than assumed here.

In this first simplified situation only horizontal (wind) loads and vertically acting self-weight of the
core are taken into account. In the following example vertical dead and live loads are added, and the
contribution of these loads to the second order effect is included.

Furthermore, in this simplified situation the influence of the foundation was included by setting a
stricter requirement for deflection of h/750 instead of h/500. The influence of the foundation will be
more adequately included in the following example.

28
3.3 Extended calculation
3.3.1 (in)direct normal load
The building consists of a stiff core (for example an hoistway and staircase), spring connected to thte
base, and shematized with all nodes as hinges.

Figure 25: concrete core structure

When the core deflects under influences of wind, all stories will deflect with it. Then they will ‘hang’
on the core (on the right side under with load from the left side) and push againgst the building (on
the left side).

In this scheme the full vertical load will be applied in the core.

Figure 26: schematized indirect normal forces

29
 Figure 27: schematized situation for concrete core

3.3.2 Distributed wind load (w) and normal force (q)

After describing how indirect normal forces act on the building, and after calculating the rotational
stiffness of a foundation (in appendix), a more precise value for the deflection of a core structure can
be calculated. In this calculation a core is schematized as a column with a certain stiffness EI, and
with a rotational stiffness c and has a length of H. On this column a distributed wind load w and a
normal force q is acting. In this example both 1st order as second order effects are taken into
account.

Figure 28: schematized concrete core

30
Approximation method:

1st order deflection y is caused by the bending moment as shown: (figure 29a)

Figure 29a,b: 1st order effect; 2nd order effect

The vertical load on this deflected column gives bending moments of the first step of the second
order according bending moment diagram number 2 in figure 29b. When the deflection line y1 is
assumed to be a straight line, bending moment occur according line number 2 in figure 29b and is
completely affine with the bending moments of the 1st order (Dicke, 1991).

When it can be stated that with a reasonable accuracy the bending moment diagram number 2 (of
figure 29b) is the first step of second order, then the critical value for q will be reached when:

1 1
h #
= 1 i'
2 2

31
 Figure 30: second order effect
Then approximately:

h∙
1 =
I
i'

and when

F = h ∙ and j = 1 ∙

Then:

F∙
j =
I
i6

With

i6 = ik + i (Dicke, 1991)

Then:

l l l
= +
mno mno,p mno,q

with:

2,
j I,k =

32
For an infinite stiff clamped column:

h 0 F
i6 = i = =
8_) 8_)

And so

F 8_)
j = = #
I,
i6

However the exact value is

7,83 _)
j I, = #

So the deviation of the approximation is 2,2% on the unsafe side. However it is so small, that it can
be neglected. (Dicke, 1991)

3.3.3 Worked example

In this example a similar structure as in the previous chapters is calculated:

Figure 31: worked example, core

33
 5,57 * 108 kNm2

Figure 32: schematized core

In this structure an additional vertical distributed load q is taken into account in order to calculate a
certain indirect normal load (larger than only self-weight of core).

Furthermore, a certain rotational stiffness C is used. This value is calculated in appendix.

2, 2 ∙ 1,62 ∙ 10r
j = = = 6,0 ∙ 10s
I,k
54

8_) 8 ∙ 5,57 ∙ 10`

j = = = 1,53 ∙ 10t
I, # 2916
1 1 1 1 1
= + = +
j I j I,k j I, 6,0 ∙ 10 s 1,53 ∙ 10t

j I = 4,3 ∙ 10s

j = 54 ∙ 300 = 16200

j I 4,3 ∙ 10s
T= = = 26,9
j 16200

T 26,9
= = 1,04
T − 1 25,9

1 1
∙h∙ h 0 ∙ 20 ∙ 54 20 ∙ 540
i6 = 2 + = 2 + = 0,0972 + 0,0382 = 0,135 "
, 8_) 1,62 ∙ 10r 8 ∙ 5,57 ∙ 10`
T
i= ∙ i = 1,03 ∙ 0,135 = 0, 139 "
T−1 6
1 1 1 1
!= ∙h∙ #
+1∙ ∙ ∙ i = ∙ 20 ∙ 54# + 300 ∙ 54 ∙ ∙ 0,118 = 29160 + 955,8
2 2 2 2
= 30116 "

34
 Maximum deflection = 54/500 = 0,108 m (h/500 because foundation is now included)

UC = 0,139/0,108 = 1,28

It appears that with this slender core and small foundation base, the deflection at the top does not
meet the requirements. It is advised to enlarge the foundation base, because the foundation has the
largest influence on the deflection.

Note: In order to take openings into account, the stiffness must be reduced with 20 – 30 %. This is
shown in the next chapter in which a tube structure is calculated.

3.4 MatrixFrame
First a MatrixFrame model is made of the simplified calculations. In the appendix the more detailed
model (including a second order effect) is explained by using Karamba.

3.4.1 Simplified calculation

Input:

The geometry is straight forward. Only a single column with a length of 54m is modelled. A fully
clamped support is added on the bottom of the column. Over the total length of the column a
distributed horizontal load of 20,00 kN/m is added. As well self-weight is taken into account. In
MatrixFrame concrete has a weight of 25 kN/m3, which results in a 171 kN/m over the length of the
column.

The section is modelled as a tube profile, with a height and a width of 6m, and a thickness of 0,3m:

E = 1,5 ∙ 107 kN/m2

I = 37,14 m4
A = 6,84 m2

Output:

The output of this calculation is shown in figure 33

The maximum deflection is 0,038m, which – not surprisingly - configures the calculated value with a
clamped foundation.

35
Figure 33: MatrixFrame model

36
4 Tube systems

4.1 Introduction
In a tubular structure the facades consist of steel or concrete beams and columns, which forms a
large steel or concrete tube with many openings for windows. Connections between columns and
beams are completely rigid so the façade structure acts as a sway frame which can resist the
horizontal load. (Hoenderkamp, 2007)

Shear lag effect

The behaviour of framed tube lies somewhere between a pure cantilever structure and a pure frame.
(Schueller, 1990)

An ideal stress distribution as shown in figure 34 is quite unrealistic, since this pattern is mainly a
function of the flexural stiffness of the beams between the columns. This is called shear lag
(Hoenderkamp, 2007). Due to this shear lag between columns, much larger forces in the corner
columns are generated, so that the more inner placed columns are less effective in resisting lateral
forces (Schueller, 1990).

Figure 35: shear lag effect

Figure 34: framed tube

37
4.2 Simplified schematization
4.2.1 First schematized calculation: core with reduction for EI
A first assumption is to schematize the building as a core, with a large reduction for the stiffness,
since multiple openings are placed in the structure (in all walls). Calculating the structure as a core
structure with a reduction in stiffness 40 to 50 % gives a proper first insight in the behaviour of the
tube.

The examples of chapter 3 can be used for this first schematized calculation.

Figure 36: reduction EI

In this example a similar building as the previous examples is used. Usually, tube structures are used
for taller buildings, so now the building height is chosen to be 144 m.

The value for the windload is simplified to 1,25 kN/m2, distributed equally. The floor load (permanent
and live load has been set to 0 kN/m2 in order to only calculate the influence of wind. H

Figure 37: example tube

In this situation the following values can be calculated:

38
 6 6
)= ∙ 16 ∙ 18 − 6# ∙ 15,4 ∙ 17,4 = 1015 "0
6#

1 1
F= ∙ 6 ∙ 6# − ∙ 5,4 ∙ 5,4# = 87,0 "
6 6

We will reduce I and W with 50% because of the openings.

For C45/55:

Ectm = 30000 N/mm2

Because at least part of the beams will be cracked, we assume E=15000N/mm2.

EI = 0,5* 1015 * 15 * 106 = 7,6 * 109 kNm2

Deflection:

1O 0 20 ∙ 1440
^= = = 141 ""
8_) 8 ∙ 7,6 ∗ 10~

"abV"c" dSeOS,RVWT = = 144 ""

750
141
fg = = 0,98
144

4.2.2 Schematizing 2 – tube as thin walled pipe

Another way for estimating internal forces and deflections of the tube structure is to schematize the
tube as a thin walled pipe.

For this schematization a concrete tube structure is considered. The dimensions for this example are
shown in figure 38.

Figure 38: floorplan of facade columns

Column thickness (t) 0,3 m

39
 Column width (c): 1 m

Center-to-center distance (l) : 2 m

Width (W): 16 m

Length (L): 18 m

The first step in this schematization is to smear out the columns over a plate with a thickness t. The
formula which can be used is as follows:

R 0,3
R•M = = = 0,15"
JMK€
O 2

Because of the shear lag effect the forces in the columns will not be equal. To get an indication of the
equivalent width, the following conditions are used (Schueller, 1990)

The effective width we is the smallest of the following three equations (Schueller, 1990):

h 16
h = = = 5,33"
3 3
O 18
h = = = 9,0 "
2 2
144
h = = = 14,4 "
10 10

So, the effective width in this situation is 5,33 m.

Figure 39 shows how the columns are simplified as a fictive plate.

40
 Figure 39: simplified tube
Now, the stiffness can be calculated:

Itot;eff = Iflanges + c*Iweb (with c is a reduction factor to include shear deformation of the webs, we
assume this to be 0,5)

Itot;eff = 2*z2*Aflange;eff + 0,5*2*1/12*b*hweb3

Itot;eff = 2*92*(5,33*2*0,15) + 0,5*2*1/12*0,15*183

Itot;eff = 259 + 73 = 332m4

Next the stiffness of this combined section can be found and with that the deflection at the top can
be calculated:

1O 0 20 ∙ 1440000
^= = = 216 ""
8_) 8 ∙ 15000 ∙ 332 ∙ 106#

This deflection is larger than the deflection calculated with method 1. It appears that in method 1
effective width is taken as 100% which is an overestimation. Method 2 will be more adequate in this
situation.

4.3 MatrixFrame
To schematize a tube, a similar structure as a rigid frame structure can be modelled in 2D, as shown
in chapter 2. The shear deformation of the web can be calculated more adequate. For the corner
columns in the model, one should model the area of the columns that are in the effective width we of
the flanges of the tube. So for instance, if you assume that 4 columns are contributing to the stiffness
(and the other columns are ignored because of shear lag effect), the column in the corner has to be
modelled with 4 times the area of the column (because of Steiner rule, the area of these corner

41
columns is determining for capacity of the stability system). Mind that you only model 50% of the
total building in MatrixFrame when modelling 2D.

Figure 40a: stiffer corner columns Figure 40b: output deformations

4.3.1 Input MatrixFrame

For the structure columns 1000*300 and beams 1000*300 were used. For the corner columns, the
number of columns within the effective width were included. So three columns were included here
(a=0,3m2, same stiffness assumed as other columns).

For the wind load concentrated loads of 10*3,6=36 kN were applied.

4.3.2 Output MatrixFrame

The deformation at the top is calculated to be: 303 mm. (figure 40b)

This value might be too conservative, because the length of columns and beams is measured from
centre to centre. However, the length that actually deform are dependent on the intersections
between column and beam.

For a comparison with the hand calculation it appears that the hand calculation provides lower
values. The assumptions for shear deformation might have been too low. It would have been safer if
in method 2, the stiffness of the web would not have been included.

42
5 Outriggers

5.1 Introduction
An outrigger structure can be used if the centrally placed core does not supply enough stiffness to
the building. The rigger often comprises a horizontal truss with a height of one or two stories and
connects exterior columns to the core (Hoenderkamp, 2007).

These outrigger structures can be applied one or multiple times over the height of the building.

With a simplified method of analysis, reductions in horizontal deflections at the top and bending
moments in the central structure can be calculated. Hereby the effect of the outrigger can be
checked for a preliminary design.

Reductions in bending moments for multiple possible configurations are shown in figure 41.

Figure 41a,b,c: outrigger systems

43
5.2 Simplified calculation
5.2.1 Worked example

Figure 42: Outrigger system

44
 Figure 43: schematized outrigger system

In this example again a similar structure is calculated. The dimensions of this structure are shown in
figure 42.

For the core, similar dimensions are used as in previous chapters.

In this example two HEM 400 profiles work together with a relatively stiff rigger to provide the
structure more stability.

) JI = 37,14 "0

HEM 400: A = 32578 mm2

)I HH I = , ∗ T ∗ 2 ∗ … # ∗ + = 0,40 ∗ †2 ∗ 2 ∗ -… # ∗ +/‡ = 0,6 ∗ 2 ∗ 2 ∗ 9# ∗ 3,257 ∗ 10.#

= 6,33 "0

With:

c = reduction for effectiveness outrigger system . This value is dependent on the position of the
outrigger and stiffness of the core and riggers. For optimum position at around 2/3 H. Then c = 0,6.
Otherwise 0,3<c<0,6.

n = amount of columns per façade

EI of the structure:

45
Econcrete = 31500 N/mm2 (in this situation we assume the concrete to be uncracked, because of weight
of floors and core. This needs to be checked.)

Esteel = 210000 N/mm2

_) J M = 37,14 ∗ 31500 ∗ 10 + 6,33 ∗ 210000 ∗ 10 = 2,50 ∗ 10~ "#

Deflection:

1O 0 20 ∙ 1080
^= = = 0,136 "
8_) 8 ∙ 2,50 ∗ 10~
UC:
Maximum deflection = H/750 = 0,144

UC=0,136/0,144 = 0,94

The structure without the outriggers:

_) = 37,14 ∗ 315000 ∗ 10 = 1,17 ∗ 10~ "# (although it can be assumed that in this situation
the concrete will be cracked, and the stiffness will be lower).

1O 0 20 ∙ 1080
^= = = 0,254 "
8_) 8 ∙ 1,17 ∗ 10~

UC:
Maximum deflection = H/750 = 0,144

UC=0,254/0,144= 1,76

5.2.2 Optimal location outriggers

An outrigger can be applied at any level. However, there are optimum locations to place one or more
outriggers. These locations depend on the stiffness of the central core, outrigger and façade
columns. Optimum means a maximum beneficial influence on the horizontal deflection at the top of
the structure.

It is also possible to implement multiple outrigger structures. Optimal locations for these can be
found with a more simplified method, by using the graphs of figure 45 to figure 49.

Three parameters must be known, being the stiffness of the core (EI), the axial stiffness EA of the
columns, and the and the bending stiffness of the outrigger (EIo) combined with dimensionless
parameter ω. Then the optimal location for the outrigger(s) follow.

First ω must be known. (Smith, 1991)

‰
ˆ=
12-1 + Š/

46
With α is the ratio between the stiffness of the core and the stiffness of the columns.
With β is the ratio between the stiffness of the core and the stiffness of the outriggers.

_)
Š=
-d
_+ # /2/

_) d
‰= ∙
_)'

With EI= bending stiffness of core/braced frame

With EAc= axial stiffness of column
With EI0= stiffness of outrigger
d/2= horizontal distance between columns and center of
gravity of the structure
H=height of the structure

Figure 44: Outrigger scheme

In the following figures the optimum location of one or multiple outriggers shown for minimum
deflections of the structure.

Requirements for this method are:

- a rectangular floorplan
- a constant wind load over the height
- a uniform structure over the height

47
Figure 45: optimum location for 1 outrigger level (Smith, 1991)

Figure 46: optimum location for 2 outrigger levels (Smith, 1991)

Figure 47: optimum location for 3 outrigger levels (Smith, 1991)

48
Figure 48: optimum location for 4 outrigger levels (Smith, 1991)

Figure 49: moment reduction (Smith, 1991)

49
 Figure 50: drift reduction (Smith, 1991)

Limitations for this method are:

- it shows only the deflection at the top, not over the full height of the structure. For deflection over
the full length (Hoenderkamp, 2007) can be used.
- it shows the reduction of bending moments of the outriggers, not the entire bending moment
diagram of the structure.

50
5.3 Extended calculation
5.3.1 Theory
In this section a more detailed calculation is made, in order to get a better insight in deflections and
internal forces. For this calculation (Hoenderkamp, 2007) is used.

Several necessary assumptions has to be taken into account in order to use this calculations:

- The bending stiffness of the trussed frame/core remain equal over the height of the building.
- The axial stiffness of the columns remain equal over the height of the building.

Hint: The displacement at the top and the bending moment at the bottom are mainly influenced by
the properties of the lower elements, so use the properties of these elements for this calculation .

Figure 51: outrigger system

For this calculation the horizontal deflections of the structure consists of four components: two for
deflection due to horizontal wind loads and two for a restraining moment Mr. Mr is a result from
axial forces in the facade columns. The reduction in deflection can be determined by using the
moment area method.

The reduction for horizontal displacement for the area below the outrigger (x>xo): (Hoenderkamp,
2007)

!I - − b/#
^I =
LK J
2_)

The reduction for horizontal displacement for the area above the outrigger (x<xo): (Hoenderkamp,
2007)

51
 !I # b b' # b b' !I
^I = ‹1 − Œ • − Œ • + 2 Œ • Œ •Ž +
LK J
2_) Š•+

With:
EIt = the bending stiffness of the vertical trussed frame or for the centrally placed core

O
GAt = is the racking shear stiffness of the vertical trussed frame / centrally placed core

Š=

Then the maximum horizontal displacement at the top of the structure (x=0) can be calculated with
(Hoenderkamp, 2007):

•‘’“ = •po”•– − •o–—˜n‘™’š

›œ• ›œ¡ ¤o †œ¡ − ¥¦ ¡ ‡ ¤o

•‘’“ = + − −
žŸ ‘ ¡¢£‘ ¡Ÿ §¢£‘

The restrainting moment Mr can be calculated with the following expression, which is the result of
the compatibility equation (Hoenderkamp, 2007).

1- − b' / 1b'
!I = ¨ + © ∙ 7 8
6_) Š•+ - − b' /ªN + ª«

In this equation the parameters for flexibility can be calculated as follows: (Hoenderkamp, 2007)

ªN = +
_) _)

1 1 1
ª« = 7 + + 8
Š 24_)' ℎ•+' ℎ•+6
#

With

EIec = the axial stiffness of the exterior columns in a bending stiffness parameter = 2_+ O #

-® ¯4° « ®
EI0 = the flexural stiffness of the outrigger structure = -® .6 Œ #
•

With

j = the number of segments in the rigger section

Ab = the sectional area of a horizontal outrigger member

Tot total racking shear of the outrigger structure between the exterior columns is the sum of the
racking shear stiffness of all segments in the rigger

•+' = * •+J;
±6

The calculation of GA of multiple bracing types is shown in (Hoenderkamp, 2007).

52
5.3.2 Worked example
In this section the previous described detailed calculation method is applied on a building situation.
For this example again (Hoenderkamp, 2007) has been used.

A comparable building as in the previous examples is used in this example.

A 108 m high rise building with 30 stories is built with a outrigger structure. Two single trussed
frames with outriggers are added at one level. The core is similar as the previous example. The
structural floorplan is given in figure 52. Outriggers have a single story height and they are subdivided
in three segments of 2,0 m each. Beams are HEA 400 and diagonals are rectangular hollow sections
of 300x200x10mm. Wind load is 1,25 kN/m2. Es = 210 x 106 kN/m2. All columns are assumed to be
HEM 400 sections. All connections are assumed to be hinges.

Figure 52: floorplan; outrigger structure

53
 Figure 53: outrigger structure
This calculation is made on the total system. This consists of a single concrete core with two riggers
on both sides of the core. (n=2)

The flexural stiffness of core (if assumed that it is not cracked):

_) = 37,14 ∗ 315000 ∗ 10 = 1,17 ∗ 10~ "#

It is assumed that for this slender core the influence of the bending stiffness EI is determining over
the shear stiffness GA. Therefore, the influence of GA is neglected in this example.

The bending stiffness parameter representing the axial stiffness of the exterior columns:

_) = _ ∗ T ∗ 2 ∗ … # ∗ + = 210 000 ∗ 10 ∗ †2 ∗ 2 ∗ -9# ∗ 3,257 ∗ 10.# /‡ = 2,216 ∙ 10~ "#

The adjusted bending stiffness of the outrigger structure is

²# _+ ℎ# 3# 210 ∙ 10t ∙ 1,590 ∙ 10.# ∙ 3,6#

_)' = T ∙ ¨ © = 2 ∙ ∙ = 4,8682 ∙ 10r "#
²# − 1 2 3# − 1 2

The racking shear stiffness of the outrigger structure between the exterior columns is for this
configuration for 3 segments per side (Hoenderkamp, 2007):

t
2a# ℎ_+L 2 ∙ 2,0# ∙ 3,6 ∙ 210 ∙ 10t ∙ 9,493 ∙ 10.
•+' = T ∙ * •+J; =2∙6∙ = 2 ∙ 6 ∙ ³ µ
d
±6 Œ´3,6# + 2,0# •
= 9,8642 ∙ 10t

O 9,0
Š= = = 1,5
6,0

The two characteristic parameters for flexibility:

54
 108 108
ªN = + = + = 1,41 ∙ 10.r /"
_) _) 1,17 ∗ 10~ 2,216 ∙ 10~

1 1 1
ª« = ¨ + + ©
Š # 24_)'; L- ℎ•+' ℎ•+6

1 6,0 1 1
= 7 + + 8 = 1,48 ∙ 10.` /"
1,5 24 ∙ 4,8682 ∙ 10
# r 3,6 ∙ 9,8642 ∙ 10t 3,6 ∙ ∞

ª« 1,48 ∙ 10.`
ˆ= = = 0,10
ªN 1,41 ∙ 10.r

For the core only:

Š•+
‰ = ·
_)

It is assumed that GA is very large, so the value for ‰ will be large too.

Then from the curve from figure 54. it can be seen that the optimum location for the rigger x/H =
0,39. This means that the rigger is located at 42,1 m from the top. The outrigger will be placed at 41,4
m from the top, since this is the nearest mid story level to the optimum location.

Figure 54: Optimum outrigger location

The horizontal load on a the load resisting structure: 1,25∙16=20 kN/m.

Then the restraining moment is:

1- − b' / 1b'
!I = ¨ + © ∙ 7 8
6_) Š•+ - − b' /ªN + ª«

20,0-108 − 41,4 / 20,0 ∙ 41,4 108

= ¨ + © ∙ 7 8
6 ∙ 1,17 ∗ 10~ 1,5 ∙ ∞ -108 − 41,4/ ∙ 1,41 ∙ 10.r + 86,4 ∙ 1,48 ∙ 10.`

= 34282 "

55
The bending moment on the foundation:

1 1
!= ∙ 1 ∙ O # = ∙ 20 ∙ 108# = 116640 "
2 2

The reduction of the bending moment then is 29,4%.

The lateral deflection can be calculated with the previously described formula:

›œ• ›œ¡ ¤o -œ¡ − ¥¦ ¡ / ¤o

•‘’“ = + − −
žŸ ‘ ¡¢£‘ ¡Ÿ §¢£‘

20 ∙ 1080 20 ∙ 108# 34282 ∙ -108# − 41,4# / 11127

= + − −
8 ∙ 1,17 ∗ 10~ 2∙∞ 2 ∙ 1,17 ∗ 10~ 1,5 ∙ ∞

= 0,2907 + 0 − 0,1189 − 0 = 0,1718 "

108
!ab ^ J• : = 0,144
750

0,1718
fg = = 1,19
0,144

The deflection seems not to meet the requirements, unless the foundation is very stiff, and its
influence can be neglected.

56
5.4 MatrixFrame

5.4.1 Simplified model

First, the simplified calculation method is checked with MatrixFrame.

Core

In this MatrixFrame model, first a clamped column is modelled. This column functions as the core,
and therefore the properties of the core must be filled in at the section of the column:

E = 3,15 ∙ 107 kN/m2 (uncracked concrete)

I = 37,14 m4
A = 6,84 m2

In this model, the foundation of the core is modelled as a fully fixed support.

Columns

Two columns are modelled both sides of the core, with a distance of 9 m from the core. Since the
total structure is modelled each modelled column must have the properties of two HEM 400 profiles.

E = 2,1 ∙ 108 kN/m2

I = 2,8238∙ 10-4 m4
A = 6,5156∙ 10-2 m2

The supports of the columns are modelled as pinned supports.

Rigger

At 2/3 of the height of the structure (72 m) the rigger is placed. To model this rigger as a relative stiff
rigger, a large I beam is used, with the following dimensions:

Material: steel S235

Height: 3,6m
width flange: 1 m
thickness flange and web: 0,1 m

The connection of the rigger and the core is assumed to be fully rigid.
The connection of the columns and the rigger are assumed to be hinges.

Load

On this structure a horizontal distributed load of 20 kN/m is applied on the core of the structure.

57
Figure 55: modelled outrigger structure

58
Output

Figure 56a: deflection, b: bending moment, c: axial forces

Deflection

Figure 56 shows that the deflection at the top of the structure is 140 mm. The in subsection 5.2.1
calculated value for the deflection at the top is 136 mm, which is relatively close to the outcome of
MatrixFrame.

5.4.2 Extended calculation MatrixFrame

Here the more detailed building structure is modelled in MatrixFrame.

Both the core and the columns are modelled exactly the same as for the simplified model. However
the rigger is modelled slightly different.

The distance from the ground to the riggers are now 66,6 m. Additionally the rigger has different
properties in order to modelled the braced rigger.

59
Material: steel S235
E = 2,1 ∙ 108 kN/m2
I = 2,32∙ 10-1 m4
A = 1,6 ∙ 10-2 m2

The connection of the rigger and the core is assumed to be fully rigid.
The connection of the columns and the rigger are assumed to be hinges.

Load

On this structure a horizontal distributed load of 20 kN/m is applied on the core of the structure.

Figure 57: modelled outrigger structure

60
Output

Figure 58a: deflection, b: bending moment, c: axial forces

Deflection

Figure 58 shows that the deflection at the top of the structure is 168 mm. The in subsection 5.3.1
calculated value for the deflection at the top is 171 mm, which is relatively close to the outcome of
MatrixFrame.
In this model a certain deflection of the rigger can be detected. For this reason, the deflection in the
top is larger than at the simplified calculation.

61
5.5 Conclusion
Table 4 shows a comparison of the outcomes of the various types of calculations. It appeared that
MatrixFrame calculations resemble the outcomes of the calculations by hand.

Table 4: Comparison outcomes various types of calculations

Simplified Extended Simplified Extended

calculation calculation MatrixFrame MatrixFrame
model model
Deflection at top 136 mm 171 mm 140 mm 168 mm
Restraining Not calculated 34282 kNm 34010 kNm 28761kNm
bending moment

62
6 Mega frame

6.1 Introduction
In this chapter the mega frame is elaborated. A mega frame comprises a large rigid or trussed frame.
This larger frame is infilled with multiple smaller structures.

6.2 Simplified calculation

In this section a simplified calculation of a mega frame high rise structure is made. For this example a
108 m high building, with a floor plan of 16 x 18m has been schematized. The building consists of 10
divisions with x bracing. All columns are assumed to be HEM700. Beams and diagonals are both
HEM600 profiles. A distributed wind load of 10 kN/m acts on a single frame.

Figure 59: mega frame

63
6.2.1 Deflection
Deflection of the mega frame consists of deflection due to bending and due to shear.

The bending stiffness of the frame:

_)kI € = _ * …# ∗ +

)kI € = -2 ∗ 9# ∗ 3,8302 ∗ 10.# / = 6,20 "0

_)kI € = 6,20 ∗ 210000 ∗ 10 = l¸, ¦¸ ∗ l¦ž ¹º•¡

Racking shear stiffness:

2a# ℎ_+L
•+ =
d

With
a = 18m
h = 10,8m
E = 210000*103 kN/m2
Ad= 3,76366 * 10-2 m2
d= ´10,8# + 18# = 21"

Figure 60: x-bracing

2 ∗ 18# ∗ 10,8 ∗ 21000000 ∗ 3,76366 ∗ 10.#

•+ = = », ¼½¸ ∗ l¦¾ ¹º
21

Note: For other bracing types (Hoenderkamp, 2007) can be used.

1 0 1 #
^ J• = +
8_)kI € 2•+kI €

64
 10 ∗ 1080 10 ∗ 108#
^ J• = + = 0,131 + 0,0098 = 0,141 "
8 ∗ 13,03 ∗ 10` 2 ∗ 5,973 ∗ 10t

UC:

Max deflection = 108/750 = 0,144 m

0,141
fg = = 0,98
0,144

6.3 MatrixFrame
In this section a MatrixFrame model of a mega frame is explained. A mega frame with the previous
described dimensions is modelled. All connections are assumed to be hinges.

On this mega frame a distributed horizontal load of 10 kN/m is modelled.

Figure 61: MatrixFrame model of mega frame

It appears that the analytical method provides similar values for deflection at the top.

displ-at top/ 0,141 m 0,141 m

MatrixFrame Analytical

65
Appendix Calculation rotation stiffness c of core

As stated before the foundation gives the core a certain rotational stiffness ‘c’. In the following
examples it is shown how this stiffness can be calculated for a shallow foundation and for a pile
foundation (Dicke, 1991)

Shallow foundation
Given is a core with shallow foundation. To come to a proper value of c, the elastic foundation value
k is used. The elastic foundation value is the relation between the stress σ and the displacement w.
P
= [ /"" ]
h

When a rectangular plate is used:

It is assumed that the vertical load G is large enough to prevent tensile stresses in the foundation
plate:

Figure 62: concrete core

!
P =
1
6a
P 6!
h= =
a

h 12!
Á= =
1 a0
a
2
! 1
,= = a0
Á 12

In a similar way for circular foundations:

66
 ! 1
,= = a0
Á 12

Figure 63: rotation of shallow foundaiton

Pile foundation

Due relative large vertical loads it is assumed that there is only

compression in the foundation.

The block will rotate with an angle Á . We investigate pile i with a

pile cap is a ∙ Á .
distance of ai in respect to the rotation axis. The displacement of the

)• = *∙ a #
±6

For moment M the force in the pile:

!∙a
 =
)•

 ∙ O•
∆O =
_ ∙ +• #

Rotation:

∆O
Ä=
a

Rotational stiffness:
2
,=Å

Figure 64: concrete core -

pile foundation

67
Worked example:

Foundation: 16 piles on equal distances (figure 64) with Ap = 400*400 mm2, and a l= 21,0 m

Mwind = 29160 kNm (previous example)

Material: Concrete C25

)• = *∙ a # = 4 ∗ 2-2# + 4# / = 160 "#

±6

For moment M the force in the pile:

29160 ∙ 4
 = = 729
160
729000 ∗ 21000 ∗ 1,5
∆O = = 7,18 ""
20000 ∙ 400#

Rotation:

7,18
Ä= = 0,00180
4000

Rotational stiffness:

29160
,= = 1,62 ∙ 10r "/Xad
0,00180

68
Appendix Karamba 3d
In this appendix two grasshopper models with karamba 3d-plugins are described. The first model is a
schematization of a core structure. A second model consists of four structural types, being: a rigid
frame, a braced frame, an outrigger and a mega frame.

Core structure
Input
In figure 65 an overview of the karamba model is shown.

Figure 65: karamba model

For this core structure a relatively simple geometry is created. A single vertical line is modelled by
connecting two points with a variable distance from each other. In the next step this line is converted
to a beam. A support is added in the lowest point. This support is modelled as a fully clamped
support.

Over the entire length of this line, a uniform line-load is modelled. As well, the self-weight of the
structure is added.

Hereinafter the cross-section and materials can be defined. In this example, a core with similar
dimensions as in chapter 3 is modelled. This is done by creating a box profile. In this example, C20/25
is used. In karamba the E of this material is 3100 kN/cm2.

69
All defined elements are assembled. After assembling the model, the model can be analysed.
Without taken into account a second order effect the tool “Analyze ThI” is used. Second order effect
can be taken into account, by using “Analyze ThII”.

By connecting the “Analyze” to the “model view” and “beam view”, the displacements and internal
forces are visualized in Rhino.

Figure 66: deformation, karamba

Output

According the calculation in Karamba the maximum displacement is without second order effect is
19,2 mm, and with second order effect the displacement is 19,4 mm.

Check with simple calculation

1O 0 20 ∙ 540
^= = = 18,5 ""
8_) 8 ∙ 31000 ∗ 10 ∗ 37,14

In chapter 3 a simplified calculation for a core system is compared with a MatrixFrame model. Those
two values are equal. The outcome of Karamba however is slightly different then the calculated
value.

70
Multiple high-rise structures
In this section multiple high-rise structures are modelled by using karamba 3d. For this model, the
example model of karamba 3d is used and adjusted, that it configures the previous described
calculations in a better way. (Karamba, 2016). A rigid frame, a braced frame, an outrigger structure
and a megaframe are modelled.

In figure 68, an overview of the grasshopper file is shown.

Figure 67: grasshopper file, multiple high-rise types

For each structural type the most important aspects are elaborated.

Common parameters

Common parameters determine the dimensions of the structures and the load acting on the
structures.

71
 Figure 68: common parameters

Rigid frame
For the rigid frame structure a straight forward geometry is moddeled, consisting of columns and
beams.

Figure 69: geometry of the rigid frame

All lines are converted to beams, cross sections and supports are defined, and a distributed wind load
is generated (figure 71).

72
 Figure 70: defining the rigid frame-structure
After defining and assembling the structure, the model is analysed. By using “model view” and
“beam view”, all outputs are visualized in Rhino.

Figure 71: results, rigid frame

For the building configuration as used in chapter two, the karamba model gives a displacement at the
top of 75 mm. The MatrixFrame model showed a displacement of 65 mm.

73
Braced frame
In the braced frame structure, x-braces are added to the central bay (figure 73 , 75).

Figure 72: geometry braced frame

All connections are now modelled as hinges, by modifying the beam, as shown in figure 74.

Figure 73: all connections modelled as hinges Figure 74: displacement braced frame

All further steps are similar as described for the rigid frame model.

Under similar conditions as the rigid frame (equal windload, equal basic geometry), with HEM400
columns, HEM400 beams, and HEB 240 diagonals, the displacement at the top is 95 mm (figure 75).

Outrigger
The model of the outrigger structure is quite similar to the braced frame model. However, now
riggers are added to the geometry (figure 76,77)

74
 Figure 75: geometry outriggers

Figure 76: displacement, outrigger structure

th
By adding outriggers to the 9 floor of the braced frame structure, the displacement becomes 38mm
instead of the previously calculated 95 mm.

Megaframe
The geometry of the mega frame differs from the previous building structures. Large diagonals are
added to the structure. The interior beams and columns are neglected in this model. Again all
connections are assumed to be hinges.

Under similar conditions (equal windload, equal basic geometry), with all elements modelled as
HEM400 the displacement at the top of the structure is 12 mm.

75
 Figure 77: displacement, megaframe
A comparison with the calculated mega frame of chapter 6 can be made. So, a 108 m high mega
frame building with all HEM600 elements is modelled. Under a distributed load of 10kN/m the
displacement at the top is 148mm. Compared with the MatrixFrame model and with the hand
calculation the calculated value of Karamba is slightly larger.

Figure 78: displacement, mega frame 108m

displ-at top/ 0,141 m 0,141 m 0,148m

MatrixFrame Analytical Karamba

76