THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.

17, 123 (2008) Published online 19 November 2007 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.268

THE STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS IN A TALL REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING
H. MOGHADDAM* AND M. SAMADI
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

SUMMARY Results of the seismic performance assessment of a new structural system that has been used in a 54-story reinforced concrete building are presented. The structure, which is still under construction, and has a Y-shape form, utilizes a special structural system that does not include any beams or columns. Instead, walls and slabs are used for carrying both gravitational and lateral loads. The general distinctions of the system are discussed. The structural efciency of the system is compared with other conventional systems in some existing tall buildings. The seismic responses and dynamic behavior of the structure that were achieved by conducting various analyses are presented. The effects of analysis method, as well as some other parameters such as modeling assumptions and bidirectional earthquake excitation on the linear responses, are studied. The inuence of the number of modes and design spectrum on the spectral analysis results is discussed. Using dynamic analysis, the real heightwise distribution of lateral loads occurring during an earthquake is presented. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The lateral loads from wind or earthquake dominate the structural design of tall buildings (Smith and Coul, 1991). The designated structural system must provide stiffness, strength and stability for the tall building. Several structural systems have been presented and utilized in tall buildings, which can be divided to moment frames, braced frames, wall-frames, tubes, core-tubes, bundled tubes, braced tubes, core-outriggers, etc. The main difference between these systems, i.e. their various lateral load-resisting behavior, has been studied by (Smith and Coul, 1991). The efciency of these conventional systems is very different. It can easily be veried that for a building with a given area, if its height increases with a denite ratio, in order to keep the lateral drift ratio unchanged the required structural weight should be increased with the second order of the height increment ratio, while its total volume is increased with the rst order of that ratio. This is also observable in nature, where animals skeletons become markedly heavier when their body volume increases. For example, while the weight of the bones of the mouse is just 8% of its body weight, this ratio exceeds 18% for the human (Schueller, 1995). Many tall buildings have been constructed in high-seismicity regions throughout the world that accommodate large numbers of people. Owing to the signicant issue of the seismic stability of high-rise structures, several investigations have been conducted in the eld of seismic assessment

* Correspondence to: H Moghaddam, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, PO Box 11365-9313, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: moghadam@sharif.edu

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

of existing tall buildings. Miranda studied the seismic responses of an instrumented 32-story reinforced concrete building and compared the results with the measured responses of the building to the Loma Prieta earthquake (Miranda et al., 1991). Ventura and Ding studied the seismic behavior of a 52-story steel-frame building using both linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis as well as push-over analysis (Ventura and Ding, 2000). Providing stability of tall buildings against lateral loads is much more complex than in ordinary structures and choosing an appropriate structural system for enhancing structural performance is important. Consequently, the development of innovative structural forms and systems in tall buildings has been considered as a signicant research topic. However, once a new structural system is utilized in a tall building, new investigations are necessary to study its structural behavior, especially under seismic loadings. This paper presents parts of the results of a study on the seismic evaluation of a 54-story RC building currently under construction that demonstrates the structural and dynamic behavior and performance of its inventive structural system, i.e., different from the above-mentioned categories. A performance-based strategy was selected for the purpose of evaluating the building. This paper focuses on the following results that mostly implicate the performance of the structural system. The distinctive structural characteristics of its three-wing form are discussed. Results of several analyses that were conducted on two distinct nite element models of the building are presented. Articial accelerograms compatible with the site response spectrum were generated and used in the dynamic time history analysis of the structure. Owing to long time and large amount of memory required for the analysis of such a large structure, sensitivity analysis was conducted to ascertain the effect of various parameters on the response values. In this respect the effect of the number of combined modes on the spectral analysis results, the P- effect, bidirectional excitation and modeling assumptions are evaluated. The real heightwise lateral force distribution in this structural system is presented and a formula is proposed for the purpose of calculating these loads. Some other results such as nonlinear analysis results, seismic damage evaluation using various damage indices, the acceptability of building performance during earthquakes of three hazard levels, and the applicability and reliability of some newly proposed nonlinear analysis methods can be found in Moghaddam and Samadi (2003). 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM The studied structure, named Tehran Tower, is a 54-story reinforced concrete residential building which is still under construction. The height of the building is 1643 m from the top of the base slab and it will be the largest and tallest building in a high-seismicity area. The structure consists of three basement levels, ground oor, mezzanine and 49 stories above them. It includes three intersecting wings with an angle of 120. The length and width of each wing is 50 m and 21 m, respectively, and they have an area of 912 m2 (Figure 1). The key benet of this structural form when compared to other conventional structural systems for tall buildings is the least distance between the internal building zones to the exterior windows in this tower (which does not exceed 10 m), i.e., a criterion for brightness of the spaces. There is a setback at the ground oor level where the area of the building decreases from 3952 m2 in the basements to 2737 m2 in the upper oors (Figure 2). Wings A and B in Figure 2 are identical (both structurally and architecturally) whereas wing C is slightly different. Each wing consists of a main longitudinal wall and several transverse walls, called secondary hereafter. The spacing between the secondary walls varies from 35 m to 8 m. Up to ve different thicknesses have been designated for the primary walls in each story. For example, at the ground oor, primary walls have three different thicknesses 195, 155 and 115 cm, in a descending order from center to wing tip (as shown in Figure 2). These values of wall thicknesses are reduced every ve stories, such that at the top ve levels all of the
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

Figure 1. Overview of Tehran Tower

wing C

wing A

wing B Z

(A) Plan of building in the basement floors including primary and secondary walls
70 70

(B) Plan of building in the upper floors including primary and secondary walls

70

70

(C) The primary wall of wing-A at the 54th story

195 155 115

(D) The primary wall of wing-A at the ground floor

Figure 2. Plan of the structure

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

above-mentioned thicknesses are reduced to a single value of 70 cm (Figure 2). The thickness of the secondary walls generally lies in the range 2550 cm. Both main and secondary walls are reinforced in three orthogonal directions. Three to ve layers of reinforcement meshes are used in the main walls, and two to three layers in the secondary walls, respectively. These meshes are connected to each other using some bars normal to the plane of wall (link bars), to prevent buckling of the reinforcement meshes, conne core concrete, and resist against shear. In both primary and secondary walls, the vertical reinforcement ratio does not exceed 05% due to simultaneously having large gravity and lateral loads, as well as large sections. The horizontal reinforcement ratio in primary and secondary walls are 1% and 05%, respectively. The structure is sustained by a three-wing shape mat foundation with a depth of 3 m (Figure 3). The height of all stories is 3 m except in the basement oors. 3. GENERAL ASPECTS OF STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR

The following primary characteristics may be recounted for this structural system. 3.1 Characteristics of three-wing structural form Supposing a three-wing section as depicted in Figure 4, it can easily be veried that the moment of inertia of such a section is independent of its rotation angle (q) and for all q values in Figure 4 is equal to

Figure 3. Structure mat foundation layout

xX

Z z
Figure 4. Idealized three-wing form of the structure
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

5 (1)

I X = I Z = tr 3 2 because we have I x = (tr 3 3) {cos2 + cos2 (120 + ) + cos2 (240 + )} = tr 3 2

(2)

where t and r are the thickness and length of each wing, respectively. However, attention should be paid to the fact that while the moment of inertia about any arbitrary axis is the same, the section modulus in bending about the X-axis takes a maximum value for q = 90 and a minimum value for q = 0. Therefore, q = 0 results in maximum normal stress from bending which is the critical direction of the section for bending assessment. Also, as shown in the following equations, shear effects are most critical at q = 0, where

= QV ( It ) = {(tr 2 2 ) (t 2r 3 2 )}V = V A
and in the case of q = 90 we have

(3)

= QV ( It ) = {(tr 2 2 cos 30 ) (t 2r 3 2 )}V = 0.866V A

3.2 Aspect ratio

(4)

The lateral behavior of a tall building is similar to a cantilever beam, where the height of the building is its length and the overall plan dimensions represent the width and depth of its section. Therefore, as the plan dimension increases, the lateral strength, stiffness, and overturning resistance of the building increase more markedly. Also a decrease in the structure height leads to reduction of the lateral deection of this assumptive beam. Thus the advantages of this structural system are its short height as well as its large plan width. While the usual story height of tall structures is not less than 4 m because of the required height of girders and also the occupied space for horizontal transmission of facilities (Table 1), this system makes it feasible to reduce the story height to 3 m.
Table 1. The efciencies of various structural systems Building name Chase Tower Empire State World Trade Center Sears Tower US Steel Building John Hancock Center Alcoa Building Boston Co. IDS Center Tehran Tower Construction 1963 1931 1972 1974 1971 1968 1969 1970 1971 2005 Stories 60 102 110 109 64 100 26 41 57 54 Height/width 73 93 69 64 63 79 4 41 61 22 Steel weight per unit area (psf) 552 422 37 33 30 297 26 21 179 184 Height (m) 248 381 415 443 256 344 96 152 235 164 Structural system Braced rigid frame Braced rigid frame Framed tube Bundled tube Shear walls + outriggers Trussed tube Latticed tube K braced tube K braced tube + belt truss Monolithic intersecting walls

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

In other words, considering that the height of the building is 164 m and the diameter of its peripheral circle is 100 m reveals that the aspect ratio of the building is almost equal to 164, and as classied by Nateghi (2000), the structure may be regarded as a medium-height structure and more stable than a slender tall building. 3.3 Structural role of secondary walls

The secondary walls support slabs and transfer their gravitational load to the foundation. They also increase shear and exural story strength against lateral loads. In addition, they act as stiffeners for the main walls, enhancing their out-of-plane stiffness. This reduces the local vibrations of each wing and also prevents buckling of the main walls under vertical and lateral loads. The secondary walls also play an important role in increasing the torsional moment of inertia of the structure. 3.4 Seismic performance of reinforced concrete walls

Unlike conventional frame structures, in this building there are just reinforced concrete walls and slabs that participate in load carrying. The use of walls instead of columns is benecial because, after incurring damage in a severe earthquake, columns may lose their capacity for bearing vertical loads, leading to local or global collapse of the structure, while a reinforced concrete wall can maintain its bearing capacity even after experiencing a large amount of cracking and crushing in a strong earthquake (FEMA 306, 1999). In addition, as opposed to walls, the seismic capacity of columns is very sensitive to design and construction quality such as the details of transverse reinforcements and joints. 3.5 Structural role of basement oors

As described previously, greater thicknesses have been considered for walls and slabs in basements as compared with upper oors; additionally these oors are larger than the upper ones. Hence they act as a stiffener for the mat foundation, reducing its thickness (similar to the stiffeners in the connection of a column to a base plate). Consequently, the foundation behaves like a box rather than a mat system, and this in turn increases the overall stiffness and stability of the foundation. 3.6 Economic considerations

The efciencies of various systems are widely different. The efciency of the structural system may be quantied in terms of the required structural material, for example the structural steel weight used per unit area of the building, to provide adequate stiffness, strength and stability. Table 1 presents the results of an exploration on some famous tall buildings and their specications are compared with the corresponding values for the studied structure. It is observed that the type of structural system plays the most important role in economic cost reduction. Table 1 also shows that the structural system used in the Tehran Tower is very economical from the viewpoint of the structural steel used. 4. MODELLING THE STRUCTURE

The conventional nite element method has been successfully used in various types of analyses of large structures. The use of advanced elements can help engineers to design complex structures, such as tall towers, at lower cost and with lower weight. Many researchers and design engineers have proposed exact and approximate solutions for dynamic analysis of large building structures. However,
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

in cases of high-rise structures with a lot of structural elements, computer time and memory can be large (Khaloo et al., 2001). A detailed three-dimensional nite element model of the structure was developed by using the ANSYS program. In this 3D model (called ML3d hereafter) that was developed by improving a recently built model, all walls, slabs and foundations were modeled using the SHELL63 element of ANSYS (SAS, 1995). SHELL63 is a four-node element with six DOFs at each node and can consider both membranous and exural actions. All structural details, consisting of thicknesses, openings, loads and elastic foundation stiffness (for the foundation elements), were included in this model, and therefore a total number of 35 types of element characteristics (real constants) were dened for the shell elements. Lintels were modeled using the BEAM189 element and there were seven section types in total for these elements in the whole model. This model contained 22 687 SHELL63 elements, 2558 BEAM189 elements, and 130 686 DOFs (Samadi, 2003). Seismic risk analysis was conducted for different risk levels (Samadi, 2003) and the results are summarized in Table 2. Also response spectra for these levels are depicted in Figure 5 and have been compared with both new and old versions of the Iranian seismic code, 2800 Standard (1999).
Table 2. Description of seismic risk of triple hazard levels Risk analysis method Probabilistic Probabilistic Deterministic Exceedance probability/ earthquake magnitude 37% (once in 50 years) 10% (once in 500 years) MS = 71 on a fault with a distance of 7 km to site PGA Horizontal 032 g 049 g 058 g Vertical 023 g 036 g 047 g

Hazard level DBE (design basis earthquake) MPE (max. probable earthquake) MCE (max. considered earthquake)

Figure 5. Comparison of site design spectra for the three hazard levels with that of 2800 Seismic Code
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

Several articial accelerograms were generated to be compatible with these spectra by employing the SIMQKE program. Figure 6 shows the generated accelerogram that is compatible with the spectrum of the MCE level. Only 9 s of generated records was applied because of the large structural model, which requires a large amount of memory and time for conducting time history analysis. For this structure, owing to having non-orthogonal lateral force-resisting systems, in accordance with FEMA 356 (2000) and commentary to SEAOC Vision 2000 (1995), responses to excitation in any of X or Z directions (Figure 2) were combined with 30% of responses to the orthogonal direction excitation. As pointed out earlier, the X direction in Figure 2 is the most critical excitation direction for assessing both shear and exural actions. In order to obtain the effect of this code requirement on response values, four loading cases were taken into account in all analyses, i.e., Ex, Ez, Ex + 03Ez, Ez + 03Ex, referred to as Ex, Ez, Exz, Ezx hereafter. 5. MODAL ANALYSIS

Results of modal analysis showed that the rst mode of the structure is torsional with a period of 38 s (Figure 7). The second and the third modes are two symmetric exural modes in Z and X directions with a period of 15 s, respectively (gure 8). This reconrms the symmetry of the building. The fourth mode is the second torsional mode. The fth and sixth modes are second symmetric exural modes in Z and X directions, respectively, and the seventh mode associates with the vertical vibration of the structure. The rst six modes of vibration can be observed in Figure 9. The deformed shape of the structure in the rst and the second exural modes are claried in the charts of Figure 10. The rst exural mode, i.e., the second natural mode, is obviously a combination of exural behavior in the down stories and shear behavior in a few of the top stories. Although the rst mode is torsional, due to the symmetry of the structure there is no torsional loading associated with seismic excitation. As shown in Figure 11, the earthquake-induced torques about the center of rigidity of the structure eliminate each other and the resultant torque is zero: T = F (d 2) + F (d 2) F (d ) = 0 (5)

In addition, both recorded and analytical seismic responses of similar structures (a Y-shaped tall building with a dominant torsional natural mode of vibration but without any eccentricity) showed that there is almost no torsional response under earthquake excitation (Miranda et al., 1991). Moreover,

acceleration (m/s)

6 4 2 0 -2
0

10

-4 -6 time (sec)
Figure 6. Time history of MCE articial record
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

Figure 7. First natural vibration mode (top view)

Figure 8. Second natural vibration mode (top view)

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

10
1

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

1 1
MX
MX

MX

Y Z
MN

Y
MN

Y Z
MN

T1 (The 1st mode)

1
MX

Z1 (The 2nd mode)

1
1

X1 (The 3rd mode)

MX

MX

MN

Y
MN

Y X Z X
MN

Y Z X

T2 (The 4th mode)

Z2 (The 5th mode)

X2 (The 6th mode)

Figure 9. First six modes of the structure

60

50

Shear behavior
40

story

30

Flexural behavior
the 2 nd mode the 5 th mode
20

10

-1.20

-0.80

-0.40

0 0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

relative lateral displacement

Figure 10. Displacement vector of centerline nodes in the rst and the second exural modes
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

11

F d/2 d/4 F F

Figure 11. Symmetry about any arbitrary axis inhibits the occurrence of torsional excitations

60 50

Storey

40 30 20 10 0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

lateral displacement (m)

Figure 12. Lateral displacement of center nodes under equivalent static analysis

the structure poses a considerable torsional resistance coming from the secondary walls. Consequently, the effects of torsion (and accidental eccentricity) were neglected in the analyses. 6. STATIC FORCE-BASED ANALYSIS

The conventional static analysis suggested by the seismic codes was used for estimating the structural response. The Iranian seismic code, 2800 Standard (1999) coefcients were used, presenting a base shear coefcient C = 0096. For evaluating the inuence of the P- effect, the analysis was conducted with and without P- effect and the results were compared. The results are summarized in Table 3. The lateral displacement is shown in Figure 12. It should be noted that that the ductility-based reduction factor R has been accounted for in these analyses. The results indicate that the P- effect results in increases of the base shear and tip displacement by 06% and 15%, respectively. This is much less than the 10% value that was suggested by Goel (Sivakumaan and Balendra, 1987). However, these values of increment may be amplied when nonlinearities and interaction with soft soil, if signicant, are be taken into account.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

12

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

7.

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS

The modal analysis results were used as the basis for spectral analysis. Four spectra were used for this analysis, including DBE, MPE and MCE spectra and the code design spectrum. Since modal analysis indicated that the mass participation in modes 1525 is negligible, the maximum structural responses in the rst 15 modes are combined using the CQC method (Wilson et al., 1981). Figure 13 shows the displacement of the centerline of the building under the four foregoing spectra in four different loading cases (Ex to Ezx) in ascending order. It can be seen that the structural responses in two perpendicular directions (Ex, Ez) are approximately identical. This is a result of the symmetry of structure that was pointed out previously. Maximum displacement occurs at the tip of the wings at the roof level, and is equal to 391, 300, 469 and 563 cm under 2800, DBE, MPE and MCE spectra in Exz loading, respectively. In addition, it can be concluded from Figure 13 that bidirectional seismic loading can increase the lateral displacement of the building up to 46%. The increases in maximum strain and base shear due to bidirectional loading are 85% and 5%, respectively. The story shear diagrams under these four spectra in the most critical loading case (Exz) are shown in Figure 14. The gure indicates that a maximum base shear of 2258 MN occurs under the spectrum of the MCE hazard level. Several formulations have been presented by the codes for distributing base shear in the height of structures for traditional static seismic analysis (Uniform Building Code, 1997; NEHRP85,
Table 3. Summary of the equivalent static analysis results Equivalent static Loading case Exz Exz including P- Compressive strain 000083 000084 Maximum response values Tensile strain 000047 000048 Displacement (m) 0170 0172

60 50 40
dbl x dbl z 2800x 2800 z dblx +.3z dbl z +.3x 2800 x+.3z 2800 z+.3x mpl x mpl z mpl x +.3z mpl z +.3x mcl x mcl z mcl x +.3z mcl z +.3x

storey

30 20 10

0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Lateral displacement
Figure 13. Maximum displacements of centerline nodes obtained from spectral analysis
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

13

1985). In this study the real heightwise distribution of the lateral forces in the building under earthquake was determined from the story shears. The computed lateral forces from spectral analysis on the structure versus height are shown in Figure 15. A statistical regression was conducted to t a formulation to these data and the following second-order polynomial equation was obtained:

60
DBL from model

50 40

2800 code from model MPL from model MCL from model

story

30 20 10 0 0.0E+ 0 1.0E+5

5.0E+4

1.5E+5

2.0E+5

2.5E+5

lateral force (ton)

Figure 14. Story shear forces obtained from spectral analysis

60
DBL

50 40 30 20 10 0

2800

MPL MCL

2.0E+3

story
-

4.0E+3

lateral force (ton)

1.0E+4

1.6E+4

2.2E+4

Figure15. Heightwise distribution of lateral forces from spectral analysis and the proposed regression formula
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

14

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

Fi = (0.9573e 6 hi2 + 250.9e 6 hi ) V

(6)

where Fi is the lateral force of the ith story except for the roof, hi is the height of the ith story from the seismic base level in meters and V is the base shear in tons. The coefcient of determination of this formula is 09988 and reveals that the estimated values closely correspond to the actual data (Figure 15). The computed values from Equation (7) are also drawn in this gure for comparison with the actual values. It should also be claried that the sudden increase in lateral force at the roof level is mostly because of the greater existing mass in that story. As has been generally accepted, increasing the number of structure natural modes in analysis enhances the accuracy of the results. Conversely, it also increases analysis time. Therefore there is always a question of how many modes should be considered in a spectral analysis. In this research, spectral analyses of the structure for Ex and Ez loading cases were repeated for two different situations to measure the effect of the number of modes. First, all 15 rst modes were taken into account, and the analysis was then repeated considering only the rst three modes. It should be noted that these three modes are the rst torsional, and Z and X exural modes, respectively. As depicted in Figure16, in the corresponding earthquakes of all hazard levels, considering only the rst three modes would overestimate the displacement response of the building up to 14% as compared with 15-mode analysis. Figure16 compares the results of spectral analysis for the Ex loading case for these dual conditions. It is noteworthy that the CQC method has been used as the modal combination rule, while by using the SRSS method the estimated responses always increase by increasing the number of combined modes. 8. TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

Consider a damped vibration of a structure as follows: MU + CU + KU = F (7)

60 50 40

story

30 20 10 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

displacement (m)
Figure 16. Effect of number of modes on displacement response
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

15

where C is the damping matrix. Generally there is no need to express the damping of a typically viscously damped MDOF system by means of the damping matrix because it is represented more conveniently in terms of the modal damping ratios zn. According to the improved Rayleigh method for the formation of a damping matrix, damping is assumed to be proportional to a combination of the mass and stiffness matrices, as given by the following equation: C = a0 M + a1 K (8)

in which the proportionality constants a0 and a1 can be evaluated by the solution of a pair of simultaneous equations if the damping ratios zm and zn associated with two specic frequencies (modes) wm and wn are known (Clough and Penzin, 1993). By assuming 5% of critical damping as the damping ratio of the second and fth modes this pair of equations is: = 2 5 = 1 2 ( a0 + a1 2 ) 2 2 1 2 ( a0 + a1 5 ) 2 5

(9)

The proportionality constants a0 and a1 that were obtained from the above equations were fed into the program for dynamic time history analysis. As described earlier, articial ground motions consistent with the site-specic spectra of three hazard levels were generated. Since the Exz loading case is the most critical situation in all time history analyses, accelerograms scaled to 1 and 03 were simultaneously applied to the structure in X and Z directions, respectively. Figure 17 shows the displacement of center points of the roof and 27th oor (located on the intersection of the three wings) during 9 s of excitation by MCE-compatible ground motion. It is seen that the maximum displacement of the roof center in the MCE representative articial earthquake is 50 cm, occurring at t = 818 s. Additionally, there is negligible phase difference in the response of the roof and 27th oor, indicating that the building vibrates predominantly in its rst natural mode of vibration.

0.6

0.4

displacement (m)

0.2

0.0 0 -0.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-0.4

roof 27th floor

-0.6

time (sec)

Figure 17. Time history of displacement response at roof and 27th oor to MCE accelerogram
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

16

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

In Figure 18 the acceleration response time history of the above-mentioned node is depicted for the roof and 27th oor, showing a maximum acceleration of 17 m/s at the roof story at time 654 s of this earthquake. Figure 19 shows the strain contour at the peak deformed shape of the building under the MCE earthquake at 818 s of the MCE record. In this gure just the walls have been shown, to be more comprehensive. At this peak response the lateral deformation shape of the structure may be more clearly studied by drawing the lateral displacement of the nodes located on the centerline versus height. This is shown in Figure 20, where the lateral deformation of the centerline has been depicted for peak responses of the structure in the time history analyses under the generated records compatible with the three hazard levels. The time history of the structure base shear and base moment when excited by the ground motion of the MCE level is shown in Figure 21. It can be seen that the maximum base shear that is developed in an earthquake with a magnitude of 71 on the Richter scale at the Tehran northern fault (MCE) is 1400 MN assuming a linear elastic behavior for the structure. This value of the base shear is equivalent to 46% of the structure weight and occurs after 734 s from the beginning of the motion. In Table 4 the summary of maximum results of various time history analysis under the triple hazard levels in the Exz case, including base shear, displacement and acceleration is presented. A comparison of the calculated responses from the spectral and time history analyses reveals that the responses obtained from the dynamic time history analysis are always greater than those obtained from the spectral analysis. However, the differences between the responses to the associated earthquake excitation of the three hazard levels are not identical but are generally less than 10%. Additionally the time history of the structural responses to the recorded motion of a real earthquake, i.e., Tabas 1976, was obtained and compared to the triple foregoing responses (Moghaddam and Samadi, 2003). Structural responses to the El Centro 1940 earthquake were also computed. In order to evaluate the torsional response of the structure to this earthquake excitation, several response quantities at the center of the roof level were compared to those measured at the tip of wing C. In Figure 22 the displacement responses of these points are compared. As can be observed, there is negligible difference between the responses measured at the center and wing tip, implying a very small torsional response. Additionally, the acceleration responses of the above-mentioned nodes are shown in Figure 22 in both time

20 15 10

acceleration (m/s)

5 0 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

roof 27th floor

time (sec)

Figure 18. Time history of acceleration response at roof and 27th oor to MCE accelerogram
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

17

Figure 19. Peak strain contour in walls under the MCE record

60

50

40

story

30

DBL MPL MCL

20

10

0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

displacement (m)

Figure 20. Lateral displacement of centerline at the peak response to the MCE record
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

18
4.0E+06

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

3.0E+06

2.0E+06
base moment (t.m)

1.0E+06

0.0E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-1.0E+06

-2.0E+06

-3.0E+06
time (sec)

1.5E+05

1.0E+05

5.0E+04

base shear (ton)

0.0E+00 0 -5.0E+04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-1.0E+05

-1.5E+05

-2.0E+05

time (sec)

Figure 21. Time history of base actions under MCE accelerogram (top) base shear, (bottom) base moment Table 4. Summary of maximum structure responses from THA Base shear (MN) 803 1210 1396 Base moment (MN m) 19 100 27 400 30 000 Displacement (m) 0342 0514 0592 Acceleration (m/s) 101 149 169 Compressive strain 00019 00025 00029

HL DBE MPE MCE

Tensile strain 000080 000141 000166

and frequency domains. These response measurements can also represent similar deductions. The Fourier amplitude spectrum shows that major amplications in the responses take place at the natural frequencies of the structure. The Fourier amplitude spectrum also shows that while responses of the center and wing tip that relate to the lower frequencies are very close together, some divergence is observed with the responses at higher frequencies. It may be concluded that the torsional response
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

1

19

(x10**-1) 2.4 2 1.6 1.2 .8

VALU

.4 0 -.4 -.8 -1.2 -1.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

center wing-c

TIME

(a)
10

roof acceleration (m/s)

0 0 -5 2 4 6 8 10 12

-10

center wing C

-15

time (sec)

(b)
1000 the first translational mode

Fourier amplitude (cm/s)

800

the second translational mode

600 center wing C

400

200

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

frequency (HZ)

(c)

Figure 22. Comparison of the roof responses to El Centro 1940 earthquake at center and wing tip: (a) displacement; (b) acceleration; (c) Fourier amplitude of acceleration

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

20

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

mostly occurs at the higher-frequency responses. However, this may not be of so much importance for this structure because this range of frequencies is far from the major natural frequencies of the structure that have greater amplitudes. 9. THE ALTERNATIVE SIMPLE MODEL

Parallel to the foregoing ML3D model, all linear analyses were performed on a simple model (hereafter called MLB). It consists of 54 beam and 54 mass elements. The structural characteristics of various stories including area and moment of inertia of the set of primary and secondary walls were calculated and assigned to the corresponding beam elements (Table 5). Regarding the fact that almost half of the story weight was placed in the walls, the distributed mass capability of the ANSYS beam element was applied (SAS, 1995). This simple model, which takes a very short time to be analyzed, was used in order to estimate the effect of modeling assumptions on the accuracy of the results. In Figure 23 the time history of the roof displacement response that has
Table 5. Section properties of the beam model Stories Basement levels GF9 1014 1519 2024 2529 3034 3539 4044 4549 Ix (m4) 270 295 158 093 148 592 140 240 138 371 130 624 124 438 123 205 120 048 116 914 Iz (m4) 280 461 152 818 143 913 136 525 134 616 128 140 122 838 121 554 118 217 114 858 A (m2) 713 403 377 346 335 318 303 296 285 274

0.60

0.40

roof displacement (m)

0.20

0.00 0 -0.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

beam 3D
-0.40

-0.60

time (sec)

Figure 23. Comparison of roof displacement obtained from linear models ML3D and MLB subjected
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

60

21

50

40

30

20

DBL MLB MPL MLB MCL MLB MCL ML3D MPL ML3D DBL ML3D

story

10

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

lateral displacement (m)

Figure 24. A comparison of displacement responses obtained from linear models ML3D and MLB

been obtained from the linear models (ML3D, MLB) when inuenced by the record of MCE are drawn together. As can be seen, the maximum roof displacements obtained from these models are approximately the same but some phase and amplitude differences over the response time between the results of the two models are observed. In Figure 24 the lateral displacement vectors of the structure from the two models have been compared. It is clear that although the maximum lateral displacements of the structure (which occurs at the roof) in both of these models and under all records of each of the triple hazard levels are approximately very close together, there is an apparent difference between the estimated displacements for other stories; i.e., the beam model anticipates a predominant exural mode of lateral deformation for the structure, while in the 3D detailed model the displacement shape of the building converts from exural to shear at the upper oors. This difference is mainly a result of shear deformations and has been known to be a consequence of the shear lag phenomenon. From these results it may be concluded that simple theories of solid mechanics such as the Saint-Venan principle, which assumes that plane sections of a bent beam remain plane, may result in excessive errors in predicting the lateral behavior of a tall building. 10. CONCLUSION

This paper reports the results of a study on the structural characteristics (including the seismic response) of a new structural system in a tall building. Some general conclusions can be drawn. With
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

22

H. MOGHADDAM AND M. SAMADI

respect to the economic considerations, the use of this system reduces the structural steel required when compared to other conventional structural systems in tall buildings, while it increases the volume of the concrete consumed. Regarding the overall structural characteristics, this system makes it feasible to reduce the story height and increase the plan width, which nally enhances the stiffness, strength and stability. The moment of inertia of the structure about any arbitrary axis is constant. Some specic conclusions follow: (1) The drift ratio of the building in the most considered earthquake does not exceed 04%, implicating the great stiffness of the structural system used. (2) Bidirectional application of earthquake excitation increases the displacement response by 46% relative to the monodirectional excitation. (3) Results indicate that the P- effect increases the base shear and tip displacement of this system by just 06% and 15%, respectively. (4) Modal analysis reveals that the rst natural vibration mode of this system is torsional. (5) Combining only the rst three vibration modes in spectral analysis leads to a 14% overestimation of the displacement responses relative to the case when all effective modes are taken into account. (6) The responses obtained from the dynamic time history analysis are always greater than those obtained from spectral analysis. The difference does not usually exceed 10%. (7) Although the maximum lateral displacement responses occurring at the roof level for the two linear models (MLB and ML3D) are very close, there are apparent differences between the estimated displacement responses at other levels. (8) The simple theories of solids mechanics may result in excessive errors in predicting the lateral behavior of a tall building.

REFERENCES

Clough RW, Penzin J. 1993. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill: New York. FEMA 306. 1999. Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC. FEMA 356. 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC. Iranian Seismic Code, 2800 Standard. 1999. Center of Building and Housing Research: Tehran. Khaloo AR, Asadpour N, Horr AM. 2001. Full dynamic analysis of Tehran telecommunication tower. Structural Design of Tall Buildings 10: 263281. Miranda E, Anderson JS et al. 1991. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a 30 story reinforced concrete building. EERC91/16. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Moghaddam H, Samadi M. 2003. Performance based seismic evaluation of an existing 54 story RC building utilizing an innovative structural system. In 9th National Conference on Civil Engineering (in Farsi). Nateghi F. 2000. Behavior and Design of Tall Buildings. IIEES: Tehran (in Farsi). Samadi M. 2003. Seismic evaluation of an existing 54 story RC building. MS thesis, Sharif University of technology, Iran (in Farsi). SAS. 1995. Ansys General Purpose Finite Element Program, Revision 5.7. Swanson Analysis Systems: Houston, TX. Schueller W. 1995. The Design of Building Structures. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. SEAOC vision 2000. 1995. Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Vols I and II: Conceptual Framework. Structural Engineering Association of California: Sacramento, CA. Sivakumaran KS, Balendra T. 1987. Seismic response of multi-story buildings including foundation interaction and P- effects. Engineering Structures 9: 277284.
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF MONOLITHIC INTERSECTING WALLS

23

Smith S, Coul A. 1991. Tall Building Structures, Analysis and Design. Wiley: New York. Uniform Building Code. 1997. International Conference of Building Ofcials. Ventura CE, Ding Y. 2000. Linear and nonlinear seismic response of a 52 story steel frame building. Structural Design of Tall Buildings 9(1): 2545. Wilson EL, Der Kiureghian A, Bayo EP. 1981. A replacement for the SRSS method seismic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 9: 187194.

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 17, 123 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/tal