THE DESIGN OF BUILDING STRUCTURES WOLFGANG SCHUELLERSee. 10.1 / General Introduction fo High-Rise Structure Systems 817 Today. a new generation of skyscrapers is rising in Asia. The 1476-11 high twin Petronas Towers in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur will be 22 feet taller than 10's Sears Tower when finished in 1996; Cesar Pelli is the architect and Thorn- ton-Tomasetti are the structural engineers. The tallest reinforced-conerete building structure in the world is currently the 1228-fi-high, 78-story Central Plaza office tower with a triangular-shaped plan in Hong Kong (1992); architects were Ng Chun Man and Associates and consulting engineers Ove Arup Partners. 10.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO HIGH-RISE STRUCTURE SYSTEMS A building structure can be visualized as consisting of horizontal planes or floor fram- ing and the supporting vertical planes of walls and/or frames. The horizontal planes tie the vertical planes together to achieve a box effect and a certain degree of compact- ness. IL is obvious that a slender, tall tower building must be a compact, three-dimen- sional closed structure where the entire system acts as a unit. The tubuler, core- interactive, and staggered truss buildings are typical examples of three-dimensional structures. On the other hand, a massive building block only necds some stiff, stabiliz~ ing elements that give lateral support to the rest of the building. In this sense, the build- ing structure represents an open system where separate vertical planar structure systems, such as solid walls, rigid frames, and braced frames, are located at various places and form stand-alone systems that provide lateral stability. Every building consists of the load-bearing structure and the nonload-bearing portion, The main load-bearing structure, in turn, is subdivided into the gravity struc ture, which carries only the gravity loads, and the Jateral force-resisting siructure, which supports gravity forces but also must provide stability to the building. The con- dition where the lateral bracing only resists horizontal forces but does not carry gravity loads, with the exception of its own weight, is considered a secondary structure . Fail- ure of secondary members is not as critical as that for main members, where an imme- diate collapse of a building portion may occur depending on the redundancy of the structure, The nonload-bearing structural building elements include wind bracing well as the membranes and skins, that is, the curtains, ceilings, and partitions that cover the structure and subdivide spa The lateral force-resisting structure in a building tower may be concentrated entirely in the central core, for instance when an optimal view and thus a light perim- ter structure is required, Conversely, rather then hiding the lateral force-esisting structure in the interior, it may be exposed and form the perimeter structure, as for tubes. The structure represents an assembly system that consists of components and their linkages, The basic elements are lines (columns, beams), grids (Moor framework, frames), surfaces (slabs, walls, plates), spatial units (cells, tubes), and any combination of these. The interaction or degree of continuity between these elements depends on the type of linkage (hinged, semirigid, or rigid). These basic components can be com- bined in an endless variety to form a building Before discussing fundamental concepts of structure behavior, typical structure systems are introduced, but purely from a geometrical point of view. Although build- ings are three dimensional, their support structures can often be treated from a behav= ioral point of view as an assembly of two-dimensional vertical planar elements in each major direction of the building, In other words, structures can usually be subdivided into a few simpler assemblies, since structural elements are rarely placed randomly in plan, The most common high-rise structure systems are identified in Fig. 10.2. They are shown simply as planar, two-dimensional structures, although they may act in combination with each other and, in context of the building, may form spatial818 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures CANTILEVER TRACED SUSPENSION COMPRESSTON COMBINATION CORE & OUTRTGE FRAME, CORE {OUTRIGGER STAGGERED PERFORATED © TRUSSED SUPET TRUSS BALL KALA FRAME Figure 10.2 High-rise structure systems. structures, They range from pure structure systems, such as skeleton and wall con- struction, and systems requiring transfer structures to composite systems and mex: structures. As the buildings increase in height, different structure systems are needed for reasons of efficiency (i... least weight). The following classification of the various systems is roughly in aecorilance with these efficiency considerations, as discussed in the next section. + Two-dimensional siructures Bearing wall structures: combinations of single walls and connected walls, cross walls, long walls, two-way walls, stacked boxes wood platform framing for three- to four- Light framing construction (e. story buildings) Skeleton (frame) structures: rigid frame, braced fiame, braced rigid truss, flat slab, Vierendee! wall beam (interspatial, bridge type) Connected walls and frames Core structures: they may be considered three-dimensional from a structural point of view, but do not necessarily integrate the entire buildiSec. 10.1 / General Introduction to High-Rise Structure Systems 819 shupe: cantilevered slab, bridge structures (multicore), cores with outr gers on top (suspension), at the bottom, and at intermediate levels, ‘Combinations of these systems + Three-dimensional structures Staggered wall beams Cores plus outriggers plus belt trusses: single-, double-, and multiple-outrig- ger systems Tubes: Vierendeel tube, deep-spandrel tube, perforated wall/shell tube. trussed tube, tube with belt trusses and head, ete. Megastructure: superframe, superdiagonals Hybrid structures Typical combinations of structure systems are the following: Walls + core(s) Frames + core(s) and/or walls Tube + frame(s) or wall(s) Tube + core (tube-in-tube) Tube + tube (bundled tubes) Other combinations include the follow 2 Vertical stacking of structures: connected towers of the brid Series of superframes Intemally braced structures c type Cellular structures Stayed structures Other mixed systems The selection ofa structure system is not a simple undertaking. Among other eri- teria, it depends on the overall geometry, the vertical profile, height restrictions, the slendemess (that is, the building height-to-width ratio), and the plan configuration (depth-to-width ratio, degree of regularity, ec.) and is a function of strength, stiffne and possibly ductility demands in response to loading conditions. Selection also depends on building base conditions, site conditions, and construction coordination, including preconstruction and construction time. In order not to give the impression that the preceding pure structure systems are imposed upon the architecture and do not allow any flexibility in the form-giving process. various building eases are presented in Fig. 10,3, They demonstrate some of the endless possible combinations of the strue- ture systems for low- and mid-rise buildings, realizing that the smaller-scale buildings allow more freedom than large-scale towers. It is shown that the structures respond to setbacks, cavities, changing spans, varying story heights, altering bay proportions, sudden changes of stiffness, sloping site conditions, space inclinations, and so on. Most structures are treated as planar, with the exception of the central core-type build- ings with diagonal outriggers connected to the corner columns or that are stabilized by a tensile network along the perimeter To gain a better understanding of the structure systems in Fig, 10.2, they must be seen within the building space; hence their location must be known. For this reason, solid surface elements have been placed into the uniform beam-column grid of the various plans in Fig. 1.12. They represent the lateral force-resisting structure systems of walls, cores, frames, tubes, or any other combination; they may form either planar or spatial assembliesSec. 10.1 / General Introduction to High-Rise Structure Systems 821 ney A building must resist the primary loads of gravity and lateral force action. With respect to gravity loads, the weight of the structure increases almost linearly with the number of stories. In this context, it is the weight of the vertical structural elements (columns, walls) that increases roughly linearly with height. since their weight is pro- portional to the axial stresses that determine the vertical member sizes, while the weight for each floor remains constant. It is also interesting to note that the floor weight, and hence floor cost, constitutes more than one-half of the cost of the entire structure for buildings not higher than the 30- to 40-story range. However, with an inerease in building height and slenderness, the importance of lateral force action rises, ina much faster nonlinear fashion as compared to the gravity loads and becomes dom- inant, Therefore, the cantilever action becomes more critical than the column action, of the rotation M/S is more important than the axial action N/A . The section modulus ‘S(or the moment of inertia /), rather than the cross-sectional area 4, controls the stress and becomes the determinant of form, Hence, the material needed for the resistance of lateral forces increases as the square of the height, that is, at a drastically accelerating rate For typical mediu-rise structures in the 20- to 30-story range, the vertical load resistance nearly offsets the effect of the lateral forees; only about 10% of the total structure material is needed for lateral force resistance. The late eminent structural engineer Fazlur Khan of SOM has shown that it may be economical to select (for a tall building) a structure system in which the bending stresses, due to lateral force action, do not exceed one-third of the axial gravity stresses so that the effect of the lateral forces can be ignored. At a certain height, however, the lateral sway of a building becomes critical, so that considerations of stiffness, rather than the strength of the structural material, control the design. The degree of stiffness depends on the building shape and the spatial organization of the structure. Ithas been a challenge to building designers to minimize the effect of the hori- zontal forces by developing optimum lateral force-resisting structure systems. The efficiency of a particular system is directly related to the quantity of material used, at for steel structures. It is measured as the weight per square foot (psf), thet is, the ight of the total building structure divided by the total square footage of the gross floor area. Therefore, optimization of a structure for given spatial requirements should yield the maximum strength and stiffness with the least weight. This results in innov: tive structure systems applicable to certain height ranges, Naturally, it must be kept in ‘mind that not only material costs, but also fabrication costs and erection time, must be considered, Fazlur Khan argued, in the mid-1960s (and was supported by the development of computer simulations), that the rigid frame that had dominated high-rise building con- struction was not the only system associated with tall buildings. Due to a better under- standing of the mechanics of materials and how materials and members interact, the structure could now be treated as a whole or the building form as a three-dimensional unit. Khan later proposed a range of structure systems for office buildings of ordinary proportions and shapes that are appropriate for certain heights. He showed that the weight of steel structure systems range from about 30 psf fora 100-story building to 6 psf for a 10-story structure (Table 10.1). This effect of scale is known from nature, where animal skeletons become much bulkier with an increase in size, since the weight increases with the cube, while the supporting area only increases with the square. For example, the bones of a mouse make up only approximately 8% of the total mass, in contrast to about 18% for the human body. Furthermore, Frank Lloyd Wright's experiments, as early as the 1920s, with slender, treelike, concrete cantilever structures that were opposite in nature to the tra- ditional skeleton construction, should not be forgotten. This approach has recently lead822 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures TABLE 10.1 Typical Weight of Historically Important High-Rise Steel Structures Height’ Year Stories Width pst Structure System Empiro Stato Building, Now York 1991 102 9.9 42.2 Braced rigid frame John Hancock Center, Chicago 1988 400 73 29.7 Trussed tube World Trade Center, New York 1972 110 69 37.0 Framed tube Sears Tower, Chicago 1974 409 64 33.0 Bundled tubes Chase Manhattan, New York 1983 60 73 55.2 Braced rigid frame U.S. Steol Building, Pittsburgh 1971 64 63 90.0 Shear walls + outriggers .D.S. Center, Minneapolis 1971 57 61 79 belt trusses, Boston Company Building, Boston 1970 at at 21.0 K-braced tue Alcoa Building, San Francisco 1989 26 40 26.0 Latticed tube Housing, Brockton, Massachusetts 1971 40 BA 63 {0 buildings more than 50 stories high, where large conerete cores alone provide lateral force resistance. Many of the concrete structures of the 1960s exposed the cores in order to articulate the strength of the three-dimensional support structure (often of the bridge type) and to express the servicing as clearly separated from the served spaces. In this case, the design philosophy is very different fiom most of the steel skeleton structures of the same period. The efficiency of a concrete structure is evaluated (to a great extent) in tens of the process of construction, in addition to the quantities of materials used (roughly between 0.5 to 1.0 f'/4t° conerete and reinforcing steel of 2 to 4 psf), in contrast to steel, which considers only the quantity of material used, Many of the tall buildings today no longer represent the pure shapes of the 1960s and early 1970s. Compound, hybrid building shapes have become fashionable. With the aid of computers, in response to complex geometric shapes, a wealth of new struc- ture layouts has been made possible, which basically consist of combinations of the fundamental structure systems. In addition, wind tunnel studies have become ver accurate in evaluating the response of a building to wind flow. Despite this increased sophistication of structural analysis and design, however, the fundamental fact should not be overlooked that the material and layout of the structure should not provide the siiffiness solely by themselves; the form of the structure must also be searched for with the help of computers so as to efficiently reduce the use of materials. The new structure systems reflect optimum solutions for given complex buildi shapes, which include composite structures and the mixed construction of concrete and steel, Large buildings are broken down into smaller zones; megaframes give support to the supertall buildings of the future, It is hoped that the architect will use the potential richness of structure to express its power and its purpose as support, rather than just letting the engineer plug the structure into a form that was derived independently of its nature. 10.2 FORCE FLOW IN HIGH-RISE BUILDING STRUCTURES The horizontal and vertical structural building planes must disperse the external and internal forces to the ground. Some basic concepts of vertical and lateral load transmis- sion for various structure systems are discussed in a simplified fashion in Figs. 10.4 and 4.12. Visualize a gravity load acting on the slab and transferred by the floor framing in bending (Fig. 10.4, top left) to one of the vertical structure building planes, which may transmit the load axially directly to the ground. The type and pattern of force flowSec. 10.2 | Force Flow in High-Rise Building Structures 823 depend on the arrangement of the vertical structural planes as indicated at the top of Fig. 10.4 for two-dimensional structures. The columns may be vertical or inclined, continuous or staggered; they may be evenly distributed or concentrated in the center or along the periphery, possibly to form cores. The path of the force flow may be con- tinuous along the columns or may be suddenly interrupted and transferred horizontally to another vertical line, The transmission of the loads may be short and direct or long and indirect with a detour, such as for a suspension building, From an efficiency point of view, the vertical loads should be carried along the shortest path possible to the foundations. ‘When columns are inclined, gravity will cause lateral thrust, which inereases as the column moves away from the vertical supporting condition, The cases at the bot- tom of Fig. 10.4 indicate that the horizontal floor beams at the top act as ties in tension when the columns lean outward but as struts in compression at the bottom. For a sym- metrical structure, the thrust due to the dead load will self-balance, but the horizontal forces due to asymmetrical live loads must still be resisted, as for an asymmetrical building, where the weight also causes thrust. Hence not only wind and earthquake, besides the centrifugal outward effect of cars upon curved bridges, but also gravity rogether with the respective geometry may cause lateral force action on a building, Optimum, free ground-level space with a minimum of columns is often required for high-rise buildings. Examples range from grand entrances and wide lobby spaces, Joading docks, and parking aisles to open public plazas. For these conditions the upper building mass must be linked to the ground by using a dift stem, The geometrical patter of the building structure cannot extend to the foundation walls; it becomes discontinuous and is replaced by another structure system. For prelim design purposes, the upper and lower structure portions can be analyzed separately. Various transition types are shown in the central part of Fig, 10.4. They range from suspension buildings and lifting an entire building up on frames or stilts, to changing, the column spacing to a wider pattern by using transfer systems within the framed tube id. The latter may be accomplished, for example, by increasing the spandrel beam sizes toward the main columns or by changing the column sizes in a weelike fashion, thereby gencrating a natural, archlike, gradual transition of the loads. The load transi- tion can also be achieved by heavy transfer systems, such as girders, trusses, wall beams, arches (direct or indirect action), or V- and Y-shaped tree columns (two, and three-forked columns) to collect the columns above. These V-columns are effective in sisting wind and earthquake forces, but unfortunately respond to asymmetrical grav- ity loading with horizontal thrust, as previously discussed. The reader may want to study the behavior of the various inclined column eases in Fig. 10.4, The horizontal forces are transmitted along the floor and roof planes, which act as deep, flat beams spanning between the vertical lateral force-resisting structures, as described in Fig. 4.12. Once the lateral forces are distributed to the resisting vertical structure planes, these systems must act as vertical cantilevers to carry the forces down to the ground. The various two- and three-dimensional structure systems in ig. 4.13 demonstrate how the overturning moment due to wind action is resisted at the base by different cantilever types, consisting of solid walls or skeleton construc- tion, The skeletons may act either as flexural systems when they are rigid frames (where the members react in bending) or they may be predominately axial systems, as for braced frames where the forces are effectively resisted directly in tension and compression. Conflicts of force Mow are generated when plan forms or structure systems change, possibly at locations of setbacks often found at the base, top, or intermediate levels of buildings. For example, when a triangular plan changes to an L-shaped base or when a perimeter structure such as a tube cannot be continued to the base, an exten- sive horizontal transfer structure is necessary not only to redirect the vertical forces, but also to act as a diaphragm to transfer the horizontal forces (sce also Fig. 10.6).824 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures Figure 10.4 Vertical force flow (Reproduced with permission from The Vertical Building Structure, Woltgang Schueller, copyright © 1990 by Van Nostrand Reinhold.)Sec. 10.3 / Introduction to Basic Behavior of High-ise Building Structures 825 10.3. INTRODUCTION TO BASIC BEHAVIOR OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING STRUCTURES Strength and stiffness are the primary characteristics activated when the building structure responds to the load action described in Fig. 10.5; in areas of strong seismic activity, ductility also becomes an important criterion, Considerations of stability and other load-related effects have already been briefly introduced elsewhere. In structural analysis, the real structure is replaced with an idealized model. lis response to loading isbased on analytical theory derived from material properties and member behavior. First, the reaction of the structure to lateral loading is conceptually investigated Ibis shown in Fig. 4.12 that, with respect to horizontal force action, the floor structure acts as @ rigid diaphragm supposted on elastic vertical clements. These lateral force- resisting elements in Fig. 10.5 are interior cores, core plus walls (Fig. 10.5j), and a perimeter tube (Fig, 10.5m). The cores are of an open or closed type and may be located at the centroid of the building, or their location may be eccentric. The building es o c a 7 ‘ ; +. {| ¥ { 4. + i 4 A & : : eu | |, Bye Sone Janatstress| |.ronsionat| |snean senoine DIRECT FORCE ACTION re fyeVa fps Ms Bs Figure 10.5 The building response to load action. (Reproduced with permission ‘rom The Vertical Building Structure. Wolfgang Schueller, copyright ©1990 by Van Nostrand Reinhold.)826 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures form determines where the resultant wind pressure acts, and the arrangement of the building masses defines the location of the resultant seismic force, which the core must resist. Since lateral stiffness requirements reduce in the upper portion of the building, the core walls ean be dropped off or stepped back at the termination of the low- and mig-tise elevator banks The tall buildings in Fig. 4.16 respond to lateral forees primarily as flesural can- tilevers if the resisting structure consists of shear walls or braced frames. The behavior of these systems is controlled by rotation rather than shear; they have a high shear stiff> s al or axial capacity of the diagonals, so the shear an be neglected. Tall buildings act as shear cantilevers when the resist- ing elements are rigid frames since the shear can only be resisted by the girders and columns in bending, In this contest, the effect of rotation (j.c., axial shortening and lengthening of columns) is secondary and may be ignored for preliminary design pur- The combined action of different structure systems, such as rigid frames ed core (depending on the relative stiffness of cach system) may have the appearance of a flat S-curve with a shear-type frame building sitting on top of a flexural cantilever-type structure. In the preceding discussion, it has been assumed that the structure systems were for tall buildings and were of the same height. It is apparent that when the shear wall or braced frame is no longer shallow and slender, as for the extreme case of a horizon- tal panel in a low-rise building, such systems do behave like shear cantilevers and not flexural cantilevers As known from basic mechanics of materials (Section 2.6), flexural resistance to lateral loads is expressed by the axial bending action M/S and an average shear action of Vid for certain conditions of symmetry (Fig. 10.5d). For the given uniform lateral loading case, the shear increases linearly toward the base (V’e= #1), while the moment grows much faster following, a second-degree parabola (fe H?). Since this special condition of simple bending due to symmetry is often not present because of: tty of the resisting structure and/or the eccentric action of the resultant lateral force, }ome general concepts of structural behavior of bending members are briefly reviewed first, Furthermore, thin-walled beam behavior, as for tubular structures, is ignored in this context. In general, to determine the stresses due to pure bending of an unsymmetrical section with no axes of symmemy requires complex calculations, First, the principal axes, which are always mutually perpendicular and about which the moments of iner- tia are maximum and minimum, respectively, must be located, then the direction of the neutral axis has to be Found. All these axes together with the centroidal axes pass through the centroid of the eross section, For this general condition, the simple bend= ing formula f, = Me/J = M/S, which applies only to symmetrical bending, cannot be used! In addition, the loads must act through the shear center or center of twist, which is located at the intersection of the shear axes, in order to not generate torsion in addi- tion to unsymmetrical bending. Therefore, this shear center must be located; itdoes not coincide with the centroid of the crass section, We may conclude that, when the load is applied at the centroid, the member will twist as it bends, Lack of symmetry results in eccentric loads, unsymmetrical bending, and torsion! Fortunately, cross sections usually have a certain degree of symmetry (ie., one axis of symmetry), which simplifies understanding of the behavior and the stress calculations, remembering that an axis of symmetry is always a principal axis Forces are not always transferred in a straightforward fashion as by the pure structure systems discussed previously. For example, the S00-ft-high concrete struc- ture of the Metro Dade Center in Miami, Florida (1983), designed by LeMessurier, is a hybrid structure that consists of frame construction with two shear walls at each end and huge 60-ft-deep spandrel girders near the base, as shown in Fig. 10.6. Here, theSec. 10.4 / Brief Investigation of Common High-Rise Structures 827 ried by the columns and end walls. The exterior columns along the fer the loads to the spandrel girders that bridge the space gravity loads ar broad faces, in turn, tra between the end walls ‘The wind against the broad building face is transferred by the floor slabs to the ‘wo coupled shear walls at the building ends, whieh act as cantilevers above the span= drel girders. Below this level the walls act similarly to end cores or open tubes, where the tension due to rotation is suppressed by the gravity loads, In other words, gravity loads are used as a stabilizing The lateral force action on the short face is resisted in the upper building portion by the combined action of the cantilevering end shear walls and the exterior rigid frames and at the base by the huge portal frames, as shown in Fig, 10.6. 10.4 BRIEF INVESTIGATION OF COMMON HIGH-RISE STRUCTURES The most common structure types, identified conceptually in Fig. 10,2, are briefly dis- cussed in this section. Bearing Wall Swuctures: ‘The bearing wall was the primary support structure for high-rise buildings before the steel skeleton and the curtain wall were introduced in the 1880s in Chicago. The traditional tall masonry buildings were massive gravity struc- lures where the walls were perceived to act independently; their action was not seen as part of the entite three-dimensional building fom. It was not until after World War Il that engineered thin-walled masonry construction was introduced in Europe. Bearing wall construction is used mostly for building types that require frequent subdivision of space, such as for residential application. The bearing walls may either be closely spaced, e.g., 12 to 18 ft and directly define the rooms, or they may be spaced, for instance, 30 ft apart and use long-span flodr systems that support the partition walls subdividing the space. Bearing wall buildings of 15 stories or more in brick, concrete block, precast large-panel conerete, or cast-in-place reinforced conerete are common- LATERAL FORCE Ow THE LONG FACE LATERAL FORCE ACTION ow THe lcaereven SHORT FACE zt i v4 * as, END s ALLS AND PORTAL FRANE +—— FACADE ACTION | NY Figure 10.6 Hybrid structure.828 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures place today; they have been built up to the 26-story range, The bearing wall principle is adaptable to a variety of building forms and layouts. Plan forms range from type buildings and towers of various shapes to any combination. The wall arrang. meats can take many different form: wall, tubular, cellular, and radial s ss variety of hybrid systems is pos- sible by combining these cases. The walls may be continuous in nature and in line with each other, or they may be staggered; they may intersect or they may function as sep- arate elements to form individual wall columns. Bearing walls usually carry both grav- ity and lateral forces, Core Structures: Many multicore buildings with their exposed service shafts have been influenced by the thinking of the Metabolists of the 1960s, who clearly separated the vertical circulation along cores and the served spaces. According to Kenzo Tange, “buildings grow like organisms in a metabolic way.” Their urban clusters consisted of vertical service towers linked by multilevel bridges, which, in turn, contained the cel- lular subdivisions. Other examples of urban-type megastructures can be found in hos- pital planning of the 1970s, The linear bearing wall structure works well for residential buildings where functions are fixed and energy supply can be easily distributed verti- cally. In contrast, office and commercial buildings require maximum flexibility in lay- out, calling for large open spaces subdivided by movable partitions. Here, the vertical reulation and the distribution of other services must be gathered and contained in shafts and then channeled horizontally at every floor level. These vertical cores may also act as lateral stabilizers for the building. There is an unlimited variety of possibil- is related to the shape, number, arrangement, and location of cores. They range from single-core structures (core with cantilevered floor framing, core with massive base cantilever, core with large top and/or intermediate cantilevers, core with other struc- ture systems) to multiple core structures. Bridge Structures: The idea of the bridge stiucture was vitalized by the designers of the 1960s, who were concemed with large-scale urban architecture and wanted to sep= arate the ground and services from social activities. These megastructures or urban structures were proposed by the Metabolists in Japan, Archigram in England, and designers such as Yona Friedman in France and Eckhard Schulze-Fielitz in Germany, who used horizontal space-frame structures. The long span from vertical support to vertical support can be achieved through an endless number of possibilities, as has been expressed in architecture. Closely related to the bridge concept is the core ture, where many of the buildings formed megaframes to support, in bridgelike fash- ion, secondary building packages. Similarly, several of the suspension structures are based on the bridge principle, as are supertall buildings that use megaframes or super- diagonals to gather the building weight to certain points for the purpose of stability Space can be bridged by using one of the following structural concepts: Vierendeel Wusses, trusses, arches, suspended arches, and wall beams. Suspension Buildings: The application of the suspension principle to high-rise build- ings rather than to roof structures is essentially a phenomenon of the late 1950s and 1960s, although experiments with the concept go back to the 1920s. The structuralists of this period discovered a wealth of new support structure systems in the search to minimize the material and to express antigravity, that is, lightness of space and open- ness of the facade, allowing no visual obstruction with heavy structural members. The fact that hanging the floors on cables required only about one-sixth of the material compared to columns in compression, as in skeleton construction, provided a new challenge to designers. In addition, this type of structure allowed a column-free space at the base. The treclike buildings with a large central tower, from which giant arms are cantilevered at the top to support the tensile columns at their ends, are common today ‘The floors or spatial units (c.g., capsules, entire building blocks) are suspended from the support sturctures by using either vertical or diagonsl tensile members. Typicalsion building, Figure 10.7. Suspen 829830 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures suspension systems use the rigid core principle (single or multiple cores with outrig- gers or beams, megaframes, treelike frames, etc.), the guyed mast principle, and the tensegrity or space-net principle. For example, the architect Alberto Galardi uses the suspension principle for the Olivetti building in Florence, Italy (1973, Fig. 10.7) to form a bridge and thus allow ‘open space at the base. The exterior, prestressed concrete hangars supporting the four floors are hung from the roof structure, which, in tur, is carried by two towerlike con- crete core: Staggered Wall Beam Structures: In this innovative structure system, developed in the mid-1960s by a team of architects and engineers at M.L.T., story-high wall beams span the full wicth of the building on alternate floors of a given bay and are supported by columns along the exterior walls; there are no interior columns. The wall beams are usually steel trusses, but can also be pierced reinforced-conerete members. The ste! trusses are concealed within the room walls. In the interstitial system, wall beams are used at every other floor to allow for uninterrupted free flow in the floor spac between, while in the staggered wall beam system, the wall beams are used at every floor level, but arranged in a staggered fashion between adjacent floors. The arrange- ment of the story-high members depends on the layout of the functional units. We can visualize apartment units to be contained between the wall beams and to be vertically stacked to resemble masonry bond patterns. As the unit sizes change, the spacing of the wall beams may be adjusted or additional openings may be provided. The most common system of organization is the running bond or checkerboard pattern. Skeleton Structures: When William Le Baron Jenney, in the 10-story Home life Insurance Building in Chicago (1885), used iron framing for the first time as the sole support structure carrying the masonry facade walls, the all-skeleton construction was born. The tradition of the Chicago Frame was revived after World War II when the skeleton again became a central theme of the modern movement in its search for merg- ing technology and architecture. Famous landmarks became SOM’s Lever House in New York (1952) and Mies van der Rohe’s two 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartment Buildings (1951, Fig. 10.8). These landmarks have been most influential to the subse- quent generation of designers; they symbolized at the time, with their simplicity of expression, the new spirit of structure and glass. Although the pure, boxy shapes of the 1960s are closely associated with skeleton construction, as derived from Miesian min- imalism, other high-rise building skeletal forms, based on different design philoso- phies, have been built, for example, the unusual hammer-shaped Velasca Tower in Milan, Italy (1957), Today, there seems to be no limit to the variety of building shapes; the skeleton as an organizing element for this new generation of hybrid forms has been extensively experimented with. Odd-shaped towers, possibly with tapered frames, reflect the change of irregular plan forms with height; skeleton buildings may be stepped at various floor levels where large setback terraces may be fully landscaped In the Lloyd’s of London Building (1986) by Richard Rogers, the braced perimeter concrete frame is surrounded by six satellite service towers, while the intemal perim- eter columns carry the elaborate central atrium structure, Kisho Kurokawa articulated the regularity of the three-dimensional grid and its adaptability to growth and change by constructing the Takara Beautillion for Osaka’s Expo “70 from single six-pointed spatial cross units. Facade framing ranges from long-span, deep girder systems and Vierendeel frames to perforated walls. The open, airy skeleton is contrasted with the framed tubular wall, Frames may be organized as continuous rigid frames, hinged frames, and any combination. The behavior of moment-resisting frames (i.., rigid frames), which resist both gravity and lateral forces, is investigated briefly in Fig. 5.23. Flat Slab Building Structures: Flat slab buildings, developed during the mid-1940s in New York, consist of horizontal planar concrete stabs directly supported on col- umns, thus eliminating the need for floor framing. This results in a minimum storyFigure 10.8 Skeleton building. 831832 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures cight, an obvious economic benefit that is especially advantageous for apartment buildings. Drop panels and/or column capitals are frequently used because of high shear concentrations around the columns. Slabs without drop panels are commonly called flat plates. This system is adaptable to an irregular support layout. From a behavioral point of view, flat slabs are highly complex structures, The intricacy of the force flow along an isotropie plate, in response to uniform gravity action, is reflected by the principal moment contours (Figs. 1.4, 2.1). Here, the main moments around the column support are negative and have circular and radial directions, while the positive field moments basically connect the columns linearly. The patterns remind one of organic structures, such as the branching grids of leaves, the delicate network of insect wings, radial spider webs, and the contour lines of conical tents, realizing a similar relationship between cable response and loading as well as the corresponding moment diagram, Pier Luigi Nervi, for the Gatti Wool Factory (1953) in Rome, Italy, actually followed the principal bending moments with the layout of the floor ribs. Centuries earlier, however, the late medieval master builders had already intuitively developed patterns for ribbed vaulting predicting these tensile trajectories; the fan vaults of the Tudor period in England are a convincing example. Braced Frame Structures: The concept of resisting lateral forces through bracin; the most common construction method: it is applied to all types of buildings, ranging from low-tise structures to skyscrapers. At a certain height, depending on the building proportions and the density of frame layout, the rigid frame structure becomes 100 ‘mushy and may be uneconomical, so it must be stiffened by, for example, steel bracin or concrete shear walls, The basic bracing types for frames are single diagonal bracing, cross-bracing, K-bracing, lattice bracing, eccentric bracing (single diagonal or rhom- bic pattern), knee bracing, and combinations. When the diagonal members are kinked for the placement of openings, they must be stabilized by additional members The architects Burnham and Root developed the concept of vertical shear wall (or the vertical truss principle) in the 20-story Masonic Temple Building (1892) in Chicago. The spirit of a braced frame structure is investigated conceptually in Fig. 10.9. In braced frames, the frames carry the gravity loads, whereas the bracing resists the lateral loads. In contrast, in braced rigid frames the frame not only carries the grav- ity loads but also, together with the bracing, resists lateral loads. Trussed Frame Structures: Trusses not only constitute support structures hidden but may also be revealed on the exterior. One of the earliest exam- s of braced skeleton buildings is the Chocolate Factory at Noisiel-s Paris by Jules Saulnier (1872), where the walls consist of exposed trussed iron frame- work. This method of construction was surely inspired by trussed bridge construction, as well as by the timber framing, that first occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages, Here, each region developed its own distinct pattern of braced wall heavy timber fram- ing, with space between the timber members infilled with masonry or other material mixtures, An early example of high-rise braced frame construction is Gustave Eiffel’s interior-braced iron skeleton for the 151-ft-high Statue of Liberty (1886) in New York He also designed the braced skeleton wrought iron structure of the Eiffel Tower (1889) in Paris, at almost 1000 ft the tallest building of its time: this first moder tower became a symbol for a new era with its daring lightness of construction. In contrast to braced frames, trussed frames are bearing wall structures that carry both gravity and lateral loads. In other words, the diagonal members also carry gravity loads. During the early part of this century, the elaborate tops of skyscrapers required complex bracing systems. For example, a high spire structure with a needlelike termi- nation was designed to surmount the dome of the Chrysler Building (1930, Fig. 10.1) Currently, postmodern building tops with their spires and pinacles revive ornamenta- tion and the architectural styles of the past. Intricate braced frames are required for the various roof shapes, such as pyramids, domes, spirals and gabled, stepped, folded, orSec. 10.4 / Bret Investigation of Common High-Rise Structures 833 Figure 10.9 Braced frame structure. arched forms. These structural complexities are not only found in the roof spires, but also in lobby entrances and atria of high-rise buildings. Shear Walls with Outriggers: At a certain height the baced frame will become uneconomical, particularly when the shear core is too slender to resist exc Here, the efficiency of the building structure can be greatly improved by usit high or deeper outrigger arms that cantilever from the core at one or several levels and tie the perimeter structure to the core by either connecting directly to individual col- tumns or to a belt truss. This interaction activates the participation of the perimeter col- tums as struts and ties, thus redistributing the stresses and eccentric loading, Pier Luigi834 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures Nervi applied the outrigger concept to the 47-story Place Victoria (1964, Fig. 10.3, bottom left) in Montreal, the first reinforced-concrete building to utilize the principle. Tubular Structures: The development of tubular structures is closely associated with SOM during the 1960s; the 38-story Brunswick Building (1964), the 100-story John Hancock Building (1968), and the 110-story Sears Tower (1974) with 1454 fi, all in Chicago, are famous early examples. Much credit must be given to the eminent struc- tural engineer Fazlur Khan, a partner of SOM, who invented the concept in the search for optimizing structures with the use of computers, As the building inereasesin height in excess of roughly 60 stories, the slender interior core and the planar frames are no longer sufficient to effectively resist the lateral forces. Now the perimeter structure of the building must be activated to provide this task by behaving as a huge cantilever tube. Here, the outer shell may act as a three-dimensional hollow structure, that is, as a closed box beam where the exterior walls are monolithically connected around the corners and internally braced by the rigid horizontal floor diaphragms, The concept evolved from the three-dimensional action of structure as found in nature and in the monocoque design of automobiles and aircraft. The dense column spacing and the deep spandrell beams also tend to equalize the gravity loads on all the exterior col- umns, similar to a bearing wall, thereby minimizing column sizes. In addition, the closed perimeter tube provides excellent torsional resistance. In the 1960s, the tubular concept revived the bearing wall for tall building construction, but in steel, concrete, and composite construction rather than in masonry. Now, window lights ean be placed directly between the columns of the punched wail; hence the need for a separate cur- tain wall is eliminated. The pure tubular concepts include single perimeter tubes (punched, framed, or trussed walls), tube-in-tube, and bundled tubes. Modified tubes include interior braved tubes, partial tubes, and hybrid tubes. The well-known structural engineer Leslie E. Robertson of New York developed ‘a unique tubular structure for the 72-story Bank of China Building (1988) in Hong Kong designed by I. M. Pei, as shown in the conceptual drawing of Fig. 10.10, consist- ing of four adjacent triangular prisms of different heights rising out of the square base The 1209-ft high tower is a space-frame braced tube organized in 13-story truss mod- ules, where the 170-fisquare plan at the bottom of the building is divided by diagonals into four triangular quadrants. The space truss resists the lateral loads and transfers almost the entire building weight to the four supercolumns at the comers; the column at the center of the four quadrants is discontinued at the twenty-fifth floor, where it transmits the loads to the top of the tetrahedron, which carries them to the supercol- umns. Midway through the 13-story truss modules, transverse trusses wrap around the building to transfer the gravity loads from the internal columns to the supercolumns at the comers; the horizontal trusses are not expressed in the facade. The loading condi- tions in Hong Kong, in contrast to the United States, are much more severe: the live loads and wind loads are twice those in New York, and the earthquake load is four times higher than in San Francisco, The superdiagonals are not directly attached to each other at the comers to form complex spatial connections, but are, instead, anchored in the massive concrete columns, thereby forcing the concrete to behave asa shear transfer mechanism, The mixed construction of the primary structure consists of the separate steel columns at the corners (to which the diagonals are connected), which are encased and bonded together by the massive concrete columns. The giant diagonal truss members are steel box columns filled with concrete. The open space at the base of the building did not allow the diagonals to continue to the bottom; at the fourth level, a specially reinforced floor diaphragm was required to transfer the lateral shear to sieel-plated core walls, which were designed as three-cell shear tubes, Composite and Mixed Steel-Concrete Buildings: The integral interaction of rein- forced concrete and steel can be seen not only in the popular composite metal deck and floor framing system, but also on a much larger scale. It is not the composite action ofFigure 10.10 Space-frame braced tube.836 Chap.10 / High Rise Building Structures the structure members—the slabs, beams, and columns—that are of interest here, but rather the combination or interaction of these members that are blended into a single structure system, Typical composite building types, which have developed over the last decade or so, are composite framed tubes, composite steel frames, composite panel-braced steel! frames, composite interior core-braced systems, composite mega frames, and hybrid composite structures. Recently, mixed steel-concrete buildings have also become popular; the combining of major structure components of concrete, steel, or composite buildings is a relatively new development. For example, it may now be economical to place a steel building on top of & concrete building, or vice versa; alternatively, a central concrete core may be slip-formed to a predetermined height and then the steel frame built around it. Megastructures: In this context, the term megastructure does not refer to the vision- ary concepts of the 1960s, expressing the comprehensive planning of a community or even an entire city, but solely to the support structure of a building. However, this megastructure is still formulated on the basic concept of a primary structure that sup- ports and services secondary structures or smaller individual building blocks. In the early 1970s, Fazlur Khan of SOM proposed to replace the multicolumn concept by the four massive corner column supporting superframe by using supertransfer trusses at every 20 floors or so on the interior and exterior of the building, thereby allowing all gravity loads to flow to the four supercolumns. The principle ean be traced to Khan's studies of superframes for multiuse urban skyscrapers, with the John Hancock Center in Chicago representing the forerunner of this idea, Surely, one of the most important first examples for the new breed of megastructures is the 59-story Citicorp Center in New York (1977). In this building the renowned structural engineer William J. LeMes: surier introduced a unique structure and a new way of thinking about structure. This is, also reflected by LeMessurier’s ingenious support structure, which is not, however, integrated in articulating the building form for Helmut Jahn’s Bank of the Southwest proposal (1982, Fig. 10.11) in Houston, an obelisklike, 82-story square tower with chamfered comers. The slender, 1220-fi-high structure tapers from @ 165-ft square base to a 135-ft square plan at the top. The entire building is supported by eight super- columns, two on each side, which reduce in size from 10x 15 ftat the bottom to 5 x 5 ft at the top of the building. Interior steel superdiagonals straddling the core cross the plan to connect the massive perimeter concrete columns on the opposite sides. Similar to a Greek cross configuration, they gather and then transfer the gravity loads at the base of each module, as well as act as the web with respect to wind shear. The chevron configuration of the primary interior bracing is organized in nine-story modules. Hybrid Structures: The current trend sway from pure building shapes toward irreg ular complex ones, that is, hybrid solutions, as expressed in geometry, material, struc ture layout, and building use, is apparent. In the search for more efficient structural solutions, especially for very tall buildings, a new generation of systems has developed with the aid of computers, which, in tum, have an exciting potential for architectural expression, These new structures do not necessarily follow the traditional classifica- tion of the previous sections. Now, the selection of a structure system as based on the primary variables of material and the type and location of structure is no longer a sim- ple choice between a limited number of possibilities. Mathematical modeling with computers has made mixed construction possible, which may vary with building height, thus allowing nearly endless possibilities that could not have been imagined only a few years ago. The computer simulates the effectiveness of a support system so that the structure layout can be optimized and nonessential members can be eliminated to obtain the stiffest siructure with minimum amount of material. Naturally, other design considerations besides structure will have to be included, but the design con- cepts can be tested quickly and efficiently by the computer.Sec. 4.1 / Lateral Load Action 337 system and will provide some lateral resistance. The height limits in seismie zones 3 and 4 vary from 65 to 240 ft. In buildings that employ the braced moment-resisting frame system (which is a typical example of a dual system), the frame carries the gravity loads while the lateral forces are resisted by the frame together with the shear walls or diagonal bracing. The moment-resisting ductile frame must be capable of resisting at least 25% of the total lateral load, according to the UBC, in order to act as a backup system (as based on its uctile character) in case of failure of the bracing elements. Because of the varying degree of ductility of the dual systems, that is, depending on the combination of the structure types, the R,, coefficients range from high values of 12 for eccentrically. braced ductile steel frames and ductile rigid frames braced by concrete shear walls to low values for other systems. TABLE 42 Partial Lis! of R, Coefficients for Various Structure Systems" Structural Systems H(t) Bearing wall system Light-framed walls with shear panels Plywood walls for structures three stories or less 8 65 All other light-ramed walls 6 68 Shear walls Concrete 6 160 Masonry 6 160 Braced frame system (using trussing or shear walls) Stee! eccentrically braced ductile frame 10 240 Light-framed walls with shear panels PPiywood walls for structures three stories or less 9 6s Al other light-framed walls 7 85 Shear walls Conerete 8 240 Masonry 8 160 Concentrcally braced frames Steel 8 160 Gonerete (only tor zones 1 and 2) 8 = Heavy timber 8 65 Moment-resisting frame system ‘Special moment-resisting frames (SMAF) Steel 12 NL Concrete 12 NL Concrete intermediate moment-resisting frames (IMRF) (only for zones 1 and 2) 8 = Ordinary moment-resisting frames (OMRF) Stee! 6 160 Conerete (only for zone 1) 5 = Dual systems (selected cases are for ductile rigid frames only) Shear walls Concrete Masonry 12 NL Steel eccentrically braced ductile frame 8 160 Stoel Goncentically braced frame 12 NL. Stee! Conerete (only for zones 1 and 2) 10 NL 9 = *Partalropraduction trom Unitarm Bullng Code, 1981 Eaton, courtesy o International Conference of Building Otis