Technical report
Abstract
This paper presents the design of an 80-story reinforced concrete (RC) high-rise building using 200 MPa ul-
tra-high-strength concrete. Static nonlinear push over analyses, Level-1 and Level-2 nonlinear earthquake response
analyses and nonlinear wind response analyses were carried out. Based on the three-dimensional static nonlinear analyses
of the building subjected to design earthquake loading in two principal directions, the obtained maximum axial load ratio
for the first story columns of 200 MPa compressive strength concrete were 0.53 and 0.48, respectively, at the ultimate
limit state, which meets the design criterion based on the allowable compressive stress of concrete. The maximum story
drift angle obtained under the synthetic wave motion at the construction site was smaller than the design limiting value of
1/100. While yield hinges developed only in some of the short beams, no yield hinge in columns was observed. The
maximum ductility of 1.28 obtained in the beams is lower than the design limiting value of 4.0. The maximum story shear
force for the level-2 wind load was almost half that of the level-2 earthquake load when using the lumped-mass model.
The analyses confirmed that the use of 200 MPa concrete enables structural designers to provide the member sections
with adequate sizes comparable to that of ordinary high-rise RC buildings. The analytical results showed that the per-
formance of the building satisfies the design criteria for serviceability limits, design limits and ultimate limits.
1
Senior Chief Researcher, Takenaka Research and
Development Institute, Chiba, Japan.
E-mail: kimura.hideki@takenaka.co.jp
2
Senior Manager, Takenaka Corporation, Tokyo Main
Office, Tokyo, Japan.
3
Chief Researcher, Takenaka Research and Development
Institute, Chiba, Japan. Fig. 1 Plan of a story.
182 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007
1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 2 Elevation of 80-story building and material and cross-section characteristics.
H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007 183
stories. Similarly, beams with concrete strengths varying cording to the Japanese codes for the design and con-
between 100 MPa and 30 MPa were considered. As for struction of buildings. Three limit conditions were set up,
the reinforcement, the same type of steel was considered namely:
in all the columns and beams: SD685 steel was consid- 1. At least once during its service life, the building will
ered for main bars while higher strength deformed bars experience a minor earthquake of level-1 (maximum
with nominal yield strength of 1275 MPa were provided velocity equivalent to 25 cm/s) and a standard wind of
as shear reinforcement. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the level-1 (maximum velocity at the top of the building
reinforcement detailing of selected elements. equal to 5750 cm/s). Yield hinges should not develop on
The building is assumed to be constructed in Tokyo, in the main structural elements, while damage, cracks and
a suburban residential area of flat terrain of category III deformations should be kept within the serviceability
(AIJ 1993), and founded on piles in type II soil, which limits.
corresponds to soft diluvial or firm alluvial layers. The 2. For the maximum probable earthquake of level-2
pile tips are to be embedded in a layer strong enough to (maximum velocity equivalent to 50 cm/s) and a standard
sustain the weight of the building. wind of level-2 (maximum velocity at the top of the
building equal to 6680 cm/s), yield hinges should not
2.2 Structural design concepts develop on the main structural elements, while damage,
The performance of the building was investigated for cracks and deformations should be kept within design
both seismic and wind loads, as shown in Fig. 3, ac- limits (see Table 3).
1000
1000
900
900
900
950
Main bars 900 900 1000
1050 1100 1100
1000
900
900
900
950
850
850
850
850
850
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Start
Design limit
Nonlinear static analysis Ultimate limit
NO
Level 1 wind Level 1 earthquake Serviceability limit
NO
YES YES
NO Level 2 earthquake Design limit
Level 2 wind
NO
YES
YES
Habitability to wind
vibration
(Modal analysis)
YES
End
3. For the ultimate earthquake exceeding level-2, col- along the height based on a preliminary elastic seismic
lapse or brittle failure of structural elements should be response analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom model
prevented to satisfy ultimate limits (see Table 3). for level-1 earthquake and wind response analysis for
Static and dynamic analyses were done to meet each level-1 wind were performed. For both loads, the highest
limit condition. Table 3 shows the static design criteria. stress should satisfy the allowable stress design level.
Regarding dynamic design criteria relative to seismic and The next step in the static design was to evaluate the
wind loads, the maximum story drift angle should be less ultimate strength based on three-dimensional nonlinear
than 1/200 and 1/100, respectively, for level-1 and pushover analysis. The ultimate strength design was
level-2 earthquake loads and wind loads. performed for the member stress using the lateral de-
For static design, three-dimensional elastic frame formation at the building height gravity center as the
analyses using lateral load distribution (Ai distribution) largest of the following:
H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007 185
50 風荷重
exceeding 1/100
階
Qx(kN)
Qx (kN)
elastic spring in the central part. Furthermore, an elas- 40
60000 50
50F
tic-plastic spring was considered along the longitudinal 60000 X direction
axis for each column. The beam-column joints and floors 40000
40000 60
60F
Qy(kN)
Qy (kN)
40
40F
rections at the ultimate limit state are 0.065 and 0.068, 60000
50F
50
60000 Y direction
respectively. The maximum axial load ratio for the first 60F
60
story columns of 200 MPa compressive strength concrete 40000
40000
in the X and Y directions are 0.53 and 0.48, respectively, 20000
20000
70F
70
4. Earthquake response analysis Fig. 5 Story shear force vs. Story deformation.
4.1 Modeling assumptions
An equivalent lumped-mass shear-building model and a
three-dimensional frame model were considered in this natural vibration periods of the three-dimensional model
study. are 7.04 s and 2.00 s in the X direction and 5.50 s and
The analysis of the equivalent 80-lumped-mass 1.73 s in the Y direction.
shear-building model and the three-dimensional frame
model is based on the story shear force vs. inter-story 4.2 Applied earthquake records
displacement relationships obtained from the static The selected ground motion records are based on the
nonlinear analysis presented previously, where a de- vibration periods’ range of the building. For the level-1
grading trilinear idealization is used for the restoring earthquake, El-Centro NS and Taft EW ground motion
force characteristics. records were selected for assessing the response of the
The equivalent shear model is considered to be fixed at building, while for the level-2 earthquake, synthetic
the bottom of its first story. Structural damping, corre- ground motion records were generated based on the
sponding to the first natural period, is assumed propor- Japanese code’s type-II soil spectrum considering a
tional to the instantaneous stiffness assuming a constant random phase, the phase of the 1993 Kushiro-Oki
value of the internal viscous damping equal to 3%. The earthquake and another synthetic wave record (Site
first and second natural vibration periods of the wave) generated from the same fault model reflecting the
shear-building model are 7.63 s and 3.10 s in the X di- ground characteristics corresponding to the 1923 Kanto
rection, and 5.98 s and 2.28 s in the Y direction. earthquake. The velocity response spectra corresponding
The columns in the first story of the three-dimensional to level-2 earthquake synthetic waves are shown in Fig.
model are also considered to be fixed at their bottom. 6.
Each floor mass is assumed to lie at the corresponding
center of gravity. A degrading trilinear form is considered 4.3 Results of analyses
for the flexural characteristic models of the column and Figure 7 shows the distribution along the height of the
beam elements and an elastic perfectly plastic form is building of the maximum story drift angle corresponding
considered for the axial characteristic model of the to the shear-building model subjected to level-1 earth-
columns. Element damping, corresponding to the first quake input motions. Maximum story drift angle values
natural period, is considered proportional to the instan- were obtained in both the X and Y directions under Taft
taneous stiffness assuming a constant value of the inter- ground motion and are equal to 1/305 and 1/370, re-
nal viscous damping equal to 3%. The first and second spectively. Also, maximum base shear coefficients were
obtained under the same wave record in both directions
H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007 187
250
h=3% Lumped-mass model:
質点モデル Site ト波
サイ wave
200
First natural period
X並進1次 Frame model:
骨組モデル サイ ト波
Site wave
告示波(ラ ン ダム)
Synth. Wave-random
告示波(釧路)
Synth. Wave-KushiroOki
X direction T1=7.04 s
T1=7.04秒
First natural Y並進1次
period
=5.50 s
Y direction T2T2=5.50秒 80 XX方向
dir. 80
速度(cm/sec)
150 Y
70 70 Y方向
direction
Velocity (cm/s)
60 60
Story number
100 50 50
階
40 40
50 L2
L2 Site wave
L2サイト波 wave 30 30
L2 Synthetic
L2 Synthetic wave-Random
wave-Random
L2基盤波ランダム位相case3 phase
L2基盤波実位相
phase
L2 釧路
Synthetic wave-Kushiro Oki phase 20 20
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10
1 10
周期(sec)
Period (s) 0 0
0 0.0 04 0 .008 0 .01 2 0 0.0 04 0.008 0 .012
Fig. 6 Earthquake velocity response spectra (Level-2 Story drift angle (rad.) Story drift angle (rad.)
earthquake).
80 80
X Y
Lumped-mass 70 X方向
direction 70 Y方向
direction
ELCentr o
質点モデ ル
model TAFT 60 60
Story number
80 80
50 50
70 XX方向
direction 70 YY方向
direction
階
階
40 40
60 60
30 30
Story number
50 50 20 20
階
40 40 10 10
30 30 0 0
20 20 0 40
40 000
000 88 000
000 00 11200
200 00
00 00 40
40000
000 80 00 00 121 200
8 000 00 00
00
Story shear force (kN) Story shear force (kN)
10 10
0 0 80 80
0 0.002 0.004 0 0.002 0.004 X Y
70 X方向
direction 70 Y方向
direction
層間変形角(rad.) 層間変形角(rad.)
Story drift angle (rad.) Story drift angle (rad.)
60 60
Story number
50 50
Fig. 7 Level-1 earthquake response analysis results.
階
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
X and Y and are equal to 0.017 and 0.020, respectively. 0 0 .5 1 1.5 0 0 .5 1 1.5
The maximum story drift angles in the lower stories for Moment (107 kN.m) Moment (107 kN.m)
El Centro ground motion are half those for the Taft
ground motion. Fig. 8 Level-2 earthquake response analysis results.
Figure 8 shows the distribution along the height of the
building of the maximum story drift angle, the maximum
story shear force and the maximum overturning moment is understood to be due to the excessive bending de-
corresponding to the three-dimensional model and sub- formability of columns and vibration modes of the
jected to level-2 earthquake input motions. The maxi- lumped-mass model.
mum values of the story drift angle, obtained under the Figure 9 shows all the steps of the response of the
Site wave motion for both the X and Y directions, are three-dimensional model under the Site wave record
equal to 1/146 and 1/172, respectively, which are both relating the first-floor shear force to its corresponding
values below the design value of 1/100. The maximum overturning moment. While the figure shows a linear
values of the story shear force obtained under the same relationship in the results obtained from the static analy-
input motion in both the X and Y directions are equal to sis, it also shows that despite the continuous increase in
0.053 and 0.050, respectively. To allow a comprehensive the shear force, the increase in the overturning moment,
comparison, the figure also contains the distributions obtained from dynamic analysis, converges towards a
corresponding to the equivalent shear model and shows limit value of approximately ±10 GN・m. This fact means
that its response, in terms of maximum story drift angle, that the assumed Ai distribution and the external force
maximum story shear force and maximum overturning distribution are different beyond a certain level of lateral
moment, is in all cases higher compared to the displacement due to the change in the stiffness of the
three-dimensional model. The reason for this difference elements.
188 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007
: Cracking
(107 kN.m)
202 : Yielding
Static linear analysis
(×107 kN・m)
静的増分解析
▽17FL
Nonlin. anal. (Site wave)
地震応答解析(サイト波)
転倒モーメント(kN*m)
1.01
▽15FL 1.01
00 1.02
転倒モーメント
1.04
▽13FL 1.02 1.05
-10
-1 1.05 1.01
▽12FL 1.04 1.07
6
1.07 1.02
-20x10 -2 1.06 1.08
-100000 -50000 00 50000 100000 ▽11FL
-100000 -50000 50000 100000 1.09 1.04
層せん断力
Shear
層せん断力(kN) (kN)
force (kN) ▽10FL 1.07 1.10
1.10 1.06
Fig. 9 First story overturning moment-shear force rela- ▽9FL 1.10 1.12
1.12 1.08
tionship (Site wave). ▽8FL 1.11 1.14
1.14 1.09
1.13 1.15
Figure 10 illustrates the hinge occurrence situation on ▽7FL
1.15 1.11
frame D (X direction) of the three-dimensional model ▽6FL 1.14 1.16
when subjected to a level-2 Site wave record. While yield 1.16 1.12
1.15 1.17
hinges develop only in some of the short beams of the ▽5FL
1.17 1.13
first 15 stories, no yield hinge in columns is observed in ▽4FL 1.12 1.15
any of the frames. Other beams and columns in the lower 1.15 1.11
▽3FL 1.27 1.28
stories experience only cracking. The maximum ductility 1.28 1.26
of 1.28 is obtained in some beams in the second story and
is lower than the design limit value of 4.0. ▽2FL 1.12 1.15
Table 4 presents the maximum axial load ratio for 1.13 1.10
velocity is 38 m/s assuming the area to be a flat terrain of butions of the story shear force, the story drift angle and
category III. As for the estimation of the habitability to the story overturning moment along the height of the
wind vibration, a wind velocity of 29.3 m/s was used building are greater in the X direction than in the Y di-
according to the provisions for comfortability (AIJ rection. It is noticed that contrary to the elastic response
1991). analysis (see Fig. 11), Fig. 12 shows that the building
response in the wind direction is larger than the response
5.3 Results of analyses in the across-wind direction when the wind action is in
Modal response analyses of generalized the X direction. In such case, it is understood that the
one-degree-of-freedom elastic systems were first carried average component, which is not affected by the
out in order to assess the critical direction of the design non-linearity effect, is included in the response.
wind load (in terms of the maximum base shear force). The maximum base shear force coefficients in the X
By normalizing the vibration shape modes to unity, the and Y directions are 0.029 and 0.021, respectively. The
first generalized masses in the X and Y directions were maximum story drift angles in the X and Y directions
assessed and found to be equal to 64,100 tons and 74,300 satisfy the level-1 design criteria (1/200) and are equal to
tons, respectively. The first natural frequencies in the X 1/201 and 1/378, respectively.
and Y directions are 0.13 Hz and 0.17 Hz, respectively, The results of the non-linear analysis corresponding to
and the damping ratio is 1.5% (AIJ 2000). The variation the level-2 wind velocity are presented in Fig. 13, which
in the base shear force, related to the wind direction angle shows the distributions of the story shear force, the story
for level-1 and level-2 wind velocities, are presented in drift angle and the story overturning moment in the X and
Fig. 11. The maximum base shear forces were obtained Y directions along the height of the building, as well as
in the orthogonal direction of the wind direction when the nonlinear response of the shear-building model to the
applied along the X and Y axes. When the wind direction level-2 earthquake Site wave record. It appears that the
angle is set to 90˚ and 180˚ from the Y axis, the resulting distribution trend is similar to the trend of level-1. The
maximum base shear force is obtained along the per- maximum base shear force coefficients in the X and Y
pendicular axis of each direction with an angle of 0˚ and directions are 0.033 and 0.026, respectively. The maxi-
90˚, respectively. The latter maximum shear force direc- mum story drift angles in the X and Y directions satisfy
tions were properly selected for the shear-building re- the level-2 design criteria (1/100) and are equal to 1/179
sponse investigation. and 1/264, respectively. They are smaller than the re-
The same story characteristics (degrading trilinear sponse values obtained under the Site wave record.
form of the story restoring forces) of the 80-lumped-mass
model used for the static nonlinear analysis presented in 5.4 Estimation of habitability to wind vibration
section 3 were used for the wind response investigation. Modal analysis was carried out to evaluate the building
The first story was considered fixed at the story bottom response. Structural secondary elements were considered
and the internal viscous damping was assumed propor- in the evaluation of the first natural vibration frequencies,
tional to the instantaneous stiffness and equal to a con- which were taken 1.2 times (AIJ 2000) the values men-
stant value of 1.5% (AIJ 2000). tioned previously. The first natural vibration frequencies
While the time history response analysis was carried in the X and Y directions are equal to 0.17 Hz and 0.22
out for 650 seconds, the first 50 seconds were excluded Hz, respectively. The damping ratio is considered equal
because the focus was on the steady state response. The to 1% (AIJ 2000). This value is smaller than the damping
results of the non-linear analysis corresponding to level-1 ratio in the previous seismic and wind response analyses.
wind velocity are presented in Fig. 12, where the distri- This reduction is due to the low vibration amplitude
120,000 X方向(L1)
X direction (L1)
X direction (L2)
X方向(L2)
Base shear (kN)
Y direction
Y方向( L1) (L1)
ベースシア( kN)
80,000
Y direction (L2)
Y方向(L2)
α
40,000
Y 風Wind
0
0 90 180 270 360
°) X
Wind direction
風向角α(angle α (°)
(?)
Fig. 11 Base shear force related to wind direction angle (one-degree-of-freedom response analysis).
190 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007
Story number
Story number
60 60 60 60
Cb=0.033
50 50 50 50
階
階
40 40
階
40
階
Cb=0.029 Cb=0.021 40
Cb=0.026
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 50,000 100,000 0 50,000 100,000
Story driftX方向層せん断力(kN)
angle (rad.) X direction Story drift angle (rad.) Y direction
Y方向層せん断力(kN) Story shear force (kN) X direction
X方向層せん断力(kN) Story shear force (kN) Y direction
Y方向層せん断力(kN)
80 80 80 80
70 70 70 70
Story number
Story number
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
階
40
階
階
階
40 40 40
30 30 30 1/179 30
1/201
20 20 20 20
1/378 1/264
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.000 0.005 0.010
Story shear force (kN) X direction
X 方向層間変形角(rad.) Story shear force (kN) Y direction
Y方向層間変形角(rad.) Story drift angle (rad.) X direction StoryY方向層間変形角(rad.)
X方向層間変形角(rad.) drift angle (rad.) Y direction
80 80 80 80
70 70 70 70
Story number
Story number
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
階
階
40 40 40
階
40
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
0.E+00 3.E+06 6.E+06 9.E+06 0.E+00 3.E+06 6.E+06 9.E+06 0.0E+00 4.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.2E+07 0.0E+00 4.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.2E+07
Moment (kN.m) X direction
X方向転倒モーメント(kN・m) Moment (kN.m) Y direction
Y方向転倒モーメント(kN・m) Moment (kN.m) X direction
X方向転倒モーメント(kN・m) Moment (kN.m) Y direction
Y方向転倒モーメント(kN・m)
Fig. 12 Level-1 wind response analysis results. Fig. 13 Level-2 wind response analysis results.
under wind loads (AIJ 2000). The maximum response is : X direction : Y direction
obtained in the across-wind direction and the maximum
10
accelerations at the upper floor in the X and Y directions
2 (cm/s )
2
is nearly equal in the lower stories similar to the Ai dis- responding to 0.65.
tribution. 9. The lumped-mass model was considered for the
4. Based on the three-dimensional nonlinear static nonlinear wind response. The across-wind vibrations
analysis, at the ultimate limit stage, the obtained maxi- produced the maximum effect on the building.
mum axial load ratio for 200 MPa concrete strength of 10. The maximum story shear force for the level-2 wind
the first story columns in the X and Y directions are 0.53 vibration is almost half for the level-2 earthquake re-
and 0.48, respectively, and meet the design criterion of a sponse when using the lumped-mass model.
value smaller than 0.65. 11. The maximum story shear force and drift angle dis-
5. The maximum values of the story drift angle obtained tribution trend under level-2 wind load is almost similar
under the Site wave motion for both the X and Y direc- to under level-1 wind load. All values are below the
tions are equal to 1/146 and 1/172, respectively, which design criteria.
are below the design value of 1/100. 12. As for habitability to wind vibration, the maximum
6. The assumed Ai distribution and the actual external acceleration in the X direction in the upper floor (equal to
force distribution differ. The first-floor shear force is 6.3 cm/s2) is 43% higher than in the Y direction. The
linearly related to its overturning moment for the static value in the X direction does not satisfy the rank III
analysis of the three-dimensional model. However, for requirement of AIJ regulations. However, providing
the dynamic analysis, the increase in the overturning shaking control equipment brings the acceleration level
moment converges towards a limit value. to the required level.
7. For the level-2 seismic response analysis, while yield
hinges develop only in some of the short beams of the References
first 15 stories, no yield hinge in columns is observed in AIJ (1991). “Guidelines for the evaluation of habitability
any of the frames. The maximum ductility of 1.28 is to building vibration.” Architectural Institute of Japan.
obtained in some beams in the second story, which is (in japanese)
lower than the design value of 4.0. AIJ (1993). “Recommendation of loads on buildings.”
8. For the level-2 seismic response analysis, the maxi- Architectural Institute of Japan. (in japanese)
mum axial load ratios of 0.45 and 0.37 are reached in AIJ (2000). “Damping in buildings.” Architectural
columns with concrete strength of 100 MPa and 200 MPa, Institute of Japan.
respectively, and are far below the design criterion cor-