SRG Tower: The Structural

Challenges of One of the World’s

Slenderest Residential Towers
Farhad Pazoki, Technical Director, WME Consultants
Introduction
• 111‐storey luxury residential development
g s
• Cutting‐edge, iconic super‐tall building
di n
• 468m tall, 30.5 square footprint, slenderness> 15 uil
l l B
• Aerodynamic performance key T a t
o n i t a
• Design driven wind performance
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Architecture
• Designed by Killa Design
g s
di n
• plot adjacent to Sheikh Zayed Road
uil
• l l B
Comprises 1 basement and 111 residential floors
T a t
•
o n
External structural diagrid prominent to building aesthetic i t a
c l
ithe a b
•
o un an H
Intermediate sky‐garden levels along the height of building

Double Wind Turbine configurationC

© d Urb
• within the crown exemplifies the
sustainability aspirations of the client

• Viewing deck at top an

 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Structure
• Reinforced concrete
• Structural steel tower crown
g s
• Post‐tensioned concrete flat slabs with edge bands
di n
•
uil
Symmetrical about both axes with a square‐shaped floor plate
• Four intermediate technical floor levels
l l B
• T a t
Sky gardens that allow wind to ‘pass through’ the building
• o n i t a
Tube‐in‐tube lateral load resisting system consisting of:
c
‐ The external diagrid megastructureil a b
oun an H
‐ The internal reinforced concrete core walls
C rb
© dU
an
 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
The Diagrid
• Main lateral stability system
g s
di n
• Reinforced Concrete members
uil
l l B
• More than 70% of lateral loads absorbed by the diagrid a
n T at
l o b i t
i a
ncadditional
• The diagrid system interfaces with the floor plates at different
locations at every floor, avoid the needufor
n Hcolumns
Co rba
• © dof columns
Maximizes views due to elimination U
a n
• Junctions between diagrids, Edge and Corner nodes, are a key
consideration and have been given particular attention
 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
The Central Core
• Square shaped core encapsulates common areas such as lobbies,
staircases, service shafts and lifts
g s
• Varying thickness along the height of the tower
di n
uil
• The core contributes to lateral stability alongside the external diagrid
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
u n nH
Floor Plates o
C rba
© dU
an concrete slabs within the core
• Floor plates are conventional reinforced
and post‐tensioned slat slabs outside the core
• 500mm thick edge bands provide adequate strengthening for diagrid
connections and cladding support
Foundation
• Design loads on foundation are exceptionally high applied on a
very small footprint

• A deep foundation with closely spaced piles is envisaged

g s
• An alternative Barrette system is also being studied ildin
B u
•
a t l
4.0m thick raft required to evenly distribute loads across pilesland
avoid excessive settlement
n T a
o b i t
• c il toaensure
Soil structure interaction study will be performed
desired load spread in the piles u n nH
C o ba
• © d Ur
This study is currently in progress

an
 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Wind Engineering
• Wind effects are fundamental

• High accelerations
g s
di n
• Modelled in boundary‐layer wind tunnel
uil
l l B
• High‐Frequency Balance (HFB) method was used
T a t
o n i t a
• c il
Current and future arrangements of neighboring a b
u n worstn H
buildings were tested separately to derive
cases. o
C rba
© dU
an
• Peak accelerations were estimated and compared against
internationally recognized standards

• Service / Ultimate loads were generated g s

di n
• Accelerations were key uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Form finding based on Response
• Early wind studies on the SRG tower indicated very high accelerations

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
o Opening up Crown structure

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
o Introduction of chamfered corners

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
o Introduction of full floor opening in the form of sky gardens at floors above plant levels

o Tapering the top third of the building in one direction

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
 4.0
Final Design Configuration
Skyfloors fully closed
3.5 Skyfloors fully closed and corners chamfered
Skyfloors partially closed
3.0 Skyfloors partially closed and corners chamfered
10-year response
50-year response g s
2.5
di n
My/MyA

uil
2.0 l l B
T a t
o n i t a
1.5
c il a b
oun an H
1.0 C rb
© dU
0.5 an
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Uref/U50yr
Additional wind studies conducted:

• Assess wind loads on the structure surrounding the wind turbine g s

di n
features, including some larger‐scale tests
uil
• determine local cladding pressures
l l B
T a t
n and in ita
• investigate the pedestrian wind environment at ground level
o
the open sky floors.
c il a b
Computational Wind Engineering simulationso were n H to
unalso aperformed
Cthe towerrbto optimize the
show the flow conditions around the top of
wind turbine design and performance.© U
d
an
 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Etabs 3D Model
Non‐linear Structural Analysis
• Why? Accuracy, capacity of the structure at yield and failure, failure mechanisms,
capturing true behavior as accurate as possible
g s
n
di Consulting
• i l
Non‐linear analysis using Atena finite element analysis software by Cervenka
u
• l l B
Atena captures material non‐linearity of RC
a
T at
• Loads are applied incrementally
o n it
i l
c adopted b
awhich takes into consideration
• Nonlinear static push‐over technique has nbeen H
u aandnare used to determine the maximum
elastic and inelastic behavior of theomaterials
C rb
total and inter‐storey inelastic drifts
© dU
an
Non‐linear Static Analysis (Pushover)

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Concrete Stress at 
Ultimate Load

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Reinforcing Stress 
at Ultimate Load

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Crack Width at 
Ultimate Load

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Concrete Stress at 
Peak Load

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Reinforcing Stress 
at Peak Load

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Crack Width at 
Peak Load

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Concrete Strain 
at Failure

g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Nonlinear Study of Individual Diagrid Intersections
Diagrid Node Pushover
14

g s
12
di n
uil
l B 10

Base Shear (MN)
l
a t
n T a
8

o b i t
c il a
6

oun an H 4

C rb
© dU 2

an 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Average Drift (mm)
FP1

gs
ldi n
ui
l l B
T a t
l on
b i ta
nci Ha
o u an
C
© d Urb
an
Corner Node
Slide 32 uild
ings
ll B
Ta t
on bita
cil a
un an H
Co
© d Urb

FP1 Farhad Pazoki, 10/16/2018 an

 g s
di n
uil
l l B
Performance Based Design for Wind –
T a t A New Approach
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an
Current Wind Engineering Practice
g s
• Codified or wind tunnel based
di n
ui l
• Response expected to be linear‐elastic
l l B
• T a for wind
Currently no established framework to allow inelastic behavior t loading
o n i t a
• Serviceability often dominates and can resultcin bdesigns
ilconservative
a particularly in tall buildings
n
u an H
o
C rb
© dU
an
Performance Based Wind Design
• In tall buildings a significant portion of the wind is dynamic in nature both in time and space and therefore calls for
dynamic analysis
g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
o un an H
C rb
© dU
n Nature of Wind Loads
aDynamic
(Boggs and Dragovich, 2006)

• Building allowed to become inelastic in a controlled way

• Nominal ductility is usually provided although not directly required by codes

• Building performance is explicitly evaluated using non‐linear analysis

• various levels of demand checked and compared to performance criteria.

g s
n
di and ‘Immediate Occupancy’
• Required Performance can be classified as ‘Collapse Prevention’, ‘Life Safety’
u i l
l l B
a
T at
o n it
c i l a b
Downsides to PBD: n
u an H
o
Cprocedurerb
© dU
• Elaborate and time‐consuming

ton
• Often allowing the building a enter inelastic range will
decrease the natural frequency and increase wind
response
 g s
di n
uil
l l B
T a t
o n i t a
c il a b
oun an H
C rb
© dU
an