Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Be Rahman
Be Rahman
Be Rahman
Farshad Berahman
BSc MSc PhD Senior Structural Engineer
34th
level-Mechanical Floor
160 m
96m 165m
203 Guest Hotel Room 172 Branded Service Apartments 42 storey wheel Total built up area 110,000 sqm
Lift cores
78m Atrium
Elevation
10.8m
The areas with high shear stresses: 1. 2. 3. Thicken the wall - more weight and more concrete Reduce the number of openings - Not favourable Architecturally Use steel plates to reinforce the highly stressed concrete walls - Not standard practice
Y X
Icon Hotel
Steel Weight
Trusses, Arches and vertical elements: 10250 ton Floor Beams: 7000 ton
ICON HOTEL
T1 = 4.3 Sec
T2 = 3.3 Sec
T3 = 3.0 Sec
Geotechnical Study Liquefaction Analysis Soil Improvement Seismic Hazard Study Wind Tunnel Study Pile Raft Settlement Analysis Floor vibration analysis Connections Detail Design Long Term Effect (Column Shortening) Performance Based Seismic Evaluation
For more information please visit CTBUH website and search for CTBUH 2010 Mumbai Conference
Foundation Type
Piled Raft
ICON HOTEL 29th January 2009
ICON HOTEL
1. 000E - 02 2. 200E - 02 3. 400E - 02 4. 600E - 02 5. 800E - 02 7. 000E - 02 8. 200E - 02 9. 400E - 02 1. 060E - 01 1. 180E - 01 1. 300E - 01 1. 420E - 01 1. 540E - 01 1. 660E - 01
ICON HOTEL
29th
January 2009
Floor System
10.8m
Density 400kg/m^2
13.2 m 4.3m
F1>4 Hz
R-Factor
Walking Load
SAVED
ICON HOTEL
MIDAS Model
ICON HOTEL
ICON HOTEL
Icon Hotel
ICON HOTEL
set 1 2 3
Earthquake 1994 Northridge, USA 1976 Gazli, USSR 1992 Landers, USA
Recording station
Designation
90053 Canoga Parl- CNP 106 CNP Topanga Can 196 9201 Karakyr 12025 Palm Springs Airport GAZ000 GAZ090 PSA 000 PSA090
Earthquake load/Time History Ductility Factor Story Drift Ratio Limit Member Strength Design Load Factors Material strength Acceptance Criteria
Design to be verified Service load combinations Expected strength Strain & Story drift ratio
Design to be verified Service load combinations Expected strength Strain & Story drift ratio
Lander
All the members remained elastic except coupling beams Building met the performance objectives.
Figure 28. The envelope of shear force and the capacity of central shear wall.
The envelope of shear force and the capacity of central shear wall.
Figure 28. The envelope of shear force and the capacity of central shear wall.