THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.661

Design and behaviour of a reinforced concrete high-rise tube

building with belt walls

Myoungsu Shin1, Thomas H.-K. Kang2*,†, James M. LaFave3 and Jacob S. Grossman4
1
School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST),
Ulsan Metropolitan City, Korea
2
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
4
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C., New York, NY, USA

SUMMARY
This paper discusses modelling, analysis and design issues for a 55-storey hotel building recently planned
for New York City, USA. The lateral force resistance of the investigated building primarily makes use of
exterior reinforced concrete shear walls in one direction and exterior reinforced concrete moment frames
in the other direction, in which tube action credited to the connection of the walls and frames was designed
to play a significant role in the lateral stiffness and strength. In addition, a full-storey belt wall system,
enclosing the entire perimeter of the building at approximately the mid-height, is expected to provide a
considerable contribution to the lateral force resistance. In this paper, the contribution of tube action and
the belt wall system to structural behaviour is investigated in terms of quantitative measures such as lateral
drift, building dynamic properties and flange frame contribution to overturning moment resistance. In addi-
tion, axial force distribution among the various vertical members under lateral forces is discussed for each
of the two principal building directions. Finally, the seismic behaviour of the investigated building is
qualitatively discussed in order to propose a seismic force-resisting system classification into which this
concrete tube system would fit. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION

A reinforced concrete (RC) tubular structure is considered one of the most efficient lateral force-
resisting systems for high-rise buildings. Types of tubular structures include framed-tube systems,
exterior diagonal tube systems, bundled-tube systems and tube systems with outrigger and/or belt
systems (Taranath, 1997). All of these systems utilize closely spaced perimeter columns (and/or walls)
tied together with spandrel beams, sometimes in conjunction with additional bracing components (e.g.,
diagonal bracing, outriggers or belt walls). The lateral load design and structural behaviour of such
systems can be highly efficient with the help of tube action that is generally engaged by the participa-
tion of flange members in the lateral stiffness (i.e., drift resistance) and strength (i.e., overturning
moment resistance).
As part of tube action, though, unfavourable shear lag may occur. The shear lag phenomenon is
often characterized by a nonlinear variation in column axial forces along flange and/or web frames
(Figure 1). Historically, Coull and Subedi (1971) first identified this shear lag behaviour of tubular
buildings. Since then, many researchers (Khan and Smith, 1976; Chang, 1985; Kristek and Bauer,
1993; Singh and Nagpal, 1994) have investigated the behavioural origins and/or methods for estimat-
ing such shear lag effects. For thorough understanding of shear lag behaviour in tube walls, several
researchers (e.g., Kwan, 1996; Memari et al., 2000) performed finite element modelling studies of
tube walls or framed-tube systems. Kwan (1996) conducted parametric studies by developing and
analyzing elastic finite element models of cantilevered single-tube walls and found that shear lag

* Correspondence to: Thomas H.-K. Kang, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of
Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd St., Rm. 334, Norman, OK, 73019, USA
†
E-mail: tkang@ou.edu

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2 M. SHIN ET AL.

Negative shear lag

Positive shear lag

Axial stress distribution
(No shear lag) in flange frames or walls

Building Tube Systems Compressive axial stress

Positive shear lag
(No shear lag)
Negative shear lag

Axial stress distribution

in web frames or walls
Lateral load

Figure 1. Tube action and associated shear lag behaviour.

effects are most significant at the lowest levels of the tube walls. Memari et al. (2000) studied the
nonlinear behaviour of RC tube structures by performing multiple inelastic dynamic analyses, finding
that shear lag effects would also be concentrated on the lower storeys during nonlinear response; they
further found that there could be the possibility of column shear failure prior to column flexural yield-
ing, due to shear transfer along the flange frames perpendicular to the direction of lateral loading.
However, no finite element analyses on framed-tube systems consisting of mixed exterior walls and
frames have been carried out and reported to date. In this study, finite-element analyses are targeted
towards the optimal design and better understanding of behaviour for high-rise framed-tube concrete
buildings subjected to moderate wind or seismic forces.
Among the aforementioned systems, the tube system with diagonal concrete braces is typically
called a ‘braced-tube’ system (Grossman et al., 1986; Taranath, 1997), and it would intuitively appear
that diagonal bracing members across the exterior faces of a building will reduce the degree of shear
lag. This design concept was utilized for a 50-storey office structure located on Third Avenue in New
York City, the first RC building with this type of structural system (Grossman et al., 1986). However,
eliminating some intermediate window openings in most floors (as was done in that building) is not
often an option for typical office or hotel buildings. Alternative solutions for the same purpose may
include the use of outriggers or belt walls, or both.
Rahgozar and Sharifi (2009) reported that the use of outrigger and/or belt systems, along with
internal and external tubes, is very efficient for lateral resistance, and that the optimal vertical position
of the outrigger or belt wall systems would be at about 1/8th to 1/6th of a building’s total height from
the base. On the other hand, Taranath (1997) suggests the optimal vertical position of an outrigger to
be at the mid-height of a building for a single-outrigger system, or at the top and mid-height for a
two-outrigger system. (A single-belt wall system is used for the investigated building, as the archi-
tectural arrangement favoured one entire mechanical equipment floor near mid-height.)
This study investigates the contribution of tube action to the lateral stiffness and strength of an RC
frame-wall tube system in which combined exterior shear walls and moment frames are primarily
employed for lateral resistance in each of the two principal building directions. The shear lag behav-
iour of the framed-tube structure with a belt wall system is also investigated, to better understand the
overall structural behaviour for effective utilization of the additional stiffness and strength of the
building potentially originating from tube action. The contribution of tube action to lateral force
resistance (e.g., participation of flange frames in lateral stiffness along the direction perpendicular to
the flange frames) is first assessed by comparing a pair of models with and without moment connec-
tions between the exterior shear walls and frames. Second, effects of the belt wall system on overall

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 3

behaviour of the structure (e.g., column force distribution and shear lag behaviour) are assessed by
analyzing a companion model without the belt wall system. Finally, the seismic behaviour of the
considered building is briefly discussed in order to propose a seismic force-resisting system (SFRS)
classification into which this concrete tube system may fit.

2. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM OF THE INVESTIGATED BUILDING

This section discusses design details for the structural system of the investigated building. A 55-storey
structural concrete hotel building recently planned in New York City was used in this study. Figure
2 illustrates column and wall layouts and slab edges at typical (a) lower and (b) upper floors of the
building. The structure is approximately 570 ft tall, 58 ft wide at the typical lower floors and 52 ft
wide at the typical upper floors in the north−south (N−S) direction; a setback of 3 ft exists at each of
the north and south façades. The structure measures roughly 108 ft in length at the typical floors in
the east−west (E−W) direction, while the bottom eight storeys extend one more bay, approximately
20 ft long, to the east side of the building. The storey heights are about 8·8 and 9·8 ft at the lower
and upper typical floors, respectively.
The RC structural system consists of structural walls at the east and west façades, closely spaced
deep columns connected by relatively deep spandrel beams at the north and south facades and interior
(core) walls around elevator shafts and stair openings (see Figure 2). This type of system allows liberal
architectural planning with wide open interior spaces and may lead to economical construction through
the repetitive use of slip forms. This building was planned to be occupied by two different hotels,
so the architectural and structural layouts change at approximately the mid-height of the building,
where the setbacks of the north and south façades occur. To accommodate column offsets between
the two different layouts, a full-storey belt wall system was designed that encloses the entire perimeter
of a floor housing the building’s mechanical systems and that supports sloped columns coming from
just above that floor. The belt walls at the south and north façades of the building were designed to
be 16 ft high and 20 in. thick.
RC flat plates were proportioned to support floor gravity loads and to minimize required storey
heights, as often desired in high-rise residential buildings. The proposed slab thickness was 9 in. for
all typical floors. Thickened slabs, considered equivalent to drop panels for columns, were added
around the core walls (primarily to limit slab deflections).
The lateral force resistance of the structure primarily makes use of the exterior shear walls for the
N–S direction, and of the combination of the exterior beam and column moment frames along with
the core walls for the E–W direction. In addition to these elements that are parallel to the loading
direction, tube action was aimed at presenting a significant contribution to the lateral stiffness and
strength. This tube action is credited to the connection of the exterior walls and the frames, which
respectively play roles of web and flange components against N–S lateral forces, and vice versa under

108 ft

26 ft

58 ft Typ., 52 ft. Typ.,

Lower Upper
floors N floors

S
W E
14.5 ft. Typ., Upper floors
12 ft Typ., Lower floors

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Column and wall layouts at (a) typical lower floors and (b) typical upper floors (with 3-ft
setbacks at the north and south façades).

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
4 M. SHIN ET AL.

E−W lateral forces. In addition, the full-storey belt wall system at the mid-height of the building,
primarily used to offset the column lines, was further expected to improve the lateral resistance by
producing better engagement of the middle columns of the flange frames for the N−S loading direc-
tion. The contribution of tube action and the belt wall system will be confirmed later in the results
sections.
The structure is more critical under N−S direction lateral forces, given that the building’s height-
to-width (slenderness) ratio is about 10 in that direction. The section dimensions of the exterior walls
and frames were essentially established to provide overall stiffness against N−S wind forces, ensuring
compliance with storey drift and acceleration serviceability design criteria. Although the centre-to-
centre spacing between exterior columns can affect the tube action, it was selected solely based on
architectural requirements to be 12 ft in the typical lower floors, with a wider spacing of 14·5 ft in
the typical upper floors (Figure 2). While wind forces mainly controlled the strength design in the
N−S direction, seismic effects were similar to wind effects in the E−W direction. Strength design of
the exterior frame members was more complicated due to effects of tube action under N−S wind
forces.

3. SFRS AND DESIGN COEFFICIENTS

This section discusses the classification of the SFRS for each of the two principal directions of the
building, as well as related design coefficients. Although the actual design of the building was based
on the 2003 New York City Building Code (NYCBC-03) (New York City Department of Buildings,
2003), some of the discussions in this paper are based on other recent standards and codes, including
ASCE 7-05 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005) and the latest New York City Building Code,
which essentially adopted the 2003 International Building Code (International Code Council, Inc.,
2003) with some modifications.
The investigated structure utilizes a tube system when subjected to lateral seismic forces. Although
framed-tube systems have been used in high-rise buildings for more than three decades, current build-
ing codes and standards (e.g., ASCE 7-05) do not specifically call out any seismic classification rel-
evant to this type of structural system. According to ASCE 7-05, §12.2.1, however, a system that is
not specifically classified as an SFRS in the standard can be permitted if analytical and test data
demonstrate satisfactory dynamic characteristics such as lateral force resistance and energy dissipation
capacity. Given that there are no test data for framed-tube systems to date, only analytical studies can
be used to justify this system. Previous research found that tube action not only contributes to lateral
stiffness and strength, but would also enhance overall system redundancy and ductility during non-
linear lateral behaviour (Anderson and Gurfinkel, 1975). In general, it has been perceived that a tube
system is superior to structures with similar components that do not utilize such tube action (Taranath,
1997). This study attempts to draw a more quantitative conclusion on this particular aspect.
Given the aforementioned lack of research and codification, the seismic design coefficients for the
considered building were selected without taking into account the beneficial contribution of tube
action to the overall nonlinear performance. The SFRS in the N−S direction was conservatively con-
sidered equivalent to a bearing wall system, in that the exterior and interior walls take most storey
shear forces and a great portion of gravity loads. The SFRS in the E−W direction was considered
equivalent to a dual system consisting of the interior shear walls and the exterior frames, in that the
frames are capable of resisting more than 25% of earthquake-induced storey shear forces. With the
dual-system classification for the E−W direction, wind effects determined member forces for strength
design rather than seismic effects for most structural members of the building.
On the other hand, for the purpose of relieving ductility-related detailing requirements, the clas-
sification could be altered to one with a smaller response modification factor (R). For instance, a ‘shear
wall-frame interactive system with ordinary RC moment frames and ordinary RC shear walls (R =
4·5)’ could be used for the SFRS in the E−W direction instead of a ‘dual system with intermediate
moment frames and ordinary RC shear walls (R = 5·5)’ (refer to ASCE 7-05, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 2005, Table 12·2-1). Accordingly, code-specified seismic design forces could be

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 5

Table 1. Seismic design coefficients with ordinary RC shear walls based on ASCE 7–05 (American
Society of Civil Engineers, 2005).

SFRS Combined elements Permitted SDC R Ω0 Cd

Dual systems Intermediate moment frames B, C 5·5 2·5 4·5
Shear wall–frame interactive systems Ordinary RC moment frames B 4·5 2·5 4
Building frame systems None B, C 5 2·5 4·5
Bearing wall systems None B, C 4 2·5 4

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Wind tunnel tests for a 50-year return period basic wind speed of 98 mph. (a) Overview
of the models in the wind tunnel and (b) the considered building (brown) with surrounding
buildings (white) (courtesy of Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin, Inc.).

increased to values similar to the wind design forces. Although the actual design of the building was
based on the dual-system classification for the E−W direction, the seismic forces used later in this
current study were calculated using the R-factor (i.e., 4·5) corresponding to shear wall−frame interac-
tive systems for comparison purposes with the wind forces. Table 1 summarizes the seismic design
coefficients and permitted seismic design categories (SDC) related to the aforementioned systems
based on ASCE 7-05 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005), including the response modifica-
tion coefficient (R), deflection amplification factor (Cd) and system over-strength factor (Ω0). Note
that shear wall−frame interactive systems are allowed only for SDC ‘A’ and ‘B’.

4. DESIGN LATERAL FORCES AND PERFORMANCE (DRIFT) CRITERIA

Wind forces used for the design of the building were determined based on: (a) a wind tunnel study
applying a 50-year return period basic wind speed of 98 mph (Figure 3) and (b) prescriptive minimum
pressures specified in the NYCBC-03 (i.e., 20 psf below 100 ft in height, 25 psf from 101 to 300 ft
and 30 psf from 301 to 600 ft). The greater of the two forces, from (a) and (b), at each storey was
conservatively selected for design (though not required per NYCBC-03 or ASCE 7-05). (Note that
the wind tunnel loads exhibit more realistic wind pressure distributions over the building height, but
they are much less than the code-specified loads because there are immediately surrounding buildings
on all faces of the site.) Twenty-four cases of service-level wind forces that accounted for the effects
of directionality in the local wind climate were applied (Figure 3). Figure 4 plots service-level

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
6 M. SHIN ET AL.

600 600 600 600

500 500 500 500

400 Wind tunnel test 400 400 Wind tunnel test 400

Elevation [ft]
Elevation [ft]

2003 NYCBC
2003 NYCBC
300 300 300 300

200 200 200 200

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30
Service wind force in N-S direction [kips] Service wind force in E-W direction [kips]

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Storey-by-storey service wind forces for (a) the N−S direction and (b) the E−W
direction, determined by wind tunnel study (Wy and Wx) and the New York City Department of
Buildings (2003).

storey-by-storey wind forces determined by the wind tunnel study (corresponding to a 50-year return
period wind), as well as those by NYCBC-03.
The code-specified seismic forces presented in this paper were determined based on earthquakes
with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, per ASCE 7-05. The maximum considered earthquake
spectral response accelerations for New York City were taken equal to 0·365 g at short periods (SS)
and 0·071 g at a period of 1 s (S1) according to the New York City Department of Buildings (2008),
and the construction site was classified as Site Class ‘C’ (per ASCE 7-05, §20.1). With the site coef-
ficients (Fa = 1·2 and Fv = 1·7) determined, the design spectral response acceleration parameters in
the short period range (SDS) and at 1 s (SD1) were calculated to be 0·292 g and 0·081 g, respectively
(per ASCE 7-05, §11.4). In addition, the investigated hotel building corresponds to Occupancy Cat-
egory ‘II’ (per ASCE 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005, §1.5), and thus the structure
was designated as SDC ‘B’ (per ASCE 7-05, 2005, §11.6).
Figure 5 compares (a) ultimate (factored) wind and seismic forces applied at each storey, and (b)
resulting storey shear, in the E−W direction. The wind forces shown (1·6Wx) solely represent the wind
tunnel study. For further analyses in this paper, only the wind tunnel data are used, to represent more
realistic wind force distributions, whereas the design of the building was done in a more conservative
way as discussed earlier. The two types of seismic forces, 1·0Qx,ELF and 1·0Qx,MRS, were computed
based on the equivalent lateral force procedure (ELFP) and the modal response spectrum analysis
(MRSA) method, respectively, per ASCE 7-05, §12.8 and §12.9. For the seismic analysis, only self-
weights and superimposed dead loads were taken as the effective seismic weight (W) of the building.
Note that the E−W seismic forces were determined using the R-factor (i.e., 4·5) related to shear
wall−frame interactive systems.
For the ELFP, the first and second mode periods of the building, whose motions were governed
mostly by N−S and E−W translations, respectively (see Figure 6), were estimated by computer modal
analysis to be approximately 5·1 and 3·3 s. Therefore, the seismic base shear (V) of the considered
building was determined by the minimum limit for the seismic response coefficient (Cs) in both prin-
cipal directions:

V = CsW (1)

where Cs = 0⋅044SDS I > 0⋅01 (2)

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 7

700 700 700 700

1.0Qx,ELF
600 600 600 1.0Qx,MRS 600
1.6Wx
500 500 500 500
Elevation [ft]

Elevation [ft]
400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300

200 200 200 200

1.0Qx,ELF
100 1.0Qx,MRS 100 100 100
1.6Wx
0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000
Story-by-story lateral force (kips) Story shear (kips) in E-W direction
in E-W direction
(a) (b)
Figure 5. (a) Storey-by-storey lateral force and (b) storey shear under ultimate wind forces (1·6Wx)
and seismic forces (1·0Qx,ELF and 1·0Qx,MRS) in the E−W direction.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6. Free-vibration mode shapes. (a) ETABS model at rest, (b) first mode, (c) second mode,
and (d) third mode (base grids are shown in grey).

and I is the seismic importance factor taken equal to 1·0 for the Occupancy Category ‘II’ building. In
low to moderate seismic zones, tall buildings (having relatively long first modal periods) are typically
governed by this lower-bound limit. (It is notable that the first release of ASCE 7-05 eliminated the
minimum limit of Cs equal to 0·044SDSI, but Supplement No. 2 of that standard issued later in 2008
re-approved the limit, based on a concern for tall buildings raised by the 75% Interim Draft ATC-63
Report from the Applied Technology Council (2007)).
For the MRSA, the first 12 free-vibration modes were used to take into account more than 90% of
the total mass in each of the two principal directions of the building, per ASCE 7-05, §12.9.1. The
seismic forces calculated by the MRSA were increased by a factor to match the total base shear of

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
8 M. SHIN ET AL.

the ELFP in order to make comparisons on an equal basis, although ASCE 7-05, §12.9.4, requires
matching only 85% of the base shear of the ELFP.
Figure 5(b) illustrates that the wind and seismic base shears for strength design are very similar to
each other, but the seismic forces determined by the ELFP produce larger storey shears and overturn-
ing moments due to their distributions over the building height. It is also found that the dynamic
procedure (MRSA) allows smaller design forces than the static procedure (ELFP) at most storeys
(except for at the top part), even using the same base shear for the two methods.
With regard to lateral drift criteria against wind, current US building codes do not require specific
limiting drifts for structural concrete members or buildings. The only recommended practice is avail-
able in the Commentary of recent issues of ASCE 7 for protection of nonstructural elements, such as
cladding and partitions, where drift limits are recommended to range from 1/600 to 1/400 of the
building height or storey height under the load combination of D + 0·5L + 0·7W (see ASCE 7-05,
§CC.1.2). Here, D is the dead load, L is the live load and W stands for the wind force determined
based on a 50-year return period wind (and thus 0·7W is roughly equivalent to the wind force cor-
responding to a 10-year return period wind). For design of the considered building, the more strict
drift criteria were used, in light of the potentially damaging differential column shortening or elonga-
tion between the corner and middle columns of the exterior frames due to combined effects of shear
lag, creep and shrinkage.
For total seismic (elastic plus inelastic) drift limits, §12.12 of ASCE 7-05 should be met to promote
the strength and stability of a structure under ultimate design seismic forces. In low to moderate
seismic zones, however, the seismic drift limits do not typically govern member proportioning.

5. MODELLING METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR MEMBERS AND

CONNECTIONS (INCLUDING CRACKING EFFECTS)

ETABS v9·2·0 (Computers and Structures Inc, 2005) was used for the modelling and analysis of the
investigated building. Figure 6(a) schematically illustrates the three-dimensional ETABS model of
the structural system. The structural walls were modelled using ‘shell’-type plate elements, which are
capable of simulating combined membrane and plate-bending behaviours (Ibrahimbegovic and
Wilson, 1991). The beams and columns were represented by frame elements placed along the cen-
trelines of the members, joined at their intersection points. These frame elements are capable of
replicating effects of axial and biaxial shear deformations, as well as biaxial bending and torsion
(Computer and Structures Inc, 2005).
For the transfer of floor gravity loads to vertical members, ‘membrane’-type plate elements with
no out-of-plane stiffness were employed for the floor slabs. Using the membrane elements assigned
with a trivial thickness (i.e., with little in-plane stiffness), the floor gravity loads were essentially
distributed to vertical members based on the tributary area concept (Computer and Structures Inc,
2005). Several additional important modelling assumptions used in this study are described in the
following.
The contribution of the floor slabs spanning between the interior walls and the exterior frames to
lateral force resistance is negligible, so it was assumed that no moment is transferred between the
slabs and the vertical members. For the E−W direction, the interior shear walls were designed as
coupled only by the slabs, which were modelled using small beams with their depths equal to the slab
thickness. In addition, the slab contribution to beam stiffness (i.e., T-beam action) was ignored. The
concrete floors were modelled in-plane with rigid diaphragm constraints for lateral analysis; all nodal
points constrained in a rigid diaphragm undertook no relative in-plane deformations.
Assigning appropriate stiffness reduction factors for each member under service and ultimate loads
is a very complex task for a structure utilizing tube action. This is especially so because the members
of a flange frame experience cracking damage even under lateral forces applied perpendicular to the
framing direction, due to tube action; the middle members (vertical and horizontal) tend to be less
cracked than the corner members. Given these complexities and uncertainties, simple assumptions
were made for member stiffness reduction in this study, following the values recommended in ACI
318-08, §R10.11 (American Concrete Institute, 2008). The flexural stiffness of all beams and columns

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 9

were taken as 50 and 100% of the gross sectional properties, respectively. For shear walls, it was
found from the analysis that no cracking-level stresses were observed under the lateral forces used
for this study. Therefore, the flexural stiffness of uncracked shear walls was used (100% of the gross
sectional properties).
With respect to panel zone rigidity, the joints between the beams and columns were assumed rigid
for this study. In other words, parts of the beams and columns belonging to their common region were
considered rigid. In reality, a typical beam-column joint may undergo joint shear deformations even
within the elastic range (Shin and LaFave, 2004), with their elastic behaviour perhaps approximated
in a model by adjusting rigid offset lengths for the beams and columns (Supplement No. 1 to ASCE
41, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006).
For the investigations presented in the following sections, several simplifications were made from
the actual design of the building. First, only a single set of beam and column sizes were used for the
exterior frames at both the upper and lower typical levels (see Figure 2), in order to quantitatively
investigate the extent of the tube action varying along the building height. The beams were 14 in.
wide and 24 in. deep, and the columns were 14 in. wide and 48 in. deep, where the column depth is
parallel to the framing direction. Second, typical wall thickness was reduced to 10 in. from the actual
design value of 12 in., in order to reduce the wall contribution so that the degree of tube action and
shear lag behaviour in the exterior frames can be clearly identified. For the same purpose, all coupling
beams for the exterior walls were modelled with a reduced depth of 24 in.

6. ANALYSIS RESULTS AND FINDINGS

In this section, the behaviour of the considered prototype building, represented by Model T1, is dis-
cussed. The contribution of tube action to lateral force resistance is assessed in comparison with a
similar model (Model T1NT) having the same details except for no allowance of moment and shear
transfer between the exterior walls and frames. Effects of the belt wall system are investigated by
comparing with three companion models: (1) Model T1NB in which the south and north parts of the
belt wall system (the 16-ft-tall walls) were replaced by 36 in. deep spandrel beams, and (2) Model
T1TB and (3) Model T1DB, which were modified from Model T1NB and Model T1, respectively,
by adding belt walls of a full storey height at the top of the building.

6.1. Contribution of tube action

This subsection provides detailed discussion about the contribution of tube action to storey drift, force
distribution and overturning moment under lateral forces. Figure 7 compares storey drifts of the five
investigated models for (a) drift along the N–S direction under 1·0Wy, and (b) drift along the E−W
direction under 1·0Qx,ELF. In general, Model T1 shows the relatively small storey drift at every storey.
The maximum storey drifts in Model T1 are 31 and 23% smaller than those in Model T1NT along
the N−S and E−W directions, respectively. In addition, the overall (roof) drift in Model T1 is roughly
20% smaller along both the N−S and E−W directions. This indicates that the contribution of tube
action to limiting storey drift is quite pronounced for the investigated building, which is especially
so at the upper part of the structure. It is notable that, at the lower part in the N−S direction, Model
T1NT shows only slightly larger storey drifts than Model T1 in most storeys (see Figure 7(a)), likely
because the slender, cantilevered exterior shear walls parallel to the loading direction well restrain
lateral deflections at the lower storeys. This indicates that the proportional role of tube action in limit-
ing storey drift is modest at the lower storeys of the tube system with the web walls. On the other
hand, considering that larger differences in storey drift are seen at all storeys between Models T1 and
T1NT in the E−W direction, it is found that the exterior frames do not provide similar stiffness as
that of the walls along the E−W direction (see Figure 7(b)).
Figure 8 compares shear forces resisted by (a) the frames and (b) the core walls in the five inves-
tigated models under E−W design seismic forces (1·0Qx,ELF), as a percentage of the total storey shear.
It is generally shown that the percentage of storey shear resisted by the core walls is higher at the
lower storeys, while the percentage by the frames is higher at the upper storeys. This type of behaviour

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
10 M. SHIN ET AL.

700 700 700 700

T1TB T1
600 T1 600
600 T1NT 600 T1NB
T1NB
T1DB
500 500 500 T1NT 500

Elevation [ft]
Elevation [ft]

400 400 400 T1DB 400

300 300 300 300

T1TB
200 200 200 200

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
N-S direction story drift against Wy [%] E-W direction story drift against Qx,ELF [%]

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Elastic storey drifts under (a) N−S wind forces (1·0Wy) and (b) E−W seismic forces
(1·0Qx,ELF).

600 600 600 600

T1
T1NT

500 500 500 500

T1NB T1NT T1
400 400 400 400
Elevation [ft]
Elevation [ft]

T1NB

300 300 300 300

200 200 200 200

100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear resisted by core walls under Qx,ELF [%] Shear resisted by frames under Qx,ELF [%]

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Shear (as a percentage of total storey shear) resisted by (a) core walls and (b) frames
under E−W seismic forces (1·0Qx,ELF).

can typically be found in frame−wall interactive systems (Shin et al., 2010). As discussed earlier with
respect to the SFRS classification, the moment frames in the investigated building are able to take
more than 25% of the seismic shear forces at all storeys, and the results validate the use of the dual-
system classification for the E−W direction. Compared with Model T1, roughly up to 20% less shear
forces are allotted to the exterior frames in Model T1NT, with the core walls taking more shear forces
in that model. This indicates that with tube action the web frames achieve substantial participation in
shear force resistance.
The distribution of column axial forces along the south frame under the service-level N−S wind
forces (Wy) are plotted at nine selected storeys in Figure 9, which indirectly illustrates the contribu-
tion of the flange columns to overturning moment. It is observed in Models T1 and T1NB that the
column forces increase relatively gradually from the top to the bottom of the structure attributing
to tube action. In Model T1NT, however, the flange columns showed two discrete levels of axial
force (almost zero above the belt walls) that barely change at the storeys below or above the belt

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 11

Column axial force at south facade [kips]

600 600

Column axial force at south facade [kips]

600 600
Model T1 Model T1NT
500 25th story 500
500 10th story 500
20th story
15th story 400 15th story 400
400 20th story 400 10th story
25th story 300 300
300 300
th
200 50 story 200
30th story 45th story
200 200 40th story
35th story 100 35th story 100
30th story
100 40 story 100
th
0 0
45th story
50th story
0 0 -100 -100
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance to column from west facade [ft] Distance to column from west facade [ft]

(a) (b)
Column axial force at south facade [kips]

600 600
Model T1NB
500 10th story 500

15th story
400 400
20th story

300 25th story 300

200 30th story 200

th
35 story
100 40th story 100
45th story
50th story
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance to column from west facade [ft]

(c)
Column axial force at south facade [kips]
Column axial force at south facade [kips]

600 600 600 600

Model T1TB Model T1DB
500 500 500 10th story 500
10th story
15th story 15th story
400 400 400 400
20th story 20th story
25th story
300 300 300 300
25th story 30th story
200 30th story 200 200 35th story 200

th
35 story 100 40th story
100 100 100
40th story 45th story
45th story
0 0 0 0
50th story 50th story

-100 -100 -100 -100

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance to column from west facade [ft] Distance to column from west facade [ft]

(d) (e)
Figure 9. Column axial forces at south façade under N−S wind forces (1·0Wy) for models (a) T1,
(b) T1NT, (c) T1NB, (d) T1TB and (e) T1DB.

walls in the absence of tube action. Accordingly, there is no contribution of the columns to over-
turning moment above the belt walls (Figure 10), and the magnitude of overturning moment resisted
by the columns barely increased below the belt walls in Model T1NT. Thus, the percentage of
overturning moment resisted by the columns reduces faster than in the other models at the lower
storeys (Figure 10). This clearly indicates the important role of tube action in resisting overturning

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
12 M. SHIN ET AL.

600 600
T1 T1NB
T1NT T1DB
500 500
T1TB

400 400

Elevation [ft]
300 300

T1NT
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 50 100 150 200
Overturning moment resisted by frames under Wy [%]

Figure 10. Overturning moment (as a percentage of total storey overturning moment) resisted by
frames under N−S wind forces (1·0Wy).

moment, especially above the belt wall level where the cantilevered exterior walls parallel to the
N−S direction become less effective.

6.2. Effects of belt wall system

This subsection discusses effects of the belt wall system located at mid-height of the building on
storey drift, force distribution and overturning moment under lateral forces. With regard to lateral
stiffness of the structure, addition of the belt wall system contributed slightly to reducing storey drifts
of the investigated building, except for about 10 storeys adjacent to the belt wall level for the E−W
direction (compare Models T1 and T1NB in Figure 7(b)), in which the south and north belt walls
worked as part of the relatively long web of the tube system.
The comparison between Models T1 and T1NB in Figure 8 indicates that larger shear forces in the
E−W direction were taken by the frames when the belt walls at the south and north façades (web
parts of the belt wall system) were replaced by the deep beams, while smaller shear forces were carried
by the core walls. This is likely because, when the belt walls are present, the tube system deflects
more in a bending mode rather than a shearing mode under the E−W lateral loading, and thus some
fraction (up to about 20%) of the storey shear forces are transferred from the frames to the core walls.
With respect to the flange frame contribution to overturning moment in the N−S direction, it was
observed in the models with the belt wall system (T1 and T1NT) that the magnitude and distribution
of column forces drastically changes across the belt wall level (Figure 9). Most obviously, in Model
T1NT, flange column forces suddenly jump just below the belt wall level (see plots at the 25th storey)
to values similar to those in Model T1. Accordingly, the model without tube action exhibits significant
overturning moments resisted by the flange columns below the belt wall level. This implies that the
belt wall system significantly contributes to resisting overturning moment in the N−S direction, by
effectively engaging the flange frame columns.
In contrast, Model T1NB shows gradually increasing axial forces by similar amounts in all columns
(no jump in magnitude), and also indicates a single smooth transition from negative to positive shear
lag behaviour from the top through the bottom of the model as shown in Figure 9(c); the shape of the
column axial force distribution is reversed at about the 35th level. Accordingly, Model T1NB exhibits
less flange column contribution to overturning moment resistance below the belt wall level than Model
T1 (Figure 10). Above the belt wall level, however, greater flange column contribution is observed in
Model T1NB. This indicates that the effect of the belt wall system on tube action is apparent only below
the belt wall level.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 13

6.3. Shear lag behaviour with belt wall system

Two different shear lag phenomena were observed in the considered building subjected to lateral
loading, as shown in Figure 9(a): positive shear lag and negative shear lag. Positive shear lag can be
characterized by corner columns taking larger axial loads than middle columns under bending of the
building with respect to the flange frame direction, while in contrast negative shear lag results in
smaller axial loads at corner columns and larger loads at middle columns in flange frames (Figure 1).
A rational interpretation of the two different shear lag modes in framed-tube structures can be found
in the paper by Singh and Nagpal (1994), where an investigation was made to pinpoint the location
of the transition between the two modes. However, little effort has been made to date towards under-
standing the characteristics of shear lag behaviour in a framed-tube system with belt walls. In this
paper, the degree of shear lag at a storey (plotted in Figure 11) is defined as the ratio of the larger
axial stress in the two corner columns divided by the smaller axial stress in the two middle columns
of the south flange frame subjected to N−S lateral forces. Note that a degree of shear lag less than
unity indicates negative shear lag.
In Model T1, negative shear lag is only seen at several of the topmost storeys (Figure 9(a)), and
the number of such storeys is limited compared with Model T1NB (Figure 9(c)). In practice,
however, column force discrepancies due to negative shear lag are usually not particularly important
because stress levels are small at top storeys, and the design is often governed by stiffness and
minimum reinforcement requirements. In Model T1, positive shear lag occurs below about the 40th
storey, growing from the top part of the structure down to the level with the belt wall system.
However, the belt wall system, located approximately at mid-height of the building, eliminates the
positive shear lag behaviour below the belt wall level and even induces a stress distribution similar
to negative shear lag. This observation indicates that shear lag phenomena are greatly affected by
the presence of a belt wall system, which is designed to increase the contribution of tube action
especially below its level; it is interesting to note that belt walls can be a means of effectively
utilizing tube action by modifying potentially excessive positive shear lag effects at lower storeys.
Just above the belt walls, however, the degree of positive shear lag is considerably larger when
the belt wall system is present at mid-height. Nevertheless, the upper storeys are in general subjected
to smaller column axial forces than the lower storeys, so the additional induced shear lag may still
be acceptable.
On the other hand, it is found that using extra belt walls at the top of the building does not appear
to much improve the lateral force resistance of the investigated building, except that the added top
belt wall system induces increased column axial forces and flange frame contributions to overturning
moment at the upper storeys (see Figure 9(e) versus 9(a) and Figure 9(d) versus 9(c)). Similarly, a

600 600
T1NB

500 500

400 400
Elevation [ft]

T1DB
T1TB T1
300 300

200 200

100 100
Negative
shear lag Positive shear lag
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Degree of shear lag under Wy

Figure 11. Degree of shear lag under N−S wind forces (1·0Wy).

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
14 M. SHIN ET AL.

single belt wall system located at the top of the building does not affect the behaviour of the lower
storeys. Analytical comparisons between T1DB and T1 and between T1TB and T1NB for storey drift
(Figure 7), flange frame contribution to overturning moment (Figure 10) and the degree of shear lag
(Figure 11) clearly support this conclusion. Figure 10 illustrates the undesirable counter-action
between the web walls and the flange frames at the top storeys under N−S lateral forces, which is
more apparent (i.e., the frame contribution is larger than 100%) in the models with the top belt walls
(T1DB and T1TB). Therefore, it is concluded that the addition of the top belt wall system would not
be beneficial for the investigated building, and also, the belt wall system located at about mid-height
of the building appears to be more reasonable, if a single belt wall system is used.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the contributions of tube action and belt wall systems to lateral force resistance were
quantitatively assessed by making direct comparisons between structural models with and without
these specific elements. The performance of each model was investigated in terms of storey/roof drifts,
member resultant force distributions, flange frame contribution to overturning moment and shear lag.
Based on comparative studies among the aforementioned five models, the following conclusions have
been made:
(1) The contribution of tube action to limiting maximum storey and roof drifts is significant in
both directions. The maximum storey and roof drifts are reduced by approximately 30 and
20%, respectively, owing to the presence of tube action. It is found that the proportional role
of tube action in limiting storey drift (for the N−S direction) is lower at the lower storeys of
the tube system with web walls, compared with the upper storeys.
(2) It is shown that the moment frames take more than 25% of the seismic shear forces at all
storeys, confirming the dual system classification for the E−W direction (parallel to the moment
frames). The web moment frames of the tube system substantially contribute to shear force
resistance (by approximately 20% more than the system without tube action, where the core
walls resist most of the shear forces, particularly at lower storeys).
(3) The column forces increase relatively gradually from the top to the bottom of the flange frames
when tube action is present under lateral loads for the N−S direction. Without tube action,
however, columns above the belt wall system contribute little to overturning moment resistance.
As such, tube action is more beneficial to the upper storeys, where the cantilevered web walls
become less effective.
(4) The presence of the belt wall system contributes slightly to increasing the lateral stiffness (i.e.,
reducing roof/storey drifts), but contributes significantly to resisting overturning moment
induced by lateral forces in the N−S direction (parallel to the web walls) by effectively engag-
ing the flange frame columns. The role of the belt wall system in enhancing tube action is
particularly prominent below the belt wall level.
(5) The presence of the belt wall system increases the contribution of flange frames and also
eliminates potentially excessive positive shear lag effects at bottom storeys. The belt wall
system induces a high degree of positive shear lag just above the belt wall level, but this would
be tolerable given that the upper storeys are subject to lower axial loads.
(6) The use of extra belt walls at the top of the building does not appear to much advance the
lateral force resistance of the investigated building, except for increasing the flange frame
contribution to overturning moment at the upper storeys. In addition, the belt wall system
located at about mid-height of the building appears to be much more reasonable, if a single
belt wall system is used.
Additionally, the following key design aspects were found during the design stage:
(7) Design lateral force demands based on the ELFP are quite a bit larger than those based on the
MRSA, and thus, the ELFP results in conservative seismic force estimates and thereby over-
designs for the investigated building.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 RC HIGH-RISE TUBE BUILDING WITH BELT WALLS 15

(8) The framed-tube system can be claimed as the SFRS of the investigated building in each of
the two principal building directions, and its seismic design coefficients can be conservatively
taken similar to those of bearing wall systems in the N−S direction and dual or frame−wall
interactive systems in the E−W direction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The investigated building for this study was extended from one of the recent projects of Rosenwasser
Grossman Consulting Engineers (RGCE), New York, NY. Valuable comments for this study from
Benjamin Pimentel, an Associate of the firm, are acknowledged. Also, support from Ulsan National
Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), the University of Oklahoma, Norman and the Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is acknowledged.

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (318R-
08). American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05).
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings; ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society
of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA.
Anderson JC, Gurfinkel G. 1975. Seismic behaviour of framed tubes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 4(2):
145–162.
Applied Technology Council. 2007. Recommended Methodology for Quantification of Building System Performance and
Response Parameters—75% Interim Draft Report. ATC-63. Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, CA.
Chang PC. 1985. Analytical Modelling of Tube-In-Tube Structure. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 111(6): 1326–
1337.
Computers and Structures Inc. 2005. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
Coull A, Subedi NK. 1971. Framed-tube structures for high-rise buildings. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division 91(8):
2097–2105.
Grossman J, Cruvellier M, Stafford-Smith B. 1986. Braced-tube concrete structure. Concrete International 8(9): 32–42.
Ibrahimbegovic A, Wilsons EL. 1991. A unified formulation for triangular and quadrilateral flat shell elements with Six Nodal
Degrees of Freedom. Communications in Applied Numeral Methods 7: 1–9.
International Code Council, Inc. 2003. International Building Code. International Code Council: Country Club Hills, IL.
Khan AH, Smith BS. 1976. A simple method of analysis for deflection and stresses in wall-frame structures. Building and
Environment 11(1): 69–78.
Kristek V, Bauer K. 1993. Stress distribution in front columns of high rise buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering
115(5): 1326–1337.
Kwan M. 1996. Shear lag in shear/core walls. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 122(9): 1097–1104.
Memari AM, Motlagh AY, Scanlon A. 2000. Seismic evaluation of an existing reinforced concrete framed tube building based
on inelastic dynamic analysis. Engineering Structures 22(6): 621–637.
New York City Department of Buildings. 2003. Building Code of the City of New York. New York City Department of Build-
ings: New York City, NY.
New York City Department of Buildings. 2008. Building Code of the City of New York. New York City Department of Build-
ings: New York City, NY.
Rahgozar R, Sharifi Y. 2009. An approximate analysis of combined system of framed tube, shear core and belt truss in high-
rise buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 18(6): 607–624.
Shin M, LaFave JM. 2004. Modelling of cyclic joint shear contribution in RC beam-column connections to overall frame
behavior. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 18(5): 403–412.
Shin M, Kang TH-K, Grossman JS. 2010. Practical modelling of high-rise dual systems with reinforced concrete slab-column
frames. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings 19(7): 728–749.
Singh Y, Nagpal K. 1994. Negative shear lag in framed-tube buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 120(11):
3105–3121.
Taranath BS. 1997. Steel, Concrete, and Composite Design of Tall Buildings. McGraw-Hill Professional: Columbus, OH.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/tal