MahaNakhon Tower

¡ÒÃÍ͡ẺáÅС‹ÍÊÌҧÍÒ¤Ò÷Õ่ÊÙ§·Õ่ÊØ´
ã¹»ÃÐà·Èä·Â “â¤Ã§¡ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã”
Dr. Kanokpat Chanvaivit
k.chanvaivit@bythai.bouygues-construction.com

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

ËÑÇ¢ŒÍºÃÃÂÒÂ:

[1] ºÃÔÉ·
Ñ ºÇÔ¤ä·Â ¨Ò¡Ñ´ (BOUYGUES-THAI LTD.)

[2] â¤Ã§¡ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã (MahaNakhon Tower)

[3] Ãкºâ¤Ã§ÊÌҧÍÒ¤ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã, ¢¹Ò´¢Í§â¤Ã§ÊÌҧ áÅСÒá‹ÍÊÌҧ

(3.1) Mat foundation (°Ò¹ÃÒ¡¤Í¹¡ÃÕμ¢¹Ò´ãËÞ‹ )
(3.2) Mega-columns and core walls (àÊÒ áÅÐ ¡Òᾧ¤ÊÅ. )
(3.3) Outriggers
(3.4) Floor plates (¾×้¹)

[4] ¢ŒÍÁÙÅ·Õ¹
่ ‹Òʹ㨢ͧâ¤Ã§¡ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 (1) BOUYGUES THAI
ºÃÔÉ·
Ñ ºÇÔ¤ä·Â ¨Ò¡Ñ´

Bouygues-Thai

25 years experience in Thailand

2,366 employees from 12 nationalities

Our vision

“Bouygues-Thai is a Thai Company, being a subsidiary of a large

International Group, offering services to the Thai construction market.

The company strictly adheres to the principles and values developed by

the Bouygues Group (Ethics, Client satisfaction, Employees satisfaction
and Professionalism).

Equal opportunities are given to all BTL employees and promotion is

based on merits.”
ºÃÔÉÑ· ºÇÔ¤ä·Â

ºÃÔÉ·Ñ ºÇÔ¤ä·Â ¤×ͺÃÔÉÑ·ÃѺàËÁÒ¡‹ÍÊÌҧä·Â ã¹à¤Ã×ͧ͢ºÃÔÉ·

Ñ ã¹¡ÅØ‹Á¢Í§ºÇÔ¤
à¾×่Íμͺʹͧ¤ÇÒÁμŒÍ§¡ÒâͧμÅÒ´¡Òá‹ÍÊÌҧ¢Í§»ÃÐà·Èä·Â

ºÇÔ¤ä·Â ÂÖ´ÁÑ่¹ã¹ËÅÑ¡¡Òâͧ¡ÅØ‹ÁºÃÔÉ·
Ñ ã¹à¤Ã×ͺÇÔ¤ ¤×Í à¹Œ¹¨ÃÃÂÒºÃó, ¤ÇÒÁ
¾Ö§¾Í㨢ͧÅÙ¡¤ŒÒ áÅФÇÒÁ໚¹Á×ÍÍÒªºÃ Ô ÉÑ ·Ç¤
ä ÇÂ
× Í àËÁ

à ÉÒÇ ÁËÉ¡× Á‹ ¤
Ê ŒÒ ‹ § ¤
ã ¹Œ ¢ä Å¹Ø à ‹Ò ¾× ÇËÍμŒ ËÂμŒ ¢º´ÇÒÉ»Œ º
่ä Å¹Ø à Ò‹ ÇË ¾Ð ¾´ÈÈË´
Ö ¨ÁËÉ¡× Áà ÉÒÇ ÁËÉ

Experience in high rises

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Experience in high rises

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

(2) MahaNakhon Tower

â¤Ã§¡ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã
 MahaNakhon Tower
77 Stories:
76 superstructure levels
1 basement.
Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

MahaNakhon Tower
314 m Height + 5 m basement:
Tallest building in Thailand.

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

 MahaNakhon Tower
30% of floor plates:
Cantilever spans range from 4.00m to 11.00m.

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

MahaNakhon Tower
“PIXELATION”
Imitation of Digital Pixel.

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

 Sky bar

Ritz Carlton Sky

Residences
Quantities:
Concrete works: 94,000 m3
Mat foundation: 22,000 m3.
Superstructures: 72,000 m3. Ritz Carlton
Steel Rebars: 15,200T. Residences
Mat foundation: 3,200T.
Superstructures: 12,000T.
Post-Tension:
350 T for 50,000m2 of PT slabs. Hotel Marriott
EDITION

Retail & Car

Parking

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

Structural Design Development

(Design and Build) at construction St
Stage:

- Beca Thailand (Warnes Associates)

- Bouygues-Thai Ltd.
- Bouygues Batiment International

Structural Design Advisor:

-ARUP Australia
Geotechnical Design Advisor
- Coffey

Structural Design Peer Review:

- Robert Bird (Australia).

- Aurecon

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

 Why Design & Build ?
·ÒäÁ? â¤Ã§¡Òö֧àÅ×Í¡ ÊÑÞÞÒẺ “Design & Build“

Design & Build by Bouygues-Thai

Ã·Ò Ò ä ÁÃâ Á¤ÁÃ§Ò Ò ¡Design & Build ¶Ö àà ä ÁÃÃÅ× ÍÃ้ ÊÑ ÃÞ Ãä ÁÃá º

ä ÉÁÑ Ñ ä §Ò Ò
äÖ ¾ÃŒÑ × ä Ò ä ÁÃÅÁ¤§¼ÃÅÔ¸Õä ÁÃä ‹Ñ ÊÃŒÁ¤
Studying the design in parallel with the methods of construction

Ǽ
่¤¨·â ÁÞ
ËŒ× Õ¤ÅÁ× ÊÑ ´¤ÅŒÑ ¤Ã·ËÅ‹Á¤ÃÁÂÅ·¶Ñ Õ´ÍÑ ¤§Ò Ò ¡ä Ò ¤ÅÁ× ¶Ö àà äÖ ä´Œâ Õ่ËÃŒÁ¤Áá
More integrated solution

¤Áú
¤¶º
¤¤ÅÁ× Ö ÅÑ ´ÀÂÞÃä ÁÃâ Á¤ÁÃ¶Ö àà ËÅä
Safer for the methods

¶¾Ô่× Ö Ã·ÊÔâ ¸ÔÀÁ¾Þ

Ãä ÁäÅÒ ¤Ø× ¤Ò Ö Ã·× Á³
More economical

ä ‹Ñ ÊÃŒÁ¤ä´Œä ‹Ñ áâ´Ââ Õ่ä× ‹ÊŒÑ ¤ÃÑ Þ

ËŒä Ã·Ò ÅÃä ÁÃÑ Ñ ä §Ò Ò ¶ÊÃ็¨â ้¤Ë× ´
Faster construction

Source : Bouygues-Thai
(3) Ãкºâ¤Ã§ÊÌҧÍÒ¤ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã,
¢¹Ò´¢Í§â¤Ã§ÊÌҧ áÅСÒá‹ÍÊÌҧ

(3.1) Mat foundation

°Ò¹ÃÒ¡¤Í¹¡ÃÕμàÊÃÔÁàËÅ็¡¢¹Ò´ãËÞ‹
 Mat foundation analysis & design

129 Barrettes 1.20m x 3.00m

Tip level at -65m. Safe working load = 2,900 ton

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Mat foundation analysis & design – Key points

1) Vertical & horizontal single pile capacity (geotechnical & structural)
2) Single pile load vs. settlement behavior
3) Pile stiffness with group effect (static / dynamic) + Iteration procedures
between PLAXIS & ETABS
4) Mat foundation flexural capacity
5) Mat foundation beam shear capacity
6) Mat foundation punching shear capacity
7) Long-term settlement
8) Transfer of bearing stresses from high strength concrete columns/core walls
9) Shrinkage reinforcement details (corner bars/side bars/top bars)
10) Lift pit details
11) Concrete mix design (low heat concrete, strength development, bleeding etc.)
12) Casting sequence, shear key rebars & anchorages
13) Temporary works + bracing layers + king post locations

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai
 Mat foundation analysis & design

Strain gages in test piles Soil data Modeling

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Mat foundation analysis & design

As deep as 120m soil layers in the finite element model for soil structure interaction iteration
between PLAXIS and ETABS

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Mat Foundation

8.75m/4.5m Thick

22,000 m3 of concrete

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

3,200 T of steel rebars

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Mat foundation casting sequence

Constraints :

‡ Thickness = 8.75m

‡ Quantity of concrete to be
brought in the central of
business district of Bangkok

‡ Concrete temperature control

‡ Aggregate quality ĪĪSource image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Concrete mix proportion

Mat foundation = Thick concrete structure (8.75m)

Mix proportion ¨ Low heat concrete ¨Lower cement content

Lower cement content,

¨ Lower W/C ratio
but maintain concrete strength

Lower W/C ratio,

but still maintaining ¨ Use fly ash + super plasticizer
work ability

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai

Concrete mix proportion

Fly ash - Advantages

‡ Pozzolanic reaction ¨ CaH2SiO4 · 2 H2O (calcium silicate
hydrate) ¨ increasing concrete strength
‡ Replace some part of cement ¨ reduce cement content
¨ lower heat
‡ Spherical shape ¨ good workability
‡ Small particle ¨ fill gaps in between aggregates
‡ Reduce segregation
Fly ash - Disadvantages
‡ Slow strength development at early stage
‡ To be used at limited quantity
Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai
Concrete mix proportion

Concrete temperature & slump loss control

Material storage
(cement / fly ash / coarse aggregate / fine aggregate)
¨Lower temperature storage

Water temperature
¨ Lower water temperature

Concrete transportation
¨Ambient temperature
¨Transportation distance
¨Transportation time
Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai

Concrete mock-up test

Picture credit : K. SOMPHOB, Punpueng (BYTHAI)
<S.Punpueng@bythai.bouygues-construction.com>

0.50 m

1.50m 0.50 m

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

0.50 m

Concrete Temperature (H=1.50 m) Concrete Temperature (H=0.50 m)

Casting sequence

ƒ 6 layers in the central part

ƒ 12 pours in total
ƒ 2 months duration

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Mat foundation casting sequence

Constraints :

Thickness : 8.75m

Quantity of concrete to be brought at the same time in inner city Bangkok

Early age thermal effect

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

 Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Concrete temperature monitoring

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

(3.2) Mega columns and core walls

àÊÒ áÅÐ ¡Òᾧ¤ÊÅ.
 Codes, Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations

IBC 2006/ ASCE 07-05 Seismic Design

ACI 318-99 Building Code Requirements for RC design and detailing
AISC 2005 Design and detailing of structural steel members and joints
ISO137 or ISO-6897 Vibration and human comfort
DPT 1311-2550 Performance of the tower under wind load.
AS3600 Relative shortening of vertical components and compensation.

CTBUH 2008 Recommendations for the seismic design of High-rise

building: for performance based design/ evaluation of
the tower (Appendix B)

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai

Wind analysis
Wind Tunnel Test by Dr. Virote Boonyapinyo of Thammasat University (March, 2009)
Updated on December 2012 by Dr Nakhorn Poovarodom

V = 25.00 m/s @ 10m / 50 years return period

Wind Design Speed
V = 20.25 m/s @ 10m / 10 years return period

Damping ratio z = 1.00% for service level (10 year return period)
z= 1.50% for ultimate level (50 year return period)

Short term material properties for assessing wind acceleration and movement
Material properties
acceptability.

Overall Maximum Deflection: H/500 (H = building height) under the 10 year wind.
Interstorey drift: h/200 (h = story height) under the 10 year wind.
Lateral Performance
Acceleration: 15 mg under the 10 year wind event (DPT 1311-50).
Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai
 Thai Local Code (Á¼. 1302-2552) CTBUH Appendix B
475 year return period 2475 year return period

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai

Parameters Thai Local Code CTBUH 2008 Appendix B Difference

Analysis
Windmethod Modal
Tunnel Test by Dr. Virote Boonyapinyo of Thammasat analysis(March, 2009)
University -

Updated
Response on December 2012
Spectrum Site by Dr Nakhorn.
Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment -
V = 25.00 m/s @ 10m / 50 years return period
Wind
Return Design Speed
period 475
V =year
20.25return
m/s period 2475return
@ 10m / 10 years year period
return period x 1.50 times

Damping ratio 5%
z = 1.00% for service level (10 2%
year return period) (Arup’s advice) x 1.25 times
Damping ratio
] = 1.50% for ultimate level (50 year return period) (Arup’s advice)
Response Modification Factor 4 1 x 4.00 times
(R)
Seismic Mass DL + SDL+ 0.25LL = 241,400 Ton -
Material properties Short term material properties for assessing wind acceleration and movement acceptability.
Demand to Capacity 1.0 2.0 x 0.50 times
Ratio (D/C)
Overall Maximum Deflection: H/500 (H = building height) (62cm) under the 10 year wind.
Phi (Ø, Reduction factor) 0.70 to 0.90 1.0 x 0.80 times
Interstorey drift: h/300 (h = story height) under the 10 year wind.
Lateral Performance
Material over-strength 1.0Acceleration: 15 mg under theForce Control
10 year windAction
event (P & V)
(DPT 1311-50 [5]). x 1.00 times
ratio = No material over strength ratio (min)
Deformation Control Action (M & T)
1.50 for concrete
1.25 for steel
Summary x 3.00 times
(Approx.)

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 Performance based check in addition to local design for seismic



Pu (MN) '& 


'& 


'& ZLWKSKL

 '& 0D[3X

'/(4
 

Mu (MN-m) '/
 (4
         
'/(4



Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai '/(4



Core walls / mega-columns design

ƒ 9 Finite element models / complex design procedures

ƒ 4 finite element models for actual construction sequences

(Flexible foundation, short term)
(Flexible foundation, long term)
(Rigid foundation, short term)
(Rigid foundation, long term)

ƒ 4 finite element models for lateral loads

(Flexible foundation, 475 Years RP seismic)
(Flexible foundation, 2475 Years RP seismic)
(Rigid foundation, 475 Years RP seismic)
(Rigid foundation, 2475 Years RP seismic)

ƒ 1 finite element model for serviceability analysis

ƒ Performance based design for seismic based on CTBUH recommendations

ƒ 36 directions of wind loads from wind tunnel test

ĪĪSource image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Core walls / mega-columns design
Model details and naming system

Flexible foundation (short term / long term) Rigid foundation (short term / long term)
Construction Model naming "CS" Model naming "CF"
sequence FE C-construction sequence, S-spring support C-construction sequence, F-Fixed support
gravity system Long term spring supports Fixed supports
models Stage 1: Raft foundation only Stage 1: Fixed support to L19
Stage 2: Raft to L19 Stage 2: Fixed support to L35
Stage 3: Raft to L35 Stage 3: Fixed support to L51
Stage 4: Raft to L51 Stage 4: Fixed support to Roof
Stage 5: Raft to Roof

Wish-in-Place Model naming "US 475" Model naming "US 2475" Model naming "UF 475" Model naming "UF 2475"
FE lateral U-ultimate lateral forces, U-ultimate lateral forces, S- U-ultimate lateral forces, U-ultimate lateral forces, F-
system models S-spring support, short spring support, short term F-fixed support fixed support
term
2475 years return period 475 year RP seismic with 2475 years return period
475 year RP seismic with seismic with 2% damping 5% damping ratio with seismic with 2% damping
5% damping ratio with ratio without any response R=4.0 ratio without any response
R=4.0 modification factor (R=1.0) to design modification factor (R=1.0)
to design to check intermediate + to check intermediate
+ ductility detail requirements ductility detail requirements
Wind loads 50 years return Wind loads 50 years return
period with 1.5% damping period with 1.5% damping
ratio to design ratio to design

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Tower modal shapes

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Comparison of Seismic Story Shear

90

VX UF 475
80 y

Thai local code

times (1/Phi)
VX US 475

70 x VY UF 475

VY US 475
60
VX UF 2475
50

times (1/2)
CTBUH
Story

VX US 2475

40 VY UF 2475

VY US 2475
30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
STORY SHEAR (MN)

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Comparison of Seismic Story Moment

80

70
Mx UF 475
y
Thai local code
times (1/Phi)

Mx US 475
60
x
My UF 475
50
MY US 475
STORY

40 Mx UF 2475
times (1/2)
CTBUH

Mx US 2475
30
MY UF 2475

20 MY US 2475

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
SEISMIC STORY MOMENT (MN-m)

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Comparison of Seismic Column Axial Forces

80

Thai local code

C2 EX UF 475

times (1/Phi)
70 C4 EX UF 475
C8 EX UF 475
60 C10 EX UF 475
C2 EX 2475

times (1/2)
CTBUH
50 C4 EX 2475
C8 EX 2475
Story

40 C10 EX 2475

30

C4 C8
20

10
C2 C10

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
SEISMIC COLUMN AXIAL FORCE (kN)

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Comparison of Seismic Story Drift

80

70

60

50

Drift EX UF 475
Story

40
Drift EX US 475

30
Drift EX UF 2475

20 Drift EX US 2475

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
DRIFT (%)

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Comparison of Seismic Story Shear and Ultimate Wind Story Shear

90
VX UF 475

Thai code
80 VX US 475
VY UF 475
70 VY US 475
VX UF 2475

times (Phi)
times (1/2)
60 VX US 2475

CTBUH
VY UF 2475

50 VY US 2475
Story

Wind X 90 C2

40 Wind Y 90 C2
Wind X 0 C2
Wind Y 0 C2
30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
STORY SHEAR (MN)

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Core walls

22m x 14m from the L52 to Top.

22m x 17m from the L21 to L52.

22m x 22m from the B1 to L20.

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Columns

12 Mega-columns around
the center core wall

Concrete strength 60 MPa

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

(3.3) Outriggers
 What is “Outrigger” ?
ÍÐää×Í “Outrigger” ?

What is an outrigger ?

OUTRIGGER
CORE WALL

COLUMN
COLUMN

Increase stability under lateral Loads

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Outrigger

Outriggers are the structural elements those link the center core walls to
the perimeter mega-columns. For MahaNakhon, the outriggers are made
of double floor height reinforced concrete walls.
Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Outrigger

Outriggers also stabilized the kinked –

mega-columns on level 19-20.

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 3 outriggers

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Differential axial shortening between columns and core wall

Gravitational stresses : columns >> core wall

Strength : columns << core wall

The result is the differential axial shortening :

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Staged analysis for system with outriggers

Stage Analysis Model Full Model in one go

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Staged analysis for system with outriggers



 :LWKFRQVWUXFWLRQ
VHTXHQFHDQDO\VLV
 :LWKRXWFRQVWUXFWLRQ
VHTXHQFHDQDO\VLV
Level










    
Axial load (MN)
Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai
Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

Outrigger connecting time

CONNECT THE OUTRIGGER AT THE TIME WE REACH THE

OUTRIGGER FLOOR “OR” AFTER?
Connection at early Connection at late
stage stage
Differential Axial Less problem More problem
shortening between the
core wall and the
columns
Outrigger internal forces Higher forces Lower forces

Constructability Normal Complicate

Tower lateral stability Normal Less than normal

(at construction stage)

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai
 (3.4) Floor plates
Ãкºâ¤Ã§ÊÌҧ¾×¹
้

Ī Source image courtesy of PACE Development PLC

Pixel effect : challenging floor plate design and build !

ƒ 30% of the slabs in cantilever

ƒ Pixel areas
Slabs in cantilever : difficult to design / deflection for facade

Pixel area : difficult to construct

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Floor plates
Post-Tension band beams
600mm thick.

8m cantilever slab in the

corners

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Analysis model

Slab deflection

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Façade deflection
Maximum 19mm relative deflection limit including
ƒ Creep & shrinkage deflection due to slab self weight
ƒ Creep & shrinkage deformation due to the post-tensioning
ƒ Short term and long term deflection due to finishes/services/façade weight
ƒ Live load

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

(4) Field interesting data
¢ŒÍÁÙÅ·Õ่¹‹Òʹ㨢ͧâ¤Ã§¡ÒÃÁËÒ¹¤Ã

Tower pre-setting
 Tower set-back – Unbalanced geometry

‡ This architectural design of the top of the tower

affects the center of the gravity of the upper
floor to shift westward. This is called “unbalanced
tower loads”.

‡ From the structural analysis, it was indicated that

the tower has a long term horizontal
displacement of approximately 440mm westward
due to gravity loads only. Superposition with the
horizontal displacement by wind loads of 340mm,
reaching 780mm total displacement. Even 75%
of the wind load displacement to be added up
with the long term horizontal displacement, the
total deflection is 695mm

‡ This value being higher than the limitation for

elevator operation (H/500), a pre-setting
construction method was used, with initial design
evaluation and laboratory and field tests (creep,
monitoring) to adapt the pre-setting to the real
behaviour of the building during construction

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai

Lateral Deflection from DPT 1311-50 code

Limited Lateral displacement = H/500 = 314/500 = 0.628 = 628 mm

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai
Tower pre-setting - Lateral Displacement under Gravity Loads

Lateral displacement without pre-setting = 440 mm

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Tower pre-setting - Lateral Displacement under Wind Loads

Combining lateral displacement from Gravity + Wind loads

= 440 + 0.75(340) = 695 mm > 628 mm

TOWER PRE-SETTING IS REQUIRED.

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai
Tower pre-setting

‡ This pre-setting calculation was originally based on the ACI creep

assumption without any specific data available in Thailand.

‡ Bouygues - Thai worked with King Mongkut University of

Technology Thonburi to develop a creep testing machines and a
creep testing room according to ASTM C512 standard.

‡ The temperature was controlled at 23°C ±1°C with the controlled

relative humidity at 50% ±4%.

‡ It can be found that the elastic modulus of all concrete specimens

were higher than the code models approximately by 15% to 30%
while the creep strains were relatively lower than the code
recommendations. The higher concrete strength had the lower
creep strain.

ACI 8.5.1 Laboratory

Concrete Applied stresses Elastic strains based Creep & Shrinkage Actual long term creep
Elastic Elastic
strength (40% of compressive on ACI elastic strains from test coefficients (based on
modulus modulus
(MPa) strength, MPa) modulus (x10-6) results (x10-6) ACI elastic modulus)
(MPa) (MPa)
35 29,910 40,245 14 468 895 1.91
40 31,975 40,632 16 500 840 1.68
50 35,750 44,612 20 559 843 1.51
60 39,162 47,104 24 613 668 1.09

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai

Tower pre-setting

Ī Copyright: Bouygues-Thai
 Tower settlement

Tower settlement

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

 Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai

Q&A

Ī Source image courtesy of Bouygues-Thai