MEMO

Page 1

To: Mr. Div Parikh Date: June 14, 2005

Company: CBM Engineers, Houston Reference #: CBM-0604-001

Fax #: via email # pages: 5

From: Jamieson Robinson Project #: M05-1070

Re: Summary of Motion Review for Hircon Tower, Dubai

We are pleased to provide your team with this summary of findings for the Motion Review for The
Hircon Tower in Dubai (23 Marina).

For this study, our goal was to provide your team with preliminary feedback regarding the likelihood
of dynamic effects from wind causing undesirable motion of the tower and its future occupants. To
do this, we have drawn upon our experience in the field of wind-induced structural motion, and also
upon our results database of other buildings that have undergone wind tunnel testing. To provide
building performance predictions that are specific to Hircon Tower, we selected other structures with
“similar” properties to that of the subject building (similar dimensions, shape, periods, mass density,
damping, and surroundings). The performance results for these other buildings were then used
comparatively to form our speculative predictions regarding the behavior of the Hircon Tower
building.

Structural properties and drawings were provided by CBM Engineers on March 25, 2005 and these
were used to form our initial prediction of building performance (see list below).

In addition to providing feedback about the likelihood of motions developing for the Hircon Tower,
Motioneering also used its database characterization technique to provide an estimate of the wind-
induced base loads on the structure and the wind-induced accelerations at the the uppermost
occupied floors of the building. Comparisons to code-based calculation techniques were also done
as a means to check these predictions. An open terrain exposure for the building was assumed,
similar to an “Exposure C” classification. These estimates were communicated verbally to CBM
Engineers, and are summarized below as follows:

Initial Predictions of Building Performance:

Estimated Overturning Base Moments (50 yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . approx 7 x 109 to 9 x 109 N·m

Estimated Torsional Moments (50 yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . could approach 120 x 106 N·m

Estimated Base Shear Force (50 yr)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . likely range from approx 35 x 106 N to possible max of 45 x 106 N

Estimated 10 yr return period peak accelerations at top occupied floor

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . likely range from 27 to 30 milli-g

650 Woodlawn Rd. West Guelph, ON C ANADA N1K 1B8 www.motioneering.ca

TEL : 519.763.3870 FAX: 519.766.0986 EMAIL : info@motioneering.ca
 MEMO
Page 2

(based upon an assumed inherent damping of 2%)

Note that the recommended ISO criteria for 10-year return period accelerations is a maximum of
between 15 to 18 milli-g for a residential building. At the end of this memo we have attached a brief
“Discussion of Acceleration Criteria” to explain the origin of this criteria.

Based on conversations with CBM, we understood that it may be possible to stiffen the structure
through a combination of adjustments to the structural model and addition of an outrigger system at
one of the uppermost floors. Hence, we were asked to estimate the effects on the predicted 10 yr
peak accelerations for a stiffer structure corresponding to a 10% reduction in the building period (see
Modification A in table below).

To take this one step further, we also estimated the effect on the 10 yr peak accelerations of adding
some auxiliary damping to the structure. We looked at 4 additional scenarios (Modifications B, C,
D, and E below), with results as follows:

Predicted Accelerations for “Modified” Structural Properties:

Predicted 10-year Return

Period Accelerations at Top
Occupied Floor
Modification A: reduce fundamental period by 10% Approx. 22 to 26 milli-g

Modification B: period same as original model, add Approx. 20 to 25 milli-g

some supplemental damping (additional 1%)

Modification C: period same as original model, add Approx. 18 to 22 milli-g

some supplemental damping (additional 2%)

Modification D: reduce fundamental period by 10%, Approx. 17 to 21 milli-g

add some supplemental damping (additional 1%)

Modification E: reduce fundamental period by 10%, Approx. 16 to 18 milli-g

add some supplemental damping (additional 2%)

It is possible that a damping system to reduce tower top accelerations to within recommended ISO
criteria could be accommodated in the space allotted for outriggers at the top of the building. A
water tank system such as Tuned Sloshing Damping or other passive damping systems could be a
cost-effective way to enhance the performance of the structure. Some additional investigation would
be needed to assess the technical (i.e. actual space requirements) and economic feasibility of this.

Please note: The above base loads and accelerations are based upon calculation and

650 Woodlawn Rd. West Guelph, ON C ANADA N1K 1B8 www.motioneering.ca

TEL : 519.763.3870 FAX: 519.766.0986 EMAIL : info@motioneering.ca
 MEMO
Page 3

characterization techniques which are intended to provide reasonable engineering estimates

based upon our experience. These predictions are not intended to be substituted for Wind
Tunnel Testing results, where more accurate wind-induced loads and accelerations will be
determined using physical testing.

It has been a pleasure working with your team on this Motion Review study. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact us.

MOTIONEERING INC.

Jamieson K. Robinson, P. Eng.

Associate
Senior Specialist
Business Development

Attachment: Discussion of Acceleration Criteria

650 Woodlawn Rd. West Guelph, ON C ANADA N1K 1B8 www.motioneering.ca

TEL : 519.763.3870 FAX: 519.766.0986 EMAIL : info@motioneering.ca
 MEMO
Page 4

Discussion of Acceleration Comfort Criteria

For assessing building motions, the quantity of interest is the total acceleration at the uppermost
occupied floors. Total acceleration is a result of the two components due to the sway motions of
a building, north-south sway, east-west sway and a component due to the rotational motion of the
building. The rotationally-induced component varies with position in the floor plan, being negligible
near the center of rotation and greatest at the far corner locations. Peak building accelerations for
each day were determined by calculating the vector amplitude (sum root of the individual
components squared). The torsion contribution was taken as the lateral acceleration seen by an
observer positioned one third of the building length from end of the north-south corridor on the
uppermost floor. Simultaneous measurements of wind speed and direction are provided at the
instant this peak acceleration was observed. It should be noted that acceleration levels that are
acceptable to people are dependent on many physiological factors and consequently are subjective
to some degree. Some background to the suggested criteria for acceptability of building
accelerations is discussed below:

Research indicates that people first begin to perceive accelerations when they reach about 5 milli-g
(where milli-g is 1/1000 of the acceleration of gravity). This benchmark is thus a value that one
would not want occurring too frequently in a building. However, it is not realistic to require that
no accelerations ever occur above this level and so criteria have been developed that relate
acceleration level to various frequencies of occurrence.

The first building code document to give guidance on building motions was the National Building
Code of Canada (NBCC). It suggested that 10 year return period accelerations in the range of
1.0% to 3.0% of gravity (10 to 30 milli-g) were acceptable, with the upper end of the range being
appropriate for office buildings and the lower end for residential buildings. Many towers
constructed during the 1980's and 1990's were wind tunnel tested. For these towers, acceleration
criteria were developed based on a consensus of the design teams, the developers and the wind
engineering community. The commonly used acceleration criteria were to use a 10 year limit of
between 20 and 25 milli-g for office buildings and approximately 15 to18 milli-g for residential
buildings. For the Hircon Tower in Dubai, in view of its residential usage, a 10 year criterion of
about 15 to 18 milli-g appears appropriate according to these traditional criteria.

Research conducted subsequent to the introduction of motion criteria in the NBCC indicates that
peoples’ sensitivity to motion becomes less as the natural frequency of the building becomes lower
(at least in the range of interest for tall buildings, 0.1 Hz to 1.0 Hz). This dependence is not
reflected in the NBCC which provides a single set of criteria based on results for frequencies
primarily in the range 0.15 to 0.3 Hz. The criteria suggested by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) do include a frequency dependence and set limits where approximately 2%
of those occupying the upper third of a building may object to its motions. Also the ISO criteria

650 Woodlawn Rd. West Guelph, ON C ANADA N1K 1B8 www.motioneering.ca

TEL : 519.763.3870 FAX: 519.766.0986 EMAIL : info@motioneering.ca
 MEMO
Page 5

generally have used a shorter return period than 10 years. ISO has published criteria based on a
5 year return period which can be summarized as follows: the root-mean-square acceleration,
a(rms), in m/s2, corresponding to the worst 10-minutes of the 5-year return period storm should
not exceed the following expression,

RMS CRITERION (5 yr) a(rms) = 0.026 f{-0.412} m/s2

where f = building frequency in Hz. The peak acceleration, a(peak), may be determined by
multiplying the 10-minute root-mean-square value by an appropriate peak factor, g(p). The
appropriate peak factor varies with frequency. For example, the 10-minute peak factor for a
frequency of 0.1 Hz is 3.06, and for 0.5Hz the peak factor is 3.55. Also, the more commonly used
unit for acceleration in the context of human comfort in buildings is the milli-g, which entails a further
factor of 1000/9.81. Thus the ISO criterion can be approximately expressed in terms of a peak
acceleration in milli-g as

PEAK CRITERION (5 yr) a(peak) = g(p) 2.65 f{-0.412} milli-g

The corresponding 1 year criterion is suggested by ISO to be 0.72 times the 5 year criterion, and
Motioneering’s sister company RWDI estimates a reasonable 10 year criterion to be about 1.2
times the 5 year criterion. For residential buildings it may be desirable to be somewhat lower than
the ISO criteria.

650 Woodlawn Rd. West Guelph, ON C ANADA N1K 1B8 www.motioneering.ca

TEL : 519.763.3870 FAX: 519.766.0986 EMAIL : info@motioneering.ca