Comparison of the Structures for two High-rise Buildings in Madrid

Miguel GÓMEZ Julio MARTÍNEZ

NAVARRO CALZÓN
Dr. Civil Engineer Dr. Civil Engineer
MC-2, Estudio de MC-2, Estudio de
Ingeniería Ingeniería
Madrid, Spain Madrid, Spain
miguel.gomez@mc2.es mc2@mc2.es

Miguel Gómez Navarro obtained Julio Martínez Calzón received

his PhD in 2000 at the Swiss his PhD at the Technical
Federal Institute of Technology University of Madrid in 1968,
in Lausanne and works now where he was a Professor
designing bridges and structures. until 2005. He is the designer of
outstanding bridges and
structures.

Summary
Four high-rise buildings have been built close together between 2004 and 2008 in Madrid (Spain).
The structures of two of these buildings, Torre Espacio and Torre Sacyr-Vallehermoso, have been
designed by MC-2 Estudio de Ingeniería, who has been responsible too of the site management.
Both buildings have approximately the same height and surface, as well as the same wind exposure
conditions. However, the architectural choices imply quite dissimilar external shapes and internal
distribution, resulting in a significantly different behaviour under wind loads. The appropriateness
of both structural systems, correlated to their speed of construction, cost, facade design and
architectural requirements are compared in the paper.
Keywords: High-rise buildings, composite structures, concrete structures, high-strength concrete,
pumping, prestressing, wind engineering, foundations.
1. Introduction
Four high-rise buildings (H > 220 m) have been built close together between 2004 and 2008 in
Madrid. The structures of two of these buildings have been designed by MC-2 Estudio de
Ingeniería who has been responsible too of the site management. These buildings are Torre Espacio
(TEC) and Torre Sacyr-Vallehermoso (TSyV). The first has been designed by Pei, Cobb and Freed
(New York), whereas the second has been designed by Rubio&Álvarez-Sala (Madrid). Both towers
have approximately the same height and surface, and the same wind exposure conditions. However,
the architectural choices imply quite dissimilar external shapes and internal distribution, resulting in
a significantly different structural behaviour.

2. Structural design
2.1 Torre Espacio
The building consists basically on a combination of reinforced concrete flat slabs with reinforced
concrete columns and cores. Main straight columns run along the entire height of the building and
are located on circular arches around the cores, receiving most of the gravity loads (Fig. 2).
Secondary curved and straight columns that disappear on the upper floors are located on the facades
that are straight in plan. Three reinforced concrete cores are responsible of resisting the wind
horizontal forces in collaboration with an outrigger that is located at two thirds of the height.
2.2 Torre Sacyr-Vallehermoso
The structure of the standard office and hotel floors of this building is a composite slab supported
by a grid of steel and composite beams and joists. An external ring of columns is located near the
facade and a central ring with 15 columns is located by the corridor of the hotel (Fig. 3). Even tough
most of the vertical load is resisted by a combination of concrete and reinforcement, a steel profile
is embedded in the column in order to simplify the assembly of the steel structure of the floors. A
single central core with a constant architectural three-lobed shape runs along the height of the tower
and is responsible to stand most of the horizontal wind forces. This reinforced concrete core is
combined with an outrigger that connects, at the top of the building, six columns of the intermediate
ring with the core, two per lobe.

Fig. 1: General view of Fig. 2: TEC: Set up of Fig. 3: TSyV: Set up of structural
TSyV (2nd from the left) structural elements elements
and TEC (1st from the
right)
2.3 Comparison between towers
The main results of the comparison between towers are included in the following table:
Cores Columns Slabs

H-30 B500 Cost H-30 B500 S355 Cost H-30 B500 S275 Steel Cost
[m3] [t] [M€] [m3] [t] [t] [M€] [m3] [t] [t] deck [t] [€/m2]

TEC 11279 1438 2.82 6882 1864 160 2.70 19851 3211 − − 90
TSyV 16810 3787 5.55 12738 2137 1132 4.84 9810 480 2288 521 115

3. Conclusions
The appropriateness of two structural systems applied to a couple of similar high rise buildings has
been studied related to their speed of construction, cost, and architectural requirements:
− Both structures are well adapted to their shape and architectural distribution. The variable
shape of TEC is better dealt with a reinforced concrete flat slab, and the composite slab
supported by a grid of composite beams can take advantage of the repetitiveness of TSyV.
− The presence of large shafts in the contact between the core and the slabs in TSyV reduces
significantly the vertical gravity loads transferred to the core and thus their favourable effect.
Besides, these compressive forces must be resisted by the main columns. The core and the
columns of TSyV are thus significantly more expensive than those of TEC.
− The use of outriggers must be carefully considered since they influence significantly the
design and the construction.
− TSyV has been built 33 % quicker than TEC, mainly because most of the structure could be
prefabricated at the workshop, and in spite of the greater complexity of its core and columns.
 Comparison of the Structures for two High-rise Buildings in Madrid

Miguel GÓMEZ Julio MARTÍNEZ

NAVARRO CALZÓN
Dr. Civil Engineer Dr. Civil Engineer
MC-2, Estudio de MC-2, Estudio de
Ingeniería Ingeniería
Madrid, Spain Madrid, Spain
miguel.gomez@mc2.es mc2@mc2.es

Miguel Gómez Navarro obtained Julio Martínez Calzón, born

his diploma at the Technical
University of Madrid in 1992.
Following several years of
consulting, he obtained his PhD
in 2000 at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in
Lausanne. He works now
designing bridges and structures.
1938, received his PhD diploma
at the Technical University of
Madrid in 1968, where he was a
Professor until 2005. He has
published two books about
Composite Construction and is a
designer of outstanding bridges
and structures.

Summary
Four high-rise buildings have been built close together between 2004 and 2008 in Madrid (Spain).
The structures of two of these buildings, Torre Espacio and Torre Sacyr-Vallehermoso, have been
designed by MC-2 Estudio de Ingeniería, who has been responsible too of the site management.
Both buildings have approximately the same height and surface, as well as the same wind exposure
conditions. However, the architectural choices imply quite dissimilar external shapes and internal
distribution, resulting in a significantly different behaviour under wind loads. In addition, and due
to the preferences of the owner, it was decided that Torre Espacio had to be mainly a reinforced
concrete structure. The appropriateness of both structural systems, correlated to their speed of
construction, cost, facade design and architectural requirements are compared in the paper.
Keywords: High-rise buildings, composite structures, concrete structures, high-strength concrete,
pumping, prestressing, wind engineering, foundations.

Fig. 1: Group of high rise buildings,
including TSyV (second from the left)
and TEC (first from the right)
1. Introduction
Four high-rise buildings have been built close together
between 2004 and 2008 in Madrid (Spain). The group of
these towers are the highest residential or office buildings in
Spain. The structures of two of these important buildings
have been designed by MC-2 Estudio de Ingeniería who has
been responsible too of the site management. These
buildings are Torre Espacio (TEC) and Torre Sacyr-
Vallehermoso (TSyV). The first will have only offices, but
the second will combine offices with a five star hotel. Both
towers have approximately the same height and surface, and
the same foundation and wind exposure conditions.
However, the architectural choices imply quite dissimilar
external shapes and internal distribution, resulting in a
significantly different behaviour under wind loads. In
addition, and due to the preferences of the owner, it was
decided that TEC had to be designed mainly as a reinforced
concrete structure.
2. Architectural design
2.1 Torre Espacio
Torre Espacio has been designed by the New York-based architects Pei, Cobb, Freed and Partners.
It is a 56 storey and 223 m high office building that is seen very differently depending on the point
of view because of its variable shape in plan.
The horizontal section varies gradually
between a square in the ground floor
and a lozenge figure in the upper floor,
(Fig. 2) creating lines in the facade
that follow a cosine curve. The total
surface of all floors is
about 78,500 m2.
The building is owned by the holding
Grupo Villar-Mir which includes real
state and construction companies, as
well as factories for cement and
additions for high strength concrete.
Fig. 2: TEC: plan view of lower and upper floors
2.2 Torre Sacyr-Vallehermoso
Torre Sacyr Vallehermoso is the first
high rise building designed by the
Madrid-based architects Rubio
&Álvarez-Sala. The lower two-thirds
of the tower, which has 56 storeys and
is 236 m high, will be occupied by a
five star hotel, whereas the upper
floors will have a standard office use.
As it can be seen in Fig. 3, the
coexistence of the hotel and the offices
determines the distribution in plan of
the columns, resulting in a very dense
Fig. 3: TSyV: plan view of the standard hotel and office distribution of these in the office
floors floors.
The building has a classical cylinder shape creating a similar figure from every point of view. Every
floor has the same shape and is divided in three sectors limited by three vertical gaps that help to
increase the slenderness of the tower.
Instead of a standard curtain wall, an externally ventilated double skin facade has been used. The
cavity between the two skins is used for maintenance operations and for fire separation between
floors. Special attention was given during the design of the structure and the facade to the influence
of the roughness and the gaps between the facade panels on the wind behaviour [1].
The building is owned by the holding Sacyr-Vallehermoso, which, as it happens in TEC, includes
construction and real state companies.

3. Structural design
3.1 Torre Espacio
The owner of the building decided from the very beginning of the project that reinforced concrete,
both standard and high strength, should be preferably used. This choice was motivated by the know-
how of the construction company on concrete structures, as well as for their commercial interests
related to the fabrication of high strength concrete. Therefore, the building consists basically on a
combination of reinforced concrete flat slabs with reinforced concrete columns and cores.
As it can be seen in Fig. 4, two groups of columns can be distinguished according to their location
and geometry. The main straight columns run along the entire height of the building are located
radially around the central core and receive most of the gravity loads. On the contrary, secondary
sloped and straight columns that disappear on the upper floors are located on the facades that are
straight in plan.

Fig. 4: TEC: Set up of columns and cores

Three cores that are responsible of resisting the wind horizontal forces are located on the central
area of the building, associated to the elevators and the mechanical shafts. In order to increase the
horizontal stiffness of the building, an outrigger that is located on a mechanical floor at two thirds
of the height of the building, connects ten main columns with the central core.
3.2 Torre Sacyr-Vallehermoso
The structure of this building combines
composite and reinforced concrete elements in
floors and columns. Reinforced concrete flat
slabs are used in the lower floors due to their
irregular shapes and the significant presence of
openings. On the contrary, in the standard
office and hotel floors, composite slabs
supported by a grid of steel and composite
beams and joists are used.
The tower has three groups of columns that are
located in places that are appropriate for the
hotel functionality (Fig. 5). An external ring
with 33 columns is located near the facade and
a central ring with 15 columns is located by the
corridor. A central ring with only 3 columns is
Fig. 5: Set up of the columns and the core in located by the core. Even tough most of the
TSyV, including the grid of the structure of the vertical load is resisted by a combination of
standard floors, and the outrigger at the top of concrete and reinforcement, a steel profile is
the building embedded in the column in order to simplify
the assembly of the steel structure of the floors.
A single central core with a constant architectural three-lobed shape runs along the height of the
tower and is responsible to stand most of the horizontal wind forces. This reinforced concrete core
is combined with an outrigger that connects, at the top of the building, six columns of the
intermediate ring with the core, two per lobe.
4. Comparison between buildings
4.1 Cores and wind-resistance systems
The response of both towers to wind have been
studied by the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel
Laboratory at the University of Western Ontario
(Canada), that has been responsible too for the
analysis of the rest of the towers of the complex
(Fig. 6). Seismic actions have not been considered
in the design of the towers since their intensity is
not relevant in Madrid.
The main results of the wind tunnel tests and the
later dynamic analysis can be observed in Table 1.
From the analysis of these results it can be
concluded that:
Fig. 6: Wind tunnel test of the four towers
− The differences between the maximum values of the bending moments at the base of the
towers are lower than 22 % and are due to the differences in height (236 m vs. 223 m).
− TEC has a significant torsional response due to its non-symmetrical shape
Table 1: Comparison of results of the wind tunnel tests, return period 10 years, damping 2 %
Fx [kN] Fy [kN] Mx [kNm] My [kNm] Mz [kNm]

TEC 25.78 · 103 14.75 · 103 3.52 · 106 1.96 · 106 1.68 · 105
TSyV 25.41 · 103 17.20 · 103 4.31 · 106 2.99 · 106 4.47 · 104
axis: TEC: x = NW−SE, y = NE−SW; TSyV: x = E−W, y = N−S

In order to keep the acceleration and angular velocities under acceptable limits [2], TEC combines
three structural systems:
− The central core that is helped by the smaller lateral cores that disappear at the upper floors
and that receive 50 % of the total wind load
− The outrigger that transfers 19 % of the wind load from the central core to ten main columns
at two thirds of the height of the tower (Fig. 7)

Fig. 7: Outrigger at TEC: General scheme and plan view including the prestressing cables
− The reinforced concrete flat slabs that connect, with a much more reduced stiffness than the
outrigger, all the columns with the cores along the entire height of the building (31 % of the
load). This collaboration of the columns represents an increase of their design forces of
only 10-15 %; besides, the maximum values of the wind forces do not appear at the same time
 than the maximum values of the gravity loads.
The collaboration of the columns to increase the horizontal stiffness is not possible in TSyV, since
their slabs are not rigidly connected to the core. However, the external dimensions of the core are
great enough to guarantee that the horizontal stiffness of the building exceeds the required values
only with the collaboration of a reduced outrigger. This outrigger connects only six columns (Fig. 5)
and can be located on top of the building that is not the most appropriate place for its structural
function. The acceleration and angular velocities at the top occupied floor in both buildings are
shown in Table 2. It was observed that these dynamic results, that guarantee the comfort of the users,
have in both buildings a similar correlation with the static criteria employed in the initial stages of
the design (deflection<H/500).
Table 2: Acceleration and angular velocity at the top occupied floor, return period = 10 years, 2 %
damping

a [mg] ω [rad/s]

TEC 20.7 1.5 · 10-3

TSyV 21.0 0.2 · 10-3

The comparison between the amounts of materials and costs in the cores of both towers is shown in
Table 3. It can be observed that, even without including the outrigger, TEC has a much simpler
structure than TSyV for a higher level of wind forces. This is due to the following reasons:
− Due to the presence of installation shafts by its perimeter , only a very small part of the
gravity loads are transferred to the core in TSyV, reducing the favourable effect of the
compressive forces on the bending resistance of the core
− Lateral cores are removed in TEC when they are not required at the upper floors
− The architectural geometry of the core in TSyV is not very efficient, since it has long lateral
walls with a significant amount of concrete and reinforcement that do not help to increase the
core stiffness
Table 3: Comparison of THE materials USED in the construction of the cores
Concrete H-30(1) [m3] Reinforcement B500 [t] Cost [M€]

TEC 11279 1438 2.82

TSyV 16810 3787 5.55

(1)
Concrete of different grades have been homogenised to H-30 grade to simplify the
comparison

In addition, the core of TSyV was rather more complex to build than that of TEC due to its lobed
geometry that affected negatively the reinforcement detailing. On the contrary, and due to the higher
compressive forces, H-70 concrete was required in TEC up to the level +23.60, whereas in TSyV
this type of concrete was not used and H-45 was replaced by H-30 in the level +135.80.
Although they were necessary to guarantee a satisfactory behaviour of both buildings, the
outriggers had a significant incidence on the design:
− In spite of being designed to resist wind loads, the transfer of gravity loads from the columns
to the core must be considered; this transfer occurs because of the stiffness of the outriggers,
and the different long-term behaviour of the columns and the core.
− As a consequence, the detailed analysis of the outrigger in TEC resulted in a complex element
that required H-70 concrete that had to be pumped up to 140 m height, prestressing cables and
bars, as well as a significant amount of reinforcement. The analysis of this element was
carried out by means of stress fields [3].
 − Special attention had to be paid in TSyV to the connection between the core and the columns
that receive tensile forces due to the transfer of gravity loads due to long-term effects.
4.2 Columns
Based on usual prices for concrete and steel in Spain and considering the fire-resistance
requirements, the cheapest solution for the columns in standard buildings is based on the use of
reinforced concrete that must be high strength concrete for high rise buildings. Therefore, in the
bottom floors of both buildings where no special problems of space exist, H-70 reinforced concrete
columns were designed. As it can be seen in Figure 8 this type of columns has been kept in TEC
along the whole building, except in the access zone, where the architects wanted to reduce the
diameters of the columns to improve the appearance of the building. In these areas, steel profiles are
embedded in the reinforced concrete columns to reduce their dimensions.

Fig. 8: Types of columns at TEC: underground floors, access zone, standard floors (left to right)
On the contrary, steel profiles are used in all the columns in TSyV to help in the construction of the
steel structure (Fig. 9). In addition to resist by themselves the weight of the slab before concreting
the column and to simplify the connection between the steel beams and the columns, the steel
profiles contribute to the resistance of the column at the finished structure.
The results of the comparison between the columns of
both buildings are shown in Table 4. It can be observed
clearly that the columns in TSyV are significantly more
expensive than those of TEC. This is due to several
reasons:
− The lack of space for the columns at the central
ring of TSyV that receive a significant part of the
total loads (Table 5), requires a higher amount of
reinforcement, steel and high strength concrete
− As indicated above, since the core receives only a
small part of the vertical load of the floors, these
loads must then be resisted by the columns in
Fig. 9: Standard columns at TSyV TSyV

Table 4: Comparison of materials USED in the construction of the columns

Concrete H-30(1) [m3] Reinforcement B500 [t] Steel S355 [t] Cost [M€]

TEC 6882 1864 160 2.70

TSyV 12738 2137 1132 4.84

(1)
Concrete of different grades have been homogenised to H-30 grade to simplify the comparison

− On the contrary, the columns of TEC receive fewer loads (47 % vs. 69 %)
Table 5: Distribution of vertical loads amongst the core and the different types of columns
Total load Main columns / Secondary columns /
Cores
[kN] Central ring External and central rings

TEC 1.30 · 106 52 % 38 % 9%

TSyV 1.36 · 106 31 % 31 % 38 %

4.3 Slabs
The main difference between the two buildings is related to the geometry of their floors. Whereas in
TSyV every floor has the same geometry and the only difference is due to the loads on special
floors, every single floor in TEC is different to each other.
Several alternatives that included prefabricated prestressed concrete slabs, reinforced concrete
waffle slabs and composite slabs were compared during the design of TEC before a solution based
on reinforced concrete flat slabs was chosen. The main reasons of this choice are that this type of
structure was easy to adapt to the variability of the geometry as well as to the combination of
straight and curved lines, its static depth was compatible with the functionality of the building, and
its construction does not require an intensive use of cranes.
On the contrary, the radial geometry of TSyV influences negatively for reinforced concrete slabs.
The repetitiveness of the floor is used in this case to increase the competiveness of a steel structure
that can be prefabricated in factory, thus reducing the time required for assembly on site.
Both slabs are compared in Table 6 that includes the costs per m2 of both solutions. It can be seen
that the composite slab solution is 35 % more expensive than the reinforced concrete slab. However,
it must be considered that the influence of the longer construction period and the incertitude
associated to the “in situ” construction (see paragraph 5) cannot be easily considered in the cost
analysis. In addition, the prices considered for each material can easily change depending on the
country and the world economic situation.
Table 6: Comparison of materials employed in the construction of the slabs
Concrete H-30 Reinforcement Structural steel Steel deck [t] Cost [€/m2]
[m3] B500 [t] S275 [t]

TEC 19851 3211 − − 90

TSyV 9810 480 2288 521 115

4.4 Foundations
Four meter deep prestressed concrete foundation mats were designed for both towers. These mats
are supported on a plastic interface to guarantee that the prestressing force is not transferred to the
soil [4]. In-situ tests were carried out to verify that the system employed was able to guarantee the
friction coefficients considered in the design.
It can be observed that the amounts of material consumed in both towers are similar (Table 7).
However, the prestressing cables are more concentrated in TEC because most of the vertical load is
located under the central core and the main columns.
Table 7: Comparison of materials employed in the construction of the foundation mats
Concrete H-30 [m3] Reinforcement B500 [t] Prestressing steel Y 1860 [t]

TEC 8962 1198 161

TSyV 8748 1308 152

5. Construction
The main differences between the towers related to their construction are the following:
− The slabs of TSyV were built quicker than those of TEC (6 vs. 9 days, on average) because of
their repetitiveness, the absence of formwork and props, and the simplicity of their geometry.
− The greater complexity of the core and the columns did not result in a longer construction
period in TSyV.
− The connection between the core and the slabs was easier in TSyV since the load transfer
from the composite slabs to the core is quite reduced.
− The construction of the outrigger represented a significant incidence on the construction
sequence of TEC, since the self-climbing formwork of the core must be removed and the
cycle interrupted. On the contrary, as the outrigger is located on top in TSyV, no significant
incidences appeared.
It must be indicated that some problems happened in both buildings during the fabrication of high
strength concrete, since this type of concrete is rarely required for usual buildings in Madrid. As a
consequence, several columns had to be confined to increase their resistance.

6. Conclusions
The appropriateness of two different structural systems applied to a couple of similar high rise
buildings designed and built recently in Madrid has been studied correlated to their speed of
construction, cost and architectural requirements. The main conclusions of this analysis are:
− Both structures are well adapted to their shape in plan and architectural distribution. The
variable shape of TEC is better dealt with an “in situ” reinforced concrete flat slab, and the
composite slab columned by a grid of steel and composite beams can take advantage of the
repetitiveness of TSyV.
− The presence of large shafts in the contact between the core and the slabs in TSyV reduces
significantly the vertical gravity loads transferred to the core and thus part of the favourable
effect of the compressive effect on the bending design of the core is lost. Besides, these
compressive forces must be resisted by the main columns.
− The core and the columns of TSyV are thus significantly more expensive than those of TEC.
− The differences between the prestressed foundation mats are not significant.
− The use of outriggers in order to increase the horizontal stiffness must be carefully considered
since they influence the design and the construction; the outrigger required in TEC high
strength concrete, prestressing cables and bars, and complex reinforcement detailing.
− The rhythm of construction of TSyV has been 33 % quicker than that of TEC, mainly because
most of the structure of the slabs could be prefabricated at the workshop, and in spite of the
greater complexity of its core and columns.

References
[1] INCULET, D. R., GÓMEZ NAVARRO, M., ISYUMOV, N. “The effect of an open double
facade on structural and cladding wind loads”, Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Wind Engineering, ICWE, Cairns, Australia, 2007
[2] ISYUMOV, N., “Motion Perception, Tolerance and Mitigation”, 5th World Congress of the
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1995
[3] MUTTONI, A., Schwartz, J., Thürlimann, B., “Design of Concrete Structures with Stress
Fields”, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1997
[4] POST-TENSIONING INSTITUTE, “Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-
Ground”, Phoenix, Arizona, 1982