Proceeding the 6th Civil Engineering Conference in Asia Region: Embracing the Future through Sustainability ISBN 978-602-8605-08-3

THE UNIQUE HIGH-RISE STRUCTURE OF THE MNC TOWER 2 BUILDING IN JAKARTA

Wiratman Wangsadinata
President Director, Wiratman & Associates Professor Emeritus Tarumanagara University

ABSTRACT
In this paper the structure of the 56-story MNC Tower 2 Building is described. To meet the architectural requirements, a quite unique structural system has resulted. It consists of two subsystems in the upper structure, a core wall subsystem with outriggers and a mega frame subsystem on top of it. It is believed that such a structural system has never been applied before elsewhere. Dynamic characteristics, dynamic response to seismic and wind actions, as well as structural performance are described. The substructure, consisting of the 5-level basement structure and the piled raft foundation are further discussed.

INTRODUCTION
The MNC Tower 2 Building is located at Jalan Kebon Sirih No.17-19, Jakarta, which is a 56-story building with a 5-level basement. The first 27 stories are for office space with a total net floor area of 53,400 m2, while the stories above the 27th floor are for hotel and its facilities with a total net floor area of 38,100 m2. The 5-level basement is for parking facilities with a total net floor area of 13,000 m 2. The total height of the building is 252 m, while the total depth of the basement is 22 m, both measured from the ground floor level. Figure 1 shows the perspective drawing of the building. The owner of the building is PT. MNC LAND Tbk., the Architect is AEDAS Pte. Ltd. of Singapore with its local partner PT. TETRA DESAIN INDONESIA, the Structural and Geotechnical Consultant is PT. WIRATMAN & ASSOCIATES, the Mechanical & Electrical Consultant is ARUP Singapore Pte. Ltd. with its local partner PT. SKEMANUSA, the soil investigation and testing have been carried out by PT. TESTANA INDOTEKNIKA, while the boundary layer wind tunnel testing has been conducted by BMT FLUID MECHANICS Ltd. of the United Kingdom. The seismic resistant design of the building is based on the Indonesian National Standard SNI 03-17262002 Seismic Resistant Design Code for Building Structures. During the design period of this building this code may still be used, since it is still in the transition period 2013 2014. Only thereafter, the new code SNI 1726-2012 becomes mandatory. The reinforced concrete design of the structural members is based on the Indonesian National Standard SNI 03-2847-2002 Concrete Design Code for Building Structures.

SOIL AND SEISMICITY CONDITION

According to the code the soil category of the site is determined by the weighted average of the Standard Penetration Test result N, undrained shear strength Su and shear wave velocity vs, using the layer thickness as the weighing factor, considered over a depth of not more than 30 m. In this respect, from the representative soil profile of the site the following weighted average values have been obtained: N = 10, Su = 40 kPa, vs = 223 m/sec, which is an indication that the soil category of the site is Soft Soil. Since Jakarta is located in Zone 3 on the seismic zoning map of Indonesia, according to the code the design response spectrum for seismic analysis for Soft Soil condition, is as shown in Figure 2.

W. Wangsadinata

Fig. 1: Perspective drawing of the MNC Tower 2 Building

Fig. 2: Design response spectrum for seismic analysis for Soft Soil condition in Jakarta
The above design response spectrum is defined for the design earthquake with a return period of 500 years, which is an event with a 5% probability of exceedence in the 50 years life time of the structure. To accommodate different probabilities of occurrence, the code defines an importance factor I to be multiplied to the design seismic load. For this building an importance factor of I = 1.0 has been adopted.

TS1-134

W. Wangsadinata

THE UPPER STRUCTURE Structural System

For design purposes, the code allows the upper structure to be modeled as fixed at the ground floor level. From the ground floor level up to the 27th floor, a frame and core wall system are present, where the core wall is mainly to accommodate the lift shafts for vertical transportation. At the 27 th floor this core wall system terminates, because for vertical transportation above that level a transparent lift system is utilized, without requiring any concrete lift shafts at all. All frame columns, however, continue further upwards, forming a mega frame system up to the top floor. Therefore, the lateral stiffness of the lower part of the building is dominantly determined by the core wall, while of the upper part solely by the mega frames. Since the 27-story lower core wall system is to support the upper 29-story mega frame system, its lateral deflection due to seismic and wind action must be limited. Therefore, an outrigger system is introduced to the system, consisting of the core wall itself, two pairs of outrigger arms at the 27 th floor and the compression-tension columns at the outer end of the arms. To achieve good overall seismic and wind performance, the lateral deflection of the upper 29-story mega frames must also be limited. For that purpose mega beams and mega bracings are introduced at various levels. A mega beam is in fact a wall covering a full story height, spanning from column to column. A mega bracing is formed by a pair of struts diagonally arranged in opposite directions covering two story heights. As defined by the code, the ductility level of a structural system is expressed by the seismic reduction factor R = . f1, where is the ductility factor of the system and f 1 = 1.60, which is the load and material overstrength factor. The nominal seismic load for the design of the structure, is then its elastic dynamic response to the design earthquake divided by the R-factor. For the seismic resistant design of the overall structural system described above, a seismic reduction factor of R = 4.5 has been adopted. This has been verified by the result of a static non-linear push-over analysis, as will be discussed later. Because of its vital function, the outrigger system has been designed to remain elastic (R=f1) during the strong earthquake according to the code. This means that its seismic design load is the nominal seismic load mentioned above multiplied by a factor f/R = f/f1, where f = f1 . f2. The factor f2 is the structural overstrength factor and f is the total overstrength factor. Thus, the multiplying factor is f2, which according to the code is defined by the formula f2 = 0.83 + 0.17 , so that for this building it becomes f 2 = 0.83 + 0.17 (4.5/1.60) = 1.308.

Fig. 3: The undeformed shape of the structural model, fixed at the ground floor level

TS1-135

W. Wangsadinata

Apparently, the chosen overall structural system described above, does fit satisfactorily the architectural requirements. It needs indeed a considerable effort to find a suitable structural solution to meet the architectural needs. But just because of that, a quite unique highrise structural system has resulted, consisting of two different subsystems, a core wall with outriggers and a mega frame on top of it. To the knowledge of the author such a system has never been applied before elsewhere. In Figure 3 the undeformed shape of the structural model is shown.

Dynamic Characteristics of the Structure

To obtain the dynamic characteristics of the structure, a free vibration analysis has been carried out, the result of which showing natural periods T, natural mode lateral motion components Ux and Uy in the xand y-direction respectively and natural mode rotation motion component R z around the z-axis. For the first 3 natural modes, the result is as shown in Table 1.

Tab 1: The first 3 natural modes of vibration

Mode number 1 2 3 Natural period T (sec.) 5.467 4.249 2.700 Modal participating mass ratio (%) Ux 0.010 58.810 0.101 Uy 66.904 0.041 0.037 Rz 0.059 0.020 61.573 y - translation x - translation z - rotation. Dominant motion component

In all structural analyses, cracked sections are considered of the structural elements with stiffness modifiers according to the code, except of the core wall with its outrigger system, for which uncracked sections are considered, since it is designed to always remain elastic even during the strong earthquake. Furthermore, a design eccentricity between the center of mass and the center of rigidity according to the code is considered, to cope with uncertain factors affecting the dynamic behaviour of the structure. Also the P-delta effect is considered, to cope with the effect of the side sway of gravity loads due to the lateral loads, producing overturning moments and corresponding additional lateral loads. According to the code, the first (fundamental) natural period must not exceed 0.18 n, where n is the number of stories counted from the ground floor, so that for this building that limit is 0.18 x 56 = 10.08 sec. Another requirement of the code is that the first two natural modes must have motion components dominantly in translation. As can be seen from Table 1, both requirements of the code have been met. In Figure 4, the first three mode shapes are shown.

Fig. 4: The first three mode shapes, of which the motion of the first two modes are dominantly in translation

TS1-136

W. Wangsadinata

Dynamic Response of the Structure to the Design Seismic Load

The dynamic response of the structure to the design seismic load is analysed using the response spectrum modal analysis method, applying the design response spectrum as shown in Figure 2. The computed dynamic response as a basis for design is the story shear along the height of the building for the considered R value. The number of modes considered in the superposition of the mode responses is such, that the modal participating mass ratios are at least 90% for Ux, Uy and Rz. The method of superposition used is the so called Complete Quadratic Combination or CQC as required by the code. The code also requires that the response base shear for the considered R value must not be less than 0.8 V 1, where V1 is the static equivalent nominal base shear for a regular building, defined by the code as V1 = C1 I Wt/R, where C1 is the response spectrum value for the first natural period, I is the importance factor, R is the seismic reduction factor and Wt is the total weight of the building, including an appropriate portion of the live load. Otherwise the story shear along the height of the building as a basis for design must be shifted proportionally so that the base shear becomes at least 0.8 V1. In Figure 5 (a) the dynamic response story shear along the height of the building in the x-direction is shown for R = 1 (elastic) and for R = 4.5 (design). As can be seen, the elastic base shear is Vex = 235,000 kN and the design (nominal) base shear is Vdx = 52,220 kN. As has been calculated, V1 = 28,180 kN, so that 0.8 V1 = 22,540 kN < Vdx. This means that the dynamic response story shear along the height of the building for R = 4.5 may directly be used for the design, without having to adjust it with respect to 0.8 V1. In Figure 5 (b) the static equivalent design (nominal) seismic load acting at each floor level (floor-byfloor load distribution) in the x-direction is shown, which is computed as the difference between the shears of two adjacent stories. These static equivalent design (nominal) seismic loads acting at the center of mass of each floor are then used in the static analyses of the overall structure to obtain the internal forces due to the design (nominal) seismic loads acting in the x-direction. Similarly, for the y-direction the dynamic response story shear along the height of the building for R = 4.5 may also be used directly for the design, without having to adjust it with respect to 0.8 V1, so that the internal forces in the structural members can be analysed accordingly.

Fig. 5: Dynamic response story shear (a) and static equivalent design seismic loads (b) in the x-direction
The combination of internal forces due to the design gravity and nominal seismic loads is then used for the strength design of the structural members, applying the LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design) principles according to the code. As mentioned before, in this strength design the core wall with its outrigger system is designed to remain elastic, even during the strong earthquake according to the code. In addition it is apparent, that the compression-tension columns of this outrigger system are never

TS1-137

W. Wangsadinata

undergoing tension, because the axial compressive force due to gravity loads neutralizes the tensile force due to the seismic loads, even under zero live load condition.

Seismic Performance of the Structure

According to the code two seismic performance criteria must be met: service limit and ultimate limit interstory drifts. Service limit must be satisfied by the interstory drifts due to the design (nominal) seismic load. The limit is 0.03/R times the story height or 30 mm, which ever is the smallest. This limitation is to prevent structural damage and inconvenience to occupants during mild earthquakes. Ultimate limit must be satisfied by the interstory drifts due to the design (nominal) seismic load multiplied by a factor 0.7 R. The limit is 0.02 times the story height. This limitation clearly is to prevent possible structural collapse, causing lost of lives. In Figure 6 (a) the service and ultimate lateral deflections of the structure along its height in the xdirection are shown. In Figure 6 (b) the respective service interstory drifts and ultimate interstory drifts are shown, together with the associated limits according to the code. As can be seen, both seismic performance criteria are met, indicating the structural adequacy of the building in the x-direction. Similarly, the structural adequacy of the building in the y-direction has also been proven.

Fig. 6: Service and ultimate lateral deflection (a) and the corresponding service and ultimate interstory drifts (b) in the x-direction Static Non-Linear Push-Over Analysis
After the final arrangement of the reinforcing bars in the structural members has been completed, a static non-linear push-over analysis has been performed, to verify the appropriateness of the adopted seismic reduction factor R. Such an analysis is justifiable, since the first and second mode response of the structure are dominant in translation (see Table 1). The analysis is performed using a computer program, whereby a step by step increase in lateral loads on the structure is considered and the corresponding lateral deflections are computed. The floor-by-floor lateral load distribution is the same as that considered in the seismic design, while the gravity loads are considered constant in magnitude. The main purpose of this analysis is to obtain the -V diagram, where is the top floor lateral deflection and V is the corresponding base shear. Initially the structure behaves elastically, showing a straight line -V diagram, up until the first plastic hinge develops in one or simultaneously in several structural members. It is imperative that the early plastic hinges develop in beams rather than in columns or walls, since the strength design of the structural members is based on the so called strong-column-weak-beam concept according to the code. Further on the -V diagram follows a curve until the near-collapse condition is reached. From the -V diagram two important points can be found: firstly the point showing the base shear at first yielding Vy and its corresponding top floor lateral deflection y; secondly the point showing the maximum

TS1-138

W. Wangsadinata

elastic base shear Ve and its corresponding maximum top floor displacement m at near collapse condition. Then, applying the equal maximum displacement rule according to the code, one can easily compute the maximum top floor displacement m = (Ve / Vy) y and the ductility factor = m/y = Ve/Vy. The R-factor is then R = . f1 = 1.60 . From the dynamic response analysis discussed before, the maximum elastic base shear has been found to be Ve = 235,000 kN. From the conducted static non-linear push-over analysis for loading in the xdirection, the following results have been obtained: Vy = 67,233 kN, y = 594 mm and m = 2,076 mm. Therefore, the corresponding ductility factor is = 2,076/594 = 235,000/67,233 = 3.49, so that R = 1.60 x 3.49 = 5.58 > 4.5. A similar result has been obtained from the static non-linear push-over analysis for loading in the y-direction. Looking at the result of the static non-linear push-over analysis for loading in the x- and y-direction, one tends to consider to use a higher value of R than the adopted R = 4.5, for a more efficient seismic design. However, by further evaluation, the then corresponding higher prescribed ultimate seismic loading (0.7 R times the nominal seismic loading), turns out to produce much higher ultimate interstory drifts, exceeding the permissible limits (see Figure 6(b)). Therefore, the adopted value of R = 4.5 can be considered as just sufficiently conservative.

Fig. 7: The -V diagram obtained from the static non-linear push-over analysis for loading in x-direction Wind Performance of the Structure
To study the overall wind effects on the building, a boundary layer wind tunnel testing has been conducted on a 1:400 scale model with 5% critical damping. To determine the wind loads affecting the strength of the structure, a 50-year return period design wind speed of 32.3 m/sec. is considered, referring to a 3-sec. gust wind speed at 10 m height above sea level over open terrain. From the wind tunnel test the highest peak floor-by-floor load distribution has been determined, with which the internal forces in the structural members have been computed through a static analysis. It turns out, that the load combination of gravity and wind loads according to the code, does not govern the strength design of the structural members. To check the serviceability of the building under wind loading, wind-induced building accelerations have been measured on the model in the wind tunnel testing. For this purpose a 1- and 10- year return period design wind speeds of 20.6 m/sec. and 28.2 m/sec. respectively are considered. It turns out, that peak

TS1-139

W. Wangsadinata

accelerations occur on the 51st floor and the 53rd floor. Due to the 1-year return period wind speed, the measured acceleration is 0.9 milli-g, while due to the 10-year return period wind speed, the measured acceleration is 2.8 milli-g. Both accelerations satisfy relevant occupant comfort guidelines for residential and commercial buildings. The respective acceleration limit is 8 milli-g for the 1-year return period wind speed, and 10-20 milli-g for the 10-year return period wind speed. Thus, the building structure shows satisfactory performance under wind loading.

THE SUBSTRUCTURE The Basement Structure

Regarding the 5-level basement structural system, no particular features can be noted. To limit floor to floor height, an ordinary flat slab system is applied with column heads and a perimeter beam along the sides. For the analysis, the basement structure is modeled as an underground structure fixed at the foundation level. Since according to the code the substructure has to be designed to remain elastic even due to the strong earthquake, the nominal seismic loading from the upper structure is the support reactions of the upper structure (vertical load, lateral load, bending moment) acting at the ground floor level, multiplied by the f2 factor. These support reactions are obtained from the upper structure analysis. This is following the philosophy, that the substructure must be stronger than the upper structure, so that the substructure will not fail earlier than the upper structure by the strong earthquake. Other seismic loads on the basement structure are lateral inertial loads from the mass of the basement floors, lateral soil pressure and hydrodynamic pressure. In addition, lateral soil pressure due to field loading is also considered. Subjected to gravity loads and seismic loading described above, the basement structure is then analysed to obtain the internal forces in the structural members through a static analysis. Following the load combination prescribed by the code, the strength design of the structural members are carried out, based on the LRFD principles.

The Piled Raft Foundation

The entire basement structure is sitting on a rectangular 45 m x 55 m raft of 3 m thickness, supported by 121 bore piles of 1,200 mm diameter. Having an effective length of 45 m from cut-off level, each pile has an allowable bearing capacity for gravity loads of 8,350 kN, incorporating the group effect. This bearing capacity is developed 90% by friction and only 10% by end bearing. If the effect of the strong earthquake is included, the allowable bearing capacity may be doubled according to the code. The settlement of the building has been calculated using several methods, the results of which show an expected long-term settlement in the order of 180 mm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation for the hard work of the design team of PT. WIRATMAN & ASSOCIATES, particularly the design engineers, Wina Arizona, Dypiter Arifin and Yudit Kuntardi, whose efforts have contributed to the successful completion of the structural design of this MNC Tower 2 Building, and for assisting the author in preparing this paper.

REFERENCES
Wiratman & Associates (2013). Report on The Structural Design of The MNC Tower 2 Building (unpublished), Jakarta, May 2013. Indonesian National Standard. SNI 03-1726-2002, Seismic Resistant Design Code for Building Structures. Indonesian National Standard. SNI 03-2847-2002, Concrete Design Code for Building Structures.

TS1-140