REFLECTIONS AT KEPPEL BAY

Lim Kok Kim, Teh Hee Seang and Madan Bikram Khadka
T.Y. Lin International Pte Ltd, Singapore

ABSTRACT
Located along the southern coastline of Singapore, The Reflections at Keppel Bay is a premier
waterfront development overlooking the spectacular open blue sea at the front and the lush greenery of
Mt Faber at the back. The site is formerly a shipyard surrounded by a deep natural water harbour
dotted with jetties, boat ramps and large dry docks built along its shoreline. The jetties and boat ramps
have since been demolished and a vertical seawall put in place to enable the land boundaries to be
pushed out and optimized via land reclamation. The pre-existing dry docks have mostly been retained
to create water channels to enable the sea to extend right into the heart of the development.
The initial authority planning restrictions had limited the height of buildings in Reflections to 28
storeys apparently due to vista view controls from Mt Faber. It was subsequently relaxed following the
developers and architects appeal. The architect had shown that the towers would be located mainly
away from the central vista view and emphasized that the iconic composition and its curves would
greatly enhance the aesthetics of the area where sea channels outside is also the southern gateway into
Singapore.
The eventual design yielded 6 curved sky towers and 11 villa style apartments housing 1,129 new
homes. The sky towers are the main feature of the design. The taller three are 41 storeys high whilst
the shorter three are 24 storeys. They are arranged in pairs but with each rotated strategically for
architectural reasons and also to ensure that views from the apartment units are maximized.
Conceptualized by world renowned architect Daniel Libeskind, the alternating towers with double
curvature symbolizes an ascending symphony of chords. Each pair of the towers are connected by
skybridges at 3 levels and capped off with a steel tower crown each. The main structure is
conceptualized and designed using reinforced concrete.
This paper shall present mainly the challenges in the design and construction of the curved sky towers
in concrete. The skybridges and tower crowns are in steel. It shall also discuss how the towers are
designed to incorporate the many variations in apartment unit layouts contained within the curved
body form, each staggered differently at every floor on top of one another. Special considerations
arising from the continuous change in centre of gravity of the structure during construction causing
lateral movements are presented. Construction and instrumentation monitoring methods used are also
discussed. The figures and charts presented shall mainly be those of Tower Type 1B/3B (see Figure
2b) for consistency and clarity.

1
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

KEY WORDS
curved towers; vertical curvature; curved concrete frame; inclined columns; construction engineering;
creep; skybridges

INTRODUCTION
In 1995, T.Y. Lin International Pte Ltd was appointed as the C&S Consultant to engineer the
redevelopment of Keppel Shipyard where the Reflections is now sited. The proposal is to convert the
then pre-existing shipyard into an integrated premium waterfront residential development with a world
class marina with commercial and hotel amenities. The entire site is about 32 hectares and the
proposed plan is to have 2500 to 3000 residential apartment units developed in phases. Phase 1 started
with regularization and improvement of the land through land reclamation. This commenced in year
2000 with the enhancement of infrastructure by constructing seawalls to regularize the land and link
bridges along the shoreline to create a continuous promenade around the bay. Phase 2 is the
development of the 1st residential parcel around the pre-existing docks ie. the Caribbean. Phase 3 is the
construction of a cable-stayed bridge and the marina on Keppel Island.
The Reflections is Phase 4 of the project and occupies the largest land parcel in the whole
development. The site area is 83,591m2 and the permissible GFA is 193,400m2. The construction
contract was awarded in January 2008 to Woh Hup Pte Ltd under a lump sum, semi design and build
arrangement. The contract is for the full scope of works including foundation piling and the contract
period is 48 months. Figures 1a & 1b show images of the site before and after re-development (ie.
status as is today).

Figure 1a: Site Before Development (Original Shipyard)

2
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 1b: Site After Development (Current Status)

Design conceptualization of the Reflections project started in late 2005 with the engagement of
Concept Architect, Studio Daniel Libeskind from New York. Assisted by DCA Architects, the local
project QP, extensive effort was spent in juggling and refining the building configurations around the
irregular yet interesting site to optimize layout. In addition to the uniquely shaped towers, the design
also proposed gravity-defying building forms for the club houses, asymmetrically shaped skybridges
and slanting tower crowns.
Technical studies and feasibility tests of various structural schemes were carried out. Several tweaks to
some of the originally proposed forms were made. They were mostly simplified in consideration of
construction and engineering efficiency before the concept was crystallized for planning approval
submission to the authorities. The final approved design nevertheless posed some pioneering
engineering challenges, especially in the design and construction of a vertically curved tower. The
challenge was made even more difficult by the need to fit and stack different types of residential
apartment units within the unconventional building form.
Apart from these, there were also other engineering challenges. The project had a huge basement with
approximately 2km long of perimeter wall aligned mostly against the sea shoreline. The site also
straddled over a large and critical underground box culvert drain near the middle. The live culvert is a
major stormwater runoff discharge outlet for the southern catchment of Singapore. Its presence
complicated the basement design and necessitated its exit ramps to cross under.
This paper however shall focus only on the curved sky towers as they are the most unique and
prominent feature in the overall design. The towers house the majority of the development dwelling
areas and are anticipated to present the most difficult challenge to both the designer and builder.
Engineering wise, one of the critical decisions to make in the beginning stage of design was to
determine whether the structure should be built in steel or concrete. The usual cost, time and risk
considerations came into mind. Ultimately, concrete was selected mainly because of cost. Another
factor was the limited floor to floor height due to overall building height constraint. Local
construction expertise, labour and material availability had a large influence on the overall cost.
Figures 2a & 2b show the architects perspective of the overall project and its various tower types.
3
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 2a: Architects Perspective

Figure 2b: Tower Types

4
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

DESIGN
General Description
The actual form of the Reflections sky tower consists of a double vertical curvature that is about 500m
radius at the front & back, and a gently curved side face that is tapered about two degrees inwards
from bottom to top. On the taller tower, the entire floor plate shifts out by 3.9m at Level 19 and then
shifts back by 4.3m at roof level. See Figure 3.

Isometric Form

Front Elevation

Side Elevation

Figure 3: Form & Shape of Taller Curved Tower 1B

The height of the taller tower is 174m to the top of the crown and the shorter is 116m. The transverse
aspect ratio of the tall tower is about 1:9 and the typical inter-storey floor to floor height is 3.45m. The
towers are paired alternately at different angles and orientation for architectural reasons. Towers
1A&1B face each other back to front, 2A&2B back to back; 3A&3B front to front. Each pair is linked
by 3 skybridges at Levels 8, 15 & 22. All towers are clad in glass curtain wall and each is capped with
a steel tower crown that is up to 49m in height.
The structural system conceptualized for the tower is a dual system consisting of an inclined perimeter
curved concrete frame tied to a vertical core shear wall via a rigid floor diaphragm. The system is
suitable for both vertical load transfer as well as lateral load resistance purposes. The geometry of the
curved frame induces a sustained bending moment throughout the height of the building under its own
weight. This creates kick-out forces which have to be resolved in the floor diaphragm at every level.
The floor structural system used is essentially a flat slab system with thickenings in the form of band
beams to serve as chord restraints to the inclined columns. The band beams are thus designed to
double up as struts and ties to resist the varying compression or tension forces at different levels.
Figure 4 shows the lateral kick-out forces that are automatically generated in the floor diaphragm
where columns are inclined. These occur in various directions towards the vertical lift core which
serves like the spine of the curved body. They are the forces that will pull at the spine and cause it to
deform differently under its own standing self weight.

5
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 4: Inclined Column Load Transfer

All columns and shear walls in the building are inclined except for the lift core wall. Those internal
and along the vertically curved faces are inclined in one direction whilst those at the sides are inclined
in 2 directions. The range of inter-storey column incline is up to 9 degrees. To maximize their
contribution to direct frame action, they are aligned as much as possible. See Figure 5.

Figure 5: Typical Structural Floor Plan

Special Design Considerations
There are a multiple of apartment unit types contained in both the typical tall and short towers. Service
installations that depended on gravity flow (like sanitary pipes) were confronted with difficult
problems because they had limited space and could not run down vertically. Their relative position
changes at every floor due to the shifts in the tower curvature. They had to be strategically arranged
and cranked at suitable levels so as to avoid eating up too much space and cutting through critical
structures. The shafts are eventually located to abut against shear walls (which have a common flat
plane throughout its height) or away from beams in the critical transverse frame direction. See Figures
5 & 6.
6
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 6: Elevation of Sanitary Stack Layout

The towers are connected with skybridges at different levels, orientated in different directions. They
are not aligned to any common frame direction. As such, fixing and coupling them to the tower frame
was not practical as it would cause undesirable torsion. To avoid any undesirable rotational restraint to
one another, the bridges are fixed at the short tower end and released at the tall tower end with multidirectional sliding bearings.
Lift shaft verticality and cladding stretch tolerances were major considerations due to the continuous
lateral movements and deformations under self weight. This is a result of the gravity load eccentricity
in the curved geometry and natural creep and shrinkage characteristics of concrete. This inherent
eccentric load will always cause the tower to displace one side and the displacement is irreversible
(See Figure 7). With concrete, the sustained stress further complicates matters as the structure creeps
over time and causes the building to deflect continuously even after it has been completed. This will
happen until the creep and shrinkage are fully expired which may take many years. For this reason, the
design of the tower was very much focused on ensuring that its stiffness, hence lateral deformation
was extensively evaluated and restricted well within typically acceptable serviceability limits.
Construction engineering analysis was prescribed to determine the appropriate pre-cambering
requirements to negate the parts of lateral deformation that can be reasonably predicted for purposes of
achieving the best target straightness or profile, especially for lift shaft verticality on the tall towers.

7
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 7: Irreversible Lift Shaft Lateral Displacement

Figure 8 shows the difference in the deformed shape pattern of the tower when superimposed dead
loads are applied on a fully assembled structure (normal analysis) compared to when they are imposed
one floor at a time, like in actual construction. Note the shape of the deformation curve is different.
The maximum eccentric load deformation is relatively greater around the belly of the structure (at
mid-height) because this is where the curved body is strained the most. In actual construction
however, the bulk of self weight elastic and early creep deformation in a fully assembled model
analysis is cancelled if every new level is re-aligned to its designed profile.

Figure 8: Deflection Patterns (Normal Analysis vs. Construction Sequence)

8
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 9 shows the natural deformation of the tower subjected to its centre of gravity shifts at every
floor, without alignment correction. The total deformation is made up of 2 components, one from
immediate elastic storey deformation and the other from creep of concrete which is time-dependent.
The immediate elastic component (plus a fraction of short term creep) will automatically be
cancelled out during construction as the vertical alignment is re-set at every floor to the designed
profile. However, the long term creep that happens after re-alignment is carried out will accumulate
over time. This is the time-dependent component of deformation that needs to be ascertained by
construction engineering and corrected by pre-camber.

Figure 9: Total Horizontal Displacement

(Construction sequence with no initial displacement correction)
Design Criteria, Loads and Material
Tower lateral stiffness was one of the most critical considerations in the conceptual design of the
structure. This is in acknowledgement of and to cater for the sensitivities, tolerances and serviceability
requirements of architectural and service installations. Human comfort due to building acceleration
(especially in the soft transverse direction) was also a major concern considering that apartments at the
uppermost storeys are mostly multi-million dollar penthouses. The tower lateral stiffness was designed
to limit its lateral movement to a maximum drift ratio of H/500 for both Gravity P-delta
(elastic+creep) plus transient peak wind motion. The peak acceleration response for all towers was
checked by wind tunnel test and was verified to be well within internationally recommended limits.
(Please refer to Design Performance below.)
For strength, the design lateral loads considered are those due to wind and notional load as in
accordance to the Singapore Building Regulations. There is no earthquake design requirement in
Singapore although the island does experience occasional minor tremors from some strong distant
earthquakes in the region. The magnitudes of such are typically relatively small and its impact falls
generally within the notional load design requirement of the tall buildings of this order. The 50-year
return period basic design wind speed used is 33m/s and the notional load requirement is 1.5% of
9
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

characteristic dead load. The building models were sent for a wind tunnel test [2]. A summary of the
derived range of design forces for the towers are as follows:
(i)

Base Overturning Moment:

Load Source
Wind (from Wind Tunnel Test)
Notional
Eccentric Gravity

(ii)

Tall Tower (MNm)

561-585
381-403
641-966

Short Tower (MNm)

195-197
133-134
361-523

Tall Tower (kN)

5500-5700
5800-5900

Short Tower (kN)

2900-3800
3500-3700

Base Shear:
Load Source
Wind (from Wind Tunnel Test)
Notional

(iii)

Material:
Concrete (28-day Cube Strength)
a. General: Grade 35 (All horizontal elements)
b. Vertical structure (lower levels): Grade 60
c. Vertical structure (higher levels): Grade 40
Structural Steel
a. Skybridge: Grade S355
b. Tower Crown: Grade S275

Design Performance
Based on the loads and criteria prescribed, the building is expected to perform as follows:
(i) Lateral Drift
Lateral drift analyses based on Normal Analysis and Construction Sequence Analysis carried
out are compared in Table 1.
a. Normal Analysis is based on load applied on a fully assembled model
b. Construction Sequence Analysis is based load applied on a progressively assembled model
according to construction sequence
(ii) Peak acceleration response
The 10-year peak acceleration response derived from wind tunnel analysis, based on 1% critical
damping is as follows:
a. Transverse, x-direction peak = 6.6 to 10 milli-g
b. Combined peak
= 10 to 12 milli-g
The recommended 10-year peak acceleration response limit is 19 milli-g [1].

10
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

TABLE 1
LATERAL DRIFT ANALYSIS

Load

Normal Analysis

Gravity (eccentric)
Elastic, SW
SDL
LL
Creep, ST
LT
Wind, max
Total
Target Limit (H/500)
Note:

Construction Sequence Analysis[3]

During construction

105*
40
15
120
125
300

165*
20*
10*
195*
310

30 years after
completion
20
15
10
90
125
260

1. * denotes cancelled out by construction re-alignment or pre-camber

2. SW = Self weight; SDL assumes 50% imposed during construction
3. Creep, ST denotes Short Term (Early) Creep; LT denotes Long Term
4. Results are for Tower 1B, H = 155m ie. to top of roof slab

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the curved towers presented several challenges. Firstly, the geometry of the form
creates a continuously changing floor plate and changing inclination of columns at every floor. The
temporary stresses, stability of the inclined structure and continuous movements arising from the time
dependent properties of concrete are complex. The centre of gravity at every floor shifts as the tower is
constructed upwards. The load history is dynamic and is dictated by the progressive load build-up on
every floor. The load timing is important too as the deformation of the structure is affected by concrete
age. The temporary deformations will be cumulative. The boundary conditions of the temporary
structure are often not so definite.
It was anticipated during the design stage that the construction of the curved structure would be carried
out as stand-alone without the deployment of any lateral strutting or props. Because of this, any
lateral movement in the structure and stresses developed during the temporary stages will be locked-in
and irreversible. It will not be possible or practical to make any alignment adjustments or corrections
after it is built.
The biggest concern arising from the above knowledge is whether the builder is able to construct the
lift shaft to satisfy the stringent verticality tolerances of present day high-rise elevator systems. Most
elevator systems can tolerate transient deformations but not many of them are designed to cope with
permanent deformations. In the case at hand, permanent lateral deformation is inevitable.
As such, construction engineering was prescribed and specified under the scope of the builders work.
The design brief in the specifications called for construction analyses to be carried out as soon as the
construction sequence and schedule are known and approved. The chief purpose is to determine the
required construction pre-camber profile and demonstrate/verify that the achieved target profiles will
be okay for the lifts. The builder is required to coordinate this with his appropriate lift sub-contractor
to establish the acceptable tolerances and work towards achieving the required verticality accordingly
11
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

by adjusting his pre-camber. The analysis is also necessary to check whether there will be any
temporary overstress situations in the partially and progressively constructed structure up from the
foundation. For example, it is envisaged that the most critical condition for the concrete shear walls is
when structure is in its temporary intermediate stage. This may happen when the structure reaches the
apex of its curved profile somewhere near mid height. The walls or foundation piles may be in tension
at that point when the vertical compression load component is at its lowest.
Pre-cambering of the tower structure was implemented by the builder after the construction
engineering analyses. The pre-camber profile was derived based on the amount of calculated creep
deformation to be cancelled out at the appropriate target time. The ideal time should not be too distant
in the future yet long enough to allow the bulk of the creep to be dissipated.
As part of specified requirement, the builder had implemented an appropriate laser-guided
instrumentation system to monitor the actual lateral movements of the structure. The monitoring
prisms were placed mainly on the external wall of the lift shaft core as this was the most critical
element. Prisms were also placed at each corner of alternate tower floors to monitor possible
distortion. The instrumentation plan and system used by the builder is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Instrumentation Plan & System

Construction of the tower structure was mostly completed at the time of writing this paper. Eight out
of nine skybridges were fully erected and the only outstanding structural works remaining are the
erection of the steel roof crowns. The last progress report (August 2010) from the builder showed that
they are 2.5 months ahead of schedule on the structure. The average tower floor cycle time achieved is
10 days. The instrumentation monitoring result of the actual movements showed that it is performing
close to prediction.
Method, assumptions and results from the builders construction engineering analyses and actual
instrumentation survey are summarized as follows:
12
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Method
(i)
(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

Builder carried out the construction engineering analyses using SAP 2000 non-linear
version.
Initially, the natural total horizontal displacement of the structure was determined to assess
its relative magnitudes at Completion of Construction and 5 years, 30 years after. See
Figure 9.
The immediate elastic component of displacement plus a fraction of short term creep
(automatically corrected during construction by repeated realignment) is then removed to
determine the component of time dependent displacement (long term creep) that is
locked-in and irreversible. This is the deformation that has to be corrected by pre-camber.
See Figure 11.
The amount of pre-camber to set depends on the builders desired final target profile.
Figure 12 shows the projected displacement curves at various intermediate and key stages
of the structure. To attain the appropriate end target profile, the construction pre-camber
can be set to reverse any of the projected displacement profiles eg. to achieve an end
vertical profile at Completion of Structure, the pre-camber curve is simply the reverse of
its projected displacement curve.
In consideration of the lifts and expected creep expiry, the final Pre-camber profile
adopted is that of 5 years after completion of structure. See Figure 13.

Figure 11: Components of Construction Sequence Total Displacement

13
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 12: Irreversible Short Term Creep Displacement (Tower 1B)

Figure 13: Pre-Camber and Target Profiles

14
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Assumptions
(i)

Boundary conditions:
a. Base of tower is Fixed
b. Floor diaphragm restraints at Basement Level 1 and 1st storey released. Pour strip
provided.

(ii)

Load History:
a. Floor cycle = 10 days
b. Superimposed dead load = 50% average upon structure completion

(iii)

Concrete properties:
a. Concrete time-dependent properties modeled according
recommendations in SAP2000, with the following parameters:
i. Cement Type Coefficient, s = 0.25 (normal cement)
ii. Relative Humidity, RH = 80%
iii. Notional size, h = 0.2 (200mm)
iv. Shrinkage coefficient, sc = 5 (normal cement)
v. Shrinkage start age = 0

to

CEB-FIP

1990

b. Elastic Modulus and Strength of Concrete

Concrete grade
Cube strength
(N/mm2)
Modulus of Elasticity
(103 N/mm2)

C35
35

C40
40

C50
50

C60
60

33

34

36

38.5

Results
Realistically, some of the above assumptions may not be completely representative or realized
precisely at site. For example, the pour strips specified at Basement B1 and 1st storey which had to be
closed off early. It was initially specified to eliminate uncertainties in the degree of restraint that can
be achieved. There was also concern that the high restraint force may harm the floor structures. As
such, initial analyses model excluded these restraints. Subsequently, the pour strips were closed off
due to construction access and practicality issues.
The age of concrete and timing of load also cannot be precisely captured. Such deviations are to be
expected and can be resolved by calibration against actual survey readings.
The actual survey results were conscientiously checked against the analyses model predictions
throughout the construction. No calibration was necessary. The comparison can be said to be rather
good overall. See Figure 14.

15
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

Figure 14: Actual (Surveyed Profile) vs. Predicted (Target Profile) curves

16
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay

CONCLUSION
The selection of reinforced concrete as the preferred scheme for the curved tower structure of
Reflections has proven to be an appropriate and a good choice. Earlier reservations in its selection
with regards to its variability, performance and constructability are solvable. Shortcomings anticipated
can be resolved through proper attention during design, simple detailing and stringent quality control.
Early anticipation of potential problems and rigorous, accurate engineering analyses are crucial in
minimizing problems in the construction of complex structures. In concrete structures especially, the
loading history, time-dependent properties and construction quality control of concrete are critical
factors influencing the accuracy of prediction models. Established parameters and research models are
available in technical literature and certain engineering software to simulate the behaviour of concrete
structures at different ages.
Construction engineering analysis is a must for building projects where the stress/strain build up is
highly dependent on the sequence of construction and its temporary condition at intermediate stages. It
is shown on this project that the stress and strain patterns along the structure can be significantly
different. It was found using sensitivity studies that a shorter floor cycle time would have increased the
short term lateral creep deformation of the structure by as much as 25%!, and the permanent stresses in
the vertical structure are greater at lower levels when construction sequence is taken into account.
Results of the actual survey readings of the tower lateral movements monitored throughout
construction compared well with that of the predicted movements by construction engineering
theoretical analyses. Allowance should be considered for deviations due to construction variations and
tolerance. Monitoring should check on accuracy, rate of deformation and direction of movement to
detect undesirable signs. Accuracy of assumptions and parameters that are difficult to ascertain in
theoretical analyses can be adjusted/corrected by intuitive calibration during the process of
construction by comparing with actual readings.
The speed of construction using cast-in-situ concrete on this project does not appear to be a hindrance
or disadvantage to the project construction schedule. The tower structures are all completed ahead of
scheduled time. As a matter of fact, the flexibility and adaptability of cast in situ concrete has its
advantages in the construction of buildings with extensive floor profile variations and little repetition.
In the case of this project, none of the tower floors are similar. Awareness of potential problems,
sufficient rigorous engineering studies, simplicity and clarity of details are probably the more critical
factors influencing the constructability of structures.

REFERENCES
[1] Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (1995), Structural Systems for Tall Buildings,
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
[2] Vipac Engineering and Scientists Ltd, Australia (2007), Wind Tunnel Test report on Structural
Wind Load Study of Keppel Bay Plot 1 Towers Singapore, Revision 1.
[3] Woh Hup Pte Ltd / Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte Ltd (June 2008), Construction sequence analysis
report on Tower blocks, Reflections @ Keppel Bay.

17
IStructE Conference on Structural Marvels Reflections at Keppel Bay