Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No.

2, 181-191, June 2007 / Copyright © 2007 Japan Concrete Institute 181

Technical report

Structural Design of 80-Story RC High-Rise Building Using 200 Mpa

Ultra-High-Strength Concrete
Hideki Kimura1, Tadao Ueda2, Kazuo Ohtake3 and Atsushi Kambayashi3

Received 16 February 2007, accepted 16 May 2007

Abstract
This paper presents the design of an 80-story reinforced concrete (RC) high-rise building using 200 MPa ul-
tra-high-strength concrete. Static nonlinear push over analyses, Level-1 and Level-2 nonlinear earthquake response
analyses and nonlinear wind response analyses were carried out. Based on the three-dimensional static nonlinear analyses
of the building subjected to design earthquake loading in two principal directions, the obtained maximum axial load ratio
for the first story columns of 200 MPa compressive strength concrete were 0.53 and 0.48, respectively, at the ultimate
limit state, which meets the design criterion based on the allowable compressive stress of concrete. The maximum story
drift angle obtained under the synthetic wave motion at the construction site was smaller than the design limiting value of
1/100. While yield hinges developed only in some of the short beams, no yield hinge in columns was observed. The
maximum ductility of 1.28 obtained in the beams is lower than the design limiting value of 4.0. The maximum story shear
force for the level-2 wind load was almost half that of the level-2 earthquake load when using the lumped-mass model.
The analyses confirmed that the use of 200 MPa concrete enables structural designers to provide the member sections
with adequate sizes comparable to that of ordinary high-rise RC buildings. The analytical results showed that the per-
formance of the building satisfies the design criteria for serviceability limits, design limits and ultimate limits.

1. Introduction verse direction are irregularly spaced with span lengths

varying from 4.0 m to 9.5 m (see Fig. 1). Figure 2 shows
Recently, construction of high-rise apartment buildings
has increased significantly, with the number of stories
sometimes exceeding 50. High-strength materials are
used in such buildings. The design concrete strength
reaches 100 MPa and SD685 deformed bars of 685 MPa
nominal yield strength are used as the main reinforcing
bars.
To investigate the possibility of constructing taller
buildings, this paper addresses the design of an 80-story
high-rise apartment building using 200 MPa concrete
and SD685 reinforcing bars.

2. Outline of building and structural design

procedure
2.1 Building outline
The 80-story building is a frame structure with a total
height (roof level above the ground) of 252m. The stan-
dard floor plan, shown in Fig. 1, has external dimensions
of 33 m x 54 m with a void at the center and a story height
of 3.1 m. Frames in the longitudinal direction are regu-
larly spaced at 6.0 m intervals while those in the trans-

1
Senior Chief Researcher, Takenaka Research and
Development Institute, Chiba, Japan.
E-mail: kimura.hideki@takenaka.co.jp
2
Senior Manager, Takenaka Corporation, Tokyo Main
Office, Tokyo, Japan.
3
Chief Researcher, Takenaka Research and Development
Institute, Chiba, Japan. Fig. 1 Plan of a story.
182 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007

the elevation of the frame along the transverse X di- height.

rection (short side) and also the material and The column concrete strength varied from 200MPa at
cross-section dimensions for all elements along the the first stories of the building to 30MPa at the last ten

Story Columns Beams

Story height Concrete Maximum cross Concrete Maximum cross
2 Reinforcement 2 Reinforcement
(mm) (N/mm ) section bxD (N/mm ) section bxD
RF
80F
79F 500x800
78F
77F
76F 850x850
75F
74F
73F
72F
71F Fc30
70F
69F
68F 950x900
67F
66F
65F
64F
63F
62F Fc30
61F Fc42
60F
59F
58F
57F
56F
55F
54F
53F
52F
51F Fc60
50F
49F
48F
47F
46F
45F
44F
43F
42F Fc60
41F Fc80
40F 600x850
39F
38F
37F
36F
35F
34F
33F 1100x1000
32F
31F
30F
29F
28F
27F
26F Fc100
25F
24F
23F
22F
21F
20F
19F
18F
17F
16F
15F
14F
13F
12F
11F Fc150
10F
9F
8F
7F
6F
5F
4F
3F 3100
800x1000
2F Fc100 SD685
1F 5000 Fc200 SD685 Fc30 SD490 2000x4000

9500 4000 6000 4000 9500

1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 2 Elevation of 80-story building and material and cross-section characteristics.
 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007 183

stories. Similarly, beams with concrete strengths varying
between 100 MPa and 30 MPa were considered. As for
the reinforcement, the same type of steel was considered
in all the columns and beams: SD685 steel was consid-
ered for main bars while higher strength deformed bars
with nominal yield strength of 1275 MPa were provided
as shear reinforcement. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the
reinforcement detailing of selected elements.
The building is assumed to be constructed in Tokyo, in
a suburban residential area of flat terrain of category III
(AIJ 1993), and founded on piles in type II soil, which
corresponds to soft diluvial or firm alluvial layers. The
pile tips are to be embedded in a layer strong enough to
sustain the weight of the building.
2.2 Structural design concepts
The performance of the building was investigated for
both seismic and wind loads, as shown in Fig. 3, ac-
cording to the Japanese codes for the design and con-
struction of buildings. Three limit conditions were set up,
namely:
1. At least once during its service life, the building will
experience a minor earthquake of level-1 (maximum
velocity equivalent to 25 cm/s) and a standard wind of
level-1 (maximum velocity at the top of the building
equal to 5750 cm/s). Yield hinges should not develop on
the main structural elements, while damage, cracks and
deformations should be kept within the serviceability
limits.
2. For the maximum probable earthquake of level-2
(maximum velocity equivalent to 50 cm/s) and a standard
wind of level-2 (maximum velocity at the top of the
building equal to 6680 cm/s), yield hinges should not
develop on the main structural elements, while damage,
cracks and deformations should be kept within design
limits (see Table 3).

Table 1 Reinforcement feature for selected columns.

Story Column A1 Column A2 Column C1 Column C2 Column E1 Column E2
5
Section

1000

1000
900

900

900

950
Main bars 900 900 1000
1050 1100 1100

Hoops 12-D41 8-D41 10-D41 8-D41 10-D41 8-D41

4φ13@100 4φ13@100 4φ13@100 4φ13@100 4φ13@100 4φ13@100
4φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100
1
Section
1000

1000
900

900

900

950

Main bars 900 900 1000

1050 1100 1100

Hoops 14-D41 8-D41 12-D41 8-D41 12-D41 8-D41

4φ13@100 4φ13@100 3φ13@100 4φ13@100 3φ13@100 4φ13@100
4φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100 3φ13@100

Table 2 Reinforcement feature for selected beams.

Girder C1-C2 Girder C2-C3
Story Span (mm): 9500 Span (mm): 2000
Left Center Right Left Center Right
5
Section
850

850

850

850

850

850

Main bars 600 600 600 600 600 600

Stirrups 16-D38 8-D38 16-D38 8-D38 8-D38 8-D38

3φ10@175 3φ10@175 3φ10@175 3φ10@175 3φ10@175 3φ10@175
2
Section
1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

Main bars 800 800 800 800 800 800

Stirrups 18-D38 10-D38 18-D38 10-D38 10-D38 10-D38
4φ10@175 4φ10@175 4φ10@175 4φ10@175 4φ10@175 4φ10@175
184 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007

Start

Preliminary linear response analysis

Determination of design loads

Allowable stress design

(Linear static analysis) Serviceability limit

Design limit
Nonlinear static analysis Ultimate limit

Wind response analysis Seismic response analysis

(Lumped mass model) (Three-dimensional & Lumped mass model)

NO
Level 1 wind Level 1 earthquake Serviceability limit
NO
YES YES
NO Level 2 earthquake Design limit
Level 2 wind
NO
YES
YES
Habitability to wind
vibration
(Modal analysis)

YES

End

Fig. 3 Outline of structural design procedure.

3. For the ultimate earthquake exceeding level-2, col-
lapse or brittle failure of structural elements should be
prevented to satisfy ultimate limits (see Table 3).
Static and dynamic analyses were done to meet each
limit condition. Table 3 shows the static design criteria.
Regarding dynamic design criteria relative to seismic and
wind loads, the maximum story drift angle should be less
than 1/200 and 1/100, respectively, for level-1 and
level-2 earthquake loads and wind loads.
For static design, three-dimensional elastic frame
analyses using lateral load distribution (Ai distribution)
along the height based on a preliminary elastic seismic
response analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom model
for level-1 earthquake and wind response analysis for
level-1 wind were performed. For both loads, the highest
stress should satisfy the allowable stress design level.
The next step in the static design was to evaluate the
ultimate strength based on three-dimensional nonlinear
pushover analysis. The ultimate strength design was
performed for the member stress using the lateral de-
formation at the building height gravity center as the
largest of the following:
 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007 185

Table 3 Criteria of static design.

Limit Design Load Design Design Condition and Criteria
Condition Terms
/ Lateral load distribution along the / Design of members / Allowable stress design
height is determined by elastic response
analyses using level-1 earthquake and / Deformation of /Maximun story drift angle is less
Service level-1 wind load. structure than 1/200.
Limit / Design elastic shear force is calculated
State according to Building Standard Law. / State of structure / No yield hinge is formed.
/ Member force used in allowable stress
design is based on elastic analysis.
/ Story shear force calculated by / Design of columns / Stresses of column main bars are
nonlinear pushover analysis is used for less than nominal yield strength.
member design. A story drift angle of / Deformation of / Maximun story drift angle is less
Design each story envelope curve that is larger structure than 1/100.
Limit than the results of nonlinear response / State of structure / Yield hinges are designed to be
State analyses using level-2 earthquake and formed at only beam ends, bottom
level-2 wind load is selected. of columns in the lowest story and
top of columns in the upper most
story.
/ Ultimate strength design is performed / Design of members / Ultimate strength design
for the member stress at the story drift / Axial compression stress and
level where the work-energy of the tension stress in columns are,
ma x i mu m r e sp o ns e fo r l ev el -2 respectively, less than 0.65 of
Ultimate earthquake has to be double or the story concrete strength and 0.7 of main
State drift level of 1/100, whichever larger, in bars' yield strength.
the relationship between base shear / Deformation angle of beams are
force and its corresponding lateral less than 1/20.
deformation at the building height
gravity center.

a. Displacement when a value for the area under the

curve for the base shear force-lateral displacement at the 80
building height gravity center twice that for the maxi- 70
mum response for level-2 earthquake is used, or Wind
b. Maximum displacement at the building height gravity 60
load
center relative to the building height gravity center not
Story number

50 風荷重
exceeding 1/100
階

Regarding the seismic load level for the allowable 40

stress design, the load based on the Ai distribution 30 地震荷重
method was used, because the base shear force is larger Seismic load
than that of a preliminary elastic response analysis using 20
level-1 earthquake records (El-Centro NS and Taft EW). 10
For the wind load level for the allowable stress design,
the loads acquired from level-1 wind tunnel test results 0
were used. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000
層せん断力(kN)
The shear force distributions in the X direction for Story shear force (kN)
both wind and seismic loads are shown in Fig. 4. The
seismic forces are greater than wind forces in the upper
fourteen stories (i.e. 66-80), while the opposite holds for Fig. 4 Seismic and wind load distributions in X direction.
the remaining stories (corresponding to the base shear
force coefficient Cb= 0.037). In the Y direction, the dis-
Therefore, these base shear coefficients are used for the
tributions of seismic and wind forces are nearly the same
design of the building based on the allowable stress
in the lower stories similar to the Ai distribution (corre-
method.
sponding to the base shear force coefficient Cb= 0.03).
186 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007

3. Static nonlinear analysis

140000
140000
Three-dimensional analysis was performed for the frame 120000
1F1F 5F5F 10F
10F
120000
structure. Columns and main beams were modeled by a
three-component bending-shear element composed of a 100000
100000
20F
20F

stiffened plastic rotation spring at both ends and a shear 80000

80000 40F
30F
30F

Qx(kN)
Qx (kN)
elastic spring in the central part. Furthermore, an elas- 40
60000 50
50F
tic-plastic spring was considered along the longitudinal 60000 X direction

axis for each column. The beam-column joints and floors 40000
40000 60
60F

were assumed rigid in their planes. A trilinear mo-

20000
20000 70F
ment-rotation idealization was assumed for the flexural 70

characteristics of columns and beams and a perfectly 00

0 2020 40 40 60 60 80 80
elastic-plastic idealization was assumed for the axial δx(mm)
δx (mm)
behavior of columns.
140000
Figure 5 illustrates the results of the 140000
5F
1F1F 5F 10F
three-dimensional static nonlinear analyses in terms of 120000
120000
10F

story shear forces and story displacements where Ai

100000
100000
distribution appears for selected stories along the height. 30F
20F
20F
30F
The obtained base shear coefficients in the X and Y di- 80000
80000

Qy(kN)
Qy (kN)
40
40F
rections at the ultimate limit state are 0.065 and 0.068, 60000
50F
50
60000 Y direction
respectively. The maximum axial load ratio for the first 60F
60
story columns of 200 MPa compressive strength concrete 40000
40000
in the X and Y directions are 0.53 and 0.48, respectively, 20000
20000
70F
70

which meets the design criterion, the ratio being smaller

00
than 0.65. 0 2020 40 40 60 60 80 80
δy(mm)
δy (mm)

4. Earthquake response analysis
4.1 Modeling assumptions
An equivalent lumped-mass shear-building model and a
three-dimensional frame model were considered in this
study.
The analysis of the equivalent 80-lumped-mass
shear-building model and the three-dimensional frame
model is based on the story shear force vs. inter-story
displacement relationships obtained from the static
nonlinear analysis presented previously, where a de-
grading trilinear idealization is used for the restoring
force characteristics.
The equivalent shear model is considered to be fixed at
the bottom of its first story. Structural damping, corre-
sponding to the first natural period, is assumed propor-
tional to the instantaneous stiffness assuming a constant
value of the internal viscous damping equal to 3%. The
first and second natural vibration periods of the
shear-building model are 7.63 s and 3.10 s in the X di-
rection, and 5.98 s and 2.28 s in the Y direction.
The columns in the first story of the three-dimensional
model are also considered to be fixed at their bottom.
Each floor mass is assumed to lie at the corresponding
center of gravity. A degrading trilinear form is considered
for the flexural characteristic models of the column and
beam elements and an elastic perfectly plastic form is
considered for the axial characteristic model of the
columns. Element damping, corresponding to the first
natural period, is considered proportional to the instan-
taneous stiffness assuming a constant value of the inter-
nal viscous damping equal to 3%. The first and second
Fig. 5 Story shear force vs. Story deformation.
natural vibration periods of the three-dimensional model
are 7.04 s and 2.00 s in the X direction and 5.50 s and
1.73 s in the Y direction.
4.2 Applied earthquake records
The selected ground motion records are based on the
vibration periods’ range of the building. For the level-1
earthquake, El-Centro NS and Taft EW ground motion
records were selected for assessing the response of the
building, while for the level-2 earthquake, synthetic
ground motion records were generated based on the
Japanese code’s type-II soil spectrum considering a
random phase, the phase of the 1993 Kushiro-Oki
earthquake and another synthetic wave record (Site
wave) generated from the same fault model reflecting the
ground characteristics corresponding to the 1923 Kanto
earthquake. The velocity response spectra corresponding
to level-2 earthquake synthetic waves are shown in Fig.
6.
4.3 Results of analyses
Figure 7 shows the distribution along the height of the
building of the maximum story drift angle corresponding
to the shear-building model subjected to level-1 earth-
quake input motions. Maximum story drift angle values
were obtained in both the X and Y directions under Taft
ground motion and are equal to 1/305 and 1/370, re-
spectively. Also, maximum base shear coefficients were
obtained under the same wave record in both directions
 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007 187

250
h=3% Lumped-mass model:
質点モデル Site ト波
サイ wave

200
First natural period
X並進1次 Frame model:
骨組モデル サイ ト波
Site wave
告示波(ラ ン ダム)
Synth. Wave-random
告示波(釧路)
Synth. Wave-KushiroOki
X direction T1=7.04 s
T1=7.04秒
First natural Y並進1次
period
=5.50 s
Y direction T2T2=5.50秒 80 XX方向
dir. 80
速度(cm/sec)

150 Y
70 70 Y方向
direction
Velocity (cm/s)

60 60

Story number
100 50 50

階
40 40
50 L2
L2 Site wave
L2サイト波 wave 30 30
L2 Synthetic
L2 Synthetic wave-Random
wave-Random
L2基盤波ランダム位相case3 phase
L2基盤波実位相
phase
L2 釧路
Synthetic wave-Kushiro Oki phase 20 20
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10
1 10
周期(sec)
Period (s) 0 0
0 0.0 04 0 .008 0 .01 2 0 0.0 04 0.008 0 .012
Fig. 6 Earthquake velocity response spectra (Level-2 Story drift angle (rad.) Story drift angle (rad.)
earthquake).
80 80
X Y
Lumped-mass 70 X方向
direction 70 Y方向
direction
ELCentr o
質点モデ ル
model TAFT 60 60

Story number
80 80
50 50
70 XX方向
direction 70 YY方向
direction
階

階
40 40
60 60
30 30
Story number

50 50 20 20
階

40 40 10 10
30 30 0 0
20 20 0 40
40 000
000 88 000
000 00 11200
200 00
00 00 40
40000
000 80 00 00 121 200
8 000 00 00
00
Story shear force (kN) Story shear force (kN)
10 10
0 0 80 80
0 0.002 0.004 0 0.002 0.004 X Y
70 X方向
direction 70 Y方向
direction
層間変形角(rad.) 層間変形角(rad.)
Story drift angle (rad.) Story drift angle (rad.)
60 60
Story number

50 50
Fig. 7 Level-1 earthquake response analysis results.
階

40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
X and Y and are equal to 0.017 and 0.020, respectively. 0 0 .5 1 1.5 0 0 .5 1 1.5
The maximum story drift angles in the lower stories for Moment (107 kN.m) Moment (107 kN.m)
El Centro ground motion are half those for the Taft
ground motion. Fig. 8 Level-2 earthquake response analysis results.
Figure 8 shows the distribution along the height of the
building of the maximum story drift angle, the maximum
story shear force and the maximum overturning moment is understood to be due to the excessive bending de-
corresponding to the three-dimensional model and sub- formability of columns and vibration modes of the
jected to level-2 earthquake input motions. The maxi- lumped-mass model.
mum values of the story drift angle, obtained under the Figure 9 shows all the steps of the response of the
Site wave motion for both the X and Y directions, are three-dimensional model under the Site wave record
equal to 1/146 and 1/172, respectively, which are both relating the first-floor shear force to its corresponding
values below the design value of 1/100. The maximum overturning moment. While the figure shows a linear
values of the story shear force obtained under the same relationship in the results obtained from the static analy-
input motion in both the X and Y directions are equal to sis, it also shows that despite the continuous increase in
0.053 and 0.050, respectively. To allow a comprehensive the shear force, the increase in the overturning moment,
comparison, the figure also contains the distributions obtained from dynamic analysis, converges towards a
corresponding to the equivalent shear model and shows limit value of approximately ±10 GN･m. This fact means
that its response, in terms of maximum story drift angle, that the assumed Ai distribution and the external force
maximum story shear force and maximum overturning distribution are different beyond a certain level of lateral
moment, is in all cases higher compared to the displacement due to the change in the stiffness of the
three-dimensional model. The reason for this difference elements.
188 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007

: Cracking
(107 kN.m)

202 : Yielding
Static linear analysis
(×107　kN・m)

静的増分解析
▽17FL
Nonlin. anal. (Site wave)
地震応答解析（サイト波）
転倒モーメント(kN*m)

101 ▽16FL 1.00

moment

1.01
▽15FL 1.01
00 1.02
転倒モーメント

▽14FL 1.01 1.03

Overturning

1.04
▽13FL 1.02 1.05
-10
-1 1.05 1.01
▽12FL 1.04 1.07
6
1.07 1.02
-20x10 -2 1.06 1.08
-100000 -50000 00 50000 100000 ▽11FL
-100000 -50000 50000 100000 1.09 1.04
層せん断力
Shear
層せん断力(kN) (kN)
force (kN) ▽10FL 1.07 1.10
1.10 1.06
Fig. 9 First story overturning moment-shear force rela- ▽9FL 1.10 1.12
1.12 1.08
tionship (Site wave). ▽8FL 1.11 1.14
1.14 1.09
1.13 1.15
Figure 10 illustrates the hinge occurrence situation on ▽7FL
1.15 1.11
frame D (X direction) of the three-dimensional model ▽6FL 1.14 1.16
when subjected to a level-2 Site wave record. While yield 1.16 1.12
1.15 1.17
hinges develop only in some of the short beams of the ▽5FL
1.17 1.13
first 15 stories, no yield hinge in columns is observed in ▽4FL 1.12 1.15
any of the frames. Other beams and columns in the lower 1.15 1.11
▽3FL 1.27 1.28
stories experience only cracking. The maximum ductility 1.28 1.26
of 1.28 is obtained in some beams in the second story and
is lower than the design limit value of 4.0. ▽2FL 1.12 1.15
Table 4 presents the maximum axial load ratio for 1.13 1.10

each concrete strength. The maximum value of 0.45 is

▽1FL
reached in a column with concrete strength of 100 MPa.
A ratio of 0.37 is obtained in the first story, which in- ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
cludes 200 MPa concrete columns. All maximum values
are well below the design criterion of 0.65. The use of Fig. 10 D-frame yield hinge situation under Site wave
200 MPa concrete results in the same cross section as in record.
the columns of an ordinary high-rise RC building. Such
smaller sections reduce dead load, save building materi-
Table 4 Maximum axial load ratios in columns.
als and enable longer beams. However, due to the slen-
Concrete In X In Y
derness of the members, deflection is generally expected
Strength direction direction
to become a dominant aspect for the total design.
Meanwhile, the structural design of this building f'c200 0.37 0.31
achieved both the deflection control and the member f'c150 0.41 0.32
design forces, and met the design criteria. f'c100 0.45 0.36
f'c80 0.39 0.32
5. Wind response analyses f'c60 0.37 0.31
f'c42 0.35 0.29
5.1 Wind resistant design concepts f'c30 0.34 0.31
Apart from the design procedure presented previously on
earthquakes, the performance of the building should also
satisfy rank III habitability to wind vibration (response results of a similarly shaped building whose load time
below estimation curve H3 shown in Fig. 14) as specified history data was obtained in 72 directions with 5-degree
in the provisions on comfortability (AIJ 1991). Com- pitches. Furthermore, while the effect of the cut-edge of
fortability was examined by using the first natural fre- the building corner on the response was taken into ac-
quency of the building and the maximum response cor- count, the influence of surrounding buildings was not
responding to the wind velocity level for a one-year included.
return period. The design wind velocities at the top of the building
(252 m high) for a level-1 wind (100-year return period)
5.2 Horizontal wind load and level-2 wind (500-year return period) are 57.5 m/s
The horizontal wind load used for the present wind re- and 66.8 m/s, respectively. These values were calculated
sponse analysis is based on the existing wind tunnel test based on the load codes (AIJ 1993) where the basic wind
 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007
velocity is 38 m/s assuming the area to be a flat terrain of
category III. As for the estimation of the habitability to
wind vibration, a wind velocity of 29.3 m/s was used
according to the provisions for comfortability (AIJ
1991).
5.3 Results of analyses
Modal response analyses of generalized
one-degree-of-freedom elastic systems were first carried
out in order to assess the critical direction of the design
wind load (in terms of the maximum base shear force).
By normalizing the vibration shape modes to unity, the
first generalized masses in the X and Y directions were
assessed and found to be equal to 64,100 tons and 74,300
tons, respectively. The first natural frequencies in the X
and Y directions are 0.13 Hz and 0.17 Hz, respectively,
and the damping ratio is 1.5% (AIJ 2000). The variation
in the base shear force, related to the wind direction angle
for level-1 and level-2 wind velocities, are presented in
Fig. 11. The maximum base shear forces were obtained
in the orthogonal direction of the wind direction when
applied along the X and Y axes. When the wind direction
angle is set to 90˚ and 180˚ from the Y axis, the resulting
maximum base shear force is obtained along the per-
pendicular axis of each direction with an angle of 0˚ and
90˚, respectively. The latter maximum shear force direc-
tions were properly selected for the shear-building re-
sponse investigation.
The same story characteristics (degrading trilinear
form of the story restoring forces) of the 80-lumped-mass
model used for the static nonlinear analysis presented in
section 3 were used for the wind response investigation.
The first story was considered fixed at the story bottom
and the internal viscous damping was assumed propor-
tional to the instantaneous stiffness and equal to a con-
stant value of 1.5% (AIJ 2000).
While the time history response analysis was carried
out for 650 seconds, the first 50 seconds were excluded
because the focus was on the steady state response. The
results of the non-linear analysis corresponding to level-1
wind velocity are presented in Fig. 12, where the distri-
120,000
Base shear (kN)
ベースシア（ kN）
80,000
40,000
0
0 90
°）
Wind direction
風向角α（angle α (°)
Fig. 11 Base shear force related to wind direction angle (one-degree-of-freedom response analysis).
189
butions of the story shear force, the story drift angle and
the story overturning moment along the height of the
building are greater in the X direction than in the Y di-
rection. It is noticed that contrary to the elastic response
analysis (see Fig. 11), Fig. 12 shows that the building
response in the wind direction is larger than the response
in the across-wind direction when the wind action is in
the X direction. In such case, it is understood that the
average component, which is not affected by the
non-linearity effect, is included in the response.
The maximum base shear force coefficients in the X
and Y directions are 0.029 and 0.021, respectively. The
maximum story drift angles in the X and Y directions
satisfy the level-1 design criteria (1/200) and are equal to
1/201 and 1/378, respectively.
The results of the non-linear analysis corresponding to
the level-2 wind velocity are presented in Fig. 13, which
shows the distributions of the story shear force, the story
drift angle and the story overturning moment in the X and
Y directions along the height of the building, as well as
the nonlinear response of the shear-building model to the
level-2 earthquake Site wave record. It appears that the
distribution trend is similar to the trend of level-1. The
maximum base shear force coefficients in the X and Y
directions are 0.033 and 0.026, respectively. The maxi-
mum story drift angles in the X and Y directions satisfy
the level-2 design criteria (1/100) and are equal to 1/179
and 1/264, respectively. They are smaller than the re-
sponse values obtained under the Site wave record.
5.4 Estimation of habitability to wind vibration
Modal analysis was carried out to evaluate the building
response. Structural secondary elements were considered
in the evaluation of the first natural vibration frequencies,
which were taken 1.2 times (AIJ 2000) the values men-
tioned previously. The first natural vibration frequencies
in the X and Y directions are equal to 0.17 Hz and 0.22
Hz, respectively. The damping ratio is considered equal
to 1% (AIJ 2000). This value is smaller than the damping
ratio in the previous seismic and wind response analyses.
This reduction is due to the low vibration amplitude
X方向（L1）
X direction (L1)
X direction (L2)
X方向（L2）
Y direction
Y方向（ L1） (L1)
Y direction (L2)
Y方向（L2）
α
Y 風Wind
180 270 360
X
(?)
190 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007

Wind dir. (aver.) Wind dir. (aver.)

Wind風方向（平均）
dir. (max.) 風方向（平均） Wind dir. (max.)
80 80 80 80
Wind風方向（最大）
perpend. 風方向（最大） Wind perpend.
70 風直角（最大）
dir. (max.) 70 70 風直角（最大） 70 dir. (max.)
サイト波 Site wave

Story number
Story number

60 60 60 60
Cb=0.033
50 50 50 50
階

階
40 40

階
40

階
Cb=0.029 Cb=0.021 40
Cb=0.026
30 30 30 30

20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10

0 0 0 0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 0 50,000 100,000 0 50,000 100,000
Story driftX方向層せん断力（kN）
angle (rad.) X direction Story drift angle (rad.) Y direction
Y方向層せん断力（kN） Story shear force (kN) X direction
X方向層せん断力（kN） Story shear force (kN) Y direction
Y方向層せん断力（kN）
80 80 80 80

70 70 70 70
Story number

Story number
60 60 60 60

50 50 50 50
階

40

階
階

階
40 40 40

30 30 30 1/179 30
1/201
20 20 20 20
1/378 1/264
10 10 10 10

0 0 0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.000 0.005 0.010
Story shear force (kN) X direction
X 方向層間変形角（rad.） Story shear force (kN) Y direction
Y方向層間変形角（rad.） Story drift angle (rad.) X direction StoryY方向層間変形角（rad.）
X方向層間変形角（rad.） drift angle (rad.) Y direction
80 80 80 80

70 70 70 70
Story number

Story number

60 60 60 60

50 50 50 50
階

階
40 40 40
階

40

30 30 30 30

20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10

0 0 0 0
0.E+00 3.E+06 6.E+06 9.E+06 0.E+00 3.E+06 6.E+06 9.E+06 0.0E+00 4.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.2E+07 0.0E+00 4.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.2E+07
Moment (kN.m) X direction
X方向転倒モーメント（kN･m） Moment (kN.m) Y direction
Y方向転倒モーメント（kN･m） Moment (kN.m) X direction
X方向転倒モーメント（kN･m） Moment (kN.m) Y direction
Y方向転倒モーメント（kN･m）

Fig. 12 Level-1 wind response analysis results. Fig. 13 Level-2 wind response analysis results.

under wind loads (AIJ 2000). The maximum response is : X direction : Y direction
obtained in the across-wind direction and the maximum
10
accelerations at the upper floor in the X and Y directions
2 (cm/s )
2

are 6.3 cm/s2 and 4.4 cm/s2, respectively. These values

are plotted along with the habitability to wind vibration H-4
最大加速度（ cm/s ）
Maximum acceleration

estimation curves in Fig. 14. Although the value in the X

direction does not satisfy the rank III requirement, pro- H-3
viding shaking control equipment brings the results to a
sufficient level to satisfy the required design criteria. H-2

6. Concluding remarks H-1

A trial design of an 80-story RC building using a 200 1

MPa ultra-high-strength concrete was performed. The 0.1 1
following conclusions of practical significance can be Frequency
振動数（Hz）(Hz)
drawn.
1. The first natural periods of the three-dimensional Fig. 14 Comfort performance evaluation curve.
model for the X (short side) and Y (long side) directions
are 7.04 s and 5.5 s, respectively. The natural periods of allowable stress design in the X (short side) and Y (long
the lumped-mass model are greater than those of the side) direction, respectively.
three-dimensional model. 3. In the X (short side) direction, the seismic forces in the
2. Based on the linear static analysis using Ai distribution upper stories are greater than wind forces while the op-
and the seismic and wind response analyses, the base posite holds for the remaining stories. In the Y (long side)
shear coefficients of 0.037 and 0.03 were used for the direction, the distribution of seismic force and wind force
 H. Kimura, T. Ueda, K. Ohtake and A. Kambayashi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-191, 2007
is nearly equal in the lower stories similar to the Ai dis-
tribution.
4. Based on the three-dimensional nonlinear static
analysis, at the ultimate limit stage, the obtained maxi-
mum axial load ratio for 200 MPa concrete strength of
the first story columns in the X and Y directions are 0.53
and 0.48, respectively, and meet the design criterion of a
value smaller than 0.65.
5. The maximum values of the story drift angle obtained
under the Site wave motion for both the X and Y direc-
tions are equal to 1/146 and 1/172, respectively, which
are below the design value of 1/100.
6. The assumed Ai distribution and the actual external
force distribution differ. The first-floor shear force is
linearly related to its overturning moment for the static
analysis of the three-dimensional model. However, for
the dynamic analysis, the increase in the overturning
moment converges towards a limit value.
7. For the level-2 seismic response analysis, while yield
hinges develop only in some of the short beams of the
first 15 stories, no yield hinge in columns is observed in
any of the frames. The maximum ductility of 1.28 is
obtained in some beams in the second story, which is
lower than the design value of 4.0.
8. For the level-2 seismic response analysis, the maxi-
mum axial load ratios of 0.45 and 0.37 are reached in
columns with concrete strength of 100 MPa and 200 MPa,
respectively, and are far below the design criterion cor-
191
responding to 0.65.
9. The lumped-mass model was considered for the
nonlinear wind response. The across-wind vibrations
produced the maximum effect on the building.
10. The maximum story shear force for the level-2 wind
vibration is almost half for the level-2 earthquake re-
sponse when using the lumped-mass model.
11. The maximum story shear force and drift angle dis-
tribution trend under level-2 wind load is almost similar
to under level-1 wind load. All values are below the
design criteria.
12. As for habitability to wind vibration, the maximum
acceleration in the X direction in the upper floor (equal to
6.3 cm/s2) is 43% higher than in the Y direction. The
value in the X direction does not satisfy the rank III
requirement of AIJ regulations. However, providing
shaking control equipment brings the acceleration level
to the required level.
References
AIJ (1991). “Guidelines for the evaluation of habitability
to building vibration.” Architectural Institute of Japan.
(in japanese)
AIJ (1993). “Recommendation of loads on buildings.”
Architectural Institute of Japan. (in japanese)
AIJ (2000). “Damping in buildings.” Architectural
Institute of Japan.