Concept Design Report Mahanakhon Building PDF

PROJECT NO.
55006
MAHANAKHON
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT
9TH NOVEMBER 2012
Reference: Z:\2555\55006 - Mahanakhon\Design\01.Etabs_MAhanakhon
6th Floor, 153/3 Goldenland Bldg. , Soi Mahardlekluang 1, Rajdamrit Rd., Lumpini, Patumwan, Bangkok 10330,
Thailand
Telephone: (662) 652 1366 Facsimile: (662) 652 1365 Email: warnes@warnes.co.th Web: www.warnes.co.th
Disclaimer and Limitation
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Bouygues-Thai, and is subject
to and issued in accordance with the agreement between Bouygues-Thai and Warnes Associates
Company Limited. Warnes Associates Company Limited accepts no liability or responsibility
whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Copying this report without the permission of Bouygues-Thai or Warnes Associates Company Limited
is not permitted.
It is important to note that if there is any conflict between the information provided in this report and
the information provided in the drawings and specification then the information provided in the
drawings and specification will take precedence.
Revision Record
BTL CLIENT
RE DESCRIPTIO REVIE
ORIG APPROVA DATE APPROVA DATE
V N W
L L
9th Nov
A Second Issue 2012
S. J. Warne Vanich. N
Distribution List
NO. NAME COMPANY NO. NAME COMPANY

1 Bouygues-Thai 5 Archetype
2 Robert Bird - - -
3 Warnes Associates - - -
4 PACE - - -
MahaNakhon 55006 2 11 December 2015

CONTENTS
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
3 PROJECT AND PROJECT TEAM DETAILS AND INFORMATION ........................................................................ 6
4 DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 CODES .....................................................................................................................................................7

4.2 DESIGN DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.3 ANALYSIS SOFTWARE ................................................................................................................................... 8
4.4 DESIGN PEER REVIEW.................................................................................................................................. 8
4.5 TIME FRAME.............................................................................................................................................. 8
5 LOADING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 9
5.1 DEAD LOAD (D) ......................................................................................................................................... 9

5.1.1 Structural Self Weight ....................................................................................................................... 9
5.2 SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD (SDL) ................................................................................................................ 9
5.3 LIVE LOAD (L) ...........................................................................................................................................10
5.3.1 Area Reduction ................................................................................................................................10
5.4 SOIL AND WATER PRESSURE (H) ...................................................................................................................10
5.5 WIND LOAD (W) ....................................................................................................................................... 11
5.5.1 Design Wind Speed for Strength Consideration ............................................................................. 11
5.5.2 Design Wind Speed for Service Consideration ...............................................................................12
5.6 SEISMIC LOAD ...........................................................................................................................................13
6 DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS .....................................................................................................................17
7 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM DESIGN ......................................................................................................................20
7.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND GEOMETRY .........................................................................................................20

7.1.1 The Tower ........................................................................................................................................21
7.1.2 The Hill .............................................................................................................................................24
7.2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................25
7.3 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................26
7.3.1 Sub-Structure ...................................................................................................................................26
7.3.2 Super-Structure................................................................................................................................39
8 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM BEHAVIOR ...........................................................................................................59
8.1 DEFLECTION CONTROL ................................................................................................................................59

8.2 FLOOR VIBRATION......................................................................................................................................59
8.3 HUMAN COMFORT ....................................................................................................................................59
8.4 L ATERAL STABILITY .....................................................................................................................................60
8.5 BUILDING BEHAVIOR ...................................................................................................................................60
8.5.1 Serviceability ...................................................................................................................................60
8.6 MODELING AND ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................62
9 OPERATIONAL AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................63
10 CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................................65

11 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES .......................................................................................65
12 NUMBERING SYSTEM ...............................................................................................................................66
13 APPENDIX A EXTRACT FROM PUBLISHED LITERATURE THAT COMPARES OTHER RECOMMENDED

METHODS INCLUDING ASCE.....................................................................................................................67
14 APPENDIX B CALCULATION OF WIND FORCES FOR STRENGTH DESIGN FROM WIND TUNNEL TEST ..68
15 APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF OCCUPANCY COMFORT CRITERIA (CASE STUDY) ................................73
16 APPENDIX D LOAD COMBINATION (FULL) ............................................................................................76
17 APPENDIX E 12 MODE SHAPES ..............................................................................................................79
18 APPENDIX F WIND LOAD GRAPHS FOR 10 YEARS AND 50 YEARS (UNIFORM MASS) ..........................85

1 I NTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to document the criteria and describe with illustrations, the structural
design system of the MahaNakhon project in Chongnonsi, Bangkok, Thailand. It will go through each
area of the project and describe in detail the design and changes to the Tower and Hill.
Our objective for the MahaNakhon project is to develop an optimised stable structure without any
collapse either minimum or complete failure. Thus minimizing local damage, deformation and loss of
structural integrity when and where appropriate. This objective will be met by complying with the
design criteria which has already been set as part of the 7C-LOA and is also described in this report.
By conforming to the codes and standards that the construction will be expected to achieve to reach
the design intent.
2 S COPE
This report has been prepared as part of the detailed design documentation for the MahaNakhon
project, the scope of the project is the Tower and the Hill and other provisions. This report will cover
the following aspects:
Project and project team details and information
Design criteria
Loading requirements
Load combinations
Structural system design
Description of system behavior
Construction materials and properties
Operational and performance requirements
The detailed design shall comply with the design criteria documented herein as a minimum. The
document is maintained with the latest information available for design of the structure.

3 P ROJECT AND PROJECT TEAM DETAILS AND INFORMATION
MahaNakhon is a 73-storey mixed used development tower situated in Narathiwat-Ratchanakarin

Road, Chongnonsi BTS Station in Bangkok. The total area of the development is 150,000 m2 and
comprises of residential, hotel and retail areas.
The development is split into two areas, the Tower and Hill as one area and the other area is the Cube.
The Tower comprises of most of the development and houses the residential and hotel areas. The Hill
mostly houses the facilities for the residence and hotel, including the lobby, restaurants, swimming
pool, fitness and other building amenities. The Cube which is not part of our scope of works will
house the main retail area for the development.
The surrounding area of the new development is in the commercial district consisting of urban
development in all directions of the site such as office towers, residential buildings and hotels.
The parties involved in the project are provided in the organisation chart in Figure 1.1
Client
PACE
Project Manager Client Appointed

Structural Engineer
Archetype
Review
CPI
Design Architects ID, Faade & Main Contractor Mechanical Engineer Cost Consultant Faade Consultants
Landscape
Hok Lok Siew Co. Bouygues-Thai P&T Bangkok LangdonSeah Faade Associates
Architects
Ltd and Palmer &
Turner Buro Ole Scheeren
Independent checker Structural Engineer
Robert Bird Warnes Associates
Co., Ltd.
Figure 1.1 The Consortium

4 D ESIGN C RITERIA
The information provided below were set as part of the 7C-LOA Structural Deign Criteria and
presented here as a reference.
4.1 Codes
This section describes the codes, and references used in the preparation of the design criteria and the
methods of analysis for the structural design of the building. The standards, codes and references are
used in our structural design and analysis as appropriate, and are listed as follows:
4.1.1 International Building Code (IBC 2006)/ASCE 07-05 for seismic design (in ref with the
local response spectrum, seismic assessment Civil Park, June 2009.)
4.1.2 ACI 318-99: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (RC design &
detailing)
4.1.3 AISC 2005 & AWS: for design and detailing of structural steel members & joints
4.1.4 AWS: American Welding Society
4.1.5 BS 6472 or ISO-10137 or ISO-6897 for vibration and human comfort
4.1.6 DPT 1311: for wind load on building and effects
4.1.7 CEB-FIB 900 or Equivalent: for relative shortening of vertical components &
compensation
4.1.9 CTBUH 2008-Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Building: for
performance based seismic design/evaluation of the tower- Appendix-B, which shall
prevail (overwrite) all conflicting clauses of IBC 2006 (see Sec 4.1.1)
4.2 Design Data

Wind Tunnel Test report from Civil Park International and TU-AIT WT Lab Bangkok, March
2009
Site Specific Seismic Hazard Study by CPI, June 2009
Safe barrette capacity = 2,500 Tonnes per barrette for factor of safety per barrette = 2
In case of conflict between the above Codes (of same use), Thai regulation will be referred.

4.3 Analysis Software
The analysis and design will be carried out using commercial software, in-house spreadsheets and
manual calculations. The following software that will be used is described in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Structural software
Software Use Remark
Overall 3D Analysis and Design Except for the detailed design of

ETABS V9 or SAP2000 V14 including requirements of CTBUH mat foundation and special
2008, Appendix-B elements
To supplement the limitations of
SAP2000 V14 Advanced modeling and Analysis
ETABS
SAFE or ADAPT or
Design of Slab system (RC/PT) Entire floor model shall be used
CEDRUS
SAP2000 or Sofistik V23 Design of Mat Foundation For final design of mat
If used, time and manual input

CSI Column or PCA Column Design of Column and Shear wall
aspects to be re-considered.
To supplement the design and

PLAXIS 3D Foundation Design and study of foundation
study of the mat
4.4 Design Peer Review

All the important items including but not limited to the overall design approach, design criteria
(additional), methodology, procedure, parameters, modeling, analysis, design, detailing & performance
checks shall be reviewed by BTLs internal peer reviewer before formally submitting to Employers
Technical Team (ETT) for independent review and consensus.
4.5 Time Frame

Mutually agreed time frame shall be set for preparation, review, feedback and necessary action.

5 L OADING R EQUIREMENTS
5.1 Dead Load (D)

Dead loads are the vertical load due to the weight of all permanent structural and non structural
components fastened thereto or supported thereby, including fireproofing and insulation.
Reinforced Concrete density : 2,400 kg/m3

Steel density : 7,850 kg/m3
Soil density : 1,800 kg/m3
Water density : 1,000 kg/m3
Wood density : 900 kg/m3
5.1.1 Structural Self Weight

The self-weight of structural elements will be calculated based on the member geometry and material
densities.
5.2 Superimposed Dead Load (SDL)

Superimposed dead loads are the gravity vertical load due to the weight of permanent structural and
non structural components fastened thereto or supported thereby, including fireproofing and insulation.
Ceiling & Services : 50 kg/m2
Screed/Finishes : 120 kg/m2
Partition Hotel* : 200 kg/m2
Partition Retail* : 150 kg/m2
Partition Apartment* : 250 kg/m2
Roof/External Finishes : 400 kg/m2
Faade-Glazed : 100 kg/m2 of facade
Faade Concrete : 360 kg/m2 of facade
*These partition loads could be replaced by linear loads where appropriate

5.3 Live Load (L)
Live loads are all movable loads including personnel, tools, miscellaneous equipments, movable
partitions, part of dismantled equipments and temporary stored materials.
Inaccessible Roof (Not Concrete) : 50 kg/m2
Accessible Roof/ Shade (Concrete) : 100 kg/m2
Hotel & Apartment : 200 kg/m2
Hotel, Apartment & Office: Lobby, Corridor & Staircase : 300 kg/m2
Retail & Restaurant: Lobby, Corridor & Staircase : 500 kg/m2
Retail, Restaurant, Bar & Hotel Function Room : 400 kg/m2
Kitchen (Restaurant) : 500 kg/m2
Car Park : 400 kg/m2
Storage & Fitness : 500 kg/m2
Office : 250 kg/m2
Fire engine and truck access Uniform : *2000 kg/m2
Pool/Jacuzzi : Based on water depth
Water/Surge Tanks : Based on water depth
MEP Plant Rooms** : 250 1500 kg/m2
Helipad Zone : 500 1000 kg/m2
Balcony Landscape Area : Based on soil depth
* Uniform load
**Where applicable except on the slab edge and cantilever
5.3.1 Area Reduction

Area reduction is applicable to live load and will be applied as permitted by the Ministry of interior,
Building Act 6, B.E. 2527, section 19.
5.4 Soil and Water Pressure (H)

The active and/or passive pressure exerted by soil (He) and water (Hw) shall be considered when its
effect to the foundation and structure design is not negligible. Type of earth pressure, i.e. passive or
active, shall be selected as appropriate in design.

5.5 Wind Load (W)
The design wind load shall be based on High Frequency Force Balance (HFFB), Wind Tunnel Test
(WTT) carried out by Civil Park International and TU-AIT WT Lab Bangkok, March 2009.
The objectives of the wind tunnel study were:

To provide wind loading information for the overall structural design
To determine the wind induced accelerations at the higher levels
This development has the following special characteristics
Close spacing of many high-rise buildings

The irregular geometry of the floor area
Figure 5.1 Wind Zone Map of Thailand with

corresponding wind speed design
5.5.1 Design Wind Speed for Strength Consideration

According to the DPT Standard 1311-50 the reference velocity pressure, q, for the design of main
structure and cladding shall be based on a probability of being exceeded in any one year of 1 in 50
(50-year return period) corresponding to reference wind speed of 25 m/s at the height of 10 m in open
terrain. Because the proposed building is located in the Central Bangkok with heavy concentrations of
tall buildings, the exposure C (center of large cities) was applied in this study, and the typhoon factor =
1.0. Then design wind speed is 25 m/s, and corresponding to design wind speed of 36.65 m/s at
310.0.5m (According to - BKK Chongnonsi Architectural Drawings, For Coordination, Hok Lok Siew
Design Co., Ltd, 31st August 2012) roof height in exposure C.
For strength consideration with V50 (i.e. high return periods of wind velocity and high stress levels),
three natural frequencies (0.8 fo, fo, and 1.25 fo) of studied buildings in each direction of motion, and
two damping ratios (0.01 and 0.02) were considered.

5.5.2 Design Wind Speed for Service Consideration
For the serviceability design, the reference velocity pressure, q, shall be based on 10-year return period
corresponding to reference wind speed of 20.25 m/s at the height of 10 m in open terrain. Therefore,
corresponding design wind speed is 29.69 m/s at 310.05m (According to - BKK Chongnonsi
Architectural Drawings, For Coordination, Hok Lok Siew Design Co., Ltd, 31st August 2012) roof
height in exposure C.
Figure 5.2 and 5.3 illustrates how the wind loads per 7C-LOA WTT HFFB were entered into ETABS
and used in the model.
Figure 5.2 Static load cases for ETABS
Figure 5.3 Values for wind loads
Refer to Appendix E for all wind load graphs for both 10 years and 50 years.

5.6 Seismic Load
The earthquake load shall be entered using the outcome of the Site Specific Seismic Hazard Study by
Civil Park International (June 2009).
The earthquake load has been applied as a response spectrum curve with a damping ratio of 5% with
our own interpretation of the study and to confirm with the LOA addendum and table 9.1. It is
assumed that Appendix B of the CTBUH guidelines applicable fore regions of low seismic activity
will be adopted for the analysis and design of Mahanakhon Tower. The guidelines require the seismic
hazard to be based on the man 2475 year maximum direction spectrum for response-spectrum analysis
in which the damping ration in any mode associated with the first 90% of the reactive mass in no
greater than 2%. Accidental torsion need not to be considered in the analysis. It further goes on to state
that the literature (e.g. ASCE 7, Eurcode 8) provides equations and tables to transform a 5% damped
spectrum to a more lightly damped (e.g. 2%) spectrum. Eurocode provisions for response spectra and
damping correction uses a formulae. Thus the value of the damping correction factor can be
determined by the expression:
,
where is the value of the viscous damping ratio of the structure, expressed in percent. If for special
studies a viscous damping ratio different from 5 % is to be used, this value will be given in the
relevant Parts of Eurocode 8. See Appendix A for more information.
ASCE 07-05 provides the relationship between 2500 and 500 year seismic events as 1.5 which is
consistent with the CPI response spectra in their report (refer to the MahaNakhon Structural Design
Schematic stage 100% - Phase II (CPI, Jan 15, 2010). However there is no relationship provided for
the 50 yr return period in that document and the values quoted in the Structural Report are from the
New Zealand seismic code that provides a comprehensive set of relationships. For this project the
values given in the CPI reports for 2500 yr return need to be adopted and also a way determine the 50
yr return to satisfy Appendix B CTBUH requirements. Thus the use of the New Zealand code values,
the codes provided the relationship between the various return periods.
The seismic hazard is based on the mean 2475-year maximum direction spectrum; however the return
period has been taken at 2500 years. The relation between the seismic load of 2500 and 500 years
return period can be followed in the New Zealand code:
The response spectrum value of 2500 yrs return period is 1.5 x 500 yrs return period given in
the study.
The response spectrum value of 50 yrs return period is 0.35 x 500 yrs return period given in
the study.
For the reduction factor, damping ratio and other parameters, refer to table 9.1.
The 2500 years was used for the ultimate and the 50 years was used for the service, which are in
accordance with IBC/ASCE. The response spectrums for these two scenarios are shown below in
figure 5.4 and 5.5:

Figure 5.4 Response spectrums for 50 yr return period
Figure 5.5 Response spectrums for 2500 yr return period

The building has been analyzed for four basic response cases as shown in the figure 5.6. There are two
cases for each direction, in the x-direction and in the y-direction.
Primary x-direction
Primary x=direction plus 30%
Primary y-direction
Primary y-direction plus 30%
Figure 5.6 Response spectra
Figure 5.7 Response spectrum function definition

Figure 5.7 illustrates how the translation of information was inputted into ETABS to model the
building.
The CQC method was used to combine modal responses, shown in figure 5.8. The effect of
multidirectional earthquake loading was considered thus the simultaneous application of the maximum
spectrum (30% maximum spectrum) was used along each principal axis of the building as described
above.
Figure 5.8 Response spectrum modal combinations

6 D ESIGN L OAD C OMBINATIONS
Load combinations will be developed with appropriate load factors for the determination of maximum
loads on foundations and the design of structural members following the code stated below:
ACI 318-99: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete strength combination
BS8110 for the PT design
Table 6.1 Load Nomenclature

Load Nomenclature Description
D Dead Load (including self-weight of the structure)

L Live Load
W Wind Load as confirmed in The wind tunnel test study report
H Soil and water pressure
Table 6.2 Load Combination for serviceability of the structure, piling and steel design
Case Load Combination
1 D+L
2 D +L+H
3 D+L+W
For load combinations subjected to temporary loading, the material strength shall be increased by
33.33% for allowable stress design method.
Table 6.3 Load Combination for reinforced concrete design

Case Load Combination
1 1.4 D + 1.7 L
2 0.75( 1.4 D + 1.7 L + 1.7 W )
3 0.9 D + 1.3 W
4 1.05 D + 1.28 L + 1.4 E
5 0.9 D + 1.43 E
6 1.4 D + 1.7 L + 1.7 H
7 0.9 D + 1.7 L + 1.7 H
8 1.4 D + 1.7 H
9 0.9 D + 1.7 H

Table 6.4 Load Combination for post tension design (BS8110)
LOAD TYPE
Load Combination Dead Imposed Earth and

water Wind
Adverse Beneficial Adverse Beneficial pressure
1. Dead and imposed
(and earth and water 1.4 1.0 1.6 - 1.4 -
pressure)
2. Dead and wind (and
earth and water 1.4 1.0 - - 1.4 1.4
pressure)
3. Dead and wind and
imposed (and earth and 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
water pressure)
Table 6.5 Serviceability Load Combination
Load Nomenclature Load combination

D+L SDL 1.0 D + 1.0 L
SDW1 D + 1.0 W
D+W
SDW2 D - 1.0 W
Table 6.6 Ultimate Load Combination

Load Nomenclature Load combination
D+L UDL 1.4 D + 1.6 L
UDW 1U 1.4 D + 1.4 W
UDW 2U 1.4 D - 1.4 W

D+W
UDW 2L 1.0 D - 1.4 W
UDW 1L 1.0 D + 1.4 W
UDLW 1 1.2 D + 1.2 L + 1.2 W
D+L+W
UDLW 2 1.2 D + 1.2 L -1.2 W
Note: The load combinations can be found in Appendix D, which will be applied in the ETABS
model.

7 S TRUCTURAL S YSTEM D ESIGN
7.1 General description and geometry
Sky bar/restaurant
High-rise
residential
floors
The Tower
Residential
floors
Hotel
floors
The Hill
Figure 7.1 MahaNakhon and its components

7.1.1 The Tower
The Tower is a 73 storey structure. It comprises of a 7 storey podium and 1 storey basement (more
detail in 7.1.2). The tower building itself consists of 10 storeys of hotel space and residential
accommodations are provided on the 53 storeys above with the top 3 storeys being a sky
bar/restaurant. It has a regular rectangular floor plate with a central square reinforced concrete core.
However, on the residential floors, some of the floor plate are recessed this is due to the architectural
concept called a pixelation effect. This pixelation starts at floor 20 and finishes at the roof deck. The
building core steps in at 2 locations, at levels 20 and 52 creating larger floors spans for the residents.
The floor plates to be considered in the design are shown in Figure 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4.
Cantilever
slab with a
nominate
span of
8770mm.
Figure 7.2 Levels 11 to 19 (Hotel floors)
The hotel and apartment building will provide five star accommodations for the project. The key
design considerations which contributed to the development of the structural scheme were:
Designing columns which did not impact the room layouts
Providing large open spans for the hotel and apartments
Providing a floor system with good sound insulation qualities
Ensuring the structural depth of the floor system was kept to a minimum
Ensuring the proposed solution can be constructed in a safe, efficient manner which allows the
Contractor to meet the construction programme

Cantilever
slab with a
nominate
span of
8770mm.
Figure 7.3 Levels 20 to 50 (Residential floors with a recessed core and pixelation)
Cantilever
slab with a
nominate
span of
8770mm.
Addition
transfer
columns for the
high-rise
apartments.
Figure 7.4 Levels 50 to roof (Residential floors with a recessed core and pixelation)

The floor plates in the tower will consist of a two concepts. The first concept uses post-tension band
beams (2000mm x 450mm) and RC slab which incorporates the use of RC corner columns which will
be supported below by the transfer levels to shorten the cantilevering corners. The other concept is to
use deeper post-tension band beams (2000mm x 600mm) with RC slabs so that the cantilevering
corners are freestanding without the support of the corner columns. Instead of the RC columns,
vibration control damping struts will be used. These struts will be either concrete or structural steel.
The corner will have to be free standing because there is no support accessible from the transfer levels
due to the pixilation of the building. Figure 7.5 demonstrates the two different concepts.
The red line The blue line

represents the represents the
RC corner vibration control
columns that are damping struts.
supported by the
transfer level
below. The pixilation of
the building
creates gap
between floors
which in turn
makes it difficult
to have supports
The diagram
illustrates that
there is no
The transfer
supported from
level
the transfer level
Figure 7.5 The different corner supports

7.1.2 The Hill
The Hill comprises of one basement level and 7 podium level, refer to Figure 7.6 for an elevation of
the Hill.
Figure 7.6 The Hill section drawing
The basement level will have park for both hotel guests and residents along with other services, back
of house facilities, MEP and storage areas. The podium areas consist of the facilities for the residence
and hotel, including the lobby, restaurants, swimming pool, fitness and a 7 storey car park among other
amenities. The Hill will span very large areas
which will be supported by reinforced beams and
slabs.
An architectural movement joint will be provided

to divide the Tower and the Hill structure into
parts (see figure 7.7). The location of the
architectural movement joint will have to be
coordinated with the architects to ensure minimal
impact to the floor finishes. For more
information refer to the movement joint report,
30th October 2012.
Figure 7.7 Structural movement joint (left)

7.2 Structural System Summary
The structural system design is categorized into the sub-structure, super-structure and the transfer
structures. Below in table 7.1 it describes the different categories and its components with brief
description and comments. Each of them will then be explained further in the sections thereafter.
Table 7.1 Structural System Summary

Main Sub-
Description Remarks
Components components
Constructed prior to
this design analysis.
Barrette pile system 1.2m x 3m (tip -
The contractor
Pile Foundation 65m) and bored piles 0.8m & 1m
guarantees the loads at
diameter (tip -65m)
2500 tonnes. (Not in
scope of works)
Sub-Structure
Mat A proposed system (4.5m9.0m
Refer to table 11.1
Foundation deep); Reinforced concrete
Type A: 0.8m THK (tip - 18m) Constructed prior to
Diaphragm
Type B: 0.8m THK (tip - 16m) this design analysis.
Wall
pile legs are only around the Hill (Not in scope of works)
Reinforced concrete with a maximum

Core Wall
thickness of 1000mm
12 No. square reinforced concrete The columns realign on
Columns
columns level 19.
Hotel Floors (level 8 18) Post
tensioned band beams and reinforced
concrete slabs Large cantilevers of 9
Super- m. large spans of up to
Structure Residential Floors (level 20 68) Post 12 m.
Floor Slabs tensioned band beams and reinforced
concrete slabs/PT slabs (in Pixilation causing
development) resizing floor plates
thus removing
Sky Bar/Restaurant (level 69 73) structural columns on
Post tensioned band beams and high rise floors
reinforced concrete slabs/PT slabs (in
development)
Used to help vertical
3 No. outriggers on levels 20, 36 and
Transfer axial shortening and
Outriggers 52. Comprising of 3000mm x 600mm
Structures provide a stiffer
deep beams.
structure.

7.3 Structural System
Note: All structural changes will need to be coordinated with the relevant parties.
7.3.1 Sub-Structure
The Tower is founded on a nominally 4.5m thick barrette supported mat. At the mat foundation,
reinforced concrete will be placed at different depths to compensate for the barrette cut off level. The
mat foundation has a haunch under the tower core and goes to a depth of 9m while the rest is at 4.5m
(see figure 7.8). The raft is supported on 1.2m x 3m reinforced concrete barrettes with a tip of 65m.
The Hill will sit on a 4.5 thick bored pile supported mat. This part of the mat is supported on 0.8m &
1m diameter reinforced concrete 2500 tonnes capacity with a tip of 65m.
The mat foundation is still under development and the cellular core in the central region is being
considered as an option to reduce the massive volume of concrete and the resultant heat of hydration.
Note: Refer to Foundation Check and Design Report, 24th October 2012 for more detail
7.3.1.1 Barrettes, bored piles and Diaphragm Wall

Barrettes and bored piles were designed previously on the project, by consultant Civil Park, and
installed by SEAFCO.
Warnes Associates have based their analysis of the current foundation system with the available
information as follow:
Soil Report Subsurface investigation for BKK Chongnonsi project at Narathiwas Road
Bangkok, dated March 13, 2009, from STS Instruments Company Limited
Report on Static Pile Load Test on an instrumented test pile barrette size 1.20x3.0x66.0m (Test
panel #33), August 2011, from STS Instruments Company Limited
Report on Static Pile Load Test on an instrumented test pile barrette size 1.20x3.0x56.0m (Test
panel #BP19), August 2011, from STS Instruments Company Limited
Report on Static Pile Load Test on an instrumented test pile barrette size 1.20x3.0x65.76m
(Test panel #BP1A-09), January 2012, from STS Instruments Company Limited
Barrette As-built drawings, by SEAFCO, received by BTL on August 14, 2012
It is to be noted that Bouygues Thai Limited requested additional information about the barrette and
D-wall design, as per RFI 15, and the answer was that the above information were enough to assess
the raft design.
So, the installation, inspection, quality control records, relevant design and analytical information, and
expert reviews relating to the foundation system were not made available to Bouygues thai Limited
and Warnes Associates at contract and afterwards.

The work described in this report was initially carried out to get the pile reactions to design the Mat
footing. Preliminary analysis described in below section (Piglet/ADAPT) were done in a view of
getting these pile reactions.
When Warnes Associates discovered that the piles were above safe loading limit, it was then necessary
to make a more detailed analysis that would give more defined results and maybe prove that the first
approach was wrong and that the safe loading limit was not overpassed.
Figure 7.8 The barrettes, bored piles and the d-wall pan

7.3.1.2 Mat Foundation (Provisional)
As that the barrettes, bored piles and the d-wall have been installed previously, SEAFCO have
explained that the working load to be at 2500 tonnes. This is portrayed in the soil report: STS job No.
12474, March 13 2009. However no design consultants/geotechnical engineers for the project verified
and certified the work by SEAFCO. There has been limited information and reports provided to the
principal contractor for review. Referring to the MahaNakhon Structural Design Schematic stage
100% - Phase II (CPI, Jan 15, 2010) section 5.1.3 has provided some indication of the previous mat
foundation. The analytical method being used presently is based on this CPI report.
While a preliminary design of the mat footing was carried out during the tender period, it is only after
date of LOA that a detailed analysis, including foundation check, was performed.
The shape of the mat was very much controlled by constrained by the existing diaphragm wall toe
level, as well as Basement 1 structural level did not allow for a perimeter mat thicker than 4.5m.
Several sensitivity studies were done with different shapes for the mat foundation, in order to
understand the relationship between the mat and the foundations, and the best shape to use so as to
spread loading evenly onto the piles. The detail of these studies is presented in the below section
Sensitivity studies.
The final design shape of the Mat Footing resulted from the combination of the following constraints,
in order of importance:
Constraint of Basement 1 structural floor level (-4.50m) and the level of the deeper barrette (-
14.50m) this gave the maximum volume the mat could have.
Constraint from the Diaphragm Wall length (-18m) which cannot hold deep excavation. One
pile wall has already been added to counteract the soil/water pressure during excavation. The
objective was not to add an additional pile wall. This gave the triangular shape of the mat with
deeper excavation only in the middle (where necessary for elevator pits).
Below sensitivity studies to find the best final shape.
The result is a mat foundation that is:

4.5m deep under the podium areas and the surrounding of the Tower
9.0m deep in the central/core area
No post tension is necessary as rebars can counteract shear and moments

Figure 7.9 Mat foundation (East West Section)
Figure 7.10 Mat foundation (North South Section)

The Tower & Hill raft is supported on 1200mm x 3000mm reinforced concrete barrettes that extend
65m below the base of the mat.
The detail design of the raft foundation will be described in another report. In order to mitigate the
risks, the following factors will be taken in consideration:
Interaction with barrettes and bored piles
Interactions with diaphragm wall
Short and long term settlement
Tilt
Strength and stability
The lateral force analysis of the superstructure is not yet completed, this report is still based on the
gravity force only but it is believed that this case likely to be governed almost every case. When the

superstructure analysis is finished then all the load cases can be checked. However the revision will be
only minor. Since the gravity case shall govern most of the case.
7.3.1.3 Analysis Method

Warnes Associates have carried out this study using the basic information available with advice from
geotechnical experts of high academic standing with knowledge and experience of foundation
conditions in Bangkok.
The investigations included the following:

Rationalisation of super structure gravity loads that would be transferred to the foundation
system.
First approach on foundation check with Piglet/ADAPT analysis (primary analysis software),
that showed that further investigations were necessary
Full 3D non linear analysis using iterative approach between ETABS / Plaxis 3D / SAP 2000
giving exact results for soil behavior, stiffness ratio, settlements and pile reaction.
So that the following analysis could be run:

Foundation - structure interaction study using the barrettes that have been installed to date.
The study included several iterations using raft and superstructure stiffness as variables to
redistribute the pile loads. For the results of this analysis refer to Foundation Check and
Design Report, 24th October 2012 in section Existing Foundation Analysis results. The
study showed that a significant number of barrette reactions exceeded the safe load capacity of
2500 tons specified by the installers.
Foundation- structure interaction study using additional barrettes to limit the reactions to the
specified safe load capacity of 2500 tons. The study revealed that 23 additional barrettes and
11 additional bored piles were required to meet the limiting criteria. For the results of this
analysis refer to Foundation Check and Design Report, 24th October 2012 in section Analysis
results for piles under 2,500T.
Foundation- structure interaction study using additional barrettes with enhanced safe load
capacity of 2900 tons. The study revealed that 14 No additional barrettes and 2 No. additional
bored piles were required to meet the enhanced limiting criteria. For the results of this analysis
refer to Foundation Check and Design Report, 24th October 2012 in section Option 1
Analysis results for pile capacity 2,900T.
The analytical techniques used in this study are based on well established design practice for
foundation systems and they have been subject to expert review. At this stage the study is limited to
gravity load effects and further analytical work will be carried out to evaluate the impact of lateral
loads induced by wind and seismic effects.

First approach: Piglet / ADAPT Analysis
Piglet software is used for preliminary calculation check. Our analysis has estimated an average spring
stiffness using the PIGLET software (pile group analysis). This stiffness is then entered in an ADAPT
structural model.
A first calculation calibrates the soil parameters against the load test results. The result gives the
applied load and the calculated settlement of the pile.
Then a second calculation models all barrettes without consideration of the raft slab above. The result
gives the reactions for each barrette and the overall settlement. Total applied load / settlement gives the
average stiffness of the barrettes considering the group effect. The settlement is about 10cm.
These data are input into a ADAPT model that gave a first assessment of the barrette reaction.
The third calculation was to input the reaction distribution from previous ADAPT run with high
barrette stiffness.
The first assessment of the barrette reaction, assuming all springs have the same stiffness, was that
many of them were loaded more than 4,500T. The result gave more reaction in the centre and more
deflection in the centre.
Figure 7.11 Extract of ADAPT results vertical deflection

Figure 7.12 Pile reactions from Piglet/ADAPT analysis see Appendix C
It is true that the assumption that all springs with same stiffness is not accurate, but it enables the
designer to get a first check on the structure. In our case, this is the reason why, Warnes Associates
have decided to go in further analysis with complex 3D non-linear analysis in order to refine the
results and if possible assess that the existing foundations could hold the Tower and Mat, while the
reaction of them kept under 2,500T.
3D non-linear analysis of foundation ETABS / Plaxis 3D / SAP 2000

The proposed technique for 3D analysis is to carry out a non-linear soil-structure interaction analysis
using finite element software such as PLAXIS. This method uses the soil characteristics from the
geotechnical report and the barrette load test reports, which are appropriately calibrated together and
input into the programme. This particular process can be used to provide a set of linear spring stiffness
values (K) for the analysis and design of the raft. This program also provided estimation of the
behavior of the pile group effect or dishing effect.
The process of this study starts with the design of the ETABS model to produce the gravity loads of
the building. The working load is used to check the reaction of the pile and the ultimate load is used to
check the pile section along with the mat foundation reinforcement design. These load are then used in
the Plaxis 3D to analyze the pile group behavior and pile spring stiffness. The spring stiffness will be
input to SAP 2000 in order to analyze the stress and force of the Mat foundation and barrettes.
The detail of each step of this analysis is provided below:

Figure 7.13 Process flow chart
Step 1: Input all the geometry and force into ETABS run program and recheck
Step 2: Input the soil profile, pile layout and loading from ETABS. Plaxis will calculate the
effect of pile group; which will provide stress and settlement of each node around the piles. By
using Excel to obtain the average stress it will result in getting the reaction and settlement,
from this the pile spring stiffness can be calculated
Step 3: Input the original pile layout with the K-value and run the program, this will show
where the overloaded piles are. Piles will be added and program rerun, adjust the pile location
until the pile reaction meets the requirement pile capacity.
Step 4: Input the column and core settlement into the ETABS. The result will present new
reaction on mat foundation
Step 5: Input the new load into SAP 2000 to see if there is any effect on pile design after
settlement, if so, adjust the pile design accordingly. If the final settlement does not exceed the
previous model by 10%, the analysis will be completed.

Plaxis analysis
Each layer of soil is represented into finite elements, with its own characteristics.
Figure 7.14 Soil layers and characteristics input in PLAXIS
The analysis on PLAXIS is a process where many operations are necessary to get the stiffness of each
pile. First, it is necessary to input the soil profile, pile layout and loading from ETABS results.
After the program calculates the effect of pile group, and gives the stress and settlement of each node
around the piles. The long process is then to input all information at each node, coming from all
adjacent 3D finite elements to gather the final result. This is done in Excel, where all reaction and
settlement are input to obtain the average stress in every node. At this stage, the average stress value is
re-input in the model, so that it can calculate the pile spring value to use in next step analysis (with
SAP).
Each iteration or change of design uses about one week to proceed.

Figure 7.15 3D views of the model with layers of soil hidden to see the barrettes
Figure 7.16 Example of output of spring stiffness by PLAXIS
Due to the limitation of PLAXIS program on the amount of degree of freedom, the following
simplifications were made:
Mat foundation is modeled at ground level not -10 to -15.00 m

Soil parameter have been input from 0.00 to -80 meter, we have run the design check to verify
the difference between piling behavior of -80 and -90 meter and found very insignificant
difference (1mm different)
Line load from the diaphragm wall and ground floor, applied at the edge of Mat foundation are
estimated at 100 T per running meter.

SAP 2000 results
The technique adopted uses SAP 2000 (a finite element analysis program) to simulate the soil structure
interaction with elastic springs. The springs represent the pile reactions.
The raft foundation is intended to re-distribute the pile loads based on their axial stiffness
characteristics as a group. Therefore the assumption is that when a single pile is overloaded it will
shed its load to the adjacent piles via the raft, which needs to have the strength and stiffness to transfer
the load. The analytical technique is an approximate simulation of a more accurate non-linear soil-
structure interaction analysis.
Figure 7.17 SAP 3D finite element analysis of the mat foundation
The load is redistributed by the combination of interacting soil-pile layers and the raft. The springs
simply represent the foundation and ground response to the superstructure loads distributed by the raft.
In this technique several iterations are required with variable foundation spring stiffness values in
order to obtain a distribution that limits the pile loads. The group action and consolidation effects are
captured by appropriately softening the springs to suit the pile group efficiency. The raft is then
designed to suit the resulting curvature induced moments and shear forces.

Figure 7.18 Example of output of raft settlement with SAP
Figure 7.19 Example of output of pile reaction with SAP
In the first results that we got from the analysis, the pile reactions indicated that the system does not
adequately redistribute the pile loads. This is due mainly to the eccentricity of gravity load in relation
to the pile reactions.
The next step in this exercise has been to change the elastic spring stiffnesses to follow the load
pattern instead of changing the raft thickness as the soil-pile stiffness is likely to be higher than that of
the raft. This can be achieved by reducing the spring stiffness in the regions where the high pile
reactions are experienced from the initial values.

Eccentricity
An eccentricity of center of gravity from the barrettes and from the tower has been found and
measures around 3m.
Eccentricity of centers of gravity and reaction can cause tilting of the foundation system. However
eccentricity is unavoidable and 3 meters in this instance over the extent of this raft is relatively small
and is unlikely to cause significant tilt. It will show up in the PLAXIS analysis and the numerical
impact on the tower verticality can be verified. Moreover this will occur while the tower is getting
built and will get partially corrected with surveyed alignment corrections progressively.
The tilt effect is a result of the soil pile stiffness and load distribution and not based on the safe load
capacity as long as the load settlement behavior is within the linear elastic range. Once again the
magnitude of settlement and tilt can be determined form the output of the PLAXIS analysis and the
settlement contours.
Sensitivity study
During the study, it was necessary to check the behavior of the pile reaction with the mat foundation
design. In order to design the most time and cost effective design for foundation, a sensitivity analysis
was carried out to measure how the load distribution could be improved by a stiffer mat footing.
Seven calculations were carried out, with loads on one of the most heavily loaded barrette and on one
of the least heavily loaded barrette hand calculated from the user-unfriendly Plaxis output. Short
term and long term concrete E values were used.
0) Benchmark scenario:
E-short term / 4.5m thick perimeter mat / 9m thick plain central mat. Max load over 4000t,
min load below 1000t. The easternmost row of barrettes are quasi useless.
1) Comparative scenario (using E-short term except noted otherwise)

4.5m / 18m: results not significantly improved
4.5m / 4.5m: results a bit worse than benchmark
4.5m / 9m cellular (with 50% x concrete density input): results similar to 4.5m / 9m plain
4.5m / 3m: results are much worse than any others
6.25m / 9m: results are marginally better than with 4.5m perimeter raft
2) Benchmark with long term E (E-short term x 50%) to simulate creep effect on mat and
barrettes: Results are marginally better than benchmark short term

The conclusion of the sensitivity analysis is:
The marginal benefit of a 6m thick perimeter raft could not balance the much higher
construction risk (D-wall instability),
An 11m deep cellular raft (central part) and 4.5m thick plain raft (perimeter part) were the best
raft design, under the constraint created by the existing diaphragm wall, to distribute gravity
loads onto the existing barrettes,
Existing barrettes were insufficient to support MahaNakhon tower, at the specified safe
working load of 2,500T
7.3.2 Super-Structure
The 73 storey mixed use tower will provide the centre piece for the development. As such it was
imperative that the structural design solution was sympathetic to the architectural design intent as well
as providing an efficient, buildable structure. The key design considerations which contributed to the
development of the final structural scheme were:
Ensuring the self weight of the building was kept to a minimum to reduce the axial loads on
the vertical support elements
Keeping the core wall thickness to a minimum through the provision of an efficient lateral
stability system
Ensuring the column sizes are kept to a minimum to minimise impact to the lettable floor area
Ensuring the proposed solution can be constructed in a safe, efficient manner, accounting for
availability of materials, construction techniques which allows the contractors to meet the
construction programme
The main objective and design intent will be the development of an optimized functional scheme and
an analytical model in relation to the gravity and lateral loads. This will be split into two parts:
Gravity load system

Load paths and balancing (figure 7.20)
Control of tower deflection under gravity load
The differential axial shortening will be controlled by the outrigger

Central Core
The loads in the
building are
transferred down the
building thru the
columns and core.
Outrigger floors
Where there are

outriggers, some the
load from the
columns shifts into
the core.
Perimeter columns
The load is
Transfer floor
concentrated in
the core causing
more loads to be
Mat foundation
dispersed into
Figure 7.20 Vertical load paths
the central areas
of the
Lateral load system
Resisting wind and seismic forces
Performance requirements for deflection (see section 7.1)
Occupant comfort (incl. vibration and acceleration)
This section will also include provisions for:

Requirements of the transfer structure
Outrigger system (see below)

7.3.2.1 Core Walls
There are a several possible load reductions in the core walls by replacing some of the structural walls
to non-structural dry walls, optimising the structure. Also the thickness of the structural walls will be
reduced in width as much as possible without hindering the stability of the structure. This has been
realized in the following areas.
Structural load
bearing wall
All the walls in this design

are structural load bearing
walls. The core acts as two
or four separate cores
instead of one complete
unit
Figure 7.21-A Original Core Structure
Structural load
bearing wall
Non-load bearing
wall
In the new design the core

acts as one core with the use
of deep link beams between
the floors. The wall widths
have been optimised for their
actual use for the building.
Special care will be taken
when designing the deep link
beams (lintels) so that it will
provide optimal support for
the core. Also selection of
internal wall and joints will
need to be taken in careful
consideration.
Figure 7.21-B Optimised core structure
Width
MahaNakhon 55006 41 Colour (mm)
11 December 2015
1000
900
725
500
300
150
In the original design there

were too many thick walls
because it was design as 4
separate cores instead of one,
thus the need of thick inner
core walls. In addition the
walls inside the core did not
take that much load
compared to the perimeter
wall
Figure 7.22-A Original core wall sizes
Colour Width (mm)

1000
500
400
300
180
In the new design the outer

core wall are thicker, adding
to stiffness thus the inner
walls can be reduced in
thickness and in addition, not
all of them have to be load
bearing walls.
Figure 7.22-B Optimised core wall sizes

The core is very important and part of it had to be designed early so that an accurate load could be
calculated. Currently only the beam and slab have been designed to support the non-structural load
bearing walls. Now that the design has changed by replacing some of the structural wall with non-
structural with beam supports. This was to optimise the core and reduce the overall weight. The details
of reinforcement for each beam are not provided in this report. Figure 7.15 and figure 7.16 illustrate
the non-structural wall detail (needs to be coordinated with other parties) and the floor slab detail. The
non-structural wall detail follows on from figure 7.12-B where it shows the position of these walls.
Figure 7.23 Non-structural Wall Detail
Figure 7.24 Floor slab detail (inside the core)

7.3.2.2 Columns
From an ETABS analysis it demonstrated that the magnitude of the axial loads acting on the columns
was very high, meaning that designing reinforced concrete columns would be the most efficient
solution; concrete strength can be seen in Table 7.2. The columns are located on the perimeter of the
floor plate around the core wall and are square in shape. The shape of the columns was dictated by the
requirement to maximise the view through the faade glazing whilst minimising the depth which the
columns protrude in to the floor space. These columns change sizes throughout the elevation of the
building. The changes in column sizes are shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Mega Column Sizes
Floor Concrete strength (ksc) Column sizes (mm) Main rebar ratio (%)
B1 - F7 600 1800 x 1800 -
F8 - F19 600 1600 x 1600 -
F20 F30 600 1400 x 1400 -
F31 F40 500 1200 x 1200 -
F41 - F51 400 1000 x 1000 -
F52 - Roof 400 900 x 900 -
Transfer columns
(F58 Roof) 400 800 x 800 -
In addition to the change in sizes of the columns, at one transfer level the columns incline closer to the
core. The reason for this is that the core itself recess as the building goes up in height and by inclining
the columns it will reduce the spans of the floor plates. The inclining columns can be seen in Figure
7.25.
Figure 7.25 Inclined columns at level 19 transfer level
With the inclining columns it will create horizontal and lateral forces and this will have to be
countered by the outrigger system on level 20 and extra PT in the floor slabs on level 19. This will be a
one-off floor design because of the special case of the inclined columns.
To optimise the core wall and floor plates the thickness of the wall in the core and on the slabs were
reduced in the most appropriate areas from the original design to reduce the overall weight which will
travel to the foundation. As that SEAFCO guaranteed the pile capacity at 2500 tonnes, the objective
for the vertical supports was to carry less load. The other reason for the change was to balance the
creep stress deformation. The DL and SDL must produce the uniform stress distribution at the same
level of the core wall to prevent long term horizontal deformation from the creep stress.

7.3.2.3 Floor Plate System
The floor plates will be an optimised system to support the M&E equipment and architecture for both
the hotel and residential floors in the building. This includes optimizing transfer structures, columns
transitions, staircases, lift shafts, large cantilevers and post-tension concept. The optimized floor plate
will reduce the impact of the deflection and vibration at the edges in the most appropriate fashion.
The main structural constraint for both the hotel and the residential floor plates are:
The large cantilever corners (approx 9m)
The pixilation of the floor plates
The removal of structural columns
Recessing of core wall
MEP openings (columns and band beam lines)
Jacuzzi and swimming pool at floor plates cantilevers
As with the core walls the floor slab was either increased or decreased in thickness during the detailed
design where it was necessary to carry the loads and also span the distances that were needed. This
was done where it would optimise the structure and also help with building vibration. The changes in
floor thicknesses are shown in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Slab Thickness Optimisation

Floor Original floor thickness (mm) Optimised floor thickness (mm)
B1 - F7 - 150 250
F8 200 250 (MEP)
F9 - F18 200 200 250
F19 250 250 (MEP)
F20 - F34 250 200 250
F35 250 250 (MEP)
F36 - F50 250 200 250
F51 250 250
F52 - Roof 250 250
The podium, the residential floors and the sky bar floors, respectively, will be further discussed in the
next few sections.

Podium
The podium floors which make up the first seven floors of the building, level 1 to level 7 are going to
be an RC slab and beam system. As that these floors are RC then they have been designed using
structural software and manual calculations.
Figure 7.26 SAFEv12 model of Level 1
Figure 7.27
Reinforced Concrete Slab and Beams
The 3D model demonstrates the frame work
of the podium levels. As you can see there
will be a large network of beams to support
the floor plate.

Hotel Floors
The floors of the hotel which only house the rooms occupy only lower ten floors of the building form
level 8 18. The floor plates will consist of post-tension band beams (2000mm x 450mm) and
reinforced concrete flat slabs. Post tensioning will be kept only in the band beams so that construction
can separate the two floor system easily. In Figure 7.28, it shows the post tension tendons going along
the length of the floor plates; this helps with the profile because effective stressing of the tendons can
be achieved. This is further illustrated in 3D in Figure 7.28.
The areas which are

highlighted in red show
reinforced concrete
columns at the cantilever
corner edges to help
control the deflection and
vibration of the floor plate.
Sufficient and appropriate

pre-camber will have to be
provided
Figure 7.28 ADAPT builder model
This development, as stated above will follow the American code, ACI-99 but for the post-tension it
will follow British standard, BS8110. The PT will be classified as Class 3 with a crack width of 0.1mm
to 0.2mm. This will be in coordination with the post-tension contractor.
The RC columns which are at the corner of the floor plates will be supported from the bottom by deep
beams on the transfer levels; this will be explained in more detail in the transfer and outrigger structure
section (below).

Figure 7.29 3D ADAPT model
A finite element software program, ADAPT, was used for the analysis and design of the PT concept
for the hotel floors. Material properties and imposed loads were entered, to get the deformed shapes of
one level, for illustration purposes. The PT and the tendon profiles were modeled to see what the
deflection outcome would be, for both service and ultimate load combinations (Figure 7.30-A and
7.30-B). There are 7 12 tendon ducts in the band beams which can be seen in Figure 7.28; the floor
plate will be RC slabs (200mm THK).
Figure 7.30-A Service load deflection

Figure 7.30-B Ultimate load deflection
From figures 7.30-A and 7.30-B it shows that the deflection are not symmetrical, this is mainly
because at one corner of the floor there are no column supports and in addition the floor has different
drop panels, recess and openings. However deflection is kept under the control limits which are stated
in table 9.5b of ACI318-99.
Currently at levels 8, 9 and 10, the floor

plates are not completely square and
therefore the columns corners for the
corner highlighted in red cannot be
supported and thus cannot support the
higher floor because there is no transfer
deep beam in that corner on level 8.
Therefore a transfer beam maybe needed
on level 11, but this will have to be
discussed at a later date with all
consultants. It would be mutually
beneficial to have these floors
completely square also.
Figure 7.31 Hotel levels which do not

have a square floor plate (right)

Residential floors
At the residential floors, which start at level 20; architectural features starts to come into play with the
structure of the building. These features include the pixilation concept, large overhanging balconies,
cantilevered Jacuzzis and additional staircases for the duplex condos. At these levels, the core wall has
also been recessed one step in order to create more floor area for the condos; thus causing larger spans
between the core wall and columns. As a result, the floor thickness or reinforcement required has to be
increased.
The floor plates will consist of post-tension band beams and reinforced concrete flat slabs or PT slabs;
this is still in development to produce the best option for the structure. If the first option is chosen then
the post tensioning will be kept only in the band beams so that construction can separate the two floor
system easily. However these floors are still in development and the option of mixing the two systems
in the slabs (instead of separating them by band beam and slab) may have to be considered. This is
because the balconies have a 200mm drop which cuts into the band beams and other drop panels, thus
losing a lot of its support between the columns (see Figure 7.32).
Additional staircase
which creates a void,
thus the lower floor
plates will have to carry
the load of the faade
which spans two storeys.
Some balconies in
certain condos are
cutting into the line of
the band beams, which
are creating problems
with the structure.
The pixilation concept

along the edge and
corners of the floor
plates which recesses
into the slab.
Figure 7.32 Pixelation floor plates
As stated, the RC design will follow the American code, ACI318-99 but the post-tension will follow
British standard, BS8110. The PT will be classified as Class 3 with a crack width of 0.1mm to 0.2mm.
This will be in coordination with the post-tension contractor. The deflection for the floor plates will be
controlled using the formulas stated in table 9.5b of ACI318-99.
Different from the hotel floors, where there will be RC columns supporting corners of the floor plates
(these columns, in turn, will be supported by deep beams on the transfer levels - this issue is to be

explained in more detail below in the transfer and outrigger structure section), the residential floor has
recessed floor plates because of the pixilation effect and therefore these RC columns will not be able
to support the corners at every floor. Therefore, to support the free-standing cantilevers, another
structural concept is chosen to take precedence - which is to have deeper band beams (2m x 0.6m), this
will be in accordance with VSL and coordination with other consultants.
After construction, to help these corners further with vibration and deflection, it is intended to install
supporting struts from concrete or structural steel members. However the main concept is to have the
cantilevers free-standing.
High Rise Residential Floors/Sky Bar

At the highest floors, namely levels 53-73, the continuation of the pixilation effect causes the core wall
to recess one more step. From level 53-57, due to the increment in the span between the core wall and
the outer columns, it is proposed to introduce a second row of inner transfer columns to support the
floors. From level 58 to roof, also as a result of the pixilation effect, the changes in shape of the floor
plates would cause two rows of structural columns to be gradually removed. During this process of
going upwards, there would be a few one-storey-span transfer columns to be installed to support the
slabs.
A second row of inner

transfer columns (level
53-57) is proposed to be
introduced in order to
support the floor span
due to the core wall
recession. From level 58
to roof, structural
columns will be
gradually removed also
as a result of the
pixilation effect.
The continuation of the

pixelation concept along
the edge and corners of
the floor plates which
recesses the core wall
Figure 7.33 Pixilation floor plates

Column removed when the structure
moves up from Level 57 to Level 58.
Figure 7.34 Removal of structural columns at Level 57-58 due to pixilation effect
To be consistent with the design concept of the rest of the tower, the RC elements on these floors are to
follow American code ACI318-99 while the PT elements are to follow British standards BS8110. The
structural concept thus far is to adopted RC flat slab supported by PT band beams and RC columns.
However similar to the lower residential floors where there is no corner supports another structural
concept to make the slab corners free standing, such as full PT band beam and slabs.
The increment of the inter-storey heights on these levels (from 3.7-3.9m at lower floors to 4.4m)
would require more stringent observations on all serviceability requirements, which include the
deflection of the cantilevered floor plates, the crack width/deflection of PT beams, the inter-storey drift
as well as the overall drift of the tower.

7.3.2.4 Outrigger and Transfer Structure
The floor plates on the transfer levels will be double height MEP rooms with an outrigger system
which are shown in Figure 7.35, located exactly where transfer/outriggers are.
Transfer/outrigger level at floor 51-52
Transfer System at floor 8
Figure 7.35 Transfer Structure locations

The purpose of the outrigger floors are 4 folds:
Assist against differential axial shortening in the columns for the creep deformation compared
to the core wall where most of the building load is, thus balancing the settlement of the
vertical supports
It also compensates for the shrinkage of the core wall, trying to balance it to the columns
Help against lateral loads such as wind and earthquakes thus providing a stiffer structure
Provide transfer deep beams for the corner columns and central columns at the higher floors of
the building
Stability is provided by the central reinforce concrete core, the columns and reinforced concrete
outrigger floors. There are deep link beams (lintels) which at the mezzanine levels which will make
the building more rigid; this will help against the lateral loads as well as the vertical loads.
At floor 9 there is no outrigger system but a transfer system for the corner columns for the hotel floors.
The transfer beams will be deep beams and the dimension are 600mm x 2000mm (red) and 600mm x
1000mm (yellow) and will be supported by the columns, see figure 7.36-A.
Figure 7.36-A Floor 9 framing of the deep transfer beams

Figure 7.36-B Floor 9 framing of the deep transfer beams
At floor 20, 36 and 52 there are outrigger system which will act as transfer beams which will support
the corners columns and at floor 52 there are additional transfer beams to support the central columns
because as elevate to the higher floors the perimeter columns gets removed and thus the transfer
columns comes into play and they also help with the large floors spans. The dimension of the beams
that will be used for the outriggers are 600mm x 3000mm (red, pink and grey respectively) and
600mm x 1000mm (yellow). The framing of outrigger system can be seen in the figures below for
level 20, 36 and 52.
Figure 7.37-A Floor 20 framing of outrigger and transfer system

Figure 7.37-B Floor 20 framing of outrigger and transfer system


The outrigger systems have been modeled using ETABS to find the most effective frame for the deep
beams. The concept shown above are the framing plan and the 3D model represented in ETABS. The
forces that are being exerted on the outrigger levels have been calculated from the ETABS model of
the Tower and Hill. ETABS program is being used for the outriggers because it can calculate the whole
the building and the load interactions can be reviewed.

8 D ESCRIPTION OF S YSTEM B EHAVIOR
8.1 Deflection control

Vertical deflection will follow the table 9.5b of ACI318-99, In addition, cantilever element will respect
L/240 for the live load (L)
L/360 for incremental deflection (Long term total deflection instantaneous deflection)
(Where L = Span of Cantilever)
Lateral deflection on the wind load will be as follows:

Overall maximum deflection is to be less than H/500 with 10 year return period wind.
Inter-storey drift limit is to be less than h/300 with 10 year return period wind.
(Where H = building height & h = storey height)
Lateral deflection on the seismic load will follow the table 12-12-1 of the ASCE07-05
8.2 Floor Vibration

Criteria are quoted in terms of response factor (R). A response factor of 1 is intended to represent the
threshold of human perception (i.e. the level of vibration that you can just perceive) and is defined
formally in BS 6472. Depth of the band beam could be increased in order to respect this criterion.
8.3 Human Comfort

Allowable peak resultant acceleration at top floor:
Once per year event = 12 milli-g
Once per 5 years event = 19 milli-g
With minimum damping ratio of 1.5% (refer to DPT 1311 section 3.5)
According to the DPT Standard 1311-50 [5], the recommended serviceability design for human
comfort criteria for the studied building is that the peak acceleration under a 10 year return period
should be less than 15 mg and 25 mg for residential buildings and commercial buildings, respectively.
To verify the building under human comfort, the results from the ETABS model will be sent to a wind
engineer, Dr. Nakorn, to asses the building accelerations by using the existing wind tunnel results. By
following this procedure it will provide clear information on occupant comfort.

8.4 Lateral stability
The initial lateral stability system in the tower comprises a centrally located reinforced concrete core.
The shape of the core has been dictated by the shape of the floor plate and the location the lifts
required to service all floors. The building has a pixilation effect along its height and the core is
setback at two locations up the tower.
The structural arrangement for an outrigger system consists of a main core connected to exterior
columns by relatively stiff horizontal members commonly referred to as outriggers. The way in which
the outriggers operate is that when the building is subjected to lateral loads, the column restrained
outriggers resist the rotation of the core, causing the lateral deflections and moments to be smaller than
if the freestanding core alone resisted the loading. The moment is now resisted not by bending of the
core alone, but also by the axial tension and compression of the exterior columns connected to the
outriggers. As a result the effective depth of the structure is increased when it flexes as a vertical
cantilever, by the development of tension in the windward columns, and by compression in the
leeward columns.
8.5 Building behavior

The behavior of the building for the structural arrangement under the combined effect of the loading
conditions (gravity and lateral loads) is explained below:
8.5.1 Serviceability
In all tall structures it is imperative that the lateral stability system used ensures that the deflections
along the height of the tower are kept within codal serviceability limits. The profile which the core
wall steps in at 2 locations up the eight of the building in the y-direction dictates that it is the building
drift in the same direction which will govern the serviceability design.
In order to control the drift in the y-direction the lateral stability is provided by the central core and the
three outrigger levels, which also forms the stability system in the x-direction. The lateral stability
system ensures the drift in both x and y-directions are kept within the limits.
The dynamic analysis of the structure has been carried out and is included in the ETABS three-
dimensional finite element model. Figure 8.1 and 8.2 shows the parameters considered in dynamic
analysis. The response spectrum analysis uses dynamic characteristics of the building which in turn
can be expressed through the mode shapes. As the structure is located in a low-seismic area, the results
of the dynamic responses are not utilized in load combinations directly, but the responses of the
dynamic analysis including model mass participation, mode frequency and etc, are submitted to the
wind tunnel testing consultant to cater for the dynamic response of the structure under wind loads. The
results from the wind tunnel testing including the effect of dynamic analysis are obtained and utilized
for design.

Figure 8.1 Dynamic analysis: Eigenvectors analysis is carried out in ETABS to determine the
different modes shapes of the tower.
Figure 8.2 The P-Delta effects are included in the ETABS model to capture the secondary effects on
the frame elements. Figure 8.2 shows the relevant P-Delta parameters used in design of the elements.
Refer to Appendix E for the 12 mode shapes as highlighted in figure 8.1

8.6 Modeling and Analysis
In order to analyze the lateral stability of the Tower, ETABS software has been used to accurately
model the structure and apply the different loading conditions.
In order to ensure the results from all software models are accurate the results have been checked with
hand calculations, use of in-house spreadsheets and simpler software packages, where possible.
The model will provide the following:

Building response analysis
Modal Analysis Summary
Global reaction
Building Time Period & Frequencies
Building Mode Shape Plots
Modal participating ratios
Storey shears and overturning moments
Storey displacements
Storey Drifts
Long term analysis and design

Columns differential shortening
Long term horizontal deformations
Creep
Shrinkage
Settlements
After completing the analysis of the building, sizing the members and reinforcement can be defined
for the following:
Core wall
Mega columns
Mat foundations
Retaining structure
Slabs and beams
Post tension
Outrigger floor

9 O PERATIONAL AND P ERFORMANCE R EQUIREMENTS
The I-modifier (I=sectional moment of inertia) values provided (seen in table 9.1) were the starting
values for an interactive analysis. These values are refined after initial analysis to suit the level of
stress related cracking that can be anticipated for each limit state. Note that the wind forces from the
wind tunnel tests are calculated using the natural frequency and the mode shape generated by the
dynamic analysis. Therefore superior dynamic response resulting from higher stiffness will result in
lower wind forces and consequently design force effects. A rational assessment in this way will result
in optimum reinforcement. The secant modulus will form the bases of the rational assessment. The
assumption of a higher degree of cracking can be adopted without a rational analysis in which case the
wind forces will need to relate to the appropriate stiffness model that has been assumed. The
appropriate practice is to separate the strength models for wind and seismic where the 2500 year return
period seismic response results in the formation of plastic hinges, yielding and a higher degree of
cracking than that for ultimate wind where the structure responds elastically. The CTBUH/ASCE07-05
design intent for the 2500 yr return seismic effects is "to resist with damage but without collapsing".
Therefore it would be unrealistic for the structure to perform similar to ultimate wind at this threshold.
The modulus of elasticity or Youngs Modulus is defined as the slope of the stress-strain curve
within the proportional limit of a material. For a concrete material, the secant modulus is defined as
the slope of the straight line drawn from the origin of axes to the stress-strain curve at the compressive
stress of 0.45 fc as stated in ACI318-99 section 8.5.1. This is the value most commonly used in
structural design.
Figure 9.1 Secant modulus
Note: 50yr return seismic and 10 yr return wind result in very low force effects and the material
response in this case with it associated low damping ratio will be dynamic (tangent modulus for
concrete). From the figure we can see that the secant modulus is almost same to the tangent modulus
obtained at some lower percentage of the ultimate strength.

Table 9.1 ETABS models used for analysis of the building
Reduction Factor
Elastic Wind Seismic Damping
Model I-Modifier for Seismic Load
Modulus load load Ratio
_(R)
Comfort and E= As per ACI section 10 yrs 50 yrs 1.5% 2
performance 1.15Esecant 10.11 (reference to return return (refer to
(Refer to R10.11.1) period period DPT
1311-50
appendix C) section
3.5)
Wind E = Esecant As per ACI section 50 yrs - 1.5% -
Ultimate 10.11 (reference to return
(Refer to R10.11.1) period
appendix B)
Seismic E = Esecant As per ACI section - 2500 2.0% 4 or higher

Ultimate 10.11 (reference to yrs
(Refer to R10.11.1) return
period
appendix A)
To assign cracked or uncracked condition to the shear-walls should be in accordance with

R10.11.1/ACI318-99, stating:
If the factored moments and shears form an analysis based on the moment of inertia of wall taken
equal to 0.70Ig indicate that wall will crack in flexure, based on the modulus of rupture, the analysis
should be repeated with I = 0.354Ig in those stories where cracking is predicted at factored loads.
Analyses of deflections, vibrations, and building periods are needed at various service load levels to
determine the serviceability of the structure and to estimate the wind forces in wind tunnel
laboratories. The seismic base shear is also based on the service load periods of vibration. The
magnified service loads and deflections by a second-order analysis should also be computed using
service loads. The moments of inertia of the structural members in the service load analyses should,
therefore, be representative of the degree of cracking at the various service load levels investigated.
Unless a more accurate estimate of the degree of cracking at design service load level is available, it
is satisfactory to use 1/0.7 = 1.43 times the moments of inertia given in 10.11.1 for service load
analyses.
An alternative process could be to take internal pier forces from ETABS and calculate stresses using
standard rectangular concrete section procedure including the effect of the reinforcement.

10 C ONSTRUCTION
The contractor is responsible for submitting method statements to the engineer for approval for all
elements of the work. These method statements will provide details of the proposed construction
sequences.
In order to meet client deadlines a design schedule is needed to be submitted for mutual agreement.
Along with the programme the contractor must treat the construction of the Tower as the critical path
item.
11 C ONSTRUCTION M ATERIALS AND P ROPERTIES
This section includes design strengths and applicable specifications of the main structural materials
used in the design and construction of the building. The material strengths and specifications are as
follows:
Table 11.1 Concrete Strength
Components Concrete Grade

Level B1 30 fc: 600 ksc
Mega Columns / Core wall Level 31 40 fc: 500 ksc
Level 41 73 fc: 400 ksc
Floor slabs fc: 280 ksc 350 ksc
Mat foundations fc: 280 ksc 350 ksc
It is anticipated that a dedicated concrete batching plan will need to be set up to achieve the required
quality, quantity and strength of concrete for all structural elements.
Table 11.2 Steel Reinforcement Properties
Reinforcing Bar Description Yield Strength Diameter
Deformed Bars ASTM A615, Grade SD 40 fy 4,000 kg / 12, 16 and 20 mm

60 or TIS 24-2527 cm2
deformed high yield
steel bars
SD 50 fy 5,000 kg / 25 mm and higher

cm2
Specified Yield
Strength of round
Round Bars fy 2,400 kg / cm2 6 and 9 mm
bar in ASTM A615
Gr.40, TIS 20-2527
SR 24
Wire mesh Specified yield fy 5550 kg / cm2 N/A
strength of wire
mesh
Table 11.3 Structural Steel

Materials Description Yield Strength
Specified Minimum Yield Stress
Steel of Steel in A36, JIS G3101 fy = 2,400 kg / cm2
SS400 or equivalent
AWS A5.1 E70XX, JIS Z3211

Welding Electrode N/A
or equivalent
ASTM A325, JIS B1186 - F8T

High Strength Bolt N/A
or equivalent
ASTM A307 Gr.B, JIS G3101

Anchor Bolt N/A
SS400 or equivalent
12 N UMBERING S YSTEM
This project adheres to a project wide document numbering convention. All documents created on the
project must be numbered in accordance with the numbering convention defined in Figure 12.1
Figure 12.1 Numbering System used in the design drawings

13 A PPENDIX A E XTRACT FROM PUBLISHED LITERATURE THAT
COMPARES OTHER RECOMMENDED METHODS INCLUDING ASCE

14 A PPENDIX B C ALCUL ATION OF WIND FORCES FOR STRENGTH
DESIGN FROM WIND TUNNEL TEST
To determine the wind forces for strength design and comfort criteria based on acceleration which will
be adopted for MahNakhon project, has to be taken from the full ETABS model of the building. The
results of the model will be given to the Wind Engineering Consultant who is responsible for the
evaluation of building accelerations using the output from the wind studies that have been carried out
in the model and in collaboration with the consultant. Refer to the Wind Tunnel Test report from Civil
Park International and TU-AIT WT Lab Bangkok, March 2009, chapter 4.
The example below provides a comparative study of the calculation of wind forces by evaluating the
output of wind tunnel studies for a typical tall building for illustration purposes only. Note that three
sets of frequencies comprising Analytical, Analytical minus 10% and Analytical plus 10% are used for
the sensitivity study at 3 different damping levels. In this example for strength design the forces
derived from the analysed value of the frequency with 2% damping has been adopted for the design.
The tables and the graphs below show the results of the evaluation and the recommended directional
magnitudes and combinations provided by the wind engineers.
Table 14.1 Summary of predicted pear overall structural wind loads.
Analysis Periods (sec)
Damping Moments Shear
Configuration (% of
Mode Mode Mode My (N- Mx (N- Mz (N- Fx (N) Fy (N)
Critical)
1 2 3 m) m) m)
1 9.27 8.48 2.11 2.0% 1.16E+10 1.53E+10 2.66E+08 3.64E+07 4.92E+07
2 10.30 9.43 2.35 2.0% 1.29E+10 1.91E+10 2.70E+08 4.03E+07 6.03E+07
3 11.33 10.37 2.58 2.0% 1.63E+10 2.34E+10 2.69E+08 5.02E+07 7.41E+07
4 9.27 8.48 2.11 1.5% 1.26E+10 1.68E+10 2.70E+08 3.94E+07 5.40E+07
5 10.30 9.43 2.35 1.5% 1.41E+10 2.13E+10 2.76E+08 4.40E+07 6.67E+07
6 11.33 10.37 2.58 1.5% 1.83E+10 2.64E+10 2.74E+08 5.62E+07 8.90E+07
7 9.27 8.48 2.11 2.5% 1.09E+10 1.45E+10 2.63 +08 3.48E+07 4.61E+07
8 10.30 9.43 2.35 2.5% 1.20E+10 1.77E+10 2.67E+08 3.78E+07 5.56E+07
9 11.33 10.37 2.58 2.5% 1.50E+10 2.15E+10 2.66E+08 4.61E+07 6.80E+07
Note: This is an example to illustrate the method for a sensitivity analysis.
For this project, the analysis needs to consider the total response to wind of the MahaNakhon building,
it necessary to combine the individual responses. A conservative approach would be to simply add in
vertical form of the individual components e.g. Mx, My and Mz for 36 wind directions.
The numbers of load cases are kept to a minimum by considering the high wind load direction. For
natural frequency fo, damping ration = 0.02, the recommended load combinations for studied building
are shown in the table 14.2.

Table 14.2 Recommended wind load combinations factors intermediate properties, 2% damping
Equivalent My Mx Mz
Incoming Wind Load
Direction (degree) (MN-m) (MN-m) (MN-m)
Direction Combination
-1 -1
(Parallel) (%) (%) (%)-1
-2,408 -1,324 18
1
(-59 ) ( 40 ) ( 26 )
-1,678 -3,271 23
0 X 2
(-41 ) ( 100 ) ( 34 )
-1,678 -1,811 40
3
( -41 ) ( 55 ) ( 59 )
1,656 -3,066 -20
4
( 41 ) ( 94 ) (-30 )
4,047 -2,019 -26
90 Y 5
( 100 ) ( 62 ) (-39 )
2,254 -2,019 -45
6
( 56 ) ( 62 ) (-67 )
2,373 1,345 13
7
( 59 ) (-41 ) ( 20 )
1,620 3,180 18
180 X 8
( 40 ) (-97 ) ( 27 )
1,620 1,804 33
9
( 40 ) ( -55 ) ( 48 )
2,496 1,664 21
10
( 62 ) (- 51 ) ( 30 )
1,593 734 24
230 X 11
( 39 ) (-84 ) ( 36 )
1,593 1,932 36
12
( 39 ) (-59) ( 53 )
1,406 2,544 40
13
( 35 ) (-78 ) ( 60 )
3,104 1,758 46
14
280 Y ( 77 ) (-54 ) ( 68 )
1,871 1,758 63
15
( 46 ) (-54 ) ( 93 )
1,265 2,401 48
16
( 31 ) (-73 ) ( 71 )
2,855 1,670 53
290 Y 17
( 71 ) (-51 ) ( 78 )
1,693 1,670 68
18
( 42 ) (-51 ) (100)

Note: The combinations will be refined through considerations of the structures response to various
wind directions, modal coupling, and correlations of wind gusts and directionality of strong winds in
the local wind climate.
Below shows examples of typical directional wind forces based on sample values from the sensitivity
analysis, they are only for illustrating the method to be used for MahaNakhon in collaboration with the
wind engineer.

The following figures show coefficients and acceleration responses that was used in the analysis.
Figure 14.1 Mean Wind Force Coefficients along Each Axis
Figure 14.2 Standard Deviation of Fluctuating Base Moments and Torques about each Axis

Figure 14.3 Comparison of predicted maximum peak total lateral acceleration responses for two
values of return periods of V5 and V10, and four values of damping ratios (natural frequencies 0.8 f0
Figure 14.4 Comparison of predicted maximum peak total lateral acceleration responses for two
values of return periods of V5 and V10, and four values of damping ratios (natural frequencies f0

15 A PPENDIX C C OMPARISON OF OCCUPANCY COMFORT
CRITERIA ( CASE STUDY )
The graphical illustrations in this section show a comparison of the acceleration response and comfort
criteria that was assessed for the tall building at various floor levels in relation to ISO, CTBUH, RWDI
(Residential) and the AIJ. In this case the study was carried out in relation to 1% and 1.5% damping.
The following damping levels were considered as reasonable for strength design and performance
assessment for this particular tall building under the action of wind forces.
Strength Design 2.0%

Serviceability (Deflection) 1.5%
Acceleration Perception 1.0%
These values are considered compatible with the assessment threshold for wind effects for strength,
serviceability and acceleration. However there are instances in the past when higher values of damping
have been used for assessment of acceleration perception and evidence of satisfactory performance by
such buildings.

16 A PPENDIX D L OAD C OMBINATION ( FULL )
Case Load Combinations

WU001 1.4 DEAD + 1.4 SDL
WU002 1.4 DEAD + 1.4 SDL + 1.7 LIVE + 1.7 LLT
WU003 1.05 DEAD + 1.05 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT + 1.275 WL00C1
WU021 1.05 DEAD + 1.05 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT - 1.275 WL00C1

WU039 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL00C1
WU040 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL00C2
WU041 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL00C3
WU042 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL90C1
WU043 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL90C2
WU044 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL90C3
WU045 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL180C1
WU046 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL180C2
WU047 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL180C3
WU048 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL230C1
WU049 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL230C2
WU050 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL230C3
WU051 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL280C1
WU052 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL280C2
WU053 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL280C3
WU054 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL290C1
WU055 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL290C2
WU056 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL + 1.3 WL290C3
WU057 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL00C1
WU058 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL00C2
WU059 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL00C3
WU060 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL90C1
WU061 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL90C2
WU062 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL90C3
WU063 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL180C1
WU064 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL180C2
WU065 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL180C3

WU066 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL230C1
WU067 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL230C2
WU068 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL230C3
WU069 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL280C1
WU070 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL280C2
WU071 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL280C3
WU072 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL290C1
WU073 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL290C2
WU074 0.9 DEAD + 0.9 SDL - 1.3 WL290C3
Case Load Combinations

EU001 1.4 DEAD + 1.4 SDL
EU002 1.4 DEAD + 1.4 SDL + 1.7 LIVE + 1.7 LLT
EU003 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT + 1.403 EX
EU004 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT + 1.403 EY
EU005 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT + 1.403 EX30EY
EU006 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT + 1.403 30EXEY
EU007 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT - 1.403 EX
EU008 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT - 1.403 EY
EU009 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT - 1.403 EX30EY
EU010 1.103 DEAD + 1.103 SDL + 1.275 LIVE + 1.275 LLT - 1.403 30EXEY
EU011 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL + 1.43 EX
EU012 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL + 1.43 EY
EU013 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL + 1.43 EX30EY
EU014 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL + 1.43 30EXEY
EU015 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL - 1.43 EX
EU016 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL - 1.43 EY
EU017 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL - 1.43 EX30EY
EU018 0.847 DEAD + 0.847 SDL - 1.43 30EXEY

17 A PPENDIX E 12 MODE SHAPES
Mode 1 7.96 seconds Mode 2 7.47 seconds

Mode 3 2.02 Seconds Mode 4 1.98 seconds



Mode 9 0.95 seconds
Mode 10 0.83


18 APPENDIX F WIND LOAD GRAPHS FOR 10 YEARS AND
50 YEARS (UNIFORM MASS)

Concept Design Report Mahanakhon Building PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Concept Design Report Mahanakhon Building PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PROJECT NO.

Reference: Z:\2555\55006 - Mahanakhon\Design\01.Etabs_MAhanakhon

NO. NAME COMPANY NO. NAME COMPANY

MahaNakhon 55006 2 11 December 2015

3 PROJECT AND PROJECT TEAM DETAILS AND INFORMATION ........................................................................ 6

4 DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 CODES .....................................................................................................................................................7

5 LOADING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 9

5.1 DEAD LOAD (D) ......................................................................................................................................... 9

6 DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS .....................................................................................................................17

7 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM DESIGN ......................................................................................................................20

7.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND GEOMETRY .........................................................................................................20

8 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM BEHAVIOR ...........................................................................................................59

8.1 DEFLECTION CONTROL ................................................................................................................................59

9 OPERATIONAL AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................63

MahaNakhon 55006 3 11 December 2015

12 NUMBERING SYSTEM ...............................................................................................................................66

13 APPENDIX A EXTRACT FROM PUBLISHED LITERATURE THAT COMPARES OTHER RECOMMENDED

15 APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF OCCUPANCY COMFORT CRITERIA (CASE STUDY) ................................73

16 APPENDIX D LOAD COMBINATION (FULL) ............................................................................................76

17 APPENDIX E 12 MODE SHAPES ..............................................................................................................79

MahaNakhon 55006 4 11 December 2015

MahaNakhon 55006 5 11 December 2015

MahaNakhon is a 73-storey mixed used development tower situated in Narathiwat-Ratchanakarin

Project Manager Client Appointed

Independent checker Structural Engineer

Robert Bird Warnes Associates

Figure 1.1 The Consortium

MahaNakhon 55006 6 11 December 2015

4.2 Design Data

MahaNakhon 55006 7 11 December 2015

Table 4.1 Structural software

Software Use Remark

Overall 3D Analysis and Design Except for the detailed design of

If used, time and manual input

To supplement the design and

4.4 Design Peer Review

4.5 Time Frame

MahaNakhon 55006 8 11 December 2015

5.1 Dead Load (D)

Reinforced Concrete density : 2,400 kg/m3

5.1.1 Structural Self Weight

5.2 Superimposed Dead Load (SDL)

MahaNakhon 55006 9 11 December 2015

5.3.1 Area Reduction

5.4 Soil and Water Pressure (H)

MahaNakhon 55006 10 11 December 2015

The objectives of the wind tunnel study were:

Close spacing of many high-rise buildings

Figure 5.1 Wind Zone Map of Thailand with

5.5.1 Design Wind Speed for Strength Consideration

MahaNakhon 55006 11 11 December 2015

Figure 5.2 Static load cases for ETABS

Figure 5.3 Values for wind loads

MahaNakhon 55006 12 11 December 2015

MahaNakhon 55006 13 11 December 2015

Figure 5.5 Response spectrums for 2500 yr return period

MahaNakhon 55006 14 11 December 2015

Figure 5.6 Response spectra

Figure 5.7 Response spectrum function definition

MahaNakhon 55006 15 11 December 2015

Figure 5.8 Response spectrum modal combinations