Development and application of a simplified model for the design of a

super-tall mega-braced frame-core tube building

Xinzheng Lua, * Linlin Xiea, Cheng Yub, and Xiao Luc

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability
of China Education Ministry, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Department of Engineering Technology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76210, USA
c
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China

Abstract: Resilience-based earthquake design for next-generation super-tall buildings has

become an important trend in earthquake engineering. Due to the complex structural system
in super-tall buildings and the extreme computational workload produced when using refined
finite element (FE) models to design such buildings, it is rather difficult to efficiently perform
a comparison of different design schemes of super-tall buildings and to investigate the
advantages and disadvantages of different designs. Here, a simplified nonlinear model is
developed and applied to compare two design schemes (the fully braced scheme and
half-braced scheme) of a super-tall mega-braced frame-core tube building, which is an actual
engineering project with a total height of approximately 540 m. The accuracy of the
simplified model is validated through a comparison of the results of modal analyses, static
analyses, and dynamic time history analyses using the refined FE models. Subsequently, the
plastic energy dissipation of different components and the distribution of the total plastic
energy dissipation over the height of the two design schemes are compared using the
proposed simplified model. The analyses indicate that the fully braced scheme is superior
because of its more uniform energy distribution along the building height and the large
amount of energy dissipated in the replaceable coupling beams, which enables rapid repair
and re-occupancy after an earthquake. In contrast, the potential damage in the half-braced
scheme is more concentrated and more severe, and the damage in the core tubes is difficult to
repair after an earthquake.

Keywords: super-tall building; simplified model; resilience; plastic energy dissipation;

plastic energy distribution.

*
Correspondence to: Xinzheng Lu, Department of Civil Engineering, Key Laboratory of Civil
Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
P.R. China. E-mail: [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, studies on the resilience-based seismic design of super-tall buildings have

become increasingly popular [1-5]. To design an earthquake-resilient super-tall

building, the performance of super-tall buildings subjected to various earthquake intensities

should be accurately simulated; such simulations are used to predict the seismic energy

dissipated in replaceable and repairable components as well as the structural damage in key

components that are difficult to repair.

Numerous studies have been conducted using three-dimensional (3D) refined FE models

to investigate the nonlinear seismic performance and predict the potential collapse modes of

super-tall buildings. Nonlinear time-history analyses of various super-tall buildings, including

the Taipei Financial Center (H = 508 m) [6, 7], the Shanghai Tower (H = 632 m) [8-12], the

Republic Plaza (H = 280 m) [13], and the Shanghai World Financial Tower (H = 420.5 m)

[14], were conducted using refined FE models, which were established using various

general-purpose FE software packages (e.g., ANSYS [15], Perform 3D [16], LS-DYNA [17]

and ABAQUS [18-23]) and open-source software packages (e.g., OpenSees [24]). The

seismic performances of these super-tall buildings subjected to various seismic intensities

were predicted to optimize the seismic designs. More recently, collapse simulations of

super-tall buildings subjected to extreme earthquakes were successfully performed by Lu et al.

[25, 26] using MSC.Marc [27] and by numerous researchers using ABAQUS [19-21]. The potential

collapse modes of these super-tall buildings were predicted, and the critical zones

that might induce collapse were identified, which could serve as a reference for future

improved designs.

As described above, the refined FE model has been widely applied to investigate the

seismic performance and reveal the potential collapse modes of tall and super-tall buildings

with various structural systems [6-14, 19-23, 25, 26, 28]. However, such simulations have

several drawbacks: first, the refined FE model cannot be accurately established without

specific structural design details, which are typically unavailable at the preliminary design

stage, thus restricting the applications of this type of model at this stage. Moreover, super-tall
buildings are typically composed of many different components, thereby leading to an

extremely large computational workload and low efficiency when using the refined FE

models. Such models restrict the implementation of parametric analyses or incremental

dynamic analyses (IDAs). In particular, several different design schemes are typically

proposed at the preliminary design stage. Due to the lack of specific design details and the

large computational workload, the comparison between various design schemes, which is

essential for the design of super-tall buildings, cannot be easily performed using the refined

FE models.

In contrast, a simplified model that represents the key nonlinear and dynamic

characteristics of super-tall buildings and that effectively reduces the computational effort has

the potential to facilitate the comparison of different preliminary design schemes. Moreover,

if the engineering demand parameters are available through the analysis of the simplified

model during the preliminary design stage, such a model can also be used to guide and

optimize the preliminary design.

Although limited research has been reported on establishing a simplified model of

super-tall buildings, many researchers have conducted studies on establishing simplified

models for conventional tall buildings. For example, a simplified model for the framed-tube

structure proposed by Connor and Pouangare [29] was applied to analyze its elastic response

subjected to static lateral loads and subsequently used to guide the preliminary design. Luco

and Cornell [30] developed a simplified model involving the interconnection of two shear

beams to predict the seismic performance of tall buildings. Maftah et al. [31] presented a

simplified approach for the seismic analysis of a tall building braced by shear walls and

thin-walled open section structures, and a simplified formulation for the vibrational

frequencies and internal forces subjected to earthquakes was obtained based on D’Alembert’s

principle. An important achievement in the simplified modeling of super-tall buildings was

accomplished by Lu et al. [32]; specifically, a two-dimensional (2D) simplified model

encompassing nonlinear beam-column elements and nonlinear spring elements for the

Shanghai Tower (H = 632 m) was proposed. The reliability of this model was validated by

comparing the results of the simplified model with those of the refined FE model. The
analyses of the plastic energy dissipation indicated that the outrigger was the primary plastic

energy dissipation component, and the total plastic energy distribution along the height of the

building subjected to three seismic intensities was identified. Despite these efforts, the

simplified model has only been used for the Shanghai Tower (which is a

mega-column/core-tube/outrigger system), in a study by Lu et al. [32]. Additional validation

of the reliability of this model is required for other types of super-tall buildings. In addition,

further studies should also be performed on the application of the simplified model at the

preliminary design stage and the comparison of different design schemes.

Therefore, based on the simplified model and associated parameter determination

approaches proposed by Lu et al. [32], a simplified model is developed for the seismic

analysis of an actual super-tall mega-braced frame-core tube building. In addition, this

simplified model is used to perform the comparison of two preliminary design schemes for

this building in terms of its resilient performance. The studies indicate that this simplified

model is also capable of efficiently and reliably predicting the key seismic characteristics of

this building, thereby laying a foundation for the further comparison of different design

schemes. Subsequently, the energy dissipation characteristics of these two structural schemes

are investigated and discussed through nonlinear time-history analyses using the simplified

models. The plastic energy dissipation contribution of each component as well as the total

plastic energy distribution along the height of the building are compared for both schemes,

thereby conclusively providing a reference for the selection of a better option among the

various considered schemes. The analytical results indicate that the fully braced scheme

induces a more uniform plastic energy dissipation distribution than the

half-braced scheme. Furthermore, the fully braced scheme effectively enables the energy

dissipation to be located in the readily replaceable components (e.g., coupling beams and

perimetric trusses) instead of the key components that are difficult to repair (e.g., mega

columns, core tubes and mega braces). As a result, the fully braced scheme provides a better

seismic resilient performance than the half-braced scheme. The outcome of this

study serves as a guideline for a method to reliably and efficiently understand the seismic

performance of different preliminary design schemes of super-tall buildings, which can

provide guidance and serve as a reference for the performance-based and resilience-based

earthquake design of super-tall buildings.

2. INTRODUCTION OF TWO DESIGN SCHEMES AND THE ASSOCIATED
REFINED FE MODELS

The project studied in this research is a multi-functional, super-tall office building with a total

height of approximately 540 m. The building adopts a hybrid lateral-force resisting system

named the “mega-braced frame-core tube” [26]. Two design schemes are proposed at the

preliminary design stage, which are referred to as the “fully braced scheme” and “half-braced

scheme”. The fully braced scheme involves the use of mega columns, mega braces within the

full height of the structure (i.e., Zones 1 to 8), perimetric trusses, concrete core tubes, and

secondary frames, as shown in Fig. 1. In contrast, the half-braced scheme involves the use of

mega columns, mega braces in the lower four zones of the structure (i.e., Zones 1 to 4), outer

frame tubes in the higher four zones (i.e., Zones 5 to 8), perimetric trusses, outriggers,

concrete core tubes, and secondary frames, as shown in Fig. 2. Further details of the

half-braced scheme are presented in Lu et al. [26]. The differences between these two

schemes are listed in Table 1.

This super-tall building is located in Beijing, a relatively high seismic region in China

[33] (with a maximum spectrum acceleration of 0.9 g for the Maximum Considered

Earthquake (MCE) level, where g is the acceleration of gravity); both the wind and seismic

loads play important roles in the structural design. An elastic analysis of the building indicates

that the maximum drift ratios, when subjected to the designed seismic load (i.e., 63%

probabilities of exceedance in 50 years) and the designed wind load, are approximately 1/940

and 1/570, respectively, both of which meet the maximum allowable story drift ratio of 1/500

at the design level. Nevertheless, if this building is incapable of being functionally recovered

immediately after an earthquake due to severe damage that could occur in key

components, great economic losses will occur, and there will be negative social impacts.

Hence, for this super-tall building, the controls of the degree and location of damage

are critical issues; ideally, the damage should be uniformly distributed in the replaceable

components along the height of the building, and severe damage inside the key

components and damage concentration along the height of the building should be avoided.
 The 3D refined FE model of the half-braced scheme was established by Lu et al. [26]

using MSC.Marc. In this work, the 3D refined FE model of the fully braced scheme is also

established using identical methodology proposed by Lu et al. [26]. The refined FE

models of two structural schemes are illustrated in Fig. 3, including 78,099 elements for the

fully braced scheme and 64,875 elements for the half-braced scheme.

3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SIMPLIFIED MODEL

3.1 General provisions of the simplified model

Simplified models of both schemes are established based on the simplification approaches

proposed by Lu et al. [32]. Because the major objective of establishing these simplified

models was to compare the dynamic properties and characterize the plastic energy dissipation

of the two schemes, the following three principles are followed when developing the

simplified models.

(1) The models of the 3D building are simplified as planar models. The fundamental periods

in the x and y directions of the 3D refined FE model of the fully braced scheme are

approximately 7.38 and 7.33 s, respectively. Similarly, the fundamental periods in the x and y

directions of the half-braced scheme are 7.44 and 7.69 s, respectively. Therefore, the lateral

stiffness values in the two orthogonal directions are highly similar for both schemes. The first

torsion period is 2.77 s for the fully braced scheme and 3.42 s for the half-braced scheme.

Both torsion-translational period ratios (0.38 and 0.44) are considerably smaller than the

upper limitation of 0.85 specified in the Chinese design code (i.e., the Technical Specification

for Concrete Structures for Tall Buildings, JGJ 3-2010 [34]). Thus, the torsion effects in both

schemes are not significant. As a result, it is feasible to simplify the models using planar

models instead of 3D models. Based on the above discussion, the models for the fully braced

scheme and half-braced scheme are simplified into planar models in the fundamental

transitional vibration plane.

(2) The simplified models only consider the mega columns, core tubes (including the shear

walls and coupling beams), mega braces, and trusses (including the outriggers and perimetric

trusses). Other components, such as secondary frames, are not included in these simplified
models. To validate the rationality of such simplifications, the stiffness of each type of

component is reduced by 50% in the refined FE models, whereas the total mass and the

properties of other components remain unchanged, to investigate the stiffness contribution of

various components [32]. The first 9 vibrational periods of the models with reduced stiffness

and those of the original models are compared in Table 2. A 50% reduction in the stiffness of

the mega columns results in a clear change in the fundamental translational periods

(approximately 15% for the fully braced scheme and 20% for the half-braced scheme) but a

relatively small change in torsional periods, indicating that the mega columns make

substantial contributions to the lateral stiffness of the building. When the stiffness of the core

tubes is reduced, significant changes in the higher-order vibration periods are observed, with a

maximum change of 21.15% for the fully braced scheme and 21.65% for the half-braced

scheme. Moreover, the reduction in the core tube stiffness also has a great impact on the

torsional periods: 15.47% and 18.86% increases for the fully braced scheme and half-braced

scheme, respectively. These results indicate that the core tube stiffness significantly

contributes to both the lateral and torsional stiffness of the building. When the stiffness of the

mega braces and trusses is reduced, the change in period is a moderate change of less than or

equal to 7.42%. A 50% reduction in the stiffness of the secondary frame results in a small

change of less than or equal to 2.07%. Thus, the stiffness contribution of the secondary frame

is negligible and can be ignored in the simplified model. Given the above comparisons, the

mega columns, core tubes, mega braces, and trusses are regarded as primary components that

must be properly considered in the simplified model.

(3) The nonlinear beam-column elements and nonlinear spring elements proposed by Lu et al.

[32] are adopted to simulate the above primary components in the simplified model. The

hysteretic model and corresponding parameter calibration method proposed by Lu et al. [32]

are also adopted. The details of these models will be discussed in the following section.

Given the above-mentioned assumptions, the final simplified models of both schemes

are established. Comparisons between the refined FE models and corresponding simplified

models are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. Note that the number of elements in the simplified

model decreases to approximately 1.68% for the fully braced scheme (i.e., 1,309 elements)
and 2.80% for the half-braced scheme (i.e., 1,817 elements); thus, the computational

workload will be significantly reduced.

3.2 Simplified models for the primary components

A nonlinear beam-column element is adopted to simulate the mega columns, mega braces,

outriggers, and perimetric trusses. A typical layout of the core tubes with coupling beams and

shear walls is shown in Fig. 6. The distributions of the coupling beams of both schemes are

regular and mainly distributed symmetrically along the two orthogonal axes of the core tubes.

Hence, the core tubes are divided into two identical sub-tubes by the coupling beams. As

proposed by Lu et al. [32], the coupling beams (i.e., the coupling beams A and B in Fig. 6(a)

and the coupling beams A to F in Fig. 6(b)) are simulated as one shear spring element. The

two identical sub-tubes are simulated as two nonlinear beam-column elements. The rigid arms

are used to connect the coupling beams and sub-tubes to consider the actual size of the core

tube.

The hysteretic model proposed by Lu et al. [32, 35] (shown in Fig. 7) is adopted to

simulate different components in the simplified model. The parameters in this model can be

classified into two groups: (1) parameters for the backbone curve and (2) parameters for the

hysteretic rule. The first group of parameters includes K0 (the initial stiffness), Fy (the

generalized yield strength, e.g. axial force, shear force or bending moment), (the hardening

ratio), soft (the softening ratio), (the ratio of peak strength and yield strength), and (the

ratio of reversed yield strength and yield strength), as shown in Fig.7. The second group of

parameters includes (representing the pinching effect), (representing the position of the

ending point of slip), C (dimensionless accumulated hysteretic energy dissipation parameter,

which reflects the capacity of resisting strength degradation caused by the cyclic loading) and

The corresponding parameters are also determined using the methods proposed by Lu et al. [32].

For the steel components, such as

the mega braces and outriggers, all of the parameters in Fig. 7 are calibrated through the

analysis of the corresponding refined FE models. In regard to other components, the backbone

curve parameters are also obtained through the analysis of the corresponding refined FE
models. The hysteretic parameters are calibrated through the experimental data from similar

specimens tested under cyclic loads, as proposed by Lu et al. [32], by considering the

difficulties in simulating the hysteretic behavior of concrete components. The typical values

of the hysteretic parameters for different components are summarized in Table 3.

4. VALIDATION OF THE SIMPLIFIED MODEL

Based on the analytical results of the refined FE MSC.Marc models for both schemes, modal

analyses, static analyses, and nonlinear time history analyses are performed to validate the

reliability of the simplified models. In addition, analyses using ETABS [36], a commercial

software widely used for the design of structures, are also conducted here to further validate

the reliability of the proposed simplified models.

The first six translational periods of the refined FE MSC.Marc models compared to those

of the simplified models exhibit close agreement for both schemes as shown in Table 4, with

a maximum relative error of approximately 5.57%. In addition, the first three translational

periods of the refined FE ETABS models, which are usually used for the design of structures,

also agreed well with those of the simplified models. Specifically, the relative errors for

the fully braced model are -2.15%, -4.72% and 2.85%, respectively, and the relative errors for

the half-braced model are 0.85%, 4.12% and 4.53%, respectively. The above comparisons

indicate that the simplified model is capable of capturing the basic dynamic characteristics.

Subjected to gravity load only, the total axial forces in the mega columns and core tubes

at the bottom of each zone are calculated and presented in Fig. 8. The axial forces in the mega

columns and core tubes in the simplified models are shown to be in good agreement with

those in the refined FE models for both schemes, thus validating the consistency of the mass

distribution between these two types of models.

To further validate the reliability and rationality of the simplified models, time history

analyses are performed for the simplified and refined FE models. The widely used El Centro

EW 1940 record is selected as the typical ground motion input. Because ETABS is incapable

of conducting nonlinear analysis for super-tall buildings, linear time history analyses are first

conducted here. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) is scaled to 70 gal, which is the
intensity of service level earthquake (SLE) for the site of this building. The comparisons of

story drift ratio predicted by the simplified model and refined FE models for the fully braced

scheme are compared in Fig. 9(a). Good agreement is observed, which validates the reliability

of the proposed simplified model at the elastic stage. To validate the reliability of the

proposed simplified model at the nonlinear stage, nonlinear time history analyses using

simplified model and refined FE MSC.Marc model are conducted. The PGA is scaled to 400

gal, which is the intensity of the MCE for the site of this building. The comparisons of the

time history analysis results are illustrated in Fig. 9(b-e). Fig. 9(b) shows the roof

displacement histories of the fully braced scheme, which are nearly identical. The story

displacement envelopes of the fully braced scheme shown in Fig. 9(c) are also in good

agreement, with some negligible difference in the central zones. The story drift ratio

envelopes of the fully braced scheme are also found to be in good agreement with the refined

FE MSC.Marc model, as shown in Fig. 9(d). As a result, the time history analysis results

predicted by the 2D simplified model are shown to be in good agreement with those of

refined FE MSC.Marc models for the fully braced scheme. Similar findings are also obtained

for the half-braced scheme. The story drift ratio envelopes of the half-braced scheme shown

in Fig. 9(e) are found to be in good agreement. In particular, the simplified model of the

half-braced scheme is capable of representing the inter-story drift sudden change due to the

outriggers. The slight discrepancy between the predicted results of the simplified model and

refined model found at the top zone of the building is considered to be acceptable, which

conclusively validate the reliability of the proposed simplified model even at the nonlinear

stage. Such a time history analysis using the simplified model takes only 18 min, whereas the

analysis using the refined FE MSC.Marc model requires more than 36 h on the same

computer, which is a 2.20 GHz Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2430 and 48 GB of memory. The

computational time is reduced by more than 100 times.

The above-described validations confirm that the simplified models of both schemes are

capable of predicting the nonlinear story displacements and story drift ratio as well as the

critical mechanical characteristics. This capability of the simplified models will reliably and

effectively assist researchers and designers in understanding the seismic behaviors of different
design schemes.

Note that the above-mentioned validation of the simplified models based on a

comparison with the refined FE models is mainly for research purposes validating the accuracy of

the simplified model. At the preliminary design stage, it is rather difficult and

time consuming to create a refined FE model. Therefore, it is almost impossible to use the

refined FE model to assist in designing at the preliminary design stage. In contrast, the

simplified models developed in this study can be readily established based on the preliminary

design information of the structural system and the primary components. As a result, the

seismic behavior of the preliminary design schemes can be efficiently predicted through the

linear and nonlinear analysis of this simplified model, thus facilitating the development of an

improved design.

5. COMPARISON OF THE PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATION

To satisfy the demands for resilience, the earthquake-induced damage should be uniformly

distributed in the replaceable components along the height of the building. Severe damage

inside the key components and damage concentration along the height of the building should

be avoided. The cumulative hysteretic energy dissipated by various structural components is

commonly considered as a good indicator of earthquake-induced damage. Hence, the

hysteretic energy dissipated by different components and the hysteretic energy distribution

along the height of the two schemes are compared using the simplified models validated

above.

To investigate the influence of the seismic intensity on the plastic energy dissipation

distribution, three different seismic intensities are adopted: PGA = 220 gal (i.e., the MCE in

the Intensity 7 Region), PGA = 310 gal (i.e., the MCE in the Intensity 7.5 Region) and PGA =

400 gal (i.e., the MCE in the Intensity 8 Region, which is the design intensity of this super-tall

building) [33]. Moreover, due to the significant randomness in the input ground motion

records, the seismic response obtained from a single specified ground motion record may

result in a large deviation. Hence, 22 far-field ground motion records recommended by

FEMA P695 [37] are adopted as the basic ground motion set. The plastic energy dissipation
behaviors are discussed based on the mean value of the response parameters obtained from

the 22 ground motions. Note that the simplified models offer a notable advantage in terms of

computational efficiency. Although both the simplified models and refined FE models are

established and used in this work, the nonlinear dynamic analyses of 22 ground motions under

three different seismic intensities using the refined FE models will require more than 5,000 h,

which is unacceptable for the design of a super-tall building. In contrast, using the simplified

models analysis requires only approximately 40 h; such a reduced computational burden for

the simulations will be beneficial for the comparison of different design schemes.

5.1 Plastic energy dissipation analysis of different components

Nonlinear time history analyses of the three above-mentioned seismic intensities and 22

ground motion records are performed for both schemes. The mean percentages of the plastic

energy dissipation contribution of different structural components are presented in Table 5.

The coupling beams dissipate most of the plastic energy in both schemes (no less than

93.80% in the fully braced scheme and no less than 63.25% in the half-braced scheme),

although the percentages slightly decrease with increased seismic intensity. Thus, the

coupling beams are the primary plastic energy dissipation component in both schemes.

Because the coupling beams are replaceable components, they can be designed to be readily

replaced so that the super-tall building can be easily repaired after an earthquake [38], which

satisfies the requirement for resiliency.

The perimetric trusses in the fully braced scheme dissipate approximately 5.07% of the

total plastic energy when PGA = 400 gal, which means that moderate damage occurs in these

elements. Note that the perimetric trusses bear a limited load when the building is subjected to

the service load; as a result, they can be conveniently repaired or replaced after an

earthquake [39, 40]. The plastic energy dissipation contribution of the outriggers and

perimetric trusses in the half-braced scheme is considerably higher, with a value of up to

28.39%, because the outriggers bare significant shear forces due to the different patterns of

deformation between the mega columns and core tubes. Both the outriggers and perimetric

trusses can be designed to be repairable or replaceable after an earthquake to satisfy the

requirement for resiliency.

The braces are normally regarded as replaceable components in conventional buildings

[41]. However, the mega braces in this super-tall building are difficult to be replaced due to

its extremely large weight (> 150 tons). The mega braces in the fully braced scheme basically

remain elastic and dissipates little plastic energy (≤ 0.55%) when subjected to all three

considered intensities. In contrast, the mega braces in the half-braced scheme dissipate 5.44%

of the plastic energy when PGA = 400 gal. This result indicates that the mega braces in the

half-braced scheme suffer moderate damage and should be repaired or replaced after an

earthquake, which is rather difficult to implement.

The mega columns and core tubes are key components of the building that are difficult to

repair or replace. The plastic energy dissipation contribution of these components in both

schemes increase with increasing seismic intensities. The plastic energy dissipation

percentage of the mega columns and core tubes are 0.02% and 0.56%, respectively, for the

fully braced scheme when PGA = 400 gal. This result indicates that these key components in

this design scheme remain elastic and dissipate little plastic energy, thereby resulting in minor

damage and enabling immediate re-occupancy of this building without any repair after

earthquakes. In contrast, the plastic energy dissipation ratio of the core tubes is up to 2.92%

for the half-braced scheme when PGA = 400 gal, which means that a certain extent of damage

occurs inside these core tubes, thus requiring repair, which will delay the functional recovery

of the building.

As described above, the fully braced scheme is proven to be more effective in focusing

the damage to occur at the readily replaceable components (i.e., coupling beams and

perimetric trusses) instead of the key components that are more difficult to repair (i.e., mega

columns, core tubes and mega braces), thus ensuring the functional resilience of super-tall

buildings after strong earthquakes. Therefore, the fully braced scheme is a better choice than

the half-braced scheme for the design of this super-tall building.

5.2 Total plastic energy dissipation distribution along the building height

The total plastic hysteretic energy dissipation distribution along the height of the building
based on the half-braced scheme is illustrated in Fig. 10 and is named the “Total” curve.

Because the lateral-force resisting system significantly changes at Zone 5 (i.e., the mega

braces installed in the lower four zones no longer exist in the upper four zones), large

deformations and higher plastic energy dissipation are present in the upper 4 zones of the

building as opposed to the lower 4 zones. Furthermore, the dimensions of the cross section of

each floor gradually decrease from Zone 5 to Zone 6 and subsequently gradually increase

from Zone 6 to Zone 7, thus leading to more plastic energy dissipation in these zones

compared to the lower 4 zones. As a result, these zones have the potential to suffer relatively

severe damage and are rather difficult to repair after an earthquake.

The total plastic hysteretic energy dissipation distribution along the height of the fully

braced scheme is illustrated in Fig. 11 and is also called the “Total” curve. Because there are

only 6 stories in Zone 8, the plastic hysteretic energy dissipated in Zone 8 is combined with

that in Zone 7 as a single zone (i.e., Zone 7). Compared to the half-braced scheme, a

relatively uniform distribution of the total plastic energy is observed for the fully braced

scheme. The following two characteristics of fully braced scheme account for this difference:

(1) The mega braces are installed along the height of the entire building, which leads to a

more uniform distribution of the structural stiffness compared to the half-braced scheme; (2)

the strength-based design of the fully braced scheme is more reasonable; as a result, the

degree of nonlinearity in each zone is approximately identical. Moreover, the maximum

dissipated plastic energy in a single zone of the fully braced is only 50.84% of that of the

half-braced scheme when PGA = 400 gal.

The above discussions illustrate that the fully braced scheme induces a more uniform

plastic energy dissipation distribution compared to the half-braced scheme. In addition, the

fully braced scheme avoids severe damage concentration in a single zone. All of these plastic

energy dissipation characteristics improve the performance of the building in terms of

resiliency and enable rapid recovery in the aftermath of a strong earthquake.

5.3 Plastic energy dissipation contribution of each component along the building height

The average plastic energy dissipations in different components along the height of the
half-braced scheme is presented in Fig. 10 and are referred to as “Mega column”, “Core

tube”, “Mega brace”, “Trusses”, and “Coupling beam” curves. Because the mega braces are

only installed in the lower 4 zones of the building, the plastic energy dissipated in the mega

braces is located in the lower 4 zones. In contrast, most of the plastic energy is dissipated by

the core tube, trusses and coupling beams located in the upper 4 zones. Significant damage

concentration in the coupling beams is observed in Zones 4, 5 and 7, which means that the

half-braced scheme does not make full use of the energy dissipation capacity of all of the

coupling beams along the height of the building.

The average plastic energy dissipation contribution in different components along the

height of the fully braced scheme building is presented in Fig. 11. The trusses participated in

the energy dissipation at the upper 3 zones of the building. The results clearly indicate that the

primary plastic energy dissipation component is the coupling beams. In addition, the plastic

energy dissipated by coupling beams is uniformly distributed along the height of the building,

which avoids the concentration of damage.

As described above, the fully braced scheme induces a more uniform plastic energy

dissipation in the coupling beams along the building height compared to the plastic energy

dissipation of the half-braced scheme. The fully braced scheme makes full use of the energy

dissipation capacity of the coupling beams in each zone of the building.

6. CONCLUSIONS

A 2D simplified model is developed for the seismic analysis of a super-tall mega-braced

frame-core tube building and applied to compare two design schemes of this building in terms

of resilience. The following conclusions can be drawn:

(1) Compared to the refined FE model, the proposed simplified model reduces the

computational time by a factor of 100 while still providing reliable accuracy in predicting

the seismic performances of the two considered design schemes.

(2) The plastic energy dissipation characteristics of both schemes are predicted and compared

using the proposed simplified model. The fully braced scheme is found to induce a uniform
plastic energy dissipation distribution and effectively enables the energy dissipation to be

located in readily replaceable components. In contrast, significant plastic energy dissipation

concentration is observed at the upper 4 zones of the half-braced scheme, and the core tubes

are found to suffer significant damage; as a result, the functional recovery of the building will

be delayed. Overall, the fully braced scheme provides a better seismic resilient performance

compared to the half-braced scheme.

The outcome of this study will provide guidance and act as a reference for the

resilience-based earthquake design of super-tall buildings. The proposed simplified model can

be used to compare various design schemes at the preliminary design stage.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (No. 51222804, 91315301, 51261120377) and the Beijing Natural

Science Foundation (No. 8142024).

REFERENCES

[1]. Almufti I, Willford M. Resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of
building. Rating System for the Next Generation of Buildings 2014.
[2]. Takewaki I, Moustafa A, Fujita K. Improving the earthquake resilience of buildings. Springer
2013.
[3]. Christopoulos C, Montgomery M. Viscoelastic coupling dampers (VCDs) for enhanced wind and
seismic performance of high-rise buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2013; 42(15): 2217-2233.
[4]. Resilient Washington State. A framework for minimizing loss and improving statewide recovery
after an earthquake. Washington State Seismic Safety Committee Emergency Management
Council 2012.
[5]. Giovinazzi S, Wilson T, Davis C, Bristow D, Gallagher M, Schofield A. Lifelines performance
and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand:
Highlights of resilience. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2011;
44(4).
[6]. Fan H, Li QS, Tuan Alex Y, Xu LH. Seismic analysis of the world’s tallest building. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2009; 65(5):1206-1215.
[7]. Li Q, Zhi L, Tuan A, Kao C, Su S, Wu C. Dynamic behavior of Taipei 101 Tower: Field
measurement and numerical analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(1): 143-155.
[8]. Poon D, Hsiao L, Zhu Y, Joseph L, Zuo S, Fu G, Ihtiyar. Non-linear time history analysis for the
performance based design of Shanghai Tower. Structures Congress 2011; 541-551.
[9]. Lu XL, Su NF, Zhou Y. Nonlinear time history analysis of a super–tall building with setbacks in
elevation. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2013; 22(7): 593-614.
[10]. Jiang HJ, Fu B, Liu L, Yin XW. Study on seismic performance of a super-tall steel–concrete
hybrid structure. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2014; 23(5): 334-349.
[11]. Michaloudis G, Blankenhorn G, Mattern S, Schweizerhof K. Modeling structural failure with
finite element analysis of controlled demolition of buildings by explosives using LS-DYNA. High
Performance Computing in Science and Engineering'09 2010; 539-551.
[12]. Lu XZ, Xie LL, Guan H, Huang YL, Lu X. A shear wall element for nonlinear seismic analysis of
super-tall buildings using OpenSees. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 2015; 98: 14-25.
[13]. Pan TC, Brownjohn JMW, You XT. Correlating measured and simulated dynamic responses of a
tall building to long-distance earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004;
33:611–632.
[14]. Lu XL, Zhu JJ, Zou Y. Study on performance-based seismic design of Shanghai World Financial
Center Tower. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami 2009; 3(4): 273-284.
[15]. ANSYS theory reference. Ansys Inc. 1999.
[16]. Perform-3D: Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures: Version 4.
Computers and Structures Inc 2006.
[17]. LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation 2006; 3.
[18]. ABAQUS/standard: User’s manual. Hibbett, Karlsson & Sorensen Corporation 1998.
[19]. Fu F. Progressive collapse of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2009; 65: 1269-1278.
[20]. Lange D, Röben C, Usmani A. Tall building collapse mechanisms initiated by fire: Mechanisms
and design methodology. Engineering Structures 2012; 36: 90-103.
[21]. Kotsovinos P, Usmani A. The World Trade Center 9/11 disaster and progressive collapse of tall
buildings. Fire Technology 2013; 49(3): 741-765.
[22]. Lu XL, Su NF, Zhou Y. Nonlinear time history analysis of a super-tall building with setbacks in
elevation. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2013; 22(7): 593-614.
[23]. Jiang HJ, Lu XL, Liu XJ, He LS. Performance-based seismic design principles and structural
analysis of Shanghai Tower. Advances in Structural Engineering 2014; 17(4): 513-527.
[24]. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. OpenSees command language manual. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center 2006.
[25]. Lu X, Lu XZ, Zhang WK, Ye LP. Collapse simulation of a super high-rise building subjected to
extremely strong earthquakes. Science China Technological Sciences 2011; 54(10): 2549-2560.
[26]. Lu XZ, Lu X, Guan H, Zhang Wk, Ye LP. Earthquake-induced collapse simulation of a super-tall
mega-braced frame-core tube building. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2013; 82: 59-71.
[27]. MSC.Marc User’s manual. MSC Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA 2007.
[28]. Lu X, Lu XZ, Guan H, Ye LP. Collapse simulation of reinforced concrete high-rise building
induced by extreme earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(5):
705-723.
[29]. Connor JJ, Pouangare CC. Simple-model for design of framed-tube structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering 1991; 117(12): 3623-3644.
[30]. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary
earthquake motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2): 357- 391.
[31]. Meftah SA, Tounsi A, El-Abbas AB. A simplified approach for seismic calculation of a tall
 building braced by shear walls and thin-walled open section structures. Engineering Structures
2007; 29(10): 2576-2585.
[32]. Lu X, Lu XZ, Sezen H, Ye LP. Development of a simplified model and seismic energy dissipation
in a super-tall building. Engineering Structures 2014; 67: 109-122.
[33]. GB50011-2010. Code for seismic design of buildings. Beijing: Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China 2010.
[34]. JGJ 3-2010. The Technical Specification for Concrete Structures for Tall Buildings. Beijing:
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China 2010.
[35]. Lu XZ, Ye LP, Miao ZW. Elasto-plastic analysis of buildings against earthquake. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press 2009. [in Chinese].
[36]. Habibullah A. ETABS-Three dimensional analysis of building systems, User manual. Computers
and Structures Inc 1997
[37]. FEMA P695: Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, C.A 2009.
[38]. Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Rassati GA. Large-scale testing of a replaceable “fuse” steel coupling
beam. Journal of Structural Engineering 2007;133(12): 1801-1807.
[39]. Chen Y, McFarland DM, Wang Z, Spencer BF, Bergman LA. Analysis of tall buildings with
damped outriggers. Journal of Structural Engineering 2010; 136(11): 1435-1443.
[40]. Zhou Y, Zhang CQ, Lu XL. Earthquake resilience of a 632-meter super-tall building with energy
dissipation outriggers. Proceeding of the 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
[41]. Chen CH. Performance-based seismic demand assessment of concentrically braced steel frame
buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, USA 2010.
List of Tables
Table 1. Primary differences between the fully braced scheme and half-braced scheme
Table 2. Reduction in period of the two models (%) when the component stiffness is
reduced by 50%
Table 3. Typical values of the hysteretic parameters of different components
Table 4 Comparison of the first six translational periods (in seconds) from the
Simplified and refined FE MSC.Marc models
Table 5. Plastic energy dissipation contribution of different structural components
under different earthquake intensities

List of Figures
Fig. 1. Fully braced scheme
Fig. 2. Half-braced scheme
Fig. 3. Refined FE models of two structural schemes
Fig. 4. Refined FE model and simplified model of the fully braced scheme
Fig. 5. Refined FE model and simplified model of the half-braced scheme
Fig. 6. Distribution of the coupling beams in typical RC core tubes
Fig. 7. Hysteretic component model used in this research
Fig. 8. Comparison of the axial forces in mega columns and core tubes of the
simplified and refined models
Fig. 9 Comparison of the time history analysis results between the simplified and
refined FE models
Fig. 10. Total plastic energy dissipation distribution and plastic energy dissipation in
different components along the structural height of the half-braced scheme for
different seismic intensities
Fig. 11. Total plastic energy dissipation distribution and plastic energy dissipation in
different components along the structural height of the fully braced scheme
under different seismic intensities