Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

42
Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101 Group Member: 1. Sim Chuan Chai 2. Lee Chee Kiat 3. Pang Hock Chew 4. Lau Chee Kiong

Transcript of Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Page 1: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Group Member:1. Sim Chuan Chai2. Lee Chee Kiat3. Pang Hock Chew4. Lau Chee Kiong

Page 2: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

History and Background

Page 3: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Petronas Twin Towers

Location: Kuala Lumpur

Height: 452 m

Construction Start: 1992

Construction End: 1998

Functions: Mixed-use development (office, rental, entertainment)

452m

Page 4: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Architecture: Cesar Pelli , in association with KLCC architects

Contractor: Hazama Corporation (Tower 1)Samsung Engineering and Construction (Tower 2)

Structural Engineer: Thornton Tomasetti Inc.

Award: 2004 Aga Khan Award for Architecture

Page 5: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Each tower 88 stories high

Towers are connected by a sky bridge at the 41 and 42 floors.

Page 6: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

509.2m

Taipei 101

Location: Xin Yi Disrict of Taipei

Height: 509.2 m

Construction Start: 1998

Construction End: 2004

Functions: Mixed-use development (office, rental, entertaiment)

Page 7: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Architecture: C.Y. Lee & Partners

Contractor: by KTRT Joint Venture and Samsung Engineering & Construction

Structural Engineer:Thornton Tomasetti Inc. and Evergreen Consulting Engineering Inc

Award: 2004 Emporis Skyscraper Award

Page 8: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

92-100 floors :Communication facilities88-101 floor : Observation decks 86-88 floors : Restaurants 7-84 floors : Offices 5-6 floors : Fitness center 1-4 floors : Retail facilities

*World’s largest Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) & fastest Elevator

Page 9: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Foundation and Soil Condition

Page 10: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Original construction sites not suitable !!

Reason: the irregularities of the ‘Kenny Hill’ limestone bedrock.Each Tower weight 300,000 metric tonsExerts 1140 kilopascals of pressure>twice the weight bearing capacity of Kenny Hill SoilTowers will slope steeply over time

Petronas Twin Towers

Page 11: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Solution:Shift to new location 60m southeast from the original

Why?The bedrock significantly deeper and regular. More suitable to build the foundation

Page 12: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Foundation system

4.5m thick pile raft (concrete mat)

Rectangular friction piles (barrettes) varying in depth from 40m to 105m

Each tower supported by 104 barrettes

Took 1 year time

Page 13: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Friction pilesNarrower than traditional concrete piles

Why in rectangular form instead of circular?More larger Less number of piles need to be usedSaves costBetter ability to withstand tension Better foundation

Page 14: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Pacific Ring of fire

Taipei 101

Page 15: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Bedrock ProfileEle

vati

on

(m

) Ele

vatio

n (m

)

-70

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

-60

-50

-70

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

-60

-50

…………………………………………...…………………………………………...………………………………………………………………………...…………………………

………………

SS1SS2

SS3

SS4

SS/SH2

SS/SH3

SS/SH4

Bedrock : Sandstone & Siltstone with Sandstone/Shale, N > 50~100

CL : SPT-N < 8

W-E

CV1 : Clay & silty sand, N > 8

CV2 : Sandy gravel with rock fragments, N > 30

three layers of soft sediment were covering the solid bedrock belowpiles need to bore deeply to create a foundation

Page 16: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Problem: A fault that is 10 meter wide and only

198 meter from the construction sites.

Massive weigh of building might trigger the fault EARTHQUAKES

Solutions:700 hundred thousand tons of soil =the mass of the mega structure was removedNo effect on the bedrock

Page 17: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Foundation Sytem of Taipei 101

Compare to Petronas Twin TowersMuch shallower More piles is usedConcrete piles is used in the construction.

Page 18: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Characteristics:308 concrete pilesDepth of 80m into ground30m into the bedrockPiles connected to concrete slab(mat)15 months to be done

Page 19: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Design & Architectures

Page 20: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Following Chinese Pagoda Form

Influences by Chinese culture

Using Number 8 as the Lucky Number

8 pagoda shaped blocks

8 super-columns, 16 columns

comprising the core the 8m length of

the Chinese Ru-yi symbol

Design Concept of Taipei 101

Page 21: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Shape of hollow bambooSymbolism of modesty and humbleness. growing of the Taiwan economy

Page 22: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Ru-Yitraditional lantern-like4 sides at the top of each of the 8 segmentsymbolism fulfillment

Page 23: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

First tower build :-practice of Feng-Shui.

Feng shui: -science of positioning object (garden, waterfall, flower.)

Taipei 101:- perpendicular road ran straight to building sites. - adding fountain to block.

Page 24: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Influence by Islamic culture

concept of the two squares interlocking

Problem:make a lot of space

wasting

Solution:placing eight semicircles in the angle of the corner to expand the space.

Design Concept of Petronas Twin Towers

Page 25: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Structural System

Page 26: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Each face 2 steel box mega columns

Each face 2 sub steel box mega columns

Each face 2 steel box corner columnsUp to floors 26

Squared shaped core

Structural System of Taipei 101

Page 27: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

No more sub steel box columnsmega steel box column continues upward

Above floors 26

Page 28: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

floor is connected by 8 steel box mega column with dimension of 2 x 2,4m to squared shaped core

forming a tick-tack-toe board

All the columns are filled with 10,000 psi high performance concrete

Outriggers connect mega-columns and the core at every eight level

Page 29: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

supported by a ring of sixteen cylindrical columns

Linked by slightly arched ring beams

23x23m concrete core

concrete outrigger beam

12 smaller perimeter columns and ring beams around each ‘bustle’

Structural System of Petronas Twin Towers

Page 30: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

columns are about 2.4 meter in diameter at the base

but taper as they rise through the floors

sloping towards the centre

perimeter columns is tied to the cores at 38 and 40 levels by concrete outrigger beam

constructed entirely of in-situ high strength concrete

Page 31: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Comparison of Structural System

Petronas Twin Towerreinforced concrete tube-in-tube with the outriggers system

Taipei 101composite mega-columns with central core and outriggers system

high strength concrete is used as a construction material

Reason:easily available from local market

Difference

Similarities

Page 32: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Important Feature

Page 33: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Function:facility component to circulate movement between the two towersOriginal design:suspense the skybridge by the spider-like steel cables

Problem:cannot efficiently to accommodate the differing movements caused by wind factor from each tower Solution:

inverted V-shaped two-hinged arch to supports the bridge in center

Skybridge of Petronas Twin Towers

Page 34: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

two-hinged arch springs spring from level 29 at 63°

support a pair of parallel two-span continuous bridge girders at level 41rotational pin directly over the arch crown.

Rotational pins (spherical bearing) at the each end of the struts.

Page 35: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Functions of Archas a centering device to equilibrium the movement of both towers.

Towers moves together or

apart

Angle of legs

changes

Spherical

bearing rotates at spring points

Leg flex at the top

Bridge

mipoint

rise or sink

Case when towers moves together or apart

Page 36: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

passive damper that reduces wind movement in high-rises

occupied between levels 87 to 91

world’s largest TMD (diameter=5.5m)

Heaviest (wieght= 660 metric tons)

Design, manufactured , constrcuted by Motionnering Inc.

cost : NT$ 130 million

Tuned Mass Damper (TMD)of Taipei 101

Page 37: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Towers moves

opposite later

al direction

the arch sprin

g point

s twist on the

spherical bearings

the bridge end bearings slide

in opposite

directions

Maintai

n at

original position

Case when towers moves in opposite lateral directions

Page 38: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Sphere-shaped mass block consists of 41 layers of 12.5cm steel plates welded together to the steel cradle

Steel Cradlegrips by eight primary hydraulic pistons

Hydraulic pistons two meter long

Steel cablessuspended from level 92

Structure of TMD

Bumper system locked the huge mass block in position especially during earthquakes

Page 39: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Sphere mass blockacts as a pendulum that equivalent to 0.26 of building weight.

Building

is swaying

Damper (sphere mas

s block) is activated

Sphere

swing in opposite

direction

Building’s vibration is

counterbalance

Wind motion of building is

converte

d into heat energy

Hydraulic pisto

n dissipate the heat energy

How it works?

Able to reduce the tower’s peak vibrations > 1/3

Page 40: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

design and architecture are mainly originated from their local country culture

built on deep foundation in order to support them firmly

structural system is not the same

subjected to wind factor during construction

Conclusion

Page 41: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

Future Trends of Skyscrapers

Future skyscraper will continuously increased in height

Reason:Improvements of technology in structural systems materials elevatorsdamping systems.

Page 42: Comparisons Between Petronas Twin Tower and Taipei 101

* , _/^\_ < > * /.-.\ * * `/&\` * ,@.*;@, /_o.I %_\ * * (`'--:o(_@; /`;--.,__ `') * ;@`o % O,*`'`&\ * (`'--)_@ ;o %'()\ * /`;--._`''--._O'@; /&*,()~o`;-.,_ `""`) * /`,@ ;+& () o*`;-';\ (`""--.,_0o*`;-' &()\ /-.,_ ``''--....-'`) * * /@%;o`:;'--,.__ __.'\ ;*,&(); @ % &^;~`"`o;@(); * /()Emily & ().o@Robin%O\ `"="==""==,,,.,="=="==="` __.----.(\-''#####---...___...-----._ '` \)_`"""""` .--' ') o( )_-\ `"""` `

Thank You!