Ilgın, H E (2022) Interrelations of slenderness ratio and main design criteria in supertall buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 41(6), pp. 139-161. ISSN 23984708
Abstract
Purpose: To date, there are no studies in the literature that provide a comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships between the slenderness ratio and the main design criteria in supertall towers (=300 m). In this paper, this important issue was explored using detailed data collected from 75 cases. Design/methodology/approach: This paper was carried out with a comprehensive literature review including the database of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat(CTBUH) (CTBUH, 2022), peer-reviewed journals, MSc theses and PhD dissertations, conference proceedings, fact sheets, architectural and structural magazines and other Internet sources. In this study, the case study method was also used to gather and consolidate information about supertall towers to analyze the interrelationships. Cases were 75 supertall buildings in various countries [44 from Asia (37 from China), 16 from the Middle East (6 from Dubai, the United Arab Emirates), 11 from the United States of America and 3 from Russia, 1 from the UK]. Findings: The paper's findings highlighted as follows: (1) for buildings in the height range of 300–399 m, the slenderness ratio was usually between 7 and 7.9 and megatall towers were frequently built at a slenderness ratio of 10–15; (2) the median slenderness ratio of buildings in the 400–599 m height ranges was around 8.6; (3) a trend towards supertall slender buildings (=8) was observed in Asia, the Middle East and North America; (4) residential, office and mixed-use towers had a median slenderness ratio of over 7.5; (5) all building forms were utilized in the construction of slender towers (>8); (6) the medium slenderness ratio was around 8 for supertall buildings constructed with outriggered frame and tube systems; (7) especially concrete towers reached values pushing the limits of slenderness (>10) and (8) since the number of some supertall building groups (e.g. steel towers) was not sufficient, establishing a scientific relationship between aspect ratio and related design criteria was not possible. Originality/value: To date, there are no studies in the literature that provide a comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships between the slenderness ratio and the main design criteria in supertall towers (=300 m). This important issue was explored using detailed data collected from 75 cases.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | aspect ratio; building form; building function; building height; interrelations; location; slenderness ratio; structural material; structural system; supertall building |
| Index terms: | Asia, methodology, China, United Arab Emirates, tube, tall building, Middle East, urban habitat, literature review, Dubai, journal, internet, dissertation, United States of America, case study, conference, database, building height |
| Subjects: | Geography, research methods, physical geography and landforms, building performance, data management, urban sustainability, computing systems, materials science, construction type, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, regions and continents, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here