SHEAR WALL

In reinforced concrete framed structures the effects of wind forces increase in

significance as the structure increases in height. Codes of practice impose limits on
horizontal movement or sway.
Limits must be imposed on lateral deflection to prevent:

Limitations on the use of building,

Adverse effects on the behavior of non-load bearing elements,

Degradation in the appearance of the building,

Discomfort for the occupants.

Generally, the relative lateral deflection in any one storey should not exceed the storey
height divided by 500.
The figure below shows the deflected profiles for a shear wall and a rigid frame.

One way to limit the sway of buildings and provide stability is to increase the section
sizes of the members to create a rigid, moment-resisting frame. However, this method
increases storey heights, thus increasing the building cost. It is rarely used for more
than 7 or 8 storeys.
Another way is to provide stiff, shear resisting walls liked to a flexible frame. These can
be external walls or internal walls around lift shafts and stair wells (a core) or sometimes
both are provided.

STRUCTURAL FORMS OF SHEAR WALLS:

Monolithic shear walls are classified as short, squat or cantilever according to their
height to depth ratio.

Generally shear walls are either plane or flanged in section, while core walls consists of
channel sections.

In many cases, the wall is pierced by openings. These are called coupled shear walls
because they behave as individual continuous wall sections coupled by the connecting
beams or slabs.

Normally the walls are connected directly to the foundations. However, in a few cases
where the lateral loads are relatively small and there no appreciable dynamic effects,
then they can be supported on columns connected by a transfer beam to provide clear
space.

POSITIONING OF SHEAR WALLS:

The shape and plan position of the shear wall influences the behavior of the structure
considerably. Structurally, the best position for the shear walls is in the centre of each
half of the building. This is rarely practical, however, since it dictates the utilization of
the space, so they are positioned at the ends.

This shape and position of the walls give good flexural stiffness in the short direction, but
relies on the stiffness of the frame in the other direction.
This arrangement provides good flexural stiffness in both directions, but may cause
problems from restraint or shrinkage. As does this arrangement with a single core, but
which does not have the problem from restraint of shrinkage.

However, this arrangement lacks the good torsional stiffness of the previous
arrangements due to the eccentricity of the core.
If the core remains in this position then it must be designed explicitly for the torsion. It
is far preferable to adopt a symmetrical arrangement to avoid this.

Advantages of tall structures

Space

One of the biggest benefits of towers is the space advantage they provide. Storage
towers like silos make it easy to store items above the ground, keeping them safe from
water and animals without occupying a large area. Tall buildings like skyscrapers use
multiple floors to increase total floorspace without increasing the size of the building's
footprint, making the design ideal for a congested city where real estate is at a premium.

Views

Towers also provide long-range views for people at or near the top level. In
modern office buildings and residential towers, this means attractive vistas that may rise
over a congested city or afford views of nearby landmarks and natural formations.
Other towers offer views with a more practical function. Watchtowers in forests give
observers a clear view of where fires start, making them easier to contain. Lookout
towers on military sites or in ancient cities provide a view of oncoming enemies, making
the site easier to defend.
In theory, there are two reasons for this rent premium. First, workers may be more productive in
skyscrapers. By clustering workers together, its easier to meet face to face. Skyscrapers also
have their own restaurants, gyms and cafes all of which help people meet and exchange ideas,
both within teams and between firms. Not surprisingly, the typical tenants in tall buildings are
business service firms, for whom face to face contact and local knowledge spillovers are very
important.
Second, managers may simply prefer the prestige of a landmark address and even if it confers
no direct productivity benefits, the reputation effects may bring clients in through the door, and
help the firm hire from a bigger pool of talent.

The researchers test these ideas with data for buildings in three Dutch cities, Amsterdam,
Rotterdam and Utrecht (average height 29 metres). Theyre able to control for a lot of other
factors affecting rents, and make use of information on the local historic built fabric to identify the
causal link from height to rent.
The results suggest that firms are willing to pay around four percent more to locate in a building
thats 10 metres taller. The 1% of buildings 100 metres or more are 40% more expensive than
the 40% of buildings less than 20 metres high. Theres little effect for the majority of offices in
between.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Building Tall

We are often asked the question, Why build tall? What are the
advantages and disadvantages in this typology and why do we see more and
more tall buildings being built thorough out the world?
To answer this, lets examine what is happening to the worlds population
growth rate for some clues. As of this year, 2013, the world population
reached 7,100,000,000 and is growing at 1.16 percent per year. That equates
to a net gain in worldwide population of some 80,000,000 people per year.
Three countries China, India and the United States comprise over 40
percent of the current worlds population. This staggering figure equates to the
need for 9+ New York Cities (or 2 Argentinas or 3.4 Shanghais every year.
Add to this that the worlds population is urbanizing at an alarming rate
reaching the 50 percent mark this year and it is not difficult to see why the
pressure to build tall is great.
How tall is practical and affordable? Our research suggests that buildings
of three-to-four stories are inherently the most cost efficient when factoring in

land use and cost, cost of construction, efficiency of floor plates and efficiency
of structure. Taller structures need mechanized vertical circulation, concrete or
steel structures, mechanical, electrical and plumbing shafts and multiple exit
ways which all effect net to grow efficiencies and add to the net cost per unit.
Increased density however does add to the compactness of urban
environments and this can create a number of social benefits that offset costs.
Accessibility to goods and services, cultural events, communal spaces for
human interaction, and a live-work environment accessible by walking is often
the result of an appropriately scaled high-density area.

How tall is too tall? This depends on the motivation of the person who
initiates the tall building. We know that land cost is a factor and the more
desirable the location, the more costly the land. The desirability factor fuels
both land cost and the desire to provide as much space as possible for people
to occupy. Often, this drives buildings to very tall or even supertall status.
Uniquely, the reverse is also true. When a supertall tower is built, it will most
generally increase the value of everything around it, putting pressure on
adjacent sites to maximize their potential and develop tall structures. Views
from within a tall building are also coveted and the higher the occupancy
space the better the vista and the more valuable the space. This is generally
truer in geographic locations that are predominantly flat like Chicago, New
York or Dubai. Views on Central Park in New York or of the top of the Chrysler
Building in Manhattan will demand substantially higher rents or prices than
those with normal building-to-building views. Views from the top of the Burj
Khalifa can be similar to those from an airplane and one can sometimes see
the shadow of Burj on the clouds below. On a clear day it is possible to see
the curvature of the earth.

Often supertall towers are designed purely to satisfy the ego of the owner but
it turns out these towers are rarely built. The cost is simply too high and the
task too demanding, even for the most egocentric of clients. Instead, the
supertall is usually built for landmark status, either to give identity to the
country, region or city within which it is built, or in some cases as a
centerpiece for a large scale satellite city development. A worlds tallest
proposal will always get attention for both developers and cities, and they
have discovered that there is value and attention when building something tall
in their city. Tall towers can be a financial bust to a developer who sets out to
build just the tall tower, but they can bring great economic vitality to the
surrounding city. This is especially true if there is little or no knowledge of the
place prior to the construction of a worlds tallest tower. Examples of this are
seen in Taipei, Kuala Lumpur and Dubai. M
ost worlds tallest observation decks will experience on average 1.5 million
visitors per year just to see the views from these towers and tickets can cost
as much as $130 USD.
There is considerable interest in building a mile-high tower sometime in the
near future. The limiting factor in doing so seems to be the enormous initial
investment needed and the absorption rate to fill a building that would need to
be nearly 10 million square feet of usable space. A tower of one mile would
need a base dimension of at least 500 feet, approximately the size of three
city blocks of downtown Chicago. It would take approximately eight-to-ten
years to complete construction of such an edifice. Still, it is possible with
todays technology to structure and elevator and service such a building.

GLOBAL
The CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat) reports that of the 59
supertall towers built in the last 20 years, all but three have been built outside
the United States. Furthermore, they project this trend to continue into the
future. In China, 56 supertall towers are currently under construction. This has
little to do with economics and a great deal to do with city and national pride.
Although China has thus far resisted the urge to build the worlds tallest tower,
ther

e is growing sentiment to do so. There is a strong rivalry to be the tallest in

China among cities and developers of supertall with Shanghai, Shenzhen,
Wuhan and Chengdu all building supertall.
At over 1000 meters high, The Kingdom Tower, designed by Adrian Smith
and Gordon Gill Architecture is now under construction and due to be
completed within six years. It will be the next worlds tallest building. The
purpose for this tower is to be a symbol of welcoming to the City of Jeddah
and to be the centerpiece for a new Kingdom City. This will be a planned
community on 5.3 million square meters to house the Kingdoms growing
population.
Over t
he last five years the live-work satellite city has emerged as a potential answer
to the tremendous population growth in the emerging economies of China,
India, Saudi Arabia and Dubai. These new communities are city-sized highdensity developments for 100,000 to 150,000 people, who will live, work,
recreate, learn and shop, all within walking distance to each other, and occupy
only one square kilometer of land area. They are envisioned to be at the edge
of major established urban population centers that have reached their peak of
development within the core. In many cases there can be several of these
satellites surrounding the city. Each can be connected to the other by an
outer rapid transit connector which gets connected to the city transit system at
some point.
One
primary factor to the success of these cities is that they are pedestrianoriented with minimum ownership of automobiles, and minimum parking
demand and availability, thus reducing costly parking structures and allowing
for more car-free environments. This factor also greatly reduces the carbon
footprint of these communities. These satellites are being designed to be
highly sustainable, taking advantage of mass construction techniques,
planning principles that take advantage of wind, solar and geothermal energy
sources, as well as minimize the impact from these site-specific elements on
the buildings. In some cases there are central systems to collect waste to

convert to energy, water collection and reuse, smart grid technology only
possible with large scale master planning, green roof technology and
collective food farming and hydroponic food production systems. These cities
average densities are 10 to 12 stories, though the range of building heights
are from 4 to 60 stories, with the most dense structures occurring at the transit
stops.

SUSTAINABILITY
There has been much said about the sustainability, or lack thereof, of tall and
supertall buildings. In our research we are attempting to put metrics to this
typology as it relates to all other typologies and assign a common land mass
to accommodate each typology, allowing for different densities to utilize the
land in ways that support the density or improve the typologys carbon
performance through carbon sequestration on available unused parcels of
land. An example is when we plan two 100- story towers on a 65-acre parcel,
we only use 10 acres for the towers and the other 55 acres is available for
planting prairie grasses, trees or food-producing plants that can breathe in
carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, thus reducing the net carbon that the two
buildings are emitting. Alternatively, if we put the same area that occupies the
two buildings into single family homes spread out over the 65 acres, we know
that the building coverage, road system and paving needed to support the
suburban concept of density will reduce the area available for planting and
thus reduce the amount of carbon sequestered in that density.
So far, we are finding that because the tall buildings have a lower net-to-gross
area ratio than the lower density structures and the imbedded carbon of their
respective construction materials, the difference in carbon emissions between
high- and low-density environments cannot be overcome through carbon
sequestration alone. Overall, we are finding that the three-to-four-story
townhouse typologies are performing the best, considering the land coverage,
the efficiency of space use and the simplicity of systems needed to construct
and operate this building type. This typology has the minimum amount of
embedded carbon while still leaving open space for carbon sequestration. It is
also enough to offset the road system and underground services needed to
access and service the units.

The difficulty with our findings is that the sample area and unit quantities are
not necessarily dense enough to accommodate high speed rapid transit
systems within walking distance. When we are talking of serving very large
populations, there is a need to increase density to take advantage of
supporting energy efficient transit systems within a short walk. The Chicago
downtown Loop district is a good example of a dense compact core that can
support several such regional systems. Its area is approximately one square
mile and houses over 75 million square feet of space. It is walkable from one
end to the other and is dense enough to have its own light rail system, subway
system and regional system. Parking within the Loop is very limited and the
core is beginning to change into a mixed use district with office, housing,
educational and retail facilities all within the core. There is much work yet to
do to reduce the carbon emissions of the older buildings which were built
during the time of cheap energy and relatively inefficient mechanical systems,
however there is a roadmap (Towards Zero Carbon: The Chicago DeCarbonization Plan, written by Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture and
published by Images Publishing). This document has in large part been
adopted by the city as part of its greening program.
Each density, from tall to flat has their unique advantages and disadvantages
when it comes to enhancing the standalone sustainability of each typology.
The tall building can take advantage of stronger winds and cooler
temperatures near the top for onsite energy generation by using integrated
vertical axis wind turbines and in some cases integrate photovoltaic panels. In
low buildings there is a greater roof surface area that is ideal for photovoltaic
panels for power generation or green roofs for additional carbon
sequestration. In addition each typology can take advantage of radiant heating
and cooling, geothermal mining, natural ventilation, good access to natural
daylight, low energy use fixtures and systems, low-flow water and water
recovery systems to further reduce carbon emissions and increase
sustainability.
In summary, tall is not the total answer for our future, nor is a low, spread out,
low-density environment. Society needs a balance between the two so we can
meet the needs of a growing population and at the same time reduce the
effects that housing that population has on the earths limited resources. We

need to harvest the renewable energy of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal
energy that is part of the natural order on the planet to bring an increasing
quality of life to our population and we need to plan for this growth and
transition from old, inefficient systems to new, less wasteful ones.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list_6740695_disadvantages-advantages-towers.html#ixzz33QmsX1UH