On Century Tower

Ductility and seismic design

Century tower is an interesting building with a striking facade. The question is whether it has been designed this way for aesthetic reasons or whether there are any engineering reasons for its appearance? 

The building is located in Tokyo and this fact provides us with several clues. The external structure is redolent of Japanese calligraphy and that is surely not accidental. We also know that Tokyo is in region of seismic activity and it turns out this is also important.

For minor events buildings designed to resist earthquakes are expected to survive without damage, however for an earthquake of moderate size some damage to the cladding and fittings is considered acceptable. The real design challenge is what happens when a major event takes place. In these circumstances permanent deformation is expected to principal structural members. Not only is this expected it is actually required; it is part of the design strategy and this is why buildings with seismic resistance look and feel different to those which do not.

That said, one of the reasons Century Tower is interesting is because it does not look like a traditional seismic design. To understand why this is we need to take a couple of steps backwards.

Ordinary buildings tend to be kept stable by triangulated bracing, however this is not a good solution for earthquake resistance, because of the potential failure mechanisms if the design load were to be exceeded. Fracture of a tension brace or buckling of a compression brace would be catastrophic for a building’s stability.

A better way to survive an earthquake is to ensure that deformation occurs instead. This has the advantage of being a non-catastrophic failure mode and is also a useful way of absorbing seismic energy.

As we saw in my last post ‘On Ductility’ steel is a ductile material, which permits plastic strains [deformation] to develop without failure occurring. The art is to make the deformations take place where you want them to and avoid those locations where you don’t.

The first step in this process is to give the structure a vierendeel frame rather than a braced one. We have met the vierendeel frame before in earlier blog posts. Its primary characteristic is rigid joints which permit no rotation at the junctions between beams and columns. This forces deformations to occur within the members themselves due to bending. If sufficient bending stresses are developed then plastic hinges will form and these happen to be rather effective at absorbing energy.

Conventional wisdom is to adopt a tight structural grid so as to maximise the number of opportunities for plastic hinges to form and also to avoid overly large members. The down side to this approach is that modern open plan floor plates and open facades, which let in light, are difficult to achieve.

The next step is to ensure that plastic hinges occur in the beams rather than the columns. This is achieved by making the latter much stiffer than the former; the so called strong column-weak beam approach. The reason for this is self-evident, plastic hinges in the columns will render them incapable of supporting the weight of the building and will cause it to topple. Conversely, plastic hinges in the beams will lead to deformation, but not collapse.

Century Tower is interesting because it retains the strong column-weak beam approach, however it does so while adopting an open two storey structure. This is achieved with an eccentrically braced frame [EBF] en lieu of a vierendeel frame. EBF’s are essentially a modified system of K bracing. Each bay consists of two rigid braces, which are sized to avoid yielding, connected to a ductile beam, which is intended to develop plastic hinges where the braces apply their thrusts.

Thus, although the EBF is not strictly a vierendeel it effectively behaves in the same way. Rigid braces lock the beam-column junction and thereby force plastic hinges to develop in the gap between them. Providing hinges form before the braces are able to yield they cannot fail catastrophically, as they would in a orthodox frame.

It is a rather clever system, although it requires a more careful analysis than a conventional vierendeel, because there are fewer locations for plastic hinges to form i.e. the structure needs to behave as intended and must successfully mobilise each bay. This is not an easy thing to work out, as the precise nature of a given earthquake is difficult to predict.

Now, returning to the question with which we started, has this rather striking facade been designed for aesthetic reasons or is it for engineering reasons?

I think it would be fair to say that there are strong architectural reasons for the design. Firstly, the ability to have a modern open plan building with large windows and perhaps secondly to hint at Japanese culture. It is however quite clear that the structural form also plays a rather important role in resisting seismic forces.

The answer to the question is therefore that the facade has been designed with both aesthetic and engineering requirements in mind. It is a good example of the symbiotic relationship that exists between architect and engineer. 

I rather suspect that the design went through many iterations before the final solution was settled upon and that both parties had a significant role in its development.