Abstract
This paper summarizes the structural concept and design of the twin 303-meter high “Indonesia-1" supertall building currently under construction in Jakarta. The first tower is a 63-story office building, and the second is 59-story, on top of the seven-level basement structure. The lateral resisting system of the towers is RC core-wall and outrigger, and composite floor system - with concrete slab, metal deck, and steel beams - is used for the gravity resisting system. Since the lateral system is outside the scope of the prescriptive system in the Indonesian Seismic Design Code, Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) combined with Non-linear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) had demonstrated acceptability to the Jakarta building department and its peer review panel. Some challenges in conducting Performance-based Seismic Design (PBSD) are highlighted. In order to speed up construction, which is a critical factor in supertall building construction, erection columns are installed in the RC columns and CSPCM (Core Structure Preceding Construction Method) is applied. Consistently, the design must account for the associated construction sequence.
Highlights
Based on analytical study and research, Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) is an alternative procedure that can practically overcome the limitations of Non-linear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) and Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) procedure, as previously described (Chopra)
Combining the Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) principle with the conventional (1-mode) NSP significantly improves the accuracy of MPA results by accounting higher mode effects in estimating structural response
The structural response for each mode was combined using the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) rule, which is the more accurate option compared to Square Root Sum Square (SRSS) rule, for structures with closely-spaced periods
Summary
For the Indonesia-1 project, a study has been conducted for the gravity system during the conceptual design phase. Alternative 1 has the advantage of [6-7] months faster construction time and huge saving in foundation cost due to reduced weight, but the cost of the floor system material itself is more expensive than the conventional RC. Taking all factors into consideration, including the monthly expenses of the contractor’s overhead and engineering fees, alternative 1 turned out to be the most cost-effective solution. The construction cycle per floor is expected to be [4,5] days using this CSPCM
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
