ctbuh.

org/papers

Title: Two International Finance Centre

Authors: Andrew Luong, Senior Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners

Craig Gibbons, Director, Ove Arup & Partners
Alexis Lee, Associate Director, Ove Arup & Partners
John MacArthur, Director, Ove Arup & Partners

Subjects: Building Case Study

Structural Engineering

Keywords: Construction
Foundation
Outriggers
Structure

Publication Date: 2004

Original Publication: CTBUH 2004 Seoul Conference

Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter

2. Journal paper
3. Conference proceeding
4. Unpublished conference paper
5. Magazine article
6. Unpublished

© Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Andrew Luong; Craig Gibbons; Alexis Lee; John MacArthur
 Two International Finance Centre

Andrew Luong1, Craig Gibbons2, Alexis Lee3, John MacArthur4

1
Senior Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd
2
Director, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd
3
Associate Director, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd
4
Director, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd

Abstract
Two International Finance Centre (2IFC) is the tallest building in Hong Kong and 5th tallest in the world at
420m high. It is located on the harbour front of the Central District, the business centre of Hong Kong.
This paper describes the some of the geotechnical design considerations, the structural design development
and construction of the tower. Specifically, the paper addresses the large diameter cofferdam solution which
was adopted for the foundation; the lateral response of the structure; the issues influencing the floor system;
and the detailed design of the megacolumn and outrigger lateral stability system. The paper also addresses
construction-led aspects of the design adopted to reduce the construction time of the tower.

Keywords: Tall Building, Composite Construction, Outriggers, Construction-led Design.

1. Introduction requirements of major tenants (such as financial

The IFC Tower forms part of Hong Kong Station institutions) could be accommodated.
Development on the Central Reclamation Hong Kong. The tower is just one element of a major new
Developers of the site are Central Waterfront commercial development in central Hong Kong. The
Properties (CWP) - a joint venture between Sun Hung development as a whole provides office, retail, hotel
Kai Properties Ltd, Henderson Land Development Co and serviced apartment accommodation and
Ltd, Bank of China Group Investment Ltd and the accommodates Phase 2 of the MTRC Hong Kong
Hong Kong & China Gas Co Ltd. The Mass Transit Airport Railway Station in the 5 level basement below.
Railway Corporation (MTRC) is also a development It also houses major transportation facilities for the
partner of the joint venture company. Architects for local bus companies together with several floors of car
the project are Cesar Pelli & Associates and Rocco parking. The total constructed floor area of the Hong
Design Limited with Ove Arup & Partners (Arup) Kong Station Development amounts to 650,000
providing structural and geotechnical engineering square metres.
consultancy services. Mechnical and electrical The Main Contractor for the tower, and the
consultancy services were provided by J. Roger remainder of the development, was a joint venture
Preston Ltd. (ESJV) between E. Man and Sanfield Contractors.
The tower comprises 88 storeys with a basement The steelwork for the tower was awarded in two
level of -32.0mPD and a level to the top of the roof stages - both as nominated subcontracts. The steel
feature of +420.0mPD. The footprint at the base of for the megacolumns below 6/F level (5,000 tonnes)
the tower is 57m x 57m. Towards the top, a series of was fabricated and installed by NKK Corporation of
staggered step-backs reduce the plan dimensions to Japan. The steelwork for the tower above 6/F
39m x 39m at roof level. In all, it provides a gross (19,000 tonnes) was awarded to a joint venture
floor area over 180,000m2 of grade A office (NSJV) between NKK Corporation and Sumitomo
accommodation. One of the main requirements of Corporation.
the brief was to provide open plan floors and to
incorporate a large degree of flexibility such that the
2. Tower Configuration
Contact Author: Andrew Luong, Senior Engineer, Ove Arup The basic plan configuration of a typical floor is
& Partners HK Ltd, address Level 5, Festival Walk, 80 Tat shown in figure 3. The core at ground level is 29m x
Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong 27m with perimeter walls 1.5m and 1.25m thick.
Tel: 852 2268 3161 Fax: 852 2268 3945 The size of the core was essentially driven by the
e-mail: [email protected] need to maximise the efficiency of the vertical
transportation system to serve the tower. The core is
of conventional reinforced concrete - studies had

1160 CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea

shown that there was a significant cost advantage fill, the land only having been reclaimed three years
compared to steel and steel/composite alternatives. earlier. Dynamic compaction had been carried out
Initial cost studies were also conducted on core on certain areas of the fill to enable diaphragm walling
designs comprising grade 60 (28-day cube strength in to take place. With a total tower load of 5,200MN,
N/mm²), grade 80 and grade 100 concrete. These foundations obviously had to be taken to rock head.
revealed that no great advantage was gained by
changing from the grade 60 option, as savings in
lettable floor space did not significantly compensate
for the additional cost and construction implications of
using a higher grade.
The fundamental requirement for flexible office
layouts, and the desire to maximise the panoramic
views, necessitated that the perimeter structure should
be kept to a minimum. This led to an outrigger
lateral stability solution employing eight main
megacolumns (two per face) with small secondary
columns in the four corners. The outriggers mobilised
the columns directly without the need for transfer
through a belt truss system. A less accentuated belt
truss system was incorporated at outrigger floors,
however, to accept the heavy plant room floor
loadings, and transfer the secondary corner column
loads (as described below) into the megacolumns.
Studies showed that three outrigger levels were
required, these were located at the levels R2/F to 33/F,
R3/F to 55/F and R4/F to 67/F. As the triple floor
height steel outrigger trusses coincided with refuge
and double mechanical floor levels, their locations
were effectively a compromise between the optimum
structural arrangement and constraints imposed by
vertical planning and lift zoning. In any event, the
system was effective in that the amount of structure
occupying useable floor area was minimised.
The small corner columns support gravity load only.
There are three zones of such columns, each extending
a maximum of 20 storeys, which are supported off
transfer trusses at each of the outrigger levels. The
loads for the secondary columns are effectively
‘collected’ by these trusses and transferred to the
megacolumns.
At the higher levels, where the corners of the floor
plate are stepped back, these columns are removed
with the floor plate cantilevering from the
megacolumns. Consideration was also given to the
removal of these secondary columns throughout.
However, it was concluded that the cost of the
additional weight of floor steel involved, and the
likely problems associated with tolerances of large
cantilever floor systems, warranted that these small
columns 300x 300mm should remain. Fig.1. Two International Finance Centre

3. Geology and Foundation Design Surrounding the tower is a five level basement with
The geology in the vicinity of the tower is fairly a low-level commercial podium built above it. The
typical of Hong Kong. Grade III granite, having a southern most wall of the basement box also forms
permissible bearing capacity of 5MPa, is found part of the adjacent Hong Kong Station Phase 1
approximately 35 metres below ground level although structure. With trains under operation, it was
it shelves off steeply to the west of the tower footprint. essential that movements in this vicinity should be
Above this are layers of decomposed granite and kept to a minimum. To achieve this top down
alluvium, and over the top 20 metres there is a layer of methods of construction were adopted for the general

CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea 1161

basement construction outside the footprint of the overcome this a mixed foundation solution was
tower which enabled potential movements to be adopted. Over much of the area the original raft
minimised. solution was adopted. Mass concrete fill was then
In order to optimise the construction programme, it used locally, between rock head level and the
was considered appropriate for the tower to be built underside of the cap, in the areas where the rock head
using a more conventional bottom up technique. The sloped away. Locally, at the location of deepest rock,
initial foundation solution envisaged 2.5 metre barrettes were installed from ground level to transfer
diameter bored piles, belled out to 3 metres. A large the pile cap/raft loads to the bearing stratum, use also
diameter cofferdam, encompassing the plan form of being made of the cofferdam panels to transfer vertical
the tower, would then be constructed using diaphragm load.
walling techniques to enable excavation down to the Construction of the tower commenced in earnest in
pile cap level. This would enable the cap to be cast January 2000 with the first pour of the 6.5m thick
in open excavation and the whole tower constructed reinforced concrete raft. With a total concrete volume
from the pile cap level within the cofferdam. The of almost 20,000 cubic metres for the entire raft, it
circular (compression ring) nature of the cofferdam was considered not feasible to cast the raft in one
eliminated the need for internal props to provide continuous pour. The first pour was 5,000 cubic
lateral support the excavation. metres in volume and covered the entire area of the
cofferdam. A further eight pours each covered half
the area of the cofferdam, with the vertical
construction joints rotated on plan through 90 degrees
for each successive layer. A final capping layer
comprising 3000 cubic metres of concrete, again
covered the entire area of the cofferdam in a single
pour.

4. Lateral Response
Wind tunnel studies were performed on the tower
by Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI) in
accordance with the Hong Kong Buildings
Department Practice Note PNAP 150. This included
topographical studies, a force balance assessment of
the loads and monitoring of cladding pressures. A
second confirmatory wind tunnel study was
Fig.2. Excavation within the temporary cofferdam undertaken by Cermak Peterka Peterson (CPP). The
two studies agreed to within 6%.
Consequently excavation within the cofferdam Studies highlighted the dominance of crosswind
could be carried out unhindered (figure 2). The response for this particular building. The resulting
cofferdam provided very stiff lateral support and global characteristic base bending moments and base
consequently further ensured that the ground shears in the orthogonal directions were 19,000MNm
movements were kept to a minimum, particularly with and 128MN. The combination factors used in the
respect to the operational MTRC tunnels running derivation of diagonal design forces were ±0.79Fx
alongside the development. ±0.79Fy.
The foundation sub-contractor Bachy Soletanche The predicted period of the building is 9.1 seconds,
Group proposed an alternative foundation solution which accords quite well with the simple H/46
which was adopted in the final works. With a approximation. Lateral accelerations were predicted
reasonably constant rock head level (as determined and compared against the NBCC, ISO and Davenport
from site investigation) it was proposed to construct Criteria for occupancy comfort. In doing this a
the 61.5 metre diameter cofferdam down to bedrock variable structural damping was built into the analysis
using a 1.5 metre thick diaphragm wall keyed into the equivalent to 0.8% percent at 1year return events,
rock. Using three reinforced concrete ring beams, varying linearly to 2.0% for 50 year return events.
and lowering the external water table by eight metres, Under these conditions the most critical accelerations,
excavation could then take place to rock head level in terms of impact on human comfort, occurred in the
and the pile cap/raft be cast bearing directly on rock, 5-10 year return typhoon event range. The
thus omitting the need for bored piling. Conditions accelerations were however deemed acceptable for
on site proved to be slightly different from those office occupancy in Hong Kong without the need for
anticipated, with a localised depression to the South supplementary damping.
East of the footprint of the rock head level down to a The lateral deflections under wind loading,
depth of approximately 55 metres, a depth too great to including the second order P-delta effects of gravity
allow open excavation in this area. In order to load, were H/450 in the orthogonal direction and

1162 CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea

H/380 in the diagonal, where H is the height of the not favoured due to the need for maximum flexibility
building above pile cap level. in the layout of main and tenant services within the
floor. The solution that was adopted comprised
5. Floor System 460mm deep steel secondary beams spanning (11.4m
Above the 6/F the tower comprises typical office to 13.5m) from the core to 900mm deep primary
floors and trading floors, with a design imposed girders spanning 24m between the main columns. One
loading of (3+1)kPa and (4+1)kPa respectively. of the key features of the layout of the floor was the
Below 6/F level the floors are reinforced concrete - inclusion of a significant diagonal beam which, in
commensurate with the podium and basement conjunction with the primary girder on the main faces,
construction. Initial designs were conducted to provided a continuous ‘tension ring’ around the floor
compare prestressed concrete and composite plate. This was deemed necessary to enhance
steel/concrete floor systems for the floors above 6/F. robustness and provide direct buckling restraint to the
The concrete solution comprised a 275mm columns. This peripheral primary beam arrangement
post-tensioned slab with 2000mm x 650mm deep provided a zone around the core where services could
perimeter reinforced concrete band beams. The be installed beneath the steel beams requiring only
composite schemes comprised 125mm thick slabs small penetrations through the main primary girder for
acting compositely with permanent decking supported minimal services which needed to access the building
at up to 3m intervals on a variety of steel beam perimeter. The 24m primary girder comprised an
options. Although studies showed that the cost of asymmetric fabricated section and was structurally
the concrete floor was slightly less, and that the continuous with the megacolumns.
anticipated cycle times for the two systems were The limiting criterion for the design of the floor
similar, the additional costs for the columns and system was the vertical inter-storey deflection limits at
foundations due to the increased dead loading showed the facade of 20mm. In achieving this limit, the effects
that, overall, the composite solution was preferable. of potential differential shrinkage and long term creep
effects of the primary beams on adjacent floors, were
considered in addition to patterned imposed load.
These effects along with the axial shortening of the
core and columns were incorporated in the
construction presets to ensure that the building was
constructed within acceptable tolerance.
The weight of floor beam steel is 36 kg/m2 based on
gross constructed floor area.

6. Megacolumns
The megacolumns comprise composite
steel/concrete in which the steel elements are encased
with reinforced concrete. Table 1 presents a
summary of the columns sizes at various heights in the
building together with details of steel content.
Extensive studies were carried out to establish the
most appropriate form of the columns in terms of
cost and buildability and to optimise the size and
steel/concrete ratios.
Concrete encasement was adopted to enable the
maximum use of steel in the form of reinforcement
rather than the less cost-effective use of structural
sections. Reference 1 describes initial studies that
were performed to investigate the optimum
Fig.3. Typical floor framing proportions of those elements that contribute to the
lateral stiffness of the tower. This included an
assessment of the optimum proportions of the steel
The typical floor-to-floor height is 4.17m with a and concrete in the megacolumns (as the proportions
dimension from underside of ceiling to the top of floor of the core walls and outrigger elements) to minimise
slab of 1.2m. A number of composite floor solutions the initial capital structural cost of the tower. In
were investigated which offered varying degrees of addition, reference 1 describes subsequent
service/structure integration. Of these, asymmetric optimisation studies that were performed considering
fabricated tapered beam and composite truss solutions the value of the useable floor space occupied by the
presented the lightest (though not necessarily the structure.
cheapest) solutions. Such systems were, however, One key issue was the need to maximise the

CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea 1163

buildability of the megacolumns. As a consequence,
the structural steel component was split into a number
of sub sections that could be lifted and connected with
ease. In addition, it was considered at the outset the
concrete encasement of the megacolumns would be
formed using self climbing formwork (figure 4).
This latter initiative effectively removed the reliance
on the cranes in lifting column formwork between
floor levels, thereby maximising their efficiency in
lifting structural steel components and reinforcement.
The formwork system effectively comprised hinged
forms that wrapped around the column. Prior to
jumping to the next floor, the form were unfolded to
form a single plane on the façade side of the column.
The formwork could then climb without interfering
with the pre-installed main structural steel elements.

Following the passage of the form, a few light

trimming steel members could be then added to Fig.4. Column Climbform System
complete the floor framing immediately adjacent to
the column and façade.
Table 1: Mega column Schedule

Overall No. of Sub- Averaged Percentage of Design Concrete Grade

Level Dimensions Stanchions Weight of Steel Reinforcement Bar Effective
(tonne/m) Length
(m)

B5 to 6/F 2.3m x 3.5m 6 9.7 4.0 % 30.3 60D

6/F to 32/F 2.3m x 3.5m 3 2.7 3.5 % 24.0 60D

33/F to 52/F 1.85m x 3m 2 1.1 3.0 % 19.2 60D

53/F to 69/F 1.4m x 2.6m 2 0.9 3.0 % 14.8 45D

70/F to 77/F 1.2m x 0.9m 1 0.6 2.0 % 12.8 45D

78/F to Roof 1m x 0.75m 1 0.5 2.0% 8.9 45D

The effect of the megacolumn buckling and advantage.

restraints provided by the floor diaphragms was a The steelwork in the megacolumns up to 6/F level
key consideration given the massive nature of the formed one contract, with all the steel above that
columns and the relatively thin nature of the level forming the larger follow-on steelwork
individual floor diaphragms. A second order contract. In the initial contract, the steel in the
non-linear analysis was undertaken to investigate the megacolumns was installed by mobile cranes from
interaction of the spring stiffness of the floor ground floor level into the temporary cofferdam.
diaphragms and the column buckling. This enabled The optimisation studies had shown that there were
the effective length of the column to be determined significant commercial advantages in increasing the
and quantified the forces to be resisted by the floor stiffness of the columns in this first contract over
diaphragms (see table 1). The inclusion of a and above that required for strength. It effectively
continuous substantial primary beam tie connecting minimised the stiffness requirement, and hence the
all the megacolumns facilitated the mobilisation of impact on the tower cranes (of lower capacity than
the floor diaphragms in providing the necessary the mobile cranes), in the follow-on contract –
column restraint. It should be noted that this effectively onstruction-led optimisation of
perimeter tie also enhanced the overall robustness of proportioning of structural material.
the tower. The total weight of steel in the megacolumns is
The Contract for the structural steelwork was split equivalent to 49kg/m² over the gross constructed
into two parts in order to gain an overall programme floor area of the tower.

1164 CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea

 required. A punched concrete wall type outrigger
was considered, however, this provided insufficient
stiffness given the openings that had to be
accommodated.
The steel truss outriggers pass through, and are
cast within, the core walls. Optimisation studies
had suggested that the axial stiffness ratios for the
bottom, middle and upper outriggers should be 1 :
0.81 : 0.64 respectively (ref 1). Initially, it was
considered that only the top and bottom booms of
the outriggers would pass through the core - the
longitudinal shears between the booms being
resisted by the reinforced concrete of the core walls.
Fig.5. Finite Element analysis of floor diaphragms to assess However, due to the need for large openings through
stiffness and resulting forces in resisting column buckling, the core wall to accommodate the requirement for
significant M&E access, it became apparent that a
7. Outriggers steel truss would be required to supplement the
At the outset it was apparent that, in order to strength and stiffness of the perforated core.
satisfy the access requirements in and around the
mechanical floors, a steel outrigger system would be

Fig.6. Diagrammatic representation of Outrigger Retro-installation

In the analysis of the outrigger system, a detailed necessary to restrict the stress in the shear studs to
assessment of the local deformations at the core half their design capacity – essentially restricting the
wall/outrigger interface was made, with the stiffness flexural performance of the studs to the elastic range,
of the overall lateral stability system modified thereby maximising stiffness.
accordingly. Extensive analysis was carried out to One of the key issues concerning steel outriggers
assess the precise characteristics of the interface in composite tall building construction, particularly
between the steel truss and concrete wall where such large outriggers are required, is their
components to ensure strain compatibility - potential impact on the construction programme.
thereby minimising the potential for cracking in the The core of such buildings can be constructed with
core. The analysis took into account the flexural relative speed and efficiency using a climbform
stiffness of the shear studs and anchorage that system. Typical cycle times achieved on the core
were used to transmit the forces from the outriggers were 3-4 days. Clearly, stopping the climbform at
to the concrete core. From the analysis it was found the outrigger levels to permit the steelwork
that to achieve compatibility of strain, it was contractor to install the outrigger is not conducive to

CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea 1165

optimising continuity of labour usage, or minimising because of the limited data available on the precise
the construction programme. characteristics of grade 60 concrete incorporating
25% PFA. From these studies, Arup undertook a
comprehensive study to quantify the differential
shortening and the necessary pre-sets to be built into
the construction of vertical elements.

Fig. 7. Retro-installation of steel outrigger within the core

wall

Figure 6 shows conceptually, the retro-outrigger

installation approach adopted on the tower. Stage 1
involved reducing the outer core wall thickness
from (typically) 1000mm to 300mm over the full
height of the outrigger zone. Above the outrigger Fig. 8 Climbform construction of the core progressing prior
zone, the wall thickness reverts to (typically) to completion of the steel outriggers.
1000mm. Although this involved an adjustment to The outrigger connections to the megacolumns
the climbform system at the locations of the change incorporated a series of packing shims at the contact
in wall thickness, it did permit the climbform to pass surfaces. This enabled the outriggers to be
through the outrigger zone in advance of steelwork effective during construction to enable the tower to
installation. In Stage 2, and with the climbform resist any typhoon winds that may have occurred. In
continuing to construct the upper levels, the addition, it allowed the packing shims to be removed,
outrigger elements were located in position and or added, as required (with the assistance of small
assembled. Figure 7 shows the partial installation of jacks) to enable differential movements between the
the outrigger within the zone corresponding to the outrigger and columns to occur during construction.
thinned core wall. Stage 3, with the welding of the Using this approach, it effectively prevented the
outrigger completed, the core wall was build-up of very large internal forces that would
retro-concreted. This included a 100mm thick otherwise have been generated in the event that the
grouted layer at the top of the outrigger zone at the outrigger and columns were rigidly, and permanently,
interface with the widened section of the wall. connected together from the outset.
Figure 8 shows a view of the tower during
construction with the climbform progressing beyond 9. Robustness and Safety Of The Tower
the outrigger zone and the partially completed steel The 9/11 tragedy in New York occurred when the
outrigger. 2IFC tower was constructed up to the 33/F. In the
days following 9/11 many questions were raised
8. Differential Axial Shortening with regard to the robustness, integrity and egress
One key considerations is the differential provision within the 2IFC Tower.
shortening between the core and the perimeter Whilst it was recognised at an early stage that it
columns during the construction of the tower and the would be impracticable to design a tower
long term effects post completion. This is specifically to resist such extreme events, Arup
particularly important in composite tall buildings in undertook an extensive series of studies focused on
which the deformation characteristics of the steel the assessing the safety of the design. It should be
intensive columns and the large core can be noted that the studies where carried out in the 4
markedly different. Prior to construction a number weeks after 9/11 – speed being essential so as to
of specific material tests were carried out to quantify inform the ongoing construction of 2IFC.
the modulus and shrinkage characteristics of the
proposed concrete mix. This was necessary

1166 CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea

 600

500

400
Height (m)

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
50 year code design gust wind pressure (kPa)
Hong Kong Shanghai New York Fig.10. Analytical simulations of aircraft engine impact on core
Chicago Kuala Lumpur walls.
• It is evident that the provision of exist staircases
Fig. 9. Comparison of wind codes
in the Hong Kong code is larger than that which
exist in accordance with other international
The studies involved performing comparative
codes. The main reason is that the Hong Kong
assessments of international practice and code
code requirement is largely based on a
requirements with regard to structural integrity and
simultaneous evacuation of the building whilst
escape, as well as detailed analytical dynamic
other codes permit a phased evacuation strategy
simulations of a range of aircraft engine impact
(thereby reducing the overall egress
scenarios – the latter used software developed crash
requirements). Other areas in which the escape
simulations for the automotive industry. The key
provisions in the Hong Kong code (and adopted
findings from these studies were as follows:-
in 2IFC) are seen to be more stringent compared
• The large composite steel/concrete megacolumn
to other codes are as follows:
solution resulted in key elements which offered
- Requirement to provided dedicated access
an extremely high resistance to extreme impact
for firefighters.
scenarios.
- Refuge floors to be provided at not greater
• The concrete core offers a hardened escape
than every 25 storeys. This provides a
route to evacuees. The walls of the core are
ventilated place of refuge for those
particularly good at maintaing integrity and
egressing the building and also command
redistributing load in the event of localised
points for fire fighters.
damage.
- Discontinuous stairwells to prevent the
• Fundamental to enhancing structural robustness
chimney effect of smoke egress throughout
that critical elements are themselves robust and
the height of the tower.
that, in the event of is critical element removal,
The conclusion from these studies (completed
alternative structural load paths exist to
before much of the forensics on the WTC collapse
adequately resist the residual loads. The
had been completed), was that the structural form
outrigger solution is capable of providing such
and planning of the 2IFC Tower provided a robust
alternative load paths. It was shown that the
form with enhanced resistance to potentially
integrity of the building was maintained in the
damaging events. As a consequence of these studies,
event that two of the megacolumns were
the construction of the 2IFC tower continued with
removed at low level. The outrigger
no changes to the design.
effectively acts as a ‘gravity prop’ to support the
megacolumns above.
Conclusions
• Tall buildings in Hong Kong are designed to
This paper has presented a brief overview of some
resist significant lateral loads (typhoon winds)
of the design and construction-led innovations that
compared to other tall building centers around
have been adopted in the construction of the IFC
the world (see above figure). As a result,
Tower, the tallest building in Hong Kong.
under non-typhoon conditions, the elements
exhibit significant residual strength to enhance
References
the resistance to impact events and to tolerate 1) Chan, C M., Gibbons, C., Macarthur, J.M., “Structural
load redistribution when in a damaged state. Optimisation Of The North East Tower, Hong Kong Sation”,
Fifth Int. Conf. On Tall Buildings, Hong Kong, Dec. 98.
2) Gibbons, C, Lee, A.C.C., Macarthur, J.M., “The Design Of The
North East Tower, Hong Kong Station”, Fifth Int. Conf. On Tall
Buildings, Hong Kong, Dec. 98.
3) Gibbons, C., Luo, M.C, Dumigan, D., “Assessment of the Life
Safety Aspects and Structural Robustness of High Rise Buildings
in Hong Kong.

CTBUH 2004 October 10~13, Seoul, Korea 1167