Abstract
Purpose
The aim of the study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of interrelations of structural systems and main planning considerations in supertall buildings (≥300 m).
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from 140 contemporary supertall towers using the case study method to analyze structural systems in the light of the key design considerations to contribute to the creation of more viable supertall building projects.
Findings
Central core typology, outriggered frame system, composite material and tapered prismatic and free forms were the most preferred features in supertall building design. Shear walled frame and tube systems occurred mostly in the 300–400 m height range, while outriggered frame systems were in the range of 300–600 m in height. Asia, the Middle East and North America mainly preferred outriggered frame systems, followed by tube systems. Considering the building function and form, the most preferred structural system in each of these groups was outriggered frame system, while mixed-use function stood out in all structural systems except in shear walled frame system.
Originality/value
To date, there has been no comprehensive study in the literature of the interrelations of structural systems and important planning considerations in the design of contemporary supertall towers through a large set of study samples. This critical issue was multidimensionally explored in this paper in light of 140 detailed case studies of supertall buildings around the world.
Keywords
Citation
Ilgın, H.E. (2023), "A study on interrelations of structural systems and main planning considerations in contemporary supertall buildings", International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-12-2021-0172
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Hüseyin Emre Ilgın
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
The increasing rate of urbanization in recent years, along with the race to win the title of the tallest building, has seen an accelerating trend in the construction of supertall buildings around the world, especially in developing economies (Al-Kodmany, 2012, 2018a; Gabel, 2016; Gerges et al., 2017; Ilgın, 2021a). The world continues to witness an explosion of growth in the number of skyscrapers above 200 m with record-breaking completions for three consecutive years (2014–2016), and an over 400% increase in the total number of such towers in the 21st century (Gabel, 2018; Khallaf and Khallaf, 2021). According to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) database (CTBUH, 2022), the number of supertall buildings under construction and completed in the last decade is close to 250. The rapidly increasing global demand for supertall buildings in the world brings up the parameters that play a critical role in the design and implementation of these giant projects as in the cases of Burj Khalifa (Dubai, 828 m) (Figure 1a) (Abdelrazaq, 2010), Merdeka PNB118 (Kuala Lumpur, under construction) (Figure 1b) (Fender et al., 2016), Shanghai Tower (Shanghai, 2015) (Figure 1c) (Wu et al., 2019) and One Vanderbilt Avenue (New York, 2020) (Figure 1d) (Klemperer, 2015).
Since a supertall building is feasible by the structure itself, the structural system is the most important design parameter, and many planning criteria depend on the structural system in terms of its performance (Ilgın, 2018). The selection of an optimal building structural system is also critical to improving building construction (Chakraborty et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2022). Structural systems play a key role in determining a cost-effective supertall building form. Moreover, the structural cost of tall buildings can constitute approximately 30% of the total construction cost, and this cost increases as the building rises (Almusharaf and Elnimeiri, 2010; Wang et al., 2017; Mubarek et al., 2019; Elmousalami, 2019). Due to the current trend of the pluralistic architectural style, the structural systems have become more diverse and have somehow lost their natural logic, adapting to the formatting predetermined by the architect (Ali and Al-Kodmany, 2012). The style and aesthetics of the buildings are integrally related to the horizontal and vertical configurations.
It should be noted here that many studies in the literature raise concerns about the sustainability and ecological dimensions of construction projects (e.g. Chakraborty et al., 2016; Swei et al., 2017; Kumar and Gururaj, 2019; Opoku, 2019; Elhegazy et al., 2021a) including supertall towers (e.g. Yeang, 2008; Al-Kodmany, 2018b, c; Borrallo-Jiménez et al., 2020; Zhang, 2020). According to Al-Kodmany (2018b, c), these buildings have elements that threaten their social, economic and environmental sustainability. In this sense, from a social perspective, supertall buildings can cause social isolation due to their vertical composition and therefore are generally not assessed suitable for raising children and family life. They are also thought to be self-referential and vertically stratified objects devoid of cultural and social references to their surroundings (Scheeren, 2014; Henn and Fleischmann, 2015; Safarik, 2016). From an economic point of view, supertall towers are costly to build due to their complex structure and their mechanical and electrical systems (DeJong and Wamelink, 2008). In addition, far greater amounts of materials and energy, and far greater amounts of embodied energy, must be involved in their construction and operation than in low-rise buildings (Ali and Al-Kodmany, 2012). From an environmental perspective, the construction and maintenance of supertall buildings generate large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions (Dong et al., 2015; Gan et al., 2017). It should also be underlined here that building management, evaluating its performance and assessing tenant satisfaction are key components of achieving more sustainable skyscrapers (Safarik et al., 2016).
Although there are many studies on tall and supertall building structural systems in the literature (e.g. Ali and Moon, 2007; Taranath, 2016; Ali and Moon, 2018; Fu, 2018), limited studies examine the relationship between the structural system and other design parameters. Among these studies, Sev and Özgen (2009) analyzed the space efficiency in 10 high-rise office buildings from Turkey and the world in the light of various parameters such as leasing depth, gross and net floor areas, core integrity, structural material, floor-to-floor height and structural system. Elnimeiri and Almusaraf (2010) scrutinized the historical development of the relationship between the structural system and tall building form. Alaghmandan et al. (2014) examined architectural and structural trends in the design of tall buildings through 73 case studies. Ilgın (2021b) focused on space efficiency in 44 contemporary supertall office buildings with the main architectural and structural parameters (i.e. core planning, building form, structural system and structural material), while Ilgın (2021c) studied space efficiency in 27 contemporary supertall residential buildings with the same parameters. On the other hand, Ilgın et al. (2021) analyzed the contemporary trends in main architectural and structural design considerations and several corresponding interrelations through 93 case studies.
To date, there has been no comprehensive study in the literature of the interrelations of structural systems and important planning considerations in the design of contemporary supertall towers through a large set of study samples. This critical issue was multidimensionally explored in this paper in light of 140 detailed case studies of supertall buildings around the world.
In this study, besides giving general information (building name, country and city, height, number of storys, completion date, function), key planning considerations (core design, building forms, structural systems and structural materials) and interrelations of the structural system and main design considerations including building height, location, function, building form and structural material were analyzed. By doing so, this paper, which reveals the current state of the art of supertall applications, is believed to provide insight into making more viable design decisions for future supertall towers.
The remainder of this paper was structured as follows. First, an explanation of the materials and methods used in the study was provided. This was followed by results of interrelations of structural system and main planning considerations. Finally, discussion and conclusions were presented, with research limitations and suggestions for future studies.
2. Materials and methods
In this study, the case study method was employed to collect and consolidate information about contemporary supertall buildings to examine the interrelationships of structural systems and major planning considerations. This method is a widely used approach in built environment assessments, where projects are identified and documented for quantitative and qualitative data through in-depth literature review (Kuzmanovska et al., 2018).
In this paper, the following parameters, which have an important role in the planning of supertall buildings and are associated with the structural system, were discussed: (1) building height, (2) location, (3) building function, (4) building form and (5) structural material.
Cases which included 140 supertall buildings in a variety of countries [78 from Asia (58 from China), 31 from the Middle East (22 from Dubai, the United Arab Emirates), 20 from North America (14 from the United States), 7 from Russia, 2 from Australia, 1 from South America (Chile), 1 from Europe (UK)]. Appendices 1 and 2 show detailed information of 140 contemporary supertall towers.
Functionally supertall buildings are divided into single-use or mixed-use. In supertall tower design, hotels, residential buildings and offices are considered as the primary functions in this paper.
Based on the CTBUH database (CTBUH, 2022), a single-use building is considered a building where 85% or more of its total height is devoted to a single function, whereas a mixed-use building is assumed to contain two or more functions, occupying a significant part of the total area of the tower in this study. It was also assumed that a supertall building is equal to and higher than a 300 m building (CTBUH, 2022). Additionally, the following core classification of Ilgın et al. (2021) was used because of its more comprehensive structure in the literature (e.g. Trabucco, 2010; Oldfield and Doherty, 2019): (1) central core (central and central split), (2) atrium core (atrium and atrium split), (3) external core (attached, detached, partial split and full split) and (4) peripheral core (partial peripheral, full peripheral, partial split and full split).
Furthermore, compared to other studies in the literature (e.g. Al-Kodmany and Ali, 2016; Szolomicki and Golasz-Szolomicka, 2019), the following forms of classification were used in this study (Ilgın et al., 2021): (1) prismatic, (2) setback, (3) tapered, (4) twisted, (5) leaning/tilted and (6) free forms.
Since it is more comprehensive than the existing structural system classification in the literature (e.g. Gunel and Ilgın, 2007; Gunel and Ilgın, 2014a, b; Taranath, 2016; Ali and Moon, 2018), the author used the following classification for supertall buildings
shear-frame system consisting of shear wall/truss and frame with subsets of shear trussed frame and shear walled frame;
mega core system consisting of a mega core with much larger cross-sections than normal, running continuously along the height of the building as a main load-bearing element;
mega column system consisting of mega columns or shear walls with much larger cross-sections than normal, running continuously along the height of the building as main load-bearing elements;
outriggered frame system consisting of at least one-story deep outriggers added to shear-frame system;
tube system:
framed-tube system consisting of closely spaced exterior columns with spandrel beams at the facade,
trussed-tube system consisting of exterior columns with exterior multistory braces,
bundled-tube system consisting of a combination of more than one tube; and
buttressed core system, an advanced “shear wall system,” consisting of shear walls directly supporting the central core.
In this article, the following classification was used for structural materials for supertall building construction: (1) steel, (2) reinforced concrete and (3) composite. Considering vertical structural members – columns, beams, shear trusses, shear walls and outriggers – as the main structural elements, “composite” referred to the buildings in which some structural elements were made of reinforced concrete and other structural elements were made of steel, or to those in which some structural elements were made of both structural steel and concrete together or to both the first and the second categories (e.g. Chen, 2021; Elhegazy et al., 2021b).
3. Results
Figure 2 shows the relationship between the building height and the number of storys of supertall towers examined. As seen in the red trendline in Figure 2, it can be said that there is a directly proportional relationship between the height of the building and the number of storys.
It is worth noting here that a building can also have symbolic functions besides its main function(s), which is divided into regular floors with typical floor heights. This could make the building an outlier, as in the case of the 36-story, 300 m high Aspire Tower (see Figure 2) comprising both hotel and office functions. The tower, which resembles a hand holding a flaming torch, became the most important symbol of the 15th Asian Games held in Qatar in 2006 (Chikaher and Hirst, 2007; Gunel and Ilgin, 2014b). Similarly, as in the 62-story, 427 m high One Vanderbilt Avenue in New York, a part of a supertall building may have been designed not for purely human occupation in the form of an office, hotel or residence, but for other purposes, such as an observation deck on the upper floors (Klemperer, 2015). This approach can also make the building an outlier (see Figure 2).
Additionally, in Figures 3–5, the bars demonstrate the total number of supertall buildings (right axis of the chart) by function, form and structural material, respectively, while dots correspond to the heights of supertall buildings (left axis of the chart) by function, form and structural material, respectively. As seen in Figure 3, building functions other than hotel either reached the level of megatall buildings (≥600 m) or were very close to it, while megatall building limit exceeded in all building forms as shown in Figure 4. Considering the wind loads that become more critical as the building height increases (e.g. Wang and Ni, 2022), the aerodynamic efficiency of the tapered, setback, free and twisted forms may have contributed to the skyscrapers built with these forms to break through the megatall height limits (Ilgın and Günel, 2007; Sharma et al., 2018; Ilgın and Gunel, 2021; Li et al., 2022; Mandal et al., 2022). As highlighted in Figure 5, many composite buildings were built beyond the megatall building height. This can be explained by the superiority of composite structure, which combines the advantages of both materials, such as the high strength of steel and the rigidity and fire resistance of reinforced concrete (e.g. Du et al., 2022). Megatall limit was exceeded only with the Burj Khalifa (Figure 1a) as reinforced concrete, and these structures were generally built in the range of 300–600 m. At the Burj Khalifa, high-performance, high-strength concrete with strengths of up to 80 MPa may have contributed significantly to the tower's attainment of this extraordinary height (Weismantle et al., 2007; Aldred, 2010). On the other hand, the tallest building in steel was 435 m in the study sample.
3.1 Interrelations of structural system and main planning considerations
Interrelations of structural system and main planning considerations associated with it, such as building height, location, building function, building form and structural material, were examined in this section. Since the most used core typology by a wide margin (>96%) in the study sample was the central core, no analysis was made on this issue.
3.1.1 Interrelation of structural system and building height
In Figure 6, the bars demonstrate the total number of supertall buildings (right axis of the chart) by structural system, while dots correspond to the heights of supertall buildings (left axis of the chart) with such a structural system.
Shear walled frame systems occurred 92% in the 300–400 m height range, and only Al Hamra Tower, whose height exceeds 400 m, was built with this system. According to the study example, buttressed core systems were rarely preferred in supertall building construction, but Burj Khalifa (Figure 1a), the world's tallest completed building, was built with a buttressed core system. Outriggered frame systems with a ratio of 95% were in the height range of 300–600 m, while only 5 of them can be called megatall towers (≥600 m). By January 2022, 9 of the 10 tallest buildings completed in the CTBUH database (CTBUH, 2022) used an outriggered frame system: Shanghai Tower with 128-storys and 632 m height (Figure 1c), Makkah Royal Clock Tower with 120-storys and 601 m height, Ping An Finance Center with 115-storys and 599 m height, Lotte World Tower with 123-storys and 554 m height, One World Trade Center with 94-storys and 541 m height, Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre with 111-storys and 530 m height, Tianjin CTF Finance Centre with 97-storys and 530 m height, CITIC Tower with 109-storys and 528 m height and Taipei 101 with 101-storys and 508 m height. Tube systems, which occurred at a rate of 59%, were in the height range of 300–400 m; only 4 of them exceed 500 meters. In the sample group, while framed-tube system was preferred most (63%) among tube systems, trussed-tube system was employed in Goldin Finance 117 with 596 m height, the tallest building in which the tube system was used.
3.1.2 Interrelation of structural system and location
Figures 7 and 8 show the interrelation of structural system and location. Asia preferred outriggered frame system in a wide margin (76%), followed by tube system with a ratio of 18%. Similarly, the Middle East and North America utilized outriggered frame systems mostly, with ratios of 48 and 65%, respectively. As the number of supertall buildings in the sample group was relatively small in Russia (7 cases) and the remaining locations (4 cases), it was difficult to establish a scientific relationship between structural system and location.
3.1.3 Interrelation of structural system and building function
Figure 9 compares the use of alternative structural systems for a given building function. Although outrigger frame system was the most preferred structural system in all building functions, followed by tube system apart from hotel function, outrigger frame system's dominance became more pronounced (>70%) especially in mixed-use development. On the other hand, Figure 10 compares the use of alternative functions for a given structural system. While mixed-use function stood out in all structural systems except shear walled frame, this situation became even more evident in outriggered frame systems. Since the number of buildings with buttressed core system and hotel function was very few, deriving a correlation between structural system and building function of those buildings was likely to be inaccurate.
3.1.4 Interrelation of structural system and building form
Figure 11 compares the use of alternative structural systems for a given building form. Even though outrigger frame system was the most used structural system in all building forms, followed by tube system apart from free form, outrigger frame system's dominance became more pronounced especially in tapered and free forms (>70%). On the other hand, Figure 12 compares the use of alternative building forms for a given structural system. While tapered, free and prismatic forms were preferred in outriggered frame systems; prismatic, tapered and setback forms were employed in tube systems according to the order of frequent use. Since the number of buildings with twisted form and buttressed core was very low, it did not seem possible to establish a relationship between the building form and structural system of those buildings.
3.1.5 Interrelation of structural system and structural material
Figures 13 and 14 show the interrelation of structural system and structural material. As seen in Figure 13, composite was the most preferred material, followed by reinforced concrete, in all types of structural systems except buttressed core system. When the subject was considered in terms of structural material classification, outriggered frame system was the most preferred structural system in terms of all types of materials, followed by tube system. Since the number of buildings made of steel and with buttressed core system was very few, deriving a correlation between structural systems and structural materials of those buildings was likely to be inaccurate.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The results obtained in this study showed similarities and dissimilarities with other studies in the literature (e.g. Oldfield and Doherty, 2019; Ilgın et al., 2021). In this paper, central core arrangement was the most used typology, as noted in similar studies (Oldfield and Doherty, 2019; Ilgın, 2021b, c; Ilgın et al., 2021). Among the 140 supertall towers, tapered, prismatic and free forms were the most frequent, and this finding was verified by the findings in the studies of Ilgın et al. (2021) on 93 supertall towers, Ilgın (2021b) on 44 supertall office buildings and Ilgın (2021c) on 27 supertall residential towers. In terms of structural systems, outriggered frame system was mainly used in supertall buildings, which confirmed the findings of other studies such as Ilgın et al. (2021), Ilgın (2021b) and Ilgın (2021c), while the use of composite was more prevalent than steel and reinforced concrete as in the studies of Ilgın et al. (2021) and Ilgın (2021b).
Regarding the interrelations of the structural system and the main planning considerations associated with it, this study analyzed building height, location, building function, building form and structural material to provide an introductory design guide for key construction professionals in supertall building projects. Shear walled frame and tube systems mostly occurred in the 300–400 m height range, while outriggered frame systems were primarily in the height range of 300–600 m. Asia, the Middle East and North America mainly preferred outriggered frame systems, followed by tube systems, in supertall building construction. Similarly, considering building function and building form, outrigger frame system was the most prevalent structural system in all building function and form groups. Additionally, mixed-use function came to the fore in all structural systems except shear walled frame. On the other hand, while tapered, free and prismatic forms were preferred in outriggered frame systems, prismatic, tapered and setback forms were employed in tube systems according to the order of frequent use. In terms of the interrelation of the structural system and structural material, composite was the most used material, followed by reinforced concrete, in all structural systems except buttressed core system.
It is also worth noting that supertall buildings have come under serious criticism that they are unsustainable in many ways, including social, financial and ecological considerations. Solutions to these important issues should be considered from the initial planning phase of supertall towers. In this context, architects should be aware that the design of these gigantic projects, like many other complex structures, is a multidimensional issue that requires interdisciplinary collaboration and high-level teamwork.
In this paper, through 140 supertall cases, main design considerations (i.e. core planning, building forms, structural systems and structural materials) and interrelations of structural system and main design considerations (i.e. building height, location, building function, building form and structural material) were analyzed.
In conclusion, the results obtained in this study on interrelations of structural systems and main planning considerations in contemporary supertall buildings are expected to provide design guidelines for key professional stakeholders such as architects, engineers and developers.
The empirical data presented in this paper are limited to buildings taller than or equal to 300 meters. Additional categorization levels for 140 supertall buildings in the study sample set especially relatively may give biased results for a small number of building groups such as hotel function buildings and steel buildings; it was emphasized that, where appropriate, it would probably be inaccurate to extract correlations from these building groups. However, considering the significantly increasing number of buildings in the scope of this study in the last decade, it can be foreseen that there will be a sufficient number of buildings in subcategories in the near future.
In addition, buildings below 300 m can also be included in the study sample to create a sufficient number of subcategories. On the other hand, as innovative structural systems are developed for the next generation of sustainable, ultra-tall buildings and megastructures, the relationships between the structural system and other design parameters may change, which will require further research. In particular, future research should delve deeper into the structural system-sustainability relationship of supertall towers, and in this context, supertall timber building projects may come to the fore (Johnson et al., 2014; Foster and Ramage, 2017; Ramage et al., 2017).
Figures
Contemporary supertall buildings considered in this study
| # | Building name | Country | City | Height (meters) | # of storeys | Completion date | Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nakheel Tower | UAE | Dubai | 1,000 | 200 | NC | M (H/R/O) |
| 2 | Burj Khalifa | UAE | Dubai | 828 | 163 | 2010 | M (H/R/O) |
| 3 | Suzhou Zhongnan Center | China | Suzhou | 729 | 137 | NC | M (H/R/O) |
| 4 | Merdeka PNB118 | Malaysia | Kuala Lumpur | 644 | 118 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 5 | Shanghai Tower | China | Shanghai | 632 | 128 | 2015 | M (H/O) |
| 6 | Chicago Spire | USA | Chicago | 609 | 150 | NC | R |
| 7 | Makkah Royal Clock Tower | Saudi Arabia | Mecca | 601 | 120 | 2012 | M (H/R) |
| 8 | Ping an Finance Center | China | Shenzhen | 599 | 115 | 2017 | O |
| 9 | Goldin Finance 117 | China | Tianjin | 596 | 128 | OH | M (H/O) |
| 10 | Entisar Tower | UAE | Dubai | 577 | 122 | OH | M (H/R) |
| 11 | Lotte World Tower | South Korea | Seoul | 554 | 123 | 2017 | M (H/R/O) |
| 12 | One World Trade Center | USA | New York | 541 | 94 | 2014 | O |
| 13 | Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre | China | Guangzhou | 530 | 111 | 2016 | M (H/R/O) |
| 14 | Tianjin CTF Finance Centre | China | Tianjin | 530 | 97 | 2019 | M (H/O) |
| 15 | CITIC Tower | China | Beijing | 528 | 108 | 2018 | O |
| 16 | Evergrande Hefei Center 1 | China | Hefei | 518 | 112 | OH | M (H/R/O) |
| 17 | Pentominium Tower | UAE | Dubai | 515 | 122 | OH | R |
| 18 | Busan Lotte Town Tower | South Korea | Busan | 510 | 107 | NC | M (H/R/O) |
| 19 | TAIPEI 101 | Taiwan | Taipei | 508 | 101 | 2004 | O |
| 20 | Greenland Jinmao International Financial Center | China | Nanjing | 499 | 102 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 21 | Shanghai World Financial Center | China | Shanghai | 492 | 101 | 2008 | M (H/O) |
| 22 | International Commerce Centre | China | Hong Kong | 484 | 108 | 2010 | M (H/O) |
| 23 | Wuhan Greenland Center | China | Wuhan | 475 | 97 | UC | M (H/R/O) |
| 24 | Central Park Tower | USA | New York | 472 | 98 | 2020 | R |
| 25 | Chengdu Greenland Tower | China | Chengdu | 468 | 101 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 26 | R&F Guangdong Building | China | Tianjin | 468 | 91 | OH | M (H/R/O) |
| 27 | Lakhta Center | Russia | St. Petersburg | 462 | 87 | 2019 | O |
| 28 | Vincom Landmark 81 | Vietnam | Ho Chi Minh City | 461 | 81 | 2018 | M (H/R) |
| 29 | Changsha IFS Tower T1 | China | Changsha | 452 | 94 | 2018 | M (H/O) |
| 30 | Petronas Twin Tower 1 | Malaysia | Kuala Lumpur | 452 | 88 | 1998 | O |
| 31 | Petronas Twin Tower 2 | Malaysia | Kuala Lumpur | 452 | 88 | 1998 | O |
| 32 | Zifeng Tower | China | Nanjing | 450 | 66 | 2010 | M (H/O) |
| 33 | The Exchange 106 | Malaysia | Kuala Lumpur | 446 | 95 | 2019 | O |
| 34 | Marina 106 | UAE | Dubai | 445 | 104 | OH | R |
| 35 | World One | Mumbai | India | 442 | 117 | NC | R |
| 36 | KK 100 | China | Shenzhen | 441 | 98 | 2011 | M (H/O) |
| 37 | Guangzhou International Finance Center | China | Guangzhou | 438 | 103 | 2010 | M (H/O) |
| 38 | Multifunctional Highrise Complex–Akhmat Tower | Russia | Grozny | 435 | 102 | OH | M (R/O) |
| 39 | 111 West 57th Street | USA | New York | 435 | 84 | UC | R |
| 40 | Chongqing Tall Tower | China | Chongqing | 431 | 101 | OH | M (H/R/O) |
| 41 | Haikou Tower 1 | China | Haikou | 428 | 94 | OH | M (H/R/O) |
| 42 | One Vanderbilt Avenue | USA | New York | 427 | 62 | 2020 | O |
| 43 | Marina 101 | UAE | Dubai | 425 | 101 | 2017 | M (H/R) |
| 44 | 432 Park Avenue | USA | New York | 425 | 85 | 2015 | R |
| 45 | Trump International Hotel and Tower | USA | Chicago | 423 | 98 | 2009 | M (H/R) |
| 46 | Al Hamra Tower | Kuwait | Kuwait City | 413 | 80 | 2011 | O |
| 47 | Princess Tower | UAE | Dubai | 413 | 101 | 2012 | R |
| 48 | Two International Finance Center | China | Hong Kong | 412 | 88 | 2003 | O |
| 49 | LCT The Sharp Landmark Tower | South Korea | Busan | 411 | 101 | 2019 | M (H/R) |
| 50 | Guangxi China Resources Tower | China | Nanning | 402 | 86 | 2020 | M (H/O) |
| 51 | China Resources Tower | China | Shenzhen | 393 | 68 | 2018 | O |
| 52 | 23 Marina | UAE | Dubai | 392 | 88 | 2012 | R |
| 53 | CITIC Plaza | China | Guangzhou | 390 | 80 | 1996 | O |
| 54 | Dynamic Tower | UAE | Dubai | 388 | 80 | NC | M (H/R) |
| 55 | Shum Yip Upperhills Tower 1 | China | Shenzhen | 388 | 80 | 2020 | M (H/O) |
| 56 | 30 Hudson Yards | USA | New York | 387 | 73 | 2019 | O |
| 57 | PIF Tower | Saudi Arabia | Riyadh | 385 | 72 | ATO | O |
| 58 | Shun Hing Square | China | Shenzhen | 384 | 69 | 1996 | O |
| 59 | Autograph Tower | Indonesia | Jakarta | 382 | 75 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 60 | Burj Mohammed Bin Rashid | UAE | Abu Dhabi | 381 | 88 | 2014 | R |
| 61 | Guiyang World Trade Center Landmark Tower | China | Guiyang | 380 | 92 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 62 | Elite residence | UAE | Dubai | 380 | 87 | 2012 | R |
| 63 | Central Plaza | China | Hong Kong | 374 | 78 | 1992 | O |
| 64 | Federation Tower | Russia | Moscow | 373 | 93 | 2016 | M (R/O) |
| 65 | Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower A | China | Nanjing | 368 | 77 | 2019 | M (H/O) |
| 66 | Bank of China Tower | China | Hong Kong | 367 | 72 | 1990 | O |
| 67 | St. Regis Chicago | USA | Chicago | 362 | 101 | 2020 | M (H/R) |
| 68 | Almas Tower | UAE | Dubai | 360 | 68 | 2008 | O |
| 69 | Hanking Center Tower | China | Shenzhen | 359 | 65 | 2018 | O |
| 70 | Greenland Group Suzhou Center | China | Suzhou | 358 | 77 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 71 | Sino Steel International Plaza T2 | China | Tianjin | 358 | 83 | OH | O |
| 72 | II Primo Tower 1 | UAE | Dubai | 356 | 79 | UC | R |
| 73 | Emirates Tower One | UAE | Dubai | 355 | 54 | 2000 | O |
| 74 | OKO–Residential Tower | Russia | Moscow | 354 | 90 | 2015 | M (H/R) |
| 75 | Raffles City Chongqing T4N | China | Chongqing | 354 | 74 | 2019 | M (H/O) |
| 76 | The Torch | UAE | Dubai | 352 | 86 | 2011 | R |
| 77 | Spring City 66 | China | Kunming | 349 | 61 | 2019 | O |
| 78 | The Center | China | Hong Kong | 346 | 73 | 1998 | O |
| 79 | Neva Towers 2 | Russia | Moscow | 345 | 79 | 2020 | R |
| 80 | ADNOC Headquarters | UAE | Abu Dhabi | 342 | 65 | 2015 | O |
| 81 | One Shenzhen Bay Tower 7 | China | Shenzhen | 341 | 78 | 2018 | M (H/R/O) |
| 82 | Comcast Technology Center | USA | Philadelphia | 339 | 59 | 2018 | M (H/O) |
| 83 | LCT The Sharp Residential Tower A | Korea | Busan | 339 | 85 | 2019 | R |
| 84 | Mercury City Tower | Russia | Moscow | 338 | 75 | 2013 | M (R/O) |
| 85 | Hengqin International Finance Center | China | Zhuhai | 337 | 69 | 2020 | M (R/O) |
| 86 | Tianjin World Financial Center | China | Tianjin | 337 | 75 | 2011 | O |
| 87 | Wilshire Grand Center | USA | Los Angeles | 335 | 62 | 2017 | M (H/O) |
| 88 | DAMAC heights | UAE | Dubai | 335 | 88 | 2018 | R |
| 89 | Shimao International Plaza | China | Shanghai | 333 | 60 | 2006 | M (H/O) |
| 90 | LCT The Sharp Residential Tower B | Korea | Busan | 333 | 85 | 2019 | R |
| 91 | China World Tower | China | Beijing | 330 | 74 | 2010 | M (H/O) |
| 92 | Hon Kwok City Center | China | Shenzhen | 329 | 80 | 2017 | M (R/O) |
| 93 | 3 World Trade Center | USA | New York | 329 | 69 | 2018 | O |
| 94 | Keangnam Hanoi Landmark Tower | Vietnam | Hanoi | 328 | 72 | 2012 | M (H/R/O) |
| 95 | Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower B | China | Nanjing | 328 | 68 | 2019 | O |
| 96 | Salesforce Tower | USA | San Francisco | 326 | 61 | 2018 | O |
| 97 | Deji Plaza | China | Nanjing | 324 | 62 | 2013 | M (H/O) |
| 98 | Q1 Tower | Australia | Gold Coast | 322 | 78 | 2005 | R |
| 99 | Burj Al Arab | UAE | Dubai | 321 | 56 | 1999 | H |
| 100 | Nina Tower | China | Hong Kong | 320 | 80 | 2006 | M (H/O) |
| 101 | Sinar Mas Center 1 | China | Shanghai | 320 | 65 | 2017 | O |
| 102 | Palace Royale | Mumbai | India | 320 | 88 | OH | R |
| 103 | 53 West 53 | USA | New York | 320 | 77 | 2019 | R |
| 104 | New York Times Tower | USA | New York | 319 | 52 | 2007 | O |
| 105 | Chongqing IFS T1 | China | Chongqing | 316 | 63 | 2016 | M (H/O) |
| 106 | Australia 108 | Australia | Melbourne | 316 | 100 | 2020 | R |
| 107 | Mahanakhon | China | Bangkok | 314 | 79 | 2016 | M (H/R) |
| 108 | CITIC Financial Center Tower 1 | China | Shenzhen | 312 | – | UC | M (R/O) |
| 109 | Bank of America Plaza | USA | Atlanta | 312 | 55 | 1992 | O |
| 110 | Shenzhen Bay Innovation and Technology Centre Tower 1 | China | Shenzhen | 311 | 69 | 2020 | O |
| 111 | Menara TM | Malaysia | Kuala Lumpur | 310 | 55 | 2001 | O |
| 112 | Ocean Heights | UAE | Dubai | 310 | 83 | 2010 | R |
| 113 | Pearl River Tower | China | Guangzhou | 309 | 71 | 2013 | O |
| 114 | Fortune Center | China | Guangzhou | 309 | 68 | 2015 | O |
| 115 | Emirates Tower Two | UAE | Dubai | 309 | 56 | 2000 | H |
| 116 | Guangfa Securities Headquarters | China | Guangzhou | 308 | 60 | 2018 | O |
| 117 | The One | Canada | Toronto | 308 | 85 | UC | R |
| 118 | Burj Rafal | Saudi Arabia | Riyadh | 307 | 68 | 2014 | M (H/R) |
| 119 | Amna Tower | UAE | Dubai | 307 | 75 | 2020 | R |
| 120 | Noora Tower | UAE | Dubai | 307 | 75 | 2019 | R |
| 121 | The Shard | UK | London | 306 | 73 | 2013 | M (H/R/O) |
| 122 | Cayan Tower | UAE | Dubai | 306 | 73 | 2013 | R |
| 123 | Northeast Asia Trade Tower | South Korea | Incheon | 305 | 68 | 2011 | M (H/R/O) |
| 124 | 35 Hudson Yards | USA | New York City | 304 | 72 | 2019 | M (H/R) |
| 125 | Baiyoke Tower II | Thailand | Bangkok | 304 | 85 | 1997 | H |
| 126 | One ManhaTan West | USA | New York | 303 | 67 | 2019 | O |
| 127 | Two Prudential Plaza | USA | Chicago | 303 | 64 | 1990 | O |
| 128 | Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel A | China | Nanchang | 303 | 59 | 2015 | O |
| 129 | Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel B | China | Nanchang | 303 | 59 | 2015 | O |
| 130 | Leatop Plaza | China | Guangzhou | 303 | 64 | 2012 | O |
| 131 | Kingdom Centre | Saudi Arabia | Riyadh | 302 | 41 | 2002 | M (H/R/O) |
| 132 | Capital City Moscow Tower | Russia | Moscow | 301 | 76 | 2010 | R |
| 133 | Supernova Spira | India | Noida | 300 | 80 | UC | M (H/R) |
| 134 | Al Wasl Tower | UAE | Dubai | 300 | 64 | UC | M (H/R/O) |
| 135 | Torre Costanera | Chile | Santiago | 300 | 62 | 2014 | M (H/O) |
| 136 | Abeno Harukas | Japan | Osaka | 300 | 60 | 2014 | M (H/O) |
| 137 | Shimao Riverside Block D2b | China | Wuhan | 300 | 53 | UC | M (H/O) |
| 138 | Aspire Tower | Qatar | Doha | 300 | 36 | 2007 | M (H/O) |
| 139 | NBK Tower | Kuwait | Kuwait City | 300 | 61 | 2019 | O |
| 140 | Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower C | China | Nanjing | 300 | 60 | 2019 | O |
Note(s): “M” indicates mixed-use; “H” indicates hotel use; “R” indicates residential use; “O” indicates office use; “UAE” indicates the United Arab Emirates; “UC” indicates under construction; “NC” indicates never completed; “OH” indicates on hold
Supertall buildings by core type, building form, structural system and structural material
| # | Building name | Core type | Building form | Structural system | Structural material |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nakheel Tower | Central | Free | Mega column | Composite |
| 2 | Burj Khalifa | Central | Setback | Buttressed core | RC |
| 3 | Suzhou Zhongnan Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 4 | Merdeka PNB118 | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 5 | Shanghai Tower | Central | Twisted | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 6 | Chicago Spire | Central | Twisted | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 7 | Makkah Royal Clock Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 8 | Ping an Finance Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 9 | Goldin Finance 117 | Central | Tapered | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 10 | Entisar Tower | Central | Setback | Framed-tube | RC |
| 11 | LoTe World Tower | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 12 | One World Trade Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 13 | Guangzhou CTF Finance Centre | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 14 | Tianjin CTF Finance Centre | Central | Tapered | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 15 | CITIC Tower | Central | Free | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 16 | Evergrande Hefei Center 1 | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 17 | Pentominium Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 18 | Busan LoTe Town Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 19 | TAIPEI 101 | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 20 | Greenland Jinmao International Financial Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 21 | Shanghai World Financial Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 22 | International Commerce Centre | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 23 | Wuhan Greenland Center | Central | Tapered | Buttressed core | Composite |
| 24 | Central Park Tower | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 25 | Chengdu Greenland Tower | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 26 | R&F Guangdong building | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 27 | Lakhta Center | Central | Twisted | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 28 | Vincom Landmark 81 | Central | Setback | Bundled-tube | Composite |
| 29 | Changsha IFS Tower T1 | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 30 | Petronas Twin Tower 1 | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 31 | Petronas Twin Tower 2 | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 32 | Zifeng Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 33 | The Exchange 106 | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 34 | Marina 106 | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | RC |
| 35 | World one | Central | Setback | Buttressed core | RC |
| 36 | KK 100 | Central | Free | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 37 | Guangzhou International Finance Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 38 | Multifunctional Highrise Complex – Akhmat Tower | Central | Tapered | Framed-tube | Steel |
| 39 | 111 West 57th Street | Peripheral | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 40 | Chongqing Tall Tower | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 41 | Haikou Tower 1 | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 42 | One Vanderbilt Avenue | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 43 | Marina 101 | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | RC |
| 44 | 432 Park Avenue | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | RC |
| 45 | Trump International Hotel and Tower | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 46 | Al Hamra Tower | Central | Free | Shear walled frame | Composite |
| 47 | Princess Tower | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | RC |
| 48 | Two International Finance Center | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 49 | LCT The Sharp Landmark Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 50 | Guangxi China Resources Tower | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 51 | China Resources Tower | Central | Tapered | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 52 | 23 Marina | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 53 | CITIC Plaza | Central | Prismatic | Shear walled frame | RC |
| 54 | Dynamic Tower | Central | Free | Mega core | RC |
| 55 | Shum Yip Upperhills Tower 1 | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 56 | 30 Hudson Yards | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Steel |
| 57 | PIF Tower | Central | Free | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 58 | Shun Hing Square | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 59 | Autograph Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 60 | Burj Mohammed Bin Rashid | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 61 | Guiyang World Trade Center Landmark Tower | Central | Tapered | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 62 | Elite Residence | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | RC |
| 63 | Central Plaza | Central | Prismatic | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 64 | Federation Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 65 | Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower A | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 66 | Bank of China Tower | Central (split) | Setback | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 67 | St. Regis Chicago | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 68 | Almas Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 69 | Hanking Center Tower | External | Tapered | Trussed-tube | Steel |
| 70 | Greenland Group Suzhou Center | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 71 | Sino Steel International Plaza T2 | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 72 | II Primo Tower 1 | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 73 | Emirates Tower One | Central | Prismatic | Mega column | Composite |
| 74 | OKO–Residential Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 75 | Raffles City Chongqing T4N | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 76 | The Torch | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 77 | Spring City 66 | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 78 | The Center | Central | Prismatic | Mega column | Composite |
| 79 | NEVA TOWERS 2 | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 80 | ADNOC Headquarters | External | Prismatic | Shear walled frame | RC |
| 81 | One Shenzhen Bay Tower 7 | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 82 | Comcast Technology Center | Central | Setback | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 83 | LCT The Sharp Residential Tower A | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 84 | Mercury City Tower | Central | Setback | Framed-tube | RC |
| 85 | Hengqin International Finance Center | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 86 | Tianjin World Financial Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 87 | Wilshire Grand Center | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 88 | DAMAC Heights | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 89 | Shimao International Plaza | Central | Free | Mega column | Composite |
| 90 | LCT The Sharp Residential Tower B | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 91 | China World Tower | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 92 | Hon Kwok City Center | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 93 | 3 World Trade Center | Central | Setback | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 94 | Keangnam Hanoi Landmark Tower | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 95 | Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower B | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 96 | Salesforce Tower | Central | Tapered | Shear walled frame | Composite |
| 97 | Deji Plaza | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 98 | Q1 Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 99 | Burj Al Arab | Central | Free | Shear walled frame | Composite |
| 100 | Nina Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 101 | Sinar Mas Center 1 | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 102 | Palace Royale | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 103 | 53 West 53 | Peripheral | Tapered | Framed-tube | RC |
| 104 | New York Times Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Steel |
| 105 | Chongqing IFS T1 | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 106 | Australia 108 | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 107 | Mahanakhon | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 108 | CITIC Financial Center Tower 1 | Central | Tapered | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 109 | Bank of America Plaza | Central | Setback | Mega column | Composite |
| 110 | Shenzhen Bay Innovation and Technology Centre Tower 1 | Central | Prismatic | Framed-tube | Composite |
| 111 | Menara TM | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 112 | Ocean Heights | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 113 | Pearl River Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 114 | Fortune Center | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 115 | Emirates Tower Two | Atrium | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 116 | Guangfa Securities Headquarters | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 117 | The One | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 118 | Burj Rafal | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 119 | Amna Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 120 | Noora Tower | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 121 | The Shard | Central | Tapered | Shear walled frame | Composite |
| 122 | Cayan Tower | Central | Twisted | Framed-tube | RC |
| 123 | Northeast Asia Trade Tower | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 124 | 35 Hudson Yards | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 125 | Baiyoke Tower II | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 126 | One ManhaTan West | Central | Tapered | Shear walled frame | Composite |
| 127 | Two Prudential Plaza | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 128 | Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel A | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 129 | Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel B | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 130 | Leatop Plaza | Central | Prismatic | Trussed-tube | Composite |
| 131 | Kingdom Centre | Central | Free | Shear walled frame | RC |
| 132 | Capital City Moscow Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 133 | Supernova Spira | Central | Prismatic | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 134 | Al Wasl Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 135 | Torre Costanera | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | RC |
| 136 | Abeno Harukas | Central | Setback | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 137 | Shimao Riverside Block D2b | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 138 | Aspire Tower | Central | Free | Mega core | RC |
| 139 | NBK Tower | Central | Free | Outriggered frame | Composite |
| 140 | Golden Eagle Tiandi Tower C | Central | Tapered | Outriggered frame | Composite |
Note(s): “RC” indicates reinforced concrete
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
References
Abdelrazaq, A. (2010), “Design and construction planning of the Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE”, In Structures Congress 2010, pp. 2993-3005, doi: 10.1061/41130(369)270.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2012), “The logic of vertical density: tall buildings in the 21st century city”, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 131-148.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2018a), “Skyscrapers in the twenty-first century city: a global snapshot”, Buildings, Vol. 8 No. 12, p. 175, doi: 10.3390/buildings8120175.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2018b), “Chapter 3: unsustainable tall building developments”, in The Vertical City: A Sustainable Development Model, WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2018c), “The sustainability of tall building developments: a conceptual framework”, Buildings, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 7, doi: 10.3390/buildings8010007.
Al-Kodmany, K. and Ali, M.M. (2016), “An overview of structural and aesthetic developments in tall buildings using exterior bracing and diagrid systems”, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 271-291, doi: 10.21022/IJHRB.2016.5.4.271.
Alaghmandan, M., Bahrami, P. and Elnimeiri, M. (2014), “The future trend of architectural form and structural system in high-rise buildings”, Architecture Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 55-62, doi: 10.5923/j.arch.20140403.01.
Aldred, J. (2010) “Burj Khalifa - a new high for high-performance concrete”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering, Vol. 163 No. 2, pp. 66-73, doi: 10.1680/cien.2010.163.2.66.
Ali, M.M. and Al-Kodmany, K. (2012), “Tall buildings and urban Habitat of the 21st century: a global perspective”, Buildings, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 384-423, doi: 10.3390/buildings2040384.
Ali, M.M. and Moon, K.S. (2007), “Structural developments in tall buildings: current trends and future prospects”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 205-223, doi: 10.3763/asre.2007.5027.
Ali, M.M. and Moon, K.S. (2018), “Advances in structural systems for tall buildings: emerging developments for contemporary urban giants”, Buildings, Vol. 8 No. 8, p. 104, doi: 10.3390/buildings8080104.
Almusharaf, A.M. and Elnimeiri, M. (2010), “A performance-based design approach for early tall building form development”, CAAD - Cities – Sustainability, 5th International Conference Proceedings of the Arab Society for Computer-Aided Architectural Design, (ASCAAD 2010), ISBN [978-1-907349-02-7], Fez (Morocco), 19-21 October 2010, pp. 39-50.
Borrallo-Jiménez, M., LopezdeAsiain, M., Herrera-Limones, R. and Arcos, M.L. (2020), “Towards a circular economy for the city of seville: the method for developing a guide for a more sustainable architecture and urbanism (GAUS)”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 18, p. 7421, doi: 10.3390/su12187421.
Chakraborty, D., Elzarka, H. and Bhatnagar, R. (2016), “Generation of accurate weather files using a hybrid machine learning methodology for design and analysis of sustainable and resilient buildings”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 24, pp. 33-41, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.009.
Chakraborty, D., Elhegazy, H., Elzarka, H. and Gutierrez, L. (2020), “A novel construction cost prediction model using hybrid natural and light gradient boosting”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 46, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2020.101201.
Chen, J. (2021), “Study on the joint mechanical properties of steel structure buildings”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 655-665, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-07-2020-0055.
Chikaher, G. and Hirst, J. (2007), “Aspire tower, Doha, Qatar”, The Arup Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 3-13.
CTBUH (2022), Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Illinois Institute of Technology, S.R. Crown Hall, Chicago, IL, USA, available at: https://www.ctbuh.org (accessed 17 January 2022).
DeJong, P. and Wamelink, J.W.F. (2008), “Building cost and eco-cost aspects of tall buildings”, in S.N. (Ed.), CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008, the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, pp. 1-10, 2008.
Dong, Y.H., Jaillon, L.C., Chu, P. and Poon, C. (2015), “Comparing carbon emissions of precast and cast-in-situ construction methods - a case study of high-rise private building”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 99, pp. 39-53, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.145.
Du, Y., Gao, D., Chen, Z., Zheng, Z. and Wang, X. (2022), “Behaviors of FRP confined rectangular concrete-filled thin-walled steel tubular stub columns using high-strength materials under axial load”, Composite Structures, Vol. 280, 114915, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114915.
Elhegazy, H., Badra, N., Haggag, S.A. and Rashid, I.A. (2021a), “Implementation of the neural networks for improving the projects' performance of steel structure projects”, Journal of Industrial Integration and Management: Innovation and Entrepreneurship, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1142/S242486222150025.
Elhegazy, H., Chakraborty, D., Elzarka, H., Ebid, A.M., Mahdi, I.M., Haggag, S.Y.D. and Rashid, I.A. (2021b), Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print), pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1080/13467581.2020.1838288.
Elmousalami, H.H. (2019), “Intelligent methodology for project conceptual cost prediction”, Heliyon, Vol. 5 No. 5, e01625, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01625.
Elnimeiri, M. and Almusharaf, A. (2010), “The interaction between sustainable structures and architectural form of tall buildings”, International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-41, doi: 10.5390/SUSB.2010.1.1.035.
Fender, K., Ramstedt, P., Mahmud, A.T. and Terenzio, D. (2016), “Merdeka PNB 118 case study: adding value to the growing city”, Conference proceeding, Cities to Megacities: Shaping Dense Vertical Urbanism, pp. 528-537.
Foster, R.M. and Ramage, M.H. (2017), “Briefing: super tall timber - oakwood tower”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Construction Materials, Vol. 170 No. 3, pp. 118-122, doi: 10.1680/jcoma.16.00034.
Fu, F. (2018), Design and Analysis of Tall and Complex Structures, Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford; Cambridge.
Gabel, J. (2016), “The skyscraper surge continues, the ‘year of 100 supertalls.’”, CTBUH Journal, No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Gabel, J. (2018), “Tall trends: quantifying the skyscraper phenomenon”, E3S Web of Conferences, Vol. 33, p. 1012, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/20183301012.
Gan, V.J., Chan, C., Tse, K., Lo, I.M. and Cheng, J.C. (2017), “A comparative analysis of embodied carbon in high-rise buildings regarding different design parameters”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 161, pp. 663-675, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.156.
Gerges, M., Mayouf, M., Rumley, P. and Moore, D. (2017), “Human behaviour under fire situations in high-rise residential building”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 90-106, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-09-2016-0022.
Gunel, M.H. and Ilgın, H.E. (2014a), Yüksek Bina: Taşıyıcı Sistem ve Aerodinamik Form, METU Faculty of Architecture Press, Ankara, Turkey, ISBN: 978-975-429-278-7 (in Turkish).
Gunel, M.H. and Ilgin, H.E. (2014b), Tall Buildings: Structural Systems and Aerodynamic Form, Routledge, London; New York, NY.
Gunel, M.H. and Ilgın, H.E. (2007), “A proposal for the classification of structural systems of tall buildings”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 2667-2675, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.007.
Henn, M. and Fleischmann, M. (2015), “Novel high-rise typologies-towards vertical urbanism”, in Proceedings of the CTBUH 2015 New York Conference, New York, USA, 26-30 October 2015.
Ilgın, H.E. (2018), “Potentials and limitations of supertall building structural systems: guiding for architects”, PhD Dissertation, Department of Architecture, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ilgın, H.E. and Günel, M.H. (2007), “The role of aerodynamic modifications in the form of tall buildings against wind excitation”, METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 17-25.
Ilgın, H.E. (2021), “A search for A New tall building typology: structural hybrids”, LIVENARCH VII Livable Environments and Architecture 7th International Congress OTHER ARCHITECT/URE(S), September 28-30, Trabzon, Turkey, Vol. 1, pp. 95-107.
Ilgın, H.E. (2021b), “Space efficiency in contemporary supertall office buildings”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 3, 4021024, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000486.
Ilgın, H.E. (2021c), “Space efficiency in contemporary supertall residential buildings”, Architecture, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-37, doi: 10.3390/architecture1010004.
Ilgın, H.E. and Gunel, M.H. (2021), “Contemporary trends in supertall building form: aerodynamic design considerations”, Livenarch VII Livable Environments and Architecture 7th International Congress Other Architect/Ure(S), September 28-30, Trabzon, Turkey, Vol. 1, pp. 61-81.
Ilgın, H.E., Ay, B.Ö. and Gunel, M.H. (2021), “A study on main architectural and structural design considerations of contemporary supertall buildings”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 212-224, doi: 10.1080/00038628.2020.1753010.
Johnson, B., Horos, D. and Baker, W. (2014), “Timber tower research project”, Structure Magazine, pp. 22-23, March 2014 available at: https://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/C-StrucSustain-Johnson-Mar141.pdf (accessed 17 January 2022).
Khallaf, R. and Khallaf, M. (2021), “Classification and analysis of deep learning applications in construction: a systematic literature review”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 129, 103760, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103760.
Klemperer, J. (2015), “Urban density and the porous high-rise: the integration of the tall building in the city - from China to New York”, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 135-142, doi: 10.21022/IJHRB.2015.4.2.135.
Kumar, P.S. and Gururaj, S. (2019), “Conceptual cost modelling for sustainable construction project planning - a Levenberg - Marquardt neural network approach”, Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 201-208, doi: 10.18576/amis/130207.
Kuzmanovska, I., Gasparri, E., Monne, D.T. and Aitchison, M. (2018), “Tall timber buildings: emerging trends and typologies”, in Proceedings of the 2018 World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE 2018), Seoul, South Korea, 20-23 August 2018.
Li, Y., Song, Q., Li, C., Huang, X. and Zhang, Y. (2022), “Reduction of wind loads on rectangular tall buildings with different taper ratios”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 45, 103588, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103588.
Mandal, S., Dalui, S.K. and Bhattacharjya, S. (2022), “Wind-induced effect on different corner positions of corner-modified irregular plan-shaped tall building”, in Maity, D., Patra, P.K., Afzal, M.S., Ghoshal, R., Mistry, C.S., Jana, P. and Maiti, D.K. (Eds), Recent Advances in Computational and Experimental Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Springer, Singapore, Vol. 1.
Mubarak, M., Abdullah, A., Azmeri, A. and Hayati, Y. (2019), “Cost estimation of structural components of a building by considering the seismic load on different regions”, Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/7357913.
Oldfield, P. and Doherty, B. (2019), “Offset cores: trends, drivers and frequency in tall buildings”, CTBUH Journal, No. 2, pp. 40-45.
Opoku, A. (2019), “Sustainable development, adaptation and maintenance of infrastructure”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 2-5, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-02-2019-074.
Ramage, M., Foster, R., Smith, S., Flanagan, K. and Bakker, R. (2017), “Super tall timber: design research for the next generation of natural structure”, The Journal of Architecture, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 104-122.
Safarik, D. (2016), “The other side of tall buildings: the urban Habitat”, CTBUH Journal, No. 1, pp. 20-25.
Safarik, D., Ursini, S. and Wood, A. (2016), “Megacities: setting the scene”, CTBUH Journal, No. 4, pp. 30-39.
Scheeren, O. (2014), “Space formations”, in Proceedings of the CTBUH 2014 Shanghai Conference Proceedings, Shanghai, China, 16-19 September 2014, pp. 67-74.
Sev, A. and Özgen, A. (2009), “Space efficiency in high-rise office buildings”, METU Journal of The Faculty of Architecture, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 69-89, doi: 10.4305/METU.JFA.2009.2.4.
Sharma, A., Mittal, H. and Gairola, A. (2018), “Mitigation of wind load on tall buildings through aerodynamic modifications: review”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 180-194, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.005.
Swei, O., Gregory, J. and Kirchain, R. (2017), “Construction cost estimation: a parametric approach for better estimates of expected cost and variation”, Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 101, pp. 295-305, doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2017.04.013.
Szolomicki, J. and Golasz-Szolomicka, H. (2019), “Technological advances and trends in modern high-rise buildings”, Buildings, Vol. 9 No. 9, p. 193-, doi: 10.3390/buildings9090193.
Taranath, B.S. (2016), Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and Composite Construction, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2016.
Trabucco, D. (2010), “Historical evolution of the service core”, CTBUH Journal, No. 1, pp. 42-47.
Wang, Y. and Ni, Y. (2022) “Full-scale monitoring of wind effects on a supertall structure during six tropical cyclones”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 45, 103507, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103507.
Wang, W.-C., Bilozerov, T., Dzeng, R.-J., Hsiao, F.-Y. and Wang, K.-C. (2017), “Conceptual cost estimations using neuro-fuzzy and multi-factor evaluation methods for building projects”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.948908.
Weismantle, P.A., Smith, G.L. and Sheriff, M. (2007), “Burj Dubai: an architectural technical design case study”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 335-360, doi: 10.1002/tal.427.
Wu, J., Xu, H. and Zhang, Q. (2019), “Dynamic performance evaluation of Shanghai Tower under winds based on full-scale data”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 28 No. 9, e1611, n/a, doi: 10.1002/tal.1611.
Yeang, K. (2008), “Ecoskyscrapers and Ecomimesis: new tall building typologies”, in Proceedings of the CTBUH 2008 8th World Congress, Dubai, The United Arab Emirates, 3-5 March 2008.
Zhang, K. (2020), “Energy-saving parameterized design of buildings based on genetic algorithm”, International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 785-795, doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-05-2019-0050.
Zhong, S., Elhegazy, H. and Elzarka, H. (2022), “Key factors affecting the decision-making process for buildings projects in Egypt”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, 101597, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2021.09.024.