• Home
  • Submit Paper
  • Check Paper Status
  • Download Certificate/Paper
  • FAQs
  • Contact Us
Email: ijraset@gmail.com
IJRASET Logo
Journal Statistics & Approval Details
Recent Published Paper
Our Author's Feedback
 •  ISRA Impact Factor 7.894       •  SJIF Impact Factor: 7.538       •  Hard Copy of Certificates to All Authors       •  DOI by Crossref for all Published Papers       •  Soft Copy of Certificates- Within 04 Hours       •  Authors helpline No: +91-8813907089(Whatsapp)       •  No Publication Fee for Paper Submission       •  Hard Copy of Certificates to all Authors       •  UGC Approved Journal: IJRASET- Click here to Check     
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Aim & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Call For Papers
    • Submit Paper Online
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issue
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Paper
    • Download Certificates
    • Check Paper Status
    • Paper Format
    • Copyright Form
    • Membership
    • Peer Review
  • Past Issue
    • Monthly Issue
    • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
    • Indian Authors
    • International Authors
  • Topics
ISSN: 2321-9653
Estd : 2013
IJRASET - Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Aim & Scope
  • Editorial Board
  • Impact Factor
  • Call For Papers
    • Submit Paper Online
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issue
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Paper
    • Download Certificates
    • Check Paper Status
    • Paper Format
    • Copyright Form
    • Membership
    • Peer Review
  • Past Issue
    • Monthly Issue
    • Special Issue
  • Pay Fee
    • Indian Authors
    • International Authors
  • Topics

Ijraset Journal For Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology

  • Home / Ijraset
  • On This Page
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Copyright

Wind Analysis of RCC Tube in Tube Structure

Authors: Miss. Sapana Bore, Prof. R. M. Desai

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.47703

Certificate: View Certificate

Abstract

Modern tall buildings have efficient structural systems, and utilize high-strength materials, resulting in reduced building height, and thus, become slenderer and more flexible with low damping. These flexible buildings are very sensitive to wind excitation and earthquake load causing discomfort to the building occupants. Therefore, in order to mitigate such an excitation and to improve the performance of tall buildings against wind loads and earthquake loads, the tube in tube structures and tube frame structures are the innovative and fresh concept in the tubular structures. Generally, tube in tube structures is formed by connecting peripheral frame tube and inner core tube so closely, it is not seen as a solid system but it acts like a solid surface. The total loads acting on the structures to be collectively shared between the inner and outer tubes. The tubed frames Structure are new concept for tall building. In tubed mega frames instead of one central tube several vertical tubes are carrying the lateral loads. a comparative study of tube in tube structures and tubed mega frame system with different building geometry has been done using ETABS software.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

The advancement in construction field is increased day by day. The numbers of buildings, height of building is increased. The effect of lateral load is increased with respect to the increase of height. Modern construction methods and structural systems are to be introduced to enhance the structural safety. There are different types of structural systems which are to be used to resist the effect of lateral loads on the buildings. Rigid frame structures, braced frame structures, shear wall frame structures, outrigger systems, tubular structures are the different types of structural systems used in the buildings to enhance structural safety by reduce the effect of lateral loads on the buildings. The tubular systems are widely used and considered as a better structural system for tall buildings. There are different types of tubular structural systems which are given as framed tube, braced tube, bundled tube, tube in tube, and tube mega frame structures tubular structures. Nowadays, tubular constructions have become increasingly prevalent in tall buildings. Tube in tube structures are ideally suited for any tall structures. A tube-in- tube structure consists of a framed peripheral tube and a core tube that are joined by floor slabs. The overall structure resembles a large tube with a smaller tube in the centre. Both the inner and outer tubes share lateral loads. This paper includes an investigation of the vulnerability of different tubed structures to large wind loads when built as tube-in- tube structures and bundled tube structures. Tube-in-tube structures and bundled tube structures are unique and novel tubular structure concepts. In this project, ETABS software was used to conduct a comparison of tube- in-tube structure and bundled tube structures. Using ETABS, the modelling and analysis are performed.

II. CONCEPT OF TUBE IN TUBE STRUCTURE

This is a type of framed tube consisting of an outer-framed tube together with an internal elevator and service core. The exterior tube and the interior tube are designed to act together. The exterior tube has relatively large width and hence it is designed to resist the entire bending moment caused by lateral forces. The interior tubes are designed to carry shear produced by the lateral forces. This type of structures is also called as Hull (Outer tube) and Core (Inner tube) structures.

III. PROBLEM FORMULATION

A. Proposed Work

After exclusive study of literature carried by various researchers, the unfocused area is identified as problem for proposed dissertation. carried out using following points

  1. To study parametric design variables on the performance of a G+25 story building with different basic wind speed in terrain category II.
  2. Comparative wind analysis between tube in tube RCC structure with story open at every 5th floor.

IV. MODEL PROPERTIES  

G+25 storied building with different wind speeds, storey open at different levels with basic wind speed 39 m/s and different shapes i.e. hexagonal, octagonal, square and rectangular are model using conventional beams, columns, shear walls & slabs. They are loaded with Dead, Live, wind and Seismic Forces (according to IS 875:2015(Part-3) and IS:1893:2016). These models are then analysed using wind analysis method for earthquake zone 3 of India (Zone Factor = 0.16). The details of the modelled building are listed below.

Mechanical Property of Reinforcement Steel

Floors

Sizes(mm)

Corner

Others

G-G4

530X530

450X800

G5-G6

500X500

450X750

G7-G10

450X500

450X700

G11-G15

450X450

450X600

G16-G20

450X380

450X500

G21-G25

450X300

450X450

A. Types of Loads           

Unless otherwise specified, all loads listed, shall be considered in design for the Indian Code following load combinations shall be considered.

Load case

  1. DL: Dead load
  2. LL: Live load
  3. EQ: Earthquake load

B. Load Combination

1.5 (DL + LL)

1.2 (DL + LL ± WLX)

0.9DL ± 1.5WLX

 

1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)

 

1.2 (DL + LL ± WLY)

 

0.9DL ± 1.5WLY

 

1.2(DL + LL ± EQY)

 

1.5(DL ± WLX)

 

0.9DL ± 1.5EQX

 

1.5(DL ± EQX)

 

1.5(DL ± EQY)

 

1.5(DL ± WLY)

 

0.9DL ± 1.5EQY

Where,

DL = Dead load, LL = Live load

EQX and EQY = Earthquake load in X and Y direction WLX and WLY = Wind load in X and Y direction.

V. SOFTWARE PLAN AND 3D MODEL 

 

 

VI. RESULTS

A. Displacement due to Wind

Displacement dur to wind in different basic wind speed in X- direction.

Story

 Displacement (mm)

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Story26

39.566

50.362

57.463

65.033

Story25

38.631

49.172

56.105

63.496

Story24

37.654

47.927

54.686

61.89

Story23

36.62

46.612

53.185

60.191

Story22

35.517

45.207

51.582

58.377

Story21

34.334

43.702

49.865

56.434

Story20

33.067

42.09

48.025

54.352

Story19

31.715

40.369

46.061

52.129

Story18

30.274

38.535

43.969

49.761

Story17

28.745

36.588

41.747

47.247

Story16

27.13

34.532

39.401

44.592

Story15

25.432

32.371

36.936

41.801

Story14

23.662

30.119

34.366

38.893

Story13

21.822

27.777

31.693

35.869

Story12

19.92

25.355

28.93

32.741

Story11

17.964

22.866

26.09

29.527

Story10

15.968

20.325

23.191

26.246

Story9

13.95

17.756

20.26

22.929

Story8

11.924

15.178

17.318

19.599

Story7

9.914

12.618

14.398

16.294

Story6

7.946

10.115

11.541

13.061

Story5

6.059

7.712

8.8

9.959

Story4

4.302

5.476

6.248

7.071

Story3

2.729

3.474

3.964

4.486

Story2

1.417

1.804

2.058

2.329

Story1

0.468

0.596

0.68

0.77

Base

0

0

0

0

Analysis of RCC tube in tube structure with different basic wind speed i.e., 39m/sec, 44m/sec, 47m/sec and 50m/sec with medium soil condition at zone III has been done. The displacement in x and y direction due to wind of structure with basic wind speed 44m/s, 47m/s, and 50m/s is increased 22%, 31% and 39% as compared to 39m/s basic wind speed.

B. Story Drift

Story Drift At different basic wind speed and earthquake zone III in X-direction.

Story

Story Drift

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Story26

0.000312

0.000397

0.000453

0.000512

Story25

0.000326

0.000415

0.000474

0.000536

Story24

0.000345

0.000439

0.0005

0.000566

Story23

0.000368

0.000468

0.000534

0.000605

Story22

0.000394

0.000502

0.000572

0.000648

Story21

0.000422

0.000538

0.000613

0.000694

Story20

0.000451

0.000574

0.000655

0.000741

Story19

0.00048

0.000611

0.000698

0.000789

Story18

0.00051

0.000649

0.00074

0.000838

Story17

0.000538

0.000685

0.000782

0.000885

Story16

0.000566

0.00072

0.000822

0.00093

Story15

0.00059

0.000751

0.000857

0.00097

Story14

0.000613

0.000781

0.000891

0.001008

Story13

0.000634

0.000807

0.000921

0.001042

Story12

0.000652

0.00083

0.000947

0.001071

Story11

0.000665

0.000847

0.000966

0.001094

Story10

0.000673

0.000856

0.000977

0.001106

Story9

0.000675

0.000859

0.000981

0.00111

Story8

0.00067

0.000853

0.000973

0.001102

Story7

0.000656

0.000835

0.000952

0.001078

Story6

0.000629

0.000801

0.000914

0.001034

Story5

0.000586

0.000745

0.00085

0.000963

Story4

0.000524

0.000667

0.000761

0.000862

Story3

0.000437

0.000557

0.000635

0.000719

Story2

0.000316

0.000403

0.000459

0.00052

Story1

0.000157

0.0002

0.000229

0.000259

The story drift of structure with different basic wind speeds has been analyzed and it has been seen that story drift in X- direction is more for 9th floor and in Y-direction is more for 11th floor. It has been seen that in model 1 story drift reduces by 26.81%, 45.33% and 62% as compared to model 2, model 3 and model 4 respectively.

C. Comparative wind analysis between tube in tube RCC structure with story open at every 5th floor.

The Wind Analysis of tube in tube structure with open story at every 5th story has been done for same model with different basic wind speeds as given in 4.3 section. The calculations have done manually and in excel sheets because it is not possible to show the open story in software. After calculations, the values have been put in wind load cases in software and done the analysis. Following are the results,

D. Displacement Due to Wind

Displacement due to wind in different basic wind speed

Story

 Displacement (mm)

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Story26

27.853

35.428

40.451

45.78

Story25

27.178

34.57

39.472

44.671

Story24

26.473

33.673

38.448

43.513

Story23

25.73

32.727

37.368

42.291

Story22

24.938

31.719

36.218

40.989

Story21

24.091

30.642

34.988

39.597

Story20

23.186

29.49

33.674

38.109

Story19

22.222

28.263

32.274

36.525

Story18

21.197

26.959

30.785

34.84

Story17

20.111

25.578

29.208

33.056

Story16

18.967

24.121

27.546

31.175

Story15

17.766

22.594

25.803

29.202

Story14

16.517

21.005

23.989

27.149

Story13

15.221

19.355

22.106

25.018

Story12

13.882

17.653

20.162

22.818

Story11

12.509

15.906

18.168

20.561

Story10

11.109

14.126

16.135

18.26

Story9

9.697

12.33

14.083

15.938

Story8

8.281

10.529

12.026

13.611

Story7

6.877

8.745

9.988

11.304

Story6

5.507

7.002

7.997

9.051

Story5

4.193

5.332

6.09

6.893

Story4

2.973

3.781

4.318

4.887

Story3

1.883

2.394

2.735

3.095

Story2

0.975

1.24

1.416

1.603

Story1

0.321

0.408

0.466

0.527

Base

0

0

0

0

The wind analysis has been done with different basic wind speeds with story open at every 5th story. From that wind displacement is increased about 30% in tube in tube structure with different wind speeds as compared to tube in tube structure with story open at every 5th level.

E. Story Drift

Story Drift At different basic wind speed and open story at different level in X-direction.

 

Story

Story drift

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Story26

0.000225

0.000286

0.000327

0.00037

Story25

0.000235

0.000299

0.000342

0.000387

Story24

0.000248

0.000315

0.00036

0.000407

Story23

0.000264

0.000336

0.000383

0.000434

Story22

0.000282

0.000359

0.00041

0.000464

Story21

0.000302

0.000384

0.000438

0.000496

Story20

0.000321

0.000409

0.000467

0.000528

Story19

0.000342

0.000435

0.000496

0.000562

Story18

0.000362

0.00046

0.000526

0.000595

Story17

0.000381

0.000485

0.000554

0.000627

Story16

0.0004

0.000509

0.000581

0.000658

Story15

0.000416

0.00053

0.000605

0.000684

Story14

0.000432

0.00055

0.000628

0.00071

Story13

0.000446

0.000567

0.000648

0.000733

Story12

0.000458

0.000582

0.000665

0.000752

Story11

0.000467

0.000593

0.000678

0.000767

Story10

0.000471

0.000599

0.000684

0.000774

Story9

0.000472

0.0006

0.000685

0.000776

Story8

0.000468

0.000595

0.000679

0.000769

Story7

0.000457

0.000581

0.000664

0.000751

Story6

0.000438

0.000557

0.000636

0.000719

Story5

0.000407

0.000517

0.000591

0.000668

Story4

0.000363

0.000462

0.000528

0.000597

Story3

0.000303

0.000385

0.000439

0.000497

Story2

0.000218

0.000278

0.000317

0.000359

Story1

0.000108

0.000137

0.000157

0.000177

The story drift of structure with different basic wind speeds has been analyzed and it has been seen that story drift in X- direction is more for 9th floor and in Y-direction is more for 11th floor. It has been seen that in model 1 story drift reduced by 27.11%, 43.85% and 64.40% as compared to model 2, model 3 and model 4 respectively.

Conclusion

1) The wind displacement of model 2, model 3 and model 4 is increased by 22%, 21% and 39% as compared to model 1. Also, the base shear of model 1 due to wind load in x and y direction is less by 21.43%, 31.14% and 39.16 % for model 2, model 3, and model 4 respectively. 2) Analysis of RCC tube in tube structure and tube in tube with open story structure has been done and it has been seen that overall performance of tube in tube structure with story open at different level is healthier than remining all structure. The wind displacement is increased about 30% in normal tube in tube structure as compared to tube in tube structure story open at every 5th level. 3) The story drift in normal tube in tube structure and tube in tube with open story structure is within permissible limits so structure shows linear behavior. It has been seen that in model 1 story drift reduces by 26.81%, 45.33% and 62% as compared to model 2, model 3 and model 4 respectively at 9th and 11th floor.

References

[1] Shilpa Balakrishnan (2019) “Comparative Study on Tube in Tube and Tubed Mega Frames on Different Building Geometry Using ETABS”. Int. Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering Research, Vol. 1, Issue 4, 2012 www.ijaser.com © 2012 by the authors – Licensee IJASER- Under Creative Commons License 3.0 editorial@ijaser.com Research article ISSN 2277 – 9442. [2] Ashitha V Kalam et.al (2019) “Dynamic wind analysis of RC bundled tube in tube structure using ETABS software” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056Volume: 06 Issue: 05 May 2019. [3] C. V. Siva Rama Prasad, Bhavani.K,Linga Raju.J, Prashanth.M (2019) “Seismic and Wind analysis of a multi-story building (G+12) by using ETABS software©”, JETIR March 2019, Volume 6, Issue 3 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162) [4] Okafor C. Vincent, Kevin C. Okolie, Mbanusi C. Echefuna, and Okafor C. Pamela (2017) “Analysis of Wind Effect on High-Rise Building for Different Terrain Category”. EJERS, European Journal of Engineering Research and Science Vol. 2, No. 12, December 2017.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Miss. Sapana Bore, Prof. R. M. Desai. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ijraset47703

Download Paper

Paper Id : IJRASET47703

Publish Date : 2022-11-25

ISSN : 2321-9653

Publisher Name : IJRASET

DOI Link : Click Here