• 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 Using ETABS Software

Authors: Abhishek Wadde, Dr. Uttam Awari

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.48468

Certificate: View Certificate

Abstract

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. Advance 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. tube, bundled tube, tube in tube, and tube mega frame structures tubular structures. A tube-in-tube structure Comprises of a peripheral framed tube and a core tube interconnected by floor slabs. The frame tube structure takes more of lateral load the efficiency of this system is derived from the great number of rigid joints acting along the periphery, creating a large tube. In which the horizontal slabs and beams connecting vertical elements are assumed as continuous connecting medium having Equivalent distributed stiffness properties. The tube-in-tube structure with central tube provides stability against lateral loading as well as gravity loading. The Static analysis is use for analysis of tubular structures and the output of the models are evaluate to have a comparative study of their wind performance in different terrain, Also, this system provides enough opening for stairways, elevators and ducts etc. It is suitable for high rise structure. The use of tube-in-tube structure allows speedy construction. It is suitable for RCC, constructions. This study is focused on wind behavior of tube in tube structure for varying terrain category in India for the parameters like wind displacement, story drift, and time period.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

A. General 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.

In recent years, tall buildings and structures have become slenderer, which increases the likelihood of excessive sway compared to older tall buildings. This creates additional difficulties for the engineering sector in resisting both lateral loads, such as wind and earthquake loads, and gravity loads. In the past, engineers primarily considered gravity loads when designing structures, but in recent years, due to the growth in height and seismic zone, they also consider lateral loads caused by wind and seismic forces. The height of tall structures is a comparative word. There is no globally applicable, precise definition for tall constructions. From a structural engineering standpoint, all tall structures must withstand both gravity and lateral loads. Due to the influx of a large population, towns and cities are expanding at a rapid rate. This phenomenon can be observed on every continent. The lack of available land for construction, especially in the world's biggest cities, is a widespread issue that has led to the vertical rather than horizontal development of structures. Today, high-rise commercial structures are symbols of modern society. These represent the strength of commerce in the current global economy. These also give the city a third dimension.

Additionally, on a micro level, having a commercial space in a beautiful high-rise structure provides the firm with additional benefits in terms of increased client confidence and brand recognition. Globally, major towns and cities are constructing high-rise buildings with a very large number of stories, and India is not an exception to this trend. Tall structures comprised of a framework with multiple stories are flexible and vulnerable to the effect of wind forces.

To resist the effect of lateral loads on the buildings, several structural systems must be employed. There are tube structures, rigid frame structures, braced frame structures, shear wall frame structures, outrigger systems, and braced frame structures. The tubular systems are widely employed and are regarded as the superior lateral structural solutions for high-rise buildings. The tubular constructions are subdivided into frame tube, braced tube, bundled tube, tube inside tube, and tube mega frame structures. Tube-in-tube structures and bundled tube structures are unique and novel tubular structure concepts. In towering buildings, tube-in-tube constructions will be increasingly utilized. In the subject of tubular constructions for tall buildings, bundled tube structures are the new concept. Nowadays, tubular constructions have become increasingly prevalent in tall buildings. Tube in tube structures is 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.

B. Wind Effect on Tall Buildings

Since the wind varies over time, the wind spectrum and natural frequencies can be used to describe the difference in wind-related structural design of a typical high-rise building. In general, wind pressure and the resulting structural response are regarded as stationary random processes in which the time-averaged or mean component is separated from the fluctuating component. Tall buildings bluff bodies, and when wind blows against them, vortices are generated that result in an alternating force perpendicular to the direction of the wind. When the phenomena of vortex shedding occur along a substantial portion of the building's height, it can result in high forces and amplitudes. Wind loads linked with gustiness or turbulence produce substantially higher building responses than steady application of the same loads. Therefore, wind loads must be analysed as though they were inherently dynamic. The intensity of wind load depends on its rate of variation and the structure itself.

According to IS 875 part III, the Dynamic effects of wind loading are described as flexible thin structures and structural elements being evaluated to determine the wind- induced oscillations or excitations along and across the wind direction.

II. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Based on the literature review presented in Chapter 2, the salient objectives of the Present study have been identified as follows

The objectives of proposed work are as follows:

  1. To study parametric design variables on the performance of a G+25 story building with different basic wind speed in terrain category III.
  2. To study the behavior of the tube in tube RCC structure for dynamic analysis method using wind loads for different shapes i.e., square, rectangular and hexagonal etc.
  3. Comparative analysis between tube in tube RCC structure with story open at different level.
  4. To compare results between the models with respect to wind displacement and story drift.

III. PROJECT STATEMENT

The study will give more knowledge which result into benefits for future implementation with the help of RCC building actual design. To study the effect of shape on structural behavior.

 

A. Dynamic Analysis Method

Design Wind Pressure - The design wind pressure at any height above mean ground level shall be obtained by the following relationship between wind pressure and wind velocity

The design wind pressure Pd can be obtained as,

Pd = Kd. Ka. Kc. Pz

where,

Kd = Wind directionality factor

Ka = Area averaging factor

Kc = Combination factor

Pz = 0.6 Vz2

where,

Pz - design wind pressure in N/m2 at height Z

Vz - design wind velocity in m/s at height Z

IV. PROBLEM FORMULATION

Type of structure

Frame structure

Moment-Resisting frame

SMRF

Basic wind speed

39 &55 m/sec

No of Stories

G+25

Height of each story

3m

Height of ground story

3m

Thickness of slab

125mm

Thickness of outer wall

150mm

Thickness of inner wall

100mm

Grade of reinforcing steel

Fe 415

Density of concrete

25 kN/m3

Density of Brick wall

20 kN/m3

Grade of concrete in slab

M30

Grade of concrete in beam

M30

Grade of concrete in column

M40

 Analysis method

Equivalent Statics Analysis

Multi-storied ferroconcrete, moment defying  space frame are anatomized using professional software ETABS2016. Model G+24 of erecting frame withthree kudos in vertical andthree kudos in side direction is anatomized by Response spectrum method. The plan confines of structures are shown in table below. The plan view of structure, elevation of colorful frames is shown in numbers below.

A. Building Plan

  1. Square shape plan

2. Hexagonal Shapes plan


V. RESULTS

Table 1.1 General Building Displacement Results Basic Wind Speed 39 M/Sec.

TABLE:  Diaphragm Center of Mass Displacements

Story

Diaphragm

Load Case/Combo

UX

UX

UX

     

mm

mm

mm

Story26

D1

WL+X

11.898

13.817

10.374

Story25

D1

WL+X

11.37

13.217

9.919

Story24

D1

WL+X

10.833

12.605

9.455

Story23

D1

WL+X

10.29

11.985

8.985

Story22

D1

WL+X

9.739

11.355

8.508

Story21

D1

WL+X

9.181

10.717

8.025

Story20

D1

WL+X

8.617

10.07

7.536

Story19

D1

WL+X

8.057

9.422

7.044

Story18

D1

WL+X

7.493

8.766

6.549

Story17

D1

WL+X

6.928

8.108

6.052

Story16

D1

WL+X

6.364

7.45

5.556

Story15

D1

WL+X

5.802

6.793

5.061

Story14

D1

WL+X

5.249

6.153

4.583

Story13

D1

WL+X

4.702

5.52

4.111

Story12

D1

WL+X

4.167

4.899

3.649

Story11

D1

WL+X

3.646

4.294

3.198

Story10

D1

WL+X

3.143

3.708

2.763

Story9

D1

WL+X

2.672

3.157

2.356

Story8

D1

WL+X

2.223

2.631

1.967

Story7

D1

WL+X

1.801

2.137

1.601

Story6

D1

WL+X

1.411

1.678

1.262

Story5

D1

WL+X

1.058

1.262

0.953

Story4

D1

WL+X

0.752

0.899

0.684

Story3

D1

WL+X

0.488

0.585

0.45

Story2

D1

WL+X

0.27

0.326

0.255

Story1

D1

WL+X

0.102

0.126

0.101

 

Table 1.2 General building story drift results basic wind speed 39 m/sec

TABLE:  Story Drifts

Story

Load Case/Combo

Direction

Drift

Drift

Drift

     

m

m

m

Story26

WL+X

X

0.000176

0.0002

0.000152

Story25

WL+X

X

0.000179

0.000204

0.000155

Story24

WL+X

X

0.000181

0.000207

0.000157

Story23

WL+X

X

0.000184

0.00021

0.000159

Story22

WL+X

X

0.000186

0.000213

0.000161

Story21

WL+X

X

0.000188

0.000216

0.000163

Story20

WL+X

X

0.000187

0.000216

0.000164

Story19

WL+X

X

0.000188

0.000218

0.000165

Story18

WL+X

X

0.000188

0.000219

0.000166

Story17

WL+X

X

0.000188

0.00022

0.000166

Story16

WL+X

X

0.000187

0.000219

0.000165

Story15

WL+X

X

0.000185

0.000213

0.00016

Story14

WL+X

X

0.000182

0.000211

0.000157

Story13

WL+X

X

0.000178

0.000207

0.000154

Story12

WL+X

X

0.000174

0.000202

0.00015

Story11

WL+X

X

0.000168

0.000195

0.000145

Story10

WL+X

X

0.000157

0.000184

0.000136

Story9

WL+X

X

0.00015

0.000175

0.00013

Story8

WL+X

X

0.000141

0.000165

0.000122

Story7

WL+X

X

0.00013

0.000153

0.000113

Story6

WL+X

X

0.000118

0.000139

0.000103

Story5

WL+X

X

0.000102

0.000121

0.00009

Story4

WL+X

X

0.000088

0.000105

0.000078

Story3

WL+X

X

0.000073

0.000086

0.000065

Story2

WL+X

X

0.000056

0.000067

0.000051

Story1

WL+X

X

0.000034

0.000042

0.000034

Bracing System In 39m/Sec Wind Speed

Table 5.3 wind displacement in bracing system in 39m/sec basic wind speed

TABLE:  Diaphragm Center of Mass Displacements

Story

Diaphragm

Load Case/Combo

UX

UX

UX

     

mm

mm

mm

Story26

D1

WL+X

9.903

11.954

8.889

Story25

D1

WL+X

9.488

11.459

8.518

Story24

D1

WL+X

9.064

10.953

8.137

Story23

D1

WL+X

8.632

10.437

7.75

Story22

D1

WL+X

8.193

9.912

7.356

Story21

D1

WL+X

7.746

9.378

6.956

Story20

D1

WL+X

7.291

8.833

6.548

Story19

D1

WL+X

6.836

8.284

6.137

Story18

D1

WL+X

6.375

7.727

5.721

Story17

D1

WL+X

5.912

7.165

5.301

Story16

D1

WL+X

5.447

6.6

4.881

Story15

D1

WL+X

4.981

6.034

4.46

Story14

D1

WL+X

4.519

5.478

4.05

Story13

D1

WL+X

4.062

4.928

3.643

Story12

D1

WL+X

3.611

4.385

3.243

Story11

D1

WL+X

3.17

3.853

2.851

Story10

D1

WL+X

2.742

3.337

2.472

Story9

D1

WL+X

2.338

2.848

2.113

Story8

D1

WL+X

1.951

2.38

1.77

Story7

D1

WL+X

1.587

1.937

1.446

Story6

D1

WL+X

1.247

1.525

1.143

Story5

D1

WL+X

0.938

1.149

0.866

Story4

D1

WL+X

0.669

0.818

0.623

Story3

D1

WL+X

0.435

0.532

0.411

Story2

D1

WL+X

0.241

0.295

0.233

Story1

D1

WL+X

0.092

0.112

0.092

Table 5.4 story drift at bracing system in 39 m/sec basic wind speed

TABLE:  Story Drifts

Story

Load Case/Combo

Direction

Drift

Drift

Drift

     

m

m

m

Story26

WL+X

X

0.000138

0.000165

0.000124

Story25

WL+X

X

0.000141

0.000169

0.000127

Story24

WL+X

X

0.000144

0.000172

0.000129

Story23

WL+X

X

0.000146

0.000175

0.000131

Story22

WL+X

X

0.000149

0.000178

0.000134

Story21

WL+X

X

0.000152

0.000181

0.000136

Story20

WL+X

X

0.000152

0.000183

0.000138

Story19

WL+X

X

0.000153

0.000186

0.000139

Story18

WL+X

X

0.000154

0.000187

0.00014

Story17

WL+X

X

0.000155

0.000188

0.000141

Story16

WL+X

X

0.000155

0.000189

0.000141

Story15

WL+X

X

0.000154

0.000185

0.000137

Story14

WL+X

X

0.000153

0.000184

0.000136

Story13

WL+X

X

0.00015

0.000181

0.000134

Story12

WL+X

X

0.000147

0.000177

0.000131

Story11

WL+X

X

0.000143

0.000172

0.000127

Story10

WL+X

X

0.000135

0.000163

0.00012

Story9

WL+X

X

0.000129

0.000156

0.000114

Story8

WL+X

X

0.000122

0.000147

0.000108

Story7

WL+X

X

0.000113

0.000137

0.000101

Story6

WL+X

X

0.000103

0.000125

0.000093

Story5

WL+X

X

0.00009

0.00011

0.000081

Story4

WL+X

X

0.000078

0.000095

0.000071

Story3

WL+X

X

0.000065

0.000079

0.00006

Story2

WL+X

X

0.00005

0.000061

0.000047

Story1

WL+X

X

0.000031

0.000037

0.000031

Table 1.5 Displacement Results in Open Story In 39 M/Sec Basic Wind Speed

TABLE:  Diaphragm Center of Mass Displacements

Story

Diaphragm

Load Case/Combo

UX

UX

UX

     

mm

mm

mm

Story26

D1

WL+X

5.068

4.904

5.53

Story25

D1

WL+X

4.847

4.695

5.292

Story24

D1

WL+X

4.621

4.481

5.048

Story23

D1

WL+X

4.391

4.263

4.799

Story22

D1

WL+X

4.158

4.04

4.546

Story21

D1

WL+X

3.92

3.814

4.289

Story20

D1

WL+X

3.682

3.586

4.031

Story19

D1

WL+X

3.445

3.358

3.771

Story18

D1

WL+X

3.205

3.125

3.507

Story17

D1

WL+X

2.964

2.891

3.242

Story16

D1

WL+X

2.722

2.656

2.976

Story15

D1

WL+X

2.483

2.423

2.713

Story14

D1

WL+X

2.247

2.196

2.458

Story13

D1

WL+X

2.014

1.971

2.206

Story12

D1

WL+X

1.784

1.749

1.958

Story11

D1

WL+X

1.561

1.532

1.715

Story10

D1

WL+X

1.346

1.324

1.483

Story9

D1

WL+X

1.144

1.127

1.265

Story8

D1

WL+X

0.952

0.939

1.057

Story7

D1

WL+X

0.771

0.762

0.86

Story6

D1

WL+X

0.603

0.598

0.677

Story5

D1

WL+X

0.452

0.449

0.512

Story4

D1

WL+X

0.321

0.32

0.368

Story3

D1

WL+X

0.208

0.208

0.243

Story2

D1

WL+X

0.115

0.115

0.137

Story1

D1

WL+X

0.043

0.044

0.054

Table 5.6 open story drift vs. different shape of structure in 39m/sec

TABLE:  Story Drifts

Story

Load Case/Combo

Direction

Drift

Drift

Drift

     

m

m

m

Story26

WL+X

X

0.000074

0.00007

0.000079

Story25

WL+X

X

0.000075

0.000071

0.000081

Story24

WL+X

X

0.000077

0.000073

0.000083

Story23

WL+X

X

0.000078

0.000074

0.000084

Story22

WL+X

X

0.000079

0.000075

0.000086

Story21

WL+X

X

0.000079

0.000076

0.000086

Story20

WL+X

X

0.000079

0.000076

0.000087

Story19

WL+X

X

0.00008

0.000077

0.000088

Story18

WL+X

X

0.00008

0.000078

0.000089

Story17

WL+X

X

0.00008

0.000078

0.000089

Story16

WL+X

X

0.00008

0.000078

0.000088

Story15

WL+X

X

0.000079

0.000076

0.000085

Story14

WL+X

X

0.000078

0.000075

0.000084

Story13

WL+X

X

0.000076

0.000074

0.000083

Story12

WL+X

X

0.000075

0.000072

0.000081

Story11

WL+X

X

0.000072

0.000069

0.000077

Story10

WL+X

X

0.000067

0.000066

0.000073

Story9

WL+X

X

0.000064

0.000063

0.00007

Story8

WL+X

X

0.00006

0.000059

0.000066

Story7

WL+X

X

0.000056

0.000055

0.000061

Story6

WL+X

X

0.00005

0.000049

0.000055

Story5

WL+X

X

0.000044

0.000043

0.000048

Story4

WL+X

X

0.000038

0.000037

0.000042

Story3

WL+X

X

0.000031

0.000031

0.000035

Story2

WL+X

X

0.000024

0.000024

0.000028

Story1

WL+X

X

0.000014

0.000015

0.000018

Conclusion

A. Analysis of RCC tube in tube structure with different basic wind speed i.e., 39m/sec, and 55m/sec with medium soil condition at zone III has been done and significant variations in square building has been noted as compared to rectangular and hexagonal building. B. Results indicate that same all value similar to tube in tube with open story, because of earthquake zone are same for both type of building. C. Analysis of RCC tube in tube structure and tube in tube with open story structure in zone III with medium soil but overall performance of tube in tube with open story structure is healthier than remaining all structure. D. Comparing the displacement in tube in tube structure and tube in tube with open story structure almost both displacement results are same, but the wind displacement is increased as compare to 39m/sec basic wind speed but relatively shows good performance in time ages. E. The story drift in tube in tube structure and tube in tube with open story structure both structures are 4 to 4.5 % drift are available so structure behaviour are nonlinear. And also, in different shape structure 3 to 3.7 % drift are available, so structure is show linear behaviour. F. Also, Analysis of RCC different shape of tube in tube structure i.e. rectangular, Square and Hexagonal shape structure in basic wind speed 39m/sec with 55m/sec in medium soil but overall performance of square shape of structure is healthier than remining all shape of structure.

References

[1] Analysis Of RCC Tube in Tube Structure with Different Basic Wind Speed I.E., 39m/Sec, and 55m/Sec with Medium Soil Condition at Zone III Has Been Done. [2] Results Indicate That Same All Value Similar to Tube in Tube with Open Story, Because Of Earthquake Zone Are Same for Both Type of Building. [3] Analysis Of RCC Tube In Tube Structure And Tube In Tube With Open Story Structure In Zone III With Medium Soil But Overall Performance Of Tube In Tube With Open Story Structure Is Healthier Than Remaining All Structure. [4] Comparing The Wind Displacement In Tube In Tube Structure And Tube In Tube With Open Story Structure, In Wind Displacement Increased As Compare To 39m/Sec Basic Wind Speed But Relatively Shows Good Performance In Time Ages. [5] The Story Drift In Tube In Tube Structure And Tube In Tube With Open Story Structure Both Structures Are 4 To 4.5 % Drift Are Available So Structure Behaviour Are Nonlinear. And Also, In Different Shape Structure 3 To 3.7 % Drift Are Available, So Structure Is Show Linear Behaviour. [6] Also, Analysis of RCC Different Shape of Tube in Tube Structure I.E. Rectangular, Square and Hexagonal Shape Structure in Basic Wind Speed 39m/Sec With 55m/Sec in Medium Soil but Overall Performance of Square Shape of Structure Is Healthier Than Remining All Shape of Structure. [7] Imposed Loads”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1987. IS 456, “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000. IS 1893 (Part I), “Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures”, Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Abhishek Wadde, Dr. Uttam Awari. 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.

ijraset48468

Download Paper

Paper Id : IJRASET48468

Publish Date : 2022-12-30

ISSN : 2321-9653

Publisher Name : IJRASET

DOI Link : Click Here