0% found this document useful (0 votes)
192 views6 pages

Tube in Tube Structure 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Diksha Bhutani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
192 views6 pages

Tube in Tube Structure 2017 PDF

Uploaded by

Diksha Bhutani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Comparative Analysis between Tube in Tube Structure and


Conventional Moment Resisting Frame
Bipin H Naik1, B S Suresh Chandra2,
1Post Graduate Student in Structural Engineering Dr. AIT, Bengaluru, 560096, Karnataka, India
2Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dr. AIT, Karnataka, India

---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Lately, Framed tube and framed tube in tube connectivity and gravity loads. Both the frames are
structures have been broadly utilized as framework for tall connected by beams or truss. It is to be noted that in tubular
structures. Framed tube structure with various internal tube structure help in resistance of the structure due to lateral
or tubes in tube structure, are generally utilized in view of load.
their high solidness in opposing horizontal load and the
accessibility of inside tubes in supporting the vertical tubes. At 1.2 TUBE IN TUBE STRCUTURE
the point when subjected to parallel load, for example, wind
load, the corner sections encounter considerably higher axial Tube in Tube is most common used type of tubular
load because of the notable amount of shear lag. The structure. Here the structure consist of internal tube, thus the
investigation is completed in ETABS V15. Here behavior of name. The internal tube can be used for movement between
Tubular. The impact conduct of tall tubular structures with the floors i.e. can be used to provide stair case, lift room. Even
truss around the peripherals, and the investigation the impact though Tube in Tube Structure help in resisting lateral loads
of column spacing on arrangement of truss individuals for acting the structure, the lateral loads are mostly resisted by
the external tubes of the structure.
tubular structure is completed.

Key Words: Framed Tube, Framed Tube in tube, axial load, 1.3 OBJECTIVES
Seismic load, wind load, ETABS, Steel Tube Truss.
1. Comparative analysis between tube in tube
1. INTRODUCTION structure and moment resisting structure. With
static and dynamic loads in high seismic zones.
Due to limited area and increasing expansion of urbanisation
it is feasible to expand in vertical direction than in horizontal 2. To study the behavior of the tubular structure in
direction. And due to increasing vertical urbanisation it is variation of the column spacing.
important to adopt to more stable structure. Here, tubular 3. To study the behavior of the tubular structure with
structure is one such structure, where the columns are X bracing on the structure.
placed at the periphery of the structure. Also here Tube in
Tube structure is used. Compared to conventional structure 4. Results are compared between the models with
the tube in tube structure is more stable lateral loads, allows respect to Base shear, Displacement, Drift, Time
more interior space and helps save around 30% steel. Here period, Stiffness.
five models are done having tube in tube structure with
different column spacing and also providing X bracing to 1.4 METHODOLOGY
them.
1. In the present examination a 50 storied Steel
building is considered, having general arrangement
1.1 TUBULAR STRUCTURE
measurement of 48 m x 48 m along X and Y course.
Tubular structure is a type of structure where, the columns 2. Steel structure is with floating columns are displayed.
are placed on the periphery of the building. There are 3. To examination the impact of general execution of the
different types of tubular structure- Framed tube structure, structure, steel X bracings are given.
Tube in Tube structure, Bundled Tube structure, Braced tube
Structure. These structure are basically designed to act like a 4. X bracings at various area at various statures are
hollow tube which are perpendicular to the ground. These considered.
building are basically made of Steel, concrete or composite of 5. Total five models are viewed as one customary steel
both. structure, two Tube in Tube structure with floating columns
and two models with bracing.
In these structure external frame takes the lateral loads like
seismic, wind. The interior frame takes care of the

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 807
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

6. Equivalent static and dynamic time history analysis 2.3 PLAN VIEW OF THE BUIDING
is completed using ETAB Ver. 2015.
7. Important outcomes like displacements, story drifts,
peak displacements, base force and acceleration are shown.

2. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

Five models are considered for analysis.


Model 1 – Conventional Moment resisting frame.
Model 2 – Tube in Tube Model.
Model 3 – Tube in Tube Model with reduced spacing.
Model 4 – Model 2 with X bracing.
Model 5 – Model 3 with X bracing.

2.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

 M 30 grade concrete and Fe 500 grade


reinforcement is considered.
Fig 1: Plan view of the model 1
 Young’s Modulus steel, Es = 210000 Mpa

 Young’s Modulus Concrete, Ec = 27386 Mpa

 Characteristic strength of concrete, fck = 30 Mpa

 Yield stress for steel, fy = 500 Mpa

 Ultimate strain in bending, Ƹcu = 0.0035

2.2 MODEL GEOMETRY

 The structure considered is a 50 story moment


resisting frame and tube in tube structure.

 The height of story is 3m.

 Total height of the building is 150m.

 Number of bays in each direction of X and Y is 9.

 Bay width is 6m in both X and Y direction.


Fig 2: Plan view of the model 2
 Spacing between each column, for model 1 and 2 is
6m, for model 3 is 3m.
 Bracing are provided to model 2 and 3 at spacing of
10 floors.

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 808
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

2.4 ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING 3. RESULTS

3.1 TIME PEROID RESULTS

Chart -1: Time Period

3.2 BASE SHEAR RESUILTS

Fig -3: Elevation of Building BASE SHEAR


10000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

2.5 3D MODEL 8000


6000
4000
2000
0
Steel MRF Steel Tube- Steel TubeSteel Tube Steel Tube
1 -2 truss-1 truss-2
MODEL TYPE

Chart -2: Maximum Base Shear

Base Shear (KN)


Steel Steel
Steel Steel
Steel MRF Tube Tube
Tube-1 Tube - 2
truss-1 truss-2
6986 3470 8031 3523 8127

Table -1: Maximum Base Shear Values

Fig -4: 3D Model of Structure Model 5

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 809
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

3.3 MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT 3.5 BASE SHEAR RESULTS – DYNAMIC TIME
HISTORY

Chart -3: Maximum Story Displacement Chart-5: Base Shear – Dynamic Time History

Base Force (kN)


Peak Displacement Values (mm) Steel Steel
Steel Steel Steel
Steel Steel Steel Steel Tube Tube
Steel MRF Tube-1 Tube - 2
Story Tube- Tube Tube Tube truss-1 truss-2
MRF 12000 5550 7764 14348 18287
1 -2 truss-1 truss-2
Story50 173.9 257.5 243.8 138.2 94.6
Table -4: Base Shear – Dynamic Time History
Table -2: Maximum Story Displacement
3.6 TIME PERIOD RESULTS – WIND LOAD
3.4 MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT – DYNAMIC
TIME HISTORY

Chart -6: Wind Load Results

Chart -4: Story Displacement – Dynamic Time History 3.7 BASE SHEAR - WIND LOAD

Peak Displacement Values (mm) Base Shear Values


Steel Steel Steel MRF Steel Steel Steel Steel
Steel Steel Steel
Tube Tube Tube - 1 Tube – 2 Tube Tube
MRF Tube-1 Tube - 2
truss-1 truss-2 Truss – 1 Truss - 2
157 248 183 145 125
8940 8940 8940 8940 8940
Table -3: Maximum Story Displacement – Dynamic Time
History Table -5: Maximum Base Shear Values

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 810
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

decreased with the nearer separating of column in


steel tube – 2.

 Column separating and external truss system affects


base shear, since base shear has expanded with the
diminishing in column dispersing, which is found in
steel tube 2 and steel tube truss – 2.

 Due to diminishment in stiffness in steel tube


structures, extensive displacements and drifts are
watched contrasted with customary steel moment
resisting frame.

Increase in stiffness is found in firmly dispersed


Chart -7: Base Shear Values column steel tube structure and further with the
expansion of steel truss individuals on the outskirts
of the structure stiffness has been expanded.
3.8 MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT – WIND LOAD
 Truss part powers are more in steel tube truss – 2,
subsequently steel tube truss – 2 with firmly
divided columns has more noteworthy protection
towards static and dynamic loads.

 Hence lessening in column dispersing and execution


external truss individuals has demonstrated better
execution in constraining the displacements and
drifts, with increment in base shear and
acceleration.

REFERENCES

1. IS:456-2000, “Code of Practice for Plain and


Reinforced Concrete” ,Bureau of Indian Standards,
Chart -8: Maximum Displacement – wind load New Delhi, India.

Maximum Displacement (mm) 2. IS:1893(part1):2002,“CriteriaforEarthquakeResistant


Steel MRF Steel Steel Steel Steel DesignofStructures”,part 1-General provisions and
Tube – 1 Tube – 2 Tube Tube buildings ,fifth revision, Bureau of Indian Standards,
Truss – 1 Truss – 2 New Delhi, India.
152 185 115 103 69
3. Hamid Mirza Hosseini, “Optimal Design of Tube in
Table -6: Maximum Displacement Values Tube systems”, Indian Journal of Fundamental and
Applied Life Sciences ISSN: 2231– 6345 2015 Vol. 5
(S3), pp. 119- 138/Mirza Hosseini.
3. CONCLUSIONS
4. Archana J &Reshmi P R, “Comparative Study on Tube-
Following conclusions are produced using the equivalent in-Tube Structures and Tubed Mega Frames”, vol. 5,
static and dynamic time history investigation of steel Issue 8, August 2016.
moment resisting frame and tube structure.
5. Myoungsu Shin, Thomas H.-K. Kang and Benjamin
 From the modular investigation it can be inferred Pimentel, “Towards Optimal Design of High-rise
that, steel tube structures are more adaptable than Building Tube Systems”, Thomas H.-K. Kang, School of
regular steel moment resisting frame, since they Civil Engineering and Environmental Science,
have additional time period and less frequency. University of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd Street, Room
Because of the expansion of external bracing time 334, Norman, ok 73019, USA Struct. Design Tall Spec.
period will decrease. Additionally time period relies Build. 21, 447–464 (2012)
upon column distance where despite everything it

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 811
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 10 | Oct -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

6. Abdul Kadir Marsono and Lee Siong Wee, “Nonlinear Structure in Tall Buildings", proc. of "Tall Buildings
Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Tube from Engineering to Sustainability, Hong Kong
in Tube of Tall Buildings”, Proceedings of the 6th Asia-
Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction 17. Bungule S Taranath, "Structural Analysis and Design of
Conference (APSEC 2006), 5– 6 September 2006, Tall Buildings", McGraw Hill Book Company,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Singapore, p l 30 311 - 340 1988.

7. Nimmy Dileep, Renjith R, “Analytical Investigation on


the Performance of Tube-in Tube Structures Subjected
to Lateral Loads”, International Journal of Technical
Research and Applications e-ISSN: 2320-8163, Vol. 3,
Issue4 (July-August 2015), PP. 284-288.

8. Er. Nishant Rana and Siddhant Rana, “Structural Forms


Systems for Tall Building Structures”, SSRG
International Journal of Civil Engineering (SSRG-IJCE)
– vol.1issue4 September 2014.

9. Basavanagouda A Patil and Kavitha.S, “Dynamic


Analysis of Tall Tubular Steel Structures for Different
Geometric Configurations,” International Journal of
Engineering Research, ISSN: 2321-7758, Vol.4. Issue.4.
2016 (July-August).

10. Peter C. Chang,” Analytical modeling of tube-in-tube


structure “ ASCEJournal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
I l l , No. 6, June

11. J. J, Connor and C. C. Pouangare “Simple model for


design of framed-tube “ ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 12,December, 1991

12. M. R. Jahanshahi, R. Rahgozar, M. Malekinejad “ A


simple approach to static analysis of tall buildings with
a combined tube-in tube and outrigger-belt truss
system subjected to lateral loading “ Ije Transactions
A: Basics Vol. 25, No. 3, July 2012

13. Kang-Kun Lee, Yee-Chaye Loo, Hong Guan “Simple


Analysis of Framed-Tube Structures with Multiple
Internal Tubes” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
127, No. 4, April, 2001.

14. A.M. Chandler R.K. Su, and P.C.W. Wong (2005).


"Application of Strut and Tie Method on Outrigger
Braced Core Wall Buildings". proc. of "Tall Buildings -
From Engineering to Sustainability, Hong Kong (www.
eproceedings.worldsci.net)

15. AysinSev (2005), "Tubular Systems for Tall Office


Buildings with Special cases from Turkey," proc. Of
"Tall Buildings - From Engineering to Sustainability
cases from Turkey." Proc. of "Tall Buildings – From
Engineering to Sustainability, Hong Kong

16. Bo Li, Kejia Yang, Mingke Deng, Xingwan Liang (2005),


"Displacement - Based Seismic Design of Shear Wall

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 812

You might also like