2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar

Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

2014 Challenges & Solutions for Tall Building Design

About Seminar
MIDAS The recent years have seen tremendous advances in High-Rise Building design in
India. Structures such as the World One Tower (442m), Oasis Tower (372m) etc.,

TECHNICAL
have pushed the envelope like never before. As such, it becomes imperative for
practicing engineers to be up to speed with all the latest developments in the field
of High-Rise Buildings.

SEMINAR
Today even the design codes have become demanding in terms of detailed and
precise design. Understanding of behavior of structure and designing for safety
brings in more concerns that should be addressed. Additionally, everything needs to
be done quickly and efficiently. This creates a need for a powerful tool that
addresses all the above issues. midas Gen has the strong ability to help engineers to
perform modeling, analysis and design of structures. The software has been
The Institution of Engineers (India, MSC) successfully applied to numerous projects thereby demonstrating creditability and
stability.

November 15th, 2014 (Saturday) This seminar will focus on familiarizing the structural analysis as well as design of
buildings. midas Gen models are also compatible with major BIM tools which have
09:30am - 05:30pm gained a lot of importance recently.

Programs
Time Sessions
9:30 - 10:00 Registration

10:00 - 10:30 Opening Remark

10:30 - 11:20 Important criteria to be considered for high-rise building design report.
Prof. M. A. Chakrabarti, VJTI, (Former Member of High-rise Building Committee)

11:20 - 11:50 Refreshment Break

11:50 - 12:40 Modeling Issues in high-rise buildings

Vinayak Naik, Sterling Engineering Consultancy Services

12:40 - 2:00 Lunch break

2:00 - 2:50 Effect of wind loading on tall buildings

Prof. Tanuja Bandivadekar, SP College of Engineering

2:50 - 3:40 Foundations for tall buildings

Jaydeep Wagh, Geocon International

3:40 - 4:00 Refreshment Break

4:00 - 4:50 Column shortening analysis for high-rise building

Ravi Kiran Anne, MIDAS

Introduction to MIDAS
4:50 - 5:30 - Introduction to midas Gen by Shayan Roy, MIDAS
- Case studies by Raajesh Ladhad, Structural Concept

5:30 - 5:40 Closing Remark & Lucky Draw

2014 Challenges & Solutions for Tall Building Design

Presenters Modeling Issues in tall buildings

by Vinayak Naik, Sterling Engineering Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.
Vinayak Naik has designed number of ROB’s, fly-overs (a notable
example is the Dadar T. T. flyover in Mumbai, Winner of Special Award
Speaker’s Profile by Indian Institute of Bridge Engineers for Year 2000), mass housing
projects, tall buildings, Loco car sheds for Railways (Precast /
Prestressed), subways (a notable example is CST subway, Mumbai).

Important criteria to be considered for high-rise

The Institution of Engineers (India, MSC) building design report.
by Professor M. A. Chakrabarti, VJTI
November 15th, 2014 (Saturday) Former Member of High-rise Building Committee
09:30am - 05:30pm Area of Interest
• Reliability engineering and system safety
• Non-linear dynamic analysis/system
• Self Repairable Concrete System

Effect of wind loading on tall buildings

by professor Tanuja Bandivadekar, SP College

Area of Interest
• Vibration control using passive dampers for structures
• Vibration control using passive dampers for bridges
• Multiple tuned mass dampers
• Mass excited structure, vibration control.
• Admixtures for high performance concrete.

Foundations for tall buildings

by Jaydeep D. Wagh, Geocon International

• Geotechnical consultant for over 10,000 projects across India.

• Completed projects in numerous countries of the world, including
USA, Dubai, Nepal, Shri Lanka, and several countries in Africa.
• Geotechnical consultant for the tallest buildings in almost all
metro cities of India, including Mumbai (6B+130 floors), Delhi
(3B+85 floors), Kolkata (65 floors), Bangalore (3B+52 floors)(1997 -
Present)

Case Studies using midas Gen

by Raajesh K. Ladhad, Structural Concept Design

Raajesh Ladhad has designed tall residential buildings, corporate

office buildings, commercial buildings, and hospitals. He has
personally trained and guided junior and senior engineers to
develop structural designs and details in RC and steel structures.

Erection Engineering of high-rise building

- Column shortening analysis for high-rise building
by Ravi Kiran Anne, MIDAS

Ravi Kiran is high-rise building design and finite element analysis

specialist and technical director with 10 years’ experience in high-
rise buildings & infrastructure projects.
2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

01
Introduction to MIDAS
Shayan Roy, MIDAS
Introduction to midas Gen

MIDAS IT
Welcomes you to its
2014 Technical Seminar

Shayan Roy
MIDAS IT

1 Introduction and Objective

Introduction toand
Introduction midas Gen
Objective

Contents
01 Opening Remarks
02 Introduction to MIDAS
03 Design of High-Rise Building
04 Interaction / Q&A
05 Cocktail Dinner

2 Introduction and Objective

Introduction
01. Introduction
to midas
to Midas
Gen

Objective

3 Introduction
Introduction andObjective
and Objective

Introduction
01. Introduction
to midas
to Midas
Gen

About MIDAS
No. 1 Market Share
in Civil Engineering Software Solutions
450 Engineers & Professionals

120 Distribution in over 120 Countries

10,000 Number of Clients
30,000 Number of Licenses Distributed Worldwide

4 Introduction and Objective

 Introduction
01. Introduction
to midas
to Midas
Gen

Global Network
Export to more than 90 countries worldwide through distributors in 28 countries
Retains the largest CAE market share

5 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Business Areas

Engineering Software
Consultancy Developments

Bridge & Civil Structures Bridge Engineering

Building & Plant Structures Building Engineering
Geotechnical Analysis Geotechnical Engineering
Mechanical Analysis Mechanical Engineering

6 Introduction and Objective

 Introduction to midas Gen

Business Areas

CAE Technology & Development

Optimal Solution
5[PGTI[ for
Engineering Consulting Service
Practical Engineering
P

Plant Structures Building Structures

Civil Structures

7 Introduction and Objective

Introdu
Intro

Introduction to midas Gen

Product Line
Geotechnical
Building & Structural Bridge & Civil Mechanical
& Tunnel
Engineering Engineering Engineering
Engineering

midas Gen midas Civil midas GTS midas NFX

Integrated Design System Integrated Solution System 2D / 3D Geotechnical and Tunnel Total Solutions for True Analysis-
for Building and General Structures for Bridge and Civil Structures analysis System driven Design

midas Design+ midas FEA SoilWorks midas FX+

Structural Component Design & Advanced Nonlinear and Detail Geotechnical Solutions for Practical General Pre & Post Processor
Detailing Analysis System Design for Finite Element Analysis

midas DShop
Auto-Drafting Module to generate
Structural Drawings and Bill of
Materials

8 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Key Clients
International Indian
ACKG HDR Parsons Brinckerhoff AFCONS Arun Gokhale & Associates
AECOM HNTB Ramboll Gruppen CDM Smith DCIPL
ARCADIS Hyder Royal Haskoning CES J+W Consultants
ARUP Hyundai Engineering SMEC EGIS India Milind Kulkarni
ATKINS INGEROP SNC-Lavalin International L&T Mahimatura
Beca Group Italferr SpA Thornton Tomasetti Louis Berger Group Nagarjuna Constructions
Bechtel Jacobs URS Mott MacDonald Navinnavare
Black & Veatch Korea Power Engineering WSP Group Phiske Consultant Satish Marathe Consultants
CH2M HILL Langan Pragati Consultants Sunil Mutalik
COWI Louis Berger Group S.N.Bhobe & Associates S.W.Mone & Associates

CTI Engineering Michael Baker Corp. STUP Consultants Structus Consultants

Dar Al-Handasah MMM Group Shrikande Consultants Vastec
DHV Group Mott MacDonald Tandon Consultants
GHD Mouchel PWD, Navi Mumbai
Golder Associates MWH Global RDSO
Halcrow Parsons Western Railway

9 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Structural Engineering

Burj Khalifa (UAE)

Kingdom Tower (Saudi Arabia)
Beijing Olympic (China)

10 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Structural Engineering

Application Areas
9 All types of buildings (RC, Steel, Composite)
9 Plant structures, Airport & Hangars
9 Stadiums, arenas & gymnasiums
9 Column shortening prediction and design
9 Post-tension and pre-stressed concrete analysis
9 Nonlinear seismic performance evaluation
9 Structural safety checks through detail analysis

11 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

Kingdom Tower (Saudi Arabia)
World’s Tallest Building
Over 1,000 meters in height

12 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building
g Projects
j

Burj Khalifa (UAE)

The World’s Tallest Building

13 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

Moscow City Palace Tower (Russia)

Twisting 46-story Building with Composite Columns

14 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

3URMHFW1DPH10)%%QTRQTCVG1HHKEG0CXK/WODCK
M HHK K D K
'HVLJQHGE\5VTWEVWTCN%QPEGRV0CXK/WODCK

15 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

3URMHFW1DPH-CTPCNC +PVGTPCVKQPCN5EJQQN&TQPCIKTK
'HVLJQHGE\5VTWEVWTCN%QPEGRV0CXK/WODCK

16 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

3URMHFW1DPH'NGTTQ(KGUVC5CPRCFC
'HVLJQHGE\5VTWEVWTCN%QPEGRV0CXK/WODCK

17 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

3URMHFW1DPH/CTKPG#ECFGO[2CPXGN
'HVLJQHGE\5VTWEVWTCN%QPEGRV0CXK/WODCK

18 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tall Building Projects

3URMHFW1DPH4GNKCDNG6GEJ2CTM0CXK/WODCK
 4GNKCDNG 6GEJ 2CTM 0CXK /WODCK
'HVLJQHGE\5VTWEVWTCN%QPEGRV0CXK/WODCK

19 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Speciality
peciality Projects

Beijing National Stadium (China)

Beijing Olympic Main Stadium

20 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Speciality Projects

Temietto di Villa Barbaro (Italy)

Structural Evaluation of Vulnerable Historic

21 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Plant Projects

22 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Bridge Engineering

Sutong Cable-stayed Br. (China)

Russky Island Br. (Russia)
Sunda Strait Br. (Indonesia)

23 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Bridge Engineering
Application Areas
9 Conventional
i lbbridges
id ((skewed
k slab, frame & culvert)
9 Curved steel girders, composite, integral bridges
& PC girder bridges
9 Segmental post-tensioning (BCM, ILM, MSS & FSM)
9 Cable stayed bridges & extradosed bridges
9 Suspension bridges (Earth-anchored & Self-anchored)
9 Fatigue check and seismic performance evaluation
9 Wind evaluation (CFD analysis)

24 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Cable
able Stayed Bridges

Russky Island Bridge (Russia)

The World’s Longest & Tallest Cable Stayed Bridge

25 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Cable Stayed Bridges

Santra Market Bridge, Nagpur
AFCONS, Mumbai

26 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Cable Stayed Bridges

Tapi Cable Stayed Bridge, Surat

S. N. Bhobhe Consultants, Mumbai

27 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Metro Rail
Hyderabad Metro
L&T Rambol, Chennai

28 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Metro Rail
Navi Mumbai Metro
Louis Berger Group, Mumbai

29 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Special Structures

Mumbai Monorail Station

Louis Berger Group, Mumbai

30 Introduction and Objective

Obje
Introduction to midas Gen

Geotechnical Engineering

Kingdom Tower (Saudi Arabia)

New York Subway (USA)
King’s Cross Station (UK)

31 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Geotechnical Engineering
Application Areas
9 Deep foundations & Soil-Structure Interaction
9 Deep excavation and temporary structures
9 Underground structures (subway & disposal facilities)
9 Unconventional tunnel intersections
9 Slope stability and embankments
9 Groundwater Flow and Coupled Analyses
9 Vibration analysis for earthquake & blasting

32 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Geotechnical Engineering
SoilWorks

33 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tunnel & Underground Structures

Posiva’s ONKALO (Finland)

Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility

34 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Tunnel & Underground Structures

Trans-Hudson Express (U.S.A)

Stability Evaluation for Station Complex

35 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Excavations & Foundations

Dubai Tower (Qatar)

Piled-raft Foundation of 84-story Building

36 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Introduction
Specialty Structures Applications

Æ Stadiums

Æ Power Plants

Æ Hangar

Æ Airport

Æ Transmission Beijing National Stadium Beijing National Aquatic Center Beijing Olympic Basketball Gymnasium

Towers

Æ Cranes

Æ Pressure Vessels

Æ Machine Structures

Æ Underground
Seoul World Cup Stadium JeonJu World Cup Stadium DeaJeon World Cup Stadium
Structures …

USA Pavilion China Pavilion German Pavilion

37 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Why midas Gen

3UDFWLFDO (DV\WR8VH

6RIWZDUH

5HOLDEOH *RRG6XSSRUW

38 Introduction and Objective

 Introduction to midas Gen

Reliable
Spatial Structures
Buildings

1 Various
Var
rio Project
App
pl
Applications

Æ 50 cou
countries,
countr 6500 copies
Æ Partial List of Client
ƒ URS Corp.
ƒ Parsons Brinckerhoff
ƒ TY LIN
ƒ Ove Arup Gr.
ƒ Jacobs Engineering
ƒ RMJM
Specialty Structures
Plant Structures
ƒ Imbsen & Associates
ƒ Michael Baker Jr.
ƒ R.W. Armstrong and Associates
ƒ Hewson Consulting Engineers
Ltd
ƒ Samsung Engg. & Construction
ƒ POSCO Steel & Construction
ƒ CALTRANS (California Dept. of
Transportation)
ƒ Oregon Dept. of Transportation
ƒ Pennsylvania Dept. of
Transportation
ƒ US Army …

39 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Reliable

2
MQC System Bug Reporting System
QA
A & QC System

Æ MQC System
S
Sys
(midas Quality Control System)

Æ Bug Reporting System

3 Verification
Ver
rif
Examples
Exa
am

Æ More than 100 Verification

Examples

Æ Design Verification Examples

40 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

What Gen can Do

Static Analysis Buckling Analysis

Dynamic Analysis Heat of Hydration Analysis

Static Seismic Analysis

With and Without Pipe Cooling
Response Spectrum Analysis
Boundary Change Analysis
Time History Analysis

Geometric Nonlinear Analysis Boundary Nonlinear Analysis

P-Delta Analysis Damper, Isolator, Gap, Hook

Large Displacement Analysis

Pushover Analysis
Material Nonlinear Analysis
RC, Steel, SRC, Masonry
Structural Masonry Analysis

Settlement Analysis
Construction Stage Analysis

Time Dependent Material Inelastic Time History Analysis

Column Shortening Analysis

41 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

What Gen can Do

RC Design Steel Design SRC Design

ACI318 AISC-LRFD SSRC79

Eurocode 2, Eurocode 8 AISC-ASD JGJ138

BS8110 AISI-CFSD CECS28

IS:456 & IS:13920 Eurocode 3 AIJ-SRC

CSA-A23.3 BS5950 TWN-SRC

GB50010 IS:800 (1984 & 2007) AIK-SRC

AIJ-WSD CSA-S16-01 KSSC-CFT

TWN-USD GBJ17, GB50017 Footing Design

AIK-USD, WSD AIJ-ASD ACI318

KSCE-USD TWN-ASD, LSD BS8110

KCI-USD AIK-ASD, LSD, CFSD

Slab Design KSCE-ASD

Eurocode 2 KSSC-ASD

42 Introduction and Objective

Introduction to midas Gen

Thank You

43 Introduction and Objective

 2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

02
Column shortening analysis
for high rise building using midas Gen
Ravi Kiran Anne, MIDAS
 midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Construction Stage Analysis with Special

Emphasis on Column Shortening

midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Principal Axis of Building
Why Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A
2014 Technical Seminar Auto Search Principal Axis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Response Spectrum Analysis

- In Irregular Structures, one directional response spectrum results may include a

different direction’s response.
- When it occurs, the base shear force from the response spectrum analysis is
remarkably smaller than the base shear force calculated from static seismic analysis.
- This causes the scale factor to be very large, also causing an overestimation for the
design.

Rx

RY
X

2014 Technical Seminar Auto Search Principal Axis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Response Spectrum Analysis

¾ Principal axis
“ Principal Axes of a building are generally two mutually perpendicular horizontal directions in
a plan of a building along which the geometry of the building is oriented”

“ Direction in which the seismic load has the largest influence on the structure.”

¾ Ways to Find Principal axis

1. Establishment of the Reaction Direction of the 1st Mode to Principal Axis after Modal Analysis.
E.L.Wilson. “Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures”, Computer and Structures, 2002.

2. Finding the Critical Angle Using Modal Analysis Method’s Fundamentals and CQC Theory, Trial and
Error Method.
O.A.Lopez and R. Torres. “The Critical Angle of Seismic Incidence and the Maximum Structure Response”, EESD, 1997

3. Trial and Error Method: Practical Approach.

2014 Technical Seminar Auto Search Principal Axis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Response Spectrum Analysis

¾Auto Search Principal axis

midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Why Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A
2014 Technical Seminar Construction Stage Analysis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Why Construction Stage (CS) Analysis

• In general structures are analyzed assuming that the structure is built and loaded in a moment.

• Construction of structures is a time taking process and during this period Material Properties,
Loads and Boundaries conditions may change.

Dead Load + Live Load

LL,WL,EQ
Wind Acts

Other Dead Loads (Partions, Finishes)

Self weight of slab

Earthquake

Construction
Completed Structure
Sequence

2014 Technical Seminar Construction Stage Analysis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Conventional Analysis Vs. Construction Stage Analysis

Stage 1 Stage 2

Case 1 – Conventional Analysis Case 2 – CS Analysis

2014 Technical Seminar Construction Stage Analysis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Conventional Analysis Vs. Construction Stage Analysis

Case 1 – Conventional Analysis Case 2 – CS Analysis

2014 Technical Seminar Construction Stage Analysis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Conventional Analysis Vs. Construction Stage Analysis

= +
Stage 2
2014 Technical Seminar Construction Stage Analysis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Conventional Analysis Vs. Construction Stage Analysis

= +
Stage 2

2014 Technical Seminar Construction Stage Analysis One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Where CS Analysis is Required

Long Span Trusses

Long Span Slabs, Beams constructed in multiple stages

Prestressed concrete Structures

CS analysis should be performed for all structures where there is a change in
Support Conditions, Loading and varying material properties (Concrete).
 midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

When any member is loaded with Axial Load, it undergoes axial deformation

Why is this
Important

E = (σ / ε)
ΔL = (PL/A E)
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

P2, ΔL2

P1, ΔL1

The differential shortening happening between the vertical members may cause
additional forces and stress in Beams and Slabs

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

Steel Structures
- Linear elastic Behavior
σ
Stress ∞ Strain
Strain is constant for a given Stress
during loading & unloading

E = (σ / ε)
ΔL = (PL/A E)
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

Concrete Structures
- Nonlinear Inelastic Behavior
- But in general analysis and design behavior of concrete is treated as Linear Elastic Material

Neither Stress ∞ Strain

Nor Strain is constant for a given Stress
During loading & unloading Elastic Strain + Inelastic Strain

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issues

Concrete Structures
Elastic Shortening Inelastic Shortening

σ Creep Shortening.
Shrinkage Shortening.

σ
Ei = (σ / ε)
ΔL = (PL/A Ei)

Modulus of Elasticity changes with time.

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

With increased height of structures the effect of column shortening (Elastic & Inelastic)
take on added significance and need special consideration in design and construction.

Elastic Shortening of 80 Storey Steel Structure ~ 180 mm to 255 mm.

Elastic Shortening of 80 Storey Concrete Structure ~ 65 mm.

Total Shortening of 80 Storey Concrete Structure ~ 180 to 230 mm.

Inelastic Shortening ~ 1 to 3 times Elastic shortening.

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

™ Two basic prerequisites for accurately and efficiently predicting these effects
are

9 Reliable Data for the creep and shrinkage characteristics of the particular concrete mix
9 Analytical procedures for the inclusion of these time effects in the design of structure.

™ Some of the popular predictive methods for predicting creep and shrinkage
strains are

9 ACI 209 -92

9 Bazant – Bewaja B3
9 CEB – FIP (1978, 1990)
9 PCA Method (Mark Fintel, S.K.Ghosh & Hal Iyengar)
9 GL 2000 (Gardner and Lockman)
9 Eurocode
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

™ The total strain at any time t may be expressed as the sum of the
instantaneous, creep and shrinkage components:

Where,
εe (t) = Instantaneous strain at time t,
εc (t) = Creep strain at time t,
εsh (t) = Shrinkage strain at time t.

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

™ The instantaneous strain in concrete at any time t is expressed by

Where,
σ (t) = stress at time t,
Ec(t) = Elastic modulus of concrete at time t, given by

fct = Compressive strength at any time t, given by

α & β are constants depending on Type of Cement & Type of Curing

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

Inelastic Shortening = Creep + Shrinkage

Creep Shrinkage
Creep is time-dependent increment of strain under sustained Shrinkage is the time-dependant decrease in concrete
stress. volume compared with the original placement volume
of concrete.

¾Basic creep occurs under the condition of no moisture ¾Drying Shrinkage is due to moisture loss in concrete.
movement to and from the environment.
¾Autogenous Shrinkage is caused by hydration of
¾Drying creep is the additional creep caused by drying. cement.

Drying creep has its effect only during the initial period of load. ¾Carbonation shrinkage results as the various cement
hydration products are carbonated in the presence of CO

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

Inelastic Shortening = Creep + Shrinkage

Creep Shrinkage

As per ACI 209R-92 the creep coefficients are predicted As per the ACI 209R-92, shrinkage can be predicted by
After 7 days for moisture cured concrete
as =

After 1-3 days for steam cured concrete

Where,
t = time in days after loading.
vu = Ultimate creep coefficient = 2.35 Jc
Jc = Product of applicable correction factors Where,
t = time in days after the end of Initial Curing
(Hsh)u = Ultimate Shrinkage Coefficient = 780 Jsh x 10-6 m/m
Jsh = Product of applicable correction factors
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Column Shortening and Related Issue

Factors affecting the Creep & Shrinkage of Concrete

Cement Paste Content
Water – Cement ratio
Concrete Composition Mixture Proportions
Concrete Aggregate Characteristics
(Creep & Shrinkage) Degrees of Compaction

Length of Initial Curing

Initial Curing Curing Temperature
Curing Humidity

Member Geometry and Environment Concrete Temperature

Environment
(Creep & Shrinkage) Concrete Water Content

Geometry Size and Shape

Concrete age at load Application

During load Period
Loading History
Duration of unloading Period
Loading
Number of load Cycles
(Creep Only)
Type of Stress and distribution across
Stress Conditions the Section
Stress/Strength Ratio

midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Live Demonstration
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Effects of Column Shortening

™ Absolute shortening is rarely of practical interest.

™ Differential shortening between adjacent vertical elements is the most important factor for
engineer.

™ Axial Shortening of vertical elements

will not effect those elements very much,

horizontal elements like beams and slabs

and non structural elements are affected.

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Effects of Column Shortening

Structural Effects
¾ Slabs may not be truly horizontal after some time.
¾ Beams could be subjected to higher bending moments.
¾ Load transfer.

Non Structural Effects

¾ Cracks in Partition Walls.

¾ Cracks in Staircases These non structural elements are not
¾ Deformation of Cladding. intended to carry vertical loads and are
¾ Mechanical Equipment. therefore not subjected to shortening.
¾ Architectural Finishes.
¾ Built in Furnishings.
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Effects of Column Shortening

Deformation and breakage of Facades, windows & Reverse Inclination of Drainage Piping System
Parapet walls…

Deformation of Vertical Piping System Deformation and breakage of internal partitions

midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Procedure for Accounting Column Shortening

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Procedure for Accounting Column Shortening

Folpdwlf#
Frqglwlrq# Pre-Analytical
Prediction &
Continuous

?
Monitoring
Ordglqj#
Frqglwlrq# Fruuhfwlr Precise prediction
Frqglwlrqv#
q# of shortening
Frqvwuxfwlrq#
Surjuhvv#
Experimental
Measurements
&
Construction
Rwkhu# Survey
Frqglwlrqv#
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Procedure for Accounting Column Shortening

Analytical Measurement Experimental Measurement

Using Software or Manually Field Measurements

(Manual calculation is almost impossible)

Reflection of physical properties in calculation from Installation of sensors or gages in members for
material experiment: determining the actual shortening.
Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, Mean
Compressive strength, Volume to Surface ratio,
Shapes, sizes etc. Understanding and noting the following:
Curing procedure / Temperature,
Reflection of effects of Climate on shortening:
Average Temperature , RH etc. Actual Shortening,
Change in Ambient Temperature (Important),
Construction Sequence: Actual Humidity,
Stage duration, Additional Steps, Member Age,
Load activation age, Boundary activation age etc. Deviation from Defined Construction Stages,

Reflection of the above effects on site master- Manipulation of factors in analytical Calculation,
schedule.
Re-Analysis…

Method has Limitation

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Procedure for Accounting Column Shortening

Field Measurements

͵ΖΥΖΣΞΚΟΒΥΚΠΟ͑ΠΗ͑ͺΟΤΥΒΝΝΒΥΚΠΟ͑ΝΠΔΒΥΚΠΟ͑ ͺΟΤΥΒΝΝΒΥΚΠΟ͑ΠΗ͑͸ΒΦΘΖ͑ ͲΗΥΖΣ͑ͺΟΤΥΒΝΝΒΥΚΠΟ͑

ͲΗΥΖΣ͑͑ͺΟΤΥΒΝΝΒΥΚΠΟ͑ΠΗ͑͸ΒΦΘΖ͑ ͲΗΥΖΣ͑ʹΒΤΥΚΟΘ͑ΠΗ͑ʹΠΟΔΣΖΥΖ͑ ͷΚΖΝΕ͑ΕΒΥΒ͑ΔΠΝΝΖΔΥΚΠΟ͑

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Procedure for Accounting Column Shortening

Engineering Re-Analysis

0DQLSXODWLRQRIWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQVWDJHDV 3HUIRUP'&6$QDO\VLV &RQVWUXFWLRQVWDJHRIHDFKJURXS

SHUVLWHFRQGLWLRQ

$FWLYDWLRQRI&RQVWUXFWLRQVWDJHV

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Procedure for Accounting Column Shortening

Preliminary Analysis
Design with Additional
Pre-Analysis
Material / Section Properties Force
Applied Load, Schedule

Material Experiment Main analysis

•Compressive strength •Updating material properties from
•Modulus of elasticity experiments Applying
•Creep & Shrinkage •Construction sequence considering the field
condition
Compensation to in-
Main situ structure
Analysis,
Construction 1st, 2nd, 3rd Re-Analysis
&
Suggestion of compensation and details for
Re-Analysis non-constructed part of structure
Measurement
Measurement of strain for Column
& Wall

Final Report
4.0E-04
Back Analysis Output (103-1F-01)

Strain Gauge Output (103-1F-01)

3.0E-04

Shortening, result from test, measurement

Strain

2.0E-04

1.0E-04 Review
0.0E+00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Day
 midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Compensation at Site

2nd correction
1st correction

1st correction

Column
Column
2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Movement Related to Construction Sequence

Depending on the stage of construction:

• Pre-slab installation shortenings
– Shortenings taking place up to the time of slab installation

• Post-slab installation shortenings

– Shortenings taking place after the time of slab installation

Depending on the construction material:

• Reinforced Concrete Structure

– Pre-slab installation shortenings has no importance

– Compensation by leveling the forms

– Post-slab installation shortenings due to subsequent loads and creep/shrinkage

• 
Steel Structure

– Columns are fabricated to exact length.

– Attachments to support the slabs

– Pre-slab installation shortenings need to be known.

– Compensation for the summation of Pre-installation and Post-installation shortenings

2014 Technical Seminar Column Shortening One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Compensation at Site

jvuNjGjˆš›•ŽGˆŠŒG ‰ࣜThe order of construction#

oŒŽ›G–GŠ–™™ŒŠ›–•G
installation of column forms
zshiG{orUG

insertion of FILLER
j–“œ”•GyŒ‰ˆ™G
GG

iGOdGoŒŽ›G–G
insertion of correcting FILLER
Š–™™ŒŠ›–•G
‫ۍۀۇۇۄہ‬G

Installation of SLAB forms

securing the thickness of slab.

 midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Q&A

L
Lotte World
Overview
Tower

.QVVG9QTNF6QYGT

.QECVKQP -DPVLO6HRXO6RXWK.RUHD

*GKIJV 4QQHėP#PVGPPC5RKTGėP

0QQH(NQQTU 

(NQQT#TGC P

)XQFWLRQ8VDJH 2IILFH5HVLGHQWLDO+RWHO2EVHUYDWLRQ'HFNP

6WUXFWXUH7\SH 5HLQIRUFHG&RQFUHWH6WHHO

/DWHUDOORDG
&RUH:DOO2XWULJJHU7UXVV%HOW7UXVV
UHVLVWLQJV\VWHP

)RXQGDWLRQ7\SH 0DW)RXQGDWLRQ

%QPUVTWEVKQP2GTKQF 0DUFKa

42
 L
Lotte World
Tower

Construction Site Structural Schematic

43

L
Lotte World
Overview
Horizontal Deformation
Tower

Vertical
(FOFSBM
↟
)FJHIU
N




GMPPST
Deformation

↟
%FGPSNBUJPO
PG
UIF
UPXFS
JT
B
OBUVSBMMZ
PDDVSSJOH
EFQFOEJOH
PO
NBUFSJBM

DPOTUSVDUJPO
NFUIPE

↟
7FSUJDBM
%FGPSNBUJPO

Tower


7FSUJDBM
4IPSUFOJOH



4FUUMFNFOU



$POTUSVDUJPO
&SSPST

Deformation ↟
)PSJ[POUBM
%FGPSNBUJPO




%JGGFSFOUJBM
4IPSUFOJOH



4FUUMFNFOU






6OFWFO
MPBE
EVF
UP
DPOTUSVDUJPO
NFUIPE




"TZNNFUSJD
GMPPS
QMBO

$POTUSVDUJPO
FSSPST

Deferential
Shortening
೗ ೗
೗ Pre-slab Installation shortening
Core
Shortening Column
Con’c Shortening

Vertical
Member ‫ݡ‬ɻ
With
ʾ˒
Time Core wall Column

< Deferential Deformation >

Initial Curing <Elastic> <Inelastic>

44
 L
Lotte World
Pre-Analysis - Deformations
Tower

Lantern & Core

Horizontal deformation Vertical deformation

• Top of tower
• Prediction
19 19 19 19
֜ Steel Frame: 368.7 mm
Y
19

֜ Core wall: 314.0 mm

19

X dir: 27.2mm
;&KT

19
19

Y dir: 115.5mm
X
F IRE SHUTTER
A BOVE A BOVE

:&KT
19
19

Safety check • Top of mega column

19
19

19 19 19 19

Æ Elevator’s rails ֜ Mega Col: 297.8 mm

֜ Core wall: 232.8 mm
Æ Vertical Pipes

Differential settlement Differential Shortening

<initial> .&(" .&("

$0- $03&
8"-- $0-
Deferential
Shortening
Core Column
Shortening Shortening
'06/%"5*0/

.&(" .&("
<Complete> $0- $03&
8"-- $0-
Core wall Column

'06/%"5*0/

• Deferential shortening btw Core & Column

֜ Core wall settlement: 35mm ֜ Steel column: Max 55mm
֜ Column settlement: 16mm
֜ Mega column: Max 65mm

45

L
Lotte World
Pre-Analysis - Deformations
Tower

Outrigger’s additional stress

Slab’s additional stress

Differential Deformation btw Slab-Column

Æ Slab has additional stress
L87~L103

• Additional Stress without Delay Joint

Podium’s additional stress ֜ 1st outrigger (L39~L43): 3,600 tons
֜ 2nd outrigger (L72~L75): 4,700 tons
֜ required a delay joint installation
connection
• Additional stress btw
tower & podium L72~L75 • Additional Stress with Delay Joint
֜ 1st outrigger (L39~L43): 1,700 tons
Æ Max 100 ton.m
֜ 2nd outrigger (L72~L75): 2,000 tons
Æ Require Settlement
Joint & Safety check

L39~L43
Podium
Towe
r

B06~B01
46
 L
Lotte World
Pre-Analysis – Compensation
Tower

- Core Wall: Absolute correction for securing design level

- Column: Relative correction for deferential shortening

)ORRU &RUH &ROXPQ

Lantern TOP // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 6WHHOFROXPQV

// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 6WHHOFROXPQV

L120
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP
L110 // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP
2nd B/T
L100 // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

L90
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP
L80
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP
2nd O/R // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP Ⴃ Relative correction between core and column
1st B/T L70
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

L60 // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

L50
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP
pre-Analysis 1st correction
st
1 O/R
L40 // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP Material
Test
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

L30 // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP Analysis 2nd correction

// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

L20 // 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP Measurement

// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

Additional
Re-analysis
L10 correction for
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP 1~6 times
unconstructed
// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP
L01 %/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP &RUHOHYHOPP

B06 Ⴃ correction due to measurement

47

L
Lotte World
Main Analysis & Re-Analysis
Tower

"
"OBMZTJT
$POEJUJPO
BOE
"TTVNQUJPO

Analysis Tool: midas/GEN

- 3D Structural Analysis with changes of material properties
Material properties
- Regression analysis results from the material test data (6 month )
- Comparing to pre-analysis results, 32~33% in creep deformation, 39~42% in shrinkage deformation
Outrigger Installation Condition: After completion of frame construction, 1st & 2nd outrigger installation
Loading Condition Apply soil stiffness from
- Dead Load & 2nd Dead Load: 100%, Live Load: 50% foundation/ground analysis results

Environment: Average relative humidity 61.4%

- Relative humidity of average 5 years
Target period of shortening
- Safety verification: 100years after (ؒultimate shortening)
- Service verification: 3years after (95% of ultimate shortening)

48
 L
Lotte World
Material Test Results
Tower

Material test results for re-analysis

Elastic Modulus
Re-analysis (Material Test)

Pre-analysis (Theoretical Eq.)

28 days

Concrete Age (Day)

<Comparison Graph of Elastic Modulus>

Pre-analysis

Pre-analysis

Re-analysis

Ultimate Shrinkage Strain (με)

Re-analysis





Specific Creep



Design Strength Design Strength

<Comparison Graph of Specific Creep> <Comparison Graph of Shrinkage>

49

L
Lotte World
Re-analysis Results
Tower

4I
4IPSUFOJOH
3FTVMUTm

.FHB
$PMVNO
4IPSUFOJOH
#_-

ƒ Target Period: 3years

- 3 years was determined as the optimal
/%

.
/%

.
time of target serviceability application.

29 29 29 9CNN/#: ƒ Settlement Shortening


. 
. 
.

.


.

%QN/+0 - Mega column: 21.2~25.5mm (B6)

29

29

- Core wall: 23.6~29.1mm (B6)

/% /%

.


.

.


. %QN/#:
29

29

+9 +9

. 
.
ƒ Maximum shortening of mega column

.

- SubTo: 131.4~137.2mm (L65, L69)


.
29

29

+9 +9 (80~83% of pre-analysis)


. 
.

.


.
29
29

/% /% ƒShortening of core walls


. 29 29 29 29 
.

. 
. 
. 
. - SubTo: 74.1~85.9mm (L71)
9CNN/+0
(77~78% of pre-analysis)

/% /% ƒ Differential shortening between column-core


. 
.
- 53.1~60.9mm (L65)

50
 L
Lotte World
Re-analysis Results
Tower

4I
4IPSUFOJOH
3FTVMUTm

4UFFM
$PMVNO
4IPSUFOJOH -_-


5% 5%
5% 
. 
.

.
5%
ƒ Target Period: 3years
5%
5% 
. 
. - 3 years was determined as the optimal
5% 
.

.
9CNN/#: 5% time of target serviceability application.

. %QN/#:
29 29 29

. 
. 
.

.


.
5%
29

29

.
%QN/+0
5%

.
ƒ Maximum shortening of steel
column

.


.
5%
29

- SubTo: 110.4~136.9mm (L76)

29

. +9 5%
+9

. 
. 
.
(80% of pre-analysis)

.

5%

. - Total: 260.7~286.1mm (L76)
29


.
29

+9 +9 5%


. 
. 
. (80% of pre-analysis)
5% ƒShortening of core walls

.


.


. 5%
29

- SubTo: 67.8~81.0mm (L76)

29


.

5% 29 29 29 29

5% (65~70% of pre-analysis)

.

. 
. 
. 
. 
. - Total: 162.9~213.6mm (L76)
9CNN/+0
5%
(67~70% of pre-analysis)
5%

. 
.

ƒ Differential shortening between

5% 5%
5% 
. 
.

.
5% 5%
5%

.
Column-core

.

. - 40.1~44.5mm (L76)

51

L
Lotte World
Vertical Shortening Measurement
Tower

௏যஏ

: B006~L070
: Mega Column
: B006~L050
A A˅
: External Core

: Internal Core
F IRE SHUTTER
A BOVE A BOVE

৻Ҙஏ
L90

L76
400 gauges
L70
(30~60 per floor)
A-A˅

L60 Ⴃ Gauges Location in Plan <Gauge location in Mega Columns>

L50

L38
: Load cell
: Level surveying
L28 : Strain Gauge

L18

L10

L01
B03
B06 Foundation settlement Ⴃ Gauges Location of settlement

52
 L
Lotte World
Re-analysis Results
Tower
Compensation due to core and column differential shortening
C
)ORRU &RUH &ROXPQ

// 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

ಹ ಹ ಹ

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/ 'HVLJQOHYHOPP 'HVLJQOHYHOPP

/%  

53

L
Lotte World
Outrigger Structural Safety issues and alternatives proposed
Tower

Ⴃ 2nd Outrigger (L72~L75)

Effect & Safety Measure

z Additional stress due to differential shortening

between core & column

z Provide outrigger delay joint

Ⴃ 1st Outrigger (L39~L43)

཰ Steel Outrigger Delay Joint

ཱ Steel Outrigger Adjustment Joint
(Securing safety under construction)

54
 L
Lotte World
Tower

Midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Contents
Construction Stage Analysis
Column Shortening & Related Issues
Effects of Column Shortening
Procedure for Accounting
Compensation at Site
Lotte World Tower Case Study
Some Useful Features in the software
Q&A

55

2014 Technical Seminar Useful Features in midas Gen One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Material Stiffness Changes for Cracked Sections

” Specific stiffness of specific member types may be reduced such as the case where the flexural stiffness of lintel beams and
walls may require reduction to reflect cracked sections of concrete.
” Section stiffness scale factors can be included in boundary groups for construction stage analysis. The scale factors are also
applied to composite sections for construction stages.
2014 Technical Seminar Useful Features in midas Gen One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Spring Supports for Soil Interaction

” Point Spring Support (Linear, Comp.-only, Tens.-only, and Multi-linear type)

” Surface Spring Support (Nodal Spring, and Distributed Spring)
” Springs can be activated / deactivated during construction stage analysis.

[Nonlinear point spring support]

[Nodal Spring and Distributed Spring]

[Pile Spring Support] [Surface Spring Support]

2014 Technical Seminar Useful Features in midas Gen One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Detailed Design Reports

midas Gen – One Stop Solution for Building and General Structures

Q&A
2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

03
Project Applications
using midas Gen
Raajesh Ladhad, Structural Concept Designs
 Project Applications using midas Gen
- Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design -

Raajesh K. Ladhad
Structural Concept Designs Pvt., Ltd.

Structural Concept Designs Pvt., Ltd.

2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design

- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Elerro Fiesta, Sanpada, 2012

Typical 14 upper floor resting on floating column from An Beam spanning 25 meter




2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design
- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Marine Academy, Panvel, 2010




2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design

- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Pot 5, Sector 11, Ghansoli

G+34, Shear Wall System




2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design
- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Bhagwati Tower, Ghansoli

G+40, Shear Wall System,




2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design

- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Kalyan Manek Colony,



2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design
- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Kesar group Matunga,

G+20, Shear Wall and partial Braced



2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design

- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Dimension Paradise Group, Kharghar

g
G+20, Shear Wall and partial Braced



2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design
- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Sai World City, Kharghar

G+45, Shear Wall




2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design

- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Plot No. 22, Sector 4, Sanpada

ada
G+16, Shear Wall





2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design
- Project Applications using midas Gen-

K12 Taloja, Y column



2014 Challenges & Solutions of Tall Building Design

- Project Applications using midas Gen-

Karnar School, Dronagiri, 2014



 Thank you
Raajesh K. Ladhad
Structural Concept Designs Pvt., Ltd.
2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

04
Important criteria to be considered
for tall building design report
Prof. M. A. Chakrabarti, VJTI
 TALL BUILDING DESIGN

DR.M.A.CHAKRABARTI
Professor
Structural Engineering Department, VJTI

TALL BUILDING- HISTORY

• Park Row Building, New York, 1899 30 storeys
• 102 storeyed Empire State Building 1931, New
York
• Latest Bhurj Khalifa, Dubai
• Many more to come
 WHY DIFFERENT?

• Not only high gravity loads

• Lateral loads are important
• Evolution of structural systems to resist lateral
loads
• Aerodynamic forms and shapes for better
performance
• Damping to reduce drifts

SEISMIC LOADS
• Unified approach everywhere
• Three earthquake levels to be examined
• E1 frequent , low intensity, return period 72 years
• E2 lesser frequent, medium intensity, return period
475 years
• E3 least frequent, high intensity, return period 2475
years
• Elastic response spectrum
• Accelerograms available or can be generated for a
site
 FAILURE MODES

• Experiments upto failure of tall building

models on shake table have shown that
• Elastoplastic deformation and energy
dissipation takes place before collapse
• During collapse there is rigid body movement,
structural element fracture and contact and
collision of structural fragments

ASEISMIC DESIGN

• Seismic performance objectives

• Analysis and design requirements
• Classification of buildings
• High rise and low to medium rise
• Height measured from lowest ground level
• Exclude basements completely underground
 PERFORMANCE LEVELS

• Immediate Occupancy-Minimum damage

• Life safety – Controlled damage
• Collapse prevention – Extensive damage
• The regions in between these levels are
performance ranges
• Graph of strength v/s deformation

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

Building Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake

Occupancy Level E1 Level E2 Level E3
Class
Normal IO LS CP
Special - IO LS
 PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
• Building and structural systems
• Structural simplicity
• Uniformity, symmetry and redundancy
• Adequate resistance and stiffness
• Similar resistance and stiffness in both main
directions
• Adequate torsional resistance and stiffness
• Diaphragm action
• Proper foundation design

PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
• Compliance of regularity requirements in plan
and elevation
• Torsional irregularity
• Floor discontinuities
• Projections in plan
• Interstorey strength irregularity
• Interstorey stiffness irregularity
• Discontinuity of vertical structural elements
 PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
• Primary seismic members
• Secondary seismic members

SELECTION OF ANALYSIS
• Multimode response spectrum analysis
• Linear response history method
• Nonlinear response history method
• Consideration of vertical component of
earthquake
• Consideration of seismic forces on basements
• Directional combination of simultaneous
earthquake loads
 LIMIT STATE COLLAPSE
• Strength verification – Capacity design
• Avoid any brittle or sudden failure from
ocurring
• Structural elements
• Relevant non structural elements
• Connections
• Load combinations
• Second order effects

LIMIT STATE SERVICEABILITY

• Damage limitation
• Limitation of storey drifts
• Seismic joints
• Proper detailing for ductility
• Proper schemes of splicing reinforcement
• Nonstructural elements
 PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
• Design stage 1-A
• Design stage 1-B
• Design stage 2
• Design stage 3
• Applicable to non structural elements also
 PHENOMENON OF WIND
• Complex phenomenon
• Composed of numerous eddies of different
sizes and rotational characteristics
• Eddies give wind its gusty character
• Gustiness with interaction with surface
features
• Average wind speed over a time period of 10
minutes increases with height while gustiness
reduces with height

PHENOMENON OF WIND
• Wind vector is the sum of mean vector component
(static part) and a dynamic or turbulent component
• Dynamic wind loads depend on size of eddies
• Large ones whose dimensions are comparable with
those of the structure give pressures as they envelop
the structure
• Small ones result in pressures on various parts of the
structure that are uncorrelated with the distance of
separation
• Tall and slender structures respond dynamically to
the effects of wind
 EDDIES

(a) Elevation (b) Plan

Figure 1: Generation of eddies.

FAILURE O TACOMMA NARROWS

 REASONS OF FAILURE
1. “It is very improbable that resonance with alternating vortices plays an
important role in the oscillations of suspension bridges. First, it was found that
there is no sharp correlation between wind velocity and oscillation frequency
such as is required in case of resonance with vortices whose frequency
depends on the wind velocity. Secondly, there is no evidence for the formation
of alternating vortices at a cross section similar to that used in the Tacoma
Bridge, at least as long as the structure is not oscillating. It seems that it is
more correct to say that the vortex formation and frequency is determined by
the oscillation of the structure than that the oscillatory motion is
induced by the vortex formation.”
Source: Ammann, O.H., T. Von Karman, and G.B. Woodruff. “The Failure of the
Tacoma Narrows Bridge.” Report to the Federal Works Agency. Washington,
DC (March 28, 1941).

REASONS OF FAILURE
2. “The primary cause of the collapse lies in the
general proportions of the bridge and the type of
stiffening girders and floor. The ratio of the width of
the bridge to the length of the main span was so much
smaller and the vertical stiffness was so much less
than those of previously constructed bridges that
forces heretofore not considered became dominant.”
Source: Paine, C., et al. “The Failure of the Suspension
Bridge Over Tacoma Narrows.” Report to the Narrows
Bridge
Loss Committee (June 26, 1941).
 REASONS OF FAILURE

3. “Once any small undulation of the bridge is started,

the resultant effect of a wind tends to cause a building
up of vertical undulations. There is a tendency for the
undulations to change to a twisting motion, until the
torsional oscillations reach destructive proportions.”
Source: Steinman, David B., and Sara Ruth Watson.
Bridges and Their Builders. New York: Putnam’s Sons,
1941.

REASONS OF FAILURE
4.“The experimental results described in a (1942)
report indicated rather definitely that the motions
were a result of vortex shedding.”
Source: Aerodynamic Stability of Suspension Bridges.
Univ. of Washington Engineering Experiment Station
Bulletin (Seattle, WA) 1.16 (1952).
 REASONS OF FAILURE
5. “Summing up the whole bizarre accident, Galloping
Gertie tore itself to pieces, because of two
characteristics: 1) It was a long, narrow, shallow, and
therefore very flexible structure standing in a
wind ridden valley; 2) Its stiffening support was a solid
girder, which, combined with a solid floor, produced a
cross section peculiarly vulnerable to aerodynamic
effects.”
Source: Gies, Joseph. Bridges and Men. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1963.

REASONS OF FAILURE
6. “Aerodynamic instability was responsible for the
failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. The
magnitude of the oscillations depends on the structure
shape, natural frequency, and damping. The oscillations
are caused by the periodic shedding of vortices on the
leeward side of the structure, a vortex being shed first
from the upper section and then the lower section.”
Source: Houghton, E.L., and N.B. Carruthers. Wind
Forces on Buildings and Structures: An Introduction. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1976.
 DYNAMIC PHENOMENA OF WIND

• Buffeting
• Vortex Shedding
• Galloping
• Flutter
• Ovalling
 BUFFETING
• The buffeting is defined as the wind-induced
vibration in wind turbulence that generated by
unsteady fluctuating forces as origin of the
random ones due to wind fluctuations.
• Random Vibration Problem
• The purpose of buffeting analysis is that
prediction or estimation of total buffeting
response of structures (Displacements,
Sectional forces: Shear force, bending and
torsional moments)

VORTEX SHEDDING
• Look carefully at a flagpole or streetlight on a windy day
and you may see the structure oscillating in the breeze.
Imagine the phenomenon scaled to the height of an urban
skyscraper and you can appreciate that at a minimum, life
for the inhabitants on the upper floors would be
uncomfortable; and should the building fail due to the
forces exerted on it, life would be in peril.
• How, then, do the designers of tall buildings mitigate against
the effect of winds that routinely have velocities of 50–150
km/hr near the tops of tall city buildings?
• The key phenomena that building engineers need to worry
about are the vortices—swirling flows of air—that form on
the sides of a building as the wind blows by it and the forces
that arise as those vortices form and subsequently detach
from the building.
 VORTEX SHEDDING
• Vortices can form coherently on the sides of a
building buffeted by steady winds, exert
alternating forces on the structure (black arrows),
and, once detached, form a so-called Kármán
street downwind of the building. If the coherent
vortex shedding is not mitigated, the resulting
forces on the building can grow dangerously
large.
• Best way to handle is to stop coherence by
confusing the wind

GALLOPING
• Galloping is transverse oscillations of some
structures due to the development of
aerodynamic forces which are in phase with
the motion. It is characterized by the
progressively increasing amplitude of
transverse vibration with increase of wind
speed
• Normal phenomenon in Tacoma Narrows
Bridge
 FLUTTER
• Flutter is unstable oscillatory motion of a
structure due to coupling between aerodynamic
force and elastic deformation of the structure.
Perhaps the’ most common form is oscillatory
motion due to combined bending and torsion.
Long span suspension bridge decks or any
member of a structure with large values of d/t (
where d is the depth of a structure or structural
member parallel to wind stream and t is the least
lateral dimension of a member ) are prone to low
speed flutter.

OVALLING
• Thin walled structures with open ends at one
or both ends such as oil storage tanks,and
natural draught cooling towers in which the
ratio of the diameter of minimum lateral
dimension to the wall thickness is of the order
of 100 or more, are prone to ovalling
oscillations. These oscillations are
characterized by periodic radial deformation
of the hollow structure
IS WIND LOAD STATIC ONLY?

DESIGN AGAINST WIND

• Three basic wind effects

• Environmental wind studies
• Wind loads for facades
• Wind loads for structures
 DESIGN CRITERIA
• Stability against overturning, uplift/sliding of
whole structure
• Strength
• Serviceability
• Control of sways, interstorey drifts
• Control of sway accelerations

WIND CODES

• Static analysis methods

• Dynamic analysis methods
• Dynamic analysis methods must be used for
buildings with both height/breadth ratio >5
and a first mode frequency < 1 hertz
 STATIC ANALYSIS

• Quasi steady approximation

• Easy to use

DYNAMIC EFFECTS
• Flow pattern of wind around a building complicated
due to
• Distortion of mean flow
• Flow separation
• Fluctuation of vortices
• Development of wake
• Large aerodynamic loads act on structural system
• Intense localized fluctuating forces act onm façade
• Building vibrates in rectilinear and torsional modes
• Amplitudes are dependent on aerodynamic forces and
dynamic characteristics of building
 ALONG WIND FORCES
• Due to buffeting
• Separation into mean and fluctuating
components
• Basis of gust factor approach
• This is accurate if wind flow is not affected by
presence of neighbouring tall buildings

ACROSS WIND FORCES

• Due to vortex shedding
• Due to incident turbulence producing varying
lift and drag forces and pitching moments on a
structure over a wide band of frequencies
• Due to displacement dependent excitations
like galloping, flutter and lock in
• Formulae are available to gauge these forces
• IS875 Part 3 Review and Draft of revisions
 WIND DRIFT DESIGN
• Performance Objectives
• Limit damage to cladding on façade, partitions
and interior finishes
• Reduce effects of motion perceptibility
• Limit the P-Delta or secondary loading effects
• Performance Criteria
• Racking Drift
• Chord Drift
 COMFORT CRITERIA

• Based on lateral accelerations

• Provision of ductility

CONTROL OF DRIFTS

• Suitable damping mechanisms

• Suitable shape of buildings
• Confuse the wind flow
• Provide reduced size as one moves higher
• Provide openings for free wind flow
 FUTURE TRENDS

• Assumptions closer to real behaviour

• Detailing to satisfy the assumed behaviour
• Performance based design philosophy
• Reduced maintenance costs
• Use of sophisticated means of analysis and
design
• Simulation using CFD software

INTERFERENCE EFFECTS
• Karman’s vortex street
• Forms only at critical
velocity ranges
Buildings of similar size located in close
proximity to proposed tall building can cause
large increases in cross wind responses
 AWARENESS IS REQUIRED
• Design philosophy
• Codes of practices
• Codes of foreign countries
• Good representation of Design Basis Reports
• Disemination of knowledge by seminars
• Proper use of computer software
• Peer review in design office

THANK YOU
2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

05
Modeling issues in high rise building
Vinayak Naik, Sterling Engineering consultancy Services pvt., ltd
 Study to investigate the contribution of Torsional Fundamental mode.

Typical floor plan and 3D view of structure used for the exercise.

This structure exhibits a Torsional Fundamental mode. Two response spectrum analyses were
done first, using only one mode i.e. only the Fundamental mode and the other using 20 modes
for modal superposition. The second analysis captured more than 90% of the total seismic mass.
The scale factor in both cases was 1.

Single mode case mass participation

20 mode case mass participation

Comparison of Base shear for SPECX for one mode and 20 mode analyses

Base shear in X direction = 10.5kN Base shear in X direction = 3004.3kN

Comparison of Base shear for SPECY for one mode and 20 mode analyses

Base shear in Y direction = 57kN Base shear in Y direction = 3064.4kN

Comparison Forces in Wall C47 on Level 1

Comparison Forces in Wall C47 on Level 20

Conclusion:

I. Base shears due to First mode in X direction and Y direction are less than 2% of the 20 mode
Base shears.
II. The forces in a randomly chosen wall are 8-10% for Level 1 and 5-6% for Level 20 of the
forces obtained from 20 mode analysis.

Thus, the First (Fundamental) mode does not play a major role in the response of the structure
indicating that the contribution of the higher modes is significant.

According to FEMA-356 (Cl. 2.4.2.1), higher mode effects shall be considered significant if the
shear in any story resulting from the modal analysis considering modes required to obtain 90%
mass participation exceeds 130% of the corresponding story shear considering only the first
mode response.

Measures to control deflection under Lateral loads.

a) Increasing grade of concrete for Columns and shear walls.

b) Providing flanges to walls or dumbbell type of columns wherever possible.
c) Coupling RC shear walls.

Individual RC shear walls have a very low lateral resistance since they act as cantilevers.
Coupling the shear walls with RC beams changes the cantilever behavior to a frame behavior.
This greatly reduces the deflection. Coupling beams are usually subjected to high levels of
shears from lateral load. As a result, it is most commonly observed that the coupling beams fail in
shear. The most common practice is to reduce the flexural stiffness of these beams. This results
in the reduction of shear in the beams. However, the overall stiffness of the frame decreases
resulting in greater lateral deflections. One way to overcome this difficulty is to use diagonal
reinforcement as per IS 13920 : 1993 which specifies that the entire earthquake induced shear
and flexure shall, preferably, be resisted by diagonal reinforcement. However this clause makes
no mention of the permissible limit of shear stress. This may give rise to an impression that if we
use this type of detailing, we are not bound by the maximum permissible shear stress specified in
Table 20 (IS 456 : 1993). International codes, however, put a cap on the maximum shear stress,
even if this type of diagonal reinforcement is adopted. For example, in ACI 318, this value is
0.742(f’c)^0.5 (f’c is characteristic cube strength N/mm2).

Coupling beam with diagonally oriented reinforcement

Avd = total area of reinf. in each group of diagonal bars in a diagonally reinforced coupling beam

For M40 this value is 4.69 N/mm2. Also note that it is grade dependent. For grade M70 it
is 6.21 N/mm2. We may therefore, use such international codes in this case.
It is preferable to use the same grade of concrete for the coupling beams as is used for
shear walls which is usually high. This simplifies the construction since during the casting of the
slabs, the concreting of walls and the coupling beams can be done simultaneously.
However if one wishes to restrict to IS code strictly, then we are limited by the 4 N/mm^2
cap which is often found to be insufficient.
Either way, in cases where the shear stress exceeds the permissible limit, one may use
structural steel beams. These have a high shear resistance. Good literature is available on the
net for the design of these beams. For these beams to be effective, they have to be provided with
an embedment length. This depends on the grade of concrete used for the walls and the
thickness of the walls. The embedment lengths could vary from 1.5m to even greater than 3m.
Such depths are not available sometimes. In such cases a composite steel column may be used
in the boundary element zone to transmit the shear and bending moments to the walls.
Use of coupling beams using diagonal reinforcement or structural steel beams, poses
problems wherever jump form type of construction is used. Even if the construction is
conventional, the steel beams interfere with the reinforcement detailing. This problem also needs
careful attention.

d) Using Outriggers.

An outrigger is a stiff beam that connects the shear walls to exterior columns. When the
structure is subjected to lateral forces, the outrigger and the columns resist the rotation of the
core and thus significantly reduce the lateral deflection and base moment, which would have
arisen in a free core.

Smith and Coull (1991) studied the optimum location of outriggers by considering
hypothetical structures whose outriggers were flexural rigid. They found that a single outrigger in
a one-outrigger system should be located at approximately half height of the building, that the
outriggers in a two-outrigger system should be located roughly at one-third and two-thirds height,
and that in a three-outrigger system they should be at approximately one-quarter, one-half, and
three-quarters height, and so on. Generally for the optimum performance of an n-outrigger
structure, the outriggers should be placed at the l/(n+l), 2/(n+l), up to the n/(n+l) height locations.
 The Smith and Coull study found that the reduction in core base bending moment is
approximately 58%, 70%, 77% and 81% for one-outrigger, two-outrigger, three-outrigger and
four-outrigger structures, respectively. Unexpectedly, contrary to a traditional location for
outriggers, they found that it is structurally inefficient to locate an outrigger at the top of a building.
In an optimally arranged outrigger system, the moment carried by any one outrigger is
approximately 58% of that carried by the outrigger below. However, if an additional outrigger is
placed at the top of the building, it carries a moment that is roughly only 13% of that carried by
the outrigger below, which clearly shows the inefficiency of this outrigger location.

Unexpectedly, contrary to a traditional location for outriggers, they found that it is

structurally inefficient to locate an outrigger at the top of a building. In an optimally arranged
outrigger system, the moment carried by any one outrigger is approximately 58% of that carried
by the outrigger below. However, if an additional outrigger is placed at the top of the building, it
carries a moment that is roughly only 13% of that carried by the outrigger below, which clearly
shows the inefficiency of this outrigger location.

There are certain important points one has to understand whenever outriggers are used.
It is common practice to analyze the structure as a whole. In structures in which outriggers are
used, this poses a problem. The problem is that the outriggers act as deep cantilevers. As a
result, the supporting columns start acting as suspenders instead of load bearing columns.
Therefore it is necessary to use sequential construction analysis to offset at least the effect of
self-wt of the structure below. Though this does reduce the effect, it may not be fully neutralized
because the super-imposed dead load and live load are effective on the whole structure.
Coupled with the lateral loads, this leads to very high shear forces in the outriggers. This results
in the shear stresses exceeding the maximum permissible limits. A strut and tie model could be
used in such cases. This is easier said than done. The high steel percentages required for the
struts and ties, detailing problems, demanding anchorages requirement etc. are quite challenging.
Jump form type of construction proves a big hindrance. Structural steel trusses could be used
instead though they pose other constructional problems in connection to the RCC elements,
erection problems etc.. However outrigger steel trusses have a unique advantage over RC
outrigger girders or trusses. The steel diagonals of the steel trusses can be connected using
delayed construction joints. This almost eliminates the extra shear that is induced due to
superimposed dead load and live load which in turn lessens the demand on the outrigger
trusses resulting in a beneficial design.

e) Use of composite frames

The easiest way to increase the stiffness of the structure is to increase the thicknesses of
shear walls. This usually encounters a stiff resistance from the architect and the client. One way
to achieve greater stiffness without increasing the thickness or in fact reducing the thickness of
the walls could be to use steel encased walls. As is obvious, this shall have its own share of
problems in construction besides being disproportionately expensive. Another way could be to
embed structural steel braced frames in RC walls. A recent study done by us indicated that the
stiffness of a wall increased by about 25% but the costs almost doubled.

f) Reduction of the Torsional behavior of the structure.

It is quite easy to understand that the Torsional behavior of the structure causes the
outermost frames to deflect more. The deflection of these frames governs the design of
structures. The structural engineer should interact with the Architect in the concept stage to
minimize such problems which ultimately result in a costlier design.

Wind loads :

Wind loads play a major role in the design of high rise structures. In terms of designing a
structure for lateral wind loads the following basic design criteria need to be satisfied.
a) Stability
b) Strength design
c) Seviceabilty
d) Comfort
For RC structures, the strength design loads are based on 50 year return period using 2%
damping. The serviceability design loads are based on 20 year return period using 1.5%
damping. Acceleration values are determined using 1 year and 10 year return period using 1%
damping. Note that we use 2% damping for strength design instead of 5% damping used in
earthquake conditions. This is because the structure is in the elastic range under wind loads
unlike the earthquake condition wherein the structure has to perform in the non-linear range.

For tall buildings gust wind loads based on the Wind code IS:875 (Part 3) - 1987 are
used to do the preliminary design in the schematic stage. The preliminary design is usually
governed by the serviceability limits i.e. maximum tip deflection and permissible drift. One could
use the 20 year return period loads for this purpose but it is advisable to use the 50 year return
period loads instead. This would mean that we are over designing the structural stiffness by
about 25-30%. The reason why this is still recommended, is because, the wind tunnel results
usually result in higher overturning base moments to the tune of about 40% or more than the
gust wind based loads, even if the base shears match. This is because the resultant of the wind
tunnel loads acts at much higher level compared to the wind gust loads.

A design-wise workable model at this stage is a model with the preliminary sizes for
shear walls, columns, beams and slabs. This model does not reflect the greater stiffness which is
available but not captured adequately. This happens for the following reason. The beams in this
model are line elements and not 2D elements. The slabs are usually membrane elements and
not shell elements. Once we convert the beams to 2D and membrane slabs to shell elements,
the stiffness of the structure increases by about 15-35% more or less. This results in lesser
Fundamental time period, lesser tip deflection and lesser wind tunnel forces.

It is this model that is sent to the Wind tunnel engineer. It is always advisable to do an
initial desktop study and check the model for these loads because we can then tune up the
model if so required before a wind tunnel design is carried out. This may help in eliminating or
reducing the multiple runs of wind tunnel design.

In a recent exercise for a structure, the beam model deflection was 720mm for 50 year
gust wind loads. It increased to 940mm (30% more) under desktop study loads based on 50 year
return period. The deflection for the 2D beam model under the desktop loads was 610mm (35%
less). Considering that this deflection will reduce by 25% for the 20 year loads, the expected
deflection is 458mm. The permissible limit is 440mm. The analysis was done using serviceability
property modifiers recommended by ACI 318.

Selection of axes plays an important role in the design for Wind loads. This is illustrated
using the following example. The structure considered for the study is a fictitious space frame
structure. The first model has conventional set of orthogonal axes, the second is rotated w.r.t
Global axes.
The study is done to compare forces in corner columns, in the two models, due to wind forces
acting in the Global X & Y directions. The wind forces are generated by Etabs based on the
diaphragm widths (obstructed area).

The structural data assumed is as follows,

1. Levels 10
2. Plan dimensions 30mx40m
3. Bay widths in both directions : 5m
4. Fl ht. : 3m
5. Cols. : 600x600
6. Beam depths 300x700
7. Slab depth 200
8. Grade of concrete : M40

Model 1

Model 2
Comparison of axial forces due to WX and WY

Comparison B.M.’s due to WX

Comparison B.M.’s due to WY

 As can be seen from the results, the forces arising from Model 2 (skew axes) are greater.
This means, the conventional choice of axes will not result in maximum (governing) forces. A
quick review of the forces indicates that both the Wind load cases should be combined 100%
simultaneously to get the design forces.

Time period for a 3D structure with podiums and basements

It is stipulated by IS 1893 (Part 1 ): 2002, that Buildings and portions thereof shall be designed
and constructed, to resist the effects of minimum design lateral force calculated as per empirical
formulae specified in Cl. 7.6.
This poses a problem for buildings with podiums and basements as the footprint of each part
varies. The usual practice is to adopt the maximum X and Y dimensions and calculate the
empirical period. This often results in high base shears.
One way which I suggest is as follows,
i. Calculate the typical floor stiffness, typical podium floor stiffness and typical basement
floor stiffness by isolating each level.
ii. Note the deflection for a unit load used to calculate the stiffness of each these floors.
iii. Using the deflection and considering each of these storeys as cantilevers, calculate I
(moment of inertia).
iv. Determine corresponding square section dimensions.
v. Note floor weight of each type.
vi. Construct a weightless cantilever model for the whole structure using the respective
section dimensions for the respective floors.
vii. Lump the respective floor loads at each level.
viii. Perform a free vibration analysis and determine the Fundamental period T1.
ix. Perform similar analysis for another model considering only typical floors at all levels and
note the Fundamental period T2.
x. Calculate the empirical period for a structure having typical floor footprint Tf.
xi. Then Ts= empirical period for the whole structure= Tf * T1/T2

Punching or one way shear :

Consider the following data for an internal column in a 3D Etabs model with flat plates for floor
slabs.

Column size = 250mmx1500mm , Effective slab thickness = 160mm

Concrete: M40
P = 440kN, M3 unbalanced = 518 kN-m, M2 neglected.
A) Using punching shear stress formulae, punching shear stress = 18.53 kg/cm2
Allowable punching stress with shear reinforcement = 10.05 x 1.5 = 15.08 kg/cm2
∴ Critical section fails in punching or two way shear.

B) Considering only two parallel long sides contributing in transferring shear and unbalanced
moment,

Punching shear stress = 33.73 kg/cm2 (using revised polar moment of inertia).
Allowable punching stress with shear reinforcement = 10.05 x 1.5 = 15.08 kg/cm2
∴ Critical section fails in punching or two way shear.

However, one can view this problem, also as a one way shear problem, since the transfer of
shear on both sides is via a one way shear action.

In this case, permissible one way Shear = 40 kg/cm2 (maximum for M40)
∴ from a punching shear point of view the section fails. However if we consider the shear
transfer as a one-way shear transfer, the section works, since 33.73 kg/cm2 < 40 kg/cm2. ∴
section can be designed with shear reinforcement.

C) Calculation for one-way shear stress based on equivalent shear in lieu of Torsion.
P = 440kN, M3 unbalanced = 518 kN-m (Torsion from beam 1500*200)
Shear on each side = 220 kN.
Torsion on each side = 518/2 = 259 kN
∴ Equivalent shear force due to torsion = (259*1.6)/1.5 = 276.2 kN
Total Shear on each face = 220 + 276 = 496.2 kN
∴ Shear Stress on each face = (496.2*100)/(150*16) = 20.68 kg/cm2 < 40 kg/cm2 ∴ section
can be designed with shear reinforcement.
Some important modeling points

1. Property modifiers :
ACI 318 recommends the following property modifiers for strength design,
Beams................................................... 0.35Ig
Columns................................................ 0.70Ig
Walls—Uncracked................................ 0.70Ig
—Cracked ................................... 0.35Ig
Flat plates and flat slabs ...................... 0.25Ig

For serviceability design the values given above are multiplied 1.43 times.

It is not necessary to use these two sets for all analysis as it becomes
cumbersome. Moreover, since the factor is the same for all elements, the distribution of
forces at joints is same for both sets under most conditions. Therefore it is common to
use the property modifiers for serviceability limits for analysis since they pertain to
deflections and are appropriate for the dynamic analysis for Wind loads. A few instances
where this may not work is,
a) for walls and columns having fixity at base.
b) For P delta analysis
c) For the instance when the program calculated time period is less than the
empirical formula based period.

2. Walls and spandrel meshing.

It is a good practice to mesh walls. A 3x3 mesh will do for most walls. 4x3 or 5x3 mesh
can be used for longer walls. A 1x6 mesh is preferred for narrow walls. The meshing
helps in instances where the there is bending in the weaker directions of walls.
It is a must to mesh spandrels which otherwise would not be able to capture the bending
of beams and will result in unnaturally siff beams. Usually 1x6 mesh is okay for beam
spandrels. For deep spandrels or floor deep spandrels a 6x6 mesh should be okay. It is
important to assign the equivalent stiffness to the spandrel which is used for a beam line
element e.g. if Torsion = 1E-10, I22=0.5, I33=0.15 are applied to a beam, F11=0.5,
F22=0.15, F12=0.15, M11=0.5 ,M22=0.5, M12=!E-10, V13=0.5, V23=0.5 should be
applied to an equivalent spandrel.

3. Slab modeling
Slabs can be modeled as membrane or shell elements. A membrane element should
preferably a 4 sided element. Membrane elements transfer loads to supporting elements.
They possess in-plane stiffness but no flexural stiffness. They should not be meshed.
Slabs modeled as shell elements possess both in-plane and flexural stiffness. They are
usually used in instances where the slabs contribute to the flexural stiffness of the
structure e.g. flat slabs. It is mandatory to mesh slab shell elements. For load transfer a
very coarse mesh of 3mx3m may be used. For capturing appropriate stiffness 1mx1m
mesh may be required.

4. Floor deep girders should have semi-rigid diaphragms at both levels.

5. Transfer girders- Sequential construction analysis is essential.

REFERENCES :
Stafford Smith B, Coull A. (1991). Tall Building Structures, Wiley, New York.
 2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

06
Effect of wind loading on tall building
Prof. Tanuja Bandivadekar, Sardar Patel College of Egnieering
 %JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP

Effect of wind loading on tall buildings

15th November 2014

PROFESSOR TANUJA BANDIVADEKAR

SARDAR PATEL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

• IS 875 : PART 3 code provisions

• Static and Dynamic methods of analysis

• Gust Factor

• Case study for two buildings :

Wind load analysis for
38 floors and 87 floors using IS code method.

• Wind tunnel test and results comparison

• CFD analysis and result comparison.

2
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Necessity of Wind Engineering

• Wind load is usually governing than Seismic load for tall buildings.
• As the time period increases, Sa/g value decreases, and at the
same time, as the structure becomes slender, wind forces becomes
critical.
• Wind overturning moment will typically increase as height ^ 3, but
the elastic seismic base moment is unlikely to increase at more than
h^1.25.
• The design criteria w.r.t wind is to be strength based as well as
Serviceability based.
3
3

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

'<1$0,&(;&,7$7,21)5(48(1&,(62):,1'$1'($57+48$.(

4
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind Load Effects

• There are 3 different types of effects on structures. Static,

Dynamic and Aero Dynamic.
• When the structure deflects much in response to wind loads,
then last two effects are to be considered.
• Aero elastic forces are substantial only if the structure is too
slender like h/b >10, or too tall above 500m, or too light and
tapered with steel as the medium of construction.
• So dynamic effects are to be studied in detail.

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)


Wind : A randomly varying dynamic phenomenon
1. Gust 2. Vortex Shedding 3. Buffeting

)WUVA positive or negative departure of wind speed from its mean value,
lasting for not more than, say, 2 minutes over a specified interval of time.

6
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The fig. below indicates how the vortices generate and thus create
the across wind load components.

8
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Dynamic Wind Effects

Wind Induced Oscillations

¾Galloping
¾Flutter
¾Ovalling

Effects on Buildings
¾Overturning effects
¾Shearing effects
¾Torsion effects
¾Dynamically fluctuating loads on the overall building structure.

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind Induced Oscillations

Galloping is transverse oscillations of some structures due to the

development of aerodynamic forces which are in phase with the
motion.

Flutter is unstable oscillatory motion of a structure due to

coupling between aerodynamic force and elastic deformation of
the structure.

Ovalling: Thin walled structures with open ends at one or both

ends such as oil storage tanks, and natural draught cooling
towers are prone to ovalling oscillations.
10
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The dynamic components which causes oscillations:


1. Gust 2. Vortex Shedding 3. Buffeting

1 Gust. A positive or negative departure of wind speed from its mean value, lasting
for not more than, say, 2 minutes over a specified
interval of time.

The gust effect factor accounts only
the effects in the along wind direction.
It does not include allowances for
across-wind loading effects, vortex
shedding, instability due to galloping
or flutter, or dynamic torsion effects.


11

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

2) Vortex Shedding : When wind acts on a bluff body forces and moments in
three mutually perpendicular direction are generated- out of which three are
translation and three rotation. Mainly the flow of wind is considered two-
dimensional consisting of along wind response and transverse wind response
only.

Along wind response refer to drag forces, and

transverse wind is the term used to describe
crosswind. The crosswind response causing
motion in a plane perpendicular to the direction
of wind typically dominates over the along-wind
response for tall buildings.


12
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

3) Buffeting : A downwind structure could oscillate due to vortex shedding of

adjacent structure.
If one structure is located in the wake of another the vortices shed from the
upstream may cause the oscillations of the downstream structure. This is
called wake Buffeting

13

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

With in the earth’s boundary layer, both components not only vary
with height, but also depend upon the approach terrain and topography.

,1)/8(1&(2)7(55$,1$1'7232*5$3+<
14
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Most structures present bluff forms to the wind making it difficult to

ascertain wind forces accurately.

15

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7KHUHDUHWZRPDLQW\SHVRIZLQGIRUFHRQDWDOOVWUXFWXUHėWKHILUVW
LVLWVGUDJWKDWLVWKHIRUFHPHDVXUHGDORQJWKHZLQGGLUHFWLRQ
FDXVHGPDLQO\E\LWVUHVLVWDQFHWRWKHZLQGSUHVVXUHRQLWVIDFH7KH
VHFRQGLVLWVFURVVZLQGUHVSRQVHWKHVWDWLFFRPSRQHQWLVFDOOHGOLIW
 MXVWOLNHRQWKHDHURSODQHZLQJDQGWKHG\QDPLFSDUWLVFDXVHG
PDLQO\E\WKHYRUWH[VKHGGLQJ6SHFLDOSUREOHPVFDQRFFXULIWKH
UHJXODUIUHTXHQF\RIWKHFURVVZLQGYRUWH[VKHGGLQJFRLQFLGHVZLWK
WKHIUHTXHQF\RIWKHVWUXFWXUHĜVQDWXUDOPRWLRQLQWKDWGLUHFWLRQ
6XFKUHVSRQVHLVUHODWLYHO\FRPPRQDQGFDQRFFXUDWORZė
PVZLQGVSHHGVFRPSDUHGZLWKęGHVLJQĚZLQGVSHHGV)RUH[DPSOH
WKHIDPRXVIDLOXUHDWWKH7HFRPD1DUURZV%ULGJHZDVDWRQO\PV

,QQRQF\FORQLFDUHDVGHVLJQZLQGVSHHGVDUHDURXQGPVDQGLQ
F\FORQLFRUW\SKRRQDUHDVXSDWDERXWPV

16
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Non-aerodynamic shape

large pressure drag

boundary layer separation

Low
High Pressure Pressure
Wake

Aerodynamic shape
low pressure drag no separated flow region

17

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

18
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

19

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

20
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Following are some of the criteria that are important in designing for wind:

1. Strength and stability.

2. Fatigue in structural members and connections caused by fluctuating wind
loads.
3. Excessive lateral deflection that may cause cracking of internal partitions
and external cladding, misalignment of mechanical systems, and possible
permanent deformations of nonstructural elements.
4. Frequency and amplitude of sway that can cause discomfort to occupants of
tall, flexible buildings.
5. Possible buffeting that may increase the magnitude of wind velocities on
neighboring buildings.
6. Wind-induced discomfort in pedestrian areas caused by intense surface
winds.
7. Annoying acoustical disturbances.
8. Resonance of building oscillations with vibrations of elevator hoist ropes.

21

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

22
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

23

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Along wind response

mean component Fluctuating component

component

Background
Resonant component
component

24
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Indian wind code calculates wind load from three different points of view;

(i) The building and structure taken as a whole;

(ii) Individual structural elements such as roofs and walls; and

(iii)Individual cladding units such as sheeting and glazing including their

fixtures.

Considering the building and structure as a whole wind load can be calculated
by using Force coefficient method
or Gust factor method depending on type of building or structure. 

25

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Three equations are used to calculate wind load according to the

Force coefficient method and these are:

Vz = Vb k1k2k3

pz = 0.6Vz2

F = Cf Ae pd

26
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%RXQGDU\OD\HUSURILOHIRUGLIIHUHQWDSSURDFKWHUUDLQV

27

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The dynamic response induced by the wind can be attributed to the following
actions of wind:

(a) Non-correlation of the fluctuating along-wind pressures over the height

and width of a structure.

(b) Resonant vibrations of a structure.

(c) Vortex shedding forces acting mainly in a direction normal to the direction
of wind causing across-wind as well as torsional response.

28
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind load on structures under the buffeting action of wind gusts have
traditionally been treated by the “gust loading factor” (GLF)
Codes and Standards utilize the “gust loading factor” (GLF) approach for
estimating dynamic effect on high-rise structures.

The concept of GLF was first introduced by Davenport in 1967

Indian wind code stipulates that buildings and structures with a height to
minimum lateral dimension ratio of more than about 5.0, and buildings and
structures whose natural frequency in the first mode is less than 1.0 Hz shall
be examined for the dynamic effects of Wind.

29

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The Gust factor method must be considered for the flexible buildings and
the more severe of the two estimates, namely
1) by Gust factor method of load estimation and
2) by Static wind method of load estimation, is taken for design.

In this method hourly mean wind speed at any height at particular location
is calculated similarly as prescribed by Eqn. (1), with only exception that
the terrain category factor k2 has to be read from a separate table
containing a relatively lower value.

At the same time, the lower frequency components of the wind speed and
pressures have the greatest energy, so that the higher frequency modes of a
structure would be subjected to lower excitation forces. Thus, generally
the major dynamic response of a flexible structure due to wind is confined
only to the fundamental mode of vibration of the structure.

30
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

31

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Further, the along wind load on a strip area (Ae) at any

height (z) is given by Fz as follows.

Fz = Cf Ae z p G (4)

G = gust factor = (peak load/ mean load), and is given by




32
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The effect of non-correlation of the peak pressures is considered by defining

a size reduction factor, S.

It also accounts for the resonant and the non-resonant effects of the random
wind forces.

The equation for G contains terms, one for the low frequency wind speed
variations called the non-resonant or ‘background’ effects, and the other
for resonance effects. The first term accounts for the quasi-static dynamic
response below the natural frequency of vibration of the structure.

The other term depends on the gust energy and aerodynamic admittance at
the natural frequency of vibration as well as on the damping in the system.

33

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

34
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

35

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

36
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

37

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

38
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

39

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The peak acceleration along the wind direction at the top of the
structure
is given as:

Acceleration is assumed to be produced only by the resonant component of

the response hence second term under the square root has been considered.

Only the first mode response is assumed to dominate . The mode shape is
assumed linear. Hence acceleration also varies linearly with height.

40
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

5NGPFGT5VTWEVWTGU 
WKHHGG\VKHGGLQJIUHTXHQF\ƅVKDOOEHGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH
IROORZLQJIRUPXOD

ZKHUH 

9] GHVLJQZLQGVSHHGDQG E EUHDGWKRIDVWUXFWXUHRU
VWUXFWXUDOPHPEHUQRUPDOWRWKHZLQGGLUHFWLRQDVZHOODVWKH
D[LVRIWKHVWUXFWXUHPHPEHU

D&LUFXODU6WUXFWXUHVė)RUVWUXFWXUHVFLUFXODULQFURVVVHFWLRQ
6U IRUE9]QRWJUHDWHUWKDQDQG
IRUE9]JUHDWHUWKDQ 
E)RUUHFWDQJXODUFURVVVHFWLRQ
6U IRUDOOYDOXHVRIE9] 
 

41

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

:DNH([FLWDWLRQ,WLVWKHPRVWFRPPRQW\SHRIDFURVVZLQG
H[FLWDWLRQ DQG LV FDXVHG E\ VKHGGLQJ RI WKH YRUWLFHV E\ D
VWUXFWXUHDWUHJXODULQWHUYDOVDOWHUQDWHO\IURPLWVWZRRSSRVLWH
VLGHV7KHSHULRGLFLW\RIHGG\VKHGGLQJLVGHILQHGE\6WURXKDO
1XPEHU WKDW GHSHQGV RQ WKH VKDSH RI FURVVVHFWLRQ RI WKH
VWUXFWXUH 5HVRQDQFH ZRXOG UHVXOW ZKHQ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI
HGG\VKHGGLQJPDWFKHVWKHQDWXUDOIUHTXHQF\RIYLEUDWLRQRI
WKH VWUXFWXUH 7KLV ZRXOG JLYH ULVH WR ODUJH DPSOLWXGHV RI
YLEUDWLRQ ZKLFK DUH OLPLWHG RQO\ E\ WKH GDPSLQJ SUHVHQW LQ
WKHV\VWHP,QFDVHRIWDOOVWUXFWXUHVWKHZLQGVSHHGDVZHOODV
WXUEXOHQFH YDU\ ZLWK WKH KHLJKW RI VWUXFWXUH 7KH ODWWHU LV
VSUHDG RYHU D EDQG RI IUHTXHQFLHV )RU WKLV UHDVRQ ZDNH
H[FLWDWLRQ LQFOXGHV DOVR WKH UHVSRQVH GXH WR QRQUHVRQDQW
IUHTXHQFLHV 7KH GUDIW &RGH GHVFULEHV WKH PHWKRGV RI
FRPSXWLQJWKHFURVVZLQGUHVSRQVHDWUHVRQDQWZLQGVSHHGV
GXHWRZDNHH[FLWDWLRQ

42
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%TQUUYKPFTGURQPUGQHVCNNGPENQUGFDWKNFKPIUCPFVQYGTUQH
TGEVCPIWNCTETQUUUGEVKQP


'SWKXCNGPVUVCVKEYKPFHQTEG
7KHHTXLYDOHQWFURVVėZLQGVWDWLFIRUFHSHUXQLWKHLJKW:HDVDIXQFWLRQ
RI]LQ1HZWRQSHUPHWHUKHLJKWVKDOOEHDVIROORZV

:H] >9K@G&G\Q
ZKHUHG /DWHUDOGLPHQVLRQRIWKHVWUXFWXUHSDUDOOHOWRWKHZLQG
VWUHDPDQG


ZKHUH
.P PRGHVKDSHFRUUHFWLRQIDFWRUIRUFURVVėZLQGDFFHOHUDWLRQ
N


 
43

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

ZKHUH

N PRGHVKDSHSRZHUH[SRQHQWIRUWKHIXQGDPHQWDOPRGHRIYLEUDWLRQ
IRUDXQLIRUPFDQWLOHYHU
IRUDVOHQGHUIUDPHGVWUXFWXUHPRPHQWUHVLVWDQW
IRUEXLOGLQJZLWKFHQWUDOFRUHDQGPRPHQWUHVLVWLQJIDoDGH
IRUDWRZHUGHFUHDVLQJLQVWLIIQHVVZLWKKHLJKWRUZLWKDODUJH
PDVVDWWKHWRS
&IV FURVVėZLQGIRUFHVSHFWUXPFRHIILFLHQWJHQHUDOL]HGIRUDOLQHDU
PRGHVKDSH

 

*5JY,KDQGƀDUHWKHVDPHDVIRUDORQJZLQGFDOFXODWLRQV 

44
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%TQUUĚYKPFDCUGQXGTVWTPKPIOQOGPVCPF
CEEGNGTCVKQP 

7KHFURVVėZLQGEDVHRYHUWXUQLQJPRPHQW0LQ1HZWRQėPHWHUVLVJLYHQ
E\




ZKHUHWKHYDOXHLVWKHPRGHVKDSHFRUUHFWLRQIDFWRUIRUFURVVė
ZLQGEDVHRYHUWXUQLQJPRPHQW

7KHSHDNDFFHOHUDWLRQDWWRSRIWKHEXLOGLQJLVJLYHQDV


45

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind Load Evaluation

The wind load acting on a structure can be evaluated by

1. Analytical method (Code specific)
a. quasi- static methods - (static method)
b. With the dynamic effects – (Gust method)
2. Experimental methods (Wind Tunnel)
a. For cladding study
b. HFFB method
c. HFPI method
d. Aero-elastic model study

46
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)


When the structure is stiff, the response due to the wind loads will be
minuscule and quasi – static method can be adopted.
But if the structure is flexible, dynamic parameters like natural frequency
and damping comes in to the picture .So dynamic effects needs to be
considered in evaluating the wind forces. Code stipulates some methods
for doing so. Also it lays down two checks for the need of it like frequency
and slenderness ratio.

47

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Code has stipulated following provisions to

check for the dynamic effects

7KHVOHQGHUQHVVUDWLRLVPRUHWKDQ

7KHQDWXUDOIUHTXHQF\LQWKHILUVWPRGHLVOHVVWKDQ+]

48
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind Tunnel Method

Wind tunnels are widely used to reliably predict the wind

loading on the cladding and glazing as well as on the structural
frames of tall buildings.

It account for building geometry, local climate and surrounding

details and this leads to cost effective and accurate wind loading
on cladding and structural frames of tall buildings.

Wind tunnel model studies offer the best

estimate of the wind loading acting on a building for
cladding as well as the structural frame design.

49

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Types of wind tunnel studies

• Wind Engineering Studies

• Topographical Studies
• Cladding Wind Load Study
• Wind-Induced Response of Structures
• Structural Wind Load Study
• Wind Effects on Bridges
• Wind Effects on Special Structures

50
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Methodology of wind Tunnel Testing

• A prototype Model with Scale of 1:300 to 1:500 is Prepared

• The Geometry / Shape of the model should reflect the original structure.
• Elevation features up to 1ft dimension are well taken care of.
• Buildings surrounding half a KM of the Structure are also to be modeled
• Proper sensors are mounted on the model at convenient and strategic
location to monitor the dynamic effects
• The model is rotated and loads are applied for every 10 degree rotation.
This accounts for the fact that the structure may get wind load from all
possible directions.

51

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind Tunnel Testing setup

52
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The loads derived from Code analytical methods are often approximate, as
they are based on box shaped buildings in isolated conditions.

Unlike wind tunnel tests, Codes have difficulty accounting for project
specific factors such as:

The aerodynamic effect of the actual shape of the structure

The influence of adjacent buildings and topography

Detailed wind directionality effects.

53

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

• Aero elastic interaction between the structural motion and airflow.

• Torsional moments and also the load combinations with along and cross
loads.

• Modal coupling effects between sway modes, torsion and combination of

all.

For the reasons stated earlier, it is prudent to do the experimental tests for
accurately finding out the wind load estimation.




54
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

The present study is done on two different structures with varying geometry,
stiffness and height, designed for Mumbai conditions.

The code specific wind forces and their effect on the structure will be compared
against that from the wind tunnel tests.
The need of the tunnel tests can be reviewed from the difference in the
structural responses of both the buildings.

CASE STUDY 1
Structure height 38 floors 129m

CASE STUDY 2
Structure height 87 floors 302m

55

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

CASE STUDY 1 – TOWER- A

The salient features of the structure are as follows.

56
56
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

57

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

58
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5$'(7$,/6
0D[/HQJWK;GLUHFWLRQ  P
0D[ZLGWK<GLUHFWLRQ  P
1RRI)ORRUV *

)ORRUKHLJKW#W\SLFDOIORRUV  P
)ORRUKHLJKW#W\SLFDO3RGLXPIORRUV  P
)ORRUKHLJKW#*URXQGOHYHO  P
7RWDOKHLJKWRIWKHVWUXFWXUH  P
)RXQGDWLRQ7\SH 5DIW

6RLOW\SH 7\SH

*HQHUDOOLYHORDG 7P

0DVRQU\W\SH %ULFN

59

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7KHDQDO\VLVVRIWZDUHXVHGLV(7$%61RQ/LQHDU9HUVLRQ


60
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7RZHU$ė)LUVWPRGHV8; 8< 5= 

61

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

ALT1 . WIND LOAD EVALUATION BY STATIC METHOD

In this method, the force F acting in a specified direction of wind is given as

F = Cf. Ae.Pd , where

Ae = the effective frontal area of the structure

Cf = Force Coefficient for the building and
Pd = Design wind force on the structure.
Design wind pressure Pd is given in clause 5.4 of the code as
Pd = 0.6 Vz^2 where
Vz = Vb.k1.k2.k3

Vz = Design wind pressure at any height z in m/s

K1 = Probability factor (clause 5.3.1)
K2 = Terrain, height and structure size factor (clause 5.3.2)
K3 = topography factor (clause 5.3.3)

62
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

WIND FORCES STATIC ANALYSIS - TOWER A

LEVEL X DIX. Y DIX. LEVEL X DIX. Y DIX.
TRFL 8.85 14.06 19FL 8.52 13.54
38FL 9.85 15.66 18FL 8.44 13.41
37FL 9.8 15.58 17FL 8.36 13.29
36FL 9.75 15.49 16FL 8.28 13.16
35FL 9.69 15.41 15FL 8.2 13.04
34FL 9.64 15.32 14FL 8.11 12.89
33FL 9.59 15.24 13FL 7.97 12.67
32FL 9.54 15.16 12FL 7.83 12.44
31FL 9.48 15.07 11FL 7.69 12.22
30FL 9.41 14.96 10FL 7.55 11.99
29FL 9.33 14.83 9FL 7.41 11.77
28FL 9.25 14.7 8FL 7.27 11.55
27FL 9.17 14.57 7FL 7.08 11.25
26FL 9.08 14.44 6FL 8.12 12.9
25FL 9 14.31 5FL 9.01 14.32
24FL 8.92 14.18 4FL 8.44 13.41
23FL 8.84 14.05 3FL 7.73 12.29
22FL 8.76 13.92 2FL 7.27 11.56
21FL 8.68 13.79 1FL 7.36 11.71
20FL 8.6 13.66 GRFL 3.46 5.96
63

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER A DIAPHRAGM CM DISPLACEMENTS – STATIC – TOWER A

Story Load UX UY

TRFL WINDX 0.107 0.000

TRFL WINDY 0.000 0.198
38FL WINDX 0.106 0.000
38FL WINDY 0.000 0.193
37FL WINDX 0.104 0.000
37FL WINDY 0.000 0.188
36FL WINDX 0.102 0.000
36FL WINDY 0.000 0.183
35FL WINDX 0.100 0.000
35FL WINDY 0.000 0.178
34FL WINDX 0.099 0.000
34FL WINDY 0.000 0.173
33FL WINDX 0.097 0.000
33FL WINDY 0.000 0.168
32FL WINDX 0.095 0.000
32FL WINDY 0.000 0.162
31FL WINDX 0.093 0.000

64
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

ALT2 . WIND LOAD EVALUATION BY GUST FACTOR METHOD

$ORQJZLQGORDGRQDVWUXFWXUHRIVWULSDUHD$HDQGKHLJKW]LV
JLYHQDV
)] &I$H3]*ZKHUH

&I )RUFHFRHIILFLHQWRIWKHEXLOGLQJ
$H (IIHFWLYHIURQWDODUHDFRQVLGHUHGIRUWKH
VWUXFWXUHDWKHLJKW]
3] 'HVLJQSUHVVXUHDWKHLJKW]GXHWRKRXUO\
PHDQZLQGREWDLQHGDV9]
DQG
*XVWIDFWRU* JIUVTUW%ƒA6(ƀZKHUH

JI SHDNIDFWRUGHILQHGDVWKHUDWLRRIWKH
H[SHFWHGSHDNYDOXHWRWKHURRW
PHDQYDOXHRIDIOXFWXDWLQJORDGDQG



65

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER A - WIND FORCES: GUST FACTOR, FORCE COEFFICIENT,ACCELERATION AND

WIND FORCES AT ALL LEVELS - PART 1/2

Size X Direction
23.15 Category 3 X Dix Y Dix
(m)

Size Y Direction
15.5 Class C a/b 1.49 0.67
(m)

Basic Wind speed

44 K1 1 h/b 8.13 5.44
(m/s)

gfr 1.1 K3 1 Force Coeff. (Cf) 1.4 1.5

Time period
L(h) 1625 Cy 10 3.92 4.01
(Modal)

β 0.016 Cz 12 f0 (Natural freq.) 0.26 0.25

66
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER A - WIND FORCES: GUST FACTOR, FORCE

COEFFICIENT,ACCELERATION AND WIND FORCES AT ALL LEVELS - PART
2/2

X Dix Y Dix X Dix Y Dix

Deflection at the Roof level

λ = Cyb/Czh 0.10 0.15 133.4 244.4
(mm)

Cz.h/L(h) 0.9 0.9 Acceleration (m/s2) 0.377 0.617

Back gr.Factor
0.65 0.65
(B)

67

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

*867&$/&8/$7,2172:(5$

Size Gust
F0 = Cz.f0.h / φ= Gust Factor Wind Force
redn.Factor f0.L(h) / Vz* Ene.Fact.
TOTAL Vz* Pz* Vz* (gf.r*√B)/4 G. (T)
LEVEL X- Dim Y-Dim HEIGHT K2 (S) (E)
HEIGHT (m/s) (N/m2)

X dix Y dix X dix Y dix X dix Y dix X dix Y dix X dix Y dix X dix Y dix X dix Y dix

TRFL 23.15 15.5 3.05 126 0.80 35.22 744 11.0 10.7 0.16 0.14 11.8 11.5 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.53 19.66

FL38 23.15 15.5 3.05 123 0.80 35.16 742 11.0 10.7 0.16 0.14 11.8 11.5 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.49 19.60

FL37 23.15 15.5 3.05 120 0.80 35.11 740 11.0 10.7 0.16 0.14 11.8 11.5 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.45 19.54

FL36 23.15 15.5 3.05 117 0.80 35.06 737 11.0 10.8 0.16 0.14 11.8 11.6 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.42 19.48

FL35 23.15 15.5 3.05 114 0.80 35.00 735 11.0 10.8 0.16 0.14 11.8 11.6 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.38 19.42

FL34 23.15 15.5 3.05 111 0.79 34.95 733 11.0 10.8 0.16 0.14 11.9 11.6 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.34 19.36

FL33 23.15 15.5 3.05 108 0.79 34.90 731 11.1 10.8 0.16 0.14 11.9 11.6 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.30 19.30

FL32 23.15 15.5 3.05 105 0.79 34.84 728 11.1 10.8 0.16 0.14 11.9 11.6 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 2.54 2.49 12.26 19.24

68
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

WIND FORCES GUST FACTOR ANALYSIS

LEVEL X DIX. Y DIX. LEVEL X DIX. Y DIX.
TRFL 12.53 19.66 19FL 10.08 15.83
38FL 12.49 19.60 18FL 9.93 15.59
37FL 12.45 19.54 17FL 9.78 15.36
36FL 12.42 19.48 16FL 9.63 15.12
35FL 12.38 19.42 15FL 9.48 14.89
34FL 12.34 19.36 14FL 9.33 14.65
33FL 12.30 19.30 13FL 9.09 14.27
32FL 12.26 19.24 12FL 8.85 13.89
31FL 12.23 19.18 11FL 8.61 13.52
30FL 11.94 18.75 10FL 8.30 13.02
29FL 11.77 18.49 9FL 8.07 12.67
28FL 11.61 18.23 8FL 7.85 12.31
27FL 11.44 17.97 7FL 7.55 11.85
26FL 11.28 17.72 6FL 9.75 15.33
25FL 11.12 17.47 5FL 9.10 14.30
24FL 10.96 17.21 4FL 8.20 12.89
23FL 10.80 16.97 3FL 7.13 11.21
22FL 10.64 16.72 2FL 6.41 10.07
21FL 10.39 16.31 1FL 6.64 10.43
20FL 10.24 16.07 GRFL 0.00 0.00

69

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER A -GUST DISPLACEMENTS

Story UX UY
TRFL 0.1334 0.2444
38FL 0.1313 0.2381
37FL 0.1292 0.2319
36FL 0.127 0.2256
35FL 0.1248 0.2192
34FL 0.1224 0.2128
33FL 0.12 0.2063
32FL 0.1174 0.1997
31FL 0.1148 0.1931
30FL 0.112 0.1864
29FL 0.1092 0.1797
28FL 0.1062 0.1729
27FL 0.1032 0.1661
26FL 0.1 0.1592
25FL 0.0968 0.1523
24FL 0.0934 0.1454
23FL 0.09 0.1386
22FL 0.0866 0.1317
21FL 0.0831 0.1249
20FL 0.0795 0.1181
19FL 0.0759 0.1113
18FL 0.0722 0.1046
17FL 0.0685 0.0979
16FL 0.0647 0.0913
15FL 0.0609 0.0847
70
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

ALT3 . EXPERIMENTAL METHOD -WIND TUNNEL TEST

HIGH FREQUENCY FORCE BALANCE METHOD

(HFFB)
71

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

5RZDQ:LOOLDPV'DYLHV ,UZLQ,QF5:',KDVFRQGXFWHGWKHZLQGWXQQHOVWXG\

RIWKLVSURMHFW

7KHPRGHOZDVWHVWHGLQWKHSUHVHQFHRIDOOVXUURXQGLQJVZLWKLQDIXOOVFDOHUDGLXV
RIIWLQ5:',ĜVIWuIWERXQGDU\OD\HUZLQGWXQQHOIDFLOLW\
LQ*XHOSK2QWDULR&DQDGD

7KHLQIOXHQFHRIWKHXSZLQGWHUUDLQRQWKHSODQHWDU\ERXQGDU\OD\HUZDVVLPXODWHG
E\DSSURSULDWHURXJKQHVVRQWKHZLQGWXQQHOIORRUDQGIORZFRQGLWLRQLQJVSLUHVDW
WKHXSZLQGHQGRIWKHZRUNLQJVHFWLRQIRUHDFKZLQGGLUHFWLRQ

72
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

0HWKRGRORJ\RIZLQG7XQQHO7HVWLQJ

ƒ 7KHPRGHOZDVWHVWHGLQWKHSUHVHQFHRIDOOVXUURXQGLQJVZLWKLQ
DIXOOVFDOHUDGLXVRIIWLQ5:',ĜVIWuIWERXQGDU\OD\
HUZLQGWXQQHOIDFLOLW\LQ*XHOSK2QWDULR
ƒ $SURWRW\SH0RGHOZLWK6FDOHRILV3UHSDUHG
ƒ (OHYDWLRQIHDWXUHVXSWRIWGLPHQVLRQDUHZHOOWDNHQFDUHRI
ƒ %XLOGLQJVVXUURXQGLQJKDOID.0UDGLXVRIWKH6WUXFWXUHDUHDOVR
PRGHOHG
ƒ 3URSHUVHQVRUVDUHPRXQWHGRQWKHPRGHODWFRQYHQLHQWDQGVWUD
WHJLFORFDWLRQWRPRQLWRUWKHG\QDPLFHIIHFWV



73

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

ƒ 7KHPRGHOLVURWDWHGDQGORDGVDUHDSSOLHGIRUHYHU\GHJUHHURWDWL
RQ7KLVDFFRXQWVIRUWKHIDFWWKDWWKHVWUXFWXUHPD\JHWZLQGORDGIU
RPDOOSRVVLEOHGLUHFWLRQV
ƒ 7KH'DPSLQJUDWLRLVWDNHQDVRIFULWLFDO
ƒ 7KHIXQGDPHQWDOEXLOGLQJYLEUDWLRQIUHTXHQFLHVZHUHXVHGIRUILQGLQJ
RXWWKHORDGVRQWKHVWUXFWXUHV
ƒ 7KHPHDVXUHPHQWVRIIRUFHVDQGPRPHQWVDUHPDGHDWWKHEDVHIRU
HDFKGHJZLQGDWWDFNDQJOH
ƒ 7KHUHDIWHUWKHIRUFHVDQGWRUVLRQDOPRPHQWZLOOEHGLVWULEXWHGRYHUW
KHEXLOGLQJKHLJKWEDVHGRQZLGWKKHLJKWPDVVGLVWULEXWLRQPRGHV
KDSHVDQGFRPSXWHGDFFHOHUDWLRQ


74
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

619'4Ě#Ě5647%674#.&;0#/+%2412'46+'5

75

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

EQUIVALENT-STATIC - FORCES PROPOSED LOAD COMBINATIONS

Floor Fx (T) Fy'(T) Mz (T- m) Case X Forces Y Forces Torsion
TRFL 18.7 33.1 129.8 (Fx) (Fy) (Mz)
38 FL 15.2 26.6 101.7 1 100% 45% 45%
37 FL 14.8 25.7 94.7 2 100% 45% -45%
36 FL 14.6 25.1 97.1 3 100% -30% 45%
35 FL 14.3 24.2 90.2 4 100% -30% -45%
34 FL 15.0 24.8 96.7 5 -100% 45% 35%
33 FL 14.6 23.9 90.0
6 -100% 45% -45%
32 FL 14.4 23.2 91.1
7 -100% -30% 35%
31 FL 14.0 22.2 85.0
30 FL 13.2 20.9 82.6 8 -100% -30% -45%
9 30% 100% 30%
10 30% 100% -45%
12 FL 5.8 5.9 28.1 11 30% -100% 30%
11 FL 5.7 5.5 25.6 12 30% -100% -45%
10 FL 5.2 4.7 23.4 13 -50% 100% 30%
9 FL 5.1 4.3 21.2 14 -50% 100% -45%
8 FL 4.7 3.6 19.2
15 -50% -100% 30%
7 FL 4.5 3.1 16.2
16 -50% -100% -45%
6 FL 5.2 2.9 17.1
5 FL 5.2 2.3 15.3 17 45% 40% 85%
4 FL 4.7 2.1 12.7 18 30% 40% -100%
3 FL 4.2 2.1 10.1 19 45% -40% 85%
2 FL 3.8 2.1 8.0 20 30% -40% -100%
1 FL 3.6 2.2 6.3 21 -55% 40% 85%
GRFL 1.7 1.0 2.6 22 -60% 40% -100%
23 -55% -40% 85%
Load combination factors have been produced through
24 consideration
-60% of-40%
the structure's
-100%
response to various wind directions, modal coupling, correlation of wind gusts and the
directionality of strong winds in the local wind climate.
76
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

6*'4'9+..$'.1#&%1/$+0#6+105

Level Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m)

WIND 1 WIND 2

40 18.7 14.9 58.4 18.7 14.9 -58.4

39 15.2 12.0 45.8 15.2 12.0 -45.8
38 14.8 11.6 42.6 14.8 11.6 -42.6
37 14.6 11.3 43.7 14.6 11.3 -43.7
36 14.3 10.9 40.6 14.3 10.9 -40.6
35 15.0 11.2 43.5 15.0 11.2 -43.5
34 14.6 10.7 40.5 14.6 10.7 -40.5
33 14.4 10.4 41.0 14.4 10.4 -41.0

Level Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m)

WIND 5 WIND 6

40 -18.7 14.9 45.4 -18.7 14.9 -58.4

39 -15.2 12.0 35.6 -15.2 12.0 -45.8
38 -14.8 11.6 33.1 -14.8 11.6 -42.6
37 -14.6 11.3 34.0 -14.6 11.3 -43.7
36 -14.3 10.9 31.6 -14.3 10.9 -40.6
35 -15.0 11.2 33.8 -15.0 11.2 -43.5
34 -14.6 10.7 31.5 -14.6 10.7 -40.5
33 -14.4 10.4 31.9 -14.4 10.4 -41.0
32 -14.0 10.0 29.8 -14.0 10.0 -38.3

77

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Level Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz(T- m)

WIND 9 WIND 10

40 5.6 33.1 38.9 5.6 33.1 -58.4

39 4.5 26.6 30.5 4.5 26.6 -45.8
38 4.4 25.7 28.4 4.4 25.7 -42.6
37 4.4 25.1 29.1 4.4 25.1 -43.7
36 4.3 24.2 27.1 4.3 24.2 -40.6
35 4.5 24.8 29.0 4.5 24.8 -43.5
34 4.4 23.9 27.0 4.4 23.9 -40.5
33 4.3 23.2 27.3 4.3 23.2 -41.0
32 4.2 22.2 25.5 4.2 22.2 -38.3
31 4.0 20.9 24.8 4.0 20.9 -37.2
30 4.0 20.5 23.9 4.0 20.5 -35.9

Level Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m)

WIND 23 WIND 24

40 -10.3 -13.2 110.3 -11.2 -13.2 -129.8

39 -8.3 -10.7 86.4 -9.1 -10.7 -101.7
38 -8.1 -10.3 80.5 -8.9 -10.3 -94.7
37 -8.1 -10.0 82.5 -8.8 -10.0 -97.1
36 -7.9 -9.7 76.7 -8.6 -9.7 -90.2
35 -8.3 -9.9 82.2 -9.0 -9.9 -96.7
34 -8.0 -9.5 76.5 -8.8 -9.5 -90.0
33 -7.9 -9.3 77.4 -8.7 -9.3 -91.1
32 -7.7 -8.9 72.3 -8.4 -8.9 -85.0
31 -7.3 -8.3 70.2 -7.9 -8.3 -82.6

78
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5$





 
 



 

 

 







 


 
  
 
 
  
    <',;
     ;',;
    

  

      

 
    

:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
:,1'
72:(5$522)',63/$&(0(176)257811(//2$',1*LQPP

79

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER A - TUNNEL - DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD X DIX Y DIX
WIND1 147 118
WIND2 136 118
WIND3 147 79
WIND4 136 79
WIND5 137 118
WIND6 147 118
WIND7 138 79
WIND8 147 79
WIND9 46 262
WIND10 38 262
WIND11 46 262
WIND12 37 262
WIND13 67 262
WIND14 76 262
WIND15 68 262
WIND16 76 262
WIND17 74 105
WIND18 31 105
WIND19 73 105
WIND20 31 105
WIND21 68 105
WIND22 96 105
WIND23 68 105
WIND24 97 105

80
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

COMPARISON OF RESULTS

619'4#(..1#&5+06QP




 

 




67$7,&; *867; 67$7,&< *867<


• 7KHUHLVWRLQFUHPHQWLQZLQGIRUFHVLQ*867

PHWKRGRYHU67$7,&%XWPRUHVWUXFWXUDOUHVSRQVH

LQ*XVWPHWKRG

81

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

82
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER A – Location of columns for case studies- PW8 and PW50.

83

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)





 PW8 Comparison of M3 moment in mm.



 3:7811(/
 
3:*867
 
   
 
 
 

 
 


)/ 7+ 7+ 7+ 7+ 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' *5)/



 



 



  




 


 


  
 SZ7811(/
 

  SZ*867




75)/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/

84
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

 





 

  3:

  7811(/
 3:
 
   
  
    
*867


)/ 7+ 7+ 7+ 7+ 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' *5)/
6HHWKH
 YDULDWLRQ

 


 

 




 

 

  
 

 
 SZ



 7811(/

 SZ


*867



75)/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/

PW50 Comparison of M3 moment in mm.

85

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

CONCLUSION:
ƒ 7KH7XQQHOORDGVDUHDFRPELQDWLRQRI)[)\DQG0]IRUFHVUHVXOWLQJGXHWR
WKHG\QDPLFHIIHFWVRIZLQG

ƒ 7KHWRUVLRQDOPRPHQWVDVZHOODVWKHGLUHFWLRQDOLW\HIIHFWLVDOVRJHWWLQJ
FDSWXUHGLQWKLVDQDO\VLV

ƒ 7KHRYHUDOOGLVSODFHPHQWDWWKHURRIOHYHOLVDERXWPRUHWKDQWKH*867
IDFWRUDQDO\VLV

ƒ 7KHZLQGPRPHQWVRQFROXPQVDUHJHWWLQJLQFUHDVHGE\PRUHWKDQDW
WKHXSSHUPRVWOHYHOVZKHUHDVWKHVHDUHDURXQGRQO\DWWKHORZHU
OHYHOV

ƒ 7KHFURVVZLQGHIIHFWRIWKHG\QDPLFHIIHFWLVFDXVLQJWKHODUJHUVWUXFWXUDO
UHVSRQVHLQWKLVEXLOGLQJ

ƒ 7KHLQIHUHQFHRIWKHDERYHZLOOEHFRQILUPHGE\GRLQJDVHFRQGFDVHVWXG\

86
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

CASE STUDY 2 - TOWER B :

7\SLFDO)ORRUė7RZHU%

87

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

3RGLXP/D\RXWė 72:(5%
3RGLXP/D\RXWė72:(5%

88
 %JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7RZHU%)LUVW0RGH

VHFRQGV8[ 8< 
5= 

89

5#4&#42#6'.
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP %1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER B DETAILS

Max. Length X direction (Typical Floor) 60 m

Max. width Y direction (Typical Floor) 25 m

No. of Floors G+87

Floor height @ typical floors 3.5 m

Floor height @ typ.Podium floors 4.2 m

Floor height @ Ground level 4.35 m

Total height of the structure 302 m

Foundation Type Piled Raft

Soil type Type 1

General live load 0.2 T/m2

Masonry type Brick

90
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER B -MODAL PROPERTIES

Mode Period UX UY SumUX Sum UY RX RY RZ Sum RX SumRY SumRZ

1 8.68 0.0 56.0 0.0 56.0 97.8 0.0 0.06 98 0 0

2 6.60 62.5 0.0 62.5 56.0 0.0 96.8 1.13 98 97 1

3 5.35 1.9 0.0 64.4 56.0 0.0 2.8 47.47 98 100 49

4 2.08 13.6 0.1 78.0 56.2 0.0 0.0 0.09 98 100 49

5 1.98 0.1 17.7 78.1 73.8 1.7 0.0 0.02 100 100 49

6 1.62 0.1 0.0 78.3 73.8 0.0 0.0 12.43 100 100 61

7 1.15 5.3 0.0 83.6 73.8 0.0 0.3 0.05 100 100 61

8 0.87 0.0 7.2 83.6 81.0 0.3 0.0 0.06 100 100 61

9 0.84 0.0 0.0 83.6 81.0 0.0 0.0 9.63 100 100 71

10 0.76 3.8 0.0 87.4 81.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 100 100 71

11 0.56 2.8 0.0 90.3 81.0 0.0 0.0 0.23 100 100 71

12 0.53 0.1 0.2 90.4 81.2 0.0 0.0 9.80 100 100 81

13 0.50 0.0 4.6 90.4 85.8 0.1 0.0 0.10 100 100 81

14 0.42 1.7 0.0 92.1 85.8 0.0 0.0 0.02 100 100 81

15 0.38 0.0 0.1 92.1 85.9 0.0 0.0 5.84 100 100 87

91

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5%67$7,&:,1')25&(6
72:(5%67$7,&:,1')25&(6
Story FX FY Story FX FY
TRFL 14.39 40.87 FL-48 16.43 46.68
FL-87 18.27 51.91 FL-47 16.37 46.51
FL-86 18.23 51.79 FL-46 16.31 46.34
FL-85 18.19 51.67 FL-45 16.23 46.1
FL-84 18.15 51.55 FL-44 16.13 45.82
FL-83 18.11 51.43 FL-43 16.03 45.54
FL-82 18.06 51.32 FL-42 15.93 45.26
FL-81 18.02 51.2 FL-41 15.83 44.98
FL-80 17.98 51.08 FL-40 21.33 60.58
FL-79 17.94 50.96 FL-39 22.71 64.52
FL-78 17.9 50.84 FL-38 15.91 45.19
FL-77 17.86 50.72 FL-37 13.18 37.43
FL-76 17.81 50.61 FL-36 13.11 37.23
FL-75 17.77 50.49 FL-35 13.03 37.03
FL-74 17.73 50.37 FL-34 12.96 36.83
FL-73 17.69 50.25 FL-33 12.89 36.63
FL-72 17.65 50.14 FL-32 12.82 36.43
FL-71 17.61 50.02 FL-31 12.74 36.19
FL-70 17.57 49.9 FL-30 12.63 35.88
92
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER B STATIC WIND - DISPLACEMENTS

Story UX UY

TRFL 0.0941 0.5233

79FL 0.0936 0.5165
78FL 0.093 0.5096
77FL 0.0925 0.5027
76FL 0.0919 0.4959
75FL 0.0914 0.489
74FL 0.0908 0.482
73FL 0.0902 0.4751
72FL 0.0895 0.4681
71FL 0.0889 0.4611
70FL 0.0882 0.4541
69FL 0.0876 0.4471
68FL 0.0869 0.44
67FL 0.0861 0.433
66FL 0.0854 0.4259
65FL 0.0846 0.4187
64FL 0.0838 0.4115
63FL 0.083 0.4044
62FL 0.0822 0.3971
61FL 0.0814 0.3899
60FL 0.0805 0.3826
59FL 0.0796 0.3753
58FL 0.0787 0.368
93

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER B - WIND FORCES: GUST FACTOR, FORCE COEFFICIENT, ACCELERATION AND WIND FORCES AT ALL LEVELS

Size X Directi
60 Category 3 X Dix Y Dix X Dix Y Dix X Dix Y Dix
on (m)

Size Y Directi
25 Class C a/b 2.40 0.42 λ = Cyb/Czh 0.07 0.17 Deflection at Roof level (mm) 117 614
on (m)

Basic Wind s
44 K1 1 h/b 11.90 4.96 Cz.h/L(h) 4.8 4.8 Acceleration (m/s2) 0.120 0.358
peed (m/s)

Back gr.Factor
gfr 0.72 K3 1 Force Coeff. (Cf) 1.25 1.4 0.38 0.33
(B)

Time period (Mo

L(h) 740 Cy 10 6.6 8.68
dal)

f0 (Natural freq.
β 0.016 Cz 12 0.15 0.12
)

94
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5% *867:,1')25&(6$7$///(9(/6
72:(5%*867:,1')25&(6$7$///(9(/6

F0 = Cz.f0. Size redn.F f0.L(h) / Vz Gust Ene.F φ = (gf.r*√ Gust Facto Wind Forc
TOTAL h / Vz* actor (S) * act. (E) B)/4 r G. e (T)
X- Di HEIGH Vz* ( Pz* (N
LEVEL Y-Dim HEIGH K2
m T m/s) /m2)
T
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y

60 25 3.5 298 0.93 40.88 1003 13.2 10.1 2.7 2.1 0.11 0.10 2.24 2.21 24.51 65.00
TRFL 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.24
60 25 3.5 294 0.93 40.82 1000 13.3 10.1 2.7 2.1 0.11 0.10 2.24 2.21 24.44 64.80
79FL 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.24
60 25 3.5 291 0.93 40.75 997 13.3 10.1 2.8 2.1 0.11 0.10 2.24 2.21 24.37 64.61
78FL 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.24
60 25 3.5 287 0.92 40.69 994 13.3 10.1 2.8 2.1 0.11 0.10 2.24 2.21 24.29 64.41
77FL 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.24

95

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

TOWER - B - DIAPHRAGM CM DISPLACEMENTS

Story UX UY

TRFL 0.117 0.6135

79FL 0.1164 0.6054
78FL 0.1157 0.5972
77FL 0.115 0.5891
76FL 0.1142 0.5809
75FL 0.1135 0.5727
74FL 0.1127 0.5644
73FL 0.1119 0.5562
72FL 0.1111 0.5479
71FL 0.1103 0.5396
70FL 0.1094 0.5313
69FL 0.1085 0.5229
68FL 0.1076 0.5145
67FL 0.1067 0.5061
66FL 0.1057 0.4976
65FL 0.1047 0.4892
64FL 0.1037 0.4806
63FL 0.1027 0.4721
62FL 0.1016 0.4635
61FL 0.1005 0.4549
60FL 0.0994 0.4463 96
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5%:,1'7811(/02'(/

97

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5%:,1'7811(/02'(/6855281',1*6

98
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5% :,1'7811(/)25&(6ė (467$7,&

72:(5%:,1'7811(/)25&(6ė(467$7,&

Floor Fx (N) Fy'(N) Mz (N- m)

TRFL 548866 1319641 5417023
STORY87 543432 1306575 5363389
STORY86 538051 1293639 5310286
STORY85 532724 1280830 5257709
STORY84 527449 1268149 5205653
STORY83 522227 1255593 5154112
STORY82 517057 1243161 5103081
STORY81 511937 1230853 5052555
STORY80 506869 1218666 5002530
STORY79 501850 1206600 4953000
STORY78 380800 861900 4963000
STORY77 377500 840600 4750000
STORY76 511800 1231400 9965000
STORY75 500700 1206600 9781000
STORY74 481200 1126400 8839000
STORY73 348200 769500 4869000
STORY72 342600 771000 5115000
STORY71 339400 745800 4773000
STORY70 476900 1122100 9523000

99

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5%7XQQHO/RDG&RPELQDWLRQV
72:(5%7XQQHO/RDG&RPELQDWLRQV

Case X Forces Y Forces Torsion

(Fx) (Fy) (Mz)
1 +75% +30% +40%
2 +75% +30% -30%
3 +75% -50% +40%
4 +75% -50% -30%
5 -100% +55% +45%
6 -100% +55% -80%
7 -100% -45% +45%
8 -100% -45% -80%
9 +30% +100% +40%
10 +30% +100% -30%
11 +30% -90% +30%
12 +30% -90% -50%
13 -60% +100% +40%
14 -60% +100% -30%
15 -30% -90% +30%
16 -40% -90% -60%
17 +30% +55% +75%
18 +30% +30% -100%
19 +30% -30% +75%
20 +30% -45% -100%
21 -65% +55% +75%
22 -70% +30% -100%
23 -65% -30% +75%
24 -70% -45% -100%
100
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7RZHU% :LQG7XQQHO)RUFHV
7RZHU%:LQG7XQQHO)RUFHV

Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m)

WIND 1 WIND 2 WIND 3

41.2 39.6 216.7 41.2 39.6 -162.5 41.2 -66.0 216.7

40.8 39.2 214.5 40.8 39.2 -160.9 40.8 -65.3 214.5
40.4 38.8 212.4 40.4 38.8 -159.3 40.4 -64.7 212.4
40.0 38.4 210.3 40.0 38.4 -157.7 40.0 -64.0 210.3
39.6 38.0 208.2 39.6 38.0 -156.2 39.6 -63.4 208.2
39.2 37.7 206.2 39.2 37.7 -154.6 39.2 -62.8 206.2
38.8 37.3 204.1 38.8 37.3 -153.1 38.8 -62.2 204.1
38.4 36.9 202.1 38.4 36.9 -151.6 38.4 -61.5 202.1
38.0 36.6 200.1 38.0 36.6 -150.1 38.0 -60.9 200.1
37.6 36.2 198.1 37.6 36.2 -148.6 37.6 -60.3 198.1
28.6 25.9 198.5 28.6 25.9 -148.9 28.6 -43.1 198.5
28.3 25.2 190.0 28.3 25.2 -142.5 28.3 -42.0 190.0
38.4 36.9 398.6 38.4 36.9 -299.0 38.4 -61.6 398.6
37.6 36.2 391.2 37.6 36.2 -293.4 37.6 -60.3 391.2
36.1 33.8 353.6 36.1 33.8 -265.2 36.1 -56.3 353.6
26.1 23.1 194.8 26.1 23.1 -146.1 26.1 -38.5 194.8

101

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7RZHU%:LQG7XQQHO)RUFHV
7RZHU%:LQG7XQQHO)RUFHV

Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m) Fx (T) Fy (T) Mz (T- m)

WIND 14 WIND 15 WIND 16

-32.9 132.0 -162.5 -16.5 -118.8 162.5 -22.0 -118.8 -325.0

-32.6 130.7 -160.9 -16.3 -117.6 160.9 -21.7 -117.6 -321.8
-32.3 129.4 -159.3 -16.1 -116.4 159.3 -21.5 -116.4 -318.6
-32.0 128.1 -157.7 -16.0 -115.3 157.7 -21.3 -115.3 -315.5
-31.6 126.8 -156.2 -15.8 -114.1 156.2 -21.1 -114.1 -312.3
-31.3 125.6 -154.6 -15.7 -113.0 154.6 -20.9 -113.0 -309.2
-31.0 124.3 -153.1 -15.5 -111.9 153.1 -20.7 -111.9 -306.2
-30.7 123.1 -151.6 -15.4 -110.8 151.6 -20.5 -110.8 -303.2
-30.4 121.9 -150.1 -15.2 -109.7 150.1 -20.3 -109.7 -300.2
-30.1 120.7 -148.6 -15.1 -108.6 148.6 -20.1 -108.6 -297.2
-22.8 86.2 -148.9 -11.4 -77.6 148.9 -15.2 -77.6 -297.8
-22.7 84.1 -142.5 -11.3 -75.7 142.5 -15.1 -75.7 -285.0
-30.7 123.1 -299.0 -15.4 -110.8 299.0 -20.5 -110.8 -597.9
-30.0 120.7 -293.4 -15.0 -108.6 293.4 -20.0 -108.6 -586.9
-28.9 112.6 -265.2 -14.4 -101.4 265.2 -19.2 -101.4 -530.3
-20.9 77.0 -146.1 -10.4 -69.3 146.1 -13.9 -69.3 -292.1
-20.6 77.1 -153.5 -10.3 -69.4 153.5 -13.7 -69.4 -306.9
102
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7RZHU%ė5RRI'LVSODFHPHQWV7XQQHO

Load UX mm UY mm
WIND01 158 302
WIND02 168 302
WIND03 153 496
WIND04 162 497
WIND05 218 546
WIND06 201 545
WIND07 225 452
WIND08 208 453
WIND09 67 999
WIND10 76 999
WIND11 54 897
WIND12 65 898
WIND13 127 996
WIND14 118 996
WIND15 75 899
WIND16 85 900
WIND17 59 550
WIND18 80 300
WIND19 52 298
WIND20 75 449
WIND21 146 547
WIND22 135 297
WIND23 152 301
WIND24 141 452 103

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

0$;522)',63/$&(0(176












8;PP

8<PP









104
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

&203$5,6212)5(68/7672:(5%
&203$5,6212)5(68/7672:(5%

619'4$/#:&+52.#%'/'06













;',;PP

<',;PP








5VCVKE )WUV 6WPPGN
:&+:OO   
;&+:OO   

105

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

5VQT[5JGCTKP;FKZ6QPU6QYGT$










 6WPPGN
)WUV







(. (. (. (. (. 64(.
6WPPGN      
)WUV      

106
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

6725<6+($5<',;$7%$6(&203$5,621








7XQQHO

 *XVW




21& 21& 21& 21& )4(.
6WPPGN     
)WUV     

107

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

72:(5%3,(5/$%(/

108
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)


3:&203$5,6212)
 020(176
020(176
 3:7811(/0
7P
 3:*86707P 9(57,&$/3,(5
9(57,&$/3,(5

6((7+(9$5,$7,21,1

75)/ )/ )/ )/ )/
9$/8(6







 3:7811(/0
 7P
3:*86707P




109

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)




3:020(17&203$5,621
3:020(17&203$5,621
3:7811(/0
 7P
3:*8670
+25=3,(5
+25=3,(5
 7P


75)/ )/ )/ )/ )/







 3:7811(/0
7P

3:*8670
 7P




32' 32' 32' 32' *5)/

110
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Summary and Conclusion

1. In Tower A, there is only 10% increment in displacement. But at

the topmost columns, moments are increased substantially.

2. In Tower B, 60% increment in displacement in Y direction, but it

reduces in x direction.

3. Pier moments and storey shears are increased considerably.

4. Displacement has to be based on 20 year return period only.

111

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Summary and Conclusion

5. Gust method clearly underestimates response of the 88 storey

building.

6. Even the 40 storied building cannot be convincingly designed for

the Gust loads.

7. Gust method is equal or conservative in the stiff direction, but it is

reverse in the flexible direction.

8. Gust method lacks the across wind forces, geometry effects,

surrounding effects etc.

112
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Summary and Conclusion

9. Gust method can be used for initial planning and also for concept
design of tall buildings.

10. Experimental results are to be relied upon for design of tall

buildings.

11. Accelerations are 16.8mg and 10.6mg based on Tunnel results.

12. Direct comparison with the code method is not correct, as the codal
method only follows peak along wind acceleration.

13. New draft code of I.S.875 discusses about the across wind effects,
but only for a rectangular building.

113

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%QORWVCVKQPCN(NWKFF[PCOKEU
%(&
Branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to
solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to
perform the calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and
gases with surfaces defined by boundary conditions.

114
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%(&241%'55

• During preprocessing
• The geometry & domain of the problem is
defined.
• The volume occupied by the fluid is divided
into discrete cells (the mesh).
• The physical modeling is defined – for
example, the equations of motions.
• Boundary conditions are defined. This
involves specifying the fluid behavior and
properties at the boundaries of the problem.
• The simulation is started and the equations
are solved iteratively as a steady-state or
transient.
• Finally a postprocessor is used for the
analysis and visualization of the resulting
solution

115

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Fig. 3:-Wind tunnel model of tower ‘A’ Fig.4:-Wind tunnel model of tower ‘B’

6XPPDU\RI3UHGLFWHG3HDN2YHUDOO6WUXFWXUDO:LQG/RDGV

'(6&5,37,2 0[ 0\ 0]

)[1 )\1
1 1P 1P 1P
72:(5ě$Ĝ ( ( ( ( (

72:(5Ĝ%Ĝ ( ( ( ( (

116
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%(&/1&'..+0)1(619'4Ğ#ğCPF619'4Ğ$ğ

The creation of the domain and the geometry:-

)LJ /D\RXWRIZLQGWXQQHOPRGHORIWRZHUě$Ĝ WRZHUě%Ĝ

LQ$872&$'&,9,/'

• :LQGWXQQHOPRGHOVDUHVLPXODWHGLQ$872&$'&,9,/' WKHQLPSRUWHGWR
$16<6ZRUNEHQFK
• $EXLOGLQJZLWKKHLJKWě+ĜLVH[WUXGHGLILWVGLVWDQFHIURPWKHVWXGLHGEXLOGLQJLV
OHVVWKDQ+>&267&)'*XLGHOLQHV@

117

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Fig.7 & 8 The built area and surrounding computational domain of tower ‘A’ and tower ‘B’

$FFRUGLQJWR>&267@SUDFWLFHJXLGHOLQHVIRUWKH&)'VLPXODWLRQRIIORZV
LQWKHXUEDQHQYLURQPHQWLIWKHVLPXODWLRQVDUHWREHFRPSDUHGZLWK
ERXQGDU\OD\HUZLQGWXQQHOPHDVXUHPHQWVWKHQLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWR
XVHWKHFURVVVHFWLRQRIWKHZLQGWXQQHOĜVWHVWVHFWLRQIRUWKH
FRPSXWDWLRQDOGRPDLQLHWKHFRPSXWDWLRQDOGRPDLQVKRXOGKDYHWKH
VDPHKHLJKWDQGODWHUDOH[WHQWDVWKHERXQGDU\OD\HUZLQGWXQQHO

118
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

)LJ(QODUJHGYLHZRIWKH )LJ(QODUJHGYLHZRIWKH
EXLOWDUHDRIWRZHUě$Ĝ EXLOWDUHDRIWRZHUě%Ĝ

119

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Setting the meshing scheme:-

An unstructured tetrahedral grid was used to mesh all the faces and
volumes in the domain.

)LJD )LJE

)LJ8QVWUXFWXUHGWHWUDKHGUDOJULGD'RPDLQEWKHEXLOWDUHD

120
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Defining the boundary types:-

%RXQGDU\  W\SH FRQVLVW RI WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI D VXUIDFH DQG VSHFLI\LQJ LW DV
LQOHWRXWOHWZDOODQGRUV\PPHWU\ERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV
The boundaries types of the domain for this study are as follows:
Building Wall: - No slip wall condition
Top plane ,Lateral Sides & Ground: : - No slip wall condition
Outlet: - Outflow
Inlet: - Velocity Inlet

Fig.12 Domain Boundary Conditions

121

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Cell zone condition: Fluid Boundary Conditions:

Fig. 15 Fig. 16
• Inlet: Velocity Inlet = 44 m/s
• Outlet: Outflow
• Lateral sides, Top Side
and Ground : Wall
• Building : Wall
122
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Monitors: Residuals and drag forces, Solution Initialization: Solution is

moments. initialized from inlet region with set
initial values.

Fig. 17
Fig. 18
123

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

•Run Calculation: Run the Calculation till convergence

Fig. 19

124
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

%(&6GUV4GUWNVUCPF%QORCTKUQP

In the wind tunnel testing for structural response, the measurements of forces
and moments are made at the base for each 10 deg wind attack angle. The wind
tunnel results are based on a single wind speed. Similarly in CFD test, results are
calculated for each 20 deg wind attack angle by rotating the domain. For each
direction wind speed of 44 m/s is applied at inlet.

Fig. 20 Rotation of domain for different wind Fig. 21 Rotation of domain for different wind
attack angles for tower ‘A’ attack angles for tower ‘B’
125

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)
The drag forces in x and y direction and moments Mx, My & Mz at base of tower ‘A’ & ‘B’
are calculated around the same point which is used as reference point for wind tunnel test.

Fig. 22 Wind tunnel and CFD reference points for computation of drag forces and moments for tower ‘A’

Fig. 23 Wind tunnel and CFD reference points for computation of drag forces and moments
for tower ‘B’ 126
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

7.1 CFD results for Tower ‘A’

The maximum values of Fx and My are found at 210 deg. wind attack angle whereas
maximum values of Fy and Mx are found at 310 deg. wind attack angle.
The peak values obtained from wind tunnel and CFD measurements for tower ‘A’ are as
follows:-
DESCRIPTION Fx (N) Fy (N) Mx (N-m) My (N-m)
WIND TUNNEL 3.69E+06 6.41E+06 5.78E+08 3.03E+08
CFD 3.78E+06 7.02E+06 4.85E+08 2.62E+08

The variation of wind tunnel and CFD results RIWRZHUě$Ĝare as follows:-

Fx (N) Fy (N) Mx (N-m) My (N-m)
2.35% 9.56% 16.15% 13.4%

(

( (
(
( :,1'7811(/
( :,1'7811(/ &)'
(
&)'
(
(
(
)[1 )\1
0[1P 0\1P
Fig. 25 Peak values of Mx & My for tower ‘A’
Fig. 24 Peak values of Fx & Fy for tower ‘A’ 127

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind attack angle 210 degree 

Fig. 26 Contours of pressure

on built area of tower ‘A’ for
max. Fx and My

Fig. 27 Velocity Vector

for max. Fx and My for
tower ‘A’

128
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind attack angle 310 degree 

Fig. 28 Contours of pressure

on built area of tower ‘A’ for
max. Fy and Mx

Fig. 29 Velocity
Vector for max. Fy and Mx
for tower ‘A’
129

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

CFD results for Tower ‘B’

The maximum values of Fx and My are found at 30 deg. wind attack angle whereas
maximum values of Fy and Mx are found at 270 deg. wind attack angle. Maximum
value of Mz is found at 130 deg. wind attack angle.

The peak values obtained from wind tunnel and CFD measurements for tower ‘B’ are as
follows:-
DESCRIPTION Fx (N) Fy (N) Mx (Nm) My (Nm) Mz (N m)
WIND TUNNEL 2.27E+07 4.68E+07 8.45E+09 4.05E+09 4.97E+08
CFD 2.41E+07 4.95E+07 7.86E+09 3.93E+09 4.12E+08

The variation of wind tunnel and CFD results of tower ‘B’ are as follows:-
Fx (N) Fy (N) Mx (N-m) My (N-m) Mz (N-m)
6.200% 5.77% 6.98% 2.9% 17.1%

(
(

( :,1'
( 7811(/
:,1'7811(/
( &)'
&)'
(
0[ 0\ 0] (
)[1 )\1
1P 1P 1P

Fig. 31 Peak values of Mx, My & Mz for tower‘B’ Fig. 30 Peak values of Fx & Fy for tower ‘B’
130
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind attack angle 30 degree 

Fig. 32 Contours of pressure

on built area of tower ‘B’ for
max. Fx and My

Fig. 33 Velocity Vector

for max. Fx and My for tower
‘B’

131

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind attack angle 270 degree 

Fig 34 Contours of pressure

on built area of tower ‘B’ for
max. Fy and Mx

Fig.35 Velocity Vector

for max. Fy and Mx for
tower ‘B’

132
%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Wind attack angle 130 degree 

Fig. 36 Contours of pressure

on built area of tower ‘B’ for
max. MZ

Fig. 37 Velocity Vector

for max. Mz for tower ‘B’

133

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP 5#4&#42#6'.
%1..')'1('0)+0''4+0)

Conclusions
1. wind tunnel model of G+38 and G+87 storey building is simulated
using CFD. The available wind tunnel results are compared with the
results obtained from CFD simulation. From the preceding
discussions, the following conclusions can be made:
2. CFD is a powerful tool for the determination of drag forces due to
wind on buildings.
3. CFD techniques can provide detailed predictions of air velocities
around buildings.
4. CFD can be effectively used for determination of moments due to
wind at base of building.

5. CFD and Wind Tunnel Results showed reasonable agreement. The

variation in CFD and wind tunnel results is observed due to
simplified geometry used in ANSYS Fluent.

134
 Thank you

%JCNNGPIGU5QNWVKQPUHQT6CNN$WKNFKPI&GUKIP

Effect of wind loading on tall buildings


2014 MIDAS Technical Seminar
Challenges & Solution for Tall Building Design

07
Foundation for tall building
Jaydeep Wagh, Geocon International
 FOUNDATION STRUCTURAL DESIGN
BY FEM SOFTWARES

midas Gen + Spring Constant by Geotechnical engineers

ETABS → SAFE + Spring Constant by Geotechnical Engineers

STAAD → STAAD FOUNDATION + Spring Constant by Geotechnical engineers

WHAT IS THIS SPRING CONSTANT ???

DEFORMATION OF RAFT ON SOIL AS DETERMINED BY A GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEER

Deformed Shape of Raft

RAFT ON SPRING CONCEPT.

K = Spring Constant = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction=

 • MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION OR
SPRING CONSTANT OR “K VALUE” IS ONE OF
THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISUSED
TERM IN DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS.

Thus K value depends on

1)Width of footing.

2)Variations in founding strata.

3)Rigidity of Raft & superstructure

SWASTIK METRO BUILDING,
BANGALORE

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
STERLING ENGINEERING

SWASTIK METRO BUILDING,

BANGALORE

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
STERLING ENGINEERING
 SWASTIK METRO BUILDING,
BANGALORE

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
STERLING ENGINEERING

K1 < K2 < K3

0.1m Thick Raft

1m Thick Raft

3m Thick Raft

SETTLEMENTS ARE MUCH LOWER IN A 3M THICK RAFT FOUNDATION.

SUGGESTING THAT AN ITERATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN GEOTECHNICAL AND
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS CAN HELP ECONOMIZ
 SETTLEMENT WITH VARYING THICKNESS

Modelling of share wall rigidity in SAFE

Courtesy: Kelkar Designs

 NOVA TOWER

MODELING OF WIND
+Y CONDITION

INCORPORATING STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY OF

SUPERSTRUCTURE.

Structural Consultant: Buro Happold

MIDASGEN SOFTWARE HAS CAPABILITY OF

INCORPORATING COLUMNS AND BEAM
RIGIDITY IN RAFT SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS.
GEOTECHNICAL CASE HISTORIES OF
FEW TALL BUILDINGS IN INDIA

INDIA TOWER , MUMBAI

(6B+G+130 FLOORS)

CLIENT: DB REALTY

RCC CONSULTANT: MAHIMTURA / WSP

The highest allowable bearing capacity

utilized in India for shallow foundations
(500 t/m2)

Extensive geotechnical investigation

completed.

Soil structure interaction with finite

element analysis helped reduce raft
thickness from 6.5m to 5m.
INDIA TOWER , MUMBAI

6 BASEMENTS 27m DEEP

CLIENT: DB REALTY

INDIA TOWER , MUMBAI

FOOTING LOAD TEST

INDIA TOWER , MUMBAI

FOOTING LOAD TEST

“PALAIS ROYALE”
CLIENT: SHREE RAM URBAN

3B + G + 75 FLOORS

CURRENTLY ONE OF THE TOP

THREE TALLEST BUILDINGS IN
INDIA

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
STERLING ENGINEERING
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION “PALAIS ROYALE”
CLIENT: SHREE RAM URBAN

3B + G + 75 FLOORS

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
STERLING ENGINEERING

MAX. SETTLMENT = 30mm

FIG 3: SETTLEMENT CONTOURS (3D VIEW)

ONLY LEFT HALF PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS ANALYZED DUE TO SYMMETRY
 NATHANI HEIGHTS, MUMBAI

2 B + G + 70 FLOORS

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT: THORNTUN TOMASETTI

ONE OF THE MOST SLENDER BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD

WITH SLENDERNESS RATIO OF 1:11.

PROBABLY THE HIGHEST PILE CAPACITY UITILIZED IN

INDIA (1700 TONS ON A 1.2m DIA PILE)

PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED UP TO A TEST LOAD OF

2500TONS.

NATHANI
NATHANIHEIGHTS,
HEIGHTS,MUMBAI
MUMBAI

PILE LOAD TEST IN PROGRESS STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:

PILE DIAMETER = 1200mm THORNTUN TOMASETTI
MAX. PILE TEST LOAD = 2500 TONS
MAX. SETTLEMENT = 5mm

TESTING AGENCY: STEFFON

 NATHANI HEIGHTS, MUMBAI

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
THORNTUN TOMASETTI

PILE DIAMETER = 1200mm

PILE CAPACITY = 1700 TONS

INATHANI HEIGHTS BUILDING PILES INSTRUMENTED

WITH STRAIN GAUGES AND
EXTENSOMETERS .

PILES MONITORED WEEKLY FOR

PRESSURE AND SETTLEMENTS.

Strain Gauges

Extensometer
 OASIS TOWER

CLIENT: OBEROI REALTY

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT: LERA

3B + G + 85 FLOORS

FOOTING LOAD TEST IN PROGRESS

AT FOUNDING LEVEL (-13m).

OASIS TOWER, OBEROI REALTY

 7mm

14mm

6mm

AFTER OUR INVOLVEMENT:

BEFORE OUR INVOLVEMENT FEW BUILDING
PILES ELIMINATED
ALREADY COMPLETED ON BORED PILES.
HIGHEST BEARING CAPACITY OF 100 T/M2 USED FOR
PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED BEARING FOUNDATIONS ON SOIL IN INDIA.
CAPACITY = 40 t/m2

WAVE CITY CENTER, NOIDA

RCC CONSULTANT: AECOM

 “THE 42”, KOLKATA

G + 60 FLOORS

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT: JW CONSULTANTS

GROUND AT THIS SITE NOT CAPABLE OF

SUPPORTING BUILDING ON CONVENTIONALLY
DESIGNED FOUNDATIONS.

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION CONDUCTED TO

VERIFY THAT ALL DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS
ARE WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMIT.

“THE 42”, KOLKATA

 SETTLEMENT REDUCING PILES

RAHEJA REVANTA, GURGAON RCC CONSULTANT: THORNTUN TOMASETTI

BEFORE OUR INVOLVEMENT BUILDING
PROPOSED ON FULL FLEDGED PILE
FOUNDATION.

OUR INVOLVEMENT RECOMMENDED BY

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS

NUMBER OF PILES REDUCED TO 25%.

 RAHEJA REVANTA,

Settlement Reducing Piles RAHEJA REVANTA

1) Piles placed at strategic locations only to reduce settlements.

2) Piles designed for ultimate pile capacities. i.e. piles are designed to fail.
ORB TOWERS, NOIDA

2B + G + 50

ONLY 41 PILES

85% of load taken by Raft

15% of load taken by Piles

Structural Consultant:
VMS Consultants

SUPERNOVA, NOIDA (U.P) STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT: BURO HAPPOLD

3B + G + 85 FLOORS Iconic Tower

 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR
SPIRA TOWER

• 24 pressuremeter tests.

• 4 static cone penetration tests.

• 2 static pile load tests.

• 1 instrumented Osterberg Load Cell test.

O CELL TESTING BY FUGRO

LOAD CELL
 ICONIC TOWER (SUPERNOVA)

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

ICONIC TOWER
(SUPERNOVA)

1.2m DIA PILES.

LOAD ON PILES 1500 TONS UNDER STATIC LOADS
AND 1900 TONS UNDER WIND LOADS.
BRYS BUZZ, NOIDA

G + 81 FLOORS

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
BEST CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DUBAI

BRYS BUZZ, NOIDA

PCC PILES
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.