IRJET- Analysis of a Multi-Tower Frame Structure Connected at Different Levels using ETABS

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 03 | Mar 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 7202
Analysis of a Multi-Tower Frame Structure connected at different
levels using ETABS
RISHABH SISODIA1, N. Tej Kiran2, K. Sai Sekhar Reddy3
1Student, Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
2Student, Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
3 Student, Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - A Multi-Tower is a pair of tall structures
which are connected to each other by a means of bridge.
When there is decrease in the area of construction in
horizontal dimension it is preferred to go for tall
structures. At high vertical dimensions there is always an
issue due to cantilever action, wind loads and seismic
loads. To make the structure resistant to all these types of
forces the concept of “MULT-TOWER” came into picture
where the structure is more rigid, damp and stable for the
wind and seismic loads. Here in this analysis consideringa
G+30 symmetric structure which is an office building
being connected with one Steel Bridgeatdifferentlevelsto
find out the action of seismic loads on the Structure using
E-tabs.
Key Words Multi-tower, Bridge, Seismic Load, ETABS.
1.INTRODUCTION
A Multi-Tower (G+30) is a high raised structure
which is constructed when the buildings are high
raised and there are many lateral forces are acting
on the Structure, to make the structure stiffer we
connect the two high raised structures such they
are stiff and the deflections at the higher levels due
to Wind loads is relatively less.
It is outstanding that tall structures go about as
imperative jobs in present day urban areas.
Most importantly, tall structures can be viably used to
meet the necessities of present-day society and
tackle the issue of constraint of building site assets.
Then again, they are the signs of financial properties
and human progress.
These days tall structures ascend ever more elevated,
with increasingly mind boggling and singular
arrangement and height, for example, multi-tower
structures.
The nonlinear time-history analysis and structural
model tests are seldom presented in document. Some
perfect software, such as ADINA, SAP, SUPER-SAP,
ANSYS, TBSA, SAP84, TAT and SATWE etc. are widely
used by designers and researches in this field.
LITERATURE REVIEW
S Wensheng LU and Xilin LU performed analysis of
Seismic Model Test and Analysis of Multi-Tower High-
Rise Building and he found that distribution of floor
mass and lateral stiffness changes sharply at different
levels.
Ernesto F. Cruz, Anil K. Chopra performed analysis on
Elastic Earthquake Response of Building Frames and
found that the errors in the results of response
spectrum analysis depend on the response quantity
they are all below 15% for building frames with
fundamental vibration period less than the end of the
medium period region of the spectrum.
Roberto Villaverde performed analysis on Simplified
Response-Spectrum Seismic Analysis of Nonlinear
Structures and found that. The method maintains the
simplicity and convenience of the conventional
response-spectrum technique and appears to give an
accuracy that is consistent with the accuracy attained
in the analysis of linear systems.
S Abhishek, Manoj S K, Roopa B D, Bhagyashree M S,
Guruprasad.C.H.M performed Analysis And Design
On A High Raised Residential Building using ETABS
and found that The flexible connections between
towers can significantly reduce the drift of multi-
tower high-rise buildings, and they will be destroyed

and act as energy dissipation members during a
moderate earthquake.
Figure 1: Plan of the Multi-Tower
 LOADS:
The loads acting on the structurearepre-definedinthe
software. Self-weight of the beam members, slabs are
also to be considered and applied at each level of the
structure. The following are the loads that are applied
on the framed structure:
1. Dead load – Self-weight of the members
2. Live load on the slabs and roof
3. Floor finish – On floors
4. Seismic Forces – Along X & Y directions
5. Wind Forces
 All the dead loads and super-dead loads (floor
finish) are assigned with a multiplier 1. Live loads,
Seismic, Wind, Response spectrum and Time
history are given with a self-weight multiplier 0.
 The above loads are defined with the
corresponding self-weight multiplier in the “Load
Cases” option.
 LOAD COMBINATIONS:
Load combinations for the analysis of the Multi-Tower
structure are auto generated in the load combinations
menu, after all the required loads for analysis and
design are defined.
Below are some of the load combination factors that is
program determined in the software.
 Dead and Live loads = 1.5
 Dead + Live + Seismic/Wind = 1.2
 Dead + Response spectrum = 1.5
 SECTIONS ADOPTED FOR BEAMS AND
COLUMNS:
Since Trial and Error method was adopted for the
assigning of beams and columns. Heavy beam
sections also failed, which leads to assigning of built
up sections for both columns and beams.
 Composite beams of 400mm x 400mm are
defined for the longitudinal, transverse and
cross beam members.
 ISMB350 sections are used in the rectangular
concrete encasement.
 The flange thickness of ISMB350 is increased
from 25mm to 30mm. The web thickness is
increased from 13mm to 20mm.
Figure 2: Built Up Beam Section
 Composite columns of 450mm x 500mm are
defined.
 ISWB550 sections are used in the rectangular
concrete encasement.
 The flange thickness of ISWB550 is increased
from 25mm to 50mm. The web thickness is
increased from 13mm to 26mm.

Figure 3: Built Up Column Section
STATIC ANALYSIS OF THE TOWER
A G+30 story framed structure is modelled in ETABS
and primarily analyzed for the vertical loads acting
on all the floors (like dead and live loads). The
deflections, maximum shear forces and bending
moments are observed to check the stability of the
framed structure for the acted vertical loads and
sufficiency of the member sizes. The dynamic forces
are then acted on the structure when the frame
passes the design checks after static analysis.
Figure 4: Plan and 3-D View of the Tower
 The defined static loads are acted on the members
and run analysis with the load combinations.
 Design check is done after the analysis. Once the
structure passes the staticanalysis,dynamicforces
are acted on the frames.
 The response spectrum function is defined for a
selected seismic zone, Hyderabad (Zone – II) and
soil type (Soil type – II).
 The time-history functions are also defined along
both X & Y directions as the ground motion
databases obtained from peer.berkely.edu.
 The response spectrum curve and the time-history
curve are matched on the frequency domain for
both X & Y directions.
 Seismic, Wind and the matchedresponsespectrum
& time history forces are added in the load case
tree and the structure is analyzed.

Figure 5: Response spectrum plot of a single tower
Figure 6: Time history plot of a single tower
 The maximum Pseudo Spectral Acceleration
(from response spectrum plot) is ….
 The maximum base shear (from time history
plot) is.
DESIGN OF THE CONNETING BRIDGE
The results obtained from the analysis are as
follows:
Maximum deflection of all the beam elements =
a) Maximum shear force =
b) Maximum bending moment =
Above values are obtained for a load combination
DStlS24 (1.2 D.L. + 1.2 L.L. + 1.2 Response
Spectrum).

Figure 7: The Connection Bridge
The steel section selected for the design of the bridge
is ISHB500. The displacement for the bridge for the
loads assigned is 5.78mm. The Bending Moment and
Shear Force are 281.267kNm and 63kN respectively.
COMBINED TOWER PARAMETERS
The two towers are connected by means of the above
designed bridge at three different levels. The
connection between the bridge and the towers is
maintained at the floor level for each of the stories.
The bridge is connected at 10th, 15th and 25th storey
and the optimum level of connection is verified for
the multi-tower structure to be stable. The members
are designed and checked whether all the members
are passing the check.
 CONNECTION AT 25th STOREY:
The first connection made is at 25th storey, as the
height of the structure increases, the effect of lateral
forces (wind and seismic) will increase and might
cause failure of frames.
Firstly, the members adopted were of ISMB350 for
beams and ISHB450-1 for columns. The loads are
acted and analysis is performed. After the design
check, the outer beams and most of the columns
failed due to higher column-beam capacity ratio.
Figure 8: Failure Frames for the Combined Towers
Therefore, composite beams and columns are
adopted of above mentioned specifications and again
design check is performed. All the members passed
the design check. Plots of maximum storey drifts,
story displacements, story shears, response
spectrum and time history are obtained.
The similar procedure is adopted for the connections
at 15th and 10th storey of the multi-tower.
The bridge connection is made of bolts of
diameter 32mm and 4 number of bolts for each
connection. Analysis is run after application of
loads. Like the connection at 25th storey, plots of
all the desired parameters are obtained.
Similar analysis and design checks are performed for
the connection at 10th storey as done for 25th and 15th
stories. Deformed shape of the multi-tower when
connected at 10th storey is shown as an example
figure below.

Figure 9: Deformed Shape of the frames & bridge for
connection at 10th storey
COMPARISON OF DEFLECTIONS, SF AND BM OF THE
LOWER BEAM FOR ALL CONNECTED LEVELS:
Table 1: Deflection, Shear force and Bending
moments of the lower beam of the structure
The increase of deflection in the lower beam of a
single tower is due to the weights of upper floors
acting on the bottom floors. When a bridge is
connected, the stiffness is increased between the two
towers and some part of the loads from the above
floors is taken by the bridge-tower connection.
Therefore, the deflections in the lower beams of a
connected structure are less as compared to the
single tower structure.
From the above observations, the connection of the
bridge at 15th storey is expected to be safe and
economical as the deflections, shear forces and
bending moments are less.
The observations are more for the connection at 10th
storey as the weights from the above floors is
maximum as compared to the connection at 15th
storey.
Figure 10: Example of deflection, SFD and BMD of
the lower beam (when frames are connected at 15th
storey)
 COMPARISON OF STOREY DRIFTS, STOREY
SHEARS AND STOREY DISPACEMENTS:
When the seismic, wind, response spectrum and time
history load cases are acted on the structure, the
frames not only displace along the vertical direction
(due to the gravity loads), but also displace along the
horizontal direction. Tilt of the structure occur and
even the frame may collapse because of this lateral
displacements called “STOREY DRIFTS”. Therefore,
storey drifts and storey displacements are to be
evaluated for the stability of the structure.
Storey shears are required to assess the member
capacities (especially columns) for the applied lateral
forces.
Parameter
Connection
Max Storey
Displacements
(mm)
Max Storey
Shears (kN)
Single tower 5.6 0.79
10th storey 4.21 0.56
15th storey 3.48 0.48
25th storey 2.9 0.41
Table 2: Storey displacements and Storey shears
Connection
Parameter
Single
Tower
10th
Storey
15th
Storey
25th
Story
Deflection
(mm)
1.56 1.249 0.84 1.18
Shear Force
(kN)
122.42 113.36 157.2 116.4
Bending
Moment
(kN-m)
234.11 270.67 147.4 113.1

 The storey displacements and storey shears
decreased as the connection level is made higher,
as the stiffness between the frames is increased
and greater stabilityis providedtothemulti-tower
structure.
 Considering the vertical loads also, as the
connection at 15th storey is giving better results in
terms of shear and bending of lower beams, an
example of maximum storey displacements (mm)
is represented as in the figures below:
Figure 11: Storey displacement plot when
bridge and frames are connected at 15th storey
 DESCRIPTION OF CONNECTIONS MADE:
Bolted connections are chosen for all the bridge-
frame links. The bolted connections are only possible
to be given when built up sections were used as
beams and columns (before adopting the composite
sections). This explains that the complete steel frame
was safe even when heavier I-sections are provided
as the members, but the columns failed because of
the high column-beam capacity ratio. Bolts of
diameter 32mm and 4 number of bolts per each link
are adopted. These connections are checked for
bearing capacity, moment and shear. All the
connections are observed to pass the check as shown
in the below figure:
Figure 12: Check for bolted connections
 COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SPECTRUM AND
TIME HISTORY PLOTS:
Matched response spectrum and time history plots
(pre-defined) along X & Y directions are studied and
the maximum Pseudo Spectral Acceleration
(mm/sec2) and Base forces (kN) are analyzed to
evaluate the actual performance of the modelled
multi-tower frame structure. The accelerations and
displacements obtained from the graphs are the
modal values which vary based on the maximum
number of modes and cycles given by the user.
Parameter
Connection
Pseudo
Spectral
Acceleration
(mm/sec2)
Base Shear
(kN)
Single Tower 1.03 16.53
10th storey 0.99 24.12
15th storey 0.993 29.77
25th storey 0.989 30.23
Table 3: Response Spectrum and Time-History plot
observations
The accelerations of the stories due to lateral force
combinations decreased as the level of connection is
higher. This is because of increase in stiffness of the
frames and making the multi-tower rigid.
By making the frames rigid enough, the columns are
meant to take more shear forces as the height of the
building and connection level increases. Therefore,
there is increase in the base shear values.

Figure 13: Example of response spectrum plot
(when bridge is connecting the 2 frames at 15th
storey)
Figure 14: Example of a Time-History plot
(15th storey)
CONCLUSION
1. The most optimum connection wasfoundtobe
at 15th floor where this connection can
compensate between the verticalloadsandthe
lateral forces.
2. The connection should not be made above the
20th floor due to the action of wind loads and
the cantilever action of the Multi-Tower.
3. When the seismic forces and the Wind forces
act on the tower these connections serves as
the “Stiffener” for both the towers.
4. It reduces the Storey Displacements of the
towers impartingbetterdurabilityandlonglife
of the Multi-Tower.
5. Composite sections are used with rectangular
concreteencasementforbeamsandcolumnsas
the number of stories is very high.
REFERENCES
1. S Wensheng LU and Xilin LU “Seismic Model
Test and Analysis of Multi-Tower High-Rise
Building” –– 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering-2000.
2. Ernesto F. Cruz, Anil K. Chopra, “Elastic
earthquake response of building frames” –
MAY 1986.
3. Roberto Villaverde – “Simplified response
spectrum seismic analysis of nonlinear
structures” – ASCE – MARCH 1996.
4. S Abhishek, Manoj S K, RoopaBD,Bhagyashree
M S, Guruprasad C H M “Design and Analysis
of Residential Building using E-TABS” –
International Journal of Earthquake
Engineering and Geology Sciences– MAY2018.
5. IS 800:2007 – “General Construction In
Steel”
6. IS 13920:1993 – “Ductile Detailing Of
Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected
To Seismic Forces”

IRJET- Analysis of a Multi-Tower Frame Structure Connected at Different Levels using ETABS

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- Analysis of a Multi-Tower Frame Structure Connected at Different Levels using ETABS (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Analysis of a Multi-Tower Frame Structure Connected at Different Levels using ETABS