IRJET- Optimization of Tall Structures Under Constraints of Wind Loads and Fire Safety Strategy using STAAD Pro

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 05 | May 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2239
Optimization of Tall Structures under Constraints of Wind Loads and Fire
Safety Strategy using STAAD Pro
Arjun Mishra1, Harshit Kanodia1, Simran Dudeja1, Lakshay Singla1 and T Vijaya Kumar2
1B.Tech Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi.
2Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract-The paper deals with two major problems faced in
building high rise buildings; lateral displacement due to
wind loads and structural vulnerability to fire.
Fires represent a two pronged problem to structures; these
are one of the major causes behind building collapses.
General public is vary of tall structures and their
inaccessibility in case of severe fires. Consequently, a
qualitative analysis is done compare and come up with
innovations which are most suitable to solve the problem.
To identify best geometries to resist wind loads, quantitative
comparison of multiple geometries has been done using
analysis software (STAAD. Pro V8i). Four geometries have
been chosen, and have been compared based on axial forces,
lateral deformations, steel volume and used, component
shear forces and bending moments. The study concludes that
outrigger and belt truss systems are the most efficient for
tall buildings and super tall buildings (150m+), and shear
wall bracing systems are more suitable for moderately tall
high rise(100m-150m) buildings.
Key Words: Fire Resistant Structures, Fire Emergency
Escape Strategies, Fly Ash, Wind, Lateral Deflection,
Bracings, Shear Walls, Outrigger And Belt Truss
Systems.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and problem description
With the burgeoning growth of population and the
following scarcity of land, high rise buildings are becoming
an increasingly pragmatic solution for the contemporary
world. According to the US National Fire Protection
Association, a building higher than 75 feet (23 metre tall)
or about seven stories or more is considered to be a tall
building. Although high rise buildings had surfaced in the
ancient Roman and Egypt itself but with the advent of
superior materials, high compressive strength of concrete,
and cutting-edge construction technology in the 20th and
21st century more and more high rise buildings are being
constructed all over the world. Burj Khalifa in Dubai,
Shanghai Tower in China, Taipei 101 in Taiwan, Petronas
Twin Towers in Malaysia etc are a few of the tallest
buildings of the world from 2004-2010. These modern
marvels provide some great insight into the technologies
used for constructing tall structures in the modern times.
Tall buildings, as for bridges and other large structures,
require huge amount of material, energy, planning and
economy to get built. In every tall building project it is
important for structural engineering companies to be able
to present attractive offers, when competing with other
companies, to acquire a certain design project. It is of
interest to present an efficient structure in order to give a
proposal that is attractive to the contractors as well as the
owners.
An efficient structure does not only provide minimum
material usage and economic solution, but also it
minimizes the carbon footprint which is a major factor for
a structural engineer to consider when designing large
structures. This is of major concern in the world today in
general, namely that too large emissions are taking place
that damages the nature of our planet. This is why the
problem description of this project concerns minimizing
volume of material so that the carbon footprint is
minimized. The taller a building is the more inefficient it
becomes. Simultaneously as the height of building
increases, the construction costs increases.
1.2. Objective
(i) To compare structural geometries on the basis of lateral
deflection considering lateral wind loads.
(ii) To identify the best technique to be adapted for high
rise buildings in New Delhi to prevent structural collapse
due to fires.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
High rise structures pose various structural, material and
financial challenges in their construction. The use of Wind
Tunnel Testing was recommended (Kwon and Kareem,
2013) recently. But it had its own limitations like time and
cost constraints as well as reduced scale.
CFD(Computational Fluid Dynamics) was a rather better

technique over Wind Tunnel Testing as it conquered the
limitations of Wind Tunnel Testing. Nowadays Staad.Pro is
widely used for analysing the high-rise structures for
seismic and wind load combinations.
The catastrophic loss of life and property in the collapse of
World Trade Centre in 2001 brought attention to fire
safety in high rise buildings. The fire protection strategy of
any structure is majorly divided into fire resistant design
and evacuation strategy. Material properties of concrete
decide its behaviour during elevated temperatures. Hence
additives are added to concrete to improve its strength
hence its resistance to fire. Cardington Fire Tests from
1995 to 1997 provide analytical and computational data
on behaviour of structures in conditions of fire. Fly ash is
the most economical and conventionally used material to
improve the fire resistance properties of concrete. The use
of fly ash can be traced back to World War II. Fly ash was
also used in the construction of one of the tallest buildings
of the world Petronas Twin Towers. Silica fume is also
used for the same but it leads to the formation of dense
structure by filling the voids with cementitious material.
This could lead to explosive spalling in case of fire (Metin
Husem, March 2006).
The beginning of the use of Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD) in
1970s was a major breakthrough in high rise buildings.
Citigroup Centre in New York City completed in 1977 was
one of the first skyscrapers to use a tuned mass damper to
reduce sway. It is also known as harmonic absorber or
seismic damper and is used to reduce the mechanical
vibrations. Further Taipei 101 that applied the concept of
TMD emerged as the newest tallest building of the world in
2004.
3. METHODOLOGY
The study has been divided into two sections, the first
section discusses fire as a major hazard faced by buildings,
including structural collapse and safety concerns, and thus
does a qualitative analysis of different new strategies that
have been used, decides on parameters and provides the
most innovative solutions.
The second section provides a quantitative analysis of
multiple geometrical structures that have been used
globally. Various parameters have been considered; hence
the most effective building structure has been finalized
after discussing multiple parameters. Details of
methodology adopted have been given further down the
section.
3.1. Fire Resistant Structures and Strategies
Fire is one of the major threats that leads to the failure of
high-rise buildings. Fire safety in high rise buildings
consists of fire-resistant design and evacuation in case of
fire. As the height of the building increases, the evacuation
of people at higher floors becomes more time taking which
means evacuation time becomes larger (of the order of
minutes). Thus, the evacuation time becomes comparable
to the heating time of structural elements. The fire safety
strategy of a high-rise building is divided into two
components, namely egress strategy and building
performance.
1. Egress Strategy – It is the time required to evacuate. In
high rise buildings staircase is made the safe zone. So a tall
building basically acts like a collection of single storey
buildings.
2. Building Performance – It is further divided into
structural performance and fire spread mitigation. The
structural design of tall buildings depends on efficient load
transfer. During a condition of a fire the deformations that
occur locally and the resultant loading is redistributed
throughout the structure. Structural performance depends
on the size and nature of fire too (standard fire / travelling
fire). In high rise buildings the evacuation and structural
failure is at the risk of overlapping.
The following section shows the detailed results that have
been obtained in the qualitative study.
3.2. Wind Lateral Deflection and Analysis
The design wind velocity (Vz) is given by:
Vz = Vb. K1. K2. K3
(3.1)
The design wind pressure (Pa) is given by
Pz = 0.6Vz2 (3.2)
Where Vb = basic wind speed as per IS 875: PART -3, Vz is
design wind pressure at height z in m/s, k1 is the
probability factor given in IS 875 part 3 table 1 , k2 is the
terrain roughness and height factor given in table 2, k3 is
topographical factor and k4 is cyclonic factor.
Wind loads have been calculated using IS 875: Part - 3.
Further on, parameters including dynamic response factor,
topography, importance factor for cyclonic region, and
design wind pressure have been specifically calculated into
wind loads, detailed tabular information in available IS
875: Part-3. Any confusion regarding values to be
considered for IS Codes in the Indian context versus

international standards has been resolved with the help of
Further, wind load calculations have been done with the
help of Bhandari N.M. and Krishna K.
Analysis methodology has been taken from Smith B.S. and
Coull A. (1991). Further, inspiration for geometries
selected for this project has been from Merza N. and
Zangana A. (2014).
Final design analysis includes creating geometries on given
analysis software STAAD.PRO v8i, applying wind loads as
per IS Codes and comparing the four geometries on five
parameters:
1. Lateral Deflection: The most important criterion for
comparing suitability of different geometries in tall
buildings is the lateral deflection. Geometries with least
lateral deflection will be the most effective, this being our
main case of analysis.
2. Percentage increase in Lateral Deflection halfway:
An important parameter while comparing use of multiple
geometries of structures in designing tall buildings is the
% increase in lateral deflection as height increases, and
possibility whether increase in lateral deflection declines
on increase of height. It means that, as super tall buildings
(500m+) will face an exponential increase in lateral
deflection, most appropriate structure should show a
significant damping of lateral deflection. The larger the
lateral deflection at building height increases, the more
inappropriate the structure.
3. Ratio of Maximum Axial Force on Section to Shear
Force: Axial Strength of Steel Section = 1.73*Shear
Strength of Steel. Thus, lateral bracings are used in a
geometry to make sure that the axial reaction force
component is the highest in a steel section. Therefore, the
ideal building structure will be the one which tolerates the
maximum amount of axial force in ratio compared to shear
force.
4. Comparison of maximum bending moment and
maximum shear force on structures: As the height of a
building increases, we find that wind load due to moment
increases manifold times compared to shear force. It has
been found that below a height of 150 m, shear force
component is more dominant, but for buildings taller than
150+ m bending moment component starts dominating, till
heights are reached where shear force component
becomes negligible.
5. Volume Analysis: A fair comparison between
geometries can be done by making sure similar amount of
materials is used in all geometries. This means that
between two geometries having same amounts of steel
used, the better geometry will be the one that excels in
other parameters, while comparing two geometries with
same parameters, a better optimized system will be the
one which uses lesser volume of material.
Table 3.1: Building Specifications Used in Analysis
Lateral Beams 0.45mx0.45m
Columns 0.6mx0.6m
Bracings 0.25mx0.25m
Shear Wall 0.25m
Grade Of Concrete M25
Grade Of Steel Fe415
No. Of Storey G+23
Total Height 120m
Height of Ground Storey 5m
Height Of Floor to Floor 5m
Table 3.2: Building Geometries Sections
Building
Structure
x-y plan y-z plan x-z plan
Non-
Braced
Frame
Centric
Braced
Frame

Shear
Wall
Frame
Outrigger
And Belt
Truss
Frame
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 3.1: Simulation of Buildings Produced in Analysis
(a) Lateral Wind Loads Simulation for Geometries
(b)Simulations for Shear Wall Bracing Systems
(c) Real Simulation for Outrigger and Belt Truss System
(d) Real Simulation for Shear Wall Bracing System
(e) & (f) Outrigger and Belt Systems designed for analysis
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Fire Resistant Design and Calculations
Fire resistant design mostly includes using high
performance concrete. Since the behaviour of structure in
case of fire will depend on the performance of material
during high temperatures. In some buildings Transfer
plates are used as well. But with thicknesses such as 1.5 to
2.0 metre the thermal cracking associated to heat of
hydration could be a major issue. High grades of concrete
are used for the same. Still use of additives mostly
pozzolonic materials or supplementary cementitious
materials to control the heat of hydration is a common
practice. These additives lead to pozzolonic reactions that
continue to gain strength over long periods of time.
Durability can be another major concern since sometimes
the building rests over poor soil. Hence supplementing the
concrete to have higher sulphate and chloride resistance is
usually preferred. Fly ash is the most common and
economical additive that is used in concrete. There is a
major drawback with high performance concrete.
Experiments show that here is a 75% loss of compressive
strength as opposed to 50% in normal concrete after
exposing to high temperatures. The rate of heating is
higher in high performance concrete. This is owed to the
dense structure created by silica fumes getting into the
voids of cementitious materials. Spalling can occur due to
build up of strain energy. Or due to expansion of aggregate
at high temperatures followed by contraction of cement
paste due to loss of moisture leading to shrinkage stress.
Or because of high pore water pressure of the capillary
pore water. Failure can occur in either of the two ways.
With the advent of modern glass construction use of glass
walling can be used in high-rise buildings.
Hence, high performance concrete shall be used for higher
durability in piles as it won’t be exposed to fire. Concrete

of low heat of hydration is needed in a transfer plate of 1.5
to 2.0 meter. But they are exposed to fire, so it can be cast
in two stages. First 400-500mm slab will act as formwork
for pouring subsequently. This will need the provision of
shear links as well to support the mat reinforcement at the
top. Because of staging we can use normal concrete of
grade 30 without resorting to high performance concrete.
One must detail the transfer plate with multiple layers of
reinforcement if the use of high performance concrete is
necessary. In columns use of high performance concrete
must be avoided. In beams and slabs normal concrete is
highly recommended.
4.2. Lateral Wind Analysis
4.2.1. Absolute Displacement
Out of the four geometries considered , we find that centric
truss and shear wall bracings do reduce lateral deflection,
with shear wall bracings being better than the former.
However, outrigger bracing truss outperforms both
building structures.
Figure 4.1: The Absolute Displacement of Four Geometries
with respect to increasing height
Table 4.1 explains the difference in between the two given
readings. Outrigger truss deflection at highest point gives
an 89.35% decreased lateral deflection over non-braced
frame, compared to a minor 6.36% and 12.92% decrease
compared to Centric Truss Braced frame and Shear Wall
Braced Frame respectively.
Table 4.1: Maximum Lateral Deflection with Respect to
Building Structure
4.2.2. Percentage Increase In Lateral Deflection
Table 4.2: Percentage change of Deflection between
heights 60m and 120m
Building Structure
Percentage
Change (%)
Non Braced-Frame 69.09%
Braced Frame 61.68%
Shear Wall Braced Frame 107.57%
Outrigger And Belt Truss -32.03%
a. Table 4.2 shows that the only sustainable structure in
super tall buildings (500m+) is outrigger and belt truss
systems. Since the placements of outrigger and belt truss
systems in the structure is extremely flexible, it means that
with sufficient addition to outriggers, lateral deflection in a
building can be minimized to a very small amount. Also,
since the outrigger system is the only one which shows
real decrease in lateral deflection over an increase in
height, it is the only practical system feasible.
b. Also, another insight gathered from the report is that
shear walls, although being more efficient in minimizing
lateral deflections in a building, are not practically feasible
to use in case of extremely tall buildings, simply because
the show a large increase in lateral deflection percentage
(107.57%), compared to Non-Braced Frame and Braced
Frame, showing a comparatively smaller changes (69.09%
& 61.8%).

4.2.3. Axial Force on Members Compared to Shear Loads
Table 4.3: Maximum Absolute Axial Force, Maximum Shear Force and Maximum Bending Moment in members of given
Structures
Ratio 1 has been taken as Axial Force/ Shear Force.
Considering ratio 1, we find that the ideal structure in this
case is the shear wall bracing frame, as it resists the shear
lateral forces effectively in a tall structure, and the
maximum portion of forces has been effectively
transferred axially. Outrigger and Belt Truss is effective
too, however Braced Frames are comparatively not
effective enough in this case. Non-braced frames are very
ineffective in handling lateral forces, as shown by figure.
Figure 4.2: Ratio for Maximum Axial Force to Maximum
Shear Force for all geometries (Ratio 1)
4.2.4. Bending Moment and Shear Force
Comparison
Figure 4.3: Maximum Shear Force given Geometries
Figure 4.4: Bending Moment Maximum for given
Geometries
Figure 4.3 shows that shear walls are comparatively more
effective than all other structures, showing higher
maximum shear resistance than other structures, this
shows that for high rise buildings of moderate heights
(100m-150m), shear walls are more effective. However,
Figure 4.4 shows that Outrigger and Belt Truss clearly
outperforms all structures in the second case. This means
that outrigger trusses are more efficient for buildings of
taller heights ( 150m+).
4.2.5. Volume Analysis
Table 4.4: Volume of Steel Used By All Building
Geometries in STAAD.Pro (v8i)
Building Type
Steel Total Volume Used
(m3)
Non-Braced Frame 2257.5
Centric Braced Frame 2885.53
Shear Braced Frame 2257.5
Outrigger and Belt Truss 2245.795
0
10
20
Non-Braced
Frame
Braced
Frame
Shear Wall Outrigger
And Belt
Truss
Ratio1
(Maximum Axial Force/
Maximum Shear Force)
0
50
100
150
200
Non-Braced
Frame
Braced
Frame
And Belt
Truss
ShearForce(kN)
Shear Force Maximum Y-Axis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Non-Braced
Frame
Braced
Frame
And Belt
Truss
BendingMoment(kN-m)
Maximum Bending Moment Y-Axis
Building Structure
Maximum Axial Force (C1)
Maximum Shear Force
(C2) Maximum Bending Moment (C3)
Non-Braced Frame 3100.84 613.84 274.445
Braced Frame 1683.465 152.553 390.186
Shear Wall 2714.46 179.34 614.893
Outrigger And Belt Truss 6131.31 438.96 1195.65

We find that the given geometries use almost similar
amounts of materials, with an increase centric braced
frames, due to placement of lateral steel bracings
increasing volumes used to the given value. The outrigger
and belt truss system uses the least amount of steel; 0.49%
less than the non-braced frame, courtesy the removal of a
portion column from the geometry while remaining the
most stable structure, highlighting an efficient placement
of lateral bracings.
Whereas, centric braced frame uses 27.2% more steel
than non-braced frames while also not being the best
structure in this case, signaling a lack of efficiency.
5. CONCLUSION
After the study and analysis of given geometries we come
upon the following conclusions:
1. Outrigger and Belt Truss Systems are the only practical
solution among the given geometries for super-tall
buildings (300m+), due to the unique decline in lateral
deflection with increase in height as observed.
2. Braced frame structures are comparatively inefficient
compared to the other geometries used, producing higher
lateral deflections with more steel volume used. This
shows that a more efficient placement of bracings is
required to decrease lateral deflection and volume of steel
used simultaneously.
3. Shear wall bracing systems are comparatively the most
efficient systems in load transfer from shear to axial
loadings. These are also ideal for resisting large lateral
shear loads thus making them ideal for moderately tall
high rise buildings (75m-150m).
4. Outrigger and Belt Truss Systems are the best structures
for buildings taller than 150m, due to their better handling
of displacement due to bending moments, and also their
flexibility and cost optimisation.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashwini S gudur, H.S Vidyadhar (2016) a review on
dynamic wind analysis of tall buildings provided with steel
bracing as perproposed draft for Indian wind code and
effect of soft storey.
Bhandari N.M. and Krishna K. : An Explanatory Handbook
On Proposed IS Code 875 ( Part: 3): Wind Load On
Buildings and Structures.
Feblowitz, J.C. (2010), Confusing the Wind: The Burj
Khalifa Mother Nature, and the Modern Skyscraper.
Gillie, Martin, Usmani, Asif, Rotte, J Michael (Elsevier
2001), A structural analysis of the first Cardington Test
IS-875(PART-3): Wind Loads on Buildings and Structures
Kwon and Kareen (2013), Wind Load Factors for
Dynamically Sensitive Structures with Uncertainties.
Merza N. and Zangana A. (2014), Sizing Optimisation of
Structural Systems of Tall Buildings, Chalmers University
of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Metin Husem (March 2006), Fire Safety Journal
Nandkumar Chavan, Satish S. Deshmukh (2016),
challenges of construction of High rise buildings in India.
PP Tapkire Saeed, J Birajdar (2013), comparative study of
High rise buildings using indian standards and euro
standards under seismic forces.
Priyan Mendis(2014), Wind design of tall building,
problems, mistakes and solutions.
Rupali Kavikar, Shweta patil (2014), study of High rise
buildings in Indian cities.
Shrikhant Harle(2017) analysis by stad pro and design
elements by Matlab.
Smith B. S. and Coull A. (1991), Tall building structures:
Analysis and design. John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc. New
York, USA.
Tejshree kulkarni, Sachin Kulkarni, Anjum Algur, MH
Kolkar (2008), analysis and design of High rise buildings
frame using
stad pro.

IRJET- Optimization of Tall Structures Under Constraints of Wind Loads and Fire Safety Strategy using STAAD Pro

More Related Content

Similar to IRJET- Optimization of Tall Structures Under Constraints of Wind Loads and Fire Safety Strategy using STAAD Pro

More from IRJET Journal

Recently uploaded

IRJET- Optimization of Tall Structures Under Constraints of Wind Loads and Fire Safety Strategy using STAAD Pro