International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 12, 2019 (Special Issue)

© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Comparative Study On Tube In Tube And

Tubed Mega Frames On
Different Building Geometry Using ETABS
Shilpa Balakrishnan Rona Maria James
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Vimal Jyothi Engineering College Vimal Jyothi Engineering College
Kannur, Kerala, India Kannur, Kerala, India

Abstract— The tube in tube structures and tube mega frame tube structures are formed by connecting peripheral frame
structures are the innovative and fresh concept in the tubular tube and inner core tube. These tubes are interconnected by
structures. Generally tube in tube structures are formed by system of floor slabs and grid beams. As the columns of
connecting peripheral frame tube and inner core tube so closely, outer and inner core tubes are placed so closely, it is not seen
it is not seen as a solid system but it act like a solid surface. The
total loads acting on the structures to be collectively shared
as a solid system but it act like a solid surface. In the tube in
between the inner and outer tubes. The tubed mega frames are tube structure the high strength concrete central tube carries
new concept for tall building. In tubed mega frames instead of the major load. The total loads acting on the structures to be
one central tube several vertical tubes are carrying the lateral collectively shared between the inner and outer tubes. The
loads. In this project, a comparative study of tube in tube tubed mega frames are new concept for tall building. It is
structures and tubed mega frame system with different building formed by avoiding central core tube and peripheral tubes
geometry has been done using ETABS software. connected by perimeter wall instead of one central core. The
main function of perimeter wall is to transfer load between
Keywords — tube in tube, tubed mega frames, peripheral the long vertical tubes. In tubed mega frames instead of one
frame central tube several vertical tubes are carrying the lateral
loads. And the space utilization is maximum in tubed mega
I.INTRODUCTION frames compare to tube in tube structure.
In recent days high rise buildings and tall structures are
A. Objectives
becoming more slender which increases the possibility of
extreme sway compared to prior high-rise buildings. This is 1. To determine the effect of lateral loads on buildings
bringing more challenges for the engineering field to resist with tube-in-tube and tubed mega framed structure.
both lateral loads i.e., wind and earthquake loads as well as 2. To study the lateral storey displacement, story drift
gravity loads. Earlier structures were being designed only for and base shear in tube-in-tube and tubed mega
the gravity loads but in recent years because of increase in framed structure.
height and seismic zone, the engineers are taking care of 3. To summarize the advantages of tube in tube and
lateral loads due to wind and seismic forces. In tall buildings tubed mega frames under different geometry using
the tallness is comparative term. There is no exact definition
the obtained results
for tall structures which can be applied through worldwide.
4. To identify the most vulnerable building among the
From the structural engineering point of view all tall models considered for seismic action
structures must resist gravity as well as lateral loads.
Different types of structural systems are to be used to B. Scope
resist the effect of lateral loads on the buildings. They are The construction of multistorey building is to be increased
rigid frame structures, braced frame structures, shear wall day by day. The scope of this project is to suggest a better
frame structures, outrigger systems, and tubular structures. structural system for the construction of multi storied
Out of these the tubular systems are extensively used and building by investigating the performance of a tube in tube
which is considered as a better lateral structural systems for
structure and tube mega frame structures on various
high rise buildings. The tubular structures are further
classified as frame tube, braced tube, bundled tube, tube in geometry of structures.
tube, and tube mega frame structures. The tube in tube
ΙΙ.TUBE IN TUBE AND TUBED MEGAFRAME
structures and tube mega frame structures are the innovative
and fresh concept in the tubular structures. The tube in tube Tubular structure have been successfully utilized and are
structures are to be widely used in tall buildings. And the becoming a common feature in tall buildings.
tubed mega frame structures are the new concept in the field Basic forms of tubular systems are
of tubular structures for tall buildings. Generally Tube in 1) Framed tube

Page 148 of 153

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 12, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
2) Braced tube building can therefore be made more slender. This will in
3) Bundled tube turn lead to increased rentable space and function flexibility
4) Tube-in-tube at each floor level. Less land-usage will also be needed when
5) Tubed mega frames building this kind of tall building.
A. Tube in Tube Structures
The term “tube in tube” is largely self-explanatory in that
second ring of columns, the ring surrounding the central
service core of the building, are used as an ineer framed or
braced tbe. The purpose of the second tube is to increase
resistance to overturning and to increase lateral stiffness.
The tubes need not be of the same character: that is, one tube
could be framed, while the other could be braced. The
system has been used for very tall buildings in both steel and
concrete. Since outer-framed tube, “hull” is connected
together with an internal elevator and service core, hence this Fig.2 Typical tubed mega frame structure
system is also termed as hull-core structure.
The main purpose of this system is to transfer all loads to
the perimeter of the building and thereby achieve higher
stability since the leverarm between the load bearing
components will be longer than in a core system. With this
structural system there will be no central core.

ΙΙΙ.MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

A. Structure Idealization
1. It is assumed that the beams and columns are of
uniform section throughout the height of the
building.
Fig.1 Typical tube in tube structure 2. The floor slabs are considered as rigid diaphragms
in their own plane so that the relative displacements
Behaviour of Tube in Tube Structures: between tubes are restricted.

In the tube in tube structure, the inner tube bends with the B. Structural Details
same horizontal deflection as the outer tube, owing to the The models created using ETABS software are tabulated
high inplane stiffness of the floor slab, and carries a below:
proportionate share of the lateral load. When the core is TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF MODELS CREATED
symmetric, adding one quarter of it in the same planer model Gr
Models Description
Plan
may include it, connected by pin-ended axially rigid links to oup dimension
the web-frame system. Square tube in
STT
tube structure
If the core acts as a simple cantilever, it may be modelled G1 40X40 m
Square tubed
as a single equivalent column. If it is perforated, it may be STM
mega frame
treated as a wall with openings. Provided that the internal
Rectangular tube
core can be modelled by an equivalent plane structure, it may RTT
in tube structure
always be linked to the outer framed-tube model to obtain the G2 40x30 m
distribution of lateral forces on each component. Rectangular tubed
RTM
mega frame
If the core cannot be treated as a plane element, or if the Hexagonal tube in
outer framed tube is not symmetrical, a three dimensional HTT
tube
analysis must again be performed. The nodes of the interior G3 40x40 m
Hexagonal tubed
core must either be constrained by a “rigid floor” option to HTM
mega frame
deflect horizontally with the nodes of the exterior frame, or
be connected to them by a fictitious horizontal frame of Octagonal tube in
OTT
axially stiff links. Either of these techniques will simulate tube
G4 40x40 m
the rigid-plane actions of the floor slabs. Octagonal tubed
OTM
mega frame
B. Tubed Megaframe Structures Circular tube in
The tubed mega frame system will contain huge vertical CTT
tube
tubes placed at the perimeter of the building connected G5 Circular tubed 40x40 m
together by belt walls or cross walls at certain stories. These CTM
tubes will be the main load carrying elements in this mega frame
structural system. With the tubed mega frame system, no
floor space has to be assigned for a central core and the

Page 149 of 153

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 12, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Fig.3 Plan and elevation of STT

Fig.7 Plan and elevation of
HTT

Fig.4 Plan and elevation of STM

Fig.8 Plan and elevation of HTM

Fig.5 Plan and elevation of RTT

Fig.9 Plan and elevation of OTT

Fig.6 Plan and elevation of RTM

Fig.10 Plan and elevation of OTM

Page 150 of 153

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 12, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
2) Tubed mega frame
Concrete tubes-3000x3000mm
Outer girders-400x1200 mm
Inner columns-800x800mm
Inner beams-300x600mm
Slab thickness-250mm
C. Analysis
ETABS is an engineering software product that caters to
multistorey building analysis and design. Modelling tools
and templates, load prescriptions, analysis method and
solution techniques, all coordinate with the grid like
geometry unique to this class of structure. ETABS is used to
evaluate basic or advanced system under static or dynamic
Fig.11 Plan and elevation of CTT conditions. In this study for the assessment of seismic
performance Response spectrum method of analysis is used.
Response spectrum analysis is a dynamic linear method in
which maximum structural response is plotted as a function
of structural period for a given time history recorded and
level of damping.

ΙV.RESULTS
A. Storey Displacement
Storey displacement is the total displacement of the
storey with respect to ground. The storey displacement
values for each model are given below:
TABLE 2. STOREY DISPLACEMENT

Storey displacement
Model
Fig.12 Plan and elevation of CTM (mm)

B.Input Parameters
Building data: STT 511.793098
Type of structure-Concrete moment resisting frame
Number of stories-G+39
Height of each floor-3m STM 3267.433436
Height of building-120m
Material properties: RTT 614.477522
Grade of concrete-M30
Reinforcement bars-Fe 415
RTM 759.058114
Gravity and lateral load consideration:
(a) Gravity load
Live load-4kN/m2 HTT 2177.191114
Floor finish-1kN/m2
Wall load-15kN/m
(b) Earthquake inputs as per IS 1893(part I):2002 HTM 2255.159944
Zone factor-0.16 (zone III)
Soil type- Type II OTT 604.516168
Importance factor-1.0
Response reduction factor-5
(c)Wind inputs as per IS 875(part III):1987 OTM 1857.487068
Wind speed-39m/s
Terrain category-3
Structure class-B CTT 461.007762.
Topography factor-1.0
Section properties CTM 552.071326
1) Tube in tube structure-
Column size-800x800mm
Beam size-300x600mm
Slab thickness-250mm

Page 151 of 153

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 12, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
The comparison of storey displacement of various models The comparison of storey drift for various models are
are given below: given below:

Fig.14 Comparison of storey drift

C. Storey Shear
Fig.13 Comparison of storey displacement The design seismic load applied to each floor level is
called storey shear. The value of storey shear for each
B. Storey Drift models are tabulated below:
Storey drift is the difference of displacement between the
TABLE 4. STOREY SHEAR
two consecutive stories divided by the height of that storey.
The values of storey drift for each models are given in table.3. MODEL STOREY SHEAR (kN)
TABLE 3. STOREY DRIFT
STT 54123.35136

Model Storey drift STM 87229.651632

RTT 44416.441788
STT 0.0069
RTM 61744.272669

STM 0.037423 HTT 43572.730721

HTM 61744.272667
RTT 0.001178
OTT 47075.709205

RTM 0.008455 OTM 67078.699818

CTT I 9612.90598
HTT 0.023058
CTM 62002.284418

HTM 0.026346
The comparison of storey shear for various models are
given in fig.15.
OTT 0.007319

OTM 0.021312

CTT 0.002573

CTM 0.006294

Fig.15 Comparison of storey shear

Page 152 of 153

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 12, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
V.CONCLUSION
The following conclusion can be drawn from the present
investigation
1. Storey displacement, storey drift and storey shear
are higher for tubed mega frames when compared
with tube in tube under different geometry.
2. STM has 84.33% increase in storey displacement
when compared to STT and when compared to
RTT, RTM has 19.24% increase in storey
displacement and HTM shows 3.46% increase in
storey displacement than HTT and storey
displacement of OTM is 67.46% greater than OTT
and also CTM has a increase of 16.5% in storey
displacement when compared to CTT
3. STM has 37.95% increase in storey shear when
compared to STT and when compared to RTT,
RTM has 28.06% increase in storey shear and HTM
shows 29.43% increase in storey shear than HTT
and storey shear of OTM is 29.82% greater than
OTT and also CTM has a increase of 84.5% in
storey shear when compared to CTT
4. STM has 83.72% increase in storey drift when
compared to STT and when compared to RTT,
RTM has 86.07% increase in storey drift and HTM
shows 12.48% increase in storey drift than HTT
and storey drift of OTM is 65.75% greater than
OTT and CTM has an increase of 59.12% in storey
drift when compared to CTT
5. Tube in tube will act as a better structural system
than tubed mega frames for tall buildings
6. Circular tube in tube is a better option for high rise
buildings since it has less storey displacement,
storey dridt and storey shear.
7. The most vulnerable building is square tubed mega
frame since the storey displacement is large.
8. It is better not to choose hexagonal and octagonal
geometry for buildings since it has high storey
displacement and storey shear
REFERENCES
[1] Abhishek, Smitha B K “Comparative study of tube in tube structures
and tubed mega frames,” Interantional Journal of Recent Trends in
Engineering & Research, vol 04, issue 6, 2018.
[2] Archana J, Reshmi P R “Comparative study on tube in tube structures
and tubed mega frames,” International Journal of Innovative Research
in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol 5,issue 8, 2016.
[3] Hamid Mirzahosseini “Optimal design of tube in tube systems,”
Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, vol 5
[4] Lavanya T, Sathyanarayana Sridhar. R “Dynamic analysis of tube in
tube tall buildings,” International Research Journal of Engineering
and Technology, vol 4, issue 4
[5] Mohammed Tabrez Shadulla, Kiran K M “Analysis of tube in tube
structures with different size of inner tube,” International Journal of
Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering & Science,vol 4, issue
10
[6] Mohan K T, Rahul Y, Virendra Kumara K N “Analysis of Different
forms of tube in tube structures subjected to lateral loads” IJIRT vol 4,
issue 2
[7] Xinzheng Lu, Linlin Xie, Cheng Yu, Xiao Lu “Development and
application of a simplified model for the design of a super-tall mega-
braced frame-core tube building,” Engineering Structures 110, 116–
126, 2016.
[8] IS:456:2000
[9] IS:1893 – 2002
[10] IS:875 – 1987

Page 153 of 153