EFFECT OF PODIUM CONNECTED WITH

BASEMENT WALLS IN TALL BUILDINGS

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Submitted by:

DEEPANSHU GARG

2K19/STE/503

Under the supervision of

DR NIRENDRA DEV
(Professor)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
(Formerly Delhi College of Engineering)
Bawana Road, Delhi-110042

MAY, 2022
 ii

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

(Formerly Delhi College of Engineering)
Bawana Road, Delhi-110042

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I, Deepanshu Garg, 2K19/STE/503 of M.Tech (Structural Engineering), hereby declare

that the project dissertation titled “Effect of Podium Connected with Basement Walls in

Tall Buildings” which is submitted by me to the department of Civil Engineering, Delhi

Technological University, Delhi in partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of

the degree of Master of Technology, is original and not copied from any source

without proper citation. This work has not previously formed the basis for the award

of any Degree, Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or other similar title or

recognition.

Place: Delhi DEEPANSHU GARG

Date: 30.05.2022
 iii

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

(Formerly Delhi College of Engineering)
Bawana Road, Delhi-110042

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the project dissertation titled “Effect of Podium connected with

Basement Walls in Tall Buildings” which is submitted by Deepanshu Garg,

2K19/STE/503 [Civil Engineering], Delhi Technological University, Delhi in partial

fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Technology,

is a record of the project work carried out by the students under my supervision. To

the best of my knowledge this work has not been submitted in part or full for any

Degree or Diploma to this University or elsewhere.

Place: Delhi (DR. NIRENDRA DEV)

Date: 30.05.2022 SUPERVISOR

 iv

ABSTRACT

Sky-scrappers having basements or connected podiums surrounding by RCC walls

are always beneficial in terms of the behavior of the structure under serviceability

checks under earthquake or wind forces. It is shown in this dissertation by the help

of number of models with podium and without podium for a type of structure.

Podium may apply a restraint force called as strutting force on the slab connected

with RCC walls which will result in reversing the effect of moments produced due

to overturning of the building due to earthquake or wind forces. It is concluded in

the report that the lateral deflection, drift and overturning moments are lesser in

podium connected structures as compared to the structures without podium. Effect

of outriggers addition to podium is also considered in the dissertation to find out

the best possible configuration of building so that function-ability and economy

may be achieved. Software using for analysis is ETabs 2020 and validation of

models has been done using general checklist format given in IS 16700:2017. All

analysis of the structures opted for dissertation has been completed using BIS

codes.
 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me a great sense of pleasure to present the report of the M. Tech Project

undertaken during M. Tech. Final Year. I owe special debt of gratitude to Prof.

Nirendra Dev, Department of Civil Engineering, for his constant support and

guidance throughout the course of the work. His sincerity, thoroughness and

perseverance have been a constant source of inspiration for me. It is only his cognizant

efforts that my endeavors have seen light of the day.

I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of Prof. V. K. Minocha,

Head of Department of Civil Engineering, for allowing me to utilize the department

facilities and his full support and guidance during the development of the project.

I also would not like to miss the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of all

faculty members of the department, Arun K Agarwal, Anil Agarwal & all AKB

Consultants staff for their kind assistance and cooperation during the development of

the project. Last but not the least, I would like to acknowledge my family, wife &

friends for their contribution in the completion of the project.

DEEPANSHU GARG
 vi

CONTENTS

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION ii

CERTIFICATE iii

ABSTRACT iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Behavior of Outrigger System under Lateral loads 3

1.3 Behavior of Outrigger System in Vertical loads 4

1.3.1 Load Path in Differential Axial Shortening 4

1.3.2 Load Way in Base Settlement 5

1.4 Types of Outrigger System 5

1.4.1 Core Outrigger System 5

1.4.2 Peripheral Outrigger System 6

1.5 Peripheral Belt Truss Outriggers 7

1.6 Peripheral Basement Walls as Outriggers 8

1.7 Components of Outrigger System 8

1.8 Merits and Demerits of Outrigger System 8

1.8.1 Merits of Outrigger System 8

1.8.2 Demerits of Outrigger System 9

 vii

1.9 Factors Affecting Outrigger System Performance 10

1.10 Backstay effect imposed due to Common Slab connected with Elevated
Structures Tower 11

1.11 Sensitivity Analysis 13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 14

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY & VALIDATION 16

3.1 Geometric parameters 16

3.2 Modelling 17

3.3 Design Data Consideration 18

3.4 Models Pertaining to Statement Problem 19

3.5 Methodology of Analysis 19

3.6 Validation of Models 20

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION 31

4.1 Model Results 31

4.1.1 Rotation Participation in Orthogonal Directions (RP), % 32

4.1.2 Deflection in Wind X UWX, mm 32

4.1.3 Deflection in Wind Y UWY, mm 33

4.1.4 Deflection in Spec X USX, mm 34

4.1.5 Deflection in Spec Y USY, mm 35

4.1.6 Story Drift in EQ Load Case, Deq 36

4.1.7 Stiffness of Structure in X-Direction at First Floor Level, X1 37

4.1.8 Stiffness of Structure in Y-Direction at First Floor Level, Y1 38

4.1.9 Story Drift due to Wind Load, Dw 38

4.1.10 Overturning Moment due to Seismic Load 39

4.1.11 Overturning Moment due to Wind Load 40

4.2 Conclusion 41

REFERENCES 43
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Design Data of Statement Problem............................................................. 18

Table 2: Model Description of Statement Problem .................................................. 19
Table 3: Validation of Model-1 ................................................................................ 21
Table 4: Validation of Model-2 ................................................................................ 22
Table 5: Validation of Model-3 ................................................................................ 23
Table 6: Validation of Model-4 ................................................................................ 24
Table 7: Validation of Model-5 ................................................................................ 25
Table 8: Validation of Model-6 ................................................................................ 26
Table 9: Validation of Model-7 ................................................................................ 27
Table 10: Validation of Model-8 .............................................................................. 28
Table 11: Validation of Model-9 .............................................................................. 29
Table 12: Validation of Model-10 ............................................................................ 30
Table 13: Model Outcomes of Rotation Participation (%) ....................................... 32
Table 14: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Wind X (mm) ..................................... 32
Table 15: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Wind Y (mm) ..................................... 33
Table 16: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Spec X (mm) ...................................... 34
Table 17: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Spec Y (mm) ...................................... 35
Table 18: Model Outcomes of Story Drift in EQ Load Case ................................... 36
Table 19: Stiffness (X) of Structure at First Floor Level .......................................... 37
Table 20: Stiffness (Y) of Structure at First Floor Level .......................................... 38
Table 21: Model Outcomes of Story Drift in Wind Load Case ................................ 39
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Behavior of an Outrigger system................................................................. 4

Figure 2: Core Outrigger System ................................................................................ 6
Figure 3: Peripheral Outrigger System ....................................................................... 7
Figure 4: General Arrangement of Podium connected with Tower .......................... 12
Figure 5: Typical Floor Plan ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Typical Tower Elevation ........................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Graph showing Rotation Participation in Orthogonal Direction ............... 32
Figure 8: Graph showing Deflection in Wind X Load.............................................. 33
Figure 9: Graph showing Deflection in Wind Y Load.............................................. 34
Figure 10: Graph showing Deflection in Spec X Load............................................. 35
Figure 11: Graph showing Deflection in Spec Y Load............................................. 35
Figure 12: Graph showing Story Drift in EQ Load Case.......................................... 36
Figure 13: Graph showing Stiffness (X) of Structure at First Floor Level ............... 37
Figure 14: Graph showing Stiffness (Y) of Structure at First Floor Level ............... 38
Figure 15: Graph showing Story Drift in EQ Load Case.......................................... 39
Figure 16: Graph showing Overturning Moment in EQ Load Case ......................... 40
Figure 17: Graph showing Overturning Moment in EQ Load Case ......................... 40
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Due to their fundamental behavior as imperative designs in current urban areas and
cities, notwithstanding their significance as a maintainable arrangement from the
social, financial and environmental points of view. Alternately to low-ascent
structures, elevated structures are exceptionally mind boggling due to the enormous
number of primary components and parts in the structure, also to numerous
peculiarities which their effects will be huger on elevated structures than low-ascent
structures. Specifically, the huge gravity loads in tall structures lead to the event of
unwanted peculiarities like divergent pivotal shortening of segments and center walls,
and base settle (divergent settlements of base) with impressive qualities. Also, the
effects of horizontal forces, for example, seismic loads and wind loads, will be higher
than short structures [20]. Consequently, the steadiness and rigidity rules will have an
incredible importance contrasting and strength model, and they would result in
controlling the end design because of structures extending to the sky.

The fast mechanical advancement in different viewpoints, (for example, building

materials, damping frameworks, development innovations, improvement of modern
primary investigation and configuration utilizing CAD software, and so forth) permits
the elevated structure predominance in numerous nations particularly in arising
economies nations, which are needing these designs due to the accompanying reasons:
 2

1. The shortage of terrains in the urban communities notwithstanding the rising paces
of urbanization over the most recent years (because of the quick development of
populace and relocation of individuals from provincial regions to metropolitan)
make elevated structures a suitable choice to take care of this issue.
2. The speed for developing the taller and famous structure in the world, locale,
nation, or city, where a few elevated structures are viewed as a vacation
destination focus moreover to the proud brought to the area and nation, e.g.,
Shangai Tower, Burj Khalifa, and so forth [20]. Consequently, complex-molded
tall structures pervasively utilized for the present elevated structures, for example,
twisted, tapered, deflected, and aerodynamically supported structures.
3. Denser metropolitan regions with tall structures are ideal according to the natural
perspective as a result of their productivity as far as land use and energy
utilization. Wherein more modest and denser urban areas, the power matrix is
more modest, prompting an effective exchange of energy. Additionally, the
requirement for car decreases that is viewed as huge supporter of the issues of
contamination and productive energy utilization. Additionally, there is plausible
of the re-formation of a ground like normal biological system and climate (vertical
nursery sub-urban areas) in these structures at confounding levels. Thus, by
making denser metropolitan regions with elevated structures, practical and shrewd
urban communities are accomplished, and more regular green spaces and
environments can be saved.

The underlying polish and effectiveness of outriggers have additionally become key
components in the proficient and financial plan of elevated structures. While
outriggers have just been integrated into tall structures from most recent forty years,
the outrigger as an underlying component has a significantly longer history. The
cruising boats at various times have utilized outriggers to assist with opposing the
breeze powers in the sails, making the reception of tall and thin poles conceivable. In
tall structures, the center can be connected with the pole of the boat, the outrigger to
the spreader, and the outside sections to the stays or covers.

In elevated structures, this equivalent advantage is acknowledged by a decrease of the

base center upsetting minutes and the related decrease in potential center inspire
powers. The upsetting second opposed through a couple between the windward stay
 3

and the pole is like the second moved to gravity-stacked outside sections in elevated
structures.
Outriggers are rigid horizontal structure which connect centrally placed core and
exterior columns of the building resulting in betterment of building strength,
overturning stiffness, lateral deflection, story drift, etc. Outrigger system may be
understood as a structural behavior which is formed from an overhang horizontal
element connected to central shear walls and peripheral columns by the means of
concrete wall, truss, links, etc. When the lateral loads are applied on the building
elements, the outrigger trusses may tend to rotate and resulting in compressive force
in the opposite side of wind columns and tension in same side of wind columns and
the pivotal stresses generated due to twisting results in overcoming the effect of
rotation in core walls.

The outrigger framework is ordinarily utilized as one of the underlying framework to

actually control the unnecessary drift because of horizontal forces, either hurricane or
seismic load, the gamble of primary and non-basic harm may be limited. For elevated
towers in seismically dynamic zones or wind predominant zones, this framework
might be picked as a successful and fitting primary framework.

High-rise buildings that are more vulnerable to lateral pressures arise as a result of
increased industry, economic reasons, population, and people's lifestyles in urban
areas. Structural designers have been attempting to counteract these horizontal
stresses and provide enough strength by including ‘‘moment resistant frames, cross
braced, slab action, and RCC walls into the strengthening of a structure. RCC walls
are built to counteract the effects of horizontal loads and provide the necessary
strength and stiffness when a building is likely to act any seismic activity. Shear walls
are the most effective lateral force-resisting approach when compared to all other
lateral force-resisting methods, especially for elevated towers and lift scenarios.

1.2 Behavior of Outrigger System under Lateral loads

The primary course of action for this framework comprises of a super substantial
center associated with outside segments by solid even individuals, for example, a one
story deep walls or trusses normally alluded as outriggers. The center might be
 4

centrally placed put with outriggers stretching out on the two sides or it could be found
erratically on one side of the structure with outriggers reaching out to the structure
sections on one side (Figure-1).
Outrigger go about as a solid arm connecting with external sections, when focal center
attempts to shift its revolution at outrigger level outcomes in actuating a strain
pressure couple in external segments and acting in inverse to that second which goes
about as restoring moment following up on the center at that level. Thus, the
successful profundity of the design for opposing bowing is expanded when the center
twist as an upward cantilever by the presentation of strain in windward and pressure
in leeward segments.

Figure 1: Behavior of an Outrigger system

While the outrigger configuration is successful in boosting the structural bending
strength, it does not increase its resistance to shear, which must be handled primarily
by the core in all of these circumstances.

1.3 Behavior of Outrigger System in Vertical loads

The essential capacity of outrigger framework is to expand the lateral stiffness of the
structures under horizontal loads. In any case, because of peculiarity connected with
tall structures, for example, differential shortening and base dishing or because of
losing of a nearby element or associated strength, the towers with cantilever outrigger
will expose to vertical force.

1.3.1 Load Path in Differential Axial Shortening

Small changes in strain between columns and core or between neighboring columns
in a tall building can be caused by a variety of factors, including time-conditional
changes such as elastic changes, changes due to creep, shrinkage and thermal effects
[20]. It causes large changes in axial shortening across the building's height. This axial
 5

shortening causes outriggers to be displaced by differential movements, creating

significant strains inside the outriggers that will create huge forces into the tower
outrigger and transfer a portion of dead and live loads from columns to RCC walls
placed centrally.

1.3.2 Load Way in Base Settlement

Differential settlements such as foundation dishing can occur for a variety of causes,
including load concentration under a tall building's central core. This phenomena can
result in varying vertical heights between the perimeter columns and the core, causing
enormous forces through the outrigger configuration and will transfer the portion of
the vertical loads from the RCC walls to the columns by the outriggers [20].

1.4 Types of Outrigger System

On the basis of connection with the RCC wall, there are two types of outrigger
configurations:
 Core Outrigger System
 Peripheral Outrigger System

1.4.1 Core Outrigger System

Outrigger rafters or walls are being directly connected to RCC walls at the core and
external members in a traditional outrigger arrangement. Over the height of the
building, the number of outriggers might range from one to three or more. The
outrigger rafters that are connected to the RCC walls and externally positioned vertical
elements, prevent the walls from rotating and conversion of a portion of the moment
in the walls to a vertical moment couple at the columns [13]. The outrigger will allow
some rotation of the core by shortening and elongating the columns and deforming
the trusses.

When a structure containing outrigger is being loaded horizontally, the walls will
experience an over-turning flexure and twisting, and these loads will attempt to move
the outrigger rafters up and down. The outriggers, which are controlled by columns,
put resistance on the movement and generate pressures from opposite side [20]. These
 6

stresses will cause the outrigger rafters to turn in the other direction and will create
opposite story shear stresses in the core, causing the deflection curve to invert. By
introducing compressive force in opposite side of columns and tension in same side
of columns, this change in curvature will reduce the over-turning forces, rotations,
and lateral changes at the top, improving the overall design depth of the structure when
it will be deflected like a cantilever beam [20].

Figure 2: Core Outrigger System

1.4.2 Peripheral Outrigger System

Lateral stresses that cause the core to rotate and topple may shift floor center of
stiffness at various belt element heights on separate stories. By shifting one face down
and one face up, the belt truss that connects both levels tries to spin and follow itself.
Peripheral vertical elements that will create opposite direction forces and limit the
motions. The end bay columns usually create the greatest forces. These stresses on
vertical elements will act by the belt rafters and will produce forces in horizontal
directions in the story slab in the opposite direction and causing a opposite directional
story shear in the center walls, reducing twisting and moments [20].

The virtual outrigger is viewed as the most practical kind of outrigger and utilized in
skyscraper structures due for its various potential benefits over the regular one, for
example, the extra free space coming about because of overlooking outriggers,
likewise it assists with disposing of gravity powers moved through customary
outriggers because of differential shortening.
 7

In this type, the major and critical factor for economic performance of the system is
slab strength and lateral stiffness.

Figure 3: Peripheral Outrigger System

The fundamental idea driving the peripheral outrigger configuration is to utilize floor
action, which are normally extremely firm areas of strength for and their own plane,
leads to moment transfer as a lateral couple from the center that are not associated
directly with core wall. The virtual outrigger's main principle is to apply slab
diaphragms, which are normally quite stiffen and robust in the same plane, to transfer
flexure moment in the way of a horizontal couple from the RCC wall to vertical
components that aren't directly linked to the core. The rafters or walls then will change
the force couples into vertical couples in segments or other primary components
detachable to core. Belt brackets and basement walls are appropriate to use as virtual
outrigger.

1.5 Peripheral Belt Truss Outriggers

The floor diaphragms at the top and bottom of the belt trusses resist rotation of the
core, converting part of the moment in the core into a horizontal couple in the floor.
The horizontal coupling is turned into vertical forces at the external columns by the
truss, which is passed through the two floors to the truss chords.
 8

Forces may be carried through the concrete-to-concrete connection when the core is a
concrete shear wall, with reinforcing steel extending to the connection. Shear studs on
the chords are used to transmit horizontal stresses between the floor diaphragms and
the chords of the belt trusses.

1.6 Peripheral Basement Walls as Outriggers

A tall building's basement can also act as a virtual outrigger, creating a foundation
with a wider effective width to prevent overturning. This can lessen or eliminate uplift
caused by lateral stresses on foundation components. Basement walls are sufficiently
strong and rigid to serve as outriggers.

When the core has a soft support, the basement wall's usefulness as an outrigger may
be maximum. Because of the firm support, the majority of the moment in the core
may travel straight to the core foundation rather than the outrigger walls.

1.7 Components of Outrigger system

The outrigger configuration is collected from 4 elements:

 Internal configuration: It may be of a steel linked central portion, RCC wall or
modified core.
 External configuration: These may be of framed tubular configuration, moment
opposing vertical elements and beam system.
 Outrigger Rafters: These are stiff connections that connect the inside and outside
structural systems. It might be a concrete wall, a truss with various geometries, a
deep beam, and so on.
 Peripheral Belt: It's a connector that connects all or part of the perimeter columns.
A wall, truss, or deep beam might be involved.

1.8 Merits and Demerits of Outrigger System

1.8.1 Merits of Outrigger System

 In high-rise structures, the outrigger system may readily be coupled with various
structural systems.
 9

 In addition to a significant decrease in core overturning moment, the outrigger

system effectively lowers building distortions from flexural bending and the
consequent in-plane displacements at above levels [20].
 The overall flexural behavior of outrigger-braced tall structures reduces the
impacts of dynamic fragility in dynamic excitation of the outrigger panel and
broad perimeter columns significantly.
 The traditional outrigger system aids in the reduction of unequal elongation and
base dishing.
 Outriggers or peripheral trusses give an alternate approach to combat the quick
loss of local members owing to explosion in the event of a catastrophe.
 Outrigger systems may be made from a variety of materials, including concrete, steel,
and modified composite material.
 It reduces net tensile stresses and upward pressures across the substructure
system and vertical elements, as well as high shear requirement in foundations.
 Floor plan freedom, in which the location of external vertical elements are not
affected by structural issues but rather by esthetic and functional factors.
 External framework may be done using simple beam interconnections rather than
stiff frame connections, resulting in cost savings.
 The outriggers in a combination system comprising solitary tube or number of
multi-level outrigger system will not only boost stiffness but will also smooth the
axial pressure distribution in tube columns, reducing shear deformation effects.
 If the outrigger system is planned and developed correctly, it will give the best
structural stiffness and strength, leads to better equilibrium between acceleration
as well as inter-story movement needs.

1.8.2 Demerits of Outrigger System

 The most significant disadvantage of using cantilever systems is the possibility

of obstructing occupation and leasable space.
 While the system's remarkable effectiveness in boosting the structure's flexural
stiffness, it is unable to raise the structure's resistance to shear, that is mostly
borne by the core.
 Outrigger floors cause inconsistencies in a high-rise building's stiffness
distribution, and they can contribute to the emergence of weaker storeys close the
 10

outrigger floors in the event of an earthquake or wind, which is against mandatory

code requirements.
 The influence of the outrigger construction on the execution of the work is
another possible negative. Because of the lifting, welding, and fitting of outrigger
sections and components, standard building methods take 3 to 4 days per floor
for core wall construction, but almost a month required for outrigger levels. To
expedite construction and avoid delaying the core wall, the center at outrigger
levels were partially blocked off during construction.
 Shrinkage, lateral displacement, temperature changes, and creep are the principal
causes of peripheral frame and core shrinkage. Due to the high stiffness of
outrigger parts, a minor vertical displacement causes very substantial axial forces
in them.
 If the axial stresses caused by shortness cannot be released, the size of the
outriggers must be doubled (costly design).
 Between the points of the outriggers and the columns, special connectors are
employed. These connections may be adjusted during and perhaps after
construction, making the outrigger system operational during that time.

1.9 Factors Affecting Outrigger System Performance

Outrigger system performance is influenced by a number of elements, as listed below:

 Positions and number of outriggers, as well as the stiffness of outrigger rafters.
 The corresponding stiffness of rafter parts of the system, like the centrally placed
walls and rafter stiffness and the center walls and perimeter columns' relative
stiffness [20]. As a result, these elements are:
(i) Core outrigger and peripheral truss bending and shear stiffness
(ii) The bending or axially loaded member stiffness of the peripheral elements
(iii) Inner central flexural strength.
 Complete building configuration: In order to attain aesthetic purpose, complex
architectural form such as twisted, slanted, and tapered geometries are replacing
simple architectural features in modern tall building designs. The outrigger
system's contribution to total building rigidity is influenced by these complicated
geometries.
 Floor slab strength, likely in peripheral outriggers.
 11

 The maximum gravity forces that may be delivered by outriggers (due to unequal
shortening).
 The building's height, floor height, and layout measurements between central
walls and rafters of outrigger centroids, as well as lateral force patterns.
 Selecting the right outrigger configuration based upon the main horizontal loads,
floor layout, and other factors. For example, when wind loads are dominant, rigid
outrigger systems are preferred; when seismic loads are dominant, flexible
outrigger systems are preferred; when enough free space is required or
gravitational attraction stresses transferred by traditional outriggers are
eliminated, virtual outrigger systems are preferred; when both wind and
earthquake forces are dominant, damped outrigger systems are preferred [20].

1.10 Backstay effect imposed due to Common Slab connected with

Elevated Structures Tower

Podiums are supplemental floor sections at the lower levels of high-rise buildings that
are typical in urban areas with low-to-moderate seismicity. Moment resistant frame
and shear (or core) walls make up the lateral force resisting system for such structure
layouts. Because the building's tower walls are offset from the podium's core,
significant twisting moments can be forced on the podium.

When exposed to strong earthquake ground shaking, high shear stresses can be created
on structural walls, jeopardizing their structural integrity. Despite the possibility for
poor behavior in a rare seismic event, recommendations against this type of building
have not been imposed in many design standards of practice.

Horizontal forces are transmitted from the tower to the floor at the podium-tower
contact. To resist overturning operations, reactive pressures are created at the podium-
tower contact. The rearward span of a suspension is analogous to the responding
mechanism. In theory, the stated backstay mechanism can provide a high-intensity
shear stress in the podium's structural (tower) wall. The in-plane stiffness of the floor
slab linking the two walls determines the magnitude of the produced shear force.
 12

The inside wall, that is close to the podium's center, is subject to greater moment
restrictions from the podium construction than the external wall. To preserve
compatibility, strong strutting forces are created in the connected structural element
(beam and slab). The horizontal in-plane displacement of the floor diaphragm must
be included in the modelling to appropriately depict this strutting movement. As a
result, the assessments that use the (typical) stiff floor diaphragm (common slab
action) assumption may distort the scope of such activities and leads to an economic
structure.

Figure 4: General Arrangement of Podium connected with Tower

As per structural geometry, the lateral resisting system is considered as a suspension

system overhang from an intermediate support, which is given by the above ground,
at-ground, and below ground diaphragms, as well as peripheral shear (basement
walls). The Backstay Effect is a collection of lateral forces that occur inside a plinth
structure to balance the lateral pressures and moments of a tower that extends above
it.

The so-called "Backstay Effect" can result in massive force transfers and a significant
shift in the redistribution of base shear and bending moments below the podium
diaphragm. Because of the overturning resistance supplied mostly by plinth to the
tower, the lateral force resistant parts of the tower notice a shift in direction of the
Base shear at the ground - floor interface level and below, the Back-Stay effect is also
known as Shear-Reversal [2].
 13

 Through diaphragm action, the backstay distributes stresses from the lateral forces
resisting elements in the tower to extra components provided inside the podium
and basement [2].
 Backstay effect, also known as shear reversal, occurs when the shear force
reverses within podium levels but same lateral force resisting part assists in
resisting the transition [2].

1.11 Sensitivity Analysis

When an earthquake occurs, the fissures in the sections will develop. Because the true
scope of crack formation cannot be determined, and because once cracks form, the
element starts to lose its original stiffness, varying rigidity modifiers are adapted to
various structural elements to consider the effect of rupturing on section stiffness, and
thus on the behavior and evaluating results of a structure of the building [10].

Sensitivity Method is a tool for evaluating a building's behavior under various

situations by progressively altering the stiffness attributes of its structural parts. The
below-grade podium receives the Top Bound and Under Bound modifiers. Structural
elements alone, with RC Cracked section parameters added to the building structural
elements as per Table 6 of IS 16700:2017, page no. 7 [2].
 14

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Kush Shah et al. (2020), this paper illustrates the lateral load resisting system
supported by ground and below ground level diaphragms connected with basement
walls. To achieve the objective, several models with different geometrical conditions
are considered to review the actual behavior of the building under backstay effect.
Models are prepared using lower and upper bound stiffness values given in IS
16700:2017 and a stiffness analysis has been done to check the serviceability of
building. As per this analogy, model having shear wall on periphery of podium has
maximum shear reversal and thus resulting in decreasing displacement of the
building. It is also evaluated in the paper that axial forces created in beams near
podium cutouts are almost 3 times higher than actual which needs to be checked
during design of building. The main output of this study is that during modelling of
tower with podium, one should model the podium completely with tower to analyze
the actual results and this practice may achieve better strength, serviceability and
economy [10].

Mehair Yacoubian et al.(2017), this paper illustrates the interference of non-tower

structure to tower. It is found in this study that structure surrounding tower portion,
i.e. podium, can exert considerable differential restraints on reinforced concrete walls.
Wall-slab action is acting as strutting forces that are transferred in the other stories up
and down grade level. These wall-slab acting forces are then distributed in inner and
external walls and a equilibrium above the podium level formed. A study on models
are done to quantify the serviceability factors of building. Rigid diaphragms action is
basically considered to review the actual behavior of building. The increment of shear
forces in coupling beams are examined by push-over analysis on simplified models.
It is reviewed that shear force collection in coupling beams resulting in brittle failure
 15

of ductile walls. The wall curvature changes drastically at podium level resulting in
decrement of lateral displacement, drift and overturning moments resulting in
building with better serviceability checks [15].

Bungale S. Taranath, this reference books illustrate the concept of outrigger system
analytically and in practical aspects and helps in understanding the various types of
structural systems and their advantages and disadvantages as compared to outrigger
system. It also solves the mathematical modelling of various outrigger systems and
suggest the optimum location of outrigger with respect to the strength and deflection
parameters using American codes of design. It also suggest core bracing to be used in
addition to the outriggers for much better results [4].

Amit R. Chotalia, this paper introduced an analytic definition of perimeter bound

system in summation to the various preparation of models of a 35, 50 and 70 stories
by using belt truss at single, double and triple levels with different types of bracings
used. Based on various model results a conclusion have been made to conclude out
the most economical configuration, shape and story of outrigger [1].

Wael Alhaddad, the paper illustrated a natural meaning of outrigger system as well
as the various grouping of this system. Resulting from various grouping and materials,
this paper shows the response behavior of outrigger system with for and against of
the belt truss system based on various aspects [20].

IS 16700:2017, as per clause 8.1.3.3.1, which states that transferring the podium
generated forces from lateral load resisting members in super structure to the
additional basement walls connected with the common slab and the basement through
one or more floor diaphragms and lateral load resisting members at podium story with
induced forces transferring way through slab action will help tall building to
overcome the effects of overturning moments induced due to lateral loads. The
podium slabs are to be checked for forces came from sensitivity analysis. The floor
slab of upper and lower levels are to be modelled to capture possible cracking in
diaphragm by assuming an upper bound and lower bound axial stiffness [2].
 16

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY & VALIDATION

3.1 Geometric parameters

One building layout is investigated in this study, which includes structures that are
positioned on flatland. The number of stories taken into account for each type of setup
is 40. The building is square in geometry with podium area greater than tower area plate.
Different models have been prepared with podium at different levels to review the
serviceability effects on the structure. All variants of the building frame have the same
plan arrangement. To prevent complications like orientation, the columns are
assumed to be square and shear walls are being assumed in the lift & staircase core.
The podium at all levels are assumed to be connected with basement walls to serve
the purpose of collector wall.

Figure 5: Typical Floor Plan

 17

Figure 6: Typical Tower Elevation

3.2 Modelling
The building is planned with ductile shear walls, columns & beam-slab system. After
assuming dimensions of various members, a computer CAD model of the frame of
structure is produced for resulting out CAD analysis for the effects of vertical and
horizontal loads that are to be applied on the elements chosen. The structure is being
analyzed using ETabs 2020. Geometrical sizes, element properties and member &
node connectivity, including eccentricities is being modeled in the CAD analysis. The
allowable values of the load and resulting stresses is being utilized within the code
compliance of the Indian standards. The computer aided analysis evaluated the
individual member forces, base forces at founding level and displacement pattern of
the entire building structure and in the elements. The outcomes of the CAD model is
then to be used to verify adequacy of the element sizes assumed and further
possibilities to be carried out as required to rationalize the system and sizes of
structural members. The whole structure is idealized as a space frame. Beams,
columns and shear walls in the structure are modeled as line members. The slabs are
modelled as plate elements. The structure is analyzed for all possible loads i.e. gravity
loads and lateral loads likely to be applied on the structure.
 18

3.3 Design Data Consideration

Table 1: Design Data of Statement Problem
Number of stories G+39
Strength of Concrete M30

Reinforced Steel Strength Fe500D

Horizontal Members Dimension 600mm*900mm

Vertical Member Dimension 900mm*900mm

Slab Thickness 300mm

Zone factor (Z) 0.24

Damping ratio 2%

Typical Floor height 4.0m

Ground floor height 4.0m

Importance factor 1.2

Response reduction factor (R) 5

Soil type II (Medium Soil)

Shear Wall Dimension 300 mm thick

Typical Floor Live load 4 kN/m2

Finishing Load 2.5 kN/m2

Wind Speed 47 m/s

Risk Factor, k1 1.0

Terrain Factor, k2 1.0

Topography Factor, k3 1.0

Cyclonic Importance Factor, k4 1.0

Retaining Wall Thickness 450mm

Podium Slab Thickness 300mm

Podium Level Live Load 4 kN/m2

 19

3.4 Models Pertaining to Statement Problem

Number of models are being prepared for achieving the objective of the dissertation to
valid the results of tall building including a connected podium to the basement walls.
Models prepared are with podium and without podium and additionally included
outrigger at mid height level to check the more effectiveness of the structural system
so that a most desirable configuration of structure may be concluded. Below are the
table containing models prepared for the statement problem.

Table 2: Model Description of Statement Problem

Model No. Description
1 Building with No Podium and No Outrigger

2 Building with 1 Podium and No Outrigger

3 Building with 2 Podium and No Outrigger

4 Building with 3 Podium and No Outrigger

5 Building with 4 Podium and No Outrigger

6 Building with No Podium and Mid Height Core Outrigger

7 Building with 1 Podium and Mid Height Core Outrigger

8 Building with 2 Podium and Mid Height Core Outrigger

9 Building with 3 Podium and Mid Height Core Outrigger

10 Building with 4 Podium and Mid Height Core Outrigger

3.5 Methodology of Analysis

The building is analyzed having 40 stories with different numbers of basements with
RCC wall connected rigidly with ductile shear walls, columns & beam-slab system. A
analysis is carried out to evaluate the behavior of building due to backstay effect of
podium and to evaluate the effect of backstay for varying number of basements.

Also, a core-outrigger is analyzed with backstay effect of podium to check the dual
behavior on the tall buildings. Building is assumed to be situated in Delhi zone with
seismic zone-IV.
 20

Ten number of models stated in 3.4 are prepared to evaluate the desired effect of
podium on the tall buildings.

3.6 Validation of Models

The building is analyzed having 40 stories with different numbers of basements with
RCC wall connected rigidly with ductile shear walls, columns & beam-slab system. A
analysis is carried out to evaluate the behavior of building due to backstay effect of
podium and to evaluate the effect of backstay for varying number of basements.

Model validation is the important step of the analysis by which one may check the
validity and correctness of the model which is used in the analysis for the purpose of
outcomes required to fulfill the need of the project.

Model validation may be done by using different checklists prepared by the help of
data collected from CAD analysis results of the models. Firstly, static check of the
model is required to perform by which loads applied on the model, i.e. Dead loads,
Live loads, Wind loads, Seismic loads, Base shears, Time period of the model, may
be reviewed and may check the correctness of the model in view of BIS codes.

As the structure chosen for analysis is a tall building of height greater than 50m but
less than 250m. A different checklist format has been chosen to check the validity of
the model and to verify the correctness of the model.

A generic checklist format given at page 18 of IS 16700:2017 [2] has been used to
validate the models prepared for the fulfillment of objectives of the project. Checklists
of all the models are prepared below to check the correctness of the model and it is
reviewed that the models are meeting all code compliances and hence it can be
concluded that the models opted for the CAD analysis are then may be used for final
results so that a brief conclusion may be prepared to achieve the objectives.
 21

Table 3: Validation of Model-1

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 22

Table 4: Validation of Model-2

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 23

Table 5: Validation of Model-3

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 24

Table 6: Validation of Model-4

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 25

Table 7: Validation of Model-5

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 26

Table 8: Validation of Model-6

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 27

Table 9: Validation of Model-7

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 28

Table 10: Validation of Model-8

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 29

Table 11: Validation of Model-9

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 30

Table 12: Validation of Model-10

(Source: IS: 16700:2017)

 31

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

4.1 Model Results

Based on the models analyzed for achieving the objective of the dissertation, various
results have been taken out with the help of tables and charts prepared in the next
segments. The results have been carried out using serviceability checks, i.e. rotation
participations, story drift under seismic and wind loads, overturning moments,
deflection of tower under lateral loads, stiffness of building in various models. These
results will help in reviewing the effect of common slab action on the elevation
structure and conclude to check the most economical configuration of the structure
including podium effect and mid height outrigger.

1. Rotation Participation in Orthogonal Directions (%)

2. Deflection in Wind X (mm)
3. Deflection in Wind Y (mm)
4. Deflection in Spec X (mm)
5. Deflection in Spec Y (mm)
6. Drift in Seismic Load (mm)
7. Stiffness in X-Direction at First Floor (kN/sqm)
8. Stiffness in Y-Direction at First Floor (kN/sqm)
9. Story Drift in SpecX
10. Story Drift in SpecY
11. Story Drift in WindX
12. Story Drift in WindY
13. Overturning Moment in Seismic Loads
14. Overturning Moment in Wind Loads
 32

4.1.1 Rotation Participation in Orthogonal Directions (RP), %

Table 13: Model Outcomes of Rotation Participation (%)

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RP(%) 47 42 45 39 30 25 21 22 20 15

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 7: Graph showing Rotation Participation in Orthogonal Direction

Table 13 and Figure 7 are showing rotation participation in both orthogonal directions
and it is clearly seen in the results that maximum rotation participation factor is in
Model 1 and minimum rotation participation factor is in Model 10. From the results,
it may be discussed that due to presence of podium in tall structures, a lateral force
acting from the inner core to the basement walls which is resulting in decrement of
rotation in the building due to lateral loads. It is also reviewed from the results that due
to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, as resisting couple force will act
from the inner core to the slab with maximum force distribution at podium level
resulting in minimum rotation factor in Model 10.

4.1.2 Deflection in Wind X UWX, mm

Table 14: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Wind X (mm)

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
UWX 114 109 95 89 80 98 93 82 75 65
 33

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 8: Graph showing Deflection in Wind X Load

Table 14 and Figure 8 are showing deflection in wind load in X direction and it is
clearly seen in the results that maximum deflection is in Model 1 and minimum
deflection in Model 10. From the results, it may be discussed that due to presence of
podium in tall structures, a lateral force acting from the inner core to the basement
walls will tie the structure from the podium level which results in decrement of
deflection in the building due to wind loads. It is also reviewed from the results that
due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure get tied on one
more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward direction which
results in minimum deflection in Model 10.

4.1.3 Deflection in Wind Y UWY, mm

Table 15: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Wind Y (mm)

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
UWY 114 109 95 89 80 98 93 82 75 65

Table 15 and Figure 9 are showing deflection in wind load in X direction and it is
clearly seen in the results that maximum deflection is in Model 1 and minimum
deflection in Model 10. From the results, it may be discussed that due to presence of
podium in tall structures, a lateral force acting from the inner core to the basement
walls will tie the structure from the podium level which results in decrement of
 34

deflection in the building due to wind loads. It is also reviewed from the results that
due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure get tied on one
more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward direction which
results in minimum deflection in Model 10.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 9: Graph showing Deflection in Wind Y Load

4.1.4 Deflection in Spec X USX, mm

Table 16: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Spec X (mm)

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
USX 150 142 135 120 115 135 120 114 105 99

Table 16 and Figure 10 are showing deflection in Spec X load and it is clearly seen in
the results that maximum deflection is in Model 1 and minimum deflection in Model
10. Due to increase in seismic weight of the structure due to addition of outrigger,
deflection in Model 6 is more than Model 4 and Model 5. It may be discussed that due
to presence of podium in tall structures, a lateral force acting from the inner core to the
basement walls will tie the structure from the podium level which results in decrement
of deflection in the building due to wind loads. It is also reviewed from the results that
due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure get tied on one
more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward direction which
results in minimum deflection in Model 10.
 35

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 10: Graph showing Deflection in Spec X Load

4.1.5 Deflection in Spec Y USY, mm

Table 17: Model Outcomes of Deflection in Spec Y (mm)

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
USY 160 140 150 135 120 146 138 120 108 101

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 11: Graph showing Deflection in Spec Y Load

Table 17 and Figure 11 are showing deflection in Spec Y load and it is clearly seen in
the results that maximum deflection is in Model 1 and minimum deflection in Model
10. Due to increase in seismic weight of the structure due to addition of outrigger,
deflection in Model 6 is more than Model 4 and Model 5. It may be discussed that due
 36

to presence of podium in tall structures, a lateral force acting from the inner core to the
basement walls will tie the structure from the podium level which results in decrement
of deflection in the building due to wind loads. It is also reviewed from the results that
due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure get tied on one
more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward direction which
results in minimum deflection in Model 10.

4.1.6 Story Drift in EQ Load Case, Deq

Table 18: Model Outcomes of Story Drift in EQ Load Case

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deq 0.210 0.196 0.206 0.210 0.180 0.210 0.200 0.178 0.187 0.160

0.250

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 12: Graph showing Story Drift in EQ Load Case

Table 18 and Figure 12 are showing drift factor in seismic load case and it is clearly
seen in the results that maximum drift is in Model 1 and Model 4 and minimum
deflection in Model 5 and Model 10. Due to increase in seismic weight of the structure
due to addition of outrigger, deflection in Model 6 is more than Model 5. It may be
discussed that due to presence of podium in tall structures, a lateral force acting from
the inner core to the basement walls bound the structure at the podium level which
results in decrement of drift in the building due to seismic loads. It is also reviewed
from the results that due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure
 37

get tied on one more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward
direction which results in minimum drift in Model 10. The drift outcome from the
models are well in the permissible limits of BIS codes.

4.1.7 Stiffness of Structure in X-Direction at First Floor Level, X1

Table 19: Stiffness (X) of Structure at First Floor Level

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X1 5E+07 8E+07 1E+08 2E+08 3E+08 1E+08 2E+08 3E+08 4E+08 4E+08

5E+08

4E+08

4E+08

3E+08

3E+08

2E+08

2E+08

1E+08

5E+07

0E+00
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 13: Graph showing Stiffness (X) of Structure at First Floor Level

Table 19 and Figure 13 are showing story stiffness at 1st floor level and it may be
reviewed here that due to addition of number of basements story stiffness under lateral
loads increases with minimum story stiffness in Model 1 and maximum story stiffness
in Model 10. Here we can also reviewed that due to addition of outrigger in the tall
structures, story stiffness increases by a significant number and can be concluded that
addition of basements and outrigger is better for the structure. Due to addition of lateral
load resisting elements, force generated in the inner core transfer to the collector wall,
here basement wall, by the means of slab action results in increasing the stiffness of
floor to a great extent which leads to decrement of drift, deflection and overturning
moments, etc.
 38

4.1.8 Stiffness of Structure in Y-Direction at First Floor Level, Y1

Table 20: Stiffness (Y) of Structure at First Floor Level

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Y1 4E+07 8E+07 1E+08 2E+08 3E+08 1E+08 2E+08 3E+08 4E+08 4E+08

5E+08
4E+08
4E+08
3E+08
3E+08
2E+08
2E+08
1E+08
5E+07
0E+00
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 14: Graph showing Stiffness (Y) of Structure at First Floor Level

Table 20 and Figure 14 are showing story stiffness at 1st floor level and it may be
reviewed here that due to addition of number of basements story stiffness under lateral
loads increases with minimum story stiffness in Model 1 and maximum story stiffness
in Model 10. Here we can also reviewed that due to addition of outrigger in the tall
structures, story stiffness increases by a significant number and can be concluded that
addition of basements and outrigger is better for the structure. Due to addition of lateral
load resisting elements, force generated in the inner core transfer to the collector wall,
here basement wall, by the means of slab action results in increasing the stiffness of
floor to a great extent which leads to decrement of drift, deflection and overturning
moments, etc.

4.1.9 Story Drift due to Wind Load, Dw

Table 20 and Figure 15 are showing drift factor in seismic load case and it is clearly
seen in the results that maximum drift is in Model 1 and Model 4 and minimum
deflection in Model 5 and Model 10. Due to increase in seismic weight of the structure
 39

due to addition of outrigger, deflection in Model 6 is more than Model 5. It may be

discussed that due to presence of podium in tall structures, a lateral force acting from
the inner core to the basement walls bound the structure at the podium level which
results in decrement of drift in the building due to seismic loads. It is also reviewed
from the results that due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure
get tied on one more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward
direction which results in minimum drift in Model 10. The drift outcome from the
models are well in the permissible limits of BIS codes.

Table 21: Model Outcomes of Story Drift in Wind Load Case

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dw 0.19 0.18 0.165 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.155 0.15 0.143 0.132

0.2

0.18

0.16
0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 15: Graph showing Story Drift in EQ Load Case

4.1.10 Overturning Moment due to Seismic Load

Figure 16 are showing overturning moment due seismic load case and it is clearly seen
in the results that maximum moment is in Model 1 and minimum moments in Model
5 and Model 10. It may be discussed that due to presence of podium in tall structures,
a lateral force acting from the inner core to the basement walls bound the structure at
the podium level creating a different path of load distribution which results in
 40

decrement of moment in the building due to seismic loads. It is also reviewed from the
results that due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure get tied
on one more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward direction
which results in minimum overturning moments in Model 10.

7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model
10

Figure 16: Graph showing Overturning Moment in EQ Load Case

4.1.11 Overturning Moment due to Wind Load

Figure 17 are showing overturning moment due seismic load case and it is clearly seen
in the results that maximum moment is in Model 1 and minimum moments in Model
5 and Model 10. It may be discussed that due to presence of podium in tall structures,
a lateral force acting from the inner core to the basement walls bound the structure at
the podium level creating a different path of load distribution which results in
decrement of moment in the building due to seismic loads. It is also reviewed from the
results that due to addition of an outrigger at mid-height of the tower, structure get tied
on one more level and will experience a resisting couple moment in leeward direction
which results in minimum overturning moments in Model 10.

500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 17: Graph showing Overturning Moment in EQ Load Case

 41

4.2 Conclusion

With the help of models mentioned in Chapter 3 and results reviewed in 4.1.1 to 4.1.11,
some conclusions may be listed on the basis of serviceability check, that is, rotation
participation factor, displacement of top story under lateral loads, story drift under
lateral loads, overturning moments under wind and seismic loads, stiffness at first
floor, etc. that is required to check the actual behavior of the building and to comment
on the more economical or structurally better configuration by adding basement or
podium in the tall structure and additionally behavior of outrigger with basement or
podium to achieve our objective.

As per figure 7, the rotation participation of the model containing 4 basements and
outrigger at mid-height level is minimum which shows that transitional participations
of the elevated structure is better in Model 10 and especially the outrigger is resisting
the twisting moment and showing better results than a building without outrigger. As
the level of basements increasing, the stiffness of the collector wall is increasing, as
shown in figure 13, 14 and that leads to resist more twisting moments generated due
to lateral loads.

As per figure 16, 17, the overturning moments due to wind and seismic loads are
decreasing with increasing the basement levels and also decreasing with addition of
outrigger in the elevated structure. As clearly shown in figure 16 & 17, the overturning
moments is decreased by 40% and that results in reduction of displacements and story
drift of the building as shown in figure 8 to 12, 15 by a great extent leading to the
achieve some economy in the structure and will be able to save some of our national
resources. As shown in figure 13 & 14, the stiffness of the podium level is increasing
with increasing with increasing number of basements, maximum overturning moment
is attracting on podium slab and a designer needs to design the podium level slab
accordingly as per strength required.

A finite element analysis of the problem statement using ETabs 2020 helps us to design
the requisite slab as per the forces being transferred from core to the basement wall
and also basement wall may be designed as per the forces transmitted to walls from
core.
 42

From this study, a combined behavior of basement walls and outrigger is reviewed and
found that outrigger is element which transfer the forces evenly on the slab and due to
creation of resisting moment couple, deflection and drift may be controlled to a great
extent. Number of combinations of structural configuration of a building may be
planned with varying number of podium slabs and number and level of outrigger to
achieve the ultimate economy in the project.

As per results in previous sections, it may be concluded that building without

basements have comparably low stiffness and strength in compared to the buildings
with basements or required strength. As per our study, serviceability behavior of
Model 10 is better than any other configuration and behavior of Model 5 is better than
Model 1, which shows that by addition of backstay effect in the elevated structures,
maximum of the overturning moments are catered on the podium level itself due to its
high stiffness and help in resisting displacement of the building.

Additionally, installing an outrigger in the building is a costly job and will also require
a great time due to which project completion time may increase and leads to a virtual
loss to the contractor, client. Due to this, it may be included that for 40 storied towers,
tower with connected podium or basement walls are the better configuration than
basement with outrigger due to high cost and more time consuming. If cost and time
are not a considerable factor then the tower with connected basement with outrigger is
the most preferable configuration to be adopted by a designer to resist the effects
generated due to lateral loads. With increasing number of basements leads to increase
the overall stiffness but the excavation of that number of basements will be a
challenging job and one has to assist shoring consultant to design the shoring properly
so that no accident will occur at site till the ground floor level slab.
 43

REFERENCES

[1] A. R. Chotalia and H. Solanki, "Optimum shape of outrigger system for high-
rise reinforced concrete buildings under earthquake loadings," International
Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development, vol. 4, no. 5, pp.
1101-1104, May 2017.
[2] B.o.I Standards, IS:16700:2017 - Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall Concrete
Buildings, India, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2017.
[3] B. Pang, F. Wang, J. Yang, S. Nyunn and I. Azim, "Performance of slabs in
reinforced concrete structures to resist progressive collapse," In Structures, vol.
33, pp. 4843-4856, 2021.
[4] B. S. Taranath, Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Steel and
Composite Construction, Washington DC: International Code Council, 2012.
[5] D. M. Patil and K. K. Sangle, "Seismic behaviour of outrigger braced systems
in high rise 2-D steel buildings," In Structures, vol. 8, pp. 1-16, 2016.
[6] G. W. Ho, "The evolution of outrigger system in tall buildings," International
Journal of High-Rise Buildings, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 21-30, Marh 2016.
[7] J. Premalatha and M. Mrinalini, "Seismic behaviour of a multi-storeyed
reinforced concrete irregular building with outrigger belt truss system,"
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), vol.
8, no. 2, pp. 181-187, 2018.
[8] K. Kamath, "Seismic performance of a tall multi storey tower connected by a
large podium," International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3545-3551, 2019.
[9] K. S. Moon, "Structural design of double skin facades as damping devices for
tall buildings," Procedia Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 1351-1358, 2011.
[10] K. Shah, H. Desai and D. Shah, "Effect of backstay on 3B+G+20 storey R.C.C
building," National Conference on Structural Engineering, vol. 6, no. 9, Aug
2020.
[11] K. Zhou, X. W. Luo and Q.-S. Li, "Decision framework for optimal installation
of outriggers in tall buildings," Automation in Construction, vol. 93, pp. 200-
213, May 2018.
[12] L. Xing, P. Gardoni, Y. Zhou and M. Aguaguina, "Optimal outrigger locations
and damping parameters for single-outrigger systems considering earthquake
and wind excitations," Engineering Structures, vol. 245, pp. 112868-112884,
July 2021.
[13] M. M. Parekh and K. J. Dhandha, "Study on position of outrigger system in tall
structure," Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research
(JETIR), vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 236-242, May 2016.
 44

[14] M. Samadi and N. Jahan, "Determining the effective level of outrigger in

preventing collapse of tall buildings by IDA with an alternative damage
measure," Engineering Structures, vol. 191, pp. 104-116, March 2019.
[15] M. Yacoubian, N. Lam, E. Lumantarna and J. L. Wilson, "Effects of podium
interference on shear force distributions in tower walls supporting tall
buildings," Engineering Structures, vol. 148, pp. 639-659, Oct 2017.
[16] N. Y. Mithbhakare and P. D. Kumbhar, "Review on behavior of outrigger
system in high rise building," International Research Journal of Engineering
and Technology (IRJET), vol. 07, no. 04, pp. 1990-1994, April 2020.
[17] O. A. Mohamed and O. Najm, "Outrigger systems to mitigate disproportionate
collapse in building structures," Procedia Engineering, vol. 161, pp. 839-844,
Jan 2016.
[18] P.-C. Lin, T. Takeuchi and R. Matsui, "Optimal design of multiple damped-
outrigger system incorporating buckling-restrained braces," Engineering
Structures, vol. 194, pp. 441-457, Sept 2019.
[19] R. Tavakoli, R. Kamgar and R. Rahgozar, "Seismic performance of outrigger–
belt truss system considering soil–structure interaction," International Journal
of Advanced Structural Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 45-54, 2019.
[20] W. Alhaddad, H. Yahia, X. Hu and L. HongGang, "A comprehensive
introduction to outrigger and belt-truss system in skyscrappers," In Structures,
vol. 27, pp. 989-998, Oct 2020.
[21] Z. Bayati, M. Mahdikhani and A. Rahaei, "Optimized use of multi-outriggers
system to stiffen tall buildings," in The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.