International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 487495 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_050

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF P-DELTA

ON TUBULAR TALL BUILDINGS
T. Avinash
P. G. Student, Civil Engineering Department,
SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India,

Prof. G Augustine Maniraj Pandian

Professor, Civil Engineering Department,
SRM University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
Due to rapid urbanization availability of land for buildings has become scarce, especially
in urban landscape and the only way to overcome the same is go for vertical expansion
resulting in tall buildings. Tubular tall buildings offer a viable solution for building heights
greater than 120 m. However designing tall skyscrapers poses unique structural challenges
which have to be overcome. There are several factors to be considered in the design of tall
buildings out of which p-delta effect is an important one. Tall tubular buildings are designed
not only to satisfy strength requirements but also serviceability considerations in the form of
drift and deflections. P-delta effect is expected to cause additional deflections as well as
moments. The configuration of the structure like its plan dimensions, height to least lateral
plan dimension ratio and lateral stiffness play a significant role accentuating p-delta effect.
This paper is an attempt to study systematically the effects of p-delta in tall tubular buildings.
In this paper 9 models are analyzed and designed to understand the effect of p-delta. The
models considered are of tubular rigid frame structures of total height of 126 m consisting of
42stories each. The models are analyzed for vertical as well as lateral earthquake loads using
STAAD-Pro software.
Key words: Dia-grids, Displacements, Moments, P-Delta, Tubular structure.
Cite this Article: T. Avinash and Prof. G Augustine Maniraj Pandian, Investigation of the
Effects of P-Delta on Tubular Tall Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 487495.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

1. INTRODUCTION
In tall buildings out of different types of structures constructed tubular buildings are considered to be
very efficient and economical. Tubular tall buildings offer a viable solution for building heights
greater than 120 m. In structural engineering, the tube is the system where in order to resist lateral
loads (wind, seismic, etc.) a building is designed to act like a hollow cylinder, cantilevered
perpendicular to the ground. In the simplest incarnation of the tube, the perimeter of the exterior
consists of closely spaced columns that are tied together with deep spandrel beams through moment

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 487 editor@iaeme.com

 Investigation of the Effects of P-Delta on Tubular Tall Buildings

connections. This assembly of columns and beams forms a rigid frame that amounts to a dense and
strong structural wall along the exterior of the building. This exterior framing is designed sufficiently
strong to resist all lateral loads on the building, thereby allowing the interior of the building to be
simply framed for gravity loads. Interior columns are comparatively few and located at the core.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
JOHAN LEONARD (2007) considered a building with dia-grids arranged in different angles ranging
from 31 to 90 degrees and analyzed the same for deflection. He observed that the building with the
least deflection at the top of the building is the model with an angle of dia-grid at 71.6 degrees. The
weight of the lateral structure decreases as the angle of dia-grid increases. Despite the lateral structure
weight, dia-grid models deflect less as the angle increases up to around 70 degrees.
S.B.VANAKUDRE (2015), in his research categorizes how the variation of structural outcomes
i.e. moments, shear forces and displacements due to sequential analysis including p-delta effect. The
results obtained from the different analyses for different materials lead to the following inference: it is
observed from the analysis that the results obtained for the moment due to sequential analysis with P-
Delta are most significant than that obtained due to linear static analysis since even during
construction phase itself the sequential effect is found to be significant.
MARIE JOSE NOLLET and BRYAN STAFFORD SMITH (1993) analyzed a partial wall frame
structure with a full height wall and then with curtailment at optimum level to produce a minimum
deflection in which P-DELTA effects were found to be considerably less. It is noteworthy that
optimum curtailment of wall in this case results in lesser top deflection for same loading on full height
wall structure. The elimination or reduction in number or size of shear walls at certain levels up the
height of wall frame structure is not necessarily detrimental to lateral behavior of structure; further it
has been concluded that if structural changes are made at a level or levels above the point of contra-
flexure the top deflection changes negligibly.
NEERAJ KULKARNI (2015), in this study modeled a 40 storey steel frame structure using SAP-
2000 considering the p-delta as well as the influence of different bracing patterns. Five types of
bracing systems were considered in the analysis.
While different researchers have considered different factors in evaluating the p-delta effect, this
paper studies the same in light of aspect ratio, height to least lateral plan dimension and the lateral
stiffness and quantifies the p-delta effect in terms of lateral deflection and base bending moment.

3. MODELING AND ANALYSIS

3.1. Plan Configuration
In this study, nine tubular structural models have been considered, five of which are square in plan and
the remaining four rectangular. All models are of height 126 m, consisting of 42 storeys each. The
details are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Plan configuration of models

Model Plan Dimensions Column spacing center to center
No.
Periphery Interior
(m) (m)
6m6m 3 3
9m9m X 3 6,3
Z 3 6,3
18 m 18 m 3 6
24 m 24 m 3 6

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 488 editor@iaeme.com

 T. Avinash and Prof. G Augustine Maniraj Pandian

30 m 30 m 3 6
6m9m X 3 6
Z 3 6,3
12 m 18 m 3 6
18 m 27 m X 3 6
Z 3 6,3
27 m 36 m X 3 6,3
Z 3 6

3.2. Loading
The loading taken into consideration for analysis and design are shown in Table 2

Table 2 Loading
Type of load Load contributors
Dead load (DL) Slab self-weight @ 4.75 kN/m2
Peripheral 230 mm thick masonry wall loads @ 13.11
kN/m
Interior 115 mm thick masonry wall loads @ 6.55 kN/m
Imposed load (LL) As per IS: 875-1987 @ 3 kN/m2
Lateral load Response Earthquake loads as per IS: 1893-2002
spectrum load
( EL) Type of soil Hard
Damping 5%
Zone factor, Zone III, Z 0.016

Importance factor , I 1.0

Load combinations DL+LL

(DL+LL) 1.5
(DL+LLEL)1.2
(DLEL) 1.5

3.3. Analysis and Design

For analysis of models, the degrees of freedom at the supports are fully restrained. The models are
analyzed for the loads and load combinations indicated in Table 2.2 and then subsequently designed
without considering the p-delta effect. In order to ensure similarity of models, the columns are
designed to have a longitudinal reinforcement percentage of around 2% so that lateral stiffness of the
models do not unduly affect the p-delta effect. Therefore for each one of the nine models multiple
analysis and design are carried out till optimized column dimensions are found out. The lateral
stiffness of the models, their fundamental time period as well as the base shear is determined.
For analyzing the models for p-delta effect dead load and imposed loads are applied and for lateral
loads the base shear computed without considering p-delta effect is distributed over the height of the
models at floor levels following a parabolic pattern. 1000 iterations are made for every model for p-
delta effect.
The parameters studied are top storey displacements, base bending moments which are expected to
be influenced by p-delta effect.
A typical analytical model 18m 18 m in plan as used in the software is shown in Figure 1.1.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 489 editor@iaeme.com

 Investigation of the Effects of P-Delta on Tubular Tall Buildings

126
Figure 1 Typical 18m 18 m in plan
The static and dynamic characteristics of the models analyzed are shown in Table 3

Table 3 Static and dynamic characteristics of the models

Model No. Plan Dimensions Lateral Stiffness Fundamental time period
(K) in kN/m (T) in s

6m6m 1252.42 4.936

9m9m 5455.83 4.722
18 m 18 m 11945.39 4.940
24 m 24 m 20091.52 5.000
30 m 30 m 19313.49 6.363
6m9m X 2548.8 5.093
Z 1576.78 4.069
12 m 18 X 9988.0 5.457
m Z 6610.94 4.510
18 m 27 X 20749.9 5.316
m Z 15388.16 4.563
27 m 36 X 33136.9 5.438
m Z 15388.16 4.763

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Deflections
The top storey deflection variations with and without p-delta effect for various models along with
stiffness (K) for X- direction are shown in Table 4

Table 4 Top storey deflection comparison

DEFLECTIONS DEFLECTIONS DEFLECTIONS
WITHOUT P- WITH P-DELTA PERCENTAGE
MODEL K (kN/m) DELTA(mm) (mm) VARIATION (WITH AND
WITHOUT P-DELTA) (%)
66 1252.42 40.08 47.41 18.29
1212 5455.83 52.20 58.04 11.18
1818 11945.39 28.75 32.29 12.31
2424 20091.52 27.63 31.11 12.57
3030 19313.49 34.05 41.44 21.72

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 490 editor@iaeme.com

 T. Avinash and Prof. G Augustine Maniraj Pandian

69 X 2548.8 35.29 38.94 10.34

Z 1576.78 38.40 45.22 17.75
1218 X 9988.0 26.92 29.66 10.18
Z 6610.94 33.41 38.65 15.66
1827 X 20749.9 17.77 19.77 11.56
Z 15388.16 29.65 33.94 24.11
2436 X 33136.9 25.42 28.30 11.30
Z 15388.16 29.65 33.94 24.11
Corresponding graph for stiffness verses top storey deflections with and without p-delta along X
and Z directions for square models is drawn and shown in Figure 2
120
DEFLECTIONS (mm)

100
80
60
40
20
0
1252.42 5455.83 11945.39 20091.52 19313.49
66 1212 1818 2424 3030
STIFNESS (kN/m)
Deflections with p-delta Deflctions without p-delta

Figure 2 Top storey deflections for models square in plan

A graph for stiffness verses top storey deflections with and without p-delta along X direction for
rectangular models is drawn and shown in Figure 3
80
70
60
50
DEFLECTIONS (mm)

40
30
20
10
0
2548.8 9988 20749.9 33136.9
69 1218 1827 2436
STIFNESS( kN/m)
Deflections with p-delta Deflections without p-delta

Figure 3 Top storey deflections in X direction for models rectangular in plan

The top storey deflection variations with and without p-delta for models rectangular in plan along
with stiffness along Z direction is shown in Figure 4

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 491 editor@iaeme.com

 Investigation of the Effects of P-Delta on Tubular Tall Buildings

90
80

DEFLECTIONS (mm)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1576.78 6610.94 15388.16 25445.29
69 1218 1827 2436
STIFNESS (kN/m)
Deflections with p-delta Deflections with p-delta

Figure 4 Top storey deflections in Z direction for models rectangular in plan

4.2. Moments
The bottom storey moments (M) variations with and without p-delta for various plan structures are
shown in Table 5

Table 5 Bottom storey moments comparison

MOMENTS MOMENTS PERCENTAGE
MODEL K WITHOUT P- WITH P- VARIATION (WITH
(kN/m) DELTA DELTA AND WITHOUT P-
(kN-m) (kN-m) DELTA)
66 1252.42 61.23 68.01 11.07
1212 5455.83 87.56 98.03 11.94
1818 11945.39 101.02 112.70 11.55
2424 20091.52 107.94 121.57 12.63
3030 19313.49 117.38 144.08 23.39
69 X 2548.85 67.18 74.82 10.36
Z 1576.78 62.20 66.88 7.52
1218 X 9988.01 98 111.36 13.62
Z 6610.94 92.62 100.98 9.02
1827 X 20749.96 110.76 126.49 14.20
Z 15388.16 82.66 91.08 10.17
2436 X 33136.96 114.11 132 15.68
Z 25445.29 108.98 121.68 11.64
A graph for stiffness verses top bottom storey moments with and without p-delta along x direction
for square models is drawn and their variation of moments with and without p-delta is shown in Figure
5

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 492 editor@iaeme.com

 T. Avinash and Prof. G Augustine Maniraj Pandian

300

MOMENTS (kN/m)
250
200
150
100
50
0
1252.42 5455.83 11945.39 20091.52 19313.49
66 1212 1818 2424 3030
STIFNESS (kN/m)
Moments with p-delta Moments without p-delta

Figure 5 Bottom storey moments in X and Z direction for models Square in plan
Due to symmetry of the structure the graph for stiffness verses moments (with and without p-delta)
for square models for z direction will be similar to graph for x direction.
A graph for stiffness verses bottom storey moments with and without p-delta along x direction for
rectangular models is drawn and their variation of moments with and without p-delta is Figure 6
300
250
MOMENTS (mm)

200
150
100
50
0
2548.85 9988.01 20749.96 33136.96
69 1218 1827 2430
STIFNESS (kN/m)
Moments with p-delta Moments without p-delta

Figure 6 Bottom storey moments in X direction for models rectangular in plan

A graph for stiffness verses top bottom storey moments with and without p-delta along z direction
for rectangular models is drawn and their variation of moments with and without p-delta is observed
250
200
MOMENTS (mm)

150
100
50
0
1576.78 6610.94 15388.16 25445.29
69 1218 1827 2430
STIFNESS (kN/m)
Moments with p-delta Moments without p-delta

Figure 7 Bottom storey moments in Z direction for models rectangular in plan

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 493 editor@iaeme.com

 Investigation of the Effects of P-Delta on Tubular Tall Buildings

4.3. (H/B) Ratio

Deflections of the models are compared with the ratio of height to least lateral dimension
The values of deflections (with and without p-delta) with respect to their H/B ratio are shown in
Table 6

Table 6 H/B and deflections comparison

DEFLECTIONS DEFLECTIONS
WITHOUT P- WITH P-DELTA
MODEL H/B DELTA(mm) (mm)

66 21 40.08 47.41
1212 10.5 52.20 58.04
1818 7 28.75 32.29
2424 5.25 27.63 31.11
3030 4.2 34.05 41.44
69 21 35.29 38.94
1218 10.5 26.92 29.66
1827 7 17.77 19.77
2436 5.25 25.42 28.30
A graph is plotted for H/B verses Deflections (with and without p-delta) along x and z directions
for square models shown in Figure 8
120
DEFLECTIONS (mm)

100
80
60
40
20
0
21 10.5 7 5.25 H/B) 4.2
66 1212 1818 2424 3030

Deflections with p-delta

Deflections without p-delta

Figure 8 H/B vs Delections

5. CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that for models which are square in plan, the lateral stiffness has a considerable
influence on p-delta effect. Small lateral stiffness increases the p-delta effect. As the lateral stiffness
increases, the p-delta effect on top storey deflection reduces. However as the H/B ratio becomes less
for 30 m 30 m model, the p-delta effect considerable increases to the extent of 21.72%.Similar trend
is observed for rectangular models also. Since along Z direction, the lateral stiffness is less, p-delta
effect is more pronounced along Z.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 494 editor@iaeme.com

 T. Avinash and Prof. G Augustine Maniraj Pandian

REFERENCES
[1] IS 456:2000, Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
[2] IS 875(part 1):1987, Dead loads,Code of practice for Design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[3] IS 875(part 2):1987, Live loads,Code of practice for Design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[4] IS 1893(part 1): 2002,Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
[5] Tabassum.G.Shirhatti., Dr.Vanakudre.S.B. The effects of p-delta and construction sequential
analysis of rcc and steel building with respect to linear static analysis.www.irjet.net, 2015.
[6] Neeraj.,Maheswarappa.S.M.,Study of p-delta on tall steel structures,IJAPRR,VOL II, 2015
publication.
[7] IS 875(part 2):1987, Live loads,Code of practice for Design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[8] Ali, M. and Kyoung Sun Moon. Structural developments in tall buildings: current trends and
future prospects www.arch.usyd.edu.au/asr, 13 June 2007
[9] Anupam Rajmani and Prof Priyabrata Guha, Analysis o f Wind & Earthquake Load for Different
Shapes of High Rise Building. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology
(IJCIET), 6(2), 2015, pp.3845.
[10] V. Rekha, Vaishali G. Ghorpade and Sudarshan Rao. H, Performance of Lateral Systems on Tall
Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology , 7(6), 2016, pp.550557

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 495 editor@iaeme.com