See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353319785

Effect of Backstay on Tall Structure with Podium Structure

Article · July 2021

DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724

CITATIONS READS
0 353

3 authors, including:

Kishan Champaneriya Vishalkumar Bhaskarbhai Patel

Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya Engineering College Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya Engineering College
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Parametric study of special shape engineering structures View project

Study on couple structure with shared control mechanism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vishalkumar Bhaskarbhai Patel on 18 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
2581
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Effect of Backstay on Tall Structure with Podium

Structure
Kishan B. Champaneriya1, Vishal B. Patel2, Atul N. Desai3
Student Department of Structural Engineering 1
Post Graduate Student,
Assistant Professor, Department of Structural Engineering 2,3
Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya Engineering College, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, India

Abstract: In a multi-functional
functional tall building, generally the building has a more extensive plan area and
higher lateral resistance at the lower story level than the above story levels. So, the scope of this study is
to understand the realistic behavior of such structures under lateral loads considering the backstay effect
as per IS: 16700(2017).
(2017). A Sensitivity Analysis was performed as per IS: 16700(2017) provisions by
considering the stiffness parameters given in code to understand the changes in the shear force
distribution among structural elements when the tower and Podium are modeled together. The changes
in the force distribution are compared with the structure without
without the backstay effect. At the podium
podium-tower
interface level, the amount of backstay forces developed is also presented in this paper, along with the
impact on backstay forces with changes in the lateral resistances by changing floor diaphragm thickness
and by changing the podium area.

Keywords: Tall structures, Podium, Backstay effect, Floor diaphragm, Structural wall

I. INTRODUCTION
The need for tall structures is increasing in urban areas due to the rise in population and land scarcity. Tall structures
are highly sophisticated engineering projects. Due to the complexity of the structures, the most advanced engineering
design techniques are needed in tall structures. Many tall structures have an arrangement in which the below few stories
have a more extensive plan area than the towers above. This lower part of stories often used for parking, retail stores,
etc. These lower stories
ies of a tall building structure with a larger floor plan area and substantially increased seismic
seismic-
force resistance compared to the tower above can be considered as a podium. The assembly of the tower tower-podium type
of structure is shown in figure 1. Due to the
he higher lateral resistance at the tower-podium
tower podium interface level, this type of tall
structure leads to a change in shear force distribution within the podium level. Also, it offers the overturning resistance
is referred as the backstay effect.

Figure 1: Tower with podium structure

The details regarding modeling and accepted criteria for such a structural configuration and backstay effect are
discussed in PEER/ATC 72-1 1 and Indian standard 16700-2017(Criteria
16700 for the structural safety of tall concrete
Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 175
www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

buildings, India, Bureau of Indian Standards). In IS: 16700-2017, the details regarding sensitivity analysis of such
structure change by changing the stiffness parameters for elements within the podium level. Upper bound property
modifiers and lower bound property modifiers are given in the IS: 16700-2017 for analysis.
Stiffness parameters Upper bound Lower bound
Ieff/Ig 0.15 0.5
In this study, the analysis of the podium-tower type structure is done using structural analysis tool ETABs, and the
behavior of the structural system is studied by changing various structural parameters at the podium level.

II. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to understand the phenomena of the backstay effect observed in the tower-podium
type structures by considering the provision given in the Indian standards. Also, to compare the results of structural
models of the tower only and podium-tower type structure.

III. NUMERICAL STUDY

For the study, the structural model adopted is a structure with 15 stories with a plan area of tower structure only as 25
m x 25 m, and a tower structure with a podium as 55 m x 55 m. The study is carried out on different structural
configurations of tower-podium assembly by changing the podium structure height, thickness of podium floor
diaphragm, and podium plan area in the tower podium.

Different Structural Models are:

 Model-1(T) : Tower only
 Model-2(T+P1) : Tower with one story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium
 Model-3(T+P2) : Tower with a two-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium
 Model-4(T+P3) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium
 Model-5(T+P3 LBSM) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium
with Lower bound stiffness modifiers
 Model-6(T+P3 UBSM) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium
with Upper bound stiffness modifiers
 Model-7(T+P3 PC) : Tower with a three-story podium with a column on the perimeter of the Podium
 Model-8(T+P3) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium (125mm
thick podium floor diaphragm)
 Model-9(T+P3) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium (175mm
thick podium floor diaphragm)
 Model-10(T+P3) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium (45m X
45m podium area)
 Model-11(T+P3) : Tower with a three-story podium with a shear wall on the perimeter of the Podium (35m X
35m podium area)

The Podium-Tower Assemblage Adopted is as follows:

 Number of floors = 15 stories
 Number of podium floors = 1 to 3 stories
 Storey height = 3.5 m
 Plan dimension: Tower Structure = 25m X 25m, Tower+Podium structure = (55m X 55m), (45m X 45m),
(35m X 35m)

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 176

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
2581
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Table 1: Sectional properties and loads

Sectional properties
Size of beam 230mm X 450mm,300mm X 600mm
Size of column 550mm X 550mm, 750mm X 750mm
Structural wall thickness 350mm, 400mm
Slab thickness 125mm, 150mm
Grade of concrete M30, M40
Grade of steel Fe500
Loads and seismic-factors
Dead load 1.5 kN/m2
Live load 3 kN/m2
Wall load 12.42 KN/m
Parapet wall load 2.2 KN/m
Seismic zone III
Seismic coefficient 0.16
Response reduction factor 5
Importance factor 1.2
Soil conditions Medium

IV. MODELING

Figure 2:: Plan and 3D view of tower structure model

Figure 3: Plan and 3D view of tower and podium structure model

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 177
www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
2581
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results obtained from the study are presented here. The interpretation of the results obtained from the study by
considering different parameters under the equivalent static method and response spectrum method is graphically
represented.

Comparisonss of results of base shear of each structural cases

Base shear of structures

5000
4500
4000
3500
Base shear(kN)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
T T+P1 T+P2 T+P3 T+P3 PC

Figure 1: Base shear of each structural model with considering the different structural configuration
Model-4(T+P3: Tower with a three-story story podium with a shear wall on the Podium's perimeter) shows a maximum
base shear value than the other structural models. The number of podium stories increases, leading to a larger mass,
resulting in a proportional rise in base shear. Model-7(T+P3
Model PC: Tower with a three-story
story podium with a column on the
Podium's perimeter) shows less base shear than model-4.
model

Comparisons of results of top story displacement of each case along X-direction

X and Y-direction
direction

Top story displacement X

X-direction
direction
100
90
Displacement(mm)

80
70
60
50
40 EQ-X
30 RS-X
20
10
0
T T+P1 T+P2 T+P3 T+P3 T+P3 T+P3 PC
LBSM UBSM

Figure 2: Top displacement for each model cases along X-direction

X
Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 178
www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Top story displacement Y-direction

120

100
Displacement(mm)

80

60
EQ-Y
40 RS-Y

20

0
T T+P1 T+P2 T+P3 T+P3 T+P3 T+P3 PC
LBSM UBSM

Figure 3: Top displacement for each model cases along Y-direction

The increase in the podium height in the tower- podium structure decreases in the top story displacement of the
structural system due to the restrain obtained at the main backstay level. Maximum roof story displacement was
observed in model-1(T: Tower only) and minimum in model-4(T+P3: Tower with a three-story podium with a shear
wall on Podium's perimeter) along with both directions.

Comparisons of results of backstay forces of each structural cases

Backstay forces at main backstay level

T T+P1 T+P2 T+P3 T+P3 LBSM T+P3 UBSM T+P3 PC
0

-500
Backstay Forces(kN)

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500

-3000

-3500
Figure 4: Backstay forces at main backstay level with different model cases

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 179

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Backstay forces at main backstay level

T+P3 (125mm podium T+P3 (150mm podium T+P3 (175mm podium
diaphragm thickness) diaphragm thickness) diaphragm thickness)
-2800

-2900
Backstay Forces(kN)

-3000

-3100

-3200

-3300

-3400

-3500

-3600
Figure 5: Backstay forces at main backstay level with varying podium floor diaphragm thickness

Backstay forces at main backstay level

T+P3 (55 sq. meter podium T+P3 (45 sq. meter podium T+P3 (35 sq. meter podium
area) area) area)
0

-500
Backstay Forces(kN)

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500

-3000

-3500
Figure 6: Backstay forces at main backstay level with the varying podium plan area
The Podium imposes the backstay effect at the tower-podium interface level. The increase in the podium height leads
to a rise in the backstay forces at the tower-podium interface. Maximum backstay forces are observed in the case of
model-4 and minimum in the case of model-7 as shown in Figure 7. There will be an increase in the transfer of lateral
forces from core structure to perimeter wall through podium floor diaphragm as the thickness of floor diaphragm
increases. Maximum backstay forces observed in model-9 that shown in Figure 8. The observation indicates that
model-4 had the maximum backstay force. It offers maximum restrain at the tower-podium interface than the other
cases due to the larger plan area shown in Figure 9.

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 180

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
2581
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Comparisons of results of overturning moments of each structural cases

Overturning moment
14000
Overturning Moment(kN.m)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
T T+P1 T+P2 T+P3 T+P3 LBSM T+P3 UBSM T+P3 PC
Overturning moment at main backstay level Overturning moment at base level

Figure 7: Overturning moment at main backstay level and base level for each model cases

Overturning moment
14000
Overturning Moment(kN.m)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
T+P3 (125mm podium T+P3 (150mm podium T+P3 (175mm podium
diaphragm thickness) diaphragm thickness) diaphragm thickness)
Overturning moment at main backstay level Overturning moment at base level

Figure 8: Overturning moment at main backstay level and base level with varying podium floor diaphragm thickness

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 181

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
2581
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

Overturning moment
14000
Overturning Moment(kN.m)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
T+P3 (55 sq. meter podium T+P3 (45 sq. meter podium T+P3 (35 sq. meter podium
area) area) area)
Overturning moment at main backstay level Overturning moment at base level

Figure 9: Overturning moment at main backstay level and base level with the varying podium plan area
At the main backstay level, resistance to overturning is an offer by floor diaphragm and perimeter wall so that
moment is increased at backstay level and reduces at the base. In Model-4
Model and model-7, 7, 88% and 15% reduction in the
overturning moment at the base of the structural wall, respectively, compared with the tower structure only.

VI. CONCLUSION
After analysis of the tower structure only and tower-podium
tower podium structure model in the ETABs by the equivalent static
method and response spectrum method and from the obtained results, it can be concluded that:
 The increase in the podium height in the tower-tower podium structure decreases in the top story displacement of
the structural system. It can be accounted for due to the higher restrain obtain at the main backstay level. For
(T+P3), structure reduction in the top story displacement is around 30% for the equivalent static method and
25% for response spectrum compared with Tower structure only.
 The podium imposes the backstay effect at the tower-podium
tower interface level.
evel. Hence, the increase in the
podium height leads to a rise in the backstay forces at the tower-podium
tower podium interface. When the number of the
story in the podium from a one-story
story to a three-story
three story the backstay forces increase by 150%.
 The increase in the podiumodium floor diaphragm thickness leads to the increased backstay forces within the
podium level. There is around a 15% increment in backstay forces in (T+P3) structure with 175mm floor
diaphragm thickness compared with (T+P3) structure with 125mm floor diaphragm
diaphragm thickness.
 The more area of podium structure gives higher backstay forces than the structure with less podium area.
There is around a 30% reduction in the backstay forces in (T+P3) structure with a 35 sq. meter podium area
compared with (T+P3) structure
ucture with 55 sq. meter podium area.
 At the main backstay level, resistance to overturning is offer by podium floor diaphragm and perimeter wall so
that moment is increased at backstay level and reduces at the base of the structure. In the case of the tower-
podium-structure
structure with perimeter wall and without perimeter wall, there is around 88% and 15% reduction in
the overturning moment at the base of structural wall respectively compared with the tower structure only.

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 182

www.ijarsct.co.in
 ISSN (Online) 2581-9429
IJARSCT
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT)

Volume 7, Issue 2, July 2021

Impact Factor: 4.819

REFERENCES
[1]. IS:16700-2017. 2017. “Criteria For Structural Safety Of Tall Concrete Buildings.” Indian Standard.
[2]. IS 1893. 2016. "'Criteria For Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures, Part 1:General Provisions And
Buildings.'" Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi 1893(December):1–44.
[3]. Geetha And Kiran Kamath. 2019. "Seismic Performance Of A Tall multi-story Tower Connected By A Large
Podium." International Journal Of Recent Technology And Engineering 8(2):3545–51.
[4]. Banu, V. Lakshmi Shireen. 2019. “Numerical Study On Behaviour Of Non-Tower Building Attached With
Tower.” 1412–28.
[5]. Nandi, Ankan Kumar And C. Jairaj. 2020. “Backstay Effect Of Diaphragm In Tall Building.” International
Journal Of Innovative Technology And Exploring Engineering 9(3):1578–87.
[6]. Yacoubian, Mehair, Nelson Lam, Elisa Lumantarna, And John L. Wilson. 2017. “Effects Of Podium
Interference On Shear Force Distributions In Tower Walls Supporting Tall Buildings.” Engineering Structures
148:639–59.
[7]. Tocci, Nat And Sanya Levi. 2012. “Backstay Effect Basement Modeling In Tall Buildings.” Structure
Magazine 23–24.
[8]. Shah, Kush And Dhara Shah. 2020. “Effect Of Backstay On 3B + G + 20 Storey R . C . C Building.”
(August).
[9]. Rad, Babak Rajaee And Perry Adebar. 2009. “Seismic Design Of High-Rise Concrete Walls: Reverse Shear
Due To Diaphragms Below Flexural Hinge.” Journal Of Structural Engineering 135(8):916–24.
[10]. Atc 72-1. 2010. “‘Modeling And Acceptance Criteria For Seismic Design And Analysis Of Tall Buildings’.
Technical Report.” Peer/Atc-72-1.
[11]. Levi, Sanya. 2010. “Basement Modeling And The Backstay Effect By Department Of Civil And
Environmental Engineering University Of California Berkeley, CA.”

Copyright to IJARSCT DOI: 10.48175/IJARSCT-1724 183

www.ijarsct.co.in

View publication stats