DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE MATERIAL FRAME WITH BRACING IN COMPARISON WITH RCC AND STEEL FRAME

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE MATERIAL FRAME WITH BRACING IN COMPARISON WITH RCC AND STEEL FRAME Dr. P. P. Tapkire 1, Mr. Harshvardhan S. Ambure 2, Mr. Atul S. Chandanshive3 1 H.O.D. Civil Dept., N.B. Navale Sinhgad College of Engineering, Solapur, Maharashtra, India-413255 2 Research Scholar at N.B. Navale Sinhgad College of Engineering, Solapur, Maharashtra, India-413255 3 Lecturer Civil Dept., Solapur Education Society’s Polytechnic Solapur, Maharashtra, India-413002

---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract - In this study, a comparative dynamic analysis of

construction time, and structural efficiency, especially when integrated with bracing systems. The study conducts a comparative dynamic analysis using tools like ETABS or ANSYS to evaluate the performance of these three frame types under seismic and wind loads, ultimately recommending composite braced frames as the most effective solution for dynamic stability and construction efficiency in high-rise buildings.

composite, RCC, and steel frames was conducted using structural analysis software such as ETABS or ANSYS. The models incorporated bracing systems to assess seismic and wind performance, with key parameters including natural frequency, damping characteristics, mode shapes, displacement, and base shear. Composite materials were chosen for their high strength-to-weight ratio and corrosion resistance, while bracing was used to enhance lateral stability.

1.1 Aim & Objective

The study followed time-history analysis methods under dynamic loading conditions. Results indicate that braced composite frames outperform RCC and steel frames by exhibiting lower displacements, higher energy dissipation, and reduced seismic response times. RCC frames, although structurally strong, showed brittleness and heavier mass, whereas steel frames demonstrated increased lateral sway without adequate bracing. Composite frames with bracing provided an optimal balance between weight efficiency and dynamic performance. The study highlights the effectiveness of integrating composite materials with bracing systems for enhanced seismic resilience, structural stability, and costefficiency in modern building design.

To compare the building frame with RCC, Steel and Composite Material with dynamic analysis.

1) To analyse building frames with various heights of Steel, RCC structure with Static and Dynamic Analysis with different types of bracings.

2) To analyse building frames with various heights of Steel, RCC composite structure with Static and Dynamic Analysis with different types of bracings.

3) Comparison of results is proposed to carry out based on the results of dynamic analysis.

Key Words: Dynamic Analysis, RCC Frame, Lateral Displacement, Composite Material Frame, ETABS / ANSYS, Energy Dissipation.

4) It is proposed to prepare dimensionless charts for various considered parameters.

2. Literature Review

1. INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of urban populations and the increasing need for high-rise, earthquake-resistant buildings have driven significant advancements in structural engineering.

Among various structural systems, Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC), structural steel, and steel-concrete composite frames are widely analyzed for their performance under dynamic loading conditions such as earthquakes and strong winds. Recent studies on mid- to high-rise buildings (G+9 to G+30 storeys) using structural analysis tools like ETABS indicate that steel-concrete composite frames offer notable advantages over traditional RCC and steel systems.

These include reduced axial forces, storey drift, displacement, and overall self-weight, along with improved bending moment and shear force behavior. Furthermore, composite structures enable faster construction, greater material efficiency, and enhanced cost-effectiveness. As a result,

This study examines the dynamic behavior of different structural systems—Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC), steel, and composite frames—highlighting their suitability for modern high-rise construction. RCC, made by reinforcing concrete with steel, is widely used for its compressive strength, durability, and fire resistance, but is limited by its heavy weight, low tensile strength, and labor-intensive construction. Steel structures, composed of prefabricated elements, offer faster construction, better strength-to-weight ratios, and flexibility, but require ongoing maintenance due to corrosion and vulnerability to high temperatures. With increasing urbanization and the need for taller, more resilient buildings, composite structures—combining the benefits of both steel and concrete—are gaining popularity.

These systems offer improved seismic performance, reduced

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 566

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

composite frames, particularly when designed with bracing systems, are increasingly favored for their superior seismic performance and structural stability in modern high-rise construction.

out using ETABS software. The structural behavior was evaluated under static, dynamic, and wind loading conditions.

Comparative results were presented through graphical representations. For the composite structure, American design standards were followed, while Indian codes were used for the RCC structure. The findings revealed that the composite structure demonstrated lower dead load, reduced storey drift, less displacement, and smaller torsional moments compared to the RCC structure, making it a more favorable option for modern construction practices.

Contributions of researchers are presented as follows, Panchal, D. R., and P. M. Marathe (2011) [1] A comparative study was conducted on three types of structural systems: steel-concrete composite, pure steel, and reinforced cement concrete (RCC) buildings. A G+30 storey commercial building model was used for the analysis, with the structure located in Seismic Zone IV. The equivalent static method was applied, and ETABS software was utilized for the structural analysis.

The results showed a reduction in axial forces in the columns—by approximately 34% in the steel structure and 5% in the composite structure. Based on these findings, the study concludes that steel structures are more efficient for high-rise buildings compared to RCC and composite systems.

A.S. Mahajan and L.G. Kalurkar., et.al. (2016) [5] This study compared the performance of high-rise steel-concrete composite and RCC buildings using ETABS 2015 software.

The analysis was conducted on a G+20 multi-storey building, with the composite structure designed according to American standards and the RCC structure based on IS 456:2000. The objective was to evaluate seismic performance and overall structural efficiency by examining parameters such as bending moment, shear force, base shear, structural weight, time period, and cost. Response spectrum analysis was used to assess seismic behavior. The results demonstrated that the composite structure not only ensures stability, safety, and habitability but also offers advantages in terms of construction time and cost. Overall, the composite model outperformed the RCC structure across all evaluated parameters.

Prajapati, Baldev D., and D. R. Panchal (2013) [2] This study focused on the analysis and design procedures used to evaluate a symmetric high-rise building (G+30 storeys) subjected to wind and earthquake forces. Three structural systems—RCC, steel, and steel-concrete composite buildings with shear walls—were considered for their lateral forceresisting capabilities. Using ETABS software, a total of 21 different structural models were analyzed and designed to assess their performance under seismic and wind loads. The findings indicate that the steel-concrete composite system offers the most effective solution among the three for highrise construction.

Shweta A. Wagh, Dr. U. P. Waghe (April 2014) [6] In this study, four multi-storey commercial buildings—G+12, G+16, G+20, and G+24—were analyzed using ETABS 2013 software.

Design calculations and cost estimations were performed using MS Excel. The results were used to compare the performance of RCC and steel-concrete composite structures.

The study concluded that: 1. The displacement in composite structures is almost double that of RCC structures, though still within permissible limits. 2. Shear force and axial force were found to be higher in RCC structures compared to composite structures.

Shobharam and Imran Syed Kaleem Afrough Zaidi (2020) [3] This study investigates the performance of reinforced concrete, steel, and steel-concrete composite frames in a multi-storey building. A 3D model of a G+9 storey building located in Seismic Zone IV was analyzed, with all three structural systems designed for the same gravity loads.

Reinforced concrete elements were designed following IS: 456-2000, while composite sections were designed using the American standard AISC: 360-10. Beam and column sections varied according to the structural system—RCC, steel, or composite—while a uniform reinforced concrete slab was used across all models. Load combinations were applied as per IS: 1893-2002, and the entire structure was modeled and analyzed using the response spectrum method in ETABS 2015. A parametric comparison of the results showed that the steel-concrete composite frame outperformed both reinforced concrete and steel frames in terms of structural performance.

Umesh P.Patil , Suryanarayana (June 2015) [7] A study was carried out to compare the seismic performance of G+15 storey buildings constructed using reinforced cement concrete (RCC) and composite structural systems, utilizing ETABS 2013 for analysis. Both types of buildings included a soft storey at the ground level and were modeled for conditions in seismic zone III with medium soil. The analysis involved both the Equivalent Static Method and the Response Spectrum Method, focusing on parameters such as storey drift, self-weight, bending moments, and shear forces. The findings showed that composite structures generally performed better than RCC structures. Storey drift was reduced by 10% in the soft storey of composite models, while other storeys showed up to a 70% reduction using the Equivalent Static Method and a 50% reduction using the Response Spectrum Method. Composite structures also had about 10% less self-weight compared to RCC. In terms of

Umesh Rajendra Tubachi and Manohar. K., et.al. (2019) [4] This study presents an analysis of steel-concrete composite structures and compares their performance with conventional RCC structures. A G+30 high-rise regular building was considered for the analysis, which was carried

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 567

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

bending moments, there was an 11% reduction in the Xdirection for composites, although the Y-direction experienced a 70% increase. Similarly, shear forces were 16% lower in the X-direction for composite buildings, but 65% higher in the Y-direction. Overall, the study concluded that composite structures offer improved seismic performance, particularly in terms of reduced weight and lateral displacement, although variations in directional responses should be considered in design.



Suitable for tall buildings due to their lighter weight and ability to resist large lateral loads.



Less dead load leads to reduced foundation size.



However, they require fireproofing and are more susceptible to corrosion if not properly maintained.

3.2.2 RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete) Structure

3. Research Methodology



Uses concrete with embedded steel reinforcement to resist tension.



Commonly used in medium- to high-rise buildings due to good compressive and moderate tensile strength.



RCC structures are durable, fire-resistant, and widely adopted in construction.



However, they are heavier, which increases base shear and foundation load in seismic zones.



Slower construction speed compared to steel structures.

3.1 Flow of Research Work

3.2.3 Composite Structure

Figure 3.1: Flow of Research Work

3.2 Types of structures Structures can be classified based on the materials used and the system of load transfer. In this study, three major structural types have been analyzed - Steel Structures, Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) Structures, and Composite Structures. Each has its own characteristics, advantages, and limitations in terms of strength, stiffness, weight, and construction methods.



Composite action increases stiffness, strength, and ductility, making it ideal for seismic performance.



Reduces cross-sectional size of structural elements, providing more usable floor space.



Bracing systems (A-type, K-type, and X-type) are often introduced to enhance lateral load resistance.

To further improve the performance of composite buildings under lateral loads (like earthquakes), three types of bracings are incorporated:

3.2.1 Steel Structure





Entire frame including beams and columns is made of structural steel.



Steel structures are known for high strength-toweight ratio, flexibility, and speed of construction.

|

Combines the benefits of both steel and concrete by using steel sections (e.g., beams, columns) with concrete slabs or encasements.

3.2.4 Bracing Systems in Composite Structures

Types of Structures Considered:

© 2025, IRJET



Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

A-Type Bracing: Offers good stiffness and reduces lateral displacement, generally effective in moderate-rise buildings.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 568

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net 3.3 Analysis Methods

Structural analysis is essential to predict the behavior of buildings under various loads such as dead load, live load, and lateral forces (especially seismic loads). In this project, suitable analytical methods are applied to evaluate the response of different structural systems (Steel, RCC, and Composite) under seismic conditions. The methods are selected based on accuracy, applicability, and code recommendations.

Types of Analysis Methods Used: 3.3.1 Equivalent Static Method (Linear Static Analysis) Figure No. 3.2 A-Type Bracing



K-Type Bracing: Often used for aesthetic integration, but may transfer loads inefficiently under some conditions.



This is a simplified seismic analysis technique recommended by IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 for regular, low- to mid-rise buildings.



In this method, the earthquake load is calculated using seismic parameters and applied as a lateral static force at each floor level.



Assumes linear elastic behavior of the structure.



Suitable for buildings up to 40m height in Seismic Zone IV (as considered in this project).



Steps include:

 Figure No. 3.3 K-Type Bracing



Figure No. 3.4 X-Type Bracing

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

Calculation of seismic weight

o

Determination of base shear

o

Distribution of base shear across building height

Used due to its simplicity and computational efficiency, especially for parametric comparisons.

3.3.2 Modal Analysis (Response Spectrum Method) (optional extension if needed)

X-Type Bracing: Excellent in resisting both tension and compression, and provides high lateral stiffness and strength.

© 2025, IRJET

o

|



May be used if irregularities in mass or stiffness are present.



This method considers dynamic characteristics (natural frequencies and mode shapes) of the building.



More accurate than static methods for tall or irregular structures.



Uses response spectrum curve as per IS 1893 to calculate lateral forces for different vibration modes.



However, in this study, the Equivalent Static Method is primarily used due to regular building geometry.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 569

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

efficiency and suitability of each structural system under different design conditions.

3.3.3 Load Combinations The analysis includes the following load combinations as per IS 456 and IS 1893: 

1.5 (DL + LL)



1.2 (DL + LL ± EQX)



1.2 (DL + LL ± EQY)



1.5 (DL ± EQX)



1.5 (DL ± EQY)



0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQX



0.9 DL ± 1.5 EQY

4.2 Comparison of deformation in all type of structure In this sub-point, the deformation results have been discussed for various structures with different span values.

The comparison of the deformation of all spans and different heights followed by all type of structures is discussed below.

4.2.1 Comparison of deformation of 4X4 type of structure

(DL = Dead Load, LL = Live Load, EQX/EQY = Earthquake Load in X/Y directions) 3.3.4 Software Used 

ETABS (Extended 3D Analysis of Building System) o

Widely used for modeling, analysis, and design of multistorey buildings.

o

Supports both linear static and dynamic analysis.

Graph no.1 Height ratio of CRW to C/S Area ratio of CRW

following are the observation has been discussed

Allows easy modeling of different structural systems and bracing configurations.

As we observe, steel structures exhibit the least deformation among various types of structures. They show a maximum deformation of 0.1m for a G+15 building height and experience a reduction in deformation as the building height increases to G+24.

4. RESULTS 5.1 General

In contrast, reinforced concrete (RCC) structures exhibit higher deformation compared to steel structures, which also reduces as the building height increases.

The study comprehensively investigates three main types of structural systems: steel, reinforced cement concrete (RCC), and composite structures, with a special emphasis on composite structures that incorporate three distinct types of bracings. These bracing systems, previously detailed in earlier chapters, play a crucial role in enhancing the lateral stability and seismic performance of high-rise buildings. To evaluate the structural behavior under various configurations, the research considers three different span sizes - 4x4 m, 5x5 m, and 6x6 m - alongside four different building heights: G+15, G+18, G+21, and G+24 storeys. This combination of span and height variations allows for a broader understanding of how structural type and geometry influence key performance metrics such as displacement, axial force, and storey drift. The results are discussed in this chapter with clarity and detail, using appropriate graphical representations to facilitate comparison and interpretation.

This systematic approach enables a deeper insight into the

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

In this scenario, type bearings demonstrate the minimum deformation among all structures, followed by an increase in deformation as the building height increases.

On the other hand, K-type bracing shows the highest deformation among all types of structures, which gradually reduces as the building height increases.

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 570

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

4.2.2 Variation of deformation for class A and class AA loading for 40m span

Following observations are noted As we observe from graph No. 3, the deformation in all buildings is mostly similar.

For a building with a height of 15 floors, the steel structure shows the highest deformation.

On the other hand, the RCC structure and the X-type bracing structure exhibit similar deformation values for all building heights.

In contrast, the K-type bracing and the A-type bracing structures show the minimum deformation for a building with a height of 15 floors. However, as the height increases, the deformation gradually increases, reaching a maximum of 0.06m

Graph no. 2 Comparison of deformation of 5x5 Type of structure

4.3 Comparison of share forces in all type of structure In this sub-point, the shear force results for various structures with different span values have been discussed.

The comparison of the shear force for all spans and different heights across various types of structures is presented below,

Following observations are noted As we observe, steel and RCC structures exhibit similar deformation patterns across various height considerations.

Interestingly, they exhibit minimum deformation as the weight increases.

4.3.1 Comparison of shear force of 4mx 4m type of structure

On the other hand, a specific type of bracing exhibits the maximum deformation values among all other types of structures. The maximum deformation values it shows are around 0.17m for a G+24 height of the structure.

In contrast, the K-type bracing shows the minimum deformation values among all other types of structures. It exhibits 0.04m of deformation for a G+15 height, and the deformation slightly increases as the height of the structure increases.

Lastly, for the X-type bracing, the deformation values are nearly similar to those of the steel and RCC structures.

4.2.3 Comparison of deformation of 6x6m type of structure

Graph no.4 Comparison of shear force of 4mx4m Type of structure

Following observations are noted Steel structures exhibit the lowest share force values compared to other types of structures. For a G+15 building, the share force of a steel structure is noted as 120 kN, and it gradually increases as the height increases.

RCC structures show a share force of around 180 kN, and it slightly increases as the height increases.

Type bracings exhibit a lower share force compared to RCC structures and follow a similar pattern of increasing share force with height.

Graph no.3 Comparison of deformation of 6X6m Type of structure

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 571

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Following observations are noted

X-type bracings show a slightly higher share force compared to RCC structures and also increase with height.

A 6mx6m building with a steel structure and a type bracing structure exhibits a similar share force pattern as shown in the graph. The share force increases as the building’s height increases.

K type bracing exhibits the maximum share force among all types of structures. For a G+15 building, the share force of a KI bracing is around 250 kN, and it slightly decreases with height.

The reinforced concrete structure (RCC) structure shows slightly higher share force values compared to the steel structure and the type bracing structure. However, it follows a similar pattern, with the share force increasing as the building’s height increases.

4.3.2 Comparison of shear force of 5mx5m type of structure

Both the X-type and K-type bracing structures display similar share force values across all building heights. The share force values increase as the building’s height increases.

4.4 Comparison of bending movement in all type of structure In this sub-point, the bending moment results for various structures with different span values have been discussed.

The comparison of the bending moment for all spans and different heights across various types of structures is presented below,

Graph no.5 Comparison of shear force of 5mX5m Type of structure

Following observations are noted

4.4.1 Comparison of bending movement of 4mx4m type of structure.

Steel structures and structures with similar designs exhibit similar share force values, as depicted in the graph. As the height increases, the share force values also rise.

A type of bracing system exhibits the highest share force value in buildings with dimensions of 5mx5m. The maximum share force value for a G+24 building is noted as 210 kn.

X-type and K-type bracing systems display a similar share force pattern as the height increases in this type of structure.

The air force value also increases.

For this span the maximum stresses in rectangular section recorded almost 2 times lower than that of trapezoidal section for AA class loading.

4.3.3 Comparison of shear force of 6mX6m type of structure

Graph no.7 Comparison of bending moment of 4m X 4m Type of structure

Following observations are noted Four steel structures have very minimum bending moment values. The bending moment slightly increases in a 4mx4m type of building as the height increases.

RCC values show a slight increase in bending movement compared to steel structures and exhibit a uniform pattern of bending moment values as the height of the structure increases.

In the case of A-type bracing for a G+15 height of building, the bending movement values are similar to those of an RCC

Graph no.6 Comparison of shear force of 6mx6m Type of structure

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 572

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

structure for the same height. However, it gradually increases as the height increases to G+18 height.

Following observations are noted Steel structures exhibit minimum bending moment values across all heights, except for buildings with a height of 15 floors or more.

X-type bracings provide 3700 knm of bending movement for smaller heights and gradually reduce as the height increases.

K-type bracings exhibit the maximum bending moment among all types of structures. In this case, the bending movement reduces as the height of the structure increases.

In such cases, reinforced concrete structures (RCCs) show a slight increase in bending moment values compared to steel structures, and the bending moment values increase as the height of the structure increases.

4.4.2 Comparison of bending movement of 5m X 5m type of structure.

Bracing types K and X exhibit similar bending moment values throughout the entire building. However, A type of bracing shows a significant difference in bending moment values between low and high heights of the building.

4.5 comparison of axial forces in all type of structure In this sub-point, the axial force results for various structures with different span values have been discussed.

The comparison of the axial force for all spans and different heights across various types of structures is presented below, 4.5.1 Comparison of axial forces of 6m X 6m type of structure.

Graph no.8 Comparison of bending moment of 5m X 5m Type of structure

Following observations are noted Steel and RCC structures exhibit similar bending moment values, which gradually increase with the building’s height.

Bracing types K and X exhibit a consistent bending moment pattern across all heights, with the moment increasing as the height rises.

In contrast, A type of bracing demonstrates the highest bending moment values at the highest building heights.

4.4.3 Comparison of bending movement of 6m X 6m type of structure

Graph no.10 Comparison of axial forces of 6m X 6m Type of structure

Following observations are noted Steel structures exhibit the lowest axial force values in this type of building, and their height increases, leading to an increase in the value of axial forces.

Similarly, a type and K type of bracings show similar axial force values and experience an increase as the building height increases. However, the axial force values in this case are slightly higher than those in the steel structure.

In contrast, the RCC structure shows a very slight increase in axial force compared to the steel structure and benefits from both a type and K type of bracings. The pattern of axial force

Graph no.9 Comparison of bending moment of 6m X 6m Type of structure

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 573

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

increase is similar to the previous cases, with the force increasing as the building height increases.

Similarly, RCC structures (K and X types) show similar results, which are slightly higher than those of steel structures.

Finally, the X type of bracings exhibits the highest axial force values in this scenario and follows a similar behaviour pattern as the previous cases.

In contrast, A-type breathing structures exhibit higher axial force values across all heights of the building.

5. CONCLUSIONS

4.5.2 Comparison of axial forces of 5m X 5m type of structure.

This study presents a comparative analysis of steel, RCC, and composite frames with A, K, and X-type bracings, focusing on the impact of structural type, span size (4×4 m, 5×5 m, 6×6 m), and building height (G+15 to G+24) on key performance parameters such as deformation, shear force, bending moment, and axial force. Results show that steel structures consistently exhibit the least deformation, bending moments, and axial forces, indicating superior stiffness and efficiency.

Composite frames with A-type bracing perform better at lower heights, while K-type bracing generally results in higher deformation and internal forces. Shear force and bending moments increase with building height across all systems, with K-type bracing showing the highest values, particularly in 4×4 and 5×5 spans. X-type bracing offers a balanced performance, with results similar to RCC and steel in most configurations. Axial forces were lowest in steel frames and highest in composite frames with X-type bracing.

Overall, steel structures offer optimal performance in terms of stiffness and force resistance, while composite frames with suitable bracing provide a viable alternative for dynamic load conditions in taller buildings. The selection of structural type and bracing configuration should be based on the desired balance between strength, deformation control, and height efficiency.

Graph no.11 Comparison of axial forces of 6m X 6m Type of structure.

Following observations are noted Steel and RCC structures exhibit similar axial force values in 5m x 5m type of buildings.

Bracing types A, K, and X also show similar axial force values in this type of building structure, which increases as the building height increases.

4.5.3 Comparison of axial forces of 6m X 6m type of structure

REFERENCES

Graph no.12 Comparison of axial forces of 6m X 6m Type of structure

Following observations are noted Steel structures exhibit minimum axial force values in 6mx6m structures, while axial force increases as the height increases.

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

[1]

Panchal, D. R., and P. M. Marathe. "Comparative Study of RCC, steel and composite (G+ 30 storey) building."

Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India (2011).

[2]

Prajapati, Baldev D., and D. R. Panchal. "Study of seismic and wind effect on multi storey RCC, steel and composite building." International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology 6, no. 4 (2013): 1836.

[3]

Shobharam and Imran Syed Kaleem Afrough Zaidi (2020) “Parametric Seismic Study of Steel-Concrete Composite Frames” International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology, 6(9): 24-30, (2020).

[4]

Umesh Rajendra Tubachi, Manohar. K (2019) International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technology, 2020 Vol. 5, Issue 5, ISSN No. 24552143, Pages 229-234 Published Online September 2020.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 574

[5]

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Mahajan A.S., L.G. Kalurkar. (September 2016) – “Analysis of Composite Structures” Vol. No.4, Issue No. 09, pages: 254-263, ISSN: 2348-7550.

[6]

Shweta A. Wagh, Dr. U. P. Waghe “Comparative Study of R.C.C and Steel Concrete Composite Structures G+12, G+16, G+20, G+24” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications Vol. 4, Issue 4, April 2014.

[7]

Umesh P. Patil, Suryanarayana, “Analysis Of G+15 RCC And Composite Structure Having A Soft Storey At Ground Level By Response Spectrum And Equivalent Static Methods Using Etabs 2013”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 02 Issue: 03, June-2015.

Mr. Atul S. Chandanshive Working as Lecturer in, Civil Engineering, Solapur Education Society’s Polytechnic, Solapur, Maharashtra, India. Graduated in civil engineering and did masters in structure from Solapur University, and having experience of more than 4 years in teaching as well as in industry.

BIOGRAPHIES Mr. Harshvardhan S. Ambure B.E.(Civil), MTech (Civil-Structure) (pursuing)Research Scholar at N.B. Navale Sinhgad College of Engineering, Solapur, Maharashtra, India

Dr. Pradeep. P. Tapkire Working as Head of Department, Civil Engineering, N. B. Navale Sinhgad College of Engineering, Solapur, Maharashtra, India.

Graduated in civil engineering and did masters in structure from Shivaji University, Ph. D. from S.P. Pune University and having experience of more than 18 years in teaching as well as in industry.

PG recognized teacher of Solapur University. Has selected as Board of Study Member for Solapur University, Solapur. Guided 22 PG students and 16 are working under the guidance. Handled IITM C band radar installation project as structural and execution expert.

Nominated as member for distance learning syllabus formation committee IGNOU, Delhi. Also worked as committee member to identify centers for IGNOU for distance learning courses.

Received appreciation award from ULTRATECH, Cement Solapur for contribution in M-sand Project.

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 575