IRJET- Seismic Performance of RC & Composite Frames with Plan Irregular Configurations

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Seismic Performance of RC & Composite Frames with Plan Irregular Configurations Naveen Kumar C N1, Ramesh B M2, P S Ramesh3 1M.tech

final year student, Department of Civil, SJBIT College Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Professor Department of Civil, SJBIT College Bengaluru, Karnataka.

3Associate Professor Department of Civil, SJBIT College Bengaluru, Karnataka.

---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------2Assistant

Abstract - Steel-Concrete composite structures are very popular & have their advantages over Concrete constructions.

Concrete structures are bulky and have more seismic weight and more deflection as compare to Composite Construction, & it combines the better properties of both steel and concrete along with lesser cost, speedy construction, fire protection etc. The aim of the present study is to compare seismic performance of plan irregular configurations of RC, and Composite building frame which is situated in earthquake zone IV. Total number of 12 models been modeled(6 RC & 6 Composite) all models are of G+10 storey buildings. All frames are designed for same gravity loadings. Beam and column sections are made of Either RCC and Structural Steel-concrete composite sections. Response Spectrum method are used for seismic analysis. Effect of each building is studied with respect to time period, base shear, storey shear, displacements, drift & axial force. ETABS-2015 Software is used for analysis and results are compared.

III.

To study the performance of both R.C and composite frame w.r.t. different parameters such as story displacement, story drift, base shear, story shear, time period & axial force.

2 STRUCTURAL MODELLING On the analysis a building has been Modeled for G+10 storey building and analysed in ETABS software. Two kinds of the structures were considered one is RCC structure with column of 0.4x0.5m from 1 -5th floor & 0.3x0.4m from 6-11th floor and beam of 300x350mm kept constant for all the floors and slab of 175mm. And another one is steel composite structure with column of 0.4x0.5m at 1st floor & 0.3x0.4m encased ISHB250 from 2nd -11th floor and beam of 250x350mm and slab of 175mm.

3. DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL

Key Words: Composite Beam, Composite Column, Response spectrum method, ETABS

Various parameters such as a number of storeys, the dimension of structural members, storey height, load intensities are mentioned below.

1.INTRODUCTION At the present time, many of multi-storey (residential & commercial) buildings have open storeys as salient feature.

The composite materials were commonly used for multistorey, industrial buildings or in bridges. The composite structures are made of different materials and they are compatible and complementary to each other, the composite structures have same extension both for thermal & applied loads. The combination of the steel and RCC will have higher strength as steel will take tension forces and the concrete will take compression forces. The concrete also gives corrosion protection and thermal insulation to the steel at elevated temperatures and additionally can restrain slender steel sections from local or lateral-torsional buckling.

Table -1: Description of model Number of Storeys

G+10

Reduction Factor

5

Building Frame system

SMRF

Importance Factor

1.5

Storey Height

3m

Grade of Concrete

M25

Seismic Zone

Zone 4

Grade of Steel

Fe500

Type of Soil

Medium

Live load

3 kN/m2

1.1 OBJECTIVES 4. TYPES OF MODELS

The present work done for both RC & Composite structure the total number of model considered is 12 (6 RCC & 6 Steel Composite) with the number of storey as 11, which was in zone 4, & the soil type taken is medium soil.

I.

To analysis the multi storeyed frame of irregular plan of both R.C and Composite frames.

II.

To perform Equivalent analysis & Response Spectrum Analysis.

Š 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Model 1- Re- entrant Corner (C- shaped RCC & Steel Composite) Model 2- Re- entrant Corner (U- shaped RCC & Steel Composite) Model 3- Re- entrant Corner (L- shaped RCC & Steel Composite)

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 335

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018

www.irjet.net

Model 4- Re- entrant Corner (T- shaped RCC & Steel Composite) Model 5- Re- entrant Corner (Plus- shaped RCC & Steel Composite) Model 6- Diaphragm Discontinuity (Hollow- shaped RCC & Steel Composite)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056 p-ISSN: 2395-0072

5.2 BASE SHEAR Table-3: Base Shear of both RC & Composite

Fig-3: Base Shear of both RC & Composite Fig-1: Different types of Models 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results show that the response obtain in the form of base shear may be due to various earthquakes is more in case of the RC building when compare to the composite building.

5.1 TIME PERIOD

5.3 STOREY DISPLACEMENT

Table-2: Time period of both RC & Composite

Table-4: Displacements in X directions of both RC & Composite

Fig-2: Time period of both RC & Composite Its observed that mode 1, 2 & 3 of all models of RC building shows slightly higher frequency, than the mode 1, 2 & 3 of all models of Steel composite building.

© 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 336

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018

www.irjet.net

e-ISSN: 2395-0056 p-ISSN: 2395-0072

The displacements of all models in Y directions. From the results its observed that the model 3 model 1 & model 4of composite building shows the higher displacements. The maximum deflection is occurred in the upper most floor & its less than 40mm(the deflections were within limits as prescribed by IS codes) 5.4 STOREY DRIFTS Fig-4: Displacements in X directions of both RC & Composite

Table-6: Drifts in X directions of both RC & Composite

The displacements of all models in X directions. From the results its observed that the model 3 model 1 & model 4 of composite building shows the higher displacements. The maximum deflection is occurred in the upper most floor & its less than 40mm(the deflections were within limits as prescribed by IS codes) Table-5: Displacements in Y directions of both RC & Composite

Fig-6: Driftss in X directions of both RC & Composite The drifts of all models in X directions. From the results its observed that the model 4, model 2 & model 3 of composite building shows the higher drifts. The maximum deflection is

Fig-5: Displacements in Y directions of both RC & Composite

Š 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 337

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018

www.irjet.net

e-ISSN: 2395-0056 p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Table-8: Axial Force of both RC & Composite

occurred in the upper most floor & its less than 40mm(the deflections were within limits as prescribed by IS codes) Table-7: Drifts in Y directions of both RC & Composite

Fig-8: Axial Force of both RC & Composite 6. CONCLUSIONS 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Fig-7: Drifts in Y directions of both RC & Composite

6.

The drifts of all models in Y directions. From the results its observed that the model 3 model 1 & model 4 of composite building shows the higher drifts. The maximum deflection is occurred in the upper most floor & its less than 40mm(the deflections were within limits as prescribed by IS codes)

7.

8.

5.5 AXIAL FORCE

There are slight changes in time period of both RC & composite buildings, RC buildings has more frequency when compared with composite buildings.

Base shear values are more for composite buildings when compared with RC buildings. Because seismic weight of Composite materials, when compared with RC buildings.

Base shear and storey shear of composite buildings is high, due to more seismic weight of the building.

In the displacements of both RC & Composite structures of all models, it is observed that in few models of the structure has discontinuity in X direction & has less number of bays than in Y direction. Therefore, structure in Y direction is stiffer than X direction. Similarly in the remaining models, Y direction has got discontinuity, so X direction is stiffer than Y direction.

The displacements of all plan irregular models is found to be within the limits as per IS 1893-2002.

The storey drift of the RC building is less as compared to composite building, and all frames are within permissible limit of 0.004 times the storey height, as prescribed in IS 1893-2002.

Drift variations are observed for both RC and composite buildings which may be due to differential size of columns.

It is observed that the RC buildings have more axial force than the composite buildings.

The axial force of RC building has got high value when it was compared with Composite building.

Š 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 338

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 05 Issue: 10 | Oct 2018

www.irjet.net

REFERENCES

e-ISSN: 2395-0056 p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[12] Mohd Amir Khan “Comparative Study of R.C.C & Structural Steel -Concrete Composite Frame for Linear and Non-Linear Analysis” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 04 Issue: 07 | July -2017

[1] J.M. Castro, A.Y. Elghazouli and B.A. Izzuddin, “Performance Assessment Of Composite Moment-Resisting Frames”. 29th the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China october 12-17, 2008

[13] IS:456, Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000.

[2] D. R. Panchal and P. M. Marathe, “Comparative Study of R.C.C, Steel and Composite (G+30 Storey) Building ”, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad – 382 481, December, 2011.

[14] IS:1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures - general provisions for buildings, Part 1, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

[3] Anish N. Shah, Dr. P.S. Pajgade “Comparision of R.C.C. And Composite Multistoried Buildings” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 22489622 Vol. 3, Issue 2, March -April 2013, pp.534-539

[15] IS:875, “code of practice for design load (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002.

[4] Nitin m. Warade, P. J. Salunke; “Comparative Study On Analysis And Design Of Composite Structure” International Journal Of Advance Research In Science And Engineering Vol. No.2, Issue No.12, December, 2013 ISSN-2319-8354(E).

[16] IS:800, Code of practice for general construction in steel, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2007.

[5] Shashikala. Koppad, Dr. S.V.Itti “Comparative Study of RCC and Composite Multistoreyed Buildings” International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT) Volume 3, Issue 5, November 2013 [6] Prof. Prakarsh Sangave, Mr. Nikhil Madur, Mr. Sagar Waghmare, Mr. Rakesh Shete, Mr. Vinayak Mankondi, Mr. Vinayak Gundla “Comparative Study of Analysis and Design of R.C. and Steel Structures” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 2, February-2015 ISSN 2229-5518 [7] Prof. Swapnil B. Cholekar1, Basavalingappa S. M. “Comparative Analysis Of Multistoried Rcc And Composite Building Due To Mass Irregularity” Volume: 02 Issue: 04 | July-2015 [8] Tabassum G Shirhatti, Dr. S. B. Vanakudre “The Effects Of P-Delta And Construction Sequential Analysis Of Rcc And Steel Building With Respect To Linear Static Analysis” Volume: 02 Issue: 04 | July-2015 [9] S.R.Sutar, P.M.Kulkarni Civil Engg. “Comparative inelastic analysis of RCC and steel-concrete composite frame” e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 13, Issue 4 Ver. IV (Jul. - Aug. 2016), PP 22-32.

[10] Ankur Tailora Sejal P. Dalalb* Atul K.Desai Sardar Vallabhbhai “Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel Column Building & Concrete Filled Tube Column Building under Static and Dynamic Loading” Procedia Engineering 173( 2017) 1847 – 1853.

[11] Deepak M Jirage, Prof. V.G. Sayagavi, Prof. N.G. Gore, Prof.P.J.Salunke “Comparison of R.C.C. And Composite Multistoried Buildings” Deepak M Jirage.et.al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application. ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 7, Issue 7, ( Part -2) July 2017, pp.42-45.

© 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 7.211

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 339