IRJET- Earthquake Behavior of Building using STAAD Pro

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

EARTHQUAKE BEHAVIOR OF BUILDING USING STAAD PRO M.A. Qureshi1, Dhruv Shah2, Bhavin Solanki3, Divyakant Baldaniya4, Dhruv Patel5, Kevin Shah6 1Assistant

Professor, Civil Engineering Department, FETR, Bardoli, Gujarat, India Civil Engineering Department, FETR, Bardoli, Gujarat, India

23456Students,

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

Abstract - Shear wall system is one of the most commonly

1.1 Objective

used to resist lateral forces like seismic load, wind loads etc.

Shear walls have very high strength and stiffness which provides stability to structure. The scope of the nowadays work is to study earthquake (seismic) responses of different storey buildings with and without shear wall, considering different seismic zones. An earthquake load will be applied to a building for G+15, G+25, G+45 located in zone III and different cases of shear wall position. An analysis will be performed using STAAD Pro software. Various parameters such as lateral displacement and story drift will be studied.

1.INTRODUCTION The race towards new heights and architecture has been challenges. When the building increases in height, the stiffness of the structure becomes more important.

Reinforced Concrete Buildings are adequate for resisting both the vertical and horizontal load. High-rise have continued to upward higher and higher facing strange loading effects and very high loading values due to dominating lateral loads.

To design building using STAAD Pro.



To analyse lateral displacement, storey drift, time history analysis and cost of the building for different cases of shear wall in different zones.

Table -1: Building Dimensions

In buildings built in region likely to experienced earthquake of high intensity or high winds then more suitably advisable shear wall structure. The design of these walls for seismic forces requires special consideration as they should be safe under repeated loads. The design of building adopted in the Indian Code IS 1893(Part 1) :2002 “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure” to ensure that structure possess at least a minimum strength to withstands minor earthquake occurring frequently; resist moderate earthquakes without significant structural damages though some non-structural damages may occur; and aims that structure withstand major earthquake without collapse.

For gain more plane stiffness, reduces lateral displacements and dissipate energy during strong motions the most sufficient systems are shear wall and bracing system use.

Damages due to earthquake can be prevented by adding such structural elements like shear wall and bracing systems. The design criteria for high-rise buildings are strength, serviceability, stability and human comfort. Thus, the effects of lateral loads like wind loads, earthquake forces are attaining increasing importance and almost every designer is faced with the problem of providing adequate strength and stability against lateral loads.

Impact Factor value: 6.171



These buildings were designed in conformity to the Indian Code of Practice for Earthquake load (Seismic) Resistant Design of Buildings. The buildings were assumed to be fixed at the base. The buildings were modeled using software STAAD Pro. Models were studied in 3rd zones comparing lateral displacement and storey drift for all structural models under consideration.

Shear wall system, Displacement, Storey Drift, STAAD Pro

|

The main objective is to check and design seismic response of building using STAAD Pro.

2. BUILDING MODELING

Key Words: Analysis and Design, Seismic Behaviour,

© 2018, IRJET



SR NO.

PARTICULAR

DIMENSION

1

Length of building

45.20(M)

2

Width of building

14.56(M)

3

Height of building (G+15)

45(M)

4

Height of building (G+25)

75(M)

5

Height of building (G+45)

135(M)

6

Typical story height

3(M)

7

Live load on floor

2 KN/M2

8

Floor finishing

4.6KN/M2

11

Grade of concrete

M25

13

Thickness of slab

0.15(M)

14

Zone 3

Z.F.= 0.16

Model 1– Framed structure.

Model 2– The building with shear wall Lift area Model 3– The building with shear walls on corners.

Model 4– The building with shear walls at Insides.

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

| Page 486

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

2.1 Building Plans

2.2 3-D Models of Buildings G+15 Buildings

Fig -1: AutoCAD Plan

Fig -6Model-1

Fig -7 Model-2

Fig -8 Model-3

Fig -9 Model-4

Fig -2: Model-1

Fig 3: Model-2

G+25 Buildings

Fig -4: Model-3

Fig -5: Model-4

Fig -10 Model-1

Š 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 6.171

|

Fig -11 Model-2

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

| Page 487

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

3. METHODOLOGY It demands to select the exact process to analyse a certain structural frame considering its corresponding characteristics related to seismic as earthquake analysis was very difficult portion in the field in structural engineering.

1.

2.

Static Analysis Dynamic analysis i. ii. iii.

1.

Fig -12 Model-3

Response Spectrum Method Time History Method Pushover Analysis

Static Analysis: It is known as equivalent static force method. In this method, the base shear is calculated from the weight of building. Earthquake forces are calculated in normalized way in this method. Live loads and dead loads are considered according to the norms and distributed along in each storey.

Fig -13 Model-4

G+45 Buildings 2.

Dynamic Analysis: It shall be performed to access the design seismic force, and its spreading in various levels or stories along the height of the building, and in the various lateral load resisting element. 

Regular Buildings:

All framed buildings height greater than 40m in height in zones IV and V and greater than 90m in height in zone II and III. 

Fig -14 Model-1

Irregular Building:

All framed buildings higher than 12m in zones IV and V, and greater than 40m in height in zones II and III.

Fig -15 Model-2

i.

Response Spectrum method:

The response of buildings having a vast range of periods is summarized in a single graph by this method. This method shall be performed using the design spectrum specified in code or by a site-specific design spectrum for a structure prepared at a project site. The values of impairing for building may be taken as 3 and 5 percent of the critical or demanding, for the purposes of changing of steel and reinforce concrete buildings, respectively ii.

Time History Analysis:

The usage of this method shall be on an appropriate ground motion and shall be performed using accepted principles of dynamics. In this method, the time histories of the structural response to a given input are obtained ad a result.

Fig -16 Model-3

© 2018, IRJET

|

Fig -17 Model-4

Impact Factor value: 6.171

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

| Page 488

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

4. RESULTS

G+25 Building Displacement in Z-Direction 60

4.1 Lateral Displacement 50

Displacement (mm)

G+15 Building Displacement in X-direction 1200

Displacement (mm)

1000

800

600

40

30

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

20

10

400

0

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

200

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Storey

0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Chart-4: G+25 Building Displacement in Z-Direction

18

Storey

G+45 Building Displacement IN X-direction

Chart-1: G+15 Building Displacement in X-Direction 4000

G+15 Building Displacement in Z-direction

3500

Displacement (mm)

16

Displacement (mm)

14 12 10 8 6

3000 2500 2000 1500

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

1000 500

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

4 2

0 -500 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

Storey 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Storey

Chart-5: G+45 Building Displacement in X-Direction

Chart-2: G+15 Building Displacement in Z-Direction

G+45 Building Displacement in Z-direction 35 30

3000

25

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

G+25 Building Displacement in X-direction 3500

2500 2000 1500

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

1000 500

20 15 10

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

5 0

0

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10

20

30

40

50

Storey

Storey

Chart-6: G+45 Building Displacement in Z-Direction

Chart-3: G+25 Building Displacement in X-Direction

Š 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 6.171

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

| Page 489

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

4.2 Storey Drift

G+25 Building Drift in Z Direction 30

G+15 Building Drift in X-Direction 18 16

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

25

20

Storey

14

Storey

12 10

15

10

8 6

5

4

0

2 0

0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Drift

0.9

Model-1

Chart-10: G+25 Building Drift in Z-Direction

Chart-7: G+15 Building Drift in X-Direction

18 16

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

G+45 Building Drift in X-direction

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

G+15 Building Drift in Z-Direction

50

40

14

30

Storey

Storey

12 10 8

20

6

10

4 2

0 0 0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.2

0.014

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

Drift

Drift

Chart-8: G+15 Building Drift in Z-Direction

Chart-11: G+45 Building Drift in X-Direction

G+25 Building Drift X- Direction

G+45 Building drift Z- Direction

30

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

25

50

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4

40

30 15

Storey

Storey

20

10

5

20

10

0

0 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.002

Drift

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

Drift

Chart-9: G+25 Building Drift in X-Direction

Š 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 6.171

Chart-12: G+45 Building Drift in Z-Direction

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

| Page 490

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2018

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

4) Vinod Goud “Analysis and Design of Flat Slab with and without Shear Wall of Multi-Storied Building Frames” IOSR Journal of Engineering Vol. 06, Issue 09 (Sep. 2016),

5. CONCLUSION G+15, G+25, G+45 Buildings without shear wall and with different positions of shear wall analyzed is STAAD Pro. From above results for Displacement: 

5) Anshuman. S “Solution of Shear Wall Location in Multi-Storey Building” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 2, No 2, 2011.

G+15:

In X Direction: Model 4 is 28% less compared to Model-1, Model 3 is 22 % less compare to Model-1, Model-2 is 4 % less compared to Model-1.

6) E. Pavan Kumar “Earthquake Analysis of Multi Storied Residential Building - A Case Study” E. Pavan Kumar et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 4, Issue 11 (, November 2014,

In Z Direction: Model 4 is 30 % less compare to Model-1, Model 3 is 20% less compare to Model-1, Model 2 is 13 % less compare to Model-1. 

7) Varsha R. Harne “Comparative Study of Strength of RC Shear Wall at Different Location on Multi-Storied Residential Building” International Journal of Civil Engineering Research. Volume 5, Number 4 (2014).

G+25:

In X Direction: Model 4 is 20% less compared to Model-1, Model 3 is 15 % less compare to Model-1, Model-2 is 12 % less compared to Model-1.

8) IS 1893(part 1)-2002 (Reaffirmed 2016), “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, general provisions and buildings

In Z Direction: Model 4 is 14 % less compare to Model-1, Model 3 is 11% less compare to Model-1, Model 2 is 5 % less compare to Model-1. 

9) IS: 875 (Part 2) – 1987 (Reaffirmed 2008), “Code of practice for design loads for buildings and structures. Part 2- Imposed load”.

G+45:

In X Direction: Model 4 is 12% less compared to Model-1, Model 3 is 9 % less compare to Model-1, Model-2 is 4 % less compared to Model-1.

In Z Direction: Model 4 is 8 % less compare to Model-1, Model 3 is 7% less compare to Model-1, Model 2 is 4 % less compare to Model-1.

From above results from storey drift: High rise structures are subjected to excessive deflection.

Deflection obtained by STAAD pro is checked by IS Code limitation for serviceability

6. REFERENCES: 1) Shyam Bhat “Earthquake behaviour of buildings with and without shear walls” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE).

2) M. S. Aainawala “Design of Multi-storeyed R.C.C. Buildings with and without Shear Walls” ISSN: 2277-9655 Scientific Journal (ISRA), July 2014.

3) D.R. Deshmukh “Analysis and Design of G+19 Storied Building Using Staad-Pro” D.R. Deshmukh.et al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com Vol. 6, Issue 7, (Part -1) July 2016, pp.17-19.

© 2018, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 6.171

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

| Page 491