DOI : 10.17577/IJERTV10IS010242
- Open Access
- Authors : Abhishek Tiwari , Kanhaiya Kumar Yadav , Mahesh Chandra
- Paper ID : IJERTV10IS010242
- Volume & Issue : Volume 10, Issue 01 (January 2021)
- Published (First Online): 02-02-2021
- ISSN (Online) : 2278-0181
- Publisher Name : IJERT
- License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
A Study of Seismic Behaviour of Multistorey Building Having in Plan Irregularity with Re-Entrant Corner Under Various Conditions
[1]Abhishek Tiwari, [2] Kanhaiya Kumar Yadav,[3] Mahesh Chandra [1] M.E (Structural Engineering),SGSITS, Indore [2] Asst. professor, CE & AMD, SGSITS, Indore [3] Asst. professor, CE & AMD, SGSITS, IndoreAbstract Today the world is facing some of the major problems caused by nature. One of the major natural disasters is the Earthquake. We never know the Direction of the attack and magnitude of the Earthquake, so it will always be a challenge for science and Technology. In the Past few years research has been done on the various issues of Earthquake. Now a Days people live in Multi-story Buildings, in such case when the Earthquake occurs in the populated areas, it will cause massive loss of life and damage. Hence Earthquake analysis is of prime importance while analysing the structures safety against the collapse due to earthquake and design the structure to safeguard it against Earthquake occuring during the lifetime of the structure. In this study a model of a G+18 Structure with different plan configurations like I-Shape, T-shape,L-Shape, H- Shape and Plus shape with different position of the shear wall on structures and without shear wall are taken in STAAD Pro software and the Earthquake analysis of the Structure in seismic zones III with Medium soil of India is performed. In this research work, various parameters are used like damping ratio is taken as five percent, Importance factor I = 1.5 for important building, height of each floor 3.2m, size of columns 650mm X 650mm, size of beam 500mm X 400mm, thickness of slab 150mm , thickness of shear wall 150mm etc. The comparative analysis of RC multistory building framed structure is done by Linear Static Method and Response spectrum method in the terms of Maximum Displacement, Maximum Bending Moment, Maximum Shear Force, Maximum Axial Forces, Story wise Displacement, Peak Shear in different Story, etc.
Keywords Seismic Zone, RC Building, Soil, Staad Pro, Plan Configuration etc.
-
INTRODUCTION
With advent of modern structural engineering practices the demand for creating function specific structures has increased a lot thereby putting a lot of stress on the modern day structural engineer to create structures which may not be structurally ideal but are function specific. This practice leads to the creation of structures which are asymmetrical and having various types of plan and vertical irregularities. These irregularities contribute to abnormal behaviour of structure when subjected to seismic excitations. To counteract this, engineers need to pay attention to various parameters such as the storey drift, bending moment, axial forces, shear induced in the structure. In this research work we are going to mainly focus on structures having plan irregularities, to be specific we are going to focus on building configurations comprising of re-enterant corners. We are going to focus on the effects of re- enterant corners on the structural parameters and search for remedies to overcome the negative effects, also we are going
to focus our study on various lateral bracing systems specially on shear walls. Earthquakes are formed due to the rupture in the plates, where rupture takes place that is the place of origin of the earthquake and that place is called as the focus or Hypocenter. The place just above the earths surface is called as the Epicenter. The Distance from focus to Epicenter is known as the focal depth. Earthquakes size can be determined by both magnitude and Intensity, magnitude means the amount of Energy which is released when the rupture takes place.
Structures are an intricate framework and various things must be thought of. Henceforth at the arranging stage itself, draftsmen and basic specialists must cooperate to guarantee that the negative highlights are kept away from and great structure arrangement is picked. On the off chance that we have a helpless design to begin with, all that a specialist can do is to give a Band-Aid for example improve an essentially helpless arrangement and to make it ideal. Then again, on the off chance that we start off with a decent arrangement and sensible encircling framework, even a helpless architect can't hurt its definitive execution to an extreme. In any case, developments can endure assorted harms when they are put under seismic excitations, despite the fact that for the same auxiliary setup, area, EQ harms in the frameworks are neither lopsided nor homogenous. A craving to make a stylish and practically productive structure drives engineers to consider awesome and creative structures. Once in a while the state of building grabs the attention of guest, at times the basic framework offers, and in different events both shape and auxiliary framework cooperate to make the structure a Marvel. In any case, every one of these selections of shapes and structure has huge bearing on the presentation of working during solid seismic tremor. So the evenness and normality are typically suggested. The conduct of working during tremor relies fundamentally upon its general shape, size and geometry. Structures with sporadic geometry react distinctively against seismic activity. Plan geometry is the boundary which chooses its presentation against various stacking conditions. The impacts of inconsistency (in plan and shape) on structure have been done by utilizing auxiliary examination programming on STAAD Pro. V8i. Tremors, brought about by developments on the earth surface, bring about various degrees of ground shaking prompting harm and breakdown of structures and common infra-structures. The structure ought to withstand moderate degree of seismic tremor and ground movement without auxiliary harm, however perhaps with some basic just as nonstructural harm. This breaking point state may compare to tremor power
equivalent to the most grounded either experienced or figure at the site. The outcomes are read for reaction range strategy.
1.1 SOIL PROPERTIES
Soil-Structure Interaction is a testing multidisciplinary subject which covers a few territories of Civil Designing. For all intents and purposes each development is associated with the ground and the collaboration between the ancient rarity and the establishment medium may influence significantly both the superstructure and the establishment soil. The Soil- Structure Collaboration issue has turned into a vital component of Basic Engineering with the approach of huge developments on delicate soils, for example, atomic force plants, cement plants and earth dams. Structures, scaffolds, burrows and underground structures might likewise require specific consideration to be given to the issues of Soil- Structure Interaction. Seeing how the soil reacts to effective seismic tremors could be essential to designers and planners outlining future structures to withstand the level of speeding up measured in this shudder. The data will likewise offer seismologists some assistance in developing new models to anticipate the impacts of these uncommon effects.
In this research work, different types of building plan configurations such as H-Shape, I-shape, L-Shape, T- shape and Plus (+) Shape are taken. In total 20 models are analyzed with and without shear wall by Linear Static Method and Response Spectrum Method. Spacing of 4.5m along to X and Z direction respectively with G+18, each floor height is 3.2m, size of column 650mm x 650 mm, size of beam 500mm x 400mm, thickness of slab 150mm, thickness of shear wall 150mm are used in this research work. Building is located in seimic zone III in the Medium soil.
Building Configurations :-
I-Shape Building Configuration Without Shear wall:-
Fig 1a: I-Shape Plan WSW
I-Shape Building Configuration With Shear Wall :-
Fig 1b: I-Shape with SW
T-Shape Building Configuration Without Shear wall:-
Fig. 2a: T-Shape
T-Shape Building Configuration With Shear wall:-
Fig. 2b: T-Shape with SW
L-Shape Building Configuration Without Shear wall:-
Fig. 3a: L-Shape
Fig. 3b: L-Shape with SW
H-Shape Building Configuration Without Shear wall:-
Fig 4a: H-Shape
H-Shape Building Configuration With Shear wall:-
Fig 4b: H-Shape with SW
+ Shape Building Configuration Without Shear wall:-
Fig. 5a: PLUS Shape
+ Shape Building Configuration With Shear wall:-
Fig. 5b: PLUS Shape with SW
-
LITERATURE SURVEY
Dr. P. P. Saklecha etc. al [2018]:- He studied that the Seismic analysis of RC multistory building with different seismic zone with different shapes of building plan such as rectangular shape plan, C-shape Plan, L-shape plan and H- shape plan by using Staad Pro. He analyzed the structure in all types of soil as per the Indian Standard code IS:1893:2002 by Response spectrum method and time history method. He observed that the maximum storey drift was present in L- shape, maximum bending in H-shape, maximum axial force in H-shape while minimum storey drift and displacement in rectangular shape. Amit Chakrawarty, Sourav Ray et al [2016] They examined four distinctive model (W-shape, L- shape, Rectangle, Square) RCC building outlines, utilizing ETABS v9.7.1 and SAP 2000 v14.0.0 for seismic zone 3 (Sylhet) in Bangladesh. Similar examination on the greatest removal of various formed structures because of static stacking and dynamic reaction range has been investigated. From the broke down outcomes it has been discovered that, for static burden investigation, impacts of quake power around same to all models with the exception of model-1(W- shape). W-shape has been discovered generally defenseless for seismic tremor load case. It is additionally found from the reaction range investigation that the removals for sporadic formed structure outlines are more than that of standard molded structure. The general execution of ordinary structures is discovered superior to unpredictable structures. Dr. Shaik Yajdani and Girum Mindaye et al. 2016 Analyzed the structural system to find the deformations and forces induced by applied loads or ground excitation is an essential step in the design of a structure to resist earthquake. There is a range of methods from a linear analysis to a sophisticated nonlinear analysis depending on the purpose of the analysis in the design process. He analyzed the seismic response of a residential G+10 RC frame building by the linear analysis approaches of Equivalent Static Lateral Force and Response Spectrum methods using ETABS Ultimate 2015 software as per the IS1893-2002-Part-1. He carried out
his analysis by considering different seismic zones, medium soil type for all zones and for zone II & III using OMRF frame type and for those of the rest zones using OMRF & SMRF frame types. Different response like lateral force, overturning moment, storey drift, displacements, base shear were compared and the results of the static and dynamic analysis were observed, It was found that the Equivalent static lateral force method gives higher values of forces and moments which makes building uneconomical hence consideration of response spectrum method is also needed.
2.2 OBJECTIVE
Following are the objectives of the study:
-
Comparative Seismic Analysis of Structure on medium types of Soil present in zone III in India.
-
Comparative Seismic Analysis of Structures having re- entrant corners and having symmetrical and asymmetrical plan configuration.
-
To know about the Effect of various positions of shear wall on the seismic parameters.
-
Compare the results of Linear Static and Response Spectrum Analysis of Structure in the given conditions.
-
Parameters to be compares in Linear Static and Response Spectrum Analysis are the storey drift, Maximum Bending moments, Maximum Shear Force, Maximum Axial Force, etc in different shape configurations.
-
-
METHODOLOGY
In order to study the influences of re-entrant configuration of building during earthquake and to meet the objectives as mentioned in previous chapter following steps will be adopted :
-
Analysis will be carried out by solving the different re- entrant configuration of symmetrical and asymmetrical plan building by using STAAD Pro Software.
-
The effect of earthquake/seismic forces on shear forces and bending moments in columns and drift of various floors in models having re-entrant configuration will be studied.
-
The effect on shear forces, bending moments and drift as a result of providing the various remedies (lateral load resisting elements/shear wall) will be studied.
-
Results Analysis: Graphical analysis in the term of Max B.M, Max S.F. Max Axial Forces, Deflection and Displacement etc will be used to draw conclusions from the study.
-
-
MODELLING AND PROBLEM FORMULATION MODELLING OF BUILDING FRAMES
STAAD.Pro is a general purpose program for doing the analysis of the structure with different soil conditions and present in different seismic zones. The following two activities must be performed to achieve that goal
-
Model generation using STAAD.Pro software.
-
The calculations to determine the analytical results. Parameters Used :
Type of Building : Reinforced Concrete Framed Structure Number of Floors: G+18
Size of Columns: 650mmx650mm Size of Beam: 500x400mm Height of each floor: 3.2m Thickness of Slab: 150mm Thickness of Shear wall: 150mm
Materials used : Concrete material is used for all models Seismic Parameters: As per IS 1893-2016
Seismic Analysis Method: Linear Static Method
Software Used: All seismic analysis performed by using Staad Pro
Seismic Zone: III
Type of soil: Medium Soil
Damping: 5% (as per table-3 clause 6.4.2), Zone factor for zone III, Z=0.24 Importance Factor I=1.5 (Important structure as per Table-6)
Response Reduction Factor: R=5 for Special RC moment resisting frame (Table-7)
Sa/g: Average acceleration coefficient (depend on Natural fundamental period)
LOADING CONDITIONS
Following loading is adopted for analysis:
Table 1: Values of dead load
-
Live Loads: as per IS: 875 (part-2) 1987 Live Load on typical floors = 3.0kN/m2 Live Load seismic calculation = 0.75kN/m2
-
Earth Quake Loads: All frames are analyzed in zone III earthquake zones
The seismic load calculation are as per IS: 1893 (2016)
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Table 2: Load Combination
-
-
COMPARITIVE RESULTS
-
DISPLACEMENT
-
Displacement (mm) in X direction
Table 1.1: Displacement in X direction
Maximum Displacement (mm) in X Direction
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
83.744
50.137
I-Shape
75.018
54.317
L-Shape
98.964
81.498
T-Shape
100.39
84.572
PLUS-Shape
30.999
50.501
Fig 1.1: Displacement in X direction
It is observed that minimum displacement in Plus shape, while maximum in T-shape model and average in remaining models in without bracing model while minimum in H-shape model, maximum in T-shape model and average in other remaining models with sher wall. As compare to shear wall, maximum displacement in without shear wall and least in with shear wall models. It means that if we provide shear wall, building structure is more stable as compared to without shear wall structure.
-
Displacement (mm) in Z direction :
-
Maximum Displacement (mm) in Z Direction
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
73.055
43.775
I-Shape
81.335
62.173
L-Shape
87.801
69.228
T-Shape
85.135
76.424
PLUS-Shape
28.661
52.221
Maximum Displacement (mm) in Z Direction
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
73.055
43.775
I-Shape
81.335
62.173
L-Shape
87.801
69.228
T-Shape
85.135
76.424
PLUS-Shape
28.661
52.221
Table 1.2: Displacement in Z direction
axial force. On comparing, maximum axial force is found in with shear wall models and minimum in without shear wall models.
Fig 1.2: Displacement in Z direction
It is found that minimum displacement in Plus shape, maximum in T-shape model and average in remaining models in without bracing model while minimum in H-shape model, maximum in T-shape model and average in other remaining models with shear wall. As compared to shear wall, maximum displacement in without shear wall models and least in with shear wall models. It means that if we provide shear wall, building structure becomes more stable as compare to without shear wall structure.
3 BENDING MOMENT
Table 3.1: Bending moment in KN-m
Maximum Bending Moment in KN-m
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
311.173
402.362
I-Shape
308.096
409.935
L-Shape
292.196
400.969
T-Shape
263.125
441.537
PLUS-Shape
381.125
400.514
2. AXIAL FORCE
Table 2.1: Axial force
Maximum Axial Force in KN
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
12918.664
12342.911
I-Shape
12917.793
13523.225
L-Shape
15016.464
12928.366
T-Shape
11925.173
12878.067
PLUS-Shape
13529.617
12590.667
Fig 2.1: Axial force
It is observed that the maximum axial force is found in L- shape model and minimum in T-shape model without shear wall while in all other models axial forces are average while maximum axial force is found in I-shape and minimum in H- shape with shear wall models, while in other models average
Fig 3.1: Bending moment
It is found that the maximum bending moment is present in PLUS shape model and minimum in T shape model in without shear wall models and average in all other models similarly maximum bending moment in PLUS shape model and minimum in T shape model in with shear wall models and average in all other models.On comparing all models, minimum bending moment is found in with shear wall models and maximum in without shear wall model. It means that with shear wall models are more stable as compared to without shear wall models.
4 SHEAR FORCE
Maximum Shear Force in KN
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
213.868
277.968
I-Shape
213.634
227.13
L-Shape
140.174
234.827
T-Shape
158.242
248.394
PLUS-Shape
233.072
227.39
Maximum Shear Force in KN
MODEL
Without Shear Wall
With Shear Wall
H-Shape
213.868
277.968
I-Shape
213.634
227.13
L-Shape
140.174
234.827
T-Shape
158.242
248.394
PLUS-Shape
233.072
227.39
Table 4.1: Shear Force KN
Fig 4.1: Shear Force KN
It is seen that the minimum shear force is present in L-shape model and maximum in PLUS shape model in without shear wall models, while in other models shear force is average while minimum in I-shape model and maximum axial force in H-shape model,while other models have average shear force in with shear wall. As compared to shear wall, minimum shear force in without shear wall models and maximum in with shear wall models.
5 STORYWISE DISPLACEMENTS
-
Story Wise Displacements in X Direction in Without Shear Wall
Table 5.1.1: Story Wise Displacements in X Direction
Fig 5.1.1: Story Wise Displacements in X Direction
It is seen that the maximum story displacement in T-shape and minimum in PLUS shape model while other models have average displacement in X-direction without shear wall. Story displacement in increased with increase in the height of the structure.
-
Story Wise Displacements in Z Direction in Without Shear Wall
Maximum Storeywise Displacement (mm) in Z Direction
Without Shear Wall
Storey
H-
Shape
I-Shape
L-
Shape
T-
Shape
PLUS-
Shape
Base
0
0
0
0
0
GF
2.635
2.648
2.668
3.013
0.921
1
7.157
7.246
7.232
7.903
2.477
2
12.1
12.35
12.21
13.16
4.177
3
17.14
17.62
17.36
18.57
5.926
4
22.19
22.96
22.87
24.03
7.776
5
27.21
28.34
28.48
29.52
9.641
6
32.18
33.7
34.13
34.99
11.51
7
37.07
39.02
39.79
40.42
13.37
8/p>
41.84
44.26
45.41
45.76
15.2
9
46.44
49.36
50.94
50.96
16.99
10
50.85
54.29
56.33
55.99
18.72
11
55.01
58.99
61.53
60.85
20.39
12
58.88
63.41
66.49
65.49
21.96
13
62.39
67.49
71.15
69.81
23.43
14
65.5
71.17
75.44
73.76
24.77
15
68.14
74.39
79.32
77.29
25.98
16
70.24
77.15
82.7
80.37
27.03
17
71.77
76.44
85.53
82.98
27.92
18
73.06
81.34
87.8
85.14
28.66
Maximum Storeywise Displacement (mm) in Z Direction
Without Shear Wall
Storey
H-
Shape
I-Shape
L-
Shape
T-
Shape
PLUS-
Shape
Base
0
0
0
0
0
GF
2.635
2.648
2.668
3.013
0.921
1
7.157
7.246
7.232
7.903
2.477
2
12.1
12.35
12.21
13.16
4.177
3
17.14
17.62
17.36
18.57
5.926
4
22.19
22.96
22.87
24.03
7.776
5
27.21
28.34
28.48
29.52
9.641
6
32.18
33.7
34.13
34.99
11.51
7
37.07
39.02
39.79
40.42
13.37
8
41.84
44.26
45.41
45.76
15.2
9
46.44
49.36
50.94
50.96
16.99
10
50.85
54.29
56.33
55.99
18.72
11
55.01
58.99
61.53
60.85
20.39
12
58.88
63.41
66.49
65.49
21.96
13
62.39
67.49
71.15
69.81
23.43
14
65.5
71.17
75.44
73.76
24.77
15
68.14
74.39
79.32
77.29
25.98
16
70.24
77.15
82.7
80.37
27.03
17
71.77
76.44
85.53
82.98
27.92
18
73.06
81.34
87.8
85.14
28.66
Table 5.1.2: Story Wise Displacements in Z Direction
Maximum Story wise Displacement (mm) in X Direction
Without Shear Wall
Storey
H-
Shape
I-Shape
L-
Shape
T-
Shape
PLUS-
Shape
Base
0
0
0
0
0
GF
2.642
2.639
2.748
2.947
0.938
1
7.26
7.184
7.774
8.062
2.539
2
12.41
12.17
13.54
13.79
4.298
3
17.75
17.26
19.56
19.79
6.109
4
23.18
22.38
25.77
22.96
7.999
5
28.65
27.48
32.05
32.24
9.954
6
34.13
32.53
38.41
38.6
11.92
7
39.58
37.52
44.79
44.99
13.89
8
44.96
42.4
51.14
51.35
15.84
9
50.22
47.13
57.41
57.62
17.76
10
55.31
51.67
63.52
63.76
19.63
11
60.18
55.95
69.43
69.69
21.44
12
64.77
59.98
75.06
75.37
23.17
13
69.03
63.65
80.35
80.72
24.8
14
72.89
66.9
85.21
85.67
26.32
15
76.29
69.69
89.56
90.15
27.71
16
79.25
71.95
93.32
94.08
28.97
17
81.71
73.68
96.45
97.38
30.07
18
83.74
75.02
98.96
100
31
Fig 5.1.2: Story Wise Displacements in Z Direction
It is seen that the maximum story displacement is in H-shape and minimum in PLUS shape model while other models have average displacement in Z-direction without shear wall.
-
Story Wise Displacements in X Direction in With Shear Wall
Table 5.2.1: Story Wise Displacements in X Direction
Fig 5.2.1: Story Wise Displacements in X Direction
It is found that the maximum story displacement is in T-shape and minimum in H-shape model while other models have average displacement in X-direction with shear wall.
-
Story Wise Displacements in Z Direction in Without Shear Wall
Maximum Storeywise Displacement in Z Direction
With Shear Wall
Storey
H-
Shape
I-Shape
L-
Shape
T-
Shape
PLUS-
Shape
Base
0
0
0
0
0
GF
1.167
1.682
1.681
1.987
1.403
1
2.665
3.953
3.943
4.599
3.139
2
4.383
6.594
6.894
7.749
5.168
3
6.329
9.585
10.182
11.291
7.484
4
8.476
12.864
13.826
15.182
10.043
5
10.792
16.37
17.77
19.359
12.863
6
13.246
20.047
21.916
23.771
15.907
7
15.809
23.84
26.196
28.35
19.08
8
18.444
27.699
30.554
33.044
22.336
9
21.118
31.578
34.937
37.8
25.634
10
23.803
35.432
39.298
42.573
28.939
11
26.468
39.225
43.593
47.31
32.216
12
29.09
42.924
47.781
51.968
35.434
13
31.697
46.502
51.826
56.502
38.568
14
34.236
49.934
55.699
60.876
41.592
15
36.697
53.201
59.38
65.046
44.484
16
39.089
56.31
62.862
68.951
47.223
17
41.426
59.309
66.141
72.513
49.792
18
43.775
62.173
69.228
76.424
55.221
Maximum Storeywise Displacement in Z Direction
With Shear Wall
Storey
H-
Shape
I-Shape
L-
Shape
T-
Shape
PLUS-
Shape
Base
0
0
0
0
0
GF
1.167
1.682
1.681
1.987
1.403
1
2.665
3.953
3.943
4.599
3.139
2
4.383
6.594
6.894
7.749
5.168
3
6.329
9.585
10.182
11.291
7.484
4
8.476
12.864
13.826
15.182
10.043
5
10.792
16.37
17.77
19.359
12.863
6
13.246
20.047
21.916
23.771
15.907
7
15.809
23.84
26.196
28.35
19.08
8
18.444
27.699
30.554
33.044
22.336
9
21.118
31.578
34.937
37.8
25.634
10
23.803
35.432
39.298
42.573
28.939
11
26.468
39.225
43.593
47.31
32.216
12
29.09
42.924
47.781
51.968
35.434
13
31.697
46.502
51.826
56.502
38.568
14
34.236
49.934
55.699
60.876
41.592
15
36.697
53.201
59.38
65.046
44.484
16
39.089
56.31
62.862
68.951
47.223
17
41.426
59.309
66.141
72.513
49.792
18
43.775
62.173
69.228
76.424
55.221
Table 5.2.2: Story Wise Displacements in Z Direction
Maximum Story wise Displacement in X Direction
With Shear Wall
Storey
H-
Shape
I-Shape
L-
Shape
T-
Shape
PLUS-
Shape
Base
0
0
0
0
0
GF
1.385
1.467
1.909
1.915
1.408
1
3.222
3.29
4.975
4.753
3.143
2
5.374
5.432
8.735
8.24
5.128
3
7.79
7.812
12.81
12.27
7.38
4
10.44
10.48
17.15
16.72
9.861
5
13.26
13.36
21.73
21.51
12.54
6
16.22
16.4
26.53
26.54
15.48
7
19.27
19.57
31.49
31.74
18.55
8
22.37
22.83
36.58
37.05
21.7
9
25.48
26.13
41.74
42.4
24.89
10
28.59
29.48
46.85
47.73
28.08
11
31.34
32.81
51.86
52.98
31.24
12
34.6
36.1
56.73
58.12
34.34
13
37.48
39.35
61.41
63.08
37.37
14
40.23
42.51
65.88
67.85
40.28
15
42.86
45.59
70.13
72.39
43.07
16
45.41
48.57
74.14
76.67
45.7
17
47.83
51.46
77.93
80.72
48.17
18
50.14
54.32
81.5
84.57
50.5
Fig 5.2.2: Story Wise Displacements in Z Direction
It is found that the maximum story displacement is in T-shape and minimum in H-shape model while other models have average displacement in Z-direction with shear wall.
-
-
CONCLUSION
DISPLACEMENT :
-
It is observed that minimum displacement in PLUS
shape i.e 0.938 mm , maximum in T-shape model
i.e 100 mm and average in remaining models without bracing model/shear wall in X direction.
-
While minimum in H-shape model i.e 1.385 mm, maximum in T-shape model i.e 84.57 mm and average in other remaining models with shear wall.
-
As compared to shear wall, maximum displacement is present in without shear wall models and least in
models having shear wall. It means that if we provide shear wall, building structure becomes more stable as compared to without shear wall structure.
-
It is found that minimum displacement is there in Plus shape i.e 0.921 mm, maximum in T-shape
model i.e 85.14 mm and average in remaining models without bracing model in Z-direction.
-
While minimum in H-shape model i.e 1.385 mm, maximum in T-shape model i.e 84.57 mm and average in other remaining models with shear wall.
-
As compare to shear wall, maximum displacement is
present in without shear wall models and least in with shear wall models. It means that if we provide shear wall, building structure is more stable as compare to without shear wall structure.
AXIAL FORCE
-
It is observed that the maximum axial force is there in L-shape model i.e 15016.464 KN and minimum in T-shape model i.e 11925.173 KN in case of models without shear wall while in other models axial forces are average.
-
While maximum axial force is found in I-shape i.e 13523.225 KN and minimum in H-shape model i.e 12342.911 KN with shear wall, while in other models average axial force is present.
-
As compared to models without shear wall maximum axial force is found in models with shear wall.
BENDING MOMENT
-
It is found that the maximum bending moment is there in PLUS shape model i.e 381.125 KN and minimum in T shape model i.e 263.125 KN in case of models without shear wall and average in all other models.
-
Similarly maximum bending moment in T-shape
model i.e 441.537 KN and minimum in PLUS shape model i.e 400.514 KN in models with shear wall and average in other models.
-
In entire model with shear wall, minimum bending moment in found and maximum in without shear wall models.
-
It means that with shear wall, models are more stable as compared to without shear wall models.
SHEAR FORCE
-
It is seen that the minimum shear force is present in L-shape model i.e 140.174 KN and maximum in PLUS shape model i.e 233.072 KN in without shear wall models, while in other models shear force is
average.
-
While minimum in I-shape model i.e 227.13 KN and maximum axial force in H-shape model i.e 277.968 KN in case of models with shear wall, while other models have average shear force.
-
As compared to models with shear wall, minimum shear force in without shear wall model and maximum in with shear wall models.
STORYWISE DISPLACEMENT
-
It is seen that there is maximum story displacement in T-shape model and minimum in PLUS shape
model while other models have average displacement in X-direction without shear wall.
-
It is seen that the maximum story displacement is present in H-shape model and minimum in PLUS shape model in Z-direction without shear wall.
-
It is found that the there is maximum story
displacement in T-shape model and minimum in H- shape model in X-direction with shear wall.
-
It is found that the maximum story displacement is there T-shape and minimum in H- shape model in Z- direction with shear wall.
-
Story displacement in increased with increase in the
height of the structure.
REFERENCES
-
Dr. P.P. Saklecha et.al. (2018) Comparison and analysis of regular and irregular configuration of multistorey building in various seismic zones and various type of soil, International Advanced
Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2018.
-
Ravindra N. Shelke (2017) Seismic Analysis of Vertically Irregular RC Building Frames International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 8(1), January 2017,pp. 155-169.
-
Krishna G Nair (2017) Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings A Review International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 0056 Volume: 04 Issue: 02 Feb 2017.
-
Elavenil S (2015) Analytical Investigation on the Performance of Steel Frame with Solid and Hollow Sections, Romanian Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.1 No.1, pp 20-30.
-
Sakshi A. Manchalwar (2014) Seismic Analysis of RC Frame A Parametric Study, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 Vol.3 Issue 9, September- 2014.
-
Hassaballa A. E. (2013) Seismic Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete Building by Response Spectrum Method, IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN) e-ISSN: 2250-3021, p-ISSN: 2278-8719 Vol. 3, Issue 9 (September 2013), V3 PP 01-09.
-
Wakchaure M.R (2012) Earthquake Analysis of High Rise Building with and without Infilled Walls, Int Journal of Eng and Innovative technology (IJEIT) 2(2), Aug 2012.
-
Amit Chakrawarty, Sourav Ray etc all {P8}[2016] Seismic Performance Analysis of RCC Multi-Storied Buildings with Plan Irregularity American Journal of Civil Engineering, ISSN: 2330- 8729 (Print); ISSN: 2330-8737 (Online).
-
Gauri G. Kakpure, Ashok R. Mundhada {P9}[2016] Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Seismic Analysis of Multistoried RCC Building by ETAB International Journal of Emerging Research in Management &Technology ISSN: 2278-9359 (Volume-5, Issue-12).
-
Elavenil S. (2011) Time History Response Prediction for Multi- Storied buildings underEarthquake Ground Motions, International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environment andInfrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) Vol-1 No.2, pp8-15.Seismic Analysis of High Rise Buildings with Plan Irregularity.
-
Romy Mohan (2011) Dynamic Analysis of RCC Buildings with Shear Wall International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974 5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, Pp 659- 662.
-
K. S. Babu Narayan Seismic Performance Evaluation of RC Buildings with Vertical Irregularity Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Surathkal, Karnataka, India.
IS CODES :
IS 456 (2000) – Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice.
IS 1893 ( Part 1 ) :2002 CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
IS 875(Part 1) 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and Structures , Part 1- ead Loads
IS 875(Part 2) 1987 Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and Structures , Part 2- Imposed Loads.