TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH ... · TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT MASONRY STRUCTURE & SHEAR WALL FOR VARIOUS SEISMIC ZONES

TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THEMULTISTORY BUILDING WITHAND WITHOUT MASONRY

STRUCTURE & SHEAR WALL FORVARIOUS SEISMIC ZONES

Venkata Rao*, Doredla Nagaraju2,*PG Student,

Department of Civil Engineering,Narasaraopeta Engineering College,

Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh, India2Assistant Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering,Narasaraopeta Engineering College,

Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh, India*Corresponding authorTel.: +91-8125461993,

E-mail: [email protected]

June 22, 2018

Abstract

Numerous city multi-story structures in Indianowadays have open first story as an unavoidable element.The conduct of a working sooner or later of quakesdepends upon altogether on its all-inclusive shape, size andgeometry, likewise to how the seismic tremor powers areconveyed to the floor. The improvement techniques thatarea unit employed in this project area unit foremost

1

International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 120 No. 6 2018, 4305-4322ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)url: http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/Special Issue http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/

4305

considered the dimensions of shear wall is samethroughout the building and so analysis is finished fromthe result the failing shear wall dimensions area unitincreased to resist the entire structure, the entire structureinvolves stable to resist the forces. In this project shearwall style and improvement is finished by victimization thecode E-Tabs and also the shear walls area unit organizedin such an approach to oppose the parallel powers in zoneII, zone III, zone IV, zone V locale all through thestructure with regards to Indian codes. Equivalent statictime history analysis is considered for the investigation ofthe structures in E-Tabs.

Keywords: Storey Drifts, Shear wall, StructureStiffness, base shear, Time History Analysis.

1 Introduction

India being a large landmass is particularly prone to earthquakes.The Indian subcontinent is divided into five seismic zones withrespect to the severity of the earthquakes. The class of the zoneshas been finished with the aid of the geologist and scientist asearly as 1956 when a three-quarter (extreme, light and minordanger) seismic zoning map of India was produced.

2 Experimental

2.1 Data Considered

The design data shall be as follows:-

• Utility of Buildings : Residential Building

• No of Storey : G+10

• Shape of the Building : Rectangle

• Types of Walls : Shear wall, Brick Wall Geometric Details

• Ground Floor : 4m

• Floor-To-Floor Height : 3.5m Material Details

2

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

4306

• Concrete Grade : M30, M30 (COLUMNS AND BEAMS)Bearing Capacity of Soil: 200 KN/m2

Type Of Construction: R.C.C FRAMED structure

2.2 Objectives of the study

To check the story drift and story shear of structures in ZONE II,ZONE III, ZONE IV, and ZONE V.The structures considered for the analysis of seismic behavior infour structures are:

Structure 1: building without Masonry wall & without shear wall.Structure 2: building without Masonry wall & with shear wall.Structure 3: building with Masonry wall & without shear wall.Structure 4: building with Masonry wall & with shear wall.

3 MODELING IN ETABS

Figure 1: DEFINITIONS OF THE MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Various loads considered (Dead load, live load, Earthquakeload, wind load)Self-weight of beams —-0.7X0.7X24=47 KN/m

3


4307

Figure 2: COLUMN PROPERTIES

Figure 3: BEAM PROPERTIES

4


4308

Figure 4: SLAB PROPERTIES

Figure 5: 3D model of the structures

5


4309

Figure 6: 3D model with L- shaped shear walls normal structures

6


4310

Dead load of the slab——0.2X1X24=7.2KN/m2

Floor finishes for slab—–1KN/m2 (Assumed)

UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LOADS: For 9” wall—-0.23*(4-0.7)*19.0 = 14.42KN/mFor 4.5” wall —-0.23/2*(4-0.7)*19.0= 7.21 KN/mFor Parapet wall—- 0.23*1.2*19.0 = 5.24 KN/m

LIVE LOADS:All rooms —- 3 KN/m2

Live load to be taken for the base shear is 50%of load (excludingtop floor) = 0.5kN/m

SEISMIC PARAMETERS: (IS 1893-2002)In the present work the building is located in Guntur which comesunder -zone-III, Using the IS 1893 (Part-I) 2002(1) the followingare the various values for the Building considered.

ZONE FACTOR (Z):ZONE—IIIZone factor = 0.36 (from IS 1893(Part-I)-2002, Table 2).Site Type [IS Table 1] = II (Medium Soil- poorly graded sand andgravel sand soils)

RESPONSE SPECTRUM FACTOR (R):Response reduction factor = 5.0 (from IS 1893 (Part-1)-2002,Table-7. I

DAMPING FACTOR:Damping - 5% (0.05)

IMPORTANCE FACTOR (I):Importance factor (I) = 1 (from IS 1893-2002 (Part-I), Table-6).Spectral acceleration coefficient, Sa/g=1.36/T

7


4311

Figure 7: EQ-X lateral load

8


4312

Figure 8: EQ-Y lateral load

9


4313

4 Results and Discussion

Time history analysis subjected to intermediate frequency groundmotion for the shear wall building and the normal building.

Figure 9: VARIATION OF TIME PERIOD FOR ALL THESTRUCTURES

Figure 10: VARIATION OF STOREY DRIFT FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE II

5 Conclusion

The study presented in the behavior of the building between theshear walls building with the normal building. The following

10


4314

Figure 11: VARIATION OF STOREY MOMENT FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE V

Figure 12: VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE II

11


4315

Figure 13: VARIATION OF STOREY DRIFT FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE III

Figure 14: VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE III

12


4316

Figure 15: VARIATION OF STOREY MOMENT FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE III

Figure 16: VARIATION OF STOREY DRIFT FOR ALLSTRUCTURE IN ZONE IV

13


4317

Figure 17: VARIATION OF AXIAL FORCE FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE IV

Figure 18: VARIATION OF STOREY MOMENT FOR ALLSTRUCTURES IN ZONE IV

14


4318

Figure 19: STOREY DRIFT FOR THE FOUR STRUCTURES INZONEV V

Figure 20: AXIAL FORCE FOR ALL THE STRUCTURES INZONE V

15


4319

conclusions were drawn based on the investigation:-

• RC frame with shear wall is having higher value of base shearthan bare frame.

• It was observed that structure-2 has more time period thanthat of all the structures. The time period is 2.525 sec and thestructure-1, 3, 4 have the time period values of 1.829, 1.014and 0.847.

• The time period is increases due to the increase of the stiffnessof the structure.

• It was observed that the displacement of the structure-2 isless when compared with the displacement of the remainingstructures.

• Providing shear walls at adequate locations substantiallyreduces the displacements due to earthquake.

• The structures with shear wall at the corners (structure-2 andthe structure-4) prove to be a better alternative for building inearthquake prone area. Because, if we place the shear wallsin a structures may takes the seismic load when comparedwith the normal structures. Due to this, the failure of thestructures will decrease.

• It was observed that the storey moment is more in structure-1 and structure-2 when compared with the structures withshear wall in all the zones.

References

[1] M.Koti Reddy, D.S.Prakash Rao and A.R.Chandrasekaran,“Modeling of RC Frame Buildings with Soft Ground Storey”,the Indian Concrete Journal, Volume 81, No. 10, October 2007.

[2] D.Nagaraju,D.Venkateswarlu,K.Naga Lakshmaiah, “SeismicAnalysis of Multistorey Building with Bare Frame, Bare Framewith Slab Element and Soft Storey at Different Levels of theBuilding for Various Seismic Zones”, International Journal of

16


4320

Civil and Structural Engineering Research ISSN 2348-7607(Online) Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp: (374-391), Month: April 2016- September 2016, Available at: www.researchpublish.com

[3] Mainstone, R.J., (1971), “On the Stiffness and Strengthsof Infilled Frames”, Proceedings of the Institution of CivilEngineers, Supplement IV, Paper No. 7360S, pp. 57-90.

[4] Mr. D. Dhandapany (2014), Comparative Study of andAnalysis of Earthquake G+5 Storey Building with RCShear Wall, Int. J. Engineering Research and AdvancedTechnology,Vol 2 (3),167-171.

[5] Murty,C.V.R., and Jain,S.K., (1996), “Draft IS:1893Provisions on Seismic Design of Buildings”, Bureau of IndianStandards, New Delhi.

[6] Perumal Pillial E.B., Govindan P., “Structural ResponseOf Brick Infill In R.C Frames”.International Journal OfStructural,vol.14, No 2, Dec 1994.

[7] Rakshith Gowda K.R and Bhavani Shankar (2014), SeismicAnalysis Comparison of Regular and Vertically Irregular RCBuilding with Soft Storey at Different Level, InternationalJournal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE).

[8] Helou and Abdul Razzaq Touqan, “Seismic Behaviour ofRC Structures with Masonry Walls” An-Najah Univ. J. Res.(N.Sc.), Volume 22, 2008, pp 77-92.

[9] Haque, Khan Mahmud Amanat, ”Seismic zone Vulnerabilityof Columns of RC Framed Buildings with Soft Ground Floor”International Journal of Mathematical Models And MethodsIn Applied Sciences, Issue 3, Volume 2,2008, pp 364-371.

[10] Suchita Hirde and Ganga Tepugade(2014), SeismicPerformance of Multistorey Building with Soft Storey atDifferent Level with RC Shear Wall, International Journalof Current Engineering and Technology E-ISSN 2277 4106,P-ISSN 2347 5161.

17


4321

4322

Documents

TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH ... · TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTISTORY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT MASONRY STRUCTURE & SHEAR WALL FOR VARIOUS SEISMIC ZONES